Fertilizer Manufacturing Effluent Guidelines - Final Rule ... · 4/8/1974 · Process changes are necessary to achieve a total recirculatlon system, and as the result of public comment

12832 RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of the Environment -time of- publication of the notice ofCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL proposed rulemaking.

PROTECTION AGENCY • Interested -persons were invited to par-SUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND ticipate in the rulemaking by submitting

STANDARDS written comments within 30 days fromPART 418-FERTILIZER MANUFACTUR- the date or publication. Prior public par-

ING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ticipation in the form of solicited com-ments and responses from the States,

Phosphate, Ammonia, Urea, Ammonium Federal agencies, and other interestedNitrate, and Nitric Acid Subcategories parties were described in the preamble toOn December 7, 1973 notice was pub- the proposed regulation. The EPA has

lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR considered carefully all of the comments33852), that the Environmental Protec- received aLnd a discussion of these com-tion Agency (EPA or Agency) was pro- ments with the Agency's response theretoposing effluent limitations guidelines for follows:existing s~urces and standards of per- The regulation as promulgated con-formance and pretreatment standards tains some significant departures fromfor new sources within the phosphate the proposed regulation. The followingsubcategory, the ammonia subcategory, discussion outlines the reasons why thesethe urea subcategory, the ammonium changes were made and why other sug-nitrate subcategory and the* nitric acid gested changes were not made.subcategory of the fertilizer manufac- (a) Summary of comments. The fol-turing category of point sources. lowing responded to the request for

The purpose of this notice is to estab- ,written comments contained in the pre-lish final effluent limitations guidelines amble to the regulation: The Unitedfor existing sources and standards of per- States Water Resources Council; Kaiserformance and pretreatment standards Agricultural Chemicals; Vistron Corpo-for new sources in the fertilizer manufac- ration; Phillips Petroleum Company;turing category of point sources, by Terra Chemicals International, Inc.;amending 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter Hercules, Inc.; Hawkeye Chemical Com-N, to add a new Part 418. This final rule- pany; The Fertilizer Institute; Gardi-making Is promulgated pursuant to sec- nier, Inc.; The University of Nebraska,tions 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) and' College of Agriculture; County Sanita-(c) and 307(c) of the Federal Water tion District of Los Angeles County;Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Farmland Industries, Inc.; Gulf OilAct); 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and' Company, U.S.; Florida Phosphate(c), 1316 (b) and (c) and 1317(c); 86 Council; Agway, Inc.; C.F. Industries,Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500. Regula- Inc.; State of New York, Department oftions regarding cooling water intake Environmental Conservation; Freeportstructures for all categories 'of point Chemical Company; Tennessee Valleysources under section 316(b) of the AUt Authority; E. 1. DuPont de Nemours andwill be promulgated In 40 CIFR Part 402.. Company; and the United States De-

In addition, the EPA is simultaneously partment of Commerce. Each of the con-proposing a .separate provision which ments received was carefully reviewed,appears in the proposed rules section at and analyzed.39 FR 12842 of this issue, stating the ap- The following is a summary of the sig-plication of the limitations and stand- nificant comments and the Agency's re-ards set forth below to users of publicly sponse to those comments.owned treatment works which are sub- (1) Several commenters consideredject to pretreatment standards under the proposed- limits on the discharge ofsection 307(b) of the Act. The basis of fluoride and total phosphorus to be toothat proposed regulation is set forth in stringent. The validity of the data wasthe associated notice of proposed rule- questioned, and the contractor's initialmaking. recommendations were advocated. It was

The legal basis, methodology and fac- also commented that the limitations pro-tual conclusions which support promul- posed could be attained only at a pHgation of this regulation were set forth greater than 9.0.in substantial detail in the notice of In reviewing the data on which thepublic review procedures published Au- proposed standards were based, it wasgust 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202) and in the discovered that the low phosphorus con-notice of proposed rulemaking for the centrations in one plant were attrib-fertilizer manufacturing category. In ad- utable to dilution of its impoundmentdition, the regulations as proposed were water from underground springs. Ac-supported by two other documents: (1) cordingly, the promulgated effluent lim-The document entitled "Development itations for phosphorus have been recal-Document for Proposed Effluent Limita- culated employing the data from thetions Guidelines and New Source Per- remaining plants for which informationformance Standards for the Basic Is available. These limitations can beFertilizer Chemicals Segment of the Fer- achieved within the revised pH llmi-tilizer Manufacturing Point Source Cate- tations.gory" (November 1973) and (2) the (2) One person complained that re-document entitled ('Economic Analysis quiring a high pH will necessarily in-of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the crease the total dissolved solids con-Fertilizer Industry" (November 1973). centration.Both of these documents were made The total dissolved solids concentra-available to the public and circulated to tion Is not necessarily increased to anyinterested persons at approximately the significant degree when the pH level Is

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 68-MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

raised by use of lime. The benefits of re-taining metals, radioactive substancesand other harmful constituents as pre-cipitates outweighs the possible harm ofslightly increasing the total dissolvedsolids concentration. The pH limitationspromulgated will not adversely affectaquatic organisms.

(3) It was stated that even thoseplants in the phosphate category whichemploy 93 percent sulphuric acid (ratherthan 50 percent) and which thereforecontribute no water to the gypsum pondfrom the process, cannot consistentlyachieve no discharge. Moreover, the useof gypsum pond water to dilute the sul-phuric acid was claimed to be unproved,

Gypsum pond water dilution of sul-phuric acid is presented as one methodof insuring a negative water balance inthe gypsum pond, so that no contami-nated water need be discharged exceptduring periods of Intense precipitation-the level of control specified as attain-able by the best available technologyeconomically achievable. This technologyis currently in use In European plants,is domestically available through twoprocess design companies, and has re-cently been put Into operation In onemajor American plant. Other methodsof achieving a negative water balanceare also available to plants Utilizing con-centrated as well as dilute acid. Forexample, companies which employ con-centrated acid and which have notachieved no discharge commonly allowrainwater runoff from surrounding areasto enter their gypsum ponds, thus sub-stantially Increasing the volume of In-fluent water which the pond must ac-cept. Curtailment of this practice wouldallow plants to meet the no dischargerequirement except during periods ofcatastrophic rainfall. The issue is dis-cussed in more detail in paragraph (5),below.

(4) One company requested that sepa-rate subcategories be established forthose phosphate fertilizer plants whichrecover fluoride and those which do nothave a market for by-product fluoride.The justification offered for this addi-tional subcategorization was that the lat-ter plants will ,have a much higherfluoride concentration in their raw wastewater.

The fact of higher fluoride concentra-tions in the raw waste load is largelyirrelevant since lime precipitation (onetechnology cited in the DevelopmentDocument) will achieve the effluent limi-tations on fluoride regardless of whetheror not a portion of the fluoride isrecovered in the process.

(5) The concept of total impoundmentof gypsum pond water was severely criti-cized. Several plants pump storn runoffinto their gypsum ponds, maling a stateof no discharge impossible. The cost oftreating gypsum pond overflow for stormsup to a 24 hour, 10 or 25 year rainfallevent was stated to be excessive.

The problem of gypsum pond watercontainment centers on the current prac-tice at many plants of pumping stormrunoff into the gypsum ponds. In some

RULES AND REGULATIONS

instances, this practice Is used to cheaplyobtain makeup water for the pond. The1977 limitations require -retention'of gyp-sum pond water except durtag times ofchronic rainfall.There currently are plants that canachieve no disbharge of gypsum pondwater except during periods of- heavyrainfall. For the-purpose of this regula-tion, periods of chronic rainfall are de-fined to be those'months in which theamount of precipitation exceeds theamount of evaporation. During suchchronic rainfalls there may bd dischargedan amount of water equal to the differ-ence between the rainfall and the evapo-ration within the gypsum pond. Drainagearea outside the boundaries of the gyp-sum pond is not to be included In thecalculation of the precipitation volume.This discharge from the pond must betreated to the limits specified in the reg-ulation. This degree7 of treatment is alsocurrently being attained by plants withinthe industry.

So that a plant need not treat a dis-charge only3 at the time of a chronicrainfall, the plant is allowed to gradualyrelease from the gypsum pond the quan-tity of water attributable to the differ-ence between rainfall and evaporation forthatmonth, on the basis of past recordsfor these parameters. These data may beobtained from the National ClimaticCenter, National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration in Asheville,North Carolina, the successor agency tothe U.S. Weather Bureau or, if such rec-.ords are lacking, from the plant's ownrecords.

'While it is possible to treat excessprecipitation during or in anticipation ofchronic rainfall, it is impracticable totreat gypsum pond overflow resultingfrom catastrophic or near catastrophic'rainfall events. Standard engineeKizmgpractice includes design, constructionand operation of treatment ponds withsufficient freeboard to contain a 24 hour,10 to 50 year rainfall event. In this reg-ulation best practicable control technol-ogy currently available specifies reten-tion of a 24 hour, 10 years rainfall event.Best available demonstrated controltechnology and best available technologyeconomically achievable specify reten-tion of a 24 hour, 25 year rainfall event.

The gypsum ponds contain such haz-ardous materials as toxic metals andradioactive substances, particularly ifFlorida phosphate rock is used. It istherefore Imperative that discharge fromsuch ponds" be prevented as far as it Ispracticable. This ' may include directdischarge. of storm runoff rather thanpumping it into the gypsum pond.

(6) The propos d limitation on am-monia nitrogen in discharges fromgypsum ponds permitted during chronicwet weather- was criticized as toostringent. It was pointed out that theconcentration of nitrogen compounds inexisting impoundments can reach severalhundred mg/, that future air emissioncontrol systems will increase the levelof discharge to these ponds,, and thatspecific treatment for ammonia nitrogenremoval is prohibitively expensive. It was

also brought out that In requiring aclosed water system for ammonlum phos-phate operations by 1977, In-proces,changes would be necessary and that thisis not the intent of the Act..

Control of ammonia nitrogen dependson use of the self-contained procezs for*iammonium phosphate currently in usein three plants. Use of this process al-lows total recirculatjon of those wastestreams containing ammonia nitrogen.Process changes are necessary to achievea total recirculatlon system, and as theresult of public comment EPA has re-considered Its position and now considerstotal recireulation for this process as bestavailable technology economicallyachievable and best available demon-strated control technology rather thanbest practicable control technology cur-rently available. However, even were thisprocess to be universally adopted.achievement of the proposed effluentlimitation would not necessrily ensuebecause of the extremely high levels ofammonia nitrogen in impoundmentsfrom previous discharges.

Since there is no practicable tech-nology available to reduce these ammonianitrogen levels in the gypsum pond theparameter has been eliminated. Allplants will be required to achieve no dis-charge of ammonia nitrogen (except fordischarges attributable to catastrophicrainfall events) as well as all other proc-ess waste water pollutants by 1983. Nosignificant adverse environmental effectis expected as the result of deleting theno discharge requirement for this manu-facturing operation as a 1977 require-ment. The only allowed discharge fromgypsum ponds (to which amnnoniumphosphate wastes are discharged) will beduring 'periods of high rainfall, therebyminimizing environmental effects.

(7) One commenter urged that effluentlimitations should be related to the re-sulting water.quality, particularly forthose plants located in areas where pastdischarges have had no measurable effecton water quality. Other commenters con-sidered the proposed limitation on totalsuspended solids to be too low, consider-ing the normal suspended solids concen-trations in many rivers.

The FWPCA provides for two separateregulatory mechanisms, effluent limita-tions guidelines and water quality stand-ards. The former, including this regula-tion, are intended to be based upon spec!-fled levels of technology and independentof the quality of receiving water in vari-ous locations. The data available to EPAindicate that the effluent limitations ondischarges of suspended solids are attain-able through technology currently In useIn the phosphate subcategory.

(8) One commenter suggested that theregulation should prohibit seepage ofpond waters to ground waters.

Infiltration of pond water to subsur-face waters is not within the scope of theAct and hence cannot be controlled bythis regulation. However, the promul-gated limitations can be.acheved with-out seepage from treatment ponds, andthe Agency does not advocate such seep-age for this industry.

(9) A limit for radium-226 was re-quested, and a minimum pH of 8.0 wassuggested to asu a high degree ofremovaL

Uranium occurs naturally in phos-phate rock, especially that from Florida.Radium-226 is a particularly dangerousdecay product of uranium. On the basisof the data available, the Agency believesthat double lime treatment of gypsumpond water described in the Develop-ment Document adequately removesradium-226 to a level below 3.0 plcocurieswhen the pH is maintained above 8.0. Inorder to Insure that this hazardous ele-ment does not enter the environment inan uncontrolled manner, the pH rangehas been changed from 6.0-9.0 to 8.0-9.5The upper pH limitation was raisedbecause of the difficulty of maintainingpH within, one unit range even withautomatic equipment.

(10) With respect to the effluentlimitations on ammonia in the nitrogenfertilizer subcategories, It was arguedthat air stripping simply disperses theammonia to the atmosphere and that theammonia thus released will eventuallyreappear in the water cycle.

Air stripping of ammonia Is one tech-nology available to meet the effluentlimitations. Other alternatives (such assteam stripping or urea hydrolybsis) pro-duce no discharge of ammonia to the -atmosphere. There are currently noEPA air standards for ammonia and theconcentration levels of ammonia result-Ing from air stripping towers are belowthe threshold levels of human odorperception.

(11) One commenter complained thatseparate limitations for each manufac-turing element of the nitrogen fertilizersegment (e.g., urea, ammonia, etc.) isimpracticable for a complex utilizing acommon sewer for all wgste water.

While many nitrogen fertilizer plantsdo produce more than one element, thatis not necessarily the case. moreover, fornitrogen fertilized complexes the bestpracticable control technology involvessegregation of process waste waters fromthe component parts of the complex anddesign of treatment systems which arecapable of adequately treating the spe-cific waste streams. For example, steamstripping of process waste waters fromammonia manufacturing operations iscapable of a definitive level of perform-ance. The Agency believes this level ofperformance should be specified ratherthan submerged in a generalized numer-Cal limitation composed of the summa-tion of limitations on wastes from otherproceses.

(12) Several comments reproved theAgency for not taking into account leaksand spills when establishing the proposedguidelines. Other commenters character-ized the treatment technologies describedIn the Development Document as un-proved, "State of theArt" and unreliable.

The effluent limitations required by thebest practicable control technology cur-rently available are attainable by controlsystems now in place In plants in thisindustry (e.g., double liming and steamstripping) and the promulgated limita-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 68-44,ONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

12833'


'tions reflect the performance of thesesystems. The efauent limitations requiredby the best available technology eco-nomically achievable represent either theestimated potential performance ofexisting technology In place in someplants in the industry (e.g., urea hydrol-ysis and ion exchange) or the estimatedcapabilities of treatment technologieswhich are not now in use by the fertilizerindustry, but which have successfullytreated waste waters of similar charac-teristics (e.g., biological nitrification-denitrification).

The Agency does not agree that allow-ances, in the guidelines themselves, forin-process leaks and spills of product arenecessary. Good housekeeping practices,efficient operation and prompt mainte-nance will minimize waste from leaks andspills. Moreover, the waste water whichdoes occur can be segregated from con-taminated streams and recovered for drydisposal or reused in the productionprocess.

(13) It was pointed out that more oilcan be expected from urea manufactur-ing than from ammonia manufacturingbecause of the use of reciprocating pumpsin the former.

The data for oil and grease for bothsubcategories have been carefully re-viewed, and it was recognized that thelimits are within the range of question-able reproducibility for the standardmethod of analysis, The option exists toincrease the limit to a point where theanalysis would b& reliable. However, thiswould in effect allow more oil and greaseto be discharged. It is the judgment ofEPA that for this particular category oiland grease limitations should be basedinstead on water quality criteria.

(14) The use of ion exchange for treat-ment of ammonium nitrate process wastewaters was criticized by representativesof. three companies. The technology wastermed erratic, dangerous, and expensive.In addition, it was claimed that the costsof installing ion exchange equipmentwould give urea producers an unfair com-petitive advantage over ammonium ni-trate manufacturers.

After further review EPA agrees thatthe capital costs may prove to be pro-hibitive for small or marginal plants. Theeconomic feasibility of ion exchange isalso highly dependent on whether the re-covered concentrated ammonium nitratesolution is saleable.

Ion exchange is a proven treatmenttechnology for ammonium nitrate wastes,However, questions remain regarding thefeasibility and consistency of this treat-ment technology for this particular ap-plication. It is classified as best availabltechnology currently available. Limita-rather than best practicable contro'technology currently available. Idmita-tions for ammonium nitrate, thereforehave been revised to the average of tl(best levels currently being achieved bsplants not using ion exchange.

(15) One commenter requested thathe ammonium nitrate and nitric acicsubcategories be combined since the twproduction operations always accompa.each other.

Table . of the Development Documentshows that there ae 12 plants thatmanufacture either ammonium nitrate ornitric acid but not both. The two opera-tions are physically separate even Incomplexes and there are substantial dif-ferences in the manufacturing processesand process water characteristics,

(16) Several comments were receivedsuggesting that the Agency establish sep-arate limitations in the ammonium ni-trate subcategory for those plants whichemploy prilling towers.

1Most ammonium nitrate is prilled. Atthe time the proposed regulations weredeveloped, the Agency did not have suf-ficient data to establish limitations fornonprlling ammonium nitrate plants.Hence the proposed limitations werebased on plants which do prill their prod-uct. Separate limitations based on theAgency's review of additional data areincluded in the promulgated regulations.

(17) It was argued that manufacturingoperations other than ammonia will ab-sorb airborne ammonia in cooling towerslocated in a nitrogen complex. Further-more, placing ammonia limits on non-contact cooling water was said to penal-ize those operations that maximize waterrecycle, since once-through cooling waterwill not absorb airborne ammonia. Con-versely, it was argued by other comment-ers that limitations on the amounts ofzinc and chromium which may be dis-charged in recirculated cooling watershould be added.

The problem of ammonia absorption Incooling waters is complex in that a stand-ard raw waste load is impossible to cal-culate because of the variability of airleaks in the process, wind direction andtemperature. The Agency propopes to de-velop guidelines regulating the dischargeof noncontact cooling water at a futuredate. That regulation when promulgatedwill apply to discharges of noncontactcooling water from point sources in thefertilizer category. However, the limita-tions now promulgated do apply to non-contact cooling water that is contami-nated by process waste water since bydefinition the former then becomes proc-ess waste water.

(18) Apparent typographical errors inthe proposed regulation were pointed out.

The errors apparently occurred intypesetting and an errata was publishedin the FEDEPAL REGiseR on January 9,1974 (39 FR 1454).

(19) A representative of one companycomplained that nitrogen fertilizer solu-tions were not covered in the regulation.

Ammonia, urea, ammonium nitrateand nitric acid solutions are covered bythis regulation. The Agency considers the

- prevention of leaks and spillage resultingL from making solutions to be one of ade-- quate housekeeping. Hence, the regula-

tion need not and should not contain anadditional allowance for pollution froms such operations.

(20) Two commenters stated that In, view of the changing economy and energyd situation the Qverall cost to benefit ratioo must be weighed for the 1983 standards,

Ile the Act does not require that anexplicit "cost/benefit" exercise be under-

taken in establissing the eflluent limita-tions guidelines attainable by the bestavailable control technology economl-cally achievable, It does require that theguidelines are to be revised annually Ifappropriate. If factors such an thosementioned Indicate that a change isnecessary the 1983 guldelines can be re-vised. At present, however, neither theeconomic impact nor the energy con-sumption implications of the 1083 stand-ards appear unreasonable.

(21) Four contributors requested thatall the data used to formulate the guide-lines be divulged.

Summaries of the data used to formu-late the standards appear in the Devel-opment Document. The raw data maybe reviewed at the EPA Information Cen-ter as explained In the preamble to theproposed regulation.

(22) A commenter stated that theguidelines should be based on an Indus-try-wide average not just on exemplaryplants.

The Agency believes that the languageof the Act, and Its legislative history, pre-clude that approach. Congress, in theAgency's view, intended that the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable be determined by reference tothe average of the best existing perform-ances by plants of various Mze , ages,and unit procezses within each Industrialcategory. This average is to be based noton a broad range of plants but on theperformance levels attaIned by exem-plary plants within each category or sub-category.

(23) Several commenters questionedthe validity of the cost data and eco-nomic analysis and stressed that manysmall and older plants would be closedas the result of the costs of pollution con-trol equipment.

The costs were determined by a con-tractor highly knowledgeable in the fer-tilizer industry. Many of the cost argu-ments concerned very localized problemsthat cannot be accounted for in a gen-eral cost estimate. Many of the objectionsto costs and adverse economic Impactshould be settled as the result of assets-ment of new data submitted to the EPAand the subsequent changes, made in theregulation. The effets of thezo modifi-catibns are explained in the economioimpact portion of this preamble.

(24) Several commenteri also ques-tioned the severity of the standards forthe daily maximum. Some commentericlaimed that the EPA has declared theexisting treatment to be wholly Inade-quate and has used the averagoe of thebest plants which t.re too few to berepresentative.

Data from this industry indicate thata factor of two between the 30 day aver-ages and the daily maxima are reason-able for the treatment technologic citedin the Development Document. The addi-tional allowance requested for the dailymaxima are based on leaks and ,ptllM.This issue is discussed in comment (12).

All of the proposed standards are basedon treatment technology currently inplace In the industry. Because of thegeneral inadequacy of waste treatment

FE.DERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 68--MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

"12834


within the industry, there are only afew plants in some subcategories thatwere deemed to exhibit exemplary per-formance. As a result of new data andpublic comment certain proposed stand-ards have been revised to-reflect the per-formance of the exemplary plants in eachsubcategory.

(25) There was considerable concernexpressed as to effect on production byhigh energy demanding treatment sys-tems in light of the current energy allo-cation practices. In particular, it wascharged that implementation of the pro-posed standards will worsen the currentfertilizer shortage and will in turn de-crease food production.

Studies indicate that the economic im-pact to this industry will be minimalsince ion exchange is no longer requiredto meet aminonium nitrate limitations.These issues are discussed in the eco-nomic impact section. of this preamble.The energy increase is less than 2% forapplication of the best practicable con-trol technology. Alternatives that useless energy do not satisfactorily controlpollution.

(26) The Effluent Standards and Wa-ter Quality Information Advisory Com-mittee technique of establishing limitswas supported by one commenter.

The Committee's proposal is underevaluation as a contribution toward fu-ture refinements of guidelines for someindustries. The Committee has indicatedthat its proposed methodology could notbe developed in time to be available forthe current phase of guideline.promulga-tion, which is .proceeding according to:a court-ordered schedule. Its presentstate of development does not providestfficlent evidence , to warrant theAgency's delaying issuance of any stand-ard in hopes that an alternative ap-proach might be preferable.

(27) It was suggested that concentra-tions (mg/1) should be used instead ofproduction-based limitations.

Expressing effluent limitations in massunits related to production (kg of pol-lutant per kkg of product) rather thanin concentrations insures that limita-tions are not met by the simple expedientof- diluting the waste stream. Limitationsfor the phosphate subcategory were givenin concentration units because dischargesare related solely to rainfall not produc-tion.

(28) It was suggested that only Stand-ard Methods be used and not newly de-termined EPA methods and that thepollutant parameters should be defined-9ccording to the method of analysis.

The methods of analysis to be used forquantitative analysis of waste waterparameters were promulgated n theFEDERjA REGIsTER on October 16, 1973, at40 CFR Part 136. The General Provisions(40 CFR Part 401) have been revised todefine all pollutants or pollutant proper-ties by the method of analysis.

(29) It was commented that §§ 418.15,418.25, 418.35, 418.45 and 418.55 of theproposed regulation can be interpretedas applying toexistlng source.

The title to each section as well as thetext clearly indicate that the limitationsapply only to new sources.

(30) It was pointed out that nitrogenin the form of one species can be nat-urally converted to another form (e.g.ammonia to nitrite to nitrate) and thatthe guidelines should take this into ac-count.

This conversion occurs at a slow rateand specific conditions must be met be-fore the reaction can occur. Most of thetechnologies cited in the DevelopmentDocument operate continuously, and Itis doubtful whether nitrification or otherconversion reactions will have the timeto occur. For the remaining technologieswhere ponds are used, the treatmenttechnologies either preyent entry of ni-trogen into the pond or treat the alter-nate forms of nitrogen. An example ofthe latter are nitrificatlon and denitrifi-cation systems.

(31) Concern was expressed regardingfluorine emissions from gypsum ponds.

With proper treatment using lime,fluoride will be precipitated and fluorineemissions to the air will be negligible.

(32) One commenter stated that theregulation should specify that the sec-ondary pollution parameters listed inthe Development Document and sug-gested t9 be monitored are not subjectto limitations.

The regulation specifies those param-eters that describe the respective lev91 oftreatment technology. Additional param-eters may be regulated at the time ofpermit issuance for a particular plant, Ifsuch regulation is necessary to insurewater quality. The regulation has beenrevised to indicate that only thoseparameters specifically listed are subjecttoit.

(33) The meaning of no discharge ofpollutants was questioned.

No discharge of pollutants means thatthere should be no measurable quantityof pollutants discharged as determinedby the detectable limit of the correspond-ing analytical method. In cases where nodischarge of pollutants Is promulgatedthe standard can be met by total recir-culation systems in which no dischargeof any water Is necessary. Such modeltreatment and recirculation systems aredescribed In the Development Document.

(34) One commenter stated that thestandard for sulfuric acid for the inor-ganic chemicals category and the fer-tilizer category should be the same sincethe same process is used.

The 1977, 1983 and new source limita-tions for the manufacture of sulfuric acidin the inorganic chemicals category is nodischarge of process waste water polut,ants. No discharge of process wastewater and detection and retention ofleaks of process water into the non-contact cooling water has been deter-mined to represent best practicable con-trol technology currently available forthe manufacture of sulfuric acid In thefertilizer category. Therefore, no In-consistency exists.

(35) One commenter wanted to knowwhy 0; total suspended solids limitation

was not proposed for the nitrogen fer-tilizer subcategories.

The data did not indicate that thisparameter was a process waste waterpollutant. Hence, no limitation was given.

(36) A commenter stated that the limi-tations should be used as guidelines andnot rigid standards by a Regional Ad-ministrator In implementing the NPDESprogram.

The Act Intends that uniform stand-ards be set for each category. In estab-lishing the limitations for the fertilizercategory EPA took into account all in-formation it was able to collect, developand solicit with respect to factors such:as age apd size of plant, raw materials,manufacturing processes, products pro-duced, treatment technology available,energy requirements and costs -vhichcan affect the industry subcategoriza-ton and eflluent limits established. Ifan individual discharger can prove thatfactors relating to the equipment of fa-cilities involved, the process applied, orother factors related to such dischargerare fundamentally different from thefactors considered in the establishmentof the guidelines, the Regional Adminis-trator or the State can establish limita-tions In the NPDES permit more or lessstringent than the effluent guidelineslimitations.

(b) Revion of the proposed regula-tioan prior to promulgation. As a resultof public comments and continuing re-view and evaluation of the proposedregulation by EPA the following changeshave been made in the regulation.

(1) Minor adjustments have beenmade to reflect the fact that an in-creased number of definitions and ana-lytical methods have been included in40 CFR Part 401 and are incorporatedby reference In this subpart.

(2) Examination of new data submit-ted during the period of public commentand re-evaluation of existing data hasshown that the proposed limits in thephosphate subcategory for total phos-phorus, nitrogen, and total suspendednonfilterable solids were too severe.These limits were appropriately re-adjusted In response to comments (1)and (6). The pH limits were also raisedin answer to comment (9) In order toinsure adequate treatment of radium-226.

(3) For the reasons following com-ment (17) this regulation will not regu-late ammonia In noncontact coolingwater. A regulation governing dischargeof noncontact cooling water will bepromulgated at a later date.

(4) 011 and grease limitations havebeen excluded in the ammonia subcate-gory for the reason described In com-ment (13).

(5) The ammonlum nitrate subcategorylimitations were modified to reflect thefact that Ion exchange is consideredto be best demonstrated and best avail-able technologies (comment 14). Thelevels for best practicable control tech-nolog-y currently available reflect theresults of good housekeeping at ex-emplary, plants not using ion exchange.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 68-.-ONDAY, APRIL 0, 1974

1235


(6) Separate limits for prilled and non-prilled ammonium nitrate are promul-gated for the reasons given in answer tocomment (16).

(7) Section 304(b) (1) (B) of the Actprovides for "guidelines" to implementthe uniform national standards of sec-tion 301(b) (1) (A). Thus Congress rec-ognized that some flexibility was neces-sary in order to take into account thecomplexity of the industrial world withrespect to the practicability of pollutioncontrol technology. In conformity withthe Congressional intent and in recog-nition of the possible failure of theseregulations to account for all factorsbearing on the practicability of controltechnology, it was concluded that someprovision was needed to authorize flexi-bility in the strict application of thelimitations contained in the regulationwhere required by special circumstancesapplicable to individual dischargers. Ac-cordingly, a provision allowing flexibilityin the application of the limitations rep-resenting best practicable control tech-nology currently available has beenadded to each subpart, to account forspecial circumstances that may not havebeen adequately accounted for whenthese regulations were developed.

(c) Economic impact. The changes re-flected in the final guidelines have notsubstantially altered the economic anal-ysis presented in the proposed packagewith the exception of the ammonium ni-trate and the ammonium phosphate seg-ments. The revised guidelines for bestpracticable control technology in the am-monium nitrate subcategory are nolonger based upon the use of ion ex-change technology. Specifically, underthe proposed best practicable controltechnology currently available guidelineswhich required Ion exchange it was esti-mated that 16-24 ammonium nitrateplants, representing 16-23 percent ofthat segment's production capacity,would be forced to shut down. A revisedanalysis, based on delaying the require-ment for ion exchange in this segmentuntil 1983 and for new sources, shows Asubstantial decrease in the estimatedeconomic impact. Assuming that thecurrent nitrogenous fertilizer shortagecontinues at least into 1975, the resultantincreased revenues coupled with thislower cost requirement for 1977 willmaintain the economic viability of manyof the most vulnerable ammonium ni-trate plants.

The requirement for total recycle inthe ammonium phosphate segment hasbeen eliminated from the best practica-ble technology standards. As a resultthere will be a major reduction in pro-jected treatment costs for 1977, and thepotential for plant closures will decline.The economic impact analysis of, theproposed guidelines indicated that 3-16ammonlum phosphate plants, account-ing for "-39 percent of the segment'scapacity, could close as the result of pol-lution control costs. A prelininary re-vision of the analysis based on the as-sumption that total recycle is no longerrequired indicates the plant closure

estimate is now reduced to approximately0 to 10 plants, representing 0 to 10 per-cent of total capaity of ammoniumphosphate production. Plant closureswould affect an estimated maximum of200 jobs.

It Is predicted that the phosphorusfertilizer segment as a whole faces over-capacity by 1975 due to new plant con-struction, assuming the export marketdoes not expand significantly beyondprojected levels. Potential closures withinthe industry would likely take place in aperiod of oversupply, thus mitigating theeffect of such closures on fertilizer phos-phorus supply. Due to uncertainties inthe analysis it is not possible to defini-tively delineate what portion of am-monium phosphate producers wouldclose as the sole result of the 1977 re-quirements. However, it is felt that pol-lution control expenditures is one factorin any plant closure decision.

(d) Cost-benefit analyjsis. The detri-mental effects of the constituents ofwaste waters now discharged by point'sources within the basic fertilizer chemi-cals segment of the fertilizer manufac-turing point source category are dis-cussed in Section VI of the reportentitled "Development Document forEffluent Limitations Guidelines for the-Basic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment ofthe Fertilizer Manufacturing PointSource Category." It is not feasible toquantify in economic terms, particularlyon a national basis, the costs resultingfrom the discharge of these pollutants toour Nation's waterways. Nevertheless, asindicated in Section VI, the pollutantsdischarged have substantial and damag-ing impacts on the quality of water andtherefore on its capacity to supporthealthy populations of wildlife, fish andother aquatic wildlife and on Its suit-ability for industrial, recreatibn anddrinking water supply uses.

The total cost of implementing theeffluent limitations guidelines includesthe direct capital and operating costsof the pollution control technology em-ployed to achieve compliance and theindirect economic and environmentalcosts identified in Section V3II and inthe supplementary report entitled "Eco-nomic Analysis of Proposed, EffluentGuidelines for the Fertilizer Industry"(November 1973). Implementing the ef--fluent limitations guidelines will sub-stantially reduce the environmentalharm which would otherwise be attribut-able to the continued discharge of pol-luted waste waters from existing andnewly constructed plants in the fertilizermanufacturing industry. The Agency be-lieves that the benefits of thus reducingthe pollutants discharged justify the as-sociated costs which, though substantial-in absolute terms, represent a relativelysmall percentage of the total capital In-vestment in the industry.

(e) Solid waste control. Solid wastecontrol must be considered. The water-borne wastes from the fertilizer manu-facturing industry may contain a con-siderable volume of metals in variousforms as a part of the suspended solidspollutant. Best practicable control tech-

nology and best available control tech-nology as they are known today, require-disposal of the pollutants removed fromwaste waters in this industry in the formof solid wastes and liquid concentrates.In some cases these are nonhazardoussubstances requiring only minimal cus-todial care. However, some constituentsmay be hazardous and may require spe-cial consideration. In order to ensure longterm protection of the environment fromthese hazardous or harmful constituentq,special consideration of disposal sitesmust be made. All landfill sites wheresuch hazardous wastes are disposedshould be selected so as to prevent hori-zontal and vertical migration of thesecontaminants to ground or surfacewaters. In cases where geologic condi-tions may not reasonably ensure this,adequate precautions (e.g,, imperviousliners) should be taken to ensure longterm protection to the environment fromhazardous materials. Where appropriatethe location of solid hazardous materialsdisposal sites should be permanently re-corded in the appropriate office of thelegal jurisdiction In which the site islocated.

(f) Publication of information on proc-esses, procedures, or operatiny methodswhich result in the elimination or re-dUction of the discharge of pollutants. Inconformance with the requirements ofsection 304(c) of the Act, a manual en-titled "Development Document for Ef-fluent Limitations Guidelines and NewSource Performance Standards for theBasic Fertilizer Chemicals Segment ofthe Fertilizer Manufacturing PointSource Category" is being published andwill be available for purchwe from theGovernment Printing Office, Washing-ton, D.C. 20401 for a nominal fee.

(g) Final rulemaking. In considerationof the foregoing, 40 CFR Chapter I, Sub-chapter N, is hereby amended by addinga new Part 418, Fertilizer ManufacturingPoint Source Category, to read as setforth below. This final regulation Ispromulgated as set forth below and shallbe effective June 7, 1974.

Dated: March 28, 1974.

RUSSLL E. TAui,Administrator

PART 418--FERTILIZER MANUFACTUR.ING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Subpart A-Phosphato SubcacegorySee.418.10 Applicability; descrlptioa of the

phosphate subcategory.418.11 Specialized definitions.418.12 Effluent limitations guidelines repro-

senting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of tho bet practicable con-trol technology currently available.

418.13 _ffluont limitations guideline3 repre-senting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

418.14 [Rezervedl418.15 Standards of performance for now

source3.418.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.


12836


Subpart B-Ammonia Subcategory

418.20 Appllcability; description of the am.-monua subcategory.

418.21 Specialized definitions.418.22 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available

418.23 Effluent limitations guidelines repm-seating the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

418.24 [Reserved]418.25 Standards of performance for new

sourceS418. Pretreatment standards for new

sources.Subpart C-Urea Subcategory

418.30 Applicability; description of the ureasubcategory.

-418.31 Specialized definitions.4182 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appl-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available.

418.33 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

418.31 [eservedl .41835 Standards of performance for new

-sources.

418-38 Pretreatment standards for newSources

Subpart D-PAmmonlur Nitrate Subcategory418.40 Applicability; description of the am-

monium nitrate subcategory.418.41 Specialized definitions.418.42 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tlon of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

418.43 Effluent limitations guidelines repr-senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technol-ogy economically achievable.

418.44 [Reservedl418.45 Standards of performance for new

sources.418.46 Pretreatment standards fox new

sources.

Subpart E-Nitric AcidSubcategory418.50 Applicability; desciption of the

nitric acid subcategory.418.51 Specialized definitions.418.52 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

418.53 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technol-og economically achievable.

418.54 [Reserved]418.55 Standards of performance for new

sources..418.56 Pretreatment standards for n e w

sources.

Auraonirn: secs. 01, 304(b) and (c).307(c) of Federal Water Pollution COntrolAct, as amended (33 U.S.C. 125. 1311, 1314(b)and (c), 1316(b). 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 etseq. Pub. L. 92-500).

Subpart A--Ptosphate Subcategory§418.10 Applicability; description of

the phqsphate subcategor7.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resulting from themanufacture of sulfuric acid by sulfurburning, wet process phosphoric acid.normal superphosphate, triple super-phosphate and ammonium phosphate.§ 418.11 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "within the impound-ment," for the purpose of calculatin thevolume of process waste water whichmay be discharged, shall mean the watersurface area of the impoundment atmaximum capacity.

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

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took Into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the ndustry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An Indi-vidual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to the Re-gional Administrator (or to the State, Ifthe State has the authority to issueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factors re-lated to such discharger are fundamen-tally different from the factors consid-ered In the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available Information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) wil make awritten finding that such factors are orare not fundamentally different for thatfacility compared to those specified Inthe Development Document. If such fun-damentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischrereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings torevise these regulations.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of this

subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technoloZy currentlyavailable:

(a) Subject to the provisions of Para-graphs (b). (c), and (d) of this section,there shall be no discharge of processwaste water polutants Into navigablewaters.

M) A process waste water Impound-ment which is designed, constructed andoperated so as to contain the precipita-tion from the 10 year, 24 hour rainfallevent as established by the National Cli-matic Center, National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration. for the areain which such impoundment is locatedmay discharge that volume of processwaste water which is equivalent to thevolume of precipitation that falls withinthe impoundment In excess of that at--tributable to the 10 year, 24 hour rain-fall event when such event occurs.

(c) During any calendar month theremay be discharged from a process wastewater Impoundment either a volume ofprocess waste water equal to the different;between the precipitation for that monththat falls within the impoundment andthe evaporation within the impoundmentfor that month, or. If greater, a volumeof process waste water equal to the dif-ference between the mean precipitationfor that month that falls within the im-poundment and the mean evaporationfor that month as established by theNational Climatic Center, National Oce-anic and Atmospheric Administration,for the area in which such impoundmentis located (or as otherwise determined Ifno monthly data have been establishedby the National Climatic Center).

(d) Any process waste water dischargedpursuant to paragraph (c) of this sec-tion shall comply with each of the fol-lowing requirements:

BffSatnlmltaff0=s

rltunt Avgfd31lycharnie Mxidmum frr yavfasnf ofr3O

any I day cocmecuilv daysballnt exceed-

Total p hpheus

TS_50 25pu ... Within tho ra za 80 to 9.5.

Ergia nL(ppm)

Total phDb2as 70

T33_.......... Z0 25

p uWtn tin ra.na &0 to a.r

§ 418.13 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction altaLle IT the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically ac evabIe.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties which nay be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable:

(a) Subject to the provisions of Para-graph (b) of this section there shba beno discharge of process waste water pol-lutants into navigable waters.

FEDERAL REGISTIER, VOL 39, NO. 68--MONDAY, APRIL 8; 1974

M37


(b) A process waste water impound-ment which is designed, constructed, andoperated so as to contain the precipita-tion from the 25 year, 24 hour rainfallevent as established by the National Cli-matic Center, National Oceanic and At-mospheric Administration, for the areain which such impoundment is locatedmay discharge that volume of processwaste water which is equivalent to thevolume of precipitation that falls withinthe Impoundment in excess of that at-tributable to the 25 year, 24 hour rainfallevent, when such event occurs.

§ 418.14 [Reserved]

§ 418.15 Standards of performance fornew sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality~ofpollutants or pollutant properties whichmay be discharged by a new source sub-ject to the provisions of this subpart:

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graph (b) of this section, there shall btno discharge of process waste water pol-lutants into navigable waters.

(b) A process waste water impound-ment which is designed, constructed,and operated so as to contain the pre-cipitation from the 25 year, 24 hour rain-fall event as established by the NationalClimatic Center, National Oceanic At-mospheric Administration, for the areain which such impoundment is locatedmay discharge that volume of processwaste water which is equivalent to thevolume of precipitation that falls with-in the Impoundment in excess of that at-tributable to the 25 year, 24 hour rain-fall event, when such event occurs.

§ 418.16 Pretreatment standards fornew sources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the phosphate subcategory, whichIs a user of a publicly owned treatmentworks (and which would be a new sourcesubject to section 306 of the Act, if itwhere to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR128.133 shall be amended to read as fol-lows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthIn 40 CPR 128.131, the pretreatment stand-ard for Incompatible pollutants introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works shallbe as follows: There shall be no discharge ofprocess waste water pollutants.

Subpart B-Ammonia Subcategory

§ 418.20 Applicability; description ofthe ammonia subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from themanufacture of ammonia.

§ 418.21 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the

general .definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "product" shall meanthe anhydrous ammonia content of thecompound manufactured.

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

In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into account allinformation it was able to collect, developand solicit with respect to factors (suchas age and size of plant, raw materials,manufacturing processes, products pro-duced, treatment technology available,energy requirements and costs) whichcan affect the industry subcategorizationand effluent levels established. It is, how-ever, possible that data which would af-fect these limitations have not beenavailable and, as a result, these limita-tions should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities involved, the process applied, orother such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered in the establish-ment of the guidelines. On the basis ofsuch evidence or other available informa-tion, the Regional Administrator (or theState) will make a written finding thatsuch factors are or are not fundamentallydifferent for that facility compared tothose ppecifled in the Development Docu-ment. If such fundamentally differentfactors are found to exist, the RegionalAdministrator or the State shall estab-lish for the discharger effluent limita-tions in the NPDES permit either more orless stringent than the limitations estab-lished herein, to the extent dictated bysuch fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved by theAdministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled' by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provislond of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Efflugnt limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for 30

any 1 day coasecutive daysshall not exceed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 kgof product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0.125 0.0025pH ---------------- Within the range 6.0 to 9.0

English units (pounds per 1,000 lbof product)

Ammonia (as N).. 0.125 0.0625pH -----------.- Within the range 0.0 to 9.0

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

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent izmitatlong

Effluent Averogo or dailycharacteristic Maximun for values for dy

any I day coniceutiv0 daysfhali not oxcecd-

lMotrio unlts (lilograinm per 1,^00 lUgof produ(t)

Ammonia (aq N)... 0. 05 01 M5............. Within the range 0.0 to 9.0.

English units (pound, per 1,000 lbof product)

Ammonia (as N) ... 0.05 0.025pH -------- _-_ Within the range 0,0 to 9.0,

§ 418.24 [Reserved]§ 418.25 'Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

Efliuent llnitatloti

Effluent Aversge of dllycharaeteristio Maximum for values for 30

any I day conmecutivo dayl,,hall not exceed-w-

Metric units (klloramli per 1,000 kgof product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0.11 0.03pH ................. Within th0 range 0.0 to P.0.

English units (pouadq per 1,000 lbof product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0.11 0. 0MpH ---------------- Within ti1e rargo 0.0 to P.0.

§ 418.26 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.

The pretreatment standards under sec-tion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinthe ammonia subcategory, which is auser of a publicly owned treatment works(and which would be a new source sub-ject to section 306 of the Act, If It wereto discharge pollutants to the navigablewaters), shall be the standard set forthin 40 CFR Part 128, except that, for thepurpose of this section, 40 CFR 128,133shall be amended to read as follows:

:In addition to the prohibitions sot forthin 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor Incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for now sourcespecified in 40 CFR 418.2 ; provided that,If the publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants Is committed, In Its


12838


NPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to users ofsuch treatment works shal be correspond-ingly reduced in stringency for that pol-lutant.

Subpart C-Urea Subcategory

§ 418.30 -Applicability; description ofthe urea subeategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from themanufacture of urea.

§ 418.31 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods -of analysis set forth In 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "product" shall meanthe urea content of the compound man-ufactured.

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

In establishing the limitations setforth in-this setcion, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to cel-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw matrials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lshed. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should beadjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to issue bNPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipmentor facilities involved, the process applied,or other such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors considered in the estab-lishment of the guidelines. On the basisof such evidence or other available in-formation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist the Regional Administrator or the

-State shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations In the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmentbl Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may aprove or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-

tions, or Initiate proceedings to revisethes-e regulations.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or Pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisons of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

(a) The following limitations consti-tute the maximum permissible discoargefor urea manufacturing operations inwhich urea is not prilled:

EfleantlmltatIons

Emuent Avohgoi_Camreteistio Maximum far fv.o tsr2

any I day rsucatv days

M4t1a units (WLk ) pcz 1,0 kgof Mrduct)

Asnnonis(aN)... 0.075 0.075Organo nltrozeca

- ~p . . Wthin rat U .0to U

(b) The following limitations conztd-tute the maxd mum perazble dischargefor urea manufacturing operations in,which ureau Is prnlled:

Effluentl lalmEffluent Avem _ of dr M3

chara~tcfltd BTdmu - UM ~ fd.Vatany I doy cn.oxullve d ys

c produat

Ammonia(as1)_ 0.1 0.03

orgawulntro-,en

(as N) ----= . A.125p z.. WIthia tWm MaUo 0.0 to 9.0

Enh u flwg d i o r 1o sb

Otte the mxmmemssbedicag

for urea Mflathl rano p0 to 9.0

418.33 Effluent limiions uime1ns

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the nppdica-tion of the best availabl tchnology7economically achievce.

The following limittons establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, ontrolled by this zc-tLon, -which may be dl:harged by a point

source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:(a) The folowing limitations consti-

tute the maximum Permissble dischargefor urea manufaturing operations Inwhich urea Is not Prled:

chamte -tra MAznm- fr m=ny 1 day ec o vdT

Mrk ount3s(kflrgrans pe 1.010kgof prrdazt)

0mr.... ... 03 0.05

Orga rcgoa -

pXI. Within thaan~a 0.0 to 9.0tTLtowi unit (waonds por 1.CC lb

Amon~caM 03 0.0150 ona nlteCCgoa

(a3N) .M 05pit Wthtna3ranza .O to 0.0

(b) The following limitations consti-tute the maximum permissible dis-charge for urea manufacturing opera-tions In which urea is prilled:

E01on1101tatf-I

E01unt AvoMgcidailycbaratca'.1sb VM anfrr vasf=3(O

any I day Mcave da

iMfrf nIt Cktlrens per1.000 kg.oiprcdrat)

Amoanla (as M_)Orcaabmt lto 0.03 .015 -

pu _ w71Uid tho r a C.o to .0

lL=Jn UnItax (ronads re 1,00 lbof prodruzt)

Ammonia (M3N)...OrF-nintroc= 0.05 0.015

p ......... i th ra .to 9.

§ 418.34 [Rleserved]§ 418.35 Standards of performance for

new sources.The following standards of perform-

ance eatablilh the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be db-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

(a) The following limitations constitutethe maximum permissible discharge forurea manufacturing operations in whichurea is not prllled:

EffMi;t lmitatlnfs

EMMZnt Avertga of diycboxrna!Czttb lisilmn frr val!=s fcr Zo

any 1 day ccnctlvo days

ci pdact)

Am=mna)a. N).:. .0= 0.c

(p s) - .0375 .07pU - Wifiln tho ranZ3 0.0 to 9.0

Er~lkh units (P-ods per 1,000tbCi prcd--t)

Amna 0os N)... 0.00 C0.0(LeOrgmnlntrrsoa

pU.................... Wti tho Mna U. to 9.0

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 68--.ONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974

1239

ITO. 68--Pt. 331-2


plicable to discharges resulting from themanufacture of ammonium nitrate.§ 418.41 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "product" shall meanthe anhydrous ammonium nitrate con-tent of the compound manufactured.

§ 418.42 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the best practicable controltechmology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set forthn this section, EPA took into accountall information it was able to coldct,develop and solicit with respect to factors

Effluent limitations

Effluent Av-characteristic Maximum for values for 30

any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 kgof product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0.075 0.0375Nitrate (as N) ----. . 1 .05pH ---------------- Within the range 0.0 to 0.0


Ammonia (as N).. 0.075 0.0375Nltrat (as N) --- ; .1 .05pH ------------- Within the range 6.0 to 9.0

(b) The following limitations consti-tute the maximum permissible dischargefor ammonium nitrate manufacturingoperations in which ammonium nitrate isprilled or granulated:

.(b) The following limitations constitue (such a's age and size of plant, raw ma-the maximum permissible discharge for terials, manufacturing processes, prod-urea manufacturing operations in which " ucts produced, treatment . technologyurea is prilled: .available, energy requirements and costs)

which can affect the industry subcate-. iluent limitations gorization and effluent levels established.

rfluent' '\' Averago of daily It is, however, possible that'data whichcharacteristic Maximum for valus or 30 would affect these limitations have not

any 1 day consecutive dayjs been available and, as a result, theseshal not exceed-h limitations should be adjusted for cer-

t rain plants in this industry. An, individ-Metric unite (kilograms per 1,000 kg ual discharger or other interested personof product)may submit evidence to the Regional

Ammonia (as N)... 0.05 0.0325 Administrator (or to the State, if theOrganic nitrogen

(as N) .......... .125 .0025 State has the authority to issue NPDESp ------ Within the range 0.0 to 9.0 permits) that factors relating to the

English units (pounds per 1,000 lb equipment or facilities involved, the proc-of product) ess applied, or other such factors related

Ammonia (as N)... 0.065 0.0325 to such discharger are fundamentallyOrganic nitrogen different froh the factors considered in

(as N)--------... .125 .5025 the establishment of the guidelines. OnpH -------- - Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 the basis of such evidence or other avail-S418.36 ]rretratment standards for able information, the Regional Adminis-new sources. trator (or the State) will make a written

finding that such factors are or are not

The pretreatment standards under sec- fundamentally different for that facilitytion 307(c) of the Act for a source within compared to those specified in the De-the urea subcategory, which is a user of velopment Document. If such fundamen-a publicly owned treatment works (and tally different factors are found to exist,which would be a new source subject to the Regional Administrator or the Statesection 306 of the Act, if it were to dis- shall establish for the discharger effluentcharge pollutants to the navigable limitations in the NPDES permit eitherwaters), shall be the standard set forth more or less stringent than the limita-in 40 CPR Part 128, except that, for the tions established herein, to the extent

-purpose of this section, 40 CPR 128.133 dictated by such fundamentally differentshall be amended to read as follows: factors. Such limitations must be-ap-

In addition to the prohibitions set forth proved by the Administrator of the En-In 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standard vironmental Protection Agency. Thefor incompatible pollutants introduced into Administrator may approve or disap-publicly owned treatment works shall be the prove such limitations, specify otherstandard of performance for new s limitations, or initiate proceedings tospecified in 40 CFR 418.35; provided that,if the publicly owned treatment works which revise these regulations.receives the pollutants Is committed, in its The following limitations establish theNPDES permit, to remove a specified percent- quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-age of any incompatible pollutant, the pre- lutant properties, coitrolled by this sec-treatment standard applicable to users of tion, which may be-discharged by a pointsuch treatment works shall be correspond- source subject to the provisions of thisingly reduced in stringency for that pollu- subpart after application of the besttant. practicable control technology currently

Subpart D-Ammonium Nitrate available: I

Subcategory (a) The following limitations consti-tute the'maximum. Permissible discharge§ 418.40 Applicability; description of for ammonium nitrat e manufacturingte ammonium nitrate subcategory. o moim ntrt auatrne noperations in which ammonium nitrate

The provisions of this subpart are ap- is produced as an aqueous solution:


Elfluent l1altatlon'l

Effluent Averag of &lTycharacteristic Maximum for vluc for 'M_

any 1 day eon~cruhtvo di1vishall not mco rd-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 I:,of produtt)

Ammonia (as N)... 0. 2 0,1Nitrato (as N) ------ .22 .11pH ................. Within the range 0.0 to P.0,

English unite (pounds Per 1,000 lhof produtt)

Ammonia (as N)... 0.2 0.1Nitrate (as N) -- .22 .11pH ............... Within the range 0.0 to 9.0,

§ 418.43 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of efflucntreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable,

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economically,achievable:

(a) The following limitations consti-tute the maximum permissible dischargefor ammonium nitrate manufacturingoperations in which ammonium nitrate isproduced as an aqueous solution:

Effluent lilmitatlons

Effluent Avoreggo of dailycharacteristlo Maximum for vaucI for 30

any I day conmecutlve davsshall not exceed-

Metric units (1dlo-grami per 1,00kg of product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0. 015 0. (76Nitrate (as N) ...... . 5 .0125pH ................. Wi the range 0.0 to 9.0

English unite (porlndi per 1,000lb of product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0.015 0.0075Nitrate (as N) ...... . Q25 .0125pH ------------- _ Within the range 0.0 to 90

(b) The following limitations consti-tute the maximum permissible dischargefor ammonium nitrate manufacturingoperations in which ammonium nitrateis prilled or granulated:

Effluent lilmtatlons

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristlo Maximum for values for 30

any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exccCd-

Metric units (ktlogranml per 1,000 lugof product)

Ammonia (as N)... 0. 015 0.0075Nitrate (as N) ..... . .02 .0125pH --------------- Within the range 0.0 to 0.0.


Ammonia (as N)... 0.015 0.0075Nitrate (as N) ...... . 02 .0125pH --------------- Within the range 0.0 to 0.0.

12840

RULES AND REGULATIONS -

§ 418.44 [Reserved]§418.45 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following-standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may-be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

(a) The following limitations consti-tute the maximum permissible dischargefor ammonium nitrate manufacturingoperations in which ammonium nitrate isproduced as an aqueous solution:

Effluent limitations .. .... . . . . -,Efne rg f The provisions of this subpart are ap-chaCteristic 31veumfo raglues or 30 plicable to discharges resulting from

any I day consecutive days the manufacture of nitric acid used asshall not exceed- an intermediate product for the manu-

facture of fertilizer products or otherletric units (kilograms per 1.00D kg intermediate products.

of product) 0 Spcilzed definitions.

Ammonia (asx. N)- 0.50.05 418.51 Spcaie dfntosNitrate (as N)---- .025 .025 For the purpose of this subpart:PH -------------- Within