battery manufacturing effluent guidelines - united states … · 1982. 11. 10. · the battery...

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR PART 461[OW-FRL 2195-81

Battery Manufacturing Point SourceCategory; Proposed EffluentLimitations Guidelines, PretreatmentStandards, and New SourcePerformance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA].ACTION: Propoed Regulation.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing thisregulation to limit effluent discharges towaters of the United States andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from plantsengaged in battery manufacturing. Thepurpose of this proposal is to provideeffluent limitations guidelines based on"best practicable technology" and "bestavailable technology," and to establishnew source performance standards andpretreatment standards under the CleanWater Act. After considering commentsreceived in response to this proposal,EPA will promulgate a final rule.DATES: Comments on this proposal mustbe submitted by January 10, 1982. TheAgency is proposing a compliance datefor pretreatment standards for existingsources to be three years from the dateof promulgation.ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Mary L.Belefski, Effluent Guidelines Division(WH-552), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,D.C. 20460, Attention: EGD DocketClerk, Proposed Battery ManufacturingRules (WH-552). The supportinginformation and all comments receivedon this proposal will be available forinspection and copying at the EPAPublic Information Reference Unit,Room 2404 (EPA Library Rear) PM-213.The EPA information regulation (40 CFP,Part 2) provides that a reasonable feemay be charged for copying. Copies oftechnical documents may be obtainedfrom the Distribution Officer at theabove address or call (202) 382-7115.The economic analysis may be obtainedfrom Dr. Ellen Warhit, EconomicAnalysis Staff (WH-586), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M St. SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460, or call (202)382-5381.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Technical information may be obtainedfrom Mr. Ernst P. Hall, at the addresslisted above, or call (202) 382-7126.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TheSupplementary Information sectiondescribes the legal authority and

background, the technical and economicbases, and other aspects of the proposedregulations. That section alsosummarizes comments on a drafttechnical document circulated inSeptember 1980, and solicits commentson specific areas of interest. Theabbreviations, acronyms, and otherterms used in the SupplementaryInformation section are dzfined inAppendix A to this notice.

This proposed regulation ;s supportedby three major documents availablefrom EPA. Chemical analysis methodsare discussed in Sampling and AnalysisProcedures for Screening of IndiustrialEffluents for Priority Pollutan s. EPA'stechnical conclusions are detailed in theDevelopment Document fcr ProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the BatteryManufacturing Point Source Category(Development Document). The Agency'seconomic analysis is found in EconomicImpact Analysis of Propoged EffluentStandards and Limitations for theBattery Manufacturing Industry(Economic Impact Analysis).Organization of This NoticeI. Legal AuthorityII. Background

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

III. Scope of this Rulemaking and Summary ofMethodology

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

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

VIII. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)Effluent Limitations

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT)Effluent Limitations

X. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS)

XI. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES]

XII. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources(PSNS]

XIII. Best Conventional Technology [BCT)Effluent Limitations

XIV. Regulated PollutantsXV. Pollutants and Subcategories Not

RegulatedXVI. Cost and Economic Impact AssessmentXVII. Non-Water Quality Aspects of

Pollution ControlXVIII. Best Management Practices (BMPs)XIX. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXX. Variances and ModificationsXXI. Relationship to NPDES PermitsXXII. Summary of Public ParticipationXXIII. Solicitation of CommentsXXIV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 461XXV. Appendices:

A-Abbreviations, Acronyms and OtherTerms Used in this Notice

B-Toxic Pollutants Limited by ThisRegulation

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

Nominal Quantification LimitE-Toxic Pollutants Detected From a Small

Number of SourcesF-Toxic Pollutants Detected in Small

Amounts--Toxic Pollutants Controlled But NotSpecifically Regulated

I-Subcategories Not Regulated

I. Legal Authority

The regulation described in this noticeis proposed under authority of sections301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of theClean Water Act (the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of1972, 33 USC 1251 et seq., as amendedby the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L.95-217) (the "Act"). This regulation isalso proposed in response to theSettlement Agreement in NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc., v.Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified March 9, 1979, 12 ERC 1833.

II. BackgroundA. The Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters" section 101(a). By July 1, 1977,existing industrial dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequiring the application of the "bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable" (BPT), section 301(b)(1)(A);and by July 1, 1983, these dischargerswere required to achieve "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT) * * *which will result in reasonable furtherprogress toward the national goal ofeliminating the discharge of allpollutants," section 301(b)(2)(A). Newindustrial direct dischargers wererequired to comply with section 306 newsource performance standards (NSPS),based on best available demonstratedtechnology; and new and existingdischargers to publicly owned treatmentworks (POTW) were subject topretreatment standards under sections307 (b) and (c) of the Act. While therequirements for direct dischargers wereto be incorporated into NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permits issued under section402 of the Act, pretreatment standardswere made enforceable directly againstdischargers to POTW (indirectdischargers).

Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972Act authorized the setting of

51052


requirements for direct dischargers on acase-by-case basis, Congress intendedthat, for the most part, controlrequirements would be based onregulations promulgated by the EPAAdministrator. Section 304(b) of the Actrequired the Administrator topromulgate regulations providingguidelines for effluent limitations settingforth the degree of effluent reductionattainable through the application ofBPT and BAT. Moreover, sections 304(c)and 306 of the Act requiredpromulgation of regulations for NSPS,and sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c)required promulgation of regulations forpretreatment standards. In addition tothese regulations for designated industrycategories, section 307(a) of the Actrequired the Administrator topromulgate effluent standardsapplicable to all dischargers of toxicpollutants. Finally, section 501(a) of theAct authorized the Administrator toprescribe any additional regulations"necessary to carry out his functions"under the Act.

EPA was unable to promulgate manyof these regulations by the datesspecified in the Act. In 1976, EPA wassued by several environmental groups,and in settlement of this lawsuit EPAand the plaintiffs executed a"Settlement Agreement" which wasapproved by the Court. This Agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andadhere to a schedule for promulgatingregulations for 21 major industries,including BAT effluent limitationsguidelines, pretreatment standards, andnew source performance standards for65 "priority" pollutants and classes ofpollutants. See Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC2120 (D.D.C. 1976) modified March 9,1979.

On December 27, 1977, the Presidentsigned into law the Clean Water Act of1977. Although this law makes severalimportant changes in the Federal waterpollution control program, its mostsignificant feature is its incorporationinto the Act of several of the basicelements of the Settlement Agreementprogram for toxic pollution control.Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) ofthe Act now require the achievement byJuly 1, 1984 of effluent limitationsrequiring application of BAT for "toxic"pollutants, including the 65 "priority"pollutants and classes of pollutantswhich Congress declared "toxic" underSection 307(a) of the Act. Likewise,EPA's programs for new sourceperformance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimed'principally at toxic pollutant controls.Moreover, to strengthen the toxics

control program, Section 304(e) of theAct authorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"("BMPs") to prevent the release of toxicand hazardous pollutants from plant siterunoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or wastedisposal, and drainage from rawmaterial storage associated with, orancillary to, the manufacturing ortreatment process.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977also revises the control program for non-toxic pollutants. Instead of BAT for"conventional" pollutants identifiedunder section 304(a)(4) (includingbiochemical oxygen demand, suspendedsolids, fecal coliform, oil and grease andpH), the new section 301(b)(2)(E)requires achievement by July 1, 1984, of"effluent limitations requiring theapplication of the best conventionalpollutant control technology" (BCT). Thefactors considered in assessing BCT foran industry include the costs of attaininga reduction in effluents and the effluentreduction benefits derived, comparedwith the costs and effluent reductionbenefits from the discharge from POTW.(section 304(b)(4)(B)). For non-toxic,nonconventional pollutants, sections301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) requireachievement of BAT effluent limitationswithin 3 years after their establishmentor July 1, 1984, whichever is later, butnot later than July 1, 1987.

The purpose of these proposedregulations is to provide effluentlimitations guidelines for BPT and BAT,and to establish NSPS, pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES),and pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS), under Sections 301, 304,306, 307, and 501 of the Clean WaterAct.

B. Prior EPA Regulations

EPA has not previously promulgatedregulations for the batterymanufacturing point source category.

C. Overview of the Industry

The battery manufacturing industry isincluded within the U.S. Department ofC ommerce Census Standard IndustrialClassifications (SIC) 3691, StorageBatteries, and 3692, Primary Batteries,Dry and Wet.

Battery manufacturing encompassesthe production of modular electricpower sources where part or all of thefuel is contained within the unit andelectric power is generated directly froma chemical reaction rather thanindirectly through a heat cycle engine.There are three major components of acell-anode, cathode; and electrolyte-plus mechanical and conducting partssuch as case, separator, or contacts. In

the strictest sense, a cell contains onlyone anode-cathode pair whereas abattery is an assemblage of cellsconnected to combine their electricaloutput. Common usage has blurred thedistinction between these terms. For thepurpose of this regulation, the termbattery includes both single cells and anassemblage of cells. Production includeselectrode manufacture of anodes andcathodes, and associated ancillaryoperations necessary to produce abattery.

The subcategories within batterymanufacturing are primarily based onanode material. Eight subcategories areaddressed in this regulation: cadmium,calcium, lead, Leclanche (zinc anodewith an acid electrolyte), lithium,magnesium, zinc (with alkalineelectrolyte), and nuclear. Manufacturingoperations differ widely, both withinand among subcategories. Subcategorymanufacturing process elements areselected so that manufacturingoperations within a subcategory aresimilar and are amenable to a commonregulation.

Water is used throughout batterymanufacturing to clean batterycomponents and to transport wastes.Water is used in the chemical systemsto make most electrodes and specialelectrode chemicals; water is also amajor component of most electrolytesand formation baths.

The most important pollutants orpollutant parameters generated inbattery manufacturing wastewaters are(1) toxic metals-arsenic, cadmium,chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver, and zinc- (2)nonconventional pollutants-aluminum,cobalt, iron, manganese, and COD; and(3) conventional pollutants-oil andgrease, TSS, and pH. Toxic organicpollutants generally were not found inlarge quantities although some cyanidewas found in a few subcategories.Because of the amount of toxic metalspresent, the sludges generated duringwastewater treatment generally containsubstantial amounts of toxic metals.

In this preamble, the followingterminology is used. A batterymanufacturing site is one physicallocation (i.e., a particular street address)where battery manufacturing processesoccur. A battery plant is the locationwhere subcategory-specific batterymanufacturing process elements occur.Two or more battery plants may belocated at a particular site. Finally abattery facility is a location where finalbattery type products or theircomponents are produced. One batteryplant can produce more than one batterytype product. For example, at one site

51053

51054 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules

with the address of 100 Main Street,there are two battery plants thatperform manufacturing processes: oneplant in the lead subcategory and theother plant in the zinc subcategory. Oneplant includes a facility producing lead-acid batteries, and the other plant.includes two facilities: one producingalkaline manganese batteries and theother producing silver-zinc batteries.

EPA estimates that there are about230 battery manufacturing sites in theUnited States. A substantial majority ofthese are located in California,Pennsylvania, North Carolina, andTexas. The remaining sites are scatteredgeographically throughout the UnitedStates.

Battery manufacturing began slowlyafter Galvani's invention of the galvaniccell in 1786 and developed intosignificance only after Leclanche in 1868developed the forerunner of the moderndry cell. Rapid technologicaldevelopment and changing requirementsover the last 50 or so years have causedand continue to cause new cell types toappear as commercial items while someestablished cell types decline or becomeobsolete and out of production. With theestablished level of change within theindustry and high level of researchaimed at developing economicautomotive power and load levelingbatteries, there is a high probability ofbuilding new or enlarging existing plantsand continuing change of batteryproduction methods and battery types.

III. Scope of This Rulemaking andSummary of Methodology

This proposed regulation is a part of anew chapter in water pollution controlrequirements. For most industries, the1973-1976 round of rulemakingemphasized the achievement of bestpracticable technology (BPT) by July 1,1977. In general, that technology levelrepresented the average of the bestexisting performance of well knowntechnologies for control of familiar (i.e.,"classical") pollutants. However, for thiscategory, BPT was not proposed orpromulga ted.

In this round of rulemaking EPA isemphasizing the achievement by July 1,1984, of the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT), whichwill result in reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants. Ingenerai, this technology level representsthe very best economically achievableperformance in any industrial categoryor subcategory. Moreover, as a result ofthe Clean Water Act of 1977, theemphasis of EPA's program has shiftedfrom "classical" pollutants to the controlof a lengthy list of toxic substances.

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

In developing this regulation, EPAstudied the battery manufacturingindustry to determine whetherdifferences in raw materials, finalproducts, manufacturing processes,equipment, age and size of plants, wateruse, wastewater constituents, or otherfactors required the development orseparate effluent limitations andstandards for different segments (orsubcategories) of the industry. Thisstudy included the identification of rawwaste and treated ef1 uentcharacteristics, including the sourcesand volume of water used, the processesemployed, and the sources of pollutantsand wastewaters. Sampling and analysisof specific waste streams enabled EPAto determine the presence andconcentration of priority pollutants inwastewater discharges.

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

energy requirements.The Agency then estimated the costs

of each control and treatmentterchnology using a computer programbased on standard engineering costanalysis. EPA derived unit process costsby applying plant data andcharacteristics (production and flow) toeach treatment process 'i.e., metalsprecipitation, sedimentation, mixed-media filtration, etc.). The program alsoconsiders what treatment equipmentexists at each plant. These unit processcosts were added for each plant to yieldtotal cost at each treatment level. Incases where there is more than one

plant at one site, costs were calculatedseparately for each plant and probablyoverstate the actual amount whichwould be spent at the site where onecombined treatment system could beused for all plants. The Agency thenevaluated the economic impacts of thesecosts.

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

Except for pH requirements, theeffluent limitations for BPT, BAT, andNSPS are expressed as masslimitations-a mass of pollutant per unitof production (mg/kg). They werecalculated by combining three figures:(1) treated effluent concentrationsdetermined by analyzing controltechnology performance data; f2)production-weighted wastewater flowfor each manufacturing process elementof each subcategory; and (3) anyrelevant process of treatment variabilityfactor (e,g., mean versus maximum day).This basic calculation was performedfor each regulated pollutant or pollutantparameter and for each wastwater-generating process element of eachsubcategory.

Pretreatment standards-PSES andPSNS-are also expressed as masslimitations rather than concentrationlimits to ensure a reduction in the totalquantity of pollutant discharges.

IV. Data Gathering Efforts

The data gathering program isdescribed briefly in Section III and insubstantial detail in Section V of theDevelopment Document. At the start ofthe study, a data collection portfolio(dcp) was developed to collectinformation about the industry and wasmailed, under the authority :of Section308 of the Clean Water Act, to eachcompany known or believed tomanufacture batteries in the UnitedStates. The list of companies wasdeveloped from Dunn & Bradstreetlistings, a previous unpublished studydone for the Agency, and discussionswith battery industry associations.

Data were received from 133companies representing about 230manufacturing sites. In addition toprevious studies and the data collectioneffort for this study, supplemental datawere obtained from NPDES permit filesand engineering studies on treatment


technologies used in this and othercategories with similar wastewatercharacteristics. Thb data gathering effortsolicited all known sources of data andall available pertinent data were used indeveloping these limitations.

V. Sampling and Analytical ProgramAs Congress recognized in enacting

the Clean Water Act of 1977, the state-of-the-art ability to monitor and detecttoxic pollutants is limited. Most of thetoxic pollutants were relativelyunknown until a few years ago, and onlyon rare occasions had these pollutantsbeen regulated. Also, industry had notmonitored or developed ipethods tomonitor most of these pollutants.

Faced with these problems, EPAdeveloped a sampling and analyticalprotocol. This protocol is set forth inSampling and Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants revised in April 1977.Methods promulgated under Section304(h) (40 CFR Part 136) were availableand were used to analyze most toxicmetals, pesticides, cyanides, andphenols. At the outset of the study, EPAexpected that the pollutants of greatestconcern in battery manufacturing wouldbe toxic metals rather than organics.This has been borne out by the findingsof the study.

The sampling and analysis programwas carried out in two stages. First,screen sampling was performed at oneplant in each subcategory, and thissample was analyzed (screened) for thepresence and magnitude of each of the129 specific toxic pollutants plusconventional and selectednonconventional pollutants. Second,additional (or verification) samples atthe same and other plants wereanalyzed to determine more preciselythe magnitude, presence, and processsource of pollutants determined to bepresent or believed to be present on thebasis of screening analysis andengineering evaluations. Because themethod of subcategorizing this categorywas changed during the study, morethan one screening analysis was madein some of the present subcategories. Atotal of 48 plants were visited forengineering analysis of which eight weresampled for screening and 15 weresampled for verification analysis. Fulldetails of the engineering analysis,sampling and analysis program, and thewater and wastewater data derivedfrom sampling are presented in SectionV of the Development Document.

Analysis for the toxic pollutants isboth expensive and time consuming,costing between $650 and $1,000 persample for a complete analysis. The costin dollars and time limited the amount of

sampling and chemical analysisperformed. Although EPA fully believesthat the available data support thelimitations proposed, the Agency wouldhave preferred a larger data base andcontinues to seek additional data as partof this rulemaking. In addition, EPA willperiodically review these limitations asrequired by the Act and make anyrevisions supported by new data.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

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

EPA has subcategorized batterymanufacturing primarily on the activeanode material used. The eightsubcategories are: cadmium, calcium,lead, Leclanche (zinc anode with acidelectrolyte), lithium, magnesium, zinc(with alkaline electrolyte), and nuclear.At one time the Agency consideredsubcategorization on the basis of batterytype and manufacturing proces's used;however close examination of thecategory clearly indicated this approachto be impractical (over 200 variationsexisted). The anode material approachwas adopted because it considers mostof the variations and avoidsunnecessary complexity.

VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place Technology

Current wastewater treatmentsystems in the battery manufacturingcategory range from no treatment to asophisticated physical chemicaltreatment (although generally notoperated properly) combined with waterconservation practices. Of the 253 plantsin the data base, 25 percent of the plantshave no treatment and do not discharge,16 percent have no treatment anddischarge, 21 percent have only pHadjust systems, 3 percent have onlysedimentation or clarification devices,24 percent have equipment for chemicalprecipitation and settling, 7 percent have

equipment for chemical precipitation,settling and filtration, and 4 percenthave other treatment systems. Eventhough treatment systems are in-place atmany plants, however, the category isuniformly inadequate in wastewatertreatment practices. The systems in-place are generally inadequately sized,poorly maintained, or improperlyoperated (systems overloaded, solidsnot removed, pH not controlled, etc.).For the category as a whole, in general,there is no significant differencebetween direct or indirect dischargers inthe nature or degree of treatmentemployed. Section V of the DevelopmentDocument evaluates the treatmentsystems in-place and the effluent datareceived.

B. Control Technologies Considered

The control and treatmenttechnologies available for this categoryinclude both in-process and end-of-pipetreatments. These technologies aredescribed in Section VII of theDevelopment Document. In-processtreatment includes a variety of waterflow reduction steps and major processchanges such as: cascade andcountercurrent rinsing (to reduce theamount of water used to removeunwanted materials from electrodes);consumption of cleansed wastewater inproduct mixes; and substitution of non-wastewater-generating forming(charging) systems. End-of-pipetreatment includes: hexavalentchromium reduction; -chemicalprecipitation of metals using hydroxides,carbonates, or sulfides; and removal ofprecipitated metals and other materialsusing settling or sedimentation;filtration; distillation; ion exchange;reverse osmosis; and combinations ofthese technologies. Because of its highenergy costs and low product recoveryvalues, distillation has beenrecommended as an end-of-pipetreatment in only one subcategory.

The effectiveness of these treatmenttechnologies has been evaluated andestablished by examining theirperformance on battery manufacturingand other similar wastewaters. The database for hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation technology is a comkositeof data drawn from EPA sampling andanalysis of copper and aluminumforming, battery manufacturing,porcelain enameling, and coil coatingeffluents. A detailed statistical analysisdone on the data base showedsubstantial homogeneity in thetreatment effectiveness data from thesefive categories. This supports EPA'stechnical judgment that thesewastewaters are similar in all material

51055

51056 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules

respects for treatment because theycontain a range of dissolved metalswhich can be removed by precipitationand solids removal. Electroplating datawere originally used in the data set, butwere excluded after further statisticalanalyses were performed. The statisticalanalysis and assumptions underlying themethodology are discussed in moredetail in Section VII of the DevelopmentDocument. Similarily, precipitation-sedimentation and filtration technologyperformance is based on theperformance of full-scale commercialsystems treating multi-categorywastewaters which also are essentiallysimilar to battery manufacturingwastewaters.

The treatment performance data isused to obtain maximum daily andmonthly average pollutantconcentrations. These concentrations(mg/l) along with the batterymanufacturing production normalizedflows 1/kg of production normalizingparameters) are used to obtain themaximum daily and monthly averagevalues (mg/kg) for effluent limitationsand standards. The monthly averagevalues are based on the average of tenconsecutive sampling days. The ten dayaverage value was selected as theminimum number of consecutivesamples which need to be averaged toarrive at a stable slope on a statisticallybased curve relating one day and 30 dayaverage values and it approximates themost frequent monitoring requirement ofdirect discharge permits. The monthlyaverage numbers shown in theregulation are to be used by plants withcombined wastestreams that use the"combined wastestream formula" setforth at 40 CFR 403.6(e) and by permitwriters in writing direct dischargepermits.

VIII. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)Effluent Limitations

The factors considered in definingbest practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT) include thetotal cost of applying technology inrelation to the effluent reductionbenefits derived, the age of equipmentand facilities involved, the processemployed, nonwater-qualityenvironmental impacts (includig energyrequirements), and other factors theAdministrator considers appropriate. Ingeneral, the BPT level represents theaverage of the best existingperformances of plants of various ages,sizes, processes or other commoncharacteristics. Where existingperformance is uniformly inadequate,BPT may be transferred from adifferrent subcategory or category.Limitations based on transfer

technology must be supported by aconclusion that the technology is,indeed, transferable and a reasonab!eprediction that it will be capable ofachieving the prescr'bed effluent limits.'(See Tanners' Council of America v.Train, 540 F. 2d 1188,4th Cir. 1976.) BPTfocuses on end-of-pipe treatment ratherthan process changes or internalcontrols, excpet where such are commonindustry practice.

The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is alimited balancing, conducted at EPA'sdiscretion, which does not require theAgency to quantify benefits in monetaryterms. (See, for example, American Ironand Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d1027, 3rd Cir. 1975.) In balancing costswith effluent reduction benefits, EPAconsiders the 'volume and nature ofexisting discharges, the volume andnature of discharges expected afterapplication of BPT, the generalenvironmental effects of the pollutants,and the cost and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control level. TheAct does not require or permitconsideration of water quality problemsattributable to particular point soures orindustries, or water qualityimprovements in particular waterbodies. Therefore, EPA has notconsidered these factors (SeeWeyerhaeuser Company v. Castle, 11ERC 2149, D.C. Cir. 1978.)

The Agency is proposing BPTlimitations for the cadmium, lead, andzinc subcategories. The remaining fivesubcategories are excluded from BPTand BAT limitations for the reasonsdiscussed in Section XV of this notice.

In developing the proposed BPTlimitations, the Agency first consideredthe amount of water used per -unit ofproduction in each subcategory processelement by each plant which wassampled or which supplied usable dcpdata. These data were used to determinethe average water use for eachsubcategory process element. Next, theend-of-pipe treatment technology thatseemed appropriate for BPT leveltreatment and was practiced is someplants throughout the category wasselected. This treatment consists of:hexavalent chromium reduction whenrequired; oil skimming when required;hydroxide (or lime) precipitation, if notaccomplished by pH adjustment; andsedimentation to remove the resultantprecipitate and other suspended solids.Sludge from the settling tank isconcentrated to facilitate metalsrecovery or landfill disposal. Theeffluent that would be expected to resultfrom the application of thesetechnologies was evaluated against theknown performance of some of the best

plants in the category and othercategories treating similar wastewaterswith these technologies. Sections VIIand IX of the Development Documentexplain the derivation of treatmenteffectiveness data and the calculation ofBPT limitations.

To comply with BPT limitations, EPAestimates (1982 $) that total capitalinvestment would be $0.9 million andthat annual costs would be $0.4 million,including interest and depreciation. EPAexpects no plant closures,unemployment, or changes in industryproduction capacity as a result of theBPT effluent limitations. These BPTlimitations will result in the removal of73,600 kg/yr (162,260 lb/yr) of toxicpollutants and 931,000 kg/yr 12,052,500lb/yr] of other pollutants from theestimated current discharges. TheAgency has determined the effluentreduction benefits associated withcompliance with BPT limitations justifythese costs.

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT)Effluent Limitations

the factors considered in assessingbest available technology economicallyachievable (BAT) include the age ofequipment and facilities involved, theprocess employed, process changes,nonwater-quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements) and thecosts of applying such technology(Section 304(b)(2)(B)). At a minimum, theBAT technology level represents thebest economically achievableperformance of plants of various ages,sizes, processes, or other sharedcharacteristics. As with BPT, whereexisting performance is uniformlyinadequate, BAT may be transferredfrom a different subcategory or category.BAT may include feasible processchanges or internal controls, even whennot common industry practice.

The required assessment of BAT"considers" costs, but does not require abalancing of costs against effluentreduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.Castle, supra). In developing theproposed BAT, however, EPA hascarefully considered the cost of the BATtreatment. The Agency has consideredthe volume and nature of the estimatedpresent discharges, the volume andnature of discharges expected afterapplication of BAT, the generalenviromental effects of the pollutants,and the costs and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control levels onthe industry.

Despite this consideration of costs.the primary determinant of BAT iseffluent reduction capability. As a resultof the Clean Water Act of 1977, the


achievement of BAT has become theprincipal national means of controllingtoxic water pollution.

The Agency has considered three tofive major sets of technology options foreach subcategory that might be appliedat the BAT level. These options were setforth in a draft Development Documentand presented to the technicallyinterested public for preliminarycomment. The options are described indetail in Section X of the DevelopmentDocument and are outlined below. TheAgency is proposing BAT limitations forthe cadmium, lead, and zincsubcategories. The remaining fivesubcategories are excluded fromregulation at BAT and are discussed inSection XV of this notice.

For plants to directly comply withBAT limitations, EPA estimates thattotal capital investment would be $2.8million and that annual costs would be$0.8 million, including interest anddepreciation. EPA expects no plantclosures, unemployment, or changes inindustry production capacity as a resultof the proposed BAT effluent limitations.

The cost estimates for the varioustreatment options are detailed in SectionVIII of the Development Document,control and treatment effectiveness isdetailed in Section VII, and effluentreduction benefits are detailed andtabulated in Section X of theDevelopment Document. The EconomicImpact Analysis Contains a full analysisof potential economic impacts for allregulatory options considered.

As noted below, technology optionsboth more and less stringent than thoseadopted as a basis for these proposalsare available. In order to make a finaldecision, EPA solicits the submission ofall information available on the costs ofthese technologies and the results theywill produce. EPA will decide whichtechnologies to select and whichlmitations to promulgate afterconsideration of all informationavailable, including the informationreceived in comments submitted on thisproposal, its current information, andthe results of any additional studies itsponsors. The final regulation may wellbe based upon a technology other thanthat which forms the basis for thecurrent proposal.

A. Cadmium Subcategory

Option 1. BAT option 1 useshydroxide precipitation andsedimentation, which is the same end-of-pipe treatment technology requiredfor BPT; however, the discharge of toxicpollutants to the environment is reducedthrough in-process technology to reduce

wastewater discharge.Option 2. BAT option 2 builds on the

end-of-pipe treatment technology foroption I by adding a polishing filter toimprove the removal of suspendedsolids and metals. Wastewater flow isthe same as option 1.

Option 3. BAT option 3 builds on thereduced wastewater flows of option 1,adds reverse osmosis to allow reuse ofmuch of the wastewater in the process,and requires further treatment (lime

Cadmium Subcategory BAT SelectionEPA is proposing BAT effluent

limitations based on technology option1, but as indicated below, will giveequivalent consideration to otheroptions in promulgating final limitations.None of the options Would causesignificant adverse economic impacts.Option 1, requiring the reduction offlows prior t6 the lime and settle systemrequired by BPT, is achievable usingtechnologies and practices that arecurrently in use at some plants in thecategory. This option results in thesignificant reduction of toxic and otherpollutant discharges. While EPArejected the more stringent technologyoptions 2-4 for purposes of formulatingthis proposal, it will give fullconsideration to basing the finalregulations on one of these options.Therefore, EPA solicits comments oneach of the options. In particular, EPAinvites comment on the considerationsdiscussed below.

EPA had found filtration to beexceptionally expensive in previous.studies of other industrial categories.However, considering the extremetoxicity of the pollutants, and theamount of pollutants in this subcategory,EPA is continuing to consider the'possibility of basing its BAT limitationsfor this subcategory on the addition offiltration.

EPA will give equal consideration tooption 2 (along with option 1) indetermining a basis for the finalregulation. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains adiscussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentrations that can beachieved in systems using lime, settleand filtration (LS&F). Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent limitation tables based on LS&F

precipitation and filtration) of thereverse osmosis brine before discharge.

Option 4. BAT option 4 results in zerodischarge of wastewater pollutants byusing ion exchange with the ionexchange regenerate water reclaimed bydistillation and returned to the process.

The pollutant removals and costs ofthe BAT options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in-place.

technology. If option 2 is selected, EPAwill use that information, as well as anyadditional information submitted duringthe comment period, to develop finaleffluent limitations.

EPA is also continuing to consider thepossibility of setting limitations basedupon option 3 or 4. Both of these optionsrequire significant flow reduction,advanced wastewater treatment andreuse of wastewater in themanufacturing process. Option 3requires the flow reduction of the BAT-1discharge level by 85 percent. Option 4requires the complete elimination ofdischarges. To enable such reductions oreliminations to be made, either thegeneration of process wastewater mustbe substantialy reduced or else most orall of the process wastewater must bereused in the process, leaving a low-volume, concentrated wastewater toundergo advanced treatment (such asreverse osmosis or ion exchange).

The methods used to reducewastewater flows are varied, anddifferent plants may use differentmethods to achieve flow reduction fortheir various production processes.However, in all cases, either processmodifications, wastewater reuse, orboth would be required to effect theflow reduction required by options 3 and4.

Modifying production processes andrerouting wastewater streams oftenrequires substantial retrofitting(reconstruction) of both production andwastewater treatment processes.Depending on the present configurationof the plant, including existingstructures, piping and equipment, aswell as available land area, suchretrofitting may become extremelyexpensive. (This expense is in additionto the cost of installing the advanced

Pollutant removal (kilograms per year) Costs (dollars inthousands)

Toxics (pounds per year) Other (pounds peryear) Capital Annual

BPT 69,598 (153,437) ................................................................................................ 101.255 (223,230) $82 $31BAT-1 70,096 (154,535) ........................................................................................... 109,614 (241,656) 166 51BAT-2 70,135 (154,622) ........................................................................................... 110,307 (243,185) 198 66BAT-3 70,181 (154,722) .......................................................................................... 111,100 (244,934) 244 89BAT-4 70,189 (154,741) ................. : ......................................................................... 111,238 (245,238) 843 180

51057


wastewater treatment units, such asreverse osmosis and ion exchange.)

To date, EPA has not calculated all ofthe retrofit costs for existing plants tocomply with options 3 and 4; rather, wehave estimated the costs for installing(and operating and maintaining) thenecessary equipment that would beincurred at a plant which would incur noadditional costs for modifying existingproduction processes and reroutingexisting wastewater flows. EPA expectsthat these costs would be high in manycases. Given this. expectation as to costand the fact that options 3 and 4 wouldresult in relatively low incrementalremoval of toxic pollutants, EPA did notadopt these options as a basis forproposed BAT limitations. (However, asdiscussed below, EPA has selectedOption 4 for new source performancestandards; new sources do not icurretrofitting costs.) EPA solicitsinformation on retrofitting costs atexisting plants and on theappropriateness of selecting option 3 or4.

B. Lead SubcategoryOption 1. BAT option 1 continues the

lime-carbonate and settle end-of-pipetreatment set forth as BPT and uses inprocess controls and process changes tosubstantially reduce wastewaterdischarge.

Option 2. BAT option 2 builds onoption I by adding a polishing filter toimprove the removal of suspendedsolids and metals.

Option 3. BAT option 3 substitutessulfide precipitation and membranefiltration for the lime-carbonateprecipitation and polishing filtration inoption 2. Sulfide precipitationtechnology is a mechanism for improvedmetals precipitation and removal.

Option 4. BAT option 4 adds reverseosmosis to the wastewater dischargefrom the polishing filter of option 2. Thereverse osmosis permeate is recycled tothe process while the brine is treatedusing sulfide precipitation andmembrane filtration technology beforedischarge.

The pollutant removals and costs ofthe BAT options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in-place.

Pollutant removal (kilograms per year) Costs (dollars inthousands)

Toxics (pounds per year) Other (pounds perAnnualI year) Anua

8PT 2,909(6,412) ..................................................................................................BAT-1 3,344(7,372) .......................................................................................BAT-2 3,375(7,440) ........................................................................................BAT-3 3,412(7,521) .............................................................................................BAT-4 3,422(7,543) ........................................................................................

Lead Subcategory BA T Selection

EPA is proposing BAT effluentlimitations based on technology option1, but as discussed in the Cadmiumsubcategory, will give equivalentconsideration to other options inpromulgating final limitations. Onlyoption 4 might cause one potential plantclosure; none of the other options wouldcause significant adverse economicimpact. Option 1 was selected because itresults in substantial reductions of toxicpollutant discharges through the use ofproven in-process controls and end-of-pipe treatment.

As discussed above with respect tooption 2 in the Cadmium subcategory,EPA is continuing to consider thepossible requirements of filtration.Section VII of the DevelopmentDocument contains a discussion andtables concerning the effluentconcentrations that can be achievedusing LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document contains

828,950(1,827,522)836.346(1,843,828)836,746(1,844,710)836,746(1,844.710)837.205(1,845,722)

$744 $3452,494 7373,040 9053,040 9054,807 1,363

effluent limitation tables based on LS&Ftechnology. If option 2 is selected EPAwill use that information, as well as anyadditional information submitted duringthe comment period to develop finaleffluent limitations.

EPA is requesting comments on thescope of retrofitting problems associatedwith options 3 and 4. Based on thisreview EPA will give equalconsideration to options 2-4 indetermining a basis for the finalregulation. ,

Options 3 and 4 were rejectedbecause of the retrofitting problemsassociated with flow reduction toimplement those options, as wasdiscussed above with respect to options3 and 4 of the Cadmium subcategory. Anadditional retrofitting problem is causedby the use of sulfide precipitation foroptions 3 and 4, and is discussed below.

Special systems are needed to ensuresafe operation of the sulfide systent andthe cost of handling of the treatmentsludges, which may be toxic and

reactive hazardous wastes. Sulfideprecipitation treatment systems requirespecial ventilation and constructionfeatures to eliminate workplace hazards.These features may be difficult andcostly to install in existing plants, butcan be installed at minimal cost when aplant is being constructed. Plantsalready having sulfide treatmentsystems in-place have not reported anyproblems. However, sulfide precipitationtechnology has not been selected forBPT, PSES, or BAT because of thedifficulties and hazards associated withretrofitting and implementing thesystems at existing plants that do notpresently have them. (For new plantsspecial ventilation equipment andspecial construction features can beinitially installed at a nominal cost sothat the systems can be properlyoperated and health hazards avoided.)

EPA also will consider establishingBAT for the final rule based ontechnologies that may impose lowercosts than the proposed option, if itappears that the costs of the proposed ofthe option I are too high. The Agency isalso soliciting comments and supportingcost and economic data for anyrecommendations.

C Zinc Subcategory

Option 1. BAT option 1 uses the sameend-of-pipe treatment provided at BPTbut, by applying in-process controlssubstantially reduces the volume ofwastewater and the amount of processwastewater pollutants discharged.

Option 2. BAT option 2 builds on BAToption by adding a polishing filter t6improve the removal of suspendedsolids and metals.

Option 3. BAT option 3 adds onadditional in-process wastewatercontrol characteristic to option 2 butsubstitutes sulfide precipitation andmembrane filtration for the hydroxideprecipitation and polishing filtration inoption 2. Sulfide precipitationtechnology is a mechanism for improvedmetals precipitation and removal.

Option 4. BAT option 4 adds oneadditional in-process wastewatercontrol characteristic to option 3 andfollows the option 2 end-of-pipetreatment adding reverse osmosistechnology which allows recycle andreuse of a substantial part of thepermeate. The brine is treated usingsulfide precipitation and membranefiltration technology before discharge.

Pollutant removals and costs of theBAT options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs are

-above current estimates of dischargeand treatment in-place.

51058


Pollutant removal (kilograms per year) Costs (dollars in thousand)

Toxics (pounds per year) Other (poundsper year) Capital Annual

BPT 1,093 (2.410) ................................ 789 (1,740) $68 $25BAT-1 1.114 (2,456) ..................................................................................................... 1,058 (2,332) 122 32BAT-2 1,115 (2,459) ....................................................................................................... 1,076 (2,372) 138 52BAT-3 1.117 (2,463) ..................................... .............................................................. 1,078 (2,376) 138 52BAT-4 1,118 (2,465) ................. . ................................................................................... 1,098 (2,421) 147 75

savings results from the recycling ofprocess materials that result from theclosed loop in heat paper production.Holding tanks are used instead ofimplementing a complete treatmentsystem. One of the three plants active inthis subcategory already achieves zerodischarge.

Zinc Subcategrory BAT Selection

EPA is proposing BAT effluentlimitations based on technology option1, but as discussed in the Cadmiumsubcategory, will give equivalentconsideration to other options inpromulgating final limitations. None ofthe options would cause significantadverse economic impacts. Option 1was selected because it results insubstantial reduction of toxic pollutantdischarges through the use of proven in-process controls and end-of-pipetreatment, and does not result insignificant economic impacts.

Qption 2, 3, and 4 were rejected forthe Zinc subcategory for the samereasons as discussed above in the casesof the Cadmium and Lead subcategories.As discussed above, EPA will give equalconsideration to options 2-4 indetermining a basis for the finalregulation. EPA is especially continuingto consider the possible requirements offiltration. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains adiscussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentrations that can beachieved using LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent limitation tables based on LS&Ftechnology. If option 2 is selected EPAwill use that information as well as anyadditional information submitted duringthe comment period to develop finaleffluent limitations.


The basis for new source performancestandards (NSPS) under Section 306 ofthe Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology (BDT. Newplants can incorporate the best and mostefficient battery manufacturingprocesses and wastewater treatmenttechnologies, and, therefore, Congressdirected EPA to consider the bestdemonstrated process changes, inplantcontrols, and end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies to reduce pollution to themaximum extent feasible.

EPA considered a number of optionsfor selection of NSPS technology.Options included those discussed underBAT. Each of these options are set forthin the proposed Development Documentin Sections X and XI, and the costs are

discussed in Section VIII. The optionsselected for proposal are outlinedbelow. As discussed in the EconomicImpact Analysis, none of the optionswould present barriers to entry by newplants in the industry.

Cadmium Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 4 as the basis for proposedNSPS effluent standards. This optionwas selected because it achieves zerodischarge of toxic pollutants and hasbeen adequately demonstrated in theindustry. As was discussed under BAT,implementation of the technology atnew plants will not result in retrofit costproblems.

Three of 10 active plants in thissubcategory achieve zero discharge ofwastewater pollutants. Two plantsachieve zero discharge throughmanufacturing process selection usingessentially dry manufacturing processes.The third plant achieves zero dischargeby the effective use of waterconservation practices within theprocess and by sophisticated (ionexchange and distillation) wastewatertreatment that totally recycles thetreated wastewater to themanufacturing processes. This plantrecently converted from being one of themost water-consumptive andwastewater-discharging plants, on aproduction normalized basis, toachieving zero discharge. Clearly zero-discharge technology has beendemonstrated in this subcategory.

The Agency recognizes that theselected NSPS may impose high costsand that there may be othertechnologies that will achieve nearlyequivalent pollutant removals at lowercosts. The Agency will consider, andinvites comments on, alternatetechnologies that may achievesubstantial removals of pollutants at alower cost.

Calcium Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected reuse ofwastewaters from heat paper productionafter settling, and reuse following lime,settle and filtration technology for celltesting wastewaters as the basis forproposed NSPS. This option wasselected because it achieves zerodischarge of toxic pollutants, and a cost

Lead Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 4 as the basis for proposedNSPS. This option includes flowreduction for the processes that cannotachieve zero discharge, lime andcarbonate precipitation, filtration,reverse osmosis, and sulfideprecipitation and filtration. The optionwas selected because it achievesmaximum pollutant reduction for thesubcategory. Also, the difficultiesencountered with the sulfide system canbe adequately and economically dealtwith at new plants. As an alternative toflow reduction and treatment new plantscan select dry manufacturing processesand water conservation practices andcan achieve zero discharge.


Leclanche Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected in-process controls,treatment, and recycle to achieve zerodischarge of toxic pollutants as the basisfor proposed NSPS. Twelve of the 19plants active in this subcategory alreadyachieve zero discharge by practicingwater conservation and recycle, andusing dry manufacturing processes.

Lithium Subcotegory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected reusing wastewaterfrom heat paper production aftersettling; aeration and lime and settletechnology for air scrubberwastewaters; and lime, settle andfiltration technology for otherwastewaters, as the basis for proposedNSPS. This option was selectedbecause, for heat paper production, itachieves zero discharge of toxicpollutants and also provides maximumpollutant reduction for cathodepreparation and other processwastewaters. A cost savings resultsfrom the recycling of process materialsthat result from the closed loop in heatpaper production. Holding tanks areused instead of implementing a complete

51059


treatment system. Two of the sevenactive plants in the subcategory achievezero discharge by choice ofmanufacturing processes. Manyalternatives can be considered whenconstructing a new plant.

Magnesium Subcategory NSPSSelection

EPA has selected reusing wastewatersfor heat paper production after settling;aeration and lime and settle technologyfor air scrubber wastewaters; lime,settle and filtration technology for otherwastewaters; and permanganateoxidation pretreatment for silverchloride cathodes as the basis forproposed NSPS. This option wasselected because, for heat paperproduction, it achieves zero discharge oftoxic pollutants, and also providesmaximum pollutant reduction forcathode preparation and other processwastewaters. The closed loop in heatpaper production also results in a costsavings due to the recycling of processmaterials. Also, holding tanks are usedinstead of implementating a completetreatment system. Four of the eightactive plants in this subcategory achievezero discharge by choice ofmanufacturing processes. Manyalternatives can be considered whenconstructing a new plant.

Zinc Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 4 as the basis for proposedNSPS. This option, which includes flowreduction, lime precipitation, filtration,and reverse osmosis with sulfideprecipitation and filtration of the reverseosmosis brine, achieves maximumpollutant reduction for the subcategory.The difficulties encountered with thesulfide system can be dealt withadequately and economically at newplants.


XI. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing sources (PSES), which mustbe achieved within three years ofpromulgation. PSES are designed toprevent the discharge of pollutantswhich pass through, interfere with, orare otherwise incompatible with the

operation of Publicly Owned TreatmentWorks (POTW). The legislative historyof the 1977 Act indicates thatpretreatment standards are to betechnology-based and analogous to thebest available technology for removal oftoxic pollutants. The generalpretreatment regulations can be found at40 CFR Part 403. (See 43 FR 27736 June26, 1978; 46 FR 9404 Jan. 28, 1981.)

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

This approach to the definition of passthrough satisfies two competingobjectives set by Congress: Thatstandards for indirect dischargers beequivalent to standards for directdischargers, while, at the same time,that the treatment capability andperformance of the POTW be recognizedand taken into account in regulating thedischarge of pollutants from indirectdischargers. Rather than compare themass or concentration of pollutantsdischarged by the POTW with the massor concentration discharged by a directdischarger, the Agency compares thepercentage of the pollutants removed bythe plant with the POTW removal. TheAgency takes this approach because acomparison of mass or concentration ofpollutants in a POTW effluent withpollutants in a direct discharger'seffluent would not take into account themass of pollutants discharged to thePOTW from nonindustrial sources northe dilution of the 'ollutants in thePOTW effluent to lower concentrationsfrom the addition of large amounts ofnonindustrial wastewater.

In the battery manufacturing category,the Agency has concluded that thepollutants that would be regulated(primarily toxic metals) under theseproposed standards pass through thePOTW. The average percentage of thesepollutants removed by POTWnationwide ranges from 30 to 80 percent,whereas the percentage that can beremoved by a battery manufacturingdirect discharger applying BAT isexpected to be over 99 percent.

Accordingly, these pollutants passthrough POTW.

In addition, toxic metals are notdegraded in the POTW; they either passthrough or are removed in the sludge.The presence of highly toxic metalsdischarged from a battery plant in thePOTW sludge may limit a POTW'schosen sludge disposal method. Forexample, a major pollutant dischargedby battery plants is cadmium. UnderEPA's Criteria for Classification of SolidWaste Disposal Facilities and Practices,the application of POTW sludge to landused for production of food-chain cropsis restricted when the sludge containssignificant levels of cadmium.

The pretreatment options consideredare parallel to BPT and the BAT optionsdescribed in Sections IX and X of theDevelopment Document, and previouslydescribed under BAT for the Cadmium,Lead, and Zinc subcategories. PSES-0 isthe equivalent of BPT technology andPSES 1-4 are the equivalent of BATtechnology options 1-4. Thesesubcategories and the Leclanche andmagnesium subcategories are discussedbelow. No PSES are proposed for theCalcium and Lithium subcategoriesbecause the amount and toxicity of thedischarges from these subcategories donot justify developing nationalstandards.

The mass limitations set forth as PSESare presented here as the only method ofdesignating pretreatment standards.Regulation on the basis of concentrationonly is not appropriate becauseconcentration-based standards do notrestrict the total quantity of pollutantsdischarged. Flow reduction is asignificant part of the model technologyfor pretreatment because it reduces theamount of toxic pollutants introducedinto a POTW. Therefore, the Agency isnot proposing concentration-basedpretreatment standards.

To comply with PSES, EPA estimatesthat total capital investment would be$25.0 million and that annual costswould be $6.2 million, including interestand depreciation. Section VIII of theDevelopment Document explains thebasis for these costs. EPA predicts noplant closures resulting from thisregulation. The Economic ImpactAnalysis assesses the economicimpacts. No changes in industryproduction capacity are expected as aresult of these pretreatment standards.

EPA is proposing that the deadline forcompliance with PSES in this regulationbe three years after promulgation. EPAbelieves this time for compliance isreasonable because most of the plantsdo not now have all of the requiredequipment in-place and this amount of


time generally will be needed for propeengineering, installation and start-up ofthe treatment facilities. The Agencyinvites comments with supportdocumentation and rationale on theneed for this or any shorter compliancetime.

Cadmium Subcategory PSES Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 1 for PSES for reasonsdiscussed under BAT. In addition, theequivalent of BAT option 4 (zerodischarge of pollutants) was rejectedbecause potential product line closureswere projected in the Economic ImpactAnalysis.

As discussed with respect to BAT

Pollutant removal (kilograms g

Toxics (pounds per year)

PSES-0 27,131 (59,813) .............................................................PSES-1 27,325 (60,241) ........................................... t ................PSES-2 27,340 (60.275) .............................................................PSES-3 27.538 (60,314) ...................................PSES-4 27,361 (60,322) ......................................................

Lead Subcategory PSES Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 1 for PSES for reasonsdiscussed under BAT. As discussed wit]respect to BAT however, EPA iscontinuing to give serious considerationto promulgating an option other thanoption 1 as a final regulation. Inparticular, the Agency is continuing toevaluate the requirements of filtration.Section VII of the DevelopmentDocument contains a discussion and

Pollutant removal (kilograms p


PSES-0 21,330 (47,024) .............................................................PSES-1 24,522 (54,061) ............................................. t .............PSES-2 24,748 (54.560) ................................P E S-3 25,019 (55,157) ..............................................................P ES-4 25,092 (55,319) ..............................................................

EPA also will consider establishingPSES for the final rule based ontechnologies that may impose lowercosts than the proposed option, if itappears that the proposed option 1 is tot

however, EPA is continuing to giveserious consideration to promulgating anoption other than option 1 as a finalregulatiorn. In particular, the Agency iscontinuing to evaluate the requirementsof filtration. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains adiscussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentrations that can beachieved using LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent standard tables based on LS&Ftechnology.

Pollutant removals and costs of thePSES options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in place

Other (poundsper year)

............... 39,472 (87,020)............................ 42.730 (94,203)................................. 43,000 (94.799)................................. 43.309 (95.481)................................. 43,363 (95,599)

Costs (dollars inthousands)

Capital Annual

$446 $102430 147562 189840 248

2,027 663

tables concerning the effluentconcentrations that can be achievedusing LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent standard tables based on LS&Ftechnology.

Pollutant removals and costs of thePSES options summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in-place.

ar) Costs (dollars in thousand)

Other (pounds per year)

.................. 6,078.968 (13.401.839)

.................. 6,133,206 (13.521,406)............ 6.136.140 (13.527,873)............. 6.136.140 (13,527,873)

.................. 6,139.506 (13,535,294)

Capital I Annual

$9,36320,39427.32027,32035,864

$3,0975,8146,9126,912

10,182

high. The Agency is also solicitingcomment and supporting cost andeconomic data for anyrecommendations.

Leclanche Subcategory PSES Selection

EPA has selected the use of in-processcontrols er treatment and recycle toachieve zero discharge of toxicpollutants as the basis for proposedPSES. No other options are proposedbecause zero discharge is commonpractice within this subcategory. Twelveof the 19 plants active in thissubcategory already achieve zerodischarge by practicing waterconservation, recycle, and using drymanufacturing processes. Wastewaterdischarge is reduced by 17 million 1/yr(5 million of the proposed option 1P aretoo high. The Agency is also solicitingcomments and supporting cost andeconomic data for anyrecommendations.

C. Zinc Subcategory

Option 4. BAT Option 1 uses the sameend-of-pipe treatment provided at BPTbut, by applying in-process controlssubstantially reduces the volume ofwastewater and the amount of processwastewater pollutants discharged.

Option 2. BAT option 2 builds on BAToption by adding a polishing filter toimprove the removal of suspendedsolids and metals.

Option 3. BAT option 3 adds oneadditional in-process wastewatercontrol characteristic to option 2 butsubstitutes sulfide precipitation andmembrane filtration for the hydroxideprecipitation and polishing filtration inoption 2. Sulfide precipitationtechnology is a mechanism for improvedmetals precipitation and removal.

Option 4. BAT option 4 adds oneadditional in-process wastewatercontrol characteristic to option 3 andfollows the option 2 end-of-pipetreatment adding reverse osmosistechnology which allows recycle andreuse of a substantial part of thepermeate. The brine is treated usingsulfide precipitation and membranefiltration technology before discharge.

Pollutant removals and costs of theBAT options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in-place.

51061

_ _ -i I


Pollutant removal (kilograms per year)


BPT 1,093 (2,410) ........................................................................................................BAT-1 1.114 (2,456) .................................................................................................BAT-2 1,115 (2,459) ........................................................................................................BAT-3 1,117 (2,463) ................................. .. .................................... .BAT-4 1.118 (2.456) .......................................................................................................

Zinc Subcategory BAT Selection

EPA is proposing BAT effluentlimitations based on technology option1, but as discussed in the Cadmiumsubcategory, will give equivalentconsideration to other options inpromulgating final limitations. None ofthe options would cause significantadverse economic impacts. Option 1was selected because it results insubstantial reduction of toxic pollutantdischarges through the use of proven in-process controls and end-of-pipetreatment, and does not result insignificant economic impacts.

Options 2,3, and 4 were rejected forthe Zinc subcategory for the samereasons as discussed above in the casesof the Cadmium and Lead subcategories.As discussed above, EPA will give equalconsideration to options 2-4 indetermining a basis for the finalregulation. EPA is especially continuingto consider the possible requirements offiltration. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains adiscussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentration that can beachieved using LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent limitation tables based on LS&Ftechnology. If option 2 is selected EPAwill use that information as well as anyadditional information submitted duringthe comment period to develop finaleffluent limitations.


The basis for new source performancestandards (NSPS) under Section 306 ofthe Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology [BDT). Newplants can incorporate the best and mostefficient battery manufacturingprocesses and wastewater treatmenttechnologies, and, therefore, Congressdirected EPA to consider the bestdemonstrated process changes, inplantcontrols, and end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies to reduce pollution to themaximum extent feasible.

EPA considered a number of optionsfor selection of NSPS technology.Options included those discussed underBAT. Each of these options are set forthin the proposed Development Documentin Sections X and XI, and the costs are

Other (poundsper year)

789 (1,740)1,058 (2.332)1,076 (2,372)1,078 (2,375)1,098 (2,421)

discussed in Section VIII. The optionsselected for proposal are outlinedbelow. As discussed in the EconomicImpact Analysis, none of the optionswould present barriers to entry by newplants in the industry.

Cadmium Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 4 as the basis for proposedNSPS effluent standards. This optionwas selected because it achieves zerodischarge of toxic pollutants and hasbeen adequately demonstrated in theindustry. As was discussed under BAT,implementation of the technology atnew plants will not result in retrofit costproblems.

Three of 10 active plants in thissubcategory achieve zero discharge ofwastewater pollutants. Two plantsachieve zero discharge throughmanufacturing process selection usingessentially dry manufacturing processes.The third plant achieves zero dischargeby the effective use of waterconservation practices within theprocess and by sophisticated (ionexchange and distillation) wastewatertreatment that totally recycles thetreated wastewater to themanufacturing processes. This plantrecently converted from being one of themost water-consumptive andwastewater-discharging plants, on aproduction normalized basis, toachieving zero discharge. Clearly zero-discharge technology has beendemonstrated in this subcategory.

The Agency recognizes that theselected NSPS may impose high costsand that there may be othertechnologies that will achieve nearlyequivalent pollutant removwls at lowercosts. The Agency will consider, andinvites comments on, alternatetechnologies that may achievesubstantial removals of pollutants at alower cost.

Calcium Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected reuse ofwastewaters from heat paper productionafter settling, and reuse following lime,settle and filtration technology for celltesting wastewaters as the basis forproposed NSPS. This option wasselected because it achieves zerodischarge of toxic pollutants, and a cost

osts (ol _. n thousand)

Captal j Annual

S68 $25122 32138I 521381 521471 75

savings results from the recycling ofprocess materials that result from theclosed loop in heat paper production.Holding tanks are used instead ofimplementing a complete treatmentsystem. One of the three plants active inthis subcategory already achieves zerodischarge.

Lead Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 4 as the basis for proposedNSPS. This option includes flowreduction for the processes that cannotachieve zero discharge, lime andcarbonate precipitation, filtration,reverse osmosis, and sulfideprecipitation and filtration. The optionwas selected because it achievesmaximum pollutant reduction for thesubcategory. Also, the difficultiesencountered with the sulfide system canbe adequately and economically dealtwith at new plants. As an alternative toflow reduction and treatment new plantscan select dry manufacturing processesand water conservation practices andcan achieve zero discharge.


Leclanche Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected in-process controls,treatment, and recycle to achieve zerodischarge of toxic pollutants as the basisfor proposed NSPS. Twelve of the 19plants active in the subcategory alreadyachieve zero discharge by practicingwater conservation and recycle, andusing dry manufacturing processes.

Lithium Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected reusing wastewaterfrom heat paper production aftersettling; aeration and lime and settletechnology for air scrubberwastewaters; and lime, settle andfiltration technology for otherwastewaters, as the basis for proposedNSPS. This option was selectedbecause, for heat paper production, itachieves zero discharge of toxicpollutants and also provides maximumpollutant reduction for cathodepreparation and other processwastewaters. A cost savings resultsfrom the recycling of process materialsthat result from the closed loop in heatpaper production. Holding tanks areused instead of implementing a complete


treatment system. Two of the sevenactive plants in the subcategory achievezero discharge by choice ofmanufacturing processes. Manyalternatives can be considered whenconstructing a new plant.

Magnesium Subcategory NSPSSelection

EPA has selected reusing wastewatersfor heat paper production after settling;aeration and lime and settle technologyfor air scrubber wastewaters; lime,settle and filtration technology for otherwastewaters: and permanganateoxidation pretreatment for silverchloride cathodes as the basis forproposed NSPS. This option wasselected because, for heat paperproduction, it achieves zero discharge oftoxic pollutants, and also providesmaximum pollutant reduction forcathode preparation and other processwastewaters. The closed loop in heatpaper production also results in a costsavings due to the recycling of processmaterials. Also, holding tanks are usedinstead of implementating a completetreatment system. Four of the eightactive plants in this subcategory achievezero discharge by choice ofmanufacturing processes. Manyalternatives can be considered whenconstructing a new plant.

Zinc Subcategory NSPS Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 4 as the basis for proposedNSPS. This option, which includes flowreduction, lime precipitation, filtration,and reverse osmosis with sulfideprecipitation and filtration of the reverseosmosis brine, achieves maximumpollutant reduction for the subcategory.The difficulties encountered with thesulfide system can be dealt withadequately and economically at newplants.

The Agency recognizes that theselected NSPS may impose high costsand that there may be othertechnologies that will achieve nearlyequivalent pollutant removals at lowercosts. The Agency will consider, andinvites comments'on, alternatetechnologies that may achievesubstantial removals of pollutants at alower cost.

XI. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing sources (PSES), which mustbe achieved within three years ofpromulgation. PSES are designed toprevent the discharge of pollutantswhich pass through, interfere with, orare otherwise incompatible with the

operation of Publicly Owned TreatmentWorks (POTW). The legislative historyof the 1977 Act indicates thatpretreatment standards are to betechnology-based and analogous to thebest available technology for removal oftoxic pollutants. The generalpretreatment regulations can be found at40 CFR Part 403. (See, 43 FR 27736, June26,1978 and 46 FR 9404, January 28,1981.)

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

This approach to the definition of passthrough satisfies two competingobjectives set by Congress: Thatstandards for indirect dischargers beequivalent to standards for directdischargers, while, at the same time,that the treatment capability andperformance of th6 POTW be recognizedand taken into account in regulating thedischarge of pollutants from indirectdischargers. Rather than compare themass or concentration of pollutantsdischarged by the POTW with the massor concentration discharged by a directdischarger, the Agency compares thepercentage of the pollutants removed bythe plant with the POTW removal. TheAgency takes this approach because acomparison of mass or concentration ofpollutants in a POTW effluent withpollutants in a direct discharger'seffluent would not take into account themass of pollutants discharged to thePOTW from nonindustrial sources northe dilution of the pollutants in thePOTW effluent to lower concentrationsfrom the addition of large amounts ofnonindustrial wastewater.

In the battery manufacturing category,the Agency has concluded that thepollutants that would be regulated(primarily toxic metals] under theseproposed standards pass through thePOTW. The average percentage of thesepollutants removed by POTWnationwide ranges from 30 to 80 percent,whereas the percentage that can beremoved by a battery manufacturingdirect discharger applying BAT is

expected to be over 99 percent.Accordingly, these pollutants passthrough POTW.

In addidion, toxic metals are notdegraded in the POTW they either passthrough or are removed in the sludge.The presence of highly toxic metalsdischarged from a battery plant in thePOTW sludge may limit a POTW'schosen sludge disposal method. Forexample, a major pollutant dischargedby battery plants is cadmium. UnderEPA's Criteria for Classification of SolidWaste Disposal Facilities and Practices,the application of POTW sludge to landused for the production of food-chaincrops is restricted when the sludgecontains significant levels of cadmium.

The pretreatment options consideredare parallel to BPT and the BAT optionsdescribed in Sections IX and X of theDevelopment Document, and previouslydescribed under BAT for the Cadmium,Lead, and Zinc subcategories. PSES-O isthe equivalent of BPT technology andPSES 1-4 are the equivalent of BATtechnology options 1-4. Thesesubcategories and the Leclanche andmagnesium subcategories are discussedbelow. No PSES are proposed for theCalcium and Lithium subcategoriesbecause the amount and toxicity of thedischarges from these subcategories donot justify developing nationalstandards.

The mass limitations set forth as PSESare presented here as the only method ofdesignating pretreatment standards.Regulation on the basis of concentrationonly is not appropriate becauseconcentration-based standards do notrestrict the total quantity of pollutantsdischarged. Flow reduction is asignificant part of the model technologyfor pretreatment because it reduces theamount of toxic pollutants introducedinto a POTW. Therefore, the Agency isnot proposing concentration-basedpretreatment standards.

To comply with PSES, EPA estimatesthat total capital investment would be$25.0 million and that annual costswould be $6.2 million, including interestand depreciation. Section VIII of theDevelopment Document explains thebasis for these costs. EPA predicts noplant closures resulting from thisregulation. The Economic ImpactAnalysis assesses the economicimpacts. No changes in industryproduction capacity are expected as aresult of these pretreatment standards,

EPA is proposing that the deadline forcompliance with PSES in this regulationbe three years after promulgation. EPAbelieves this time for compliance isreasonable because most of the plantsdo not now have all of the required

51063

51064 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday. November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules

equipment in-place and this amount oftime generally will be needed for properengineering, installation and start-up ofthe treatment facilities. The Agencyinvites comments with supportingdocumentation and rationale on theneed for this or any shorter compliancetime.

Cadmium Subcotegory PSES Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option 1 for reasons discussedunder BAT. In addition, the equivalentof BAT option 4 (zero dischargeofpollutants) was rejected becausepotential product line closures wereprojected in the Economic ImpactAnalysis.

As discussed with respect to BAThowever, EPA is continuing to giveserious consideration to promulgating anoption other than option I as a finalregulation. In particular, the Agency iscontinuing to evaluate the requirementsof filtration. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains adiscussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentrations that can beachieved using LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent standard tables based on LS&Ftechnology.

Pollutant removals and costs of thePSES options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in place.

Pollutant removal (kilograms per year) Costs- (dollars in

thousands)Toxics (pounds per year) per year) iapi- An-

Oiler (pounds i- An

tat nual

PSES-0 27,131(59,813) . 39,472(87,020) $446 $102PSES-1 27,325(60,241) 42.730(94,203) 430 147PSES-2 27.340(60.275) 43,000(94.799) 562 189PSES-3 27,538(60,314) 43,309:95,481) 840 248PSES-4 27,361(60,322)..... 43.363l95.599) 2,027 663

Lead Subcategory PSES Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option I for PSES for reasonsdiscussed under BAT. As discussed withrespect to BAT however, EPA iscontinuing to give serious considerationto promulgating an option other thanoption 1 as a final regulation. Inparticular, the Agency is continuing toevaluate the requirements of filtration.Section VII of the DevelopmentDocument contains a discussion andtables concerning the effluentconcentrations that can be achievedusing LS&F. Section II of theDevelopment Document containseffluent standard tables based on LS&Ftechnology.

Pollutant removals and costs of the

PSES options summarized below.Removals and compliance costs are

above current estimates of dischargeand treatment in-place.

PoqJitant rc'ovu (kiugrams per year) " }Coats (dollsrs in... . .per- ) thousand)

Toxics (pounds pc, yvar) . Other (pounds per year) FCapital Annual

PSES-0 21,.330(47.024) .......................... .... .......................... 6,078,968(13,401,639) $9.363, $3,097PSES-1 24.622)54,061) ......................................................................................... 6,133,206(13,521,406) 20,394 5,814PSES-2 24,748(54,560) .............................. 6.......... ..... .......... 2. ........................... 6,136,140(13,527,873) 27.320 6.912

PSES-3 25,019(55,157) ............ ....................................... 6,136,140(13,527,873) 27,320 6.912PSES-4 25.092(55,319) .............................................................................................6,139,506(13.535,294) 35,864 10.182

EPA also will consider establishingPSES for the final rule based ontechnologies that may impose lowercosts than the proposed option, if itappears that the proposed option 1 is toohigh. The Agenty is also solicitingcomment and supporting cost andeconomic data for anyrecommendations.

Leclanche Subcategory PSES Solection

EPA has selected the use of in-processcontrols or treatment and recycle toachieve zero discharge of toxicpollutants as the basis for proposedPSES. No other options are proposedbecause zero discharge is commonpractice within this subcategory. Twelveof the 19 plants active in thissubcategory already achieve zerodischarge by practicing waterconservation, recycle, and using drymanufacturing processes. Wastewaterdischarge is reduced by 17 million 1/yr(5 million gal/yr), and 1,504 kg/yr (3,316lb/yr} of toxic pollutants (estimatedcurrent basis) are removed. In addition12,271 kg/yr (27,053 lb/yr) of otherpollutants are removed. Compliancecosts above estimated current treatmentin-place are $61,000 for capital and$38,000 for annual.

Magnesium Subcategory PSES Selection

Option 0. PSES option 0 useschromium reduction and hydroxideprecipitation and settling for heat paperproduction; permanganate oxidation asintitial treatment for silver chloridecathode production followed bychemical precipitation and settling; andchemical precipitation and settling forcell testing, floor and equipment washand air scrubber process wastewaters.

Option 1. PSES option I is the same asoption 0 except a polishing filter toimprove the removal of suspendedsolids and metals is added on to theheat paper production system.

Option 2. PSES option 2 includes asettling and holding tank for heat paperproduction which allows for recycle andreuse of process solids andwastewaters. Also a polishing filter toimprove the removal of suspendedsolids and metals is added on to the

silver cathode, cell testing and floor andequipment process wastewaters. Airscrubber wastewater treatment is thesame as option 0.

Option 3. PSES option 3 is the same asoption 2 for heat paper production.Permanganate oxidation is replaced bycarbon adsorption for silver chlorideproduction, but otherwise the treatmentis identical to option 2 for silver chloridecathode, cell testing and floor andequipment process wastewaters. Apolishing filter is added on to airscrubber process wastewater system.

The effluent reduction benefits of thePSES options were evaluated in making'a selection of PSES. This evaluationresulted in the selection of analternative option which is acombination of option 0 and 2. EPA hasselected recycle and reuse of heat paperproduction solids and wastewaters(option 2), pretreatment withpermanganate oxidation for silverchloride cathode wastewaters (option 0),and lime-and settle end-of-pipetreatment for other wastewaters (option0) as the basis for proposed PSES. Thisalternative option was selected becauseit provides protection of theenvironment consistent with processtreatment effectiveness, and therecycling of process materials closedloop in heat paper production results ina cost savings. Pollutant removals(above estimated current) of theselected PSES is the removal of 97 kg/! r(214 lb/yr) of toxic pollutants and 1018kg/yr (2244 lb/yr) of other pollutants.Compliance costs above treatment in-place is $28,000 capital and $12,000annual. No plant closures are projected.

Zinc Subcategory PSES Selection

EPA has selected the equivalent ofBAT option I for PSES for reasonsdiscussed under BAT. No economicimpacts are projected for any PSESoption. As discussed with respect toBAT however, EPA is continuing to giveserious consideration to promulgating anoption other than option I as a finalregulation. In particular, the Agency iscontinuing to evaluate requirements offiltration. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains a


discussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentrations that can beachieved using LS&F. Section 11 of theDevelopment Document containseffluent standards tables based on LS&Ftfchnology.

Pollutant removals and costs of thePSES options are summarized below.Removals and compliance costs areabove current estimates of dischargeand treatment in place.

Pollutant removal (kilograms per year). . .. . .. T _ . . . .._To ics (pounds per Other (pounds

year) per year)

PSES-O3,665(8.079) ......... 2,643(5,827)

PSES-t3,729(8.221) 3,543(7.811)

PSES-23734(6,232) .......... 3,598(7,933)

PSIES-3 3,739(8,244) .............. 3,609(7,957)

PSFS-43.742(8,250) ... 3,679(81,808)

Costs (dollars inthousand)

Capital Annual

349 119

468 135

548 215

548 215

739 341

XII. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources (PSNS)

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor new sources (PSNS) at the same timethat it promulgates NSPS. New indirectdischargers will produce wastes havingthe same pass-through problems thatexisting dischargers have. New indirectdischargers, like new direct dischargers,hate the opportunity to incorporate thebest available demonstratedtechnologies including process changes,in-plant controls, and end-of-pipetreatment technologies, and to use plantsite selection to ensure adequatetreatment system installation.

The PSNS treatment optionsconsidered are identical tothe NSPSoptions. As in the case of existingsources, the pollutants considered forregulation under PSNS pass throughPOTW. For PSNS the Agency isproposing the same treatment options asfor NSPS. The selected options will notcreate barriers to entry, as is discussedin the Economic Impact Analysis.

The Agency recognizes that theselected PSNS may impose high costsand that there may be othertechnologies that will achieve nearlyequivalent pollutant removals at lowercosts. The Agency will consider, andinvites comments on, alternatetechnologies that may achievesubstantial removals of pollutants at alower cost.

The mass standards set forth as PSNSare presented here as the only method ofdesignating pretreatment standards.Regulation on the basis of concentrationis not adequate because concentration-based standards do not restrict the totalquantity of pollutants discharged. Flow

reduction is a significant part of themodel technology for pretreatmentbecause it reduces the amount of toxicpollutants introduced into a POTW.Therefore, the Agency is not proposingconcentration-based pretreatmentstandards.

XIII. Best Conventional Technology(BCT) Effluent Limitations

The 1977 amendment$ added Section301(b){2)(E) to the Act, establishing"best conventional pollutant controltechnology" (BCT) for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existingindustrial point sources. Conventionalpollutants are those defined in Section304(a)(4-biological oxygen demandingpollutants (BOD5), total suspendedsolids (TSS), fecal coliform, and pH-and any additional pollutants defined bythe Administrator as "conventional." OnJuly 30, 1979, EPA added oil and greaseto the conventional pollutant list (44 FR44501).

BCT is not an additional limitation butreplaces BAT for the control ofconventional pollutants. In addition toother factors specified in section304(b)(4)(B, the Act requires that BCTlimitations be assessed in light of a twopart "cost-reasonableness" test. (seeAmerican Paper Institute v. EPA, 660F.2d 954 4th Cir. 1981.) The first testcompares the cost for private industry toreduce its conventional pollutants withthe costs to POTW for similar levels ofreduction in their discharge of thesepollutants. The second test examines thecost-effectiveness of additionalindustrial treatment beyond BPT. EPAmust find that limitations are"reasonable" under both tests beforeestablishing them as BCT. In no casemay BCT be less stringent than BPT.

EPA published its methodology forcarrying out the BCT analysis on August29, 1979 (44 FR 50732. In the casementioned above, the Court of Appealsordered EPA to correct data errorsunderlying EPA's calculation of the firsttest, and to apply the second cost test.(EPA had argued that a second cost testwas not required.)

For the battery manufacturingcategory, EPA has determined that theBAT technology sequence (lime andsettle following in-process flowreduction) is capable of removingsignificant amounts of conventionalpollutants. However, EPA has not yetpromulgated a revised BCT methodologyin response to the American PaperInstitute v. EPA decision mentionedearlier. Thus, EPA is deferring a decisionon appropriate BCT limitations.

XIV. Regulated pollutants

The basis upon which the controlledpollutants were selected, as well as thegeneral nature and environmentaleffects of these pollutants, are set out inSections V, VI, IX and X and XII of theDevelopment Document. Some of thesepollutants are designated toxic underSection 307(a) of the Act. The Agencyhas deleted the following threepollutants from the toxic pollutant list:dichlorodifluroromethane, January 8,1981, (44 FR 2266);trichlorofluoromethane, January 8, 1981.(46 FR 2266); and bis-(chloromethyl)ether, February 4, 1981, (46 FR 10723).

A. BPT

The pollutants and pollutantproperties regulated by the BPTlimitations are cadmium, chromium.cobalt, copper, cyanide, iron, lead,manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc,TSS, oil and grease, and pH. Not all ofthese pollutants are controlled in allsubcategories; regulation is establishedonly where subcategories will beregulated and the pollutant appears insignificant amounts in the raw waste.The discharge is controlled by maximumdaily and monthly average mass effluentlimitations stated in milligrams (mg) ofeach pollutant per kilogram (kg) ofproduction normalizing parameter perprocess.

B. BAT and NSPS

The pollutants specifically limited byBAT and NSPS are cadmium, chromium,cobalt, copper, cyanide, iron, lead,manganese, mercury, nickel, silver, andzinc. In addition NSPS controls COD,TSS, oil and grease, and pH. Not all ofthese pollutants are controlled in eachof the subcategories; regulation isestablished only where the pollutantappears in significant amounts in theraw waste. For new sources in thelithium and magnesium subcategories,EPA is proposing a TSS limitation tocontrol asbestos. The analytical methodused for screening analysis to determinethe concentration of asbestos is not anapproved EPA method and though themethod is the most viable one available,there are serious concerns as to itsprecision and accuracy. Accordingly,asbestos (chrysotile) will be controlledat NSPS by the limitations on TSS.Compliance with the TSS limitation willassure removal of suspended solidswhich will include the removal ofasbestos fibers. The use of TSS as anindicator for asbestos removal has beendemonstrated in the DevelopmentDocument supporting the Ore Miningand Dressing Point Source Category (40CFR 434).

51065


Discharge is controlled by maximumdaily and monthly average mass effluentlimitations stated in mg of eachpollutant per kg of productionnormalizing parameter per process.

C. PSES and PSNS

The pollutants regulated at PSES andPSNS are the same as those limited byBAT and NSPS, respectively, except thatiron, TSS, oil and grease, COD, and pHare not limited in pretreatment. POTWmay use iron as a coagulant in thetreatment process and are specificallydesigned to treat the conventionalpollutants, including oxygen demand.Not all of the pollutants are controlled inall subcategories; regulation isestablished only where subcategorieswill be regulated and the pollutantappears in a significant concentration inthe raw waste.

Appendix B to this notice contains atabulation for each subcategory of thetoxic pollutants that are limited by thisregulation.

XV. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

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

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

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

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants that aredetectable from only a small number ofsources within the subcategories andare uniquely related to those sources.Appendix E to this notice lists for eachsubcategory the toxic pollutants whichwere detected in the effluents of only

one plant and are uniquely related toonly that plant, and are not related tothe manufacturing processes understudy.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii] also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants present inamounts too small to be effectivelyreduced by technologies consideredapplicable to the category. Appendix Flists those toxic pollutants which are nottreatable using technologies consideredapplicable to the category.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation specific pollutants which willbe effectively controlled by thetechnologies upon which are basedother effluent limitations and guidelines,standards of performance orpretreatment standards. The toxicpollutants considered for regulation, butexcluded from control because adequateprotection is now provided by thisregulation through the control of otherpollutants, are listed for eachsubcategory in Appendix G of thisnotice.

Paragraph 8(a)(iv) and 8(b){ii) of theRevised Settlement Agreement allow theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation subcategories for which theamount and the toxicity of pollutants inthe discharge does not justifydeveloping national regulations. Somesubcategories of the batterymanufacturing industry meet thisprovision and are excluded from someparts of this regulation. Thesesubcategories are listed in Appendix Gto this notice. The nuclear subcategoryis excluded from all regulation sincethere are no currently operating plantsand plans are not being made to resumeproduction. For BPT and BAT, foursubcategories are excluded. Currentlythere are no direct dischargers in thecalcium Leclanche, or magnesiumsubcategories. The amount and toxicityof direct pollutant dischagres (less than100 lb/yr of toxic pollutants) in thelithium subcategory does not justifydeveloping national regulations. ForPSES, two subcategories are excluded.Currently the amount and toxicity ofpollutants discharged (less than lb./yr oftoxic pollutants) in the calcium andlithium subcategories do not justifydeveloping national regulations.

XVI. Cost and Economic ImpactExecutive Order 12291 requires EPA

and other agencies to perform regulatoryimpact analyses of major regulations.Major rules impose an annual cost to theeconomy of $100 million or more or meetother economic impact criteria. Theproposed regulation for batterymanufacturing is not a major rule and

therefore does not require a formalregulatory impact analysis. Thisproposed rulemaking satisfies therequirement of the Executive Order for anon-major rule. The Agency's regulatorystrategy considered both the cost andthe economic impacts of the proposedrulemaking.

The economic impact assessment ispresented in Economic Impact Analysisof Proposed Effluent Standards andLimitations for the BatteryManufacturing Industry, EPA 440/2-082-002. This report details theinvestment and annual costs for theindustry as a whole and for typicalplants covered by the proposedregulation. Compliance costs are basedon engineering estimates of capitalrequirements for the effluent-controlsystems described earlier in thispreamble. Cost estimates for hazardouswaste disposal are also included in theanalysis. The report assesses the impactof effluent control costs in terms of pricechanges, production changes, plantclosures, employment effects, andbalance of trade effects. These impactsare discussed in the report for each ofthe regulatory option. Many of the dataused in the Economic Impact Analysisreport are primarily from 1977, withsome of the data updated wherepossible. The Agency plans to furtherupdate much of the industry backgrounddata before promulgation.

EPA has identified 258 facilities thatproduce the types of batteries coveredby this regulation. Total investment forBAT and PSES is estimated to be $24.8million, with annual costs of $6.4million, including depreciation and.interest. These costs are expressed in1982 dollars and are based on thedetermination that plants will movefrom existing treatment to either BAT orPSES. No significant economic impacts(e.g., plant closures or unemployment)are projected as a result of compliancecosts for this regulation. Maximum priceincreases if all costs were passed on toconsumers are small, ranging from 0.04to 0.3 percent. Balance of trade effectsare insignificant.

In order to measure the potentialeconomit impacts, the industry wassubcategorized by the type of batteryproduct, described by a cathode-anodepair. The analytical approach included ascreening analysis to identify plantswith potentially significant impacts,followed by financial analysis ofindividual plants. The plant-by-plantanalysis focuses on profitability andcapital requirements. Bothcharacteristics are examined throughstandard financial analysis techniques.Plant closure determinations are based


primarily on measures of financialperformance such as return on assets,internal rate of return, and complianceinvestment cost.

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

BPT. BPT regulations are proposed fordirect dischargers in three technicalsubcategories: zinc, cadmium, and lead.These regulations will affect 23facilities. Investment costs for BPT are$0.9 million; total annual costs are $0.4million. There are no significanteconomic impacts projected as a resultof BPT.

BAT

BAT regulations are proposed fordirect dischargers in the same threesubcategories. To comply directly withBAT twenty-three facilities will incurinvestment costs of $2.8 million andannual costs of $0.8 million. Theseregulations, as proposed, do not result insignificant economic impacts.

PSES

Pretreatment standards are proposedfor indirect dischargers in five technicalsubcategories: Leclanche, zinc,cadmium, magnesium, and lead.Investment costs for 131 facilities are$25.0 million; total annualized costs are$6.2 million. There are no plant closuresprojected as a result of PSES.

NSPS and PSNS

Battery manufacturing appears to begrowing at a rate slightly greater thanthat of the GNP. The industry isexperiencing technological advancesand appears to be following a long-termtrend towards fewer and larger plants.Regulations for new sources are notexpected to significantly discourageentry into the industry or result in any

differential economic impacts to newplants.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pub. L. 96-354 requires EPA to preparean Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysisfor all proposed regulations that have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. The analysismay be conducted in conjuction with oras part of other Agency analyses. Asmall business analysis for this industryis included in the economic impactanalysis.

Value of production is the primaryvariable used to distinguish firm size.The smallest size category includes 63facilities (24 percent of the total) withannual revenues of less than $1 millioneach. The Agency invites comment onthis size definition. Annual BAT andPSES compliance costs for these smallplants are $170 thousand, andinvestment costs are $482 thousand. The'economic analysis details the impactsassociated with this proposed rule andwith the other regulatory options theAgency considered. For this proposedrulemaking, there are no significantimpacts on small firms; therefore, aformal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis isnot required.

XVIL Non-Water Quality Aspects ofPollution Control

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Therefore,Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Actrequire EPA to consider the non-waterquality environmental impacts(including energy requirements) ofcertain regulations. In compliance withthese provisions, EPA has consideredthe effect of this regulation on airpollution, solid waste generation, andenergy consumption. This proposal wascirculated to and reviewed by EPApersonnel responsible for non-waterquality environmental programs. Whileit is always difficult to balance pollutionproblems against each other and againstenergy utilization, EPA is proposingregulations that it believes best serveoften competing national goals.

The following are the non-waterquality environmental impactsassociated with the proposed regulatonsand are discussed in Section VIII of theDevelopment Document:

A. Air Pollution

Imposition of BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,and PSNS will not create anysubstantial air pollution problems.

B. Solid Waste

EPA estimates that batterymanufacturing plants generate a total of

18,960 kkg of solid waste per year frommanufacturing process operations, andan indeterminate amount of solid wastefrom wastewater treatment. Wastewatertreatment sludges contain toxic metalsincluding cadmium, chromium, copper,lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.

EPA estimates that the proposed BPTlimitations will contribute an additional9,176 kkg per year of solid wastes.Proposed BAT and PSES will contributeapproximately 54,280 kkg per year.These sludges will necessarily-containadditional quantities (andconcentrations) of toxic metalpollutants.

Some solid wastes, including somewastewater treatment sludges, may behazardous under the regulationsimplementing subtitle C of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Under those regulations,generators of these wastes must test thewastes to determine whether they meetany of the characteristics of hazardouswaste (see 40 CFR § 262.11, 45 FR 33142-331143 (May 19, 1980)), The Agency mayalso list these sludges as hazardous(toxic and reactive) pursuant to 40 CFR261.11 (45 FR 33121 (May 19, 1980).

Wastes identified as hazardous comewithin the scope of RCRA's "cradle tograve" hazardous waste managementprogram, requiring regulation from thepoint of generation to point of finaldisposition. EPA's generator standardswould require generators of batterymanufacturing wastes to meetcontainerization, labeling,recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements; if they dispose of wastesoff-site, battery manufacturers wouldhave to prepare a manifesto that tracksthe movement of the wastes from thegenerator's premises to a permitted off-site treatment, storage, or disposal ,facility. (See 45 FR 33143, May 19,1980.)The transporter regulations requiretransporters of battery manufacturingwastes to comply with the manifestsystem to assure that the wastes aredelivered to a permitted facility. (See45 FR 33151-33152 (May 19, 1980).Finally, RCRA regulations establishstandards for hazardous wastetreatment, storage and disposal facilitiesallowed to receive such wastes.

Even if these wastes are not identifiedas hazardous, they still are subject todisposal in compliance with the subtitleD landfill standards, implementingS4004 of RCRA. (See 44 FR 53438,September 13, 1979.)

The economic impact assessmentused preliminary estimates ($287,0001978 dollars) of costs associated withcompliance of RCRA regulations. Thisassessment, which considered both

51067

51068 Federal Register /. Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules

manufacturing process solid wastes andwastewater treatment sludges, indicatedthat the costs do not result in anyadditional economic impacts. A morerecent and detailed analysis of solidwastes generated by batterymanufacturers indicates that annualcosts for compliance with RCRA($140,000, 1978 dollars) are less thanthose used in the economic assessment.

For the total category, solid wasteswere costed as being subject to the fullRCRA requirements for hazardouswastes in the detailed analysis if thewastes had hazardous characteristics asdefined under Subtitle C of RCRA and ifthe total amounts of hazardous wastegenerated at a manufacturing siteexceeded 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) per month.Costs were separated for hazardouswastewater treatment sludges andmanufacturing process wastes (spentconcentrated solutions, reject batteries,and raw material trimmings). Theanalysis concluded that only sevenplants in the category would incur costsfrom wastewater treatment sludges. Thetotal category annual cost for RCRAdisposal of hazardous wastewatertreatment sludges generated as a resultof this regulation for existing plants isestimated at $34,000 1978 dollars. Noimpact on the category is anticipatedfrom handling hazardous wastewatertreatment sludges. Costs for newsources are expected to be similar orless than the costs for existing plantsbecause of the alternatives available fora new plant.

C. Energy Requirements

The battery industry i'n 1977 usedabout 1.16 billion kilowatt hours ofenergy. This regulation does notsignificantly affect the energyrequirements of the industry. EPAestimates that the achievement ofproposed BPT effluent limitations willresult in a net increase in electricalenergy consumption of approximately0.24 million kilowatt-hours per year.Proposed BAT limitations are projectedto add another 0.17 million kilowatt-hours to electrical energy consumption.

The Agency estimates that proposedPSES will result in a net increase inelectrical energy consumption ofapproximately 0.91 million kilowatt-hours per year.

The energy requirements for NSPSand PSNS are estimated to be similar toenergy requirements for BAT. Moreaccurate estimates are difficult to makebecause projections for new plantconstruction are variable.

XVIII. Best Management Practices

Section 304(e) of the' Clean Water Actauthorizes the Administrator to

prescribe "best management practices"(BMP), described under Authority andBackground. EPA is not now consideringpromulgating BMP specific to the batterymanufacturing category.

XIX. Upset And Bypass Provisions

An issue of recurrent concern hasbeen whether industry guidelines shouldinclude provisions authorizingnoncompliance with effluent limitationsduring periods of "upset" or "bypass."An upset, sometimes called an"excursion," is unintentionalnoncompliance occurring for reasonsbeyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. It has been argued that anupset provision in EPA's effluentlimitations guidelines is necessarybecause such upsets will inevitablyoccur due to limitations in even properlyoperated control equipment. Becausetechnology-based limitations are torequire only what technology canachieve, it is claimed that liability forsuch situations is improper. Whenconfronted with this issue, courts havebeen divided on the question of whetheran explicit upset or excursion exemptionis necessary or whether upset orexcursion incidents may be handledthrough EPA's exercise of enforcementdiscretion. Compare Marathon Oil Co. v.EPA, 564 F. 2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1977) withWeyerhaeuser v. Castle, supra and CornRefiners Association, et al. v. Castle,No. 78-1069 (8th Cir., April 2, 1979]. Seealso American Petroleum Institute v.EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976); CPCInternational, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1320(8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train, 539F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976)..

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

EPA has determined that both upsetand bypass provisions should beincluded in NPDES permits, and hasrecently promulgated NPDES regulationsthat include upset and bypass permitprovisions. (See 40 CFR 122.60 and 45 FR33290, May 19, 1980.) The upsetprovision establishes air upset as anaffirmative defense to prosecution forviolation of technology-based effluentlimitations. The bypass provisionauthorizes bypassing to prevent loss oflife, personal injury, or severe propertydamage. Permittees in batterymanufacturing will be entitled to thegeneral upset and bypass provisions inNPDES permits. Thus these proposedregulations do not address these issues.

XX. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of finalregulations, the numerical effluentlimitations for the appropriatesubcategory must be applied in allFederal and State NPDES permitsthereafter issued to batterymanufacturing direct dischargers. Inaddition, on promulgation, thepretreatment limitations are directlyapplibable to indirect dischargers.

For the BPT effluent limitations, theonly exception to the binding limitationsis EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" variance. See E. I. duPont deNemours and Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112(1977); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Castle,supra; EPA v. National Crushed StoneAssociation, et a] U.S. (No. 79-770,decided December 2, 1980). Thisvariance recognizes that there may befactors concerning a particulardischarger that are fundamentallydifferent from the factors considered inthis rulemaking. This variance clausewas originally set forth in EPA's 1973-1976 industry regulations. It now will beincluded in the general NPDESregulations and will not be included inthe battery manufacturing or otherspecific industry regulations. See theNPDES regulation, 40 CFR 125, SubpartD, 44 FR 32854, 32893 (June 7, 1979) and45 FR 33512 (May 19, 1980) for the textand explanation of the "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance.

Dischargers subject to the BATlimitations are also eligible for EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. In addition, BAT limitationsfor nonconventional pollutants may bemodified under sections 301 (c) and (g)of the Act. Section 301(1) precludes theAdministrator from modifying BATrequirements for any pollutants whichare on the toxic pollutant list undersection 307(1)(1) of the Act. Theeconomic modification section (301(c))gives the Administrator authority tomodify BAT requirements for -nonconventional pollutants fordischargers who file a permitapplication after July 1, 1977, upon ashowing that such modifiedrequirements will (1) represent themaximum use of technology within theeconomic capability of the owner oroperator and (2) result in reasonablefurther progress toward the eliminationof the discharge of pollutants. Theenvironmental modification section (301(g)) allows the Administrator, with theconcurrence of the State, to modify BATlimitations for nonconventionalpollutants from any point source upon ashowing by the owner or operator of


such point source satisfactory to theAdministrator that:

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

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

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

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

The nonconventional pollutantslimited under BAT in this regulation arecobalt, iron, and manganese. Noregulation establishing criteria for 301(c)and 301(g) determinations have beenproposed or promulgated, but theAgency recently announced in the April12, 1982, Regulatory Agenda plans topropose such regulations by December,1982 (47 FR 15720]. All dischargers whofile an initial application within 270days will be sent a copy of thesubstantive requirements for 301(c) and301(g) determinations once they arepromulgated. Modificationdeterminations will be considered at thetime the NPDES permit is beingreissued.

Pretreatment standards for existingsources are subject to the

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

XXI. Relationship To NPDES PermitsThe BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations

in this regulation will be applied toindividual battery manufacturing plantsthrough NPDES permits issued by EPAor approved State agencies undersection 402 of the Act. The precedingsection of this preamble discussed thebinding effect of this regulation onNPDES permits, except to the extentthat variances and modifications areexpressly authorized, this sectiondescribes several other aspects of theinteraction of these regulations andNPDES permits.

One matter that has been subject todifferent judicial views is the scope ofNPDES permit proceedings in theabsence of effluent limitations,guidelines, and standards. Under currentEPA regulations, states and EPA regionsthat issued NPDES permits beforeregulations are promulgated do so on acase-by-case basis on consideration ofthe statutory factors. (See U.S. SteelCarp. v. Train, 556 F. 2d 822, 844,854 7thCir. 1977.) In these situations, EPAdocuments and draft documents(including these proposed regulationsand supporting documents) are relevantevidence, but not binding, in NPDESpermit proceedings. (See 44 FR 32854,June 7, 1979.)

Another noteworthy topic is the effectof this regulation on the powers ofNPDES permit-issuing authorities. Thepromulgation of this regulation does notrestrict the power of any permit-issuingauthority to act in any mannerconsistent with law or these or anyother EPA regulations, guidelines, orpolicy For example, the fact that thisregulation does not control a particularpollutant does not preclude the permitissuer from limiting such pollutant on acase-by-case basis, when necessary tocarry out the purposes of the Act. Inaddition, to the extent that State waterquality standards or other provisions ofState or Federal law require limitationof pollutants not covered by thisregulation (or require more stringentlimitations on covered pollutants), suchlimitations must be applied by thepermit-issuing authority.

One additional topic that warrantsdiscussion is the operation of EPA's

NPDES enforcement program, manyaspects of which have been consideredin developing this regulation. Theagency wishes to emphasize that,although the Clean Water Act is a strictliability statute, the initiation ofenforcement proceedings by EPA isdiscretionary (Sierra Club v. Train, 557F 2nd. 485, 5th Cir. 1977]. EPA hasexercised and intends to exercise thatdiscretion in a manner that recognizesand promotes good faith complianceefforts.

XXII. Summary of Public Participation

In September 1980, EPA circulated adraft technical Development Documentto all battery manufacturers whoreturned data collection portfolios andto other parties who requested it. Thisdocument did not includerecommendations for effluent limitationsand standards, but rather presented thetechnical basis for this proposedregulation. A meeting was held inWashington, D.C. on November 3, 1980,for public discussion of comments onthis doucment. Seven commenterssubmitted comments on six particularareas in the Development Document. Allcomments and responses can be foundin the record to this rulemaking. A briefsummary of all comments receivedfollows:

1. Comment: Sulfide precipitationtechnology presents operational hazardsto the operators and produces sludgesthat may be both toxic and reactivehazardous wastes.

Response: Problems associated withsulfide precipitation technology havebeen addressed and are discussedabove in the discussion of the BAT leadsubcategory.

2. Comment: Reverse osmosistechnology has some operationalproblems which include frequentplugging and rupturing of themembranes,

Response: With the use of inadequatemembranes and improper operation,reverse osmosis technology does havesome implementation problems.However, by selecting the appropriatemembranes and properly maintainingsystem pressures, both frequent pluggingand rupturing of the membranes isprevented.

3. Comment: There is agreement anddisagreement with the treatmenteffectiveness concentrations to be usedfor certain metals. One commenter didnot agree with the mercury and zincconcentrations and indicated that bothshould be 0.1 mg/1. Another commenterdid not agree with the silver number andindicated that it should be equal to thehazardous waste concentration of 0.5

51069


mg/1. Another commenter indicatedsupport for the nickel concentration, butnot for the cadmium concentration.

Response: For the mercury and zinccomments, no supportive data wasprovided; therefore, EPA will continueto rely on the data discussed in SectionVII of the Development Document. Forthe silver comment, a comparison ofhazardous waste concentrations witheffluent limits is inappropriate.Treatment effectiveness is based on anextensive statistical analysis oftreatment effectiveness data collectedfrom sampling and analysis performedby the Agency. The use of RCRA toxicconcentration limits is inappropriatebecause it reflects solubility of toxicmaterials under certain extractionprocesses rather than the level oftreatment achievable by the specifiedtreatment. The data base used forcadmium treatment has been expandedand the treatment effectivenessconcentrations have changed. Thecommenter's data suppoft the nickel andcadmium concentration values used forproposal.

4. Comment: Concentration only,rather than a production-related mass ofpollutants, should be used forlimitations. .

Response: Concentration basedlimitations do not restrict the totalquantity of pollutants discharged sincethe flow volume is not restricted andmay vary widely, nor are they related tothe production rate of any specific plant.Concentration based limitations allowunlimited quantities to be discharged aslong as the pollutants remain at orbelow a specified concentration in thedischarge. Since it is important to limitthe quantity of a toxic pollutantdischarged in relationship to the size ofthe production plant, mass-basedproduction related limitations arepreferred wherever feasible.

5. Comment: The "foliar" battery isdifferent from other batteries in theLeclanche subcategory.

Response: Although different inphysical configuration, the "foliar"battery uses the same raw materials andgenerates wastewater withcharacteristics similar to other plants inthe Leclanche subcategory. Plants in thissubcatetory can reuse the wastewaterthey are now treating and attain zerodischarge.

6. Comment: Some information onplants should be added to the text andsome tables; also there are some minorerrors.

Response: Information needed forclarification was added; however,information that would releaseconfidential information was not. Other

changes and corrections were made asappropriate.

XXIII. Solicitation of CommentsEPA invites and encourages public

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

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

1. The Agency is continuing to seekadditional data to support theseproposed limitations. The treatmenteffectiveness data set forth in thetechnical Development Document arebased on the results of Agency samplingof the raw wastewaters and treatedeffluents from a broad range of plantsgenerating similar wastewaters. TheAgency invites comments on thetreatment effectiveness results, and thestatistical analysis and underlyingassumptions discussed in Section VII ofthe Development Document as theypertain to the battery manufacturingplants. The Agency specifically requestslong-term sampling data (especiallypaired raw wastewater-treatedeffluent data) from batterymanufacturing plants having welloperated treatment systems using thetreatment technologies relied upon forthis regulation, and also other equallyeffective treatment technologies.

2. The Agency requests long-termsampling data (especially paired rawwastewater-treated effluent data) fromany plants treating cadmium that usechemical precipitation and settlingtechnology.

3. The Agency requests comments onthe Agency's consideration of selectingchemical precipitation, settling andfiltration technology instead of onlychemical precipitation and settling forthe final regulation.

4. The Agency requests comments onthe costs which might be incurred byexisting plants for retrofitting toimplement sulfide precipitation, inexchange and reverse osmosistechnologies.

5. The Agency is considering basinglimitations for all mercury containingwastewaters on sulfide precipitationtechnology for existing as well as newplants. The Agency solicits commentsand data from plants in the categoryconcerning the reasonableness andpotential costs of this alternative.

6. To determine the economic impactof this regulation, the Agency hascalculated the cost of installing BPT,BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS for eachbattery manufacturing facility for which

data was available. The details of theestimated costs and other impacts arepresented in Section VIII of thetechnical Development Document and inthe Economic Impact Analysis. Based onthese analyses, the Agency projects noplant closures or employment losses asa result of this regulation. Because theAgency did not have plant specific dataon some financial measures as suchdata is often proprietary the Agencyused industry-wide ranges or averages.The Agency invites comments on theseanalyses and projections. The Agencyhas selected and is proposing BAT,PSES, and new source options that aresubstantially more costly than lessstringent options. The Agencyparticularly seeks comment on whetherthis incremental cost is achievable bybattery manufacturers; especially thosethat are small or less profitable.Commenters should not focus only onthe likelihood of plant closures andemployment losses but should alsoinclude data on the effects of theregulation on: modernization orexpansion of production, productioncosts, the ability to finance non-environmental investments, productprices, profitability, availability of lesscostly technology and internationalcompetitiveness.

7. In the cost estimates the Agencyhas not considered cost savingsparticularly those associated with waterflow reduction, process chemical andmetal recovery, and processsubstitution. For example, the Agencyestimated that the water use andsewerage savings for indirectdischargers in the lead subcategory mayamount to about one third of the costestimated for flow reduction technology.Similarly, substantial savings appear tobe probable in other areas such asenergy savings, chemical savings andmetals recovery. The Agency invitescomments and requests that cost dataand documentation particularly in thelead subcategory be submitted to theAgency.

8. The Agency has estimated thatthere is minimal cost impact imposed onthe battery manufacturing category fromdealing with hazardous wastewatertreatment sludges resulting from theproposed treatment systems. The detailsof these cost estimations are outlined inthe technical Development Document.The Agency invites comments on'thisconclusion and requests thatcommenters submit any relevanthazardous waste and sludge data, andcost data to the Agency.9. Most of the existing plants in the

battery manufacturing categorydischarge to POTW. Because battery


wastewaters and sludges containsubstantial amounts of toxic metals, theAgency invites comments and anysupporting data concerning theincompatibility of battery manufacturingwastwaters with the POTW treatmentsystems or sludge disposition.

The proposed regulation wassubmitted to the Office of-Managementand Budget for review as required byExecutive Order 12291.'

XXIV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part461

Battery manufacturing, Waterpollution control, Waste treatment anddisposal.

Dated: October 29, 1982.Anne M. Gorsuch,Administrator.

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronyms andOther Terms Used in this NoticeAct-The Clean Water ActAgency-The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

BAT-The best available technologyeconomically achievable under section304(b)(2)(b) of the Act

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

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

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

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

Clean Water Act-The Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of 1972(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by theClean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217)

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

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

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

NSPS-New source performance standardsunder section 308 of the Act

POTW-Publicly owned treatment worksPSES-Pretreatment standards for existing

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

PSNS-Pretreatment standards for newsources of direct discharges under section307(b) and (c) of the Act

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

Appendix B-Toxic Pollutants Limited byThis Regulation(a) Subpart A-Cadmium Subcategory

118 Cadmium124 Nickel126 Silver

128 .Zinc(b) Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory

116 Asbestos119 Chromium

9(c) Subpart C-Lead Subcategory120 Copper122 Lead

(d) Subpart D-Leclanche Subcategory115 Arsenic118 Cadmium119 Chromium120 Copper122 Lead123 Mercury124 Nickel125 Selenium128 Zinc

9(e) Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory119 Chromium122 . Lead

(f) Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory119 Chromium122 Lead126 Silver

(g) Subpart G-Zinc Subcategory119 Chromium121 Cyanide

•123 Mercury124 Nickel126 Silver128 Zinc

Appendix C-Toxic Pollutants Not Detected(a) Subpart A--Cadmium Subcategory

001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile004 Benzene005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane011 1,1,1-trichloroethane012 hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane014 1,1,2-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethyphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether

042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane051 Chlorodibromomethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone055 Napthalene056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine064 Pentachlorophenol065 Phenol067 Butyl benzylphthalate068 Di-N-butyl phthalate069 Di-N-octyl phthalate070 Diethyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

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

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

(benzo(b)fluoranthene076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene

(benzo(ghi)perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

dibenzo(,h)anthracene083 ldeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-

phenylene pyrene)084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

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

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

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)

51071


113 Toxaphene114 Antimony115 Arsenic125 Selenium127 Thallium129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)(b) Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile004 Benzene005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorogenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane011 1,1,1-trichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1,1-dichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethylphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene038 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)048 Dichlorobromomethane)049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichldrodifluoromethane051 Chlorodibromomethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone055 Napthalene056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine065 Phenol067 Butyl benzylphthalate069 Di-N-octyl phthalate070 Diethyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene)

073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

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

(benzo(b~fluoranthene)076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene

(benzo(ghi~perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene dibenzo

(,h)anthracene083 ldeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-

pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene087 Trichloroethylene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

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

hexachlorocyclohexane)102 Alpha-BHC -103 Beta-BHC104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)105 Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254]108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260]112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene121 Cyanide, Total129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)(c) Subpart C-Lead Subcategory

002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane014 1,1,2-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene022 Parachlorometa cresol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene

032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1.3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethylphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine040 4-chlorophyenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bormomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane}049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine071 Dimethyl phthalate077 Acenaphthylene079 1,12-benzoperylene

(benzo(ghi)perylene)082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

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

pheynylene pyrene).085 Tetrachloroethylene

088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)092 4,4-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)094 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 Heptachlor102 Alpha-BHC103 Beta-BHC104 Gamma-BHC (lindane)105 Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232]110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1216 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene116 Asbestos125 Selenium127 Thallium129 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)(d) Subpart D-Leclanche Subcategory

001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile004 Benzene005 Benzidine


006 Carbon tetrachloride(tetrachloromethane)

007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane014 1,1,21trichloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1.3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethyphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether03 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone055 Napthalene056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine064 Pentachlorophenol068 Di-n-butyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)074 3,5-Benzofluoranthene


(benzo(b)fluoranthene]076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)

perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

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

phenynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene

087 Trichloroethylene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

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

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

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254(Arochlor 1254)108 PCB 1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 12321110' PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene116 Asbestos127 Thallium

(e) Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile004 Benzene005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl] ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethyphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bes (2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl choloride (dichloromethane)

046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane051 Chlorodibromomethane052 Ifexachlorobutadiene053 Ilexachloromyclopentadiene054 tsophorone055 Napthalene056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine063 Phenol069 Di-N-octyl phthalate070 Diethyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzo(a)anthracene)073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrenej074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene


(benzo(b)fluoranthene)076 Chiysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene

(benzo(ghi)perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

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

pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabloites)092 4,4-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p, p-DDX)04 4.4-DDD (p, p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 1eptachlor101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

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

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene

(f0 Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile004 Benzene

51073


005 Benzidine008 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane011 1,1,1-trichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1,3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3.3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichlopropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethyphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis[2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)049 Trichlorofluoromentane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone055 Napthalene056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2.4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine082 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine065 Phenol067 Butyl benzylphthalate070 Diethyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

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


(benzo(b)fluoranthene)076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1.12-benzoperylene

(benzo(ghi~perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

dibenzo(,h)anthracene

083 ldeno(1.2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-pheynylene pyrene)

084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene088 Vinyl chioride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane ftechnical mixture and

metabolites)092 4A-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)094 4.4-DDD (p,p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 Heptachlor101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

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

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene121 Cyanide. Total

(g) Subpart C-Zinc Subcategory001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hlexachlorobenzene010 1.2-dichloroethane012 Hexachloroethane015 1 1,2.2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane017 Bis (chloromethyl) ether018 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene022 Parachlorometa cresol025 1.2-dichlorobenzene026 1.3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3.3-dichlorobenzidine031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichlorepropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethyphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)049 Trichlorofluoromethane050 Dichlorodifluoromethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene

053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4-dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene

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


(benzo(b)fluoranthene)076 Chrysene079 1,12-benzoperylene

(benzo(ghi~peryiene)082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene

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

pheynylene pyrenej.088 Vinyl chloride (chlorethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

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

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

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene116 Asbestos127 Thallium

Appendix D-Toxic Pollutants DetectdBelow the Nominal Quantification Limit(a) Subpart A-Cadmium Subcategory

044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)048 Dichlorobromo methane066 Bis[2-ethylhexyll) phthalate087 Trichloroethylene117 Beryllium

(b) Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory064 Pentachlorophenol068 Di-N-butyl phthalate086 Toluene114 Antimony115 Arsenic117 Beryllium125 Selenium127 Thallium

(c) Subpart C-Lead Subcategory001 Acenapthene


004 Benzene021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol024 2-chlorophenol026 1,3-dichlorobenzene031 2,4-dichlorophenol038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)048 Dichlorobromethane051 Chlorodibromomethane065 Phenol072 1,2-benzanthracene

(benzola)anthracene)073 Benzo(a)pyrene (3, 4-benzopyrene)074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthen'e)075 11,12-benzofluoranthene

(benzo(b)fluoranthene)076 Chrysene080 Fluorene084 Pyrene087 Trichloroethylene101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocyclohexane117 Beryllium121 Cyanide, Total

(d) Subpart D-Leclanche Subcategory011 1,1,1-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane044 Methylene Chloride

(dichloromethane)048 Dichlorobromomethane051 Chlorodibromomethane065 Phenol066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate067 Butyl benzyl-phthalate068 Di-n-butyl phthalate069 Di-n-octyl phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate096 Toluene117 Beryllium126 Silver

(e) Subpart E-Lithium SubcategoryOil 1,1,1-trichloroethane064 Pentachlorophenol007 Butyl benzly-phthalate068 Di-n-butyl phthalate086 Toluene087 Trichloroethylene114 Antimony115 Arsenic117 Beryllium123 Mercury125 Selenium127 Thallium

(f) Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory064 Pentachlorophenol068 Di-n-butyl phthalate085 Toluene087 Trichloroethylene101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC

hexachlorohexane)1141 Antimony11.5 Arsenic117 Beryllium125 Selenium127 Thallium

(g) Subpart G-Zinc Subcategory004 Benzene014 1,1,2-trichloroethane•021 2,4,6-trichlorophenol024 2-chlorophenol029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene038 Ethylbenzene

067 Butyl benzyl-phthalate068 Di-n-butyl phthalate070 Diethyl phthalate077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene080 Fluorene081 Phenanthrene084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene086 Toluene087 Trichloroethylene114 Antimony117 Beryllium

Appendix E-Toxic Pollutants Detected Froma Small Number of Sources(a) Subpart A-Cahnium Subcategory

023 Chiloroform (trichloromethane)086 Toluene116 Asbestos120 Copper

(b) Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl phthalate

(c) Subpart C-Lead Subcategory066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate067 Butyl benzyl-phtalate068 Di-n.butyl hthalate069 Di-n-octyl phthalate078 Anthracene081 Phenanthrene086 Toluene

(d) Subpart D-Leclanche Subcategory023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)114 Antimony121 Cyanide, Total

(e) -Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

(f) Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)066 Bis(2-ethylbexyl) phthalate069 Di-n-octyl phthalate

(g) Subpart G-Zinx Subcategory023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)064 Pentachlorophenol065 Phenol066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

Appendix F-Toxic Pollutants Detected inSmall Amounts

(a) Subpart A-Cadmium SubcategoryNone

(b) Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory014 1, 1, 2-trichloroethane023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)118 Cadmium120 Copper122 Lead124 Nickel1.26 Silver128 Zinc

(c) Subpart C-Lead Subcategory011 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)055 Napthalene115 Arscnic

(d) Subpart D-Lechanche Subcategory070 Diethyl Pthalate

(el Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory014 1, 1, 2-trichloroethane023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane]118 Cadmium120 Copper121 Cyanide, Total124 Nickel

126 Silver(f) Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory

014 1, 1, 2-trichloroethane044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)048 Dichlorobromomethane118 Cadmium120 Copper123 Mercury123 Nickel128 Zinc

(g) Subpart G-Zinc Subcategory011 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane013 1, 1-dichloroethane044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)055 Napthalene

Appendix G-Toxic Pollutants Controlled ButNot Specifically Regulated

(a] Subpart A-Cadmium Subcategory119 Chromium121 Cyanide122 Lead123 Mercury

(b) Subpart B-Calcium SubcategoryNone

(c) Subpart C-Lead Subcategory114 Antimony118 Cadmium119 Chromium123 Mercury124 Nickel125 Silver128 Zinc

(d) Subpart D-Leclanche SubcategoryNone

(e) Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory116 Asbestos128 Zinc

(f) Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory116 Asbestos

(g) Subpart C-Zinc Subcategory115 Arsenic118 Cadmium120 Copper122 Lead125 Selenium

Appendix H-Subcategories Not Regulated

(a) BPTCalciumLeclancheMagnesiumNuclear

(b) BAT, BCTCalciumLeclancheLithiumMagnesiumNuclear

(C] PSESCalciumLithiumNuclear

(d) NSPS, PSNSNuclearEPA proposes to establish a new Part

461 to read as follows:

PART 461-BATTERYMANUFACTURING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.461.01 Applicability.

51075


Sec.461.02 General definitions.461.03 Monitoring and reporting

requirements.

461.04 Compliance date for PSES.Subpart A-Cadmium Subcategory461.10 Applicability; description of the

cadmium subcategory.461.11 Effluent limitations representing the

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

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

461.13 New source performance standards,461.14 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources.461.15 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.461.16 [Reserved].Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory461.20 Applicability; description of the

calcium subcategory.461.21 [Reserved].461.22 (Reserved].461.23 New source performance standards.461.24 [Reserved].461.25 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.461.26 [Reserved].

Subpart C-Lead Subcategory461.30 Applicability; description of the lead

subcategory.461.31 Effluent limitations representing the


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

461.33 New source preformance standards.461.34 Pretreatment standards for existing


sources.461.36 [Reserved).

Subpart D-Leclanche Subcategory461.40 Applicability; description of the

Leclanche subcategory.461.41 [Reserved].461.42 [Reserved].461.43 New source performance standards.461.44 Pretreatment standards for existing



Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory461.50 Applicability; description of the

lithium subcategory..461.51 [Reserved].

461.52 (Reserved].461.53 New source performance standards.461.54 [Reserved].461.55 Pretreatment standards for new


Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory461.60 Applicability; description of the

Sec.magnesium subcategory.

461.61 ]Reservedl.461.62 [Reserved].461.63 New source performance standards.461.64 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources.461.65 Pretreatmen . standards for new


Subpart G-Zinc Subcategory461.70 Applicability; description of the zinc

subcategory.461.71 Effluent limitations representing the


461.72 Effuent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable.

461.73 New source performance standards.461.74 Pretreatment standards for existing



Authority: Secs. 301, 304(b), (c), (e), and (g),306(b) and (c), 307(b) and (c), and 501, CleanWater Act (the Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972, asamended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)(the "Act"). 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314(b), (c), (e),and (g), 1316(b) and (c), 1317(b) and (c), and1361: 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567,Pub. L. 95-217.

General Provisions

§ 461:01 Applicability.This part applies to any battery

manufacturing plant that discharges apollutant to waters of the United Statesor that introduces pollutants to apublicly owned treatment works.

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

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

(a) "Battery" means a modular electricpower source where part of all of thefuel is contained within the unit andelectric power is generated directly froma chemical reaction rather thanindirectly through a heat cycle engine.

(b) "Battery manufacturingoperations" means the specific methodsused to produce a battery. Thesemanufacturing operations are notincluded in any other point sourcecategory.

(c) "Discharge allowance" means theamount of pollutant (mg per kg ofproduction unit) that a plant will bepermitted to discharge. For this categorythe allowances are specific to batterymanufacturing operations.

§ 461.03 Monitoring and reportingrequirements.

The "monthly average" regulatory

values shall be the basis for the monthlyaverage discharge in direct dischargepermits and for pretreatment standards.Compliance with the monthly dischargelimit is required regardless of thenumber of samples analyzed andaveraged.

§ 461.04 Compliance date for PSES.The compliance date for pretreatment

standards for existing sources will bethree years from the date ofpromulgation.

Subpart A-Cadmium Subcategory

§461.10 Applicability; description of thecadmium subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States, andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from themanufacturing of cadmium anodebatteries.

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

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

(a) There shall be no dischargeallowance of wastewater pollutantsfrom any battery manufacturingoperations except from those set forthbelow:

(1) Subpart A-Pasted and PressedPowder Anodes.

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

aimum 1 Maximum forMxmmorn onthly

Pollutant or pollutant property a day o nthavey yIaverage_

Metric Units-mg/kg ofcadmium

English Units-lb/1,000.000lb of cadmium

Cadmium ...................................... 0.87 0.41Nickel ............................................ 3.81 2.70Zinc .......... 3.59 1.51Cobalt ........................................... 0.79 0.33Oil and Grease ............................ 54.0 32.4TSS ............................................... 111.0 54.0pH ..................................... (1) (1)

'Within the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(2) Subpart A-ElectrodepositedAnodes.



Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property Maxy 1 dfY monthlydy average

Metric Unts-rg/kg ofcadmium

English Unfta-lb/1,000,000lb of cadmium

Cadmium ............ 223 0 105.0Nickel ...................... 983.0 697.0Zinc ............ 927.0 391.0Cobalt ...................... 202.0 83.7Oil and Grease .................... 14000.0 8370.0TSS ................................................ 28600.0 14000.0pH .................................................. () (1)

IWithin the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(3) Subpart A-Impregnated Anodes.


Maximum for Max!mm o

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum forany1. average

Metric Units--mg/kg ofcadmium

English Unts-lb/1,000,000lb of cadmium

Cadmium ....................................... 320.0 150.0Nickel ..................... 1407.0 998.0Zinc ....................... 1328.0 559.0Cobalt ............................................ 290.0 120.0Oil and Grease ............................. 20000.0 12000.0ISS ............................................... 40900.0 20000.0pH .................................................. (') (')


(4) Subpart A-NickelElectrodeposited Cathodes.


Maimum forPollutant or pollutant property Maximum or m nth

any Idy average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofnickel applied

English Unts-4lb/1,000,000lb of nickel applied

Cam ium ....................................... 182.0 85.4Nickel . . .. 803.0 569.0Zinc ........................ 77.0 319.0Cobalt.. ................... 165.0 68.3Oil and Grease ............... 11400.0 6830.0TSS ...................... 2400.0 11400.0pH .................................................. (1) 4')


(5) Subpart A-Nickel ImpregnatedCathodes.


Mim f Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any udaor monthlyayy average


English Unts-lb/1,000,000lb of nickel applied

Cadmium ................................. . 525.0 246.0Nickel ...................... 220.0 1640.0Zinc ....................... 2180.0 919.0Cobalt ............................................ 476.0 197.0Oil and Grease ............................. 32800.0 19700.0TSS ....................... I 67300.0 32800.0

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS-Continued

Maximum fr MamnthyPollutant or pollutant property oanthly 1 y ave rany 1 dy average

pH ................................... ' '


(6) Subpart A-Cell Wash, ElectrolytePreparation, Floor & Equipment Wash,and Employee Wash.


Pollutant or pollutant prope Maximum for Maximum forayIdy monthlyday average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofcells produced

English Unts-lb/1,000,000Ib of calls produced

Cadmium ...................................... 5.93 2.78Nickel ............................................. 26.1 18.5Zinc ................................................ 24.6 10.4Cobalt ............................................ 5.37 2.22Oil and Grease ............................. 370.0 222.0TSS .................... .. 759.0 370.0pH .............................................. C '


(7) Subpart A-Cadmium PowderProduction.



Maximum for Maximum forPollutant Or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofcadmium used

English Units-lb/ 1,000,000lb of cadmium used

Cadmium ...................................... 0.29 0.14Nickel ........................................ 1.27 0,90Zinc .................. .................. 1.20 0.51Cobalt ........................................... 0.26 0.11Oil and Grease ............................ 18.0 10.8TSS ........... ...................... 36.9 18.0pH ................................................ . ') (')


(10) Subpart A-Nickel Hydroxide'Production.


Maximum for Maxmumfo

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day Manthy

average

Metric Unts--mg/kg ofnickel used

English Units-lb/i,000,000lb of nickel used

Cadmium ....................................... 35.2 16.5Nickel ............................................ 155.0 110.0Zinc . ..................... 147.0 61.6Cobalt ........ . 31.9 13.2Oil and Grease ............................. 2200.0 1320.0TSS .................... 4510.0 2200.0pH .............................................. .. . (') (')

:Maximum for Maximum for 'Within the range of 7.!Pollutant or pollutant property axI day monthlya verage (b) [Reserved]

Metric Unts-mg/kg ofcadmium powder producedEnglish Units-lb/1,000,000

lb of cadmium powderproduced

Cadmium ....................................... 21.1 9.86Nickel ............................................. 92.7 65.7Zinc ......................... 87.4 36.8Cobalt................................. 19.1 7.89Oil and Grease ............................ 1320.0 785.0TmS................................... 2700.0 11320.0pH ................................................ 0 3(')


(8) Subpart A-Silver PowderProduction.


r Maximum for Maximum for

Pollutant or poutant property i any day monthlyIaverage

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver powder produced

English Units-lb/1,000000lb of silver powder pro-

duced

Cadmium ...................................... 6.79 3.18Nickel ............................................ 29.9. 21.2Silver .................................. : 8.69 3.61Zinc .............................................. 28.2 11.9Cobalt ....................... 6.15 2.55Oil and Grease ............................ 424.0 255.0TSS ............................................... 669.0 424.0pH ................................................. . (') (')


(9) Subpart A-Cadmium HydroxideProduction.

5-10.0 at all times.

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

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


(1) Subpart A-ElectrodepositedAnodes.

BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Maximum fa Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1mory monthly

average

Metric units-mg/kg ofcadmium

English units--b/1,000,000lb of cadmium

Cadmium .... ................. 11.3 5.27Nickel..................... 49.6 . 35.2Zinc ............................................. 46.8 19.7

134 ................Cobalt ........................................... . 10.2 4.22

(2) Subpart A-Impregnated Anodes.

51077


Metric units--mg/kg ofnickel applied

English units--Ibl ,000,000lb of nickel applied

Cadmium .................... 10.6 4.95Nickel ............. . . 46.6 33.0Zinc . ... 43.9 18.5Cobt ................ 9 57 3.90



m f Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

I average

Metric units-mg/kg ofcadmium

English unts-lb/1,000,000lb of cadmium

Cadmium ....................................... 64.0 30.0Nickel .......... ....................... 282.0 200.0Zinc ........................ 266.0 112.0Cobalt... ..... .. ...... 58.0 24.0


English Unts-4b/1,000,000lb of silver powder pro.

duced

Cadmium ..................... 1.03 0.48Nickel ....................... 4.53 3.21Silver ........... ........... .1.32 0.55Zinc ........................... . 4.27 1.80Cobalt ...................................... 0.93 0.39

(8) Subpart A-Cadmium Hydroxide

Production.

BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSBAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

maximum for Maximum forMaximum for Mamum for Pollutant or pollutant property monthly

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day anavarvrgI [ average

Metric units--mg/kg ofnickel applied

English units-4b/ 1,000,000lb of nickel applied

Cadmium ...................................... 64.0 30.0Nickel............. 282.0 200.0

ti n ......... .......................... ........ 6 .0 l 2Zinc. ..-.*"'-*'"'***-'"-* 266.'0 112.0Cobalt. -. . . 58.0 24.0

(5) Subpart A-Cell Wash, ElectrolytePreparation, and Employee Wash.


Pollutant or pollutant property Maxim for Maximumonthlyany day Iaverage


English Units-lb/1.000.000lb of cells produced

Cadmium .................................... 0 75 0.35Nickel ............................................ . 3.29 2.33Zinc ...... . 3.10 1.31Cobalt ............... ........................... 0.68 0.28


Metric Units--mg/kg ofcadmium used

English Units--lb/l,000,000lb of cadmium used

Cadmium ................... .0.05 0.021Nickel ....................... 0.20 0.14Zinc ....................... . 0.19 0.078Cobalt ........ ............... . 0.04 0.017

(9) Subpart A-Nickel HydroxideProduction.


I Maimumfor m nthyPollutant or polutant property aximu for Maximu for

ny1'y average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofnickel used

English Units-lb/1,000.000lb of nickel used

Cadmium ...................................... 5.28 2.48Nickel ........ ............... 23.3 16.5Zinc................................................ 22.0 9.24Cobalt ........................................... 4.79 1.98

(b) [Reserved]

§ 461.13 New source performancestandards.

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


Pollutant or putat poperty imu for Maximum forayIdy average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofcadmium powder producedEnglish Units-lb/i,000,000

lb of cadmium powderproduced

Cadmium .. .......... ...... ... 2.10 0.99Nickel ............................................ 9.27 6.57Zinc ............................................... 8.74 3.68Cobalt ............................................ 1.91 0.79

(7) Subpart A-Silver Powder

Production.



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

(b) [Reserved]

§ 461.14 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources.

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart which introducespollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works must comply with 40CFR Part 403 and achieve thepretreatment standards for existingsources listed below. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:

(a) There shall be no dischargeallowance of wastewater pollutantsfrom any battery manufacturingoperations except those set forth below:

(1) Subpart A-Electrodepositedanodes.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINGSOURCES

Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

average


English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of cadmium

Cadmium ....................................... 11.3 5.27Nickel ............................................. 49.6 35.2Zinc ......................... 46.7 19.8Cobalt ......... .............. 10.2 4.22

(2) Subpart A-Impregnated anodes.


Maximum for aimu o

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 Iay monthlyaverage


English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of cadmium

Cadmium ............ ........................ 64.0 30.0Nickel ....................... 282.0 200.0Zinc ............................................... 266.0 112.0Cobalt ........................................... 58.0 24.0



Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximumonthlyr

any I day monthlyaverage

Metric Units-,mg/kg ofnickel applied

English Units-4b/1,000,000lb of nickel applied

Cadmium ..................... 10:6 4.95Nickel ............................................. 46.6 1 33.0


Maximum or Maximum for• [Maxmum for Pllutant or pollutant prpry Mxm m fo a~mnthty T

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for mon rrly P rop any day averageI any 1 day average


PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINGSOURCES-Continued

Maximum for Maximum for

Pollutant or pollant property , ,any I day monthlyaverage

Zinc ............................................... 43.9 18.5Cobalt ............................................ 9.57 3.96



Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property a 1 d monthly

8; 1Ja average

Metric Units-,mg/kg ofnickel applied

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of nickel applied

Cadmium ............................... 64.0 30.0Nickel .. ........ .. ....... 282.0 200.0Zinc ....................... 266.0 112.0Cobalt ................................... 58.0 24.0

(5) Subpart A-Cell Wash, ElectrolytePreparation, and Employee Wash.


Maximum MaximumPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 for monthly

day average


English Units-Ib/1,000,000 lb of cells

produced

Cadmium ........................................ 0.75 0.35Nickel ............................................... 3.29 2.33Zinc ........................ 3.10 1.31Cobal ......... .............. 06 0.28



Maximum IMaximumPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 for monthly

daY average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofcadmium powder produced

English Units- -b1,000.000 lb of cadmium

powder produced

Cadmium ...................................... 2.10 0.99Nickel .............................................. 9.27 6.57Zirc ......................... 8,74 3.68Cobalt .............................................. 1.91 0.79

(7) Subpart A-Silver PowderProduction.


Maximum MaximumPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 I for monthly

day 1 average


English Units-b/1,000,000 lb of silver

powder produced

Cadmium ........................................ 1.03 0.48Nickel .... .................... 4.53 3.21Silver ................. . ... 1.32 0.55Zinc .......................... 4.27 1.80Cobalt.......... ............. 0.93 0.39

(8) Subpart A-Cadmium HydroxideProduction


or Iltant Maximum for Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofcadmium used

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of cadmium used

Cadmium ...................................... 0.045 0.021Nickel . . . ... 0.20 0.14Zinc .......................... .019 0.078Cobalt ...................... 0,041 0.017

(9) Subpart A-Nickel HydroxideProduction


Pollutant or pollutant properly jMZamum o r thlyf

Metric Unlts-mg/kg ofnickel used

English Units-b/1,000,000lb of Nickel used

Cadmium ...................................... 5.28 2.4Nickel.. ..................... 23.3 16.5Zinc . ...... 22.0 9.24Cobalt: ....................... 4.79 198

(b) [Reserved]

§ 461.15 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

Except as provided in §403.7 of thischapter, any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the pretreatment standards fornew sources listed below. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:


(b) [Reserved]

§ 461.16 [Reserved]

Subpart B-Calcium Subcategory

§ 461.20 Applicability; description of thecalcium subcategory

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works frommanufacturing calcium anode batteries.



§ 461.23 New source preformancestandards.

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


(b) [Reserved]



Except as provided in § 403.7 of thischapter any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the pretreatment standards fornew sources listed below. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:


(b) [Reserved]


Subpart C-Lead Subcategory

§ 461.30 Applicability; description of thelead subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States andintroduction of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from themanufacturing of lead anode batteries.


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

(a) There shall be no dischargeallowance of wastewater pollutants

51079


from any battery manufacturingoperations except from those set forthbelow:

(1) Subpart C-Closed Formation-Double Fill, or Fill and Dump.

BDT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

[ ~ ~ ~ i =a~ u foor-Maiu frMaximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property Many 1 day Mmaverage

Metric Units--mg/kg oflead used

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of lead used

Copper.................... 0.86 0.45Lead .............................................. . 0.067 0.059Iron ................................................. 0.56 0.29Oil and Grease ............................ 9.00 5.40TSS ................................................ 18.5 9.0pH ................................................ (1) (1)


(2) Subpart C--Open Formation-Dehydrated.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthlg

ay1dyIaverage



copper ..................................... . 17.1 9.0Lead ...................... 1.35 1.17Iron ............... ....... 111 5.67Oil and Grease ............................. 1800 108.0TSS ................................................ 369.0 180.0pH .... .................................... . ') (')


(3) Subpart C-Battery Wash.



Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

average

Metric Units-mg/kg oflead used

English Units-lb/1,000000lb of lead used

Copper ........................................... 1.37 0.72145 ......................

Lead .............................................. 0.11 0.10Iron ............. 0.89 0.46Oil and Grease .............. 14.4 8.64TSS .................. ..................... 29.5 14.4pH .............................. ............ ()


(4) Subpart C-Floor Wash.


MxmmfrMaxmu for

Pollutant or pollutant property Many ay oraverage


English Units-tb/ 1,000,000lb of lead used

Copper ........................................... 0.78 1 0.41


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or po~utant properly any I day monthly

average

Lead .............................................. 0.062 0.053Iron ................................................ 0.51 0.26Oil and Grease ............................. 8.20 4.92TSS ............... ................... 16.8 8.20pH ................................................. (I ()


(5) Subpart C-Battery Repair.

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSPMaximum for Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day average



Copper ........................................... 0.27 0.14Lead ................. 0.0211 0.018Iron ................................................ . 0.18 0.088Oil and Grease ............... 2.80 1.68TSS ...................... 5.74 2.8pH .................................................. (') (1)


(b) [Reserved]

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

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


(1) Subpart C-Open Formation-Dehydrated.


(MxmmfrMaximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 ay monmhly average

Metric Units-mg/k oflead used


Copper .................... 2.59 1 1.36Lead ...................... 0.21 0.18Iron .............................................. 1.68 0.86



Average ofdaily values

or pollutant property Maximum for for 10any I day consecutive

samplingdays

Metric Unita-mg/kg oflead used

English Units-lb/1.000.000lb of lead used

Copper ...................... 0.69 0.36Lead ... .................. 0.054 0.047Iron ................................................. 0.45 0.23



Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant propety any 1 day monthly

average



Copper .................. 27 0.14Lead .......... . . .. 0.021 0.018Iron ............ . ..................... 0.17 0.088

(b)[Reserved]

§ 461.33 New source performancestandards




NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maxionthly forany 1 day Iaverage



Copper .................... 0.039 0.016Lead ........................... 0.008 0.002Iron ........................... 0.25 0.13Oil and Grease ....... ............... 2.04 2.04TSS ........................ - . . 3.06 2.25pH ...................................... ........... (1) (1)

'Within the limits of 7.5-10.0 at all times.




average


English Units--Ib/1.000,000 lb of lead used

Copper ........................................... 0.011 1 0.004


NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS-Continued

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum forany 1 day

Lead .............................................. 0.002 0.001Iron ................................................. 0.067 0.034Oil and Grease ............................. 0.54 0.54TSS ............................................ 0.81 0.60pH ... . ................................... . ...... C

Within the limits of 7.5-10.0 at all times.



M m Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property any f montn yaverage


English Units-lb/1,000,000 lb of lead used

Copper ........................................... 0.004 0.002Lead ............................................... 0.0008 0.0003Iron ..................................... . 0.026 0.013Oil and Grease ............................. 0.21 0.21TSS ................................................ 0.32 0.23pH ................................................. (1)


(b) [Reserved]


Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart that introduces pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment worksmust comply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the pretreatment standards forexisting sources listed below. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:


(1) Subpart C-Open Formation-Dehydrated Pretreatment.

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Maximum f Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

I average


English Units-lb/1.000.000 lb of lead used

Copper ........................................... 2.59 1.38Lead .............................. 0.21 0.18



Maximum for Maximum for Maximum foraverae day monthlymonthly Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 dhaverageaverageII avrg

Metric units-mg/kg of leadused

English units-lb/1,000,000lb of lead used

Copper ........................... 0 69 0.38Lead .......................................... 0054 0.047



Maximum for Maximum forany I, day averagePollUtant or pollutant property Manymu day monthly

average


English units-lb/1,000,000lb of lead used

Copper .......................................... . 0.27 0.14Lead . ............................. 0.021 0.018

(b) [Reserved].


Except as provided in § 403.7 of thischapter, any new source subject to thissubpart that introdhces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:(a) There shall be no discharge

allowance of wastewater pollutantsfrom any battery manufacturingoperations except from those set forthbelow:


PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEWSOURCES

P Maximum for Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant ropertyF any 1 day monthlyaverage


English unit-lb/1.000.000Ib of lead used

Copper ......................................... 0.039 0.016Lead ................. ...... 0.008 0.002




Pollutant or polltant propey any 1 day monthlyaverage


English units-lb/ 1,000,000lb of lead used

Copper ........... ......... . 0.011 0.004Lead. ... 0.002 0.001




Pollutant or pollutant propert any 1 day averagnthly

Metric unfs-mg/kg of leadused

English unit-lb/1,000,000Ib of lead used

Copper ......................................... 0.004 0.002Lead .............................................. . 0.001 0.0003

(b) [Reserved]


Subpart D-Leclanche Subcategory

§ 461.40 Applicability; description of theLeclanche subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States, andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works frommanufacturing Leclanche type batteries(zinc anode batteries with acidelectrolyte).






(b) [Reserved]


Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart that introduces pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment worksmust comply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources listedbelow. The mass wastewater pollutants

51081


in battery manufacturing processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following:


(b) [Reserved]


Except as provided in § 403.7 of thischapter any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources listed below.The mass wastewater pollutants inbattery manufacturing processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following:


(b) [Reserved]


Subpart E-Lithium Subcategory

§ 461.50 Applicability; description of thelithium subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States andintroduction of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from themanufacturing of lithium anodebatteries.






(1) Subpart E-Lead Iodide Cathodes.


MaxImum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property n 1 day monthly

average

Metric Units--mg/kg oflead

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of lead

Chromium ... ........ ......... 23.4 9.46Lead ........ 6.31 5.68Iron ........................... 77.6 39.8TSS ..................... 946.0 694,0pH .................................................. (1) (')


(2) Subpart E--Iron DisulfideCathodes.


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum forany J average

Metric Units--mg/kg of irondisulfide

English Units--b/1,000,000lb of Iron disulfide

Chromium ... . ........ .......... 2.79 1.13Lead ........... ........... . 0.76 0.68Iron .............................. 9.28 4.75TSS . ................ . .. 113.0 83.0PH ............................... (1) (1)


(3) Subpart E-Floor and EquipmentWash, Cell Testing, and Lithium ScrapDisposal.



Pollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthlyaverage


English Unts--b/i,000,000lb of cells produced

Chromium ...................................... 0.040 0.016Lead .............................................. . 0.011 0.010Iron ............................................ 0 14 0.068TSS ........................ 1.62 1.19PH ..................................... (a (a)


(4) Subpart E--Air scrubbers.



day average


English . Unfts-lb/1,000,000 lb of cellsproduced

TSS ...................... 434.0 212.0pH ...............................(') ()


(b) [Reserved]



Except as provided in § 403.7 of thischapter, any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources listed below.The mass wastewater pollutants inbattery manufacturing processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following:

(a) There shall be no dischargeallowance of wastewater pollutantsfrom any battery manufacturingoperations except from those set forthbelow;

(1) Subpart E-Lead Iodide Cathodes.


Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 monthlyanyIday I average

Metric Units-mg/kg oflead

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of lead

Chromium ...................................... 23.4 9.46Lead ...... .................. 631 5.68

(2) Subpart E-Iron DisulfideCathodes.


Maxim tr Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property I any monhy I lay1dy average

Metric Units-mg/kg of irondisufile

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of Iron disulfide

Chromium ..................................... 2.79 1.13Lead ............................................... 0.76 0.68

(2) Subpart E-Floor and EquipmentWash, Cell Testing, and Lithium ScrapDisposal.


Maximum for Maximum forany FI day monthlyPollutant or pollutant property ay I average


English Units--lb/1,000,000lb of cells produced

Chromium .................... 0.040 0.0160.016Lead ............................ .0.011 0.010

(b) [Revised]


Subpart F-Magnesium Subcategory

§ 461.60 Applicability; description of themagnesium subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges towaters of the United States andintroduction of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from themanufacturing of magnesium anodebatteries.





(a) There shall be no dischargeallowance of wastewater pollutantsfrom any battery manufacturing


operations except from those set forthbelow:

(1) Subpart F-Silver ChlorideCathodes-Chemically Reduced.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant of pollutant property any y monthly

Saverage

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver processed

English Units-ibl1,000000lb of silver processed

Lead ..................................... 8.19 7.37Silver ................... .- ............. 23.75 9.83Iron ................................................. 100.8 51.96COD .................. 4095.0 1999.0TSS................. . .. 1229.0 901.0pH .... .................................... [ (') (1)

'Within the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times,

(2) Subpart F-Silver ChlorideCathodes-Electrolytic.



day average


English Unita-lb/1,000,000 lb of silverprocessed

Lead ............................................ 14.5 113.1Silver ................. ...................... 42.1 17.4Iron . ................ . ........................ 179.0 91.4COD ....................................... 7250.0 3540.0TSS . . .......... .. 2180.0 1600.0pH ................................ (') (1)


(3) Subpart F-Cell Testing.

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum forany 1 day monthly

I average

Metric Urts-mg/kg ofcells produced

English Units-b/1,000,000lb of cell produced

Lead ............................................... 5.26 4.74Silver .............................................. 15.3 6.31Iron ................................................. 64.7 33.2COD .............................................. 2630.0 1290.0TSS .......................... 789.0 579.0

'Wihin the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(4) Subpart F-Floor and EquipmentWash


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 dayr mnthlyIFIaverage

Metric Units--mg/kg ofcells produced

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of cell produced

Lead ............ 0.009 0.008Silver .............................. ............. .. 0.027 0.011

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.-Continued

Pollutant orpoll Maximum forPollutant~ ~ orpluannrpry 1 day

Iron ......................................... : 0.12 1 2.30COD ............................................ 4.70 2.30TSS .............................. 7 .......... 1.41 1.04pH ................... ..... ............. . c() v ()


(5) Subpart F-Air Scrubber./


Maximum Maximum

Pollutant or pollutant property for any 1 forvmonthlyday I vrg


English Unlts-fb/1,000,000lb of cells produced

TSS .............................. 8467.01 4130.0

PH ................................................ 1 (. ) ()

Within the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(b) [Reserved]


Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart that introduces pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment worksmust comply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources listedbelow. The mass wastewater pollutantsin battery manufacturing processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following:

(a] There shall be no dischargeallowance of wastewater pollutantsfrom any battery manufacturingoperations except from those set forthbelow:

(1) Subpart F-Silver ChlorideCathodes-Chemically Reduced.


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for MaximUm forany 1 y average

Metric Units--mglkg ofsilver processed

English Units-lb/1,000,000Ibs of silver processed

Lead ........... .... 368.7 319.6Silver ...................... 1008.0 417.9

(2) Subpart F-Silver ChlorideCathodes-Electrolytic.


MaximmfoxIM= foMaximum for [Maximum for Maxmumfomonthly Pollutant or pollutant property Many 1 day m for

average average


English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of silver processed

Lead ........................ ... . 21.8 1 18.9Silver ............................................ 59.5 24.7


PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING

SOURCES

Maxmu for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property ai dor monthly

ty lay I average


English Units-b/1,000,000lb of cells produced

Lead ........................... ............ * 7.89 6.84Silver ................................. . 21.8 8.94

(4) Subpart F-Floor and EquipmentWash.


SOURCES


average


English Units--lb/1.000,000lb of cells produced

Lead ......................................... 0.02 0.013Silver .................................... 0.039 0.016

(b) [Reserved]


Except as provided in §403.7 of thischapter, any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources listed below.The mass wastewater pollutants inbattery manufacturing processwastewater introduced into a POTWshall not exceed the following:


(1)Subpart F-Silver ChlorideCathodes-Chemically Reduced.

51083



t Maximum for Maximum forI monthlPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day motl

average


English Units-b/1,000.000tb of silver processed

Lead ........................................... 8.19 7.37Silver ........................................ 23.75 9.83

(2) Subpart F-Silver ChlorideCathode-Electrolytic.


Pollutant or pollutant property Maxi for a monthly for

average


English Units-lb/I,000,000lb of silver processed

Lead ........................................... .. . 14.5 13.1Silver .......................................... ... .42.1 17.4


PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCE

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximufo Maximumonthlyrany 1dy T average


English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of cells produced

lead ........................................... 5.26 4.74Silver .. . . . ... 15.3 6.31

(4) Subpart F-Floor and EquipmentWash.


MxmmfrMaximum forPollutant or pollutant property Manxy 1 fyor monthlyI average


English Units--lb/1,000,000lb of cells produced

Lead ............................................... . 0.009 0.000Silver ......................................... 0.027 0.011

(b) [Reserved]

461.66 [Reserved]

Subpart G-Zlnc Subcategory

§ 461.70 Applicability; description of thezinc subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharge towaters of the United States, andintroductions of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from themanufacturing of zinc anode batteries.


Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best practicable controltechnology currently available:


(1) Subpart G-Wet AmalgamatedPowder Anodes.


t Maxmum for Maximum formonlyPollutant or pollutant property j ny1 clay motlaverage

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units-lb/1,000,000

lb of zinc

Chromium .................................... *, 1.60 0.65Mercury ......................................... - 0.95 0.38Silver .............................................. 1.56 0.65Zinc ......................... 5.06 2.13Manganese ................................... 1.64 1.29Oil and Grease ............................. 76.0 45.6TSS . ....................... 156.0 76.0pH ................................................ . () (I


(2) Subpart G-Gelled AmalgamAnodes.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthlyaverage

Metric Units--mg/kg of zincEnglish Units-lb/1,000,000

lb of zinc

Chromium ..................... 0,29 0.12Mercury ..................................... 0.17 0.068Silver .............................................. 0.25 0.12Zinc ................................................ 0.91 0.38Manganese ................................... 0.29 0.23Oil and Grease ............................. 13.6 8.16TSS ............................................... 27.9 13.6pH ................................................. . ( ) ( )


(3) Subpart C-Zinc Oxide, FormedAnode's.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property ay1 y monthly

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units--lb/1,000,000

lb of zinc

Chromium ...................................... 60.1 24.3Mercury ......................................... 35.8 14.3Silver .............................................. 58.7 24.3Zinc ................................................ 190.0 80.1Manganese ................................... 61.5 48.6Oil and Grease ............................. 2,660.0 1,720.0TSS .............................................. 5,870.0 2,860.0


Maximum fo Maximum for


PH .................................................. ( ) (C'Within the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(4) Subpart G-Electrodepositedanodes.


Maximum for Maximum torPollutant or pollutant property any f d ay mmonthly

Iany A day average

Chromium ......................................Mercury .........................................Silver ............................................Zinc ................................................M anganese ...................................Oil and Grease .............................TSS ................................................pH ..................................................

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincdeposited

English Units--lb/1,000,000lb of zinc deposited

1,340.0 543.0798.0 319.0

1,310.0 543.04,250.0 1,790.01,370.0 1,090.0

63,800.0 38,300.0131,000.0 63,800.0

(1) 1 ()


(5) Subpart G-Silver Powder, FormedCathodes.


Pollutant or polutant property Maximn f monthlyfor

I any average

Chrom ium ......................................M ercury .........................................Silver ..............................................Zinc ................................................M anganese ...................................Oil and Grease .............................TSS ................................... pH ..................................................

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver applied

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of silver applied

82.3 33.349.0 19.680.4 33.3

261.0 110.084.3 66.7

3,920.0 2,350.08,040.0 3,920.0C') C')

Within the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(6) Subpart C-Silver Oxide Powder,Formed Cathodes.


Maximum for M -imm-o

Pollutant or po~ltfant property any 1 shy montyy y average



Chromium ...................................... 55.0 22.3Mercury ......................................... 32.8 13.1Silver .............................................. 53.7 22.3Zinc ................................................ 175.0 73.4Manganese ................................... 56.4 44.6Oil and Grease ............................. 2,620.0 1,570.0TSS ................................................ 5,370.0 2,620.0pH .................................................. (1) (1)


(7) Subpart G-Silver PeroxideCathodes.

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules 51085


Maximum for I Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver applied :.

English Units-lb/1,000.000lb of silver applied

Chromium ................................... 13.2 5.34Mercury .................... 7.85 3.14Silver.... . ................. 12.9 5.34Zinc ............................................... 41.8 17.6Manganese .................................. 13.5 10.7Oil and Grease ............................ 628.0 377.0TSS ........... ........... 1,290.0 628.0pH ............................................. .. () (1)

Within the range of 7.5-10.0 at all times

(8) Subpart G-Nickel ImpregnatedCathodes.


aimu for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property Maximum for a monthly

I average



Chromium ...................................... 689.0 279.0Mercury ......................................... 410 164.0Nickel ............................................. 2,320.0 1,640.0Silver .............................................. 673.0 279.0Zinc ................................................ 2,180.0 919.0Manganese ................................... 705.0 558.0Oil and Grease ............................. 32,800.0 19,700.0TSS .......... ............ 67,300.0 32,800.0pH ..... .......... ........... (' ) )


(9) Subpart C-Cell Wash, ElectrolytePreparation, Employee Wash, RejectCell Handling, Floor and EquipmentWash.


m f Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthlyaverage


English Units-lb/ 1,000000lb of cells produced

Chromium ..................................... 3.68 1.49Cyanide ........................................ 2.54 1.05M ercury ........................................ 2.19 0.88Nickel ............................................ 12.4 8.76Silver ............................................. 3.59 1.49Zinc ............................................... 11.7 4.91


Maximu for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property aximu I y monthlyany 1 day avre

average

M ercury ......................................... 12.3 4.91Silver . ......................... 20.2 8.35Zinc ................................................ 65.3 27.5Manganese ................... 2.1 t 16.7Oil and Grease 982.0 589.0TSS ...................... 2,020.0 982.0ph ............................. (') (')


(11) Subpart G-Silver PeroxideProduction.


Mau frMaximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 d monhmly

Sanyl day monthlygaverage

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver peroxide produced

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of silver in silver perox-

ide produced

Chromium ...................................... 22.0 8.88Mercury ......................................... 13.1 5.22Silver ........ ..................................... 21.4 8.88Zinc ............................................... 69.5 29.3Manganese ................................... 22.5 17.8Oil and Grease ............................. 1,050.0 627.0TSS .. .................... 2,140.0 1,050.0ph ................................................ .... (') ('3

.Within the limits of 7.5-10.0 at all times.

(12) Subpart G-Silver PowderProduction.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any monthly

any 1 day average


English Units-lb/1,000.000Ib of silver powder pro-

duced

Chromium ...................................... 8.91 3.61Mercury ......................................... 5.30 2.12Silver .............................................. 8.69 3.61Zinc ................................................ 28.2 11.9Manganese ................................... 9.12 7.21Oil and Grease ........... ................ 424.0 255.0TSS ....................... 869.0 424.0ph ......................... (,) (i)


(b) [Reserved]

Manganese .................................. 3.77 2.98 § 461.72 Effluent limitations representingOil and Grease ................ 175.0 105.0 the degree of effluent reduction attainableTSS .................. 359.0 175.2ph ............................. (1) (1) by the application of the best available

technology economically achievable.'Within the limits of 7.5-10.0 at all times. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-

(10) Subpart G-Silver Etch. .32, any existing point source subject tothis subpart must achieve the following

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum for by the application of the best availableaverage technology economically achievable:

Metric Units-mg/kg of (a) There shall be no dischargesilver processed allowance of wastewater pollutants

English Units-tb/1,000,O00 from any battery manufacturinglb of silver processed operations except from those set forth

Chromium ...................................... F 20.7 1 .35 below :

(1) Subpart G-Wet AmalgamatedPowder Anodes.


Maximum for IMaximum forPollutant or pollutant propery any 1 day amnthly

average

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units-lb/1,000.000

lbs of zinc

Chronium ...................................... 0.23 0.093Mercury ......................................... 0.14 0.055Silver .............. 0.23 0.093Zinc..................... ....................... 0.73 0.31Manganese .................... 0.24 0.19

(2) Subpart C-Gelled Amalgam

Anodes.




Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units-lb/i,000,000

lb of zinc

Chromium ...................................... 0.029 0.012Mercury ..................... 0.017 0.007Silver .............................................. 0.028 0.012Zinc ................................................ 0.091 0.038Manganese ................................... 0.029 0.023

.(3) Subpart G-Zinc Oxide Formed

Anodes.

BAT EFFLUENT UMITATIONS


average

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units-lb/1,000,000

lb of zinc

Chromium ...................................... 9.10 3.69Mercury ......................................... 5.42 2.17Silver .............................................. 8.89 3.69Zinc ................................................ 28.9 12.2Manganese .................................. 9.32 7.37

(4) Subpart G-Electrodeposited

Anodes.


Maiu 10Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1da mothmlyany/ ay I average


English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of zinc deposited

Chromium ............... ...... 101.0 41.0Mercury .......... ............ I 60.3 24.1Silver .............................................. 98.8 41.0Zinc ................................................ 321.0 135.0Manganese ................... 104.0 81.9

(5) Subpart G--Silver Powder FormedCathodes.




Pollutant or pollutant property any I day monthlyaverage


English Units--lb/ 1,000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ....................... . .......... 12.5 5.05Mercury ........................................ 7.43 2.97Silver ........................................... 12.2 5.05Zinc ............................................... 39.5 16.7Manganese ................................... 12.8 10.1

(6) Subpart G-Silver Oxide Powder

Formed Cathodes.


Maxmum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property I y d I .montlyay1dy average



Chromium .................................... 8.34 3.38Mercury ......................................... 4.97 1.99Silver .............................................. 8.14 3.38Zinc .. ........................................... 26.4 11.1Manganese .......................... 8.54 6.75



Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for monthlyanytIdasY_ average



Chromium ...................................... 0.54 0.22Cyanide ........................................ . 0.38 0.16Mercury ......................................... 0.33 0.13Nickel ............. ......... . 1.82 1.29Silver .............................................. 0.53 0.22Zinc ................................................ 1.72 0.72Manganese ................................... 0.56 0.44

(10) Subpart G-Silver Etch.


Pollutant or pollutant property Maxlmim for Maximum forany I day monthly

average

Metrf! Units--mg/kg ofsilvar processed

English Units-lb/ 1,000,000lb of silver processed

Chromium ..................................... 3.13 1.27Mercury ....................................... 1.86 0.75Silver ............................................. 3.05 1.27Zinc ............. 9.90 4.17Manganese .................................. 3.20 2.53


BAT EFFLUENT LMITATIONS BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSIMaximum for Mamua et , .I Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property monthly Max fo Maximum forP any 1day average Pollutant or pollutant property mtany 1 day mthly

I I MY; u Md y average


English Units--lb/1.000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ...................................... 2.00 0.81Mercury ......................................... 1.19 0.48Silver ........................ t .95 0.81Zinc ................................................ 6.33 2.67Manganese ............ : ...................... 2.05 1.62

(8) Subpart G-Nickel Impregnated

Cathodes.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant properly any Uday monthlyany Iday I average



Chromium ...................................... 84.0 34.0Mercury ......................................... 50.0 20.0Nickel ............................................. 282.0 200.0Silver .............................................. 82.0 34.0Zinc ............................................... 266.0 112.0Manganese ................................. 86.0 68.0

(9) Subpart G-Cell Wash, EmployeeWash, Reject Cell Handling & Floor andEquipment Wash.

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsliver in silver peroxideproduced

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of silver in silver perox-

ide produced

Chromium ...................................... 3.32 1.35M rcury ......................................... 1.98 0.79Silver . ........................... 3.25 1.35Zinc...................... **-**- 10.6 4.43Manganese ................................... 3.40 2.69

(12) Subpart C-Silver Powder

Production

BAT EFFLUENT LIMtTATIONS

I~xmmfrJMaximumfr-Pollutant or pollutant property Manx m for imonthly

any 1 y average

Metrlc Units-mg/kg ofsi:ver powder produced

English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of s;ver powder pro-

duced

Chromium ...................... .......... 30.55Mercury ........................ 0.80 0.32Silver ..............................

.-- l32 0.55Zinc... ..................... . 4.27 1.80Manganese .................................. 1.38 1.09

(b) [Reserved]




(1) Subpart C-Zinc Oxide FormedAnodes.


• MPaximum torPollutant or pollutant property Maximum for monthyany 1 day avee

Chrom ium ......................................M ercury .........................................Silver ..............................................Zinc ................................................M anganese ...................................Oil and Grease .............................TSS ................................................pH ................................................

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Unita-lb/1,000000

lb of zinc

0.62 0.330.43 0.190.62 0.280.12 0.0620.98 0.75

32.5 32.548.8 35.8() 1" ),


(2) Subpart G-ElectrodepositedAnodes.


for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property a %ny1 ~day monthlyg

Chromium ........................ . ..Mercury . ... ...........Silver ............................... ..Zinc ................................. ..Manganese ............ . .............Oil & Grease .................................TSS ................................................pH ..................................................


English Units-b/ 1,000.000lb of zinc deposited

6.87 3.654.70 2.066.87 3.041.34 0.69

10.9 8.31362.0 362.0542.0 398-.0(0 C)


(3) Subpart G-Silver Powder FormedCathodes.




Metric Units--mg/kg otsilver epplied

English Units--lb/1,000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ...................................... 0.85 0.45Mercury ......................................... 0.58 0.26Silver .............................................. 0.85 0.38Zinc ................................................ 0.17 0.085Manganese ................................... 1.34 1.03Oil & Grease ................................ 44.5 44.5TSS .............................................. 66.8 49.0pH .................................................. I ')(


(4) Subpart G-Silver Oxide PowderFormed Cathodes.






English Units-lb/I,000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ..................................... 0.57 0.30Mercury ......................................... 0.39 0.17Silver .............................................. 0.57 0.25Zinc ................................................ 0.11 0.057Manganese ................................... 0.90 0.69Oil & Grease ................................ . 29.8 29.8TSS .......................................... 44.7 32.8p H .................................................. () ( )

Within the limits of 7.5-10.0 at all,times.



Maiu frMaximum forPollutant or pollutant property anym1 day imo

ay1dy monthlyaverage


English Units-lb/i.000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ...................................... 0.14 0.072Mercury ..................... 0.93 0.041Silver .............................................. 0 .14 0.060Zinc ................................................ 0.027 0.014Manganese ................................... 0.22 0.17Oil & Grease ................................. 7.14 7.14TSS ....................................... 107 7.86pH .................................................. () ()


(6) Subpart C-Nickel ImpregnatedCathodes.


Maximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthlyaverage


English Units--lb/1,000.000lb of nickel applied

Chromium ...................................... 5.70 3.03M ercury ......................................... 3.90 1.71Nickel ............................................. 5.70 2.49Silver... .. ........................ 5.70 2.52Zinc ..... ..... .................. 1.11 0.57Manganese ................................... 9.00 6.0Oil & Grease ................................ 300.0 300.0TSS ... .................... 450.0 330.0pH .............. ................. (') (')


(7) Subpart G-Cell Wash, EmployeeWash, Reject Cell Handling, & Floor andEquipment Wash.


M f Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 da monymuySanyluday Iaverage


English Units-lb/i,000,000lb of cells produced

Chromium .......... 0.037 0.020Cyanide .................... 0.039 0.016Mercury ........................................ 0.026 0.011

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum forany 1 day monthly

average

Nickel ............................................. 0.037 0.016Silver .............................................. 0.037 o.016Zinc .... ....... ............. 0.008 0.004Manganese ................... 0.059 0.045Oil & Grease ................................. 1.95 1.95TSS ................................................ 2.93 2.15pH ................................................ (1) (')




Maxi u f I Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property Manyum day monthlyaverage


English Units--tb/1,000,000lb of silver processed

Chromium .................... 0.20 0.12Mercury ......................................... 0.15 0.064Silver .............................................. 0.20 0.094Zinc ................................................ 0.040 0.021Manganese ................................... 0.34 0.26Oil & Grease ................................. 11.2 11.2TSS ....................... 168 12.3pH ................................................ (1) (1)




Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Maximum forany 1 day monthlyaverage


English Units-lb/1,000,000lb of Silver in silver per-oxide produced

Chromium ..................................... 0.23 0.12Mercury ........................................ 0.16 0.068Silver ........... . ................................ 0.23 0.10Zinc ........................ 0.044 0.023Manganese .................................. 0.36 0.28Oil & Grease ................................ 11.9 11.9TSS .............................. 17.8 13.1ph .................................................. . (1) (1)


(10) Subpart G-Silver PowderProduction.



average

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver powder

English Units--lb/1,000,000lb of Silver powder pro-duced

Chromium .................................... 0.092 0.049Mercury ........................................ 0.063 0.027Silver ............................................. 0.092 0.041Zinc ............................................... 0.018 0.009Manganses .................................. 0.15 0.11Oil & Grease ................................ 4.82 4.82TSS ......... ............... 7.24 5.31pH ...................... . () (' )


(b) [Reserved].


Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart that introduces pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment worksmust comply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:


(1) Subpart G-Wet AmalgamatedPowder Anode.


MxmmfrMaximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property Maimm for Maumonthlyany 1 day average


lbs of zinc

Chromium ..................................... 0.23 0.093Mercury ...................... 0.14 0.055Silver ............................................. 0.23 0.093Zinc ................................... 0.73 0.31Manganese ........ ............ 0.24 0.19

(2) Subpart G-Gelled AmalgamAnodes.


""i . Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for i yany Iday monthl

I average

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units-lb/1.000,000

lbs of zinc

Chromium ...................................... 0,029 0.012Mercury ........... ............. 0.017 0.007Silver .............................................. 0.028 0.012Zinc ................................................ 0.091 0.038Manganese ................................... 0.029 0.023

(3) Subpart C-Zinc Oxide Formedanodes.


SMaximum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property ny 1 day averago


lbs of zinc

Chromium ..................................... 9.10 3.69Mercury ................................ 5 .42 2.17Silver ......................... 8.89 3.69Zinc ................................. 28.9 12.2Manganese ................................... 9.32 7.37

51087

51088 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1.982 / Proposed Rules

(4) Subpart G-ElectrodepositedAnodes Pretreatment.

STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Pollutant or pollutant property Manmufor Maxmumonthlyrany I dy Iaverage


English Units-lb/1,000,000lbs of zinc deposited

Chromium ...................................... 101.0 41.0Mercury ......................................... 60.3 24.1Silver .............................................. 98.8 41.0Zinc ................................................ 321.0 1 5.0Manganese ................................. .. 104.0 81.9

(5) Subpart G-Silver Powder FormedCathodes.


SOURCES

Maiu o-[Maximum for

Pollutant or pollutant property Maimum or monthlyaverage

Metric Units-mg/kg o1silver applied


Chromium .................. 12.5 5.05Mercury ......................................... 7.43 2.97Silver .............................................. 12.2 5.05Zinc ................................................ 39.5 16.7Manganese ................................... 12.8 10.1

(6) Subpart G-Silver Oxide PowderFormed Cathodes


SOURCES


aimum for Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property ahny 1 day m yI proery nyIay average

Metric Unit --mg/kg 01nickel app:ied

Eng!rih Uits-b/1,000,000lb of nickel appliod

Chromium ...................................... 84.0 34.0M ercury ........................................ 50.0 20.0Nickel ............................................. 282.0 200.0Silver .............................................. 82.0 34.0Zinc ................................................ 266.0 112.0Manganese ................. 86.0 680

(9) Subpart C-Cell Wash, EmployeeWash, Reject Cell Handling, and Floorand Equipment Wash


Maiu frIMaxium forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 ay I monthlyany 1 day monhl

average



Chromium .................. 0.54 0.22Cyanide ......................................... 0.38 0.16Mercury ......................................... 0.33 0.13Nickel ............................................. 1.82 1.29Silver ..................... 0.53 0.22Zinc ................................................ 1.72 0.72Manganese ................................... 0.56 0.44

(10) Subpart C-Silver Etch

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINGSOURCES.

Maximum fo Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day nronthly Maximum for Maximum foraverage Pollutant o pollutant property any I day monthly


English Unts-lb/1,000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ..................................... 8.34 3.38Mercury ......................................... 4.97 1.99Silver .............................................. 8.14 3.38Zinc................................................ 26.4 1 1.1Manganese ................................. 8.54 6.75

(7) Subpart C-Silver PeroxideCathodes


I I .... ..


English Unita--b/1,000,000lb of silver processed

Chromium .................. 3.13 1.27Mercury ...... ................. 1.86 0.75Silver .............................................. 3.05 1.27Zinc ...................... 9.90 4.17Manganese ................................... 3.20 2.53

(11) Subpart C-Silver PeroxideProduction.


SOURCES.IMaximum for I vaximiumi r

Pollutant or pollutant property I any i day Mamonthly.Iaverage Maximum fox Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day mnthly

yvlcn


English Units-tb/1.000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium ...................................... 2.00 0.81Mercury .................... 1.19 0.48Silver .............................................. 1.95 0.81Zinc ................................................ 6.33 2.67Manganese 2.............................. 2.05 1.62

(8) Subpart G-Nickel ImpregnatedCathodes

Metric Units-mg/kg ofsilver in silver peroxide

producedEnglish Units-lb/1,000,000

Ib of silver in silver perox-ide produced

Chromium. .................. 3.32 1.35Mercury ......................................... 1.98 0.79Silver .............................................. 3.25 1.35Zinc ................................................ 10.5 4.43Manganese ................................... 3.40 2.69

(12) Subpart C-Silver PowderProduction

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINGSOURCES.

Maximum for Maximum torPollutant or pollutant property any 1 day monthly

Metric Units.-mg/kg osilver powder produced

English Units--lb/1,000.000lb of silver powder pro.

duced

Chromium ...................................... 1.35 0.55Mercury ......................................... 0.80 0.32Silver .............................................. 1.32 0.55Zinc ................................................ 4.27 1.80Manganese ................................... 1.38 1.09

(b) [Reserved]


Except as provided in § 403.7 any newsource subject to this subpart thatintroduces pollutants into a publiclyowned treatment works must complywith 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve thefollowing pretreatment standards fornew sources listed below. The masswastewater pollutants in batterymanufacturing process wastewaterintroduced into a POTW shall notexceed the following:


(1) Subpart G-Zinc Oxide FormedAnodes.

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEWSOURCES.

Maximum for Mximumn Ia.Pollutant or polutant property am monthlyarty I day average

Metric Units-mg/kg of zincEnglish Units--lb/1,000,000

lb of zinc

Chromium ...................................... 0.62 0.33Mercury .................... 0.43 0.19Silver ............................................. 0.62 0.28Zinc ............................................... 0.12 0.062Manganese ................................. 0.98 0.75

(2) Subpart G-ElectrodepositedAnodes.


a oMaximum for Maximum torPollutant or pollutant property any I day monthly

Metric Units-mg/kg o1 zincdeposited

English Units-tb/1,000,000lb of zinc deposited

Chromium .................. 6.87 3.65Mercury .................... 4.70 2.06Silver ................... . 6.87 3.04

I

I average

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 10, 1982 / Proposed Rules 51089

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEWSOURCES-Continued

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEWSOURCES-Continued

P Maximum for Maximum for Maximumfor forPolutant or pollutant property 1 day monthly Pollutant or pollutant property Maxm o nmrg. [a__,laverage any 1 ay avrg

Zinc ................................................ 1.34 0.69Manganese ................................... 10.9 8.31

(3) Subpart C-Silver Powder FormedCathodes

PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW

SOURCES


English Units-lb/ 1,000.000lb of silver applied

Mercury .................... 0.093 0.041Silver .................... .. 0.14 0.060Zinc ................................................ 0.07 0.014Manganese ................. 0.22 0.17

Pollutant or poltutant property maximm for Maximum foranyu1ash m nthly (6) Subpart G-Nickel Impregnated, I' average Cathodes



Chromium ...................................... 0.85 0.45Mercury ......................................... 0.58 0.28Silver ..................................... 0.85 0.38Zinc ................................................ 0.17 0.085Manganese ................................... 1.34 1.03

(4) Subpart G-Silver Oxide PowderFormed Cathodes


MaxmumfoPollutant or pollutant property Manyldmu f ax mr1dy monthy


English Units--b/1,000,000lb of silver applied

Chromium .................. 0.57 0.30Mercury ......................................... 0.39 0.17Silver .............................................. 0.57 0.25Zinc .............................................. 0.11 0.057Manganese ................................... .90 0.69

(5) Subpart G-Silver PeroxideCathodes


Maximum for I Maximum forPollutant or pollutant property any I day monthlyaverage

Metric Units--mg/kg ofsilver applied

English Units-4b/1.000.000lb of silver applied

Chromium ..................... 0.14 1 0.072


Pollutant or pollutant property mai r Maximum for

Iaverage



Chromium ................ .5.70 3.03Mercury ................... 3.9 f71Nickel ...................... 5 70 2.49Silver .............................................. 5.70 2.52Zinc ................. ............................ 1.11 0.57Manganese ................. 9.00 6.90

(7) Subpart G-Cell Wash, EmployeeWash, Reject Cell Handling, Floor and.Equipment Wash


IMaxinfo %mum for ..mu Maxmumo

Pollutant or pollutant property a o mmany 1 day average


English Units--lb/1.000,000lb of cells produced

Chromium .................. 0.037 0.020Cyanide .................................... 0.039 0.016Mercury ......................................... 0.026 0.011Nickel ............................................. 0.037 0.016Silver .............................................. 0.037 0.016Zinc ...................... 0.008 0.004Manganese ................................... 0.059 0.045



Pollutant or pollutant Maximum for Maximum forproperty any 1 day monthlyaverage

Metric Units-mg/kg of silverprocessed

English Units-i b/1,000,000lb of silver processed

Chromium ................ 0.20 0.12Mercury .................... 0.15 0.064Silver .................... 0.20 0.094Zinc .............................. 0.042 0.021Manganese ........................ 0.34 0.26

(9) Subpart G-Silver Peroxideproduction


Pollutant or poltutant Maximum for Maximum forproperty any I day monthlyyI average

Metric Units-mg/kg of silverperoxide produced

English Units--Ib/1,000000 lbof silver peroxide produced

Chromium ................................ 0.23 0.12Mercury ..................................... 0.16 0.068Silver ....................................... 0.23 0.10Zinc ............................................ 0.044 0.023Manganese ................. 0.38 0.28

(10) Subpart C-Silver PowderProduction.


Potlutant or pollutant Maximum for Maximum for

ny 1 day monthlyproperty ny I average

Metric Units-mg/kg of silverpowder produced

English Units-lb/1,000,000 lbof silver powder produced

Chromium ................................. 0.092 0.049Mercury ..................................... 0.063 0.027Silver ......................................... 0.092 0.040Zinc ........................................... 0.018 0.009Manganese .. . 0.15 0.11

(b) [Reserved]

§ 461.76 [Reserved][FR Doc. 82-30312 Filed 11-0-82; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 656040-M

battery manufacturing effluent guidelines - united states … · 1982. 11. 10. · the battery...

Documents