supplementary information: overview epa's...1984/02/15 · overview this preamble describes...

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 463

[FRL 2513-1]

Plastics Molding andi Forming PointSource Categor-, Effluent LimitationsGuidelines, Pretreatment Standards,and New Source PerformanceStandards

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes a regulation tolimit effluent discharges to waters of theUnited States and limit the introductionof pollutants into publicly ownedtreatment works from plants engaged inplastics molding and forming. Thepurposes of this proposal are to provideeffluent limitations guidelines based on"best practicable technology," "bestavailable technology," and "bestconventional technology"; to establishnew source performance standards; andto address whether to establishpretreatment standards for new andexisting sources under the Clean WaterAct. After considering commentsreceived in response to this proposal,EPA will promulgate a final rule.DATE: Comments on this proposal mustbe submitted by April 16, 1984.ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr. RobertM. Southworth, Effluent GuidelinesDivision (WH-552), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention: EGDDocket Clerk, Proposed Plastics Moldingand Forming Rule (WH-552). Thesupporting information and allcomments on this proposal will beavailable for inspection and copying atthis EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2404 (EPA Library Rear).The EPA public information regulation(40 CFR Part 2) provides that areasonable fee may be charged forcopying. Copies of technical documentsmay be obtained from the DistributionOfficer at the above address or bycalling (202) 382-7115. The economicanalysis may be obtained from Ms. AnnM. Watkins, Economic Analysis Staff(WH-586), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington.D.C. 20460, or by calling (202) 382-5387.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Technical information may be obtainedfrom Mr. Robert M. Southworth at theaddress listed above or by calling (202)382-7150. Economic information may beobtained from Ms. Ann M. Watkins atthe above address or by calling (202]382-5387.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OverviewThis preamble describes the legal

authority and background, the technicaland economic bases, and other aspectsof the proposed regulation. Theabbreviations, acronyms, and otherterms used in the SupplementaryInformation section are defined inAppendix A to this notice.

This proposed regulation is supportedby three major documents availablefrom EPA. Analytical methods arediscussed in Sampling and AnalysisProcedures for Screening of IndustrialEffluents for Priority Pollutants. EPA'stechnical conclusions are detailed in theDevelopment Document for ProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards, andPretreatment Standards for the PlasticsMolding and Forming Point SourceCategory. The Agency's economicanalysis is found in Economic ImpactAnalysis of Proposed EffluentLimitations and Standards for thePlastics Molding and Forming Industry(EPA 440/2-84-001).

This proposed rule does not containany information collection requirementssubject to Office of Management andBudget (OMB) review under thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.Organization of This NoticeI. Legal AuthorityII. Background

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

II1. Scope of this Rulemaking and Summary ofMethodology

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

Treatment TechnologyA. Control and Treatment Technologies

ConsideredB. Status of In-Place Technology

VIII. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)Effluent Limitations Guidelines

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT) EffluentLimitations Guidelines

X. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)Effluent Limitations Guidelines

XI. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS)

XII. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES)

XIII. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources(PSNS)

XIV. Regulated PollutantsXV. Pollutants and Subcategory Segments

Excluded From RegulationXVI. Economic ConsiderationsXVII. Non-Water Quality Aspects of

Pollution ControlXVIII, Best Management Practices (BMPs)XIX. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXX. Variancesand Modifications

XXI. Relationship tc NPDES PermitsXXII. Summary of Public ParticipationXXIII. Solicitation of CommentsXXIV. Availability of Technical AssistanceXXV. List of SubjectsXXVI. Appendices:

A-Abbreviations, Acronyms and OtherTerms Used in This Notice

B-Toxic Pollutants Not Regulated at BATBecause They are Effectively Controlledby Technologies Upon Which are BasedOther Effluent Limitations Guidelines

C-Toxic Pollutants With a ConcentrationGreater in the Source Water Than theConcentration in Wastewater Samples

D-Toxic Pollutants Not Detected orDetected at or Below the AnalyticalDetection Limit

E-Toxic Pollutants Detected in theEffluent From Only a Small Number ofSources

F-Toxic Pollutants Excluded FromPretreatment Standards for Processes inthe Contact Cooling and Heating WaterSubcategory With an Average ProcessWater Usage Flow Rate of 35 gpm orLess Because the Amount and ToxicityDo Not Justify Categorical PretreatmentStandards

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 U.S.C. 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 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),modified by orders dated October 26,1982, August 2, 1983, and January 6,1984.

IL Background

A. The Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters," Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977,existing industrial dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequiring the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable" (BPT"), Section 301(b)(1)(A).By July 1, 1983, these dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequiring the application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable-which will result inreasonable further progress toward thenational goal of eliminating thedischarge of all pollutants" ("BAT"),Section 301(b)(2)(A). New industrial

5862

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, Fvbruary 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules

direct dischargers were required tocomply with Section 306 new sourceperformance standards ("NSPS") basedon best available demonstratedtechnology; and new and existingdischargers to publicly owned treatmentworks ("POTW") were subject topretreatment standards under Sections307(b) and (c) of the Act. 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 POT W (indirectdischargers).

Although Section 402(a)(1) of the 1972Act authorized the setting ofrequirements for direct dischargers on acase-by-case basis, Congress intendedthat, for the iflost part, controlrequirements be based on regulationspromulgated by the Administrator ofEPA. Section 304(b) of the Act requiredthe Administrator to promulgateregulations providing guidelines foreffluent limitations setting forth thedegree of effluent reductinn attainablethrough the application of BPT and BAT.Moreover, Sections 304(c) and 306 of theAct required promulgation of regulationsfor NSPS and Sections 304(f), 307(h), and307(c) required promulgation ofregulations for pretreatment standards.In addition to these regulations fordesignated industry categories, Section307(a) of the Act required theAdministrator to promulgate effluentstandards applicable to all dischargersof toxic pollutants. Finally, Section501(a) of the Act authorized theAdministrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act.

EPA was unable to promulgate manyof these regulations by the datescontained in the 1972 Act. In 1976. EPAwas sued by several environmentalgroups, and in settlement of this lawsuit,EPA and the plaintiffs executed a"Settlement Agreement" that wasapproved by the Court. This Agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andadhere to a schedule for promulgatingfor 21 major industries BAT effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards for 65 "priority" toxiccompounds and classes of compounds.See, Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120(D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC 1833(D.D.C. 1979), modified by orders datedOctober 26, 1982, August 2, 1983, andJanuary 6, 1984.

On December 27, 1977 the Presidentsigned into law the Clean Water Act of

1977. 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 pollutant control.Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)12)(C) ofthe Act now require the achievement byJuly 1, 1984, of effluent limitationsguidelines requiring application of BATfor "toxic" pollutants, including the 65"priority" toxic compounds and classesof compounds that Congress declared"toxic" under Section 307(a) of the Act.Likewise, EPA's programs for newsource performance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimedprincipally at toxic pollutant controls.Moreover, to strengthen the toxicscontrol program, Section 304(e) of theAct authorizes the Administratot toprescribe "best management practices"("BMP") to prevent the release of toxicand hazardous pollutants from plant siterunoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or wastedisposal, and drainage from rawmaterial storage associated with, orancillary to, the industrialmanufacturing or treatment process.

The 1977 Amendments added Section301(b)(2)(E) to the Act establishing "bestconventional pollutant controltechnology" ('BUT" for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existingindustrial point sources. Conventionalpollutants are those defined in Section304(a)(4) [biological oxygen demandingpollutants (BOD), total suspended solids(TSS), fecal coliform, and pHi, and anyadditional pollutants defined by theAdministrator as "conventional" (oiland grease, 44 FR 44501, July 30, 1979.1

BCT is not an additional control 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. See,American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The 4.!rrt testcompares the cost for private industry toreduce its conventional pollutants withthe costs to publicly owned treatmentworks for similar levels of reduction intheir discharge of these pollutants. Thesecond test examines the cost-effectiveness of additional industrialtreatment beyond BPT. EPA must findthat the BCT limitations are"reasonable" under both tests beforethey are established. In no case mayBCT 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 Appeals

ordered 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.)

On October 29, 1982, the Agencyproposed a revised BCT methodology(47 FR 49176). This methodology wasused to determine whether costs ofadditional controls for the conventionalpollutants beyond BPT in this categoryare "reasonable."

For nonconventional pollutants,Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F)require achievement of BAT effluentlimitations guidelines within three yearsafter the limitations are established orJuly 1, 1984, whichever is later, but notlater than July 1, 1987.

The purpose of this proposedregulation is to provide effluentlimitations guidelines for BPT, BAT, andBCT; to establish NSPS; and to addresswhether to establish pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES)and pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS) under Sections 301, 304,306. 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean WaterAct.

B. Prior EPA Regulations

EPA has not previously proposed orpromulgated regulations for the plasticsmolding and forming (PM&F) pointsource category.

C. Overview of the Industry

The plastic molding and formingindustry is a large and diversifiedindustry with many different types ofproduction processes that processvarious combinations of raw materials.

Plants in the plastics molding andforming category are generally includedwithin SIC 3079 of the StandardIndustrial Classification Manualprepared in 1972 and supplemented in1977 by the Office of Management andBudget, Executive Office of thePresident.

EPA estimates there are 10,260plastics molding and forming (PM&F)plants distributed through out the UnitedStates. EPA further estimates that 1,898of the 10,260 plants have 2,522 PM&Fprocesses that use process water (i.e.,they are wet). The 1,898 wet plants have789 wet PM&F processes with directdischarges, 1,117 wet processes withindirect discharges, and 616 wetprocesses with no discharge.

The plastics molding and formingcategory consists of plants that blend,mold, form, or otherwise process a widevariety of plastic materials intointermediate or final plastic products.There are eight generic processes usedto process plastic materials. They are:

586i3F I I

I


1. Extrusion,2. Molding,3. Coating and laminating,4. Thermoforming,5. Calendering,6. Casting,7. Foaming, and8. Cleaning and finishing.Each of these processes is described

briefly below including discussion ofwhich PM&F processes use processwater and the purpose of such use. Inthe context of this proposed rule,process water is defined as any raw,service, recycled, or reused water thatcontacts the plastic product or contactsshaping equipment surfaces, such asmolds and mandrels, that are or havebeen in contact with the plastic product.

Only process water discharges arecovered by this proposed rule.Noncontact cooling water is not processwater and thus is not controlled by thisproposed regulation. Permitting andcontrol authroities will establishlimitations for the discharge ofnoncontact cooling water and othernonprocess wastewater on a case-by-case basis.

Extrusion is the forcing of moltenpolymer through a shaping die to formproducts of uniform cross-sectional areasuch as pipe, tube, profile, sheet, andfilm. This process has severalapplications including pelletizing, theproduction of parisons (blow moldingpreforms) for later use, the production offinished and semi-finished products, andthe coating of substrate materials.Process water is frequently used inextrusion processes to cool the plasticproduct.

Molding is the most common processused to produce finished or semi-finished products from plastic resins.Molded parts can be solid, hollow, orfoamed. Plastic objects of almost anydesired shape can be producedcommercially by seven different types ofmolding processes. These are:-Injection molding,-Blow molding,-Compression molding,-Transfer molding,-Expandable bead foam molding,-Reaction injection molding, and-Rotational molding

Process water may be used ininjection, blow, compression, transfer,and expandable bead foam moldingprocesses to cool or heat the moldedproduct. This reduces the time that theproduct stays in the mold. Process watergenerally is not used in reactioninjection and rotational moldingprocesses. Usually, noncontact coolingwater is used to cool the outside of themolds used in those processes,

Coating and laminating processescombine polymeric materials with othermaterials to produce products withspecial properties such as chemicalresistance, toughness, humidityresistance, corrosion resistance, andelectrical insulation. Heat is used inboth processes. In addition to heat,lamination also requires high pressures.

Coating processes are classified intofour types: plastisol coating, powdercoating, spread coating, and extrusioncoating. Process water may be used tocool the coated products.

Lamination processes can beclassified into three types: flat sheetlamination, rod and tube lamination,and continuous lamination. Processwater is generally not used inlamination processes.

Thermoforming involves the heatingof thermoplastic sheet or film to apliable form and forcing the heatedthermoplastic around the contours of amold. Vacuum, air pressure, ormechanical force aid in the forming ofthe product. Process water is usually notused in thermoforming processes.However, in some cases, thethermoformed product may be cooled byspraying it with process water.

Calendering is widely used in theplastics molding and forming category toproduce uniform quality film and sheetat high production rates. Calenderingprocesses squeeze pliable thermoplasticbetween a series of rolls to produce thepolymer film and sheet, to emboss sheetand film, the perform compoundingoperations, and to coat textile and paperproducts. Process water is usually notused in calendering processes.

In the plastics molding'and formingindustry, the term casting is used ratherlossely to describe a wide variety ofprocesses. Casting involves using liquidplastic material at atmospheric pressurein a mold or on a mold surface. Thereare six casting processes: pot casting,slush and dip casting, chilled filmcasting, solvent casting, cell casting, andcontinuous casting. Process water maybe used in pot and slush and dip castingprocesses to cool the plastic product.Process water is not used in chilled film,solvent, cell, and continuous castingprocesses.

During the solvent casting process, thesolvent used to produce a slurry of theplastic material evaporates. The gasesare captured and processed to recoverthe solvent. Wastewater is generatedduring the solvent recovery operation.

Foamed plastic products (often calledcellular or expanded plastics are madeby adding a blowing agent tothermoplasticd or thermosets to form aspongelike material. Blowing agents areeither added to the raw plastic material

and then vaporized or are generated asa by-product of a cure reaction. Foamedplastic products can be classified intoone of three types: extrudedthermoplastic foam, structural foam, ormulticomponent thermoset foam. Thefirst is an extrusion product while theother two are molded products. Processwater mak be used in foaming processesto cool the foamed product.

Products produced by the variousmolding and forming processes mayrequire further processing to becomeuseful end products. A cleaning orfinishing process is used to produce thefinal product.

Cleaning processes consist of washingplastic products to remove residual moldrelease agents and other matter.Washing is generally divided into twosegments: a detergent wash cycle and arinse cycle for the removal of detergentsand other foreign matter. Process wateris used as the carrier solution in bothwashing and rinsing operations. Processequipment, such as molds, pots, andmandrels, are also washed in a cleaningprocess.

Finishing processes render the plasticproducts useful. There are three generaltypes of finishing processes: machining,decorating, and assembling. Machiningprocesses drill, cut, mill, and otherwiseshape products to match final productspecifications. Decorative finishes areapplied to plastic parts by a variety ofmethods including painting, printing, hotstamping, and vacuum metallizing.Assembling involves joining two ormore plastic parts by methods such assolvent welding, ultrasonic welding, orelectronic heat sealing. Process watermay be used in finishing processes tocarry away waste plastic material or tolubricate the producL

In several instances, particular PM&Fprocesses and the wastewater generatedby these processes may fall within thisand other industrial categories for whichthe Agency has established effluentlimitations guidelines and standards.Thus, for the purpose of regulatorycoverage, the Agency has separatedeach process to ensure that it is clearlysubject to one set of effluent limitationsguidelines and standards. Processes thatcoat a plastic material onto a substratemay fall within the definition ofelectroplating and metal finishing asdefined in 40 CFR Parts 413 and 433 (see,48 FR 32485; July 15, 1983). These coatingoperations are excluded from theeffluent limitations guidelines andstandards for the electroplating andmetal finishing point source categoryand are included in the PM&F category.See 40 CFR Part 433.10(b). Coating ofplastic material onto a formed metal

5864

Federal Register / Vol. -49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

substrate is also covered by the PM&Feffluent limitations guidelines andstandards and is not covered by thespecific metal forming effluentlimitations guidelines such as those foraluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467 (48FR 49126; October 24, 1983)), copperforming (40 CFR 468 (48 FR 36942;August 15, 1983)), and nonferrous metalsforming. However, the PM&F regulationapplies only to the coating process; theprior forming operations are subject tothe specific metal forming regulation.

Some molding and forming processes(e.g., extrusion and pelletizing) are usedby plastic resin manufacturers toprocess crude intermediate plasticmaterial. For the purpose of thisregulation, plastic molding and formingprocesses used by plastic resinmanufacturers to process crudeintermediate plastic materials forshipment off-site are excluded from thisregulation and regulated under theorganic chemicals, plastics. andsynthetic fibers category. Plasticmolding and forming processes used byplastic resin manufacturers to processplastic materials on-site intointermediate or final plastic products byfuither molding and forming arecontrolled by the effluent limitationsguidelines and standards for the plasticsmolding and forming category in thisPart.

The characteristics of the processwastewater generated by PM&F plantsmay vary depending on the use of suchwater, The conventional andnonconventional pollutants found inPM&F wastewater are: (1) Conventionalpollutants-biochemical oxygen demand(BOD), suspended solids (TSS), oil andgrease, and pH and (2) nonconventionalpollutants-total organic carbon,chemical oxygen demand, and totalphenols. The priority toxic pollutantsfound are: (1) Contact cooling andhcotipg water-benzene, carbontetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, p-chloro-m-cresol, chloroform, methylenechloride, phenol, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate,tetrachloroethylene, toluene, aldrin,dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE, heptachlor, a-BtiC, ,-BHC, X-BHC, 8-BHC, cadmium, totalchromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,and zinc and, (2) cleaning and finishingwater-benzene, chloroform, methylenechloride, N-nitrosodiphenylamine,phenol, bis(Z-ethylhexyl) phthalate,toluene, aldrin, heptachlor, a-BHC, X-BHC, 8-BHC, total chromium, copper.nickel, selenium, and zinc.III. Scope of This Rulemaking andSummary of Methodology

This proposed regulation is a part ofthe Agency's continuing effort in water

pollution control requirements. For mostindustries, the 1973-1976 round ofrulemaking emphasized the achiemementof best practicable technology (BPT) byJuly 1, 1977. In general, this technologylevel represented the average of the bestexisting performance of well-knowntechnologies for control of familiar (or"classical") pollutants. However, for thiscategory, BPT effluent limitationsguidelines were not proposed orpromulgated. BPT effluent limitationsguidelines were established on a case-by-case basis by permit writers.

In the current round of rulemakings,EPA is proposing to establish nationallyapplicable BPT effluent limitationsguidelines and is addressing theachievement by July 1, 1984, of effluentlimitations guidelines based on the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable (BAT), which will result inreasonable further progress toward thenational goal of eliminating thedischarge of all pollutants, In general,the BAT level represents the very besteconomically achievable performance inany industrial category or subcategory.As a result of the Clean Water Act of'1977, the emphasis of EPA's program hasgenerally shifted from "classical"pollutants to the control of a lengthy listof toxic pollutants. The Agency is alsoproposing to establish BTC effluentlimitations guidelines and new sourceperformance standards. For the reasonsdiscussed below, the Agency is notproposing categorical pretreatmentstandards for new and existing indirectdischarges in this category.

In developing this proposedregulation, EPA studied the plasticsmolding and forming category todetermine whether differences in rawmaterials, final products, manufacturingprocesses, equipment, age and size ofplants, water use, wastewatercharacteristics, or other factors requiredthe development of separate effluentlimitations guidelines and standards fordifferent segments (or subcategories) ofthe category. This study included theidentification of raw wastecharacteristics, sources and volumes ofwater used, processes employed, andsources of wastewaters. Sampling andanalysis of specific wastewatersenabled EPA to determine the presenceand concentration of pollutants inwastewater discharges.

EPA also identified actual andpotential wastewater control andtreatment technologies (including bothinprocess and end-of-processtechnologies). The Agency analyzedboth historical and newly generateddata on the performance, operationalconstraints, and reliability of these

technologies. In addition, EPAconsidered the impacts of thesetechnologies on air quality, solid wastegeneration, water scarcity, and energyrequirements.

The Agency estimated the costs ofeach control and treatment technologyusing cost equations developed bystandard engineering analyses. EPAderived control technology costs for the408 PM&F plants in the Agency's database. rhe Agency then evaluated thepotential economic impacts of thesecosts on the rategory.

The Agency also developed afinancial profile for 384 of the 408 plantsin the data base using information fromquestionnaire surveys and publiclyavailable data. Using plant specificfinancial information and compliancecost estimates, the impact of theproposed regulation on 101 plants with adirect discharge was determined. Thoseimpacts were extrapolated to theestimated number of plants in the PM&Fcategory that discharge wastewaterdirectly to navigable waters.

On the basis of this information, EPAidentified various control and treatmenttechnologies to use as the basis for theeffluent limitations guidelines andstandards addressed by this proposedrule. The proposed regulation does notrequire, however, the installation of anyparticular technology. Rather, it requirescompliance with effluent limitationsguidelines and standards based on theproper operation of these technologies.

IV. Data Gathering Efforts

The proposed PM&F effluentlimitations guidelines and standardswere developed using informationobtained from several sources.Information was obtained from threequestionnaire surveys of PM&F plants.other EPA studies, literature, andexisting discharge permits for plants inthe category.

In 1978, a single page questionnairewas mailed to approximately 8,000plants to obtain information about anyPM&F processes. Results of that surveywere used to select 750 plants that hadplastic molding and forming processesand that used water in those processes.Under the authority of Section 308 of theClean Water Act, these plants weremailed a detailed questionnaire in 1979to obtain additional information (e.g.,amount of water used and production)about the PM&F category. In June 1983.another questionnaire was mailed underauthority of Section 308 of the CleanWater Act to 330 PM&F plants to updatethe 1979 information and to obtaininformation on "new" PM&F plants. Themailing included a random sample of

5865


plants that returned the 1979questionnaire, a random sample ofplants that did not return the 1979questionnaire, and a random sample ofplants that entered the market betweenJanuary 1, 1978, and December 31, 1981,as identified by a Dun and Brvd,*r:et,Inc. listing and a teephone srvey. Allof these plants had a primary SIC of3079 as reported by Dun and Bradtreet,Inc. To obtain information from plantswith a secondary SIC of 3079 !i e.,captive plastics molders and formers).170 questionnaires were mailed toplants on the mailing list for themagazine "Plastics World" in Augnst1983.

In summary, the data base for thisproject contains questionnaires from 408plants. One hundred and ninety-six ofthe questionnaires are from the 1979survey; 163 are from the 1983 survey ofplants with a primary SIC of 3079; and49 are from the 1983 survey of plantswith a secondary SIC of 3079. If a plantsubmitted a questionnaire in 1979 andagain in 1983, only the updatedquestionnaire from the 1983 survey wasincluded in the data base.

Information on PM&F processes,economic and financial characteristics,wastewater treatment technologies, andcosts were obtained from variousstudies and literature searches.Information regarding currentlycontrolled pollutants and treatmenttechnologies used was also obtainedfrom existing National PollutantDischarge Elimination Systems [NPDES)permits. Although the Agency used allavailable data obtained from thesesources, effluent concentration data furspecific treatment technologiesconsidered were limited. Thus, theAgency supplemented its analyses byusing treated effluent concentration datafor conventional pollutants that wereused to develop the proposed effluentlimitations guidelines and standards forthe organic chemicals, plastics, andsynthetic fibers category (48 FR 1182&-March 21, 1983).

Further discussions of the datagathering efforts for this project arepresented in Section IV of the technk.aldevelopment document for thisproposed regulation developmentdocument for this proposed regulationand in the Economic Impact Analysis.

During the sampling program for thisproject, samples were collected andanalyzed for conventional pollutants,selected nonconventional pollutants,and priorty toxic pollutants. Theanalytical methods used during thisprogram are discussed in the proposedregulation for the Leather Tanning PointSource Category, 40 CFR Part 425 (44 FR38749: July 2. 1979) and in Section VI of

the techidcal development document forthis proposed regulation.

The litt of 65 toxic compounds andclasses of compounds specified in theNRDC Settlement Agreement and in theClean Wuter Act of 1977 includesthouFnds of specific pollutants;analyses of all of those plutarts wouldhave overwhelmed private andgovernment laboratory resources.Therefore, to make the ta,k moremanageable, EPA selected 129 specifictoxic po)llutants (known as p-ioritypollutants) for study in this rind otherindustry rulemakings.

The sampling program for this pr,,h!;tconsisted of four sampling episodes in1980 and seven sampling epikodes in1983. Forty-four samples were collectedfrom PM&F processes that use contactcooling and heating water and 25samples were collected from cleaningand finishing processes.

Samples of the different types ofwastewater discharged by plasticsmolders and formers were collected andanalyzed for biochemical oxygendemand (BOD), oil and grease, totalsuspended solids (TSS), pHt, chemicaloxygen demand, ammonia, total kjeldahlnitrogen, total phosphorus, total organiccarbon, total phenols, suilfate, sulfite,sulfide, nitrates, fluorine, free chlorine,boran, bromide, surfactants (MBAS),and the 129 priority toxic pollutants. Theanalytical results are presented inAppendix A of the technicaldevelopment document.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

In developing this proposedregulation, the Agency reviewed thePM&F category to determine if differenteffluent limitations guidelines andstandards were appropriate for differentsegments (subcategories) of thecategory. The major factors consideredduring this review included: wastecharacteristics, material used,manufacturing processes, productsmanufactured, water use, waterpollution control technology, treatmentcosts, solid waste generation, size cfplant, age of plant, number of plantemployees, total energy requirements,non-water quality characteristics, andunique plant characteristics. Section Vof the technical development dacumentcontains a detailed discussion f thesefactors and the rationale for the basisfor the PM&F industry subcategorizationscheme.

The PM&F processes previouslydiscussed generate basically two typesof wastewater: contact cooling andheating water and cleaning and finishingwater. Results of our sampling programindicate that the characteristics of thetwo types of wastewater are different in

terms of the number and concentrationof priority toxic pollutants found to bepresent. In addition, the concentrationsof the conventional andnonconventional pollutants aredifferent, although the pollutants orpollutant properties are the same.Therefore, the PM&F category wassubcategorized based on the type ofwastewater generated by a process. Theother factors considered did not result indifferences that requiredsubcategorization of the category.

The two subcategories establizhed forthe PM&F category are: (1) Contactcooling and heating water subcategoryand (2) cleaning and finishing watersubcategory.

Plants in the PM&F category may haveprocesses generating only one type ofwastewater and thus fit within onesubcategory. However, many plantsgenerate both contact cooling andheating water and cleaning and finishingwater. In this instance, plants mustcomply with the effluent limitationsguidelines and standards for bothsubcategories. The end-of-pipe modeltreatment technologies used as the basisfor the limitations are the same for bothsubcategories. Thus plants having bothtypes of wastewater may combine bothtypes of wastewater for common end-of-pipe treatment to achieve the effluentlimitations guidelines for eachsubcategory.

The contact cooling and heating watersubcategory includes those processeswhere process water contacts rawmaterials or plastics products for thepurpose of heat transfer during plasticsmolding and forming. In identifyingmodel treatment technology options forthis subcategory, the Agency found thatfurther subdivision based on averageprocess water usage flow rate wasrequired. Thus, processes with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less are in one subdivisionand processes with an average processwater usage flow rate greater than 35gpm are in a different subdivision.Further discussion of the flow cut-off forthis subcategory is presented in SectionVIII of this preamble and in Section X ofthe technical development document.

The cleaning and finishingsubcategory includes those processesthat use process water to clean or finishthe plastic product or to clean shapingequipment that is or has been in contactwith the formed plastic product. Processwater used to clean the plastic productor shaping equipment includes waterused in the detergent wash cycle andwater used in the rinse cycle to removedetergents and other foreign matter.Finishing water consists of water used

........ m

5866


to carry away waste plastic material orto lubricate the product during finishingprocesses.

Wastewater is also generated by thesol'ent recovery operation in thesolution or solvent casting process.However, this wastewaiter does notresult from the blending, niling,forming, or any processing of t3he plasticmaterial and is not a process water.Samples of this wastewFder indicatethat its pollutant characteristics aredifferent from the characteristics ofPM&F process wastewater. in addition.the Agency estimates that only eightplants in the category generate solventrecovery wastewater. For these reasons,the Agency believes that solventrecovery wastewater is.best controlledon a case-by-case basis by the pernitwriter or control authority. Analyticaldata for this type of wastowater fromthe Agency's study of the plasticsmolding and forming category may beused as a guide by the permit writer.

VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technologies

,. Contnrl und Treatment Ter.hnulogiesConsidered

The control and treatmenttechnologies available for this categoryinclude both in-process and end-of-pipetechnologies. These technologies wereconsidered appropriate for the treatmentof plastics molding and formingwastewater and formed the basis of theregulatory options.

The in-process control technologyconsidered for this proposed regulationis recycle of the process water (i.e., flowreduction). Recycle consists of returningthe process water to the process so thatit can be used again for the samepurpose. By reducing the amount ofwater discharged, the size and cost ofthe technologies used to treat thedischarge are reduced. Additionally,treatment technology performance maybe improved using a recycle systembecause the concentrations of thepollutants in the discharge from therecycle unit are higher than theconcentrations in the process water.Treatment technologies usually performbetter with a more concentratedwastewater.

Process water that requires coolingprior to recycle is recycled through atechnology that lowers the temperatureof the water. One type of recycle unit isa holding tank. Process water is held inthe tank until the temperature dropsthrough passive heat transfer to theen ironment. Application of this recycleunit is limited to low flow rateprocesses,

Another type of recycle unit is achiller. Chillers cool the process waterby mechanical refrigeration. They canbe used with higher flow rite p-ocessessimply by adding the number of chillersneeded to provide the required amountof refrigeration. However, at the highflow rates, the high erergy cost per unitof cooling makes the rhil!er lessattractive than other recycle units suchas a cooling tower.

A cooling tower lowers the watertemperature by evaporative cooling.Water flows overthe surfaces of thecooling tower and is cooled when itcontacts the air that is blown into thetower. This unit is particularlyappropriate for high flow rate processesbecause of its small space and lowenergy requirements.

A sedimentation tank may be used torecycle process water that requires theremoval of solids or oil and grease. Thesolids settle to the bottom of the tankand are removed; oil and grease areskimmed off of the tank water surface.The treated water is then recycled to theprocess.

End-of-pipe technologies consideredappropriate for PM&F wastewaterinclude pH adjustment, sedimentation,and the activated sludge process.

pHAdjustment. Acidic and basicmaterials are used to control the pti ofthe wastewater. Proper pH adjustmentnot only controls a pollutant propertybut also serves to ensure propertreatment technology performance.

Sedimentation. Sedimentation is aprocess that removes solid particlesfrom a liquid matrix by gravitationalforce. This is done by reducing thevelocity of the flow in a large volumetank so that gravitational settling canoccur. Floatable materials such as oilscan also be removed in this process byskimming them from the surface of thewater in the tank.

Biological Treatment (ActivatedSludge). The activated sludge process isa widely used biological treatmentprocess characterized by a suspensionof microorganisms maintained in ahomogeneous state by mixing andturbulence induced by aeration. Themicroorganisms oxidize soluble andcolloidal organic material to carbondioxide and water in the presence ofmolecular oxygen. This process treatsdissolved pollutants such asbiochemical oxygen demand (BOD),total organic carbon, and total phenols.The activated sludge process, which isdesigned to assure optimal removal ofBOD, removes organic prioritypollutants in the wastewater.

Activated sludge technology also canbe used with sedimentation technologies

to make a package activated sludgeplant. These are self-contained plantsusually consisting of a primarysedimentation unit, an activated sludgeunit, and a final sedimentation unit.Package activated sludge plants areused to treat flows from as low as 600gallons per day to as high as 100,000gallons per day.

B. Status of In-Place Technology

Recycle is a widely demonstrated in-process control in the plastics moldingand forming category. Process water isrecycled for 42 percent of the contactcooling and heating water processes inthe data base for this project. Onehundred percent of the process water isrecycled for 47 percent of thoseprocesses. Process water is alsorecycled for 16 percent of the cleaningand finishing processes in the data base.

The end-of-pipe technologies currentlyused by both direct and indirectdischargers in the PM&F categoryinclude pH adjustment, sedimentation,and oil skimming. Treatmenttechnologies used at plants where PM&Fwastewater and other wastewa ter arecombined for treatment includesedimentation, the activated sludgeprocess, the activated carbon process,and pH adjustment.

VIII. Best Practicable Technology (BPT)Effluent Limitations Guidelines

The factors considered in definingbest practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT) include thetotal cost of applying the technology inrelation to the effluent reductionbenefits derived, the age of equipmentand facilities involved, the processesemployed, non-water qualityenvironmental impacts (including energyrequirements), and other factors theAdministrator considers appropriate. Ingeneral, the BPT level represents theaverage of the best existing performanceof plants of various ages, sizes,processes, or other commoncharacteristics. Where existingperformance is uniformly inadequate,BPT may be transferred from a differentsubcatgory or category. Limitationsbased on transfer technology must besupported by a conclusion that thetechnology is, indeed, transferable and areasonable prediction that it will becapable of achieving the prescribedeffluent limitations guidelines. See,Tanrers' Council of America v. Train,540 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuseson end-of-pipe treatment rather thanprocess changes or internal controls,except where such controls are commonindustry practice.

5867

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, Februiary 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is alimited balancing, committed to EPA'sdiscretion, that does not require theAgency to quantify benefits in monetaryterms. See, American Iron and SteelInstitute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir.1975). In balancing costs in relation toeffluent reduction benefits, EPAconsiders the volume and nature ofexisting discharges, the volume andnature of discharges expected afterapplication of BPT, the generalenvironmental effects of the pollutants,and the cost and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control level. TheAct does not require or permitconsideration of water quality problemsattributable to particular point sourcesor industries, or water qualityimprovements in particular waterbodies. Accordingly. water qualityconsiderations were not the basis forselecting the proposed BPT. See,Weyerhaeuser Company v. Castle, 590F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

Contact Cooling and Heating WoterSubcotegory

The Agency identified threetechnology options as the basis for theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for the contact cooling andheating water subcategory. Theseoptions are discussed briefly below andin further detail in Section X of thetechnical development document for thisproposed regulation.

Option 1: Sedimentation: Thetechnology for this option consists of atank in which the velocity of thewastewater is reduced so that solidmaterial can settle by gravitationalforce. This option was rejected early inthe development of this proposed rulebecause the suspended solidsconcentration in the cooling and heatingwater is very low and because thetechnology does not remove thedissolved pollutants (e.g., biochemicaloxygen demand) in the contact coolingand heating water.

Option 2: For processes with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less-zero discharge by 100percent recycle of the process waterusing either a tank or chiller.

For processes with an average processwater usage flow rate greater than 35gpm-recycle through a cooling towerand treatment of the recycle unitdischarge in a package activated sludgeplant. An equilization tank is includedas part of the package plant.

The flow cut-off (i.e., 35 gpm) for thisoption is based on the average of thebest performance of plants in thecontact cooling and heating watersubcategory that achieve 100 percentrecycle. Data from the questionnaire

surveys for this project indicate that 89processes in this subcategory with aflow rate up to 50 gpm achieve 100percent recycle. Of these proces: es,eight have a flow rate between 20 gpmand 50 gpm. The Agency averiged theflow rate for those eight processes toarrive at a flow rate of 35 gpm as thecut-off based on the average of tLe best,Above 50 gpm, a cooling tower is mostcommonly used to recycle processwater. A cooling tower necessarilyincludes some amount of discharge,which is treated in a package activatedsluge plant in this option.

This technology option results ip nodischarge of pollutants from processeswith an average process water usageflow rate of 35 gpm or less andsignificantly reduces the concentrationof co!nventional, nonconventional, andpriority pollutants discharged byprocesses with an average processwater usage flow rate greater than 35gpm.

Option 3: For processes with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less--Zero discharge by 100percent recycle of the wastewaterthrough either a tank or a chiller.

For processes with an average processwater usage flow rate greater than 35gpm-Recycle through a cooling towerand zero discharge by contract haul ofthe discharge from the recycle unit.

The 35 gpin flow rate was osed as thecut-off for this option for the sarmvreasons it was used in Option 2. Acooling tower is also used in this optionto recycle process water for procr sseswith an average process water usageflow rate greater then 35 gpm. However.the recycle unit discharge is contracthauled to achieve zero discharge insteadof being treated at the plant anddischarged.

Contract haul was used in this optionto handlc the discharge from the recycleunit because treatment technologiesother than those used in Option 2 arenot considered feasible for the PM&Fcategory. Technologies (e.g., activatedcarbon) that could be used to treatPM&F wastewater are expensive andare difficult to operate and maintin.The Agency considers contract haulmore practicable for this subcategorythan those technologies.

This technology option results in zerodischarge of pollutants from allprocesses that use process water forcontact cooling and heating.

Option Selected

The Agency is proposing Option 2 asthe model technology basis for BPTeffluent limitations guidelines for thecontact cooling and heating watersubcategory. As prevously mentioned,

many plants in the data base for thisproject indicated they currently recycle100 percent of the contact cooling andheating water from PM&F processeswith an avecage process water usageflow rate of 35 gpm or less. Further,those plants reported that the onlywastes from this technology result fromoccasional cleaning of the recycle units(i.e., once every one to two years) forwhich a discharge allowance is notrequired.

The proposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for processes with an averageprocess water usage flow rate of 35 gpmor less require zero discharge of thewastewater. The "average processwater usage flow rate" is the volume ofprocess water used per year by aprocess divided by the total time peryear the process operates. The "averageprocess water usage flow rate" for aplant with more than one PM&F processthat uses contact cooling and heatingwater is the sum of the "average processwater usage flow rates" for each ofthese processes. The sum of the procepsflow rates determines if a plant hasPM&F contact cooling and heatingprocesses with an average processwater usage flow rate less than, equalto, or greater than 35 gpm.

The proposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for processes with an averageprocess water usage flow rate greaterthan 35 gpm are based on recyclethrough a cooling tower and treatmentof the recycle unit discharge in apackage activated sludge plant. Theactivated sludge process is onlydemonstrated at integrated treatmentfacilities that treat PM&F wastewatercombined with wastewater dischargedby other industrial processes. Treatmentat plants that discharge PM&Fwastewater separately is uniformlyinadequate because these plantsindicated that they use onlysedimentation and oil skimming, which,as discussed earlier, does not removedissolved pollutants. None of the PM&Fplants where the Agency collectedsamples and none of the plants in thequestionnaire data base had anactivated sludge process solely for thetreatment of PM&F wastewater.

Since the Agency found that plantsdischarging PM&F wastewaterseparately have uniformly inadequatetreatment and since the Agency lacksperformance data for the activatedsludge process on only PM&Fwastewater, the treatment effectivenessof this technology was evaluated andestablished by examining itsperformance on similar wastewaters.The Agency compared the PM&F dataobtained during the sampling program

5868


for this project to wastewater data fromthe organic chemicals, plastics, andsynthetic fibers category, particularlythe plastics only subcategory, and foundthat the wastewaters for the twocategories have similar characteristics.Specifically, data on raw wasteconcentrations of BOD, TSS, and oil andgrease were examined statistically. Theresults show that the raw wasteconcentrations for these pollutants areneither significantly greater nor morevariable than the raw wasteconcentrations at plants thatmanufacture plastics. This providedsupport for the Agency's technicaljudgment that activated sludge will treatPM&F wastewater effectively andachieve conventional pollutant levelsdemonstrated by activated sludgeprocesses that treat wastewatergenerated by plastics manufacturingplants in the organic chemicals, plastics,and synthetic fibers category. Thus, theAgency transferred the activated sludgetechnology and treated effluent data forthat technology from the organicchemicals, plastics, and synthetic fiberscategory to the PM&F category. Effluentconcentration values were transferredfor biochemical oxygen demand, totalsuspended solids, and oil and grease.

The Agency is proposing mass-basedBPT effluent limitations guidelinesbecause flow reduction by recycle of thewastewater is an important part of themodel treatment technology. Theeffluent limitations guidelines areexpressed in terms of the allowablemass of pollutant discharged per unit ofproduction and reflect the reduction inflow achieved by application of BPT.

The mass limitations were calculatedby combining two values: (1) Treatmenttechnology effluent concentrations and(2) a production normalized wastewaterflow for the subcategory. The unit ofproduction used to determine theproduction normalized wastewater flowis mass of plastic material processed.Mass of plastic material processed wasselected as the appropriate productionnormalizing parameter because themass of pollutants generated relates tothe mass of plastic material processed.Also, many plants reported that recordsare routinely kept in terms of mass ofplastic materials processed. Thus, inaddition to providing an equitablenormalizing parameter, this parameterminimizes compliance burdens on theindustry.

The production normalized flow (PNF)used to calculate the allowable masswas obtained using information from thequestionnaire surveys. Since theselected BPT option is based on flowreduction, information from plants that

currently recycle water was used tocalculate the PNF. Of the 183 plants inthis subcategory reporting recycle ofcontact cooling and heating water, 48had an average process water usageflow rate greater than 35 gpm and arecycle ratio between 90 and 99.9percent. Thus, the total discharge forthese 48 processes (liters per year) wasdivided by the total production reportedfor these processes to obtain aproduction normalized flow (liters perthousand kilograms) for all processes inthis subcategory. The Agencyconsidered but is not establishing aseparate production normalized flow foreach type of molding or forming process.Data indicate that the amount of waterrequired for contact cooling or heatingpurposes is primarily a function of themass of material cooled or heated anddoes not appear to be dependent on thetype of molding and forming processused. The PNF was multiplied by theconcentration values to obtain theallowable mass of a pollutantdischarged per mass of plastic materialprocessed for this subcategory.

Under BPT, the Agency proposes to6stablish effluent limitations guidelinesfor biochemical oxygen demand, totalsuspended solids, oil and grease, andpH. The Agency estimates that whenthese limitations are met approximately79 percent of the amount ofnonconventional pollutants dischargedby PM&F processes and approximately80 percent of the amount of prioritytoxic pollutants discharged will beremoved. These estimates are based onremoval percentages reported inprevious EPA studies and otherliterature sources for thenonconventional and priority toxicpollutants.

Although the proposed modeltreatment technology removesapproximately 79 percent of the amountof nonconventional pollutantsdischarged, a substantial amount ofthose pollutants remain in the discharge.For this reason, the Agency plans tostudy the nonconventional pollutants,particularly chemical oxygen demandand total organic carbon, betweenproposal and promulgation of the PM&Feffluent limitations guidelines andstandards to determine the chemicalconstituents of these pollutants.Depending on the results of that work.the Agency may consider additionalcontrols for the nonconventionalpollutants.

The 35 gpm cut-off used in BPTOptions 2 and 3 is based on thedemonstrated recycle of 100 percent ofthe process water for processes with anaverage process water usage flow rate

of 35 gpm or less. However, availableinformation suggests that 100 percentrecycle may be achieved by processeswith higher flow rates. Accordingly, theAgency will give further considerationto the flow cut-off for this subcategorybetween proposal and promulgation ofthe PM&F effluent limitations guidelinesand standards. If additional informationand further studies confirm theachievability of 100 percent recycle forflows up to and including all contactcooling and heating water flows, theAgency may decide to raise the 100percent recycle flow cut-off. EPA invitescomment on this issue.

The Agency is not proposing Option 3as the technology basis for the BPTeffluent limitations guidelines for thissubcategory because the mass of toxicpollutants in the raw wastewater is verylow (i.e., approximately one kilogramper day per direct discharger) and theannual costs are significantly higher forcontract hauling than the annual costsfor treatment in Option 2 ($9.4 millionper year for Option 2 compared to $41.2million per year for Option 3). (All costsare expressed in 1982 dollars.) However,as discussed earlier, the Agency will beconducting further studies to identifywhat contributes to the nonconventionalpollutants. Based on the results of thisstudy, EPA may give furtherconsideration to Option 3 and to otherappropriate technologies, including ahigher flow cut-off for 100 percentrecycle, for the control ofnonconventional pollutants.

The Agency estimates that theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for this subcategory result inthe removal of approximately 7.5 millionkilograms of conventional pollutants peryear, 21.5 million kilograms per year ofnonconventional pollutants, and 99,000kilograms per year of priority toxicpollutants from the raw wastes. Theestimate investment costs and totalannual costs in 1982 dollars for theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines are $15.2 million and $9.4million, respectively. The Agency hasdetermined that the effluent reductionbenefits associated with compliancewith BPT justify the costs.

Engineering cost estimates, effluentreduction estimates, and the economicimpact analysis for BPT Options 2 and 3are based on an average process waterusage flow rate cut-off of 15 gpm. Thecut-off was subsequently changed to 35gpm. The Agency believes that theresults of those analyses using the 15gpm cut-off support the proposed BPT 35gpm cut-off because technology costs forprocesses with flow rates between 15and 35 gpm are expected to decrease

5869

Federal Register / Vol. 49, N6. 32 / Wednesday. February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

and benefits for those processes areexpected to increase (i.e., moreprocesses will recycle 100 percent of theprocess water) when the 35 gpm cut-offis used. The Agency will revise thoseanalyses using the 35 gpm cut-off priorto promulgation of the PM&F effluent-limitations guidelines and standards.

Cleaning and Finishing WaterSubcategory

The Agency identified threetechnology options for the basis for theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for the cleaning and finishingwater subcategory. One hundredpercent recycle of cleaning and finishingwastewater is not feasible because ofthe high solids concentration in thatwater and, therefore, was notconsidered for this subcategory. Thethree options considered are discussedbriefly below and in further detail inSection X of the technical developmentdocument.

Option 1: pH Adjustment andSedimentation: The technology for thisoption consists of a tank in which thevelocity of the wastewater is reduced sothat solid material can settle bygravitational force. Acidic or basicmaterial is added to either the tankinfluent or the tank effluent to adjust thepH of the wastewater.

Option 2; This option consists ofrecycle through a sedimentation tankand treatment of the discharge from therecycle unit in a pac:kage activatedsludge plant. The package plant includesan equalization unit and pH adjustment.A sedimentation tank is used to removethe suspended solids so that the processwater can be recycled.

Option 3: Option 3 consists of recyclethrough a sedimentation tank for allprocesses and contract haul of thedischarge from the recycle unit.Option Selected

The Agency is proposing Option 2 asthe technology basis for the BPT effluentlimitations guidelines for thissubcategory. Fur the same rcasonsdiscussed in the preceding section onthe contact cooling and heating watersubcategory, the effluent concentrationvalues for BOD, TSS, and oil and greasefor the activated sludge process weretransferred from plants thatmanufacture plastics in the organicchemicals, plastics, and synthetic fiberscategory.

The Agency is proposing mass-basedBPT effluent limitations guidelinesbecause flow reduction by recycle of thewastewater is an important part of themodel treatment technology. Thelimitations are expressed in terms of theallowable mass of pollutant discharged

per unit of production and reflect thereduction in flow achieved byapplication of BPT.

For this subcategory, the Agencycalculated two production normalizedflows, one applicable to cleaningprocesses, which include both detergentwash cycle and a rinse cycle, and oneapplicable to finishing processes. TheAgency determined that two separateproduction normalized flow werenecessary for processes within thissubcategory because of the difference inthe amounts of wastewater dischargedfrom cleaning as opposed to finishingprocesses. Data indicate that washingand rinsing of molded or formed plasticparts and shaping equipment uressignificantly more water than used tofinish plastic products. Thus, EPAcalculated the production normalizedflow for cleaning processes by addingthe total discharge (liters per year) forall cleaning processes that recycleprocess water by the total production(kkg) from these processes as reportedby plants in the data base. The Agencyused the same method to calculate aproduction normalized flow for allfinishing processes using all availabledata for those processes. Theseproduction normalized flows were thenmultiplied by the concentration value forthe activated sludge process to obtainthe allowable mass of pollutantdischarged per cleaning or finishingprocess.

The Agency estimates that theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines result in the removal of643,000 kilograms per year ofconventional pollutants, 806,000kilograms per year of nonconventionalpollutants, and 790 kilograms per year ofpriority pollutants from the raw waste.The estimated total investment costsand total annual costs for the proposedBPT effluent limitations guidelines are$2.0 million and $1.5 million,respectively. The Agency hasdetermined that the costs are justifiedby the effluent reduction benefits.

Costs used to evaluate Option 2 arebased on recycle and contract haulingfor flows of two gpm or less because theAgency assumes that plnts will complywith the regulations in the least costlymanner. Equipment vendors indicatethat the smallest commercially availableactivated sludge package plant isdesigned for a flow rate of 600 gallonsper day. Using the assumed recycle ratiofor the flow reduction unit in the modeltreatment technology for thissubcategory, a process must have anaverage process water usage flow ofgreater than two gpm for this treatmenttechnology to be practical. AlthoughEPA recognizes that plants with

cleaning and finishing processes with aflow rate of two gpm or less may chons,'to install a custom built system toachieve the limitations, it is difficult forEPA to estimate the costs of a customsystem. Further, the Agency believesthat foi plants with an average processwater usage flow rate of two gpm orless, it may be more economical tocontract haul the wastewater. Thus. theAgency costed contract hauling forplants with an average process waterusage flow rate of two gpm or less.PM&F plants that contract haul theirwastewater will achieve the proposedBPT effluent limitations guidelines andstandards.

The Agency is not proposing BPTeffluent limitations guidelines for thissubcategory based on Option I becausethat technology does not adequatelyremove the pollutants for thissubcategory. The Agency is notproposing BPT effluent limitationsguidelines based on Option 3 becausethe incremental mass of toxic pollutantsremoved by this option from rawwastewater is very low (i.e., less than0.1 kilogram per day per directdischarger) and the annual costs aresignificantly higher for this option thanthe annual costs for treatment at Option2 ($1,5 million per year for Option 2 ascompared to $8.0 million per year forOption 3). However, as discussed in thesection on the contact cooling andheating water subcategory, the Agencymay give further consideration to BPTeffluent limitation guidelines based onother technology options, includingOption 3, depending on the results offurther study of the nonconventionalpollutants. Under BPT, the Agencyproposes to establish limitations forbiochemical oxygen demand, totalsuspended solids, oil and grease, andpH. EPA believes that the toxicpollutants for this subcategory areeffectively controlled when thelimitations for the above pollutants aremet.

IX. Best Available Technology (BAT)Effluent Limitations Guidelines

The factors considered in assessingbest available technology economicallyachievable (BAT) include the age ofequipment and facilities involved, theprocess employed, process changes.non-water quality environmentalimpacts (including energy requirements)and the costs of applying suchtechnology (Section 304(b)((2)(B) of theClean Water Act). At a minimum, theBAT technology level represents thebest economically achievableperformance of plants of various ages.sizes, processes, or other shared

5870


characteristics. As with BPT, where theAgency has found the existingperformance to be uniformly inadequate,BAT may be transferred from a differentsubcategory or category. BAT mayinclude feasible process changes orinternal controls even when notcommon 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 hasgivensubstantial weight to the reasonablenessof cost. The Agency has considered thevolume and nature of dischargesexpected after application of BPT, thegeneral environmental effects of thepollutants, and the costs and economicimpacts of the additional pollutioncontrol levels.

Despite this expanded considerationof costs, the primary determinant ofBAT is effluent reduction capability. Asa result of the Clean Water Act of 1977,the achievement of BAT has become theprincipal national means of controllingtoxic pollutants. The wastewatersgenerated by PM&F processes containapproximately 28 priority toxicpollutants including eight toxic metals'and 20 toxic organics.

Contact Cooling and feating WaterSubcategory

The Agency considered twotechnology options as the basis for theproposed BAT effluent limitationsguidelines. These options are the sameas Option 2 and Option 3 considered forthe proposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for this subcategory and arediscussed in the preceding section ofthis preamble.

The Agency is not proposing BATeffluent limitations guidelines morestringent than the proposed BPT effluentlimitations guidelines for thissubcategory because there areinsignificant quantities of toxicpollutants remaining in contact coolingand heating water after compliance withthe applicable BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. As previously discussed, theproposed BPT technolgy (Option 2)achieves significant removal of toxicpollutants present in contact cooling andheating water. Of the estimated 124,000kilograms per year of toxic pollutantscurrently discharged by directdischargers in this subcategory, 99,000kilograms per year of these pollutantswill be removed by compliance with theproposed BPT effluent limitiationsguidelines. Thus, 25,000 kilograms peryear of toxic pollutants will bedischarged after applications of the BPTeffluent limitations guidelines.

This discharge equates toapproximately 0.20 kilograms per day oftoxic pollutants per direct discharger inthis subcategory. The Agency believesthat the amount and toxicity of thesepollutants do not justify establishingmore stringent BAT effluent limitationsguidelines for the toxic pollutants.Accordingly, EPA is proposing toexclude these pollutants from furthernational regulation under Paragraph8(a)(i) of the Settlement Agreement inNRDC v, Train, supra. However, theAgency will give further considerationto applicable technologies, includingOption 3 and raising the 100 percentrecycle flow cut-off in Option 2, basedon further study of the nonconventionalpollutants. In addition, if the finaltechnology basis for BPT effluentlimitations guidelines differs from thatproposed, the Agency will re-evaluatethe appropriateness of establishing morestringent BAT effluent limitationsguidelines.


The Agency considered twotechnology options for the basis for theBAT effluent limitations guidelines forthis subategory. These options are thesame as Option 2 and Option 3discussed above for the BPT effluentlimitations guidelines for thissubcategory.

The Agency in not proposing BATeffluent limitations guidelines morestringent than the proposed BATeffluent limitations guidelines for thissubcategory because there areinsignificant quantities of priority toxicpollutants remaining in cleaning andfinishing water after compliance withthe proposed applicable BPT effluentlimitations guidelines. The Agencyestimates that BPT effluent limitationsguidelines will result in the removal of790 kilograms per year of toxicpollutants from the current discharge of890 kilograms per year toxic pollutantsby plants in this subcategory. Thus, 100kilograms per year of toxic pollutantswould be discharged after application ofthe proposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. This equates to less than 0.01kilograms per day of toxic pollutants perdirect discharger. The Agency hasdetermined that the amount and toxicityof these pollutants do not justifyestablishing more stringent BAT effluentlimitations guidelines for toxicpollutants. Accordingly, EPA isproposing to exclude these pollutantsfrom further national regulation underParagraph 8(a)(i} of the SettlementAgreement in NDRC v. Train, supra.However, the Agency may give furtherconsideration to other applicable

technologies, including Option 3, afterreviewing the results of the study onnonconventional pollutants. In addition,if the final model technology basis forthe BPT effluent limitations guidelinesdiffers from that proposed, the Agencywill re-evaluate the appropriateness ofestablishing more stringent BAT effluentlimitations guidelines for thissubcategory.

X. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)Effluent Limitations Guidelines

BCT effluent limitations guidelinescontrol the discharge of conventionalpollutants from existing industrial pointsources. BCT is not an additionallimitation but replaces BAT for thecontrol of conventional pollutants.

In addition to factors specified inSection 304(b(4){B) of the Act, EPA isrequired to access the BCT effluentlimitations guidelines in light of a two-part "cost-reasonableness" test, whichwas previously discussed. EPA mustfind that the BCT effluent limitationsguidelines are "reasonable" under bothparts before they are established. In nocase may BCT be less stringent thanBPT.

The Agency reviewed treatmenttechologies that could be used to removeadditional conventional pollutants afterBPT in each subcategory. The onlytechnology considered feasible in eachsubcategory is flow reduction and zerodischarge by contract haul of thedischarge from the flow reduction unit(e.g. a cooling tower or sedimentationtank).

Based on the preliminary results oftfe proposed two-part BCT cost test (47FR 49176; October 29, 1982), the costs toachieve the additional removal ofconventional pollutants are not"reasonable." The Agency proposes,therefore, that BCT equal BPT for eachsubcategory and that no further controlsbe established for the conventionalpollutants beyond BPT.

If the BPT effluent limitationsguidelines are revised between proposaland promulgation, the Agency will applythe two-part BCT cost test to the revisedBPT effluent limitations guidelines todetermine whether the cost of furthercontrol is "reasonable". The Agency willalso conduct that test again when thefinal BCT cost methodology ispromulgated. Thus depending on theseresults, EPA may promulgate morestringent BCT effluent limitationsguidelines.

XI. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS)

The basis for new source performancestandards (NSPS) under Section 306 of

5871I


the Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology. New plantshave the opportunity to design and usethe best and most efficient plasticmolding and forming processes andwastewater treatment technologieswithout facing the added costs andrestrictions encountered in retrofittingan existing plant. Therefore, Congressdirected EPA to consider the bestdemonstrated process changes, in-plantcontrols, and end-of-pipe treatmenttechnologies that reduce pollution to themaximum extent feasible.

The Agency believes thatcharacteristics of wastewaterdischarged by new PM&F processes ineach subcategory will be the same asthe characteristics of wastewaterdischarged by existing PM&F processesin those subcategories. Thus, the optionsconsidered for new sources in eachsubcategory are the same as thoseconsidered for existing sources.

The Agency is proposing NSPS basedon the same model treatmenttechnologies as the proposed BPTeffluent limitations guidelines in eachsubcategory. EPA is not proposing NSPSmore stringent than the effluentlimitations guidelines for existingsources because the amount and toxicityof the toxic pollutants remaining aftertreatment in the BPT/BAT modeltreatment technologies for eachsubcategory do not justify morestringent controls. However, the Agencymay give further consideration to ahigher flow rate cut-off for 100 percentrecycle for the contact cooling andheating water subcategory after thestudy on nonconventional pollutants iscompleted. EPA may also consider othertechnology options for NSPS if the finaltechnology basis for the BPT effluentlimitations guidelines differs from thatproposed.

The model technology basis for NSPSis zero discharge by 100 percent recyclefor processes in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less. For contact coolingand heating water processes with anaverage process water usage flow rategreater than 35 gpm and for all cleaningand finishing water processes, the NSPSoption consists of recycle and treatmentof the discharge from the recycle unit.As discussed earlier, the technologybasis for the treatment of the dischargeis equalization, pH adjustment, and apackage activated sludge plant.

Recycle and pH adjustment are fullydemonstrated at existing PM&F plants.For the reasons stated earlier, theactivated sludge process wastransferred from the organic chemicals,plastics, and synthetic fibers category.

The production normalized flows usedto calculate NSPS are the same as thoseused at BPT for each subcategory. Thesetechnologies and production normalizedflows are discussed in more detail inSection VIII of this preamble.

Pollutants controlled by NSPS includebiochemical ozygen demand, totalsuspended solids, oil and grease, andpH. The Agency believes that the toxicpollutants for both subcategories areeffectively controlled when the NSPS furthe above pollutants are met. NSPS areexpressed in terms of mass of plasticproduced for the reasons discussedunder BPT. As discussed in the BPTsection of this preamble, the Agency willfurther study the nonconventionalpollutants discharged after compliancewith the BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. Depending on the results ofthis study to determine what contributesto the nonconventional pollutants, theAgency may establish additionalcontrols for nonconventional pollutantsat NSPS. The data relied on for selectionof NSPS were primarily the datadeveloped for existing sources, whichincludes costs on a plant-by-plant basisalong with retrofit costs whereapplicable. The Agency believes thatcompliance costs could be lower fornew sources than cost estimates forequivalent existing sources becauseproduction processes can be designed toachieve the model regulatory flows andthere will be no costs associated withretrofitting in-process controls. TheAgency does not believe that applyingthis level of technology to new sources.including major modifications toexisting sources, creates a barrier toentry into the category because newsources will expend an amount equal to,or possibly less than, the amountrequired by existing sources to complywith this proposed regulation.

XIl. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing sources (PSES) to preventthe discharge of pollutants that passthrough, interfere with, or are otherwiseincompatible with the operation ofPOTW. These standards must beachieved within three years ofpromulgation.

To determine whether pollutants passthrough a POTW, the Agency comparesthe percentage of a pollutant removedby a POTW to the percentage removedby direct dischargers applying the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable. In this case where EPA isnot proposing BAT effluent limitationsguidelines more stringent than theproposed BPT effluent limitations

guidelines, the Agency determined passthrough by comparing POTW removalsto BPT level removals. Thus, a pollutantis deemed to pass through the POTWwhen the average percentage removednationwide by well-operated POTWsmeeting secondary treatmentrequirements is less than the averagepercentage removed by directdischargers complying with theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for that pollutant.

This definition of pass throughsatisfies two competing objectives setby Congress; (1) That standards forindirect dischargers be equivalent tostandards for direct dischargers, and, atthe same time, (2) that the treatmentcapability and performance of thePOTW be recognized and taken intoaccount in regulating the discharge ofpollutants from indirect dischargers.

The BPT effluent limitationsguidelines for PM&F processes in thecontact cooling and heating watersubcategory with an average processwater usage flow rate greater than 35gpm and for all processes in the cleaningand finishing water subcategory arebased on treatment by the activatedsludge process. As discussed earlier, theAgency estimated the percentageremovals for that technology for thetoxic and nonconventional pollutantsbased on information presented inprevious EPA studies and literaturesources. The Agency comparedpercentage toxic pollutant removals forthat process to POTW percent removaldata and found that the toxic pollutantsdo not pass through a POTW. Theaverage percentage of the toxicpollutants in PM&F wastewater removedby well operated POTWs meetingsecondary treatment requirements isabout 64 percent, whereas thepercentage that can be removed by adirect discharger applying BPT/BAT isapproximately 62 percent. Based onthose findings, the Agency hasconcluded that toxic pollutants in PM&Fwastewater do not pass through aPOTW.

The BPT/BAT effluent limitationsguidelines for processes in the contactcooling and heating water subcategorywith an average process water usageflow rate of 35 gpm or less are based onzero discharge by 100 percent recycle.Based on a comparison of the Nationalaverage percentage removal of prioritypollutants by well operated POTWsmeeting secondary treatmentrequirements to the 100 percent removalof pollutants in the BPT/BATtechnology, the priority pollutants passthrough a POTW. However, the amountof pollutants discharged per day per

5872

Federal Register / Vol, 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

indirect discharger in the contact coolingand heating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less is estimated to be 0.6kilogram per day. The Agency believesthat the amount and toxicity of thepriority pollutants discharged by thoseprocesses do not justify the developmentof PSES for this segment of the PM&Fcategory. Accordingly, pretreatmentstandards are not being developed forthose pollutants based on ParagraphW$a)iv) of the Settlement Agreement inNRDC v Train, supra. If the 100 percentrecycle flow rate in the contact coolingand heating water subcategory isrevised in the final rule, the Agency willre-evaluate the amount and toxicity ofthe pollutants that pass through aPOTW.

Accordingly, the Agency proposes noPSES for the PM&F category. Eventhough plants within this category arenot regulated by categoricalpretreatment standards, they mustcomply with the General PretreatmentRegulations (40 CFR Part 403].

XIII. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources (PSNS)

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor new sources (PSNS) at the s'ame timethat it promulgates NSPS. New indirectdischargers, like new direct dischargers,have the opportunity to incorporate thebest available demonstratedtechnologies including the processchanges, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies, and to useplant site selection to ensure adequatetreatment system installation.

The Agency is not proposing PSNS forthis category because the pollutants forthis category either do not pass througha POTW or the amount and toxicity ofthe pollutants discharged to a POTW donot justify establishing PSNS. TheAgency believes that new and existingindirect discharge sources will dischargethe same pollutants in similar amounts.As discussed in the preceding section,the average percentage removal by welloperated POTWs meeting secondarytreatment requirements isapproximately equivalent to thepercentage of toxic pollutants removedby a direct discharger in the cleaningand finishing subcategory and by directdischarges with an average processwater usage flow rate greater than 35gpm in the contact cooling and heatingwater subcategory to comply with NSPS(also the proposed BPT effluentlimitations guidelines). In addition, forthose plants in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less, even though some

toxic pollutants may pass through, theamount and toxicity (0.6 kilograms perdischarger per day) do not justifyestablishing PSNS. Even though newindirect dischargers are not subject tocategorical pretreatment standards, theymust comply with the GeneralPretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part403).

XIV. Regulated Pollutants

The basis on which the pollutants forthe PM&F category were selected isdiscussed in Sections VII and X of thetechnical development document for thisproposed rule. Some of these pollutantsare designated as toxic under Section307(a) of the Act. Three pollutants havebeen deleted from the list of 129 toxicpollutants. These aredichlorodifluoromethane andtrichlorofluoromethane (46 FR 79692;January 8, 1981) and (bis(chloromethyl)ether (46 FR 10723; February 4, 1981).

Pollutants controlled by the proposedBPT effluent limitations guidelines arebiochemical oxygen demand, totalsuspended solids, oil and grease, andpH. The discharge is controlled bymaximum daily and monthly averagemass effluent limitations stated inmilligrams (mg) per kilogram of plasticmaterial processed.

The Agency proposes not to establishspecific limitations guidelines at BATfor the priority pollutants in PM&Fwastewater because the BPT level oftreatment for conventional pollutantsprovides effective control of the prioritypollutants. These toxic pollutants arelisted in Appendix B.

The Agency is proposing BCT effluentlimitations guidelines equal to theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. Therefore, no additionalcontrols are established forconventional pollutants at BCT.

The pollutants limited by theproposed NSPS are the same as thoselimited by the proposed BPT effluentlimitations guidelines.

No pollutants are controlled bycategorical pretreatment standards.New and existing indirect dischargesmust comply with the GeneralPretreatment Standards (40 CFR Part403).

XV. Pollutants and SubcategorySegments Excluded From Regulation

The Settlement Agreement in NRDCv. Train, supra contains provisionsauthorizing the exclusion fromregulation in certain instances of toxicpollutants and industry subcategories.These provisions have been rewritten ina Revised Settlement Agreement thatwas approved by the District Court forthe District of Columbia on March 8,

1979. See NRDC v. Castle, 12 ERC 1833(D.D.C. 1979), modified by orders datedOctober 26, 1982, August Z, i'983, andJanuary 6, 1984.

A. Exclusion of Pollutants

The Agency has deleted the followingthree pollutants from the toxic pollutantlist: (49) trichlorofluoromethane and (50)dichlorofluoromethane (46 FR 79692;January 8, 1981) and (17)bis(chloromethyl)ether (46 FR 10723;February 4, 1981). The other 126 prioritypollutants are being excluded fromregulation for the reasons listed below.

Paragraph 8(a)(i) of the SettlementAgreement allows the Administrator toexclude from regulation pollutantswhere equal or more stringent protectionis already provided by an effluentlimitations guideline, new sourceperformance standard, or pretreatmentstandard promulgated pursuant toSections 301, 304, 306, 307(a), 307(b), or307(c) of the Act. Appendix B containsthe toxic pollutants excluded in eachsubcategory for this reason.

Paragraph 8(a)(ii) of the SettlementAgreement allows the Administrator toexclude from regulation pollutants foundin concentrations at or below theconcentration of the pollutants in thesource water. Appendix C lists the toxicpollutants excluded for this reason.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the SettlementAgreement allows the Administrator toexclude from regulation toxic pollutantsnot detectable by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-art methods. Appendix D lists the toxicpollutants excluded for this reasonincluding those pollutants that weredetected at or below the analyticaldetection limit.

Paragraph 8(a)(iii) also allows theAdministrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants detectable inthe effluent from only a small number ofsources within the subcategory becausethey are uniquely related to thosesources. Appendix E lists, for eachsubcategory, toxic pollutants that wereexcluded from regulation for this reason.

B. Exclusion of Subcategory Segment

Additionally, Paragraph 8(a)(iv) of theSettlement Agreement authorizes theexclusion of subcategories in which theamount and toxicity of each pollutant inthe discharge do not justify developingnational regulations. The segment in thecontact cooling and heating watersubcategory with processes that have anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less is being excluded frompretreatment standards for this reason.Appendix F lists the pollutants excluded

5873

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, Februaiy 15, 19l84 / Proposed Rules

from pretreatment standards in thatsegment.

XVI. Economic Considerations

A. IntroductionThe Agency's economic impact

assessment of this proposed regulationis presented in the report entitledEconomic Impact Analysis of EffluentLimitations and Standards for thePlastics Molding and Forming Industry,EPA 440/2-84-001. Section IX of thetechnical development document detailsthe investment and annual costs for theplastics molding and forming industry.These compliance costs are based onengineering estimates of capitalrequirements for the effluent controlsystems described earlier in thispreamble. The Economic ImpactAnalysis assesses the impact of theseeffluent control costs on the PM&Findustry in terms of price changes,production cost changes, plant closures,employment effects, and balance oftrade effects. The impacts for each ofthe model treatment technologiesoptions are discussed in the report.

In addition, EPA has conducted ananalysis of the incremental removal costper pound equivalent for each of thetechnology options. A pound equivalentis calculated by multiplying the numberof pounds of a toxic pollutantdischarged by a weighting factor for thatpollutant. The weighting factor is equalto the water quality criterion for astandard pollutant (copper), divided by,the water quality criterion for thepollutant, being evaluated. The use of"pound equivalent" gives relativelymore weight to removal of more toxicpollutants. Thus, for a givenexpenditure, the cost per poundequivalent removed would be lowerwhen a highly toxic pollutant is removedthan if a less toxic pollutant is removed.This analysis is included in the record ofthis proposed rulemaking, and is entitled"Cost Effectiveness Analysis ofProposed Effluent Limitations andStandards for the Plastics Molding andForming Industry." EPA invitescomments on the methodology used inthis analysis.B. Impacts

1. Universe. EPA estimates there are10,260 plastics molding and formingplants. The Agency also estimates that1,898 of these plants have plasticmolding and forming processes that useprocess water. The other 8,262 plantshave dry plastics molding and formingprocesses.

2. Aggregate costs and Impacts. Totalinvestment for the proposed BPT forboth subcategories is projected to be

$17.2 million with annual costs f $10.million, includinig depreat'on aridinterest. If water cost savinlgs aLA,-VUUby the treatment technologies areincluded, the annual costs are only $2.9million. These costs, as well assubsequent costs, are expressed in 1982dollars and are based on thedetermination that plants will build onexisting treatment. No plant closures areprojected as a result of compliance costsfor this proposed regulation. However,this regulation is projected to result in 22jobs lost due to four process lineclosures. Production cost increaseswould be less then 0.1 percent. If allcosts were passed on to consumers,price increases would be less than 0.2percent. Balance of trade effects areinsignificant. Since EPA is not proposingBAT effluent limitations guidelines morestringent than BPT effluent limitationsguidelines, there are no additionalimpacts for BAT compliance. Forreasons explained elsewhere in thispreamble, the Agency is not proposingto establish PSES or PSNS. Thus, therewell be no economic impact on indirectdischargers as a result of the proposedregulation.

3. Methodology. The methodology forthe economic impact analysis is detailedin Section 3 of the Economic ImpactAnalysis Report. The economic impactswere analyzed for three groups of directdischargers in the plastics molding andforming industry: those plants that haveonly contact cooling and heating waterprocesses; those plants that have onlycleaning and finishing water processes;and those plants that have bothprocesses.

Economic and financial data wereavailable for 384 of the plants thatcompleted survey questionnaires. Datafrom 101 direct discharging plants wereused in the closure analysis. Of theremaining 283 plants in the economicdata base, data were not used for 111plants because they do not dischargewastewater and data were not usedfrom another 172 plants because theyare indirect dischargers and so are notaffected by this regulation. A finanicalprofile was developed for each of the101 plants included in the closureanalysis, using the questionnaire dataand publicly available data. Keyvariables analyzed for each plantincluded present profitability andsalvage value of the plant.

The costs of implementing theproposed regulation were estimated foreach of the 101 direct dischargers.Variables considered in developingplant-by-plant costs included plant sizeand treatment-in-place. Using thesecompliance costs and sales informationfrom each plant, the Agency performed

a discounted cash flow analysis andplant closure analysis.

The estimated cost of the treatmenttechnology was subtracted from theplant's cash flow. If the plant had apositive cash flow after investment, itwas assumed that the plant can atfordthe pollution control. Implicitly, then,that plant could obtain financing for thepollution control investment. In the plantclosure analysis, plants were assumedto close if the expected discounted cashflow of the plant, less the investmentcost of the pollution control equipment,was less than the salvage value of theplant. The results of the closure analysiswere extrapolated to the estimatednumber of plastics molding and formingplants in the category that are directdischargers of wastewater.

C. BPT

The proposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines are expected to affect alldirect discharging plants within bothsubcategories. The cost to comply withBPT for these plants is projected to be$17.2 million in investment costs and$10.9 million in annual costs (includingdepreciation and interest). Annual costsare only $2.9 million if water costsavings are included. These costs arebased on engineering compliance costestimated presented earlier in thepreamble. According to the analysis ofeconomic impact, no plant closures areassociated with the proposed BPTtreatment option in each subcategory.However, 22 job losses are expected toresult from the closure of four processlines. Production costs are expected toincrease less than 0.1 percent. If all costswere passed on to consumers, priceincreases would be less than 0.2 percent.The Agency has determined that theeffluent reduction benefits associatedwith compliance with the proposed BPTeffluent limitations guidelines justify thecosts.

D. BAT

Since the Agency proposes BATeffluent limitations guidelines equal toBPT effluent limitations guidelines, thereare no additional costs or impactsassociated with the proposed BATeffluent limitations guidelines.

E. NSPS

The versatility of molded and formedplastics products and relativelyinexpensive oil supplies, from whichplastic resins are synthesized,contributed to the rapid growth of theplastic molding and forming industry inthe last four decades. EPA believes Ihatdemand for molded and formed plasticsproducts will continue to increase in the

5874


years ahead. This projected increase indemand should result in the opening ofnew plants.

EPA is proposing NSPS based on thesame technologies as BPT/BAT.Comparing estimated costs for thetreatment technologies to expectedrevenues, the Agency developed a smalland large "normal" plant for each of thetwo subcategories. A normal plant is atheoretical plant that has the operationscovered by the subcategory andproduction that is the average level ofproduction in the subcatgory. SectionX1l of the technical developmentdocument presents in detail thecomposition of the plastics molding andforming "normal" plants.

- The Agency estimates that NSPSoverall costs for the normal plant will be$26,068 for investment and $10,896 inannual costs. Production costs at newsources are estimated to increase lessthan 0.5 percent as a result of NSPS.These estimated costs apply to all newsources regardless of whether theyresult from major modifications ofexisting facilities or are constructed asgreenfield sites. The Agency believesthat the proposed NSPS will not deterentry into the plastics molding andforming industry because new sourceswill expend amounts equal to orpossibly less than those expended byexisting sources to comply with theproposed regulation.

F: Special Impacts

No plant closures in the plasticsmolding and forming industry are.projected to result from this proposedregulation. However, four process linesthat use process water in cleaning andfinishing are projected to close, with 22associated job losses. The communityimpact of these 22 job losses will beminimal.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Public Law 96-354 requires EPA toprepare an Initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis for all proposed regulationsthat have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This analysis may be done inconjunction with or as a part of anyother analysis conducted by the Agency.

-The economic impact analysis describedabove indicates that there will not be asignificant impact on any segment of theregulated population, large or small.Therefore, a formal regulatory flexibilityanalysis is not required.

H. SBA Loans

The Agency continues to encouragesmall plants to use Small BusinessAdministration (SBA) financing asneeded for pollution control equipment.

The three basic programs are: (1) ThePollution Control Bond Program, (2) theSection 503 Program, and (3) the RegularBusiness Loan Program. Eligibility forSBA programs varies by industry.Generally, a company must beindependently owned; not dominant inits field; the employee size ranges from250 to 1,500 employees (dependent uponindustry); and annual sales revenueranges from $275,000 to $22 million(varies by industry). The estimatedeconomic impacts for this category donot include consideration of financingavailable through these programs.

For further information and specificson the Pollution Control Bond Programcontact: U.S. Small BusinessAdministraton, Office of PollutionControl Financing, 4040 North FairfaxDrive, Rosslyn, Virginia 22203 (703) 235-2920.

The Section 503 Program, as amendedin July 1980, allows long-term loans tosmall and medium sized businesses.These loans are made by SBA approvedlocal development companies. Thesecompanies are authorized to issueGovernment-based debentures that arebought by the Federal Financing Bank,an arm of the U.S. Treasury.

Through SBA's Regular Business LoanProgram, loans are made available bycommercial banks and are guaranteedby the SBA. This program has interestrates equivalent to market rates.

For additional information on theRegular Business Loan and Section 503Programs contact your local SBA Office.The coordinator at EPA headquarters isMs. Frances Desselle who may bereached at (202) 382-5373.

I. Executive Order 12291

Executive Order 12291 requires EPAand other agencies to perform regulatoryimpact analyses of major regulations.Major rules are those that impose a coston the economy of $100 million a year ormore or have certain other economicimpacts. This regulation is not a majorrule because its annualized cost of $10.9million is less than $100 million and itmeets none of the other criteriaspecified in Section I paragraph (b) ofthe Executive Order. The economicimpact analysis prepared for thisproposed rulemaking meets therequirements for non-major rules.

XVII. Non-Water Quality Aspects ofPollution Control

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may cause otherenvironmental problems. Therefore,Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Actrequire EPA to consider the non-waterquality environmental impact (includingenergy requirements) of certain

regulations. In compliance with theseprovisions, EPA has considered theeffect of this proposed regulation on airpollution, solid waste generation, waterscarcity, and energy consumption. Thisproposed rule was circulated to andreviewed by EPA personnel responsiblefor non-water quality environmentalprograms. While it is difficult to balancepollution problems against each otherand against energy utilization, EPA isproposing a regulation that it believesbest serves often competing nationalgoals.

The following are the non-waterquality environmental impacts(including energy requirements)associated with the proposed regulation:

A. Air Pollution

Technologies used as the basis for theproposed effluent limitations guidelinesand standards settle or biologicallyoxidize polluants found in PM&Fwastewater. Some volatile organiccompounds may be emitted to the airfrom these treatment technologies.However, those emissions are notexpected to cause air pollutionproblems. Accordingly, the proposedeffluent limitations guidelines andstandards will not create anysubstantial air pollution problems.

B. Solid Waste

EPA believes that only very smallamounts of solid wastes are currentlygenerated by PM&F plants because ofthe limited use of treatment technologiesin the PM&F category. EPA estimatesthat the proposed BPT effluentlimitations guidelines will increase theproduction of solid wastes by 42,000metric tons (or kkg) per year beyondthat generated by treatment in place.These wastes are comprised of settledsolids that may contain toxic metals,treatment process sludges containingbiological solids, skimmed oil, andresidues from the periodic cleaning ofthe tank or chiller. The proposed BATeffluent linitations guidelines result inno additional solid waste productionbecause BAT is the same as BPT.

EPA believes that the amount of solidwastes generated by a new source willbe the same as the amount genereatedby an existing source at BPT.

Therefore, the estimated annualaverage plant production of solid wastesgenerated in compliance with NSPS isthe same as the annual average plantproduction for BPT, whilch is 22 metrictons per year. No additional solidwastes will be generated by indirectdischargers because the Agency is notproposing categorical pretreatmentstandards.

5875I


The Agency examined the solidwastes that would be generated atPM&F plants by the proposed modeltreatment technologies and believesthey are not hazardous under Section3001 of the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). This judgment isbased on the recommended treatmenttechnology of a package activatedsludge plant consisting of primarysedimentation, activated sludge, andfinal sedimentation.

None of the toxic organic compoundsfor which the extract in the ExtractionProcedure (EP) toxicity test are analyzedare in PM&F process water (see 40 CFR261.24 (45 33084; May 19, 1960)). Onlyfour of the eight metals for which theextracts from the EP toxicity test areanalyzed were found in contact cooolingand heating process water. Only two ofthose metals were found in cleaning andfinishing process water. EPA believesthat the estimated cncentration ofthose metals in the treatment systemsludge will not cause the concentrationof those metals in the EP test extract toexceed the "allowable" concentration(i.e., the concentration that makes thewastes hazardous) in the extract.

PM&F wastes are also not listed ashazardous pursuant to 40 CFR Part201.11 (45 FR 33121; May 19, 19ao, asamended by 45 FR 76624; November 19,

6lO). Since the PM&F wastes are notbelieved to be hazardous, no estimateswere made of the costs to dispose ofthose wastes in accordance with RCRAhazardous waste requirements.

Although it is the Agency's view thatsolid wastes generated as a result ofthese guidelines are not expected to beclassified as hazardous under theregulations implementing Subtitle C ofthe Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), generators ofthese wastes must test the waste todetermilne if they meet any of thecharacteristics of hazardous waste. See40 CFR Part 202.11 (45 FR 12732-12733:February 26, 1980). The Agency mayalso list these sludges as hazardouspursuant to 40 CFR Part 261.11 (45 FR at33121; May 19, 1980, as amended at 45FR 76624; November 19, 1980).

If these wastes are identified ashazardous, they will come within thescope of RCRA's "cradle to grave"hazardous waste management program.requiring regulation from the point ofgeneration to point of final disposition.EPA's generator standards requiregenerators of hazardous wastes to meetcontainerization, labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; ifplastics molders or formers dispose ofhazardous wastes off-site, they wouldhave to prepare a manifest that tracksthe movement of the wastes from the

generator's premises to a permitted off-site treatment, storage, or disposalfacility. See 40 CFR Part 262.20 (45 FR33142; May 19, 1980, as amended at 45FR 86973; December 31, 1Cso). Thetransporter regulations requiretransporters of hazardous wastes tocomply with the manifest system toensure that the wastes are delivered to apermitted facility. See 40 CFR Part263.20 (45 FR 33142; May 19, 1980, asamended at 45 FR 86973; December 31,1980). Finally, FCRA regulationsestablish standards for hazardous wastetreatment, storage, and disposalfacilities allowed to receive suchwastes. See 40 CFR Part 264 (46 FR 2802:January 12, 1981, 47 FR 32274; July 26,1982).

Even if these wastes are not identifiedas hazardous, they still must bedisposed in a manner that will notviolate the open dumping prohibition of4005 of RCRA. The Agency hascalculated as part of the costs forwastewater treatment the cost ofhauling and disposing of these wastes inaccordance with this requirement. Formore details see Section IX of thetechnical development document.

C. Consumptive Water Loss

Recycle of contact cooling and heatingwater requires the use of a coolingtower for PM&F processes wit; !argeflow rates. The evaporative coolingmechanism in a cooling tower can causewater loss and could contribute to waterscarcity problems-a primary concern inarid and semi-arid regions. While thisproposed regulation assumes waterrecyle through a cooling tower, thequantity of water loss in the coolingtower is not regionally significantly.Thus, EPA concludes that theconsumptive water loss is insigificantand that the effluent reduction benefitsof recyle technologies outweigh theirimpact on consumptive water loss.

D. Energy Requirements

The Agency estimates that theachievement of BPT effluent limitationsguidelines will result in a net increase inelectrical energy consumption ofapproximately 19.9 million kw-hr/yr,which is less than one percent of theestimated total current energy usage forthe PM&F category. Since the Agency isnot proposing BAT or BCT effluentlimitations guidelines more stringentthan BPT, no additional electrical energyis required. There is no additionalelectrical energy consumptionassociated with pretreatment standardssince the Agency is not proposing PSESand PSNS. EPA believes that the energyused by a new direct discharging plantwill be the same amount used by an

existing source at BPT. Therefore, theestimated annual plant energy use forNSPS is the same as the annual averageenergy use for BPT, which is 14,000 kw-hr/yr. This does not significantly add tothe total energy consumption for thePM&F category. The Agency concludesthat the increased energy use to complywith these proposed effluent limitationsguidelines and standards is insignificantand that effluent reduction benefitsoutweigh the increased energy use.

XVIII. Best Management Practices(BMP)

Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"("BMP"), as described in the "Authorityand Background" section of thispreamble. EPA is not now consideringproposing or promulgating BPM specificto the plastics molding and formingcategory.

XIX. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsAn issue of recurring concern has

been whether industry guidelines shouldinclude provisions authorizingnoncompliance with effluent limitationsguidelines during periods of "upset" or"bypass." An upset, sometimes calledan "excursion," is unintentionalnoncompliance occurring for reasonsbeyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. Industry argues that an upsetprovision in EPA's effluent limitationsguidelines is necessary because suchupsets inevitably occur due tolimitations in even properly opeatedcontrol equipment. Because technology-based limitations require only whattechnology can achieve, they claim thatliability for such situations is improper.When confronted with this issue, courtshave been divided on the question ofwhether an explicit upset or excursionexemption is necessary or whetherupset or excusion incidents may behandled through EPA's exercise ofenforcement discretion. Compare,Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253(9th Cir. 1977), with Weyerhaouser Co.v. Castle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978),and Corn Refiners Association, Inc. v.Castle, 594 F.2d 1223 (8th Cir. 1979.) Seealso, American Petroleum Institute v,EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (loth 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 effluentlimitations guidelines are exceeded, abypass is an act of intentionalnoncompliance during which wastetreatment facilitates are circumvented inemergency situations. Bypass provisions

5876


have, in the past, been included inNPDES permits.

EPA has determined that both upsetand bypass provisions should beincluded in NPDES permits and haspromulgated NPDES regulations thatinclude such permit provisions (40 CFR122.41; 45 FR 14146; April 1, 1983). Theupset provision establishes an upset asan affirmative defense to prosecution forviolation of technology-based effluentlimitations guidelines, The bypassprovision authorizes bypassing toprevent loss of life, personal injury orsevere property damage. Becausepermittees in the plastics molding andforming category are entitled to upsetand bypass provisions in NPDESpermits, this proposed regulation doesnot address these issues.

XX. Variances and ModificationsUpon the promulgation of the final

regulation, the numerical effluentlimitations guidelines for theappropriate subcategory must beapplied in all federal and state NPDESpermits thereafter issued to plasticsmolding and forming direct dischargers.

For the BPT effluent limitationsguidelines, the only exception to thebinding limitations is EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. See, E. L duPont de Nemoursand Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977);Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, supra. Thisvariance recognizes factors concerning aparticular discharger that arefundamentally different from the factorsconsidered in this rulemaking. However,the economic ability of the individualoperator to meet the compliance cost forBPT effluent limitations guidelines is nota consideration for granting a variance,See, National Crushed StoneAssociation v. EPA, 449 U.S. 64 (1980).This variance clause was originally setforth in EPA's 1973-1976 industryregulations and will not be included inthe plastics molding and forming orother specific industry regulations. Seethe NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part125 Subparts A & D for the text andexplanation of the "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance.

The BAT effluent limitationsguidelines in this regulation also aresubject to EPA's "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance. New sourceperformance standards are not subjectto EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" variance or any statutory orregulatory modifications. See, duPont v.Train, supra.

XXL Relationship to NPDES PermitsThe BPT, BAT, and BCT effluent

limitations guidelines and NSPS in thisproposed regulation will be applied to

individual plastics molding and formingplants through NPDES permits issued byEPA or approved state agencies underSection 402 of the Act. The precedingsections of this preamble discussed thebinding effect of this regulation onNPDES permits, except to the extentthat variances and modifications are,expressly authorized. This sectiondescribes several other aspects of theinteraction of this regulation and NPDESpermits.

One matter that has been subject todifferent judicial views is the scope ofNPDES permit proceedings in theabsence of effluent limitationsguidelines and standards. Undercurrently applicable EPA regulations,states and EPA Regions issuing NPDESpermits before promulgation of thisregulation must do so on a case-by-casebasis. This regulation provides atechnical and legal base for newpermits.

Another noteworthy topic is the effectof this regulation on the powers ofNPDES permit issuing authorities. Theproposed regulation does not restrict thepower of any permit-issuing authority toact in a manner that is consistent withthe law on these or any other EPAregulations, guidelines, or policy. Forexample, the fact that this regulationdoes not control a particular pollutantdoes not preclude the permit issuer fromlimiting such pollutant on a case-by-casebasis, when necessary to carry out thepurposes of the Act. In addition, to theextent that state water qualitystandards or other provisions of state orFederal law require limitation ofpollutants not covered by this regulation(or require more stringent effluentlimitations guidelines on coveredpollutants), the permit-issuing authoritymust apply such effluent limitationsguidelines.

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

XXII. Summary of Public ParticipationIn June 1983, EPA mailed a detailed

questionnaire to 330 plants in the PM&Fcategory. The purpose of questionnaire,which was reviewed and approved bythe Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), was to obtain information onwhich to base this proposed regulation.Prior to receiving OMB's approval, EPApublished a notice (48 FR 75; January 3.1983) that indicated a questionnaire wasgoing to be sent to PM&F plants andrequested comments on thequestionnaire.

Comments were received for theSociety of Plastics Industries (SPI). Ameeting was held with SPI on June 9,1983, to discuss their comments. Amemorandum that discusses theircomments and EPA's response to thosecomments is in the adminstrative recordfor this proposed rule.

XXIII. Solicitation of Comments

EPA invites and encourages publicparticipation in this proposedrulemaking. The Agency asks that anydeficiencies in the record-of thisproposal be specifically addressed andthat suggested revisions or correctionsbe supported by data.

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

(1) To estimate the number of plantsthat have PM&F processes and to selectthe plants that received a questionnaire,the Agency relied on: (1) A list of plantswith a primary Standard IndustrialClassification of 3079 obtained from Dunand Bradstreet, Inc.; (2) a Fortune 500list of plants that mold and form plasticmaterial; (3) various state industrialguides; and (4) the mailing list for themagazine "Plastics World." EPArequests comments with respect to theaccuracy of this estimate. Particularly, ifour estimate is inaccurate, what is amore accurate estimation and why?Also, the Dun and Bradstreet list reliedon for survey mailings contained onlythose P&F plants having 10 or moreemployees. EPA requests additionalinformation for plants with less than 10employees.

(2) The effluent limitations guidelinesand standards proposed in thisregulation are mass based (i.e., anallowable mass of pollutant dischargedper'mass of plastic material processed).EPA believes that the amount of 'wastewater generated and the mass ofpollutants discharged are related to theamount of plastic material processed.EPA requests comments on thisapproach.

(3) The proposed BPT and BATeffluent limitation guidelines and NSPSfor PM&F processes in the contactcooling and heating water subcategorywith an average process water usageflow rate greater than 35 gpm and for thecleaning and finishing watersubcategory are based on the

5877

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, Fa~bruary 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

performance of the activated sludgebiological treatment process. Thattechnology was transferred from theorganic chemicals, plastics, andsynthetic fibers category because EPAfound that treatment for only PM&Fwastewater was uniformly inadequate.The Agency has determined that organicchemicals. plastics, and synthetic fibersprocess wastewater, particularlywastewater generated by processes inthe plastics only subcategory, and PM&Fprocess wastewater have similarconventional pollutant characteristics.EPA requests comments on thisapproach and information on othertreatment processes that may be used tocontrol the pollutants in PM&Fwastewaters.

(4) Conventional pollutantperformance data for the activatedsludge process were also transferredfrom the organic chemicals, plastics, andsynthetic fibers category, particularlythe plastics only subcategory. Thosedata were used along with theproduction normalized flows derivedfrom PM&F data to calculate theallowable mass of conventionalpollutants that can be discharged. TheAgency solicits additional conventionalpollutant concentration data for PM&Fprocess water'prior to treatment andany data on the performance of theactivated sludge process on PM&Fwastewater with respect toconventional pollutant rOr~ovals.

(5] To estimate removal of prioritytoxic pollutants by the activated sludgeprocess, the Agency relied uponpercentage removal rates as reported invarious literature sources and previousEPA studies. Based on- these estimates,the Agency believes that the proposedBPT effluent limitations guidelines forconventional pollutants, which arebased on the performance of theactivated sludge process, adequatelycontrol the priority toxic pollutants inPM&F wastewaters. Further, relyingagain on these estimates, the Agency isnot proposing toxic pollutant effluentlimitations guidelines at BAT becausethere are not signifit.nt quantities oftoxic polluiants remaining in PM&Fwastewater after compliance with theproposed BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. As part of any sampling forfurther study on nonconventionalpollutants after proposal, the Agencymay also collect additional data on toxipollutants in PM&F wastewaters. Thesedata will be used to further evaluate theamount of priority toxic pollutantspresent in PM&F wastewater and thetechnologies that can be used to treatthe wastewater. In addition, since theAgency has no treatment performance

data on the activated sludge process onPM&F wastewaters only, EPA will try toidentify activated sludge treatmentprocesses that treat only PM&Fwastewaters and, if possible, sample theeffluent from these processes. In light ofany additional data gathered, theAgency will re-evaluate the amount oftoxic pollutants generated and theremoval of these pollutants by theactivated sludge process. The Agencymay also consider establishing specificlimitations at BAT for toxic pollutantsand reconsider the issue of pass-throughof toxic pollutants for indirectdischargers depending on the results offurther study, The Agency specificallyrequests any additional information andcomment on the amount and presence ofpriority toxic pollutants in PM&Fwastewaters and the removals achievedby the activated sludge processincluding data on treated effluent fromthis process.

(6) The production normalized flowsused to calculate the allowabledischarge mass were obtained for eachsubcategory by adding the productionfor plants in the questionnaire data basethat currently recycle process water.The total production was divided intothe total wastewater discharged bythose plants (as reported on thequestionnaires) to obtain the productionnormalized flow (liters/kkg) for eachsubcategory. The Agency requestscomments on this approach forcalculating production normalized flows.

(7) The proposed BPT effluentlimitations guideline and NSPS forPM&F processes in the contact coolingand heating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm or less are based on 100percent recycle of the wastewater. The35 gpm cut-off was selected because it isthe average of the best performance forplants currently achieving 100 percentrecycle. Before promulgation the Agencywill consider raising this cut-off leveland thus requests comments on theappropriate cut-off value. Specifically,should the cut-off be higher sinceavailable information suggest 100percent recycle can be achieved byhigher flow rate processes; can allplants, regardless of flow rate, recycle100 percent of their cooling and heatingwater; or should the cut-off be lower?Additionally, should a higher cut-offthan the cut-off use for BPT be used asthe basis for BAT effluent limitationsguidelines and new source performancestandards?

(8) The mass based effluentlimitations guidelines and standards inthe proposed regulation require PM&Fplants to provide information to the

permit writer concerning the amount ofplastic material processed. For thecontact cooling and heating watersubcategory, the amount of plasticmaterial processed by all of the PM&Fprocesses at a plant that use processwater for contact cooling or heating isthe total plastic material processed bythat plant. For the cleaning and finishingwater subcategory, the amount of plasticproduct cleaned is part of the productionvalue used to calculate the allowablemass discharged. The other part is theproduction related to the PM&Fequipment that is cleaned. Thatproduction is defined as the amount ofplastic material processed in theequipment that is cleaned. The totalamount of plastic material processed forcleaning processes where both plasticproducts and equipment are cleaned isthe sum of the two productions. Theamount of plastic material processed ina finishing process is the production forthat process. EPA requests comments onthis approach, particularly on themethod used to determine theproduction associated with cleaningPM&F equipment.

(9) The average process water usageflow rate in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory is calculatedby determining the volume of waterused in the PM&F process during a oneyear period. That volume is divided bythe total minutes that the processoperates during the year to obtain theflow rate in gallons per minute. The flowrate is used to determine whichlimitations (ie., 100 percent recycle orallowable mass discharge) apply to aPM&F plant. The Agency requestscomments on this methodology. Inparticular, should the time period usedto obtain the volume of water be lessthan one year? If yes, what is a moreappropriate time period?

(101 During the sampling program forthis project, wastewater generatedduring the solvent recovery operation ina solvent casting process was sampled.The Agency proposes not to control thatwastewater in this regulation becausethe process that generates thewastewater is not a PM&F process.Instead, that wastewater would becontrolled on a case-by-case basis bythe permit writer using data obtainedfrom this study. The Agency requestscomments on this approach.

(11) To determine the economicimpact of this proposed regulation, theAgency calculated the cost of installingBPT and NSPS. Details of the estimatedcosts and other impacts are presented inSection IX of the technical developmentdocument and in the Economic ImpactAnalysis. Based on results of these

5878


analyses, the Agency projects that fourprocess lines will close with a loss of 22jobs as a result of this proposedregulation. The Agency invitescomments, supported by appropriatedata, on the economic impact analysisand projections. Commenters shouldprovide supporting data not only on thelikelihood of plant closures andemployment losses, but also on theeffects of the regulation on:modernization or expansion ofproduction, production costs, the abilityto finance non-environmentalinvestments, product prices,profitability, internationalcompetitiveness, and the availability ofless costly technology.

(12) The Agency recognizes thatbecause the proposed igulation impactsonly direct dischargers, PM&F plantsthat are direct dischargers may be at acompetitive disadvantage comparedwith indirect dischargers. The Agencytherefore solicits comments, supportedby appropriate data, from directdischargers on their ability to incur theestimated compliance costs and stillremain competitive and on their abilityto pass in any increases in productioncosts to consumers.

(13) In the Agency's sample of PM&Fplants that received a questionnaire,small plants, expecially those with 10 orless employees, may have beenunderrepresented. Therefore, we solicitcomments on the ability of small PM&Fplants to incur the estimated compliancecosts. These comments should identifythe plant, indicate PM&F employment,and include appropriate supporting dataon the small plants financial position for1982 and 1983 as reflected in sales, costof production, return on investment, andthe salvage value of the plant.

XXIV. Availability of TechnicalAssistance

The major documents on which thisregulation is based are: (1) TheDevelopment Document (Proposal) forEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards, andPretreatment Standards for the PlasticsPoint Source Category (Proposal); and(2) Economic Impact Analysis ofProposed Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and Standards for thePlastici Molding and Forming Industry.

This regulation was submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) for review as required byExecutive Order 12291. Any commentmade by OMB is in the record for thisproposed rulemaking.

XXV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 463

Plastic molded and formed products,Waste treatment and disposal, Waterpollution control

Dated: Febrfiary 3, 1984.William D. Ruckelshaus,Administrator.

XXVL Appendices

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronymsand Other Terms Used in This Notice

Act-The Clean Water Act.Agency-The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.BAT-The best available technology

economically achievable under Section304(b)(2) of the Act.

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, under Section304(b)(4) of the Act.

BPM-Best management practicesunder Section 304(e) of the Act.

BPT-The best practicable controltechnology currently available underSection 304(b)(1) of the Act.

Clean Water Act-The Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amendedby the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L.95-217).

Direct discharger-A facility thatdischarges or may discharge pollutantsinto waters of the United States.

Indirect discharger--A facility thatintroduces or may introduce pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment works.

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

NSPS-New source performancestandards under Section 306 of the Act.

POTW-Publicly owned treatmentworks.

PSES-Pretreatment standards forexisting sources of indirect dischargesunder Section 307(b) of the Act.

PSNS-Pretreatment standards fornew sources of indirect dischargesunder Section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act.

RCRA-Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (Pub. L. 94-589) of 1976, asamended.

Appendix B-Toxic Pollutants NotRegulated at BAT Because They areEffectively Controlled by TechnologiesUpon Which are Based Other EffluentLimitations Guidelines

Contact Cooling and Heating WaterSubcategory

4. benzene6. carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane22. parachlorometa cresol23. chloroform (trichloromethane)

44. methylene chloride(dichloromethane)

65. phenol66. bis(2-ethylhexyl phthalate67. di-n-butyl phthalate85. tetrachloroathylene86. toluene89. aldrin90. dieldrin93. 4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX)100. heptachlor102. a-BHC103. /-BHC104. y-BHC105. 8-BHC108. cadmium119. chromium (Total)120. copper122. lead123. mercury124. nickel128. zinc


4. benzene23. chloroform (trichloromethane)44. methylene chloride

(dichloromethane)62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine65. phenol66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate86. toluene89. aldrine100. heptachlor102. a-BHC104. y-BHC105. 8-BHC119. chromium (Total)120. copper124. nickel125. selenium128. zinc

Appendix C-Toxic Pollutants With AConcentration Greater in the SourceWater than the Concentration in theWastewater Samples


47. bromoform (tribromomethane)87. trichloroethylene


22. parachlorometa cresol121. cyanide (Total)

Appendix D-Toxic Pollutants NotDetected or Detected at or Below theAnalytical Detection Limit

PM&F Point Source Category

1. acenaphthene2. acrolein3. acrylonitrile5. benzidene7. chlorobenzene

5879


8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene9. hexachlorobenzene10. 1,2-dichloroethane13. 1,1-dichloroethane14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane16. chloroethane18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)20. 2-chloronaphthalene21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol24. 2-chlorophenol25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine29. 1,1-dichloroethylene31. 2,4-dichlorophenol32. 1,2-dichloropropane33. 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)34. 2,4-dimethylphenol35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene.37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine38. ethylbenzene39. fluoranthene40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether43. bis(2-choroethoxy) methane45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)51. chlorodibromomethane52. hexachlorobutadiene53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene54. isophorone56. nitrobenzene57. 2-nitrophenol58. 4-nitrophenol59. 2,4-dinitrophenol60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol61. N-nitrosodimethylamine63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine64. pentachlorophenol67. butyl benzyl phthalate72. benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-

benzanthracene)74. 3,4-benzofluoranthene75. benzo(k)fluoranthane (11,12-

benzofluroanthene)76. chrysene77. acenaphthylene78. anthracene79. benzo(ghi)perylene (1.11-

benzoperylene)80. fluorene81. phenanthrene82. dibenzo (a,h)anthracene (1,2,5,6-

dibenzanthracene)83. indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene (w,e,-o-

phenylenepyrene)84. pyrene88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)91. chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)95. a-endosulfan.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. asbestos129. 2,3,7,8-tetra chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)


48. dichlorobromomethane62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine98. endrin114. antimony115. arsenic121. cyanide (Total]125. selenium

Cleaning and Finishing WaterSubcategory6. carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)12. hexachlorethane30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene47. bromoform (tribromomethane)55. naphthalene69. di-n-octyl phthalate70. diethyl phthalate71. dimethyl phthalate73. benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene}85. tetrachloroethylene87. trichloroethylene90. dieldrin92. 4,4'-DDT93.4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX)94.4,4'-DDD(p,p'TDE)96./-endosulfan97. endosulfan sulfate99. endrin aldehyde101. heptachlor epoxide117. beryllium118. cadmium122. lead127. thallium

Appendix E-Toxic Pollutants Detectedin the Effluent From Only a SmallNumber of Sources


12. hexachloroethane30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene55. naphthalene69. di-n-octyl phthalate70. diethyl phthalate71. dimethyl phthalate73. benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)92. 4,4'-DDT94. 4,4'-DDD(p,p'TDE)96. fl-endosulfan97. endosulfan sulfate99. endrin aldehyde101. heptachlor epoxide117. beryllium126. silver127. thallium

Cleaning and Finishing WaterSubcategory11. 1,1,1-trichlorethane48. dichlorobromomethane68. di-n-butyl phthalate98. endrin103. /-BHC114. antimony115. arsenic123. mercury126. silver

Appendix F-Toxic Pollutants ExcludedFrom Pretreatment Standards forProcesses in the Contact Cooling andHeating Water Subcategory With anAverage Process Water Usage FlowRate of 35 gpm or Less Because theAmount and Toxicity Do Not JustifyCategory Pretreatment Standards4. Benzene6. carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane22. parachlorometa cresol23. chloroform (trichloromethane)44. methylene chloride

(dichloromethane)65. phenol66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate68. di-n-butyl phthalate85. tetrachloroethylene86. toluene89. aldrin90. dieldrin93. 4,4'-DDE(p,p'DDX)100. heptachlor102. a-BHC103. 1-BHC104. X-BHC105. 8-BHC118. cadmium119. chromium (Total)120. copper122. lead123. mercury124. nickel128. zinc

It is proposed to add a new Part 463 toread as set forth below:PART 463-PLASTICS MOLDING ANDFORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

General ProvisionsSec.463.01 Applicability.463.02 General definitions.463.03 Monitoring and reporting

requirements.Subpart A-Contact Cooling and HeatingWater Subcategory463.10 Applicability; description of the

contact cooling and heating watersubcategory.

463.11 Specialized definitions.463.12 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent

5880

Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 1 Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

Sec.reduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently avalitable.

463.13 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable.

463.14 New source performance standards.403.15 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources.463.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources,463.17 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

Subpart B-Cleaning and Finishing WaterSubcategory453.20 Applicability; description of the

cleaning and finishing watersubcategory.

463.21 Specialized definitions.463.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available.

40.23 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technologyeconomically achievable.

4B3.24 New source performance standards.463.25 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources.463.26 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.463.27 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology.

Authority: Sacs. 301, 304 (b), (c), (e), and(g). 306 (b) and (c). 307, 308, and 501, CleanWater Act (Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972, as amended byClean Water Act of 1977) (the "Act"); 33U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (c), (el and (g) 1316 (b)and (c), 1317 (b) and (c), 1318, and 1361; 88Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1507, Pub. I..95-217.

General Provisions§ 463.01 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to any plasticsmolding and forming process thatdischarges or may discharge pollutantsto waters of the United States or thatintroduces pollutants into a publiclyowned treatment works. Plastic moldingand forming includes processes thatblend, mold, form, or otherwise processplastic materials into intermediate orfinal plastic products. They includecommonly recognized processes such asextrusion, molding, coating andlaminating, thermoforming, calendering,casting, foaming, and cleaning andfinishing.

(b) Plastics molding and formingprocesses (e.g., extrustion and

pelletizing) used by plastics resinmanufacturers to process crudeintermediate plastic material forshipment off-site are excluded from thisregulation and regulated under theorganic chemicals, plastics, andsynthetic fibers category. Plasticsmolding and forming processes used byplastic resin manufacturers to processplastic materials on-site intointermediate or final plastics productsby further molding and forming arecontrolled by the effluent limitationsguidelines and standards for the plasticsmolding and forming category in thisPart.

(c) Processes that coat a plasticmaterial onto a substrate may fallwithin the definition of electroplatingand metal finishing as defined in 40 CFRParts 413 and 433 (see, 48 FR 32485; July15, 1983). These coating processes aree'cluded from the effluent limitationsguidelines and standards for theelectroplating and metal finishing pointsource categories and are included inthe plastics molding and formingcategory in this Part.

(d) Coating of plastic material on aformed metal substrate is also coveredby the plastics molding and formingeffluent limitations guidelines andstandards and is not covered by thespecific metal forming guidelines suchas aluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467(48 FR 49126; October 24, 1983)), copperforming (40 CFR Part 468 (48 FR 36992;August 15, 1983)), and nonferrous metalsforming. However, the plastics moldingand forming effluent limitationsguidelines and standards in this Partapply only to the coating process; themetal forming operations are subject tothe specific metal forming regulation.

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

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

(a) "Plastic molding and forming" is amanufacturing process in which plasticmaterials are blended, molded, formed,or otherwise processed intointermediate or final plastic products.

(b) "Process water" is any raw,service, recycled, or reused water thatcontacts the plastic product or contactsshaping equipment surfaces such asmolds and mandrels that are, or havebeen, in contact with the plastic product.

(c) "Contact cooling and heatingwater" is process water that contactsthe raw materials or plastic product forthe purpose of heat transfer during theplastic molding and forming process.

(d) "Cleaning water" is process waterused to clean an intermediate or finalplastic product or to clean equipmentused in plastic molding and forming that

contacts an intermediate or final plasticproduct. It includes water used in boththe detergent wash and rinse cycles of acleaning process.

(e) "Finishing" water is process waterused to remove waste plasic materialgenerated during a finishing process orto lubricate a plastic product during afinishing process. It includes water usedto machine, to decorate, or to assembleintermediate or final plastic products.

(Q "Plastic material" is an organicpolymeric material of large molecularweight that can be shaped by flow. Thematerial can be either homogeneouspolymeric resins or resins combinedwith fillers, plasticizers, pigments,stabilizers, or other additives.

§ 463.03 Monitoring and reportingrequirements.

The "monthly average" regulatoryvalues shall be the basis for the monthlyaverage discharge limitations in directdischarge permits. Compliance with themonthly average discharge limitations isrequired regardless of the number ofsamples analyzed and averaged.

Subpart A-Contact Cooling andHeating Water Subcategory

§ 463.10 Applicability; description of thecontact cooling and heating watersubcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges ofpollutants from processes in the contactcooling and heating water subcategoryto waters of the United States and theintroduction of such pollutants intopublicly owned treatment works.Processes in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory are processeswhere process water comes in contactwith plastic materials or plasticproducts for the purpose of heat transferduring plastics molding and forming.

§ 463.11 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) The "average process water usage

flow rate" of a process in gallons perminute is equal to the volume of processwater (gallons) used per year by aprocess divided by the total time(minutes) per year the process operates.The "average process water usage flowrate" for a plant with more than oneplastics molding and forming processthat uses contact cooling and heatingwater is the sum of the "average processwater usage flow rates" for thoseplastics molding and forming processes.

(b) The "volume of process waterused per year" is the volume of processwater that flows through a process andcomes in contact with the plasticproduct over a period of one year.

II II I5881


(c) "Mass of plastic materialprocessed (kg or lbs)" when used todetermine effluent limitations is themass of plastic material that processwater comes in contact with for coolingor heating purposes. If the same unitmass of plastic undergoes more than onemolding and forming process (forexample, it is compounded andpelletized, extruded, and blow molded],the mass of plastic material processed ineach process is added to obtain the totalmass of plastic material processed.

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

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:

(a) There shall be no discharge ofwastewater pollutants from existingprocesses in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm (132 liters per minute) or less.

(b) The mass of pollutants in processwater discharged from existingprocesses in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rategreater than 35 gpm (132 liters perminute) shall not exceed the followingvalues:

SUBPART A[Contact cooling and heating water]

OPT effluent limitations

Potlutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximumftor (a for monthlyda average

mg/kg (pounds per millionpounds) of plastic mate-ral processed

BO5 ...................... ... 78 35Oil & Grease.......... .......... 113 27Tss ... .... 8 57pH ... .. .. . ............... 1t

'Within the range of 8,0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 463.13 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

The Agency has determined that thereare insignificant quantities of toxicpollutants in contact cooling and heatingwastewaters after compliance withapplicable BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. Accordingly, since the BPTlevel of treatment provides adequate

control, the Agency is not proposingmore stringent BAT effluent limitationsquidelines.

§ 463.14 New source performancestandards.

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

(a) There shall be no discharge ofwastewater pollutants from new sourceswith processes in the contact coolingand heating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm (132 liters per minute) or less.

(b) The mass of pollutants in processwater discharged from new sources inthe contact cooling and heating watersubcategory having processes with anaverage process water usage flow rategreater than 35 gpm (132 liters perminute) shall not exceed the followingvalues:

SUBPART A

[Contact cooling and heating water)

NSPSPollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximum

for any 1 for monthly


ODS ..... 78 35Oil a Grease .............. . ........ '113 27TSS ......................... 186 57pH ................ I (30

'Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§ 463.15 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources.

Any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403-GeneralPretreatment Regulations.

§ 463.16 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403--GeneralPretreatment Regulations.

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

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology:

(a) There shall be no discharge ofconventional pollutants from existing

processes in the contact cooling andheating water subcategory with anaverage process water usage flow rateof 35 gpm [132 liters per minute) or less.

(b) The mass of conventionalpollutants in process water dischargedfrom existing processes in the contactcooling and heating water subcategorywith an average process water usageflow rate greater than 35 gpm (132 litersper minute) shall not exceed thefollowing values:

SUBPART A

[Contact Cooling and Heating Water]

BOT efflwnthrniatins

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximumfor any I for monthly

day Iaverage


S05 ......................... 78 35Oil & Grease. .................. .113 27TM . ............... ........ 186 57pH ................ _ ') (1)

I Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all imes

Subpart B-Cleaning and FinishingWater Subcategory

§ 463.20 Applicability; description of thecleaning and finishing water subcategory.

This subpart applies to discharges ofpollutants from processes in thecleaning and finishing watersubcategory to waters of the UnitedStates and the introduction of suchpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks. Processes in the cleaning and.finishing water subcategory areprocesses where water comes in contactwith the plastic product for the purposeof cleaning the product; where watercomes in contact with shapingequipment, such as molds and mandrels,that contact the plastic material for thepurpose of cleaning the equipment; andwhere water comes in contact with theplastic product during finishing.

§ 463.21 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) "Mass of plastic material

processed (kg or lbs)" when used todetermine effluent limitations is themass of plastic material that processwater comes in contact with for productcleaning or finishing purposes. If thesame unit mass of plastic materialundergoes more than one cleaning orfinishing process (for example, it iscleaned and finished), the mass ofplastic material processed in eachprocess is added to obtain the totalmass of plastic material processed. Forthe purpose of calculating limitations forwater used to clean shaping equipment,

5882

Federal Register / V6l. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules

such as molds and mandrels, "mass ofplastic material processed" refers to themass of plastic material that wasmolded or formed by the shapingequipment being cleaned.

§ 463.22 Effluent limitations guldellhesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofbest practicable control technologycurrently available.

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.

(a) The mass of pollutants in processwater discharged from existing cleaningprocesses subject to this subpart shallnot exceed the following values:

SUBPART B

(Cleaning water)

BPT effluent lmtations

Pollutanti or Pollutant property Maximum xna$o n or monthly

Ity average

mg/kg (pounds per millionpounds) of plastic matefal processed

BD5 ....................... 220 99Oil & Grease ................ 316 76TSS ........................ 524 161pH ........................................ () ()

Within ith range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

(b) The mass of pollutants in processwater discharged from existing finishingprocesses subject to this subpart shallnot exceed the following values:

SUBPART 8

(Finshin water]

BPT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximumfor any I for monthlyday average

mg/kg (pounds per rrilonpounds) of plastic materfl processed

DO S,........ 52 23Oil & Grease 76 IsTSS. 125 , 38PH ...........................() (')I Whin the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 463.23 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable.

The Agency has determined that there

are insignificant quantities of toxicpollutants in cleaning and finishingprocess wastewaters after compliancewith applicable BPT effluent limitationsguidelines. Accordingly, since the BPTlevel of treatment provides adequatecontrol, the Agency is not proposingmore stringent BAT effluent limitationsguidelines.

§ 463.24 New source performancestandards.

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

(a] The mass of pollutants in processwater discharged from cleaningprocesses subject to this subpart at newsources shall not exceed the followingvalues:

SUBPART BCteaning water)

NSPS

Pollutant or pollutant Property Maximum I Maximumfor any I for monthly

day average

mg/kg (pounds per millionpounds) of plastic mate-ial processed

..5.. ............................ 220 goOil & Grease ...... ............ 318 76TSS .................. .................. 524 161PH ........ ...... .... ... Q) (1)

Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tirnes.

(b) The mass of pollutants in processwater discharged from finishingprocesses subject to this subpart at newsources shall not exceed the followingvalues:

SUBPART 8[FlIahing water)

NSPS

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximumfor any 1 for monthly

y I average

mg/kg (pounds per millionpounds) of plastic mate-rial processed

BOD5 ........................ 2+ 2300 5 Grease ... ................... 76 to

TSS ...... 125 38PH -.- (1) (1)

A Within the range of 60 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 463.25 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources.

Any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR 403--GeneralPretreatment Regulations.

§ 463.26 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

Any new source subject to this subpartthat introduces pollutants into a publiclyowned treatment works must complywith 40 CFR Part 403--GeneralPretreatment Regulations.

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

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 conventional pollutantcontrol technology.

(a) The mass of conventionalpollutants in process water dischargesfrom existing cleaning processes subjectto this subpart shall not exceed thefollowing values:

SUBPART B

[Cleaning water]

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximumfor any 1I for montl

day average

mg/kg (pounds per millionpounds) of plastic mate-rial processed

6OD5 ........................ 22 9909 & Orems. . .. 318 76

S524 161Oil& G ~ s .... ......................... (1)1 (76

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

(b) The mass of conventionalpollutants in process water dischargedfrom existing finishing processes subjectto this subpart shall not exceed thefollowing values:

SUBPART B(FInIshIng water]

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Maximumforany I for monthy

day average

mg/kg (pounds per ntillonpounds) Of plastic male.nat processed

8005-1........... 52 23Oil&Grease .............. .7 .... ........... .. 7 toT75$-. ......... .. 125 36

'ithin the range of 6,0 to 9.0 at all times.

IFt Dec. 04-4037 Filed 2-14-84; 8:45 am)BILUNG CODE tON-sO-u

5883

supplementary information: overview epa's...1984/02/15 · overview this preamble describes...

Documents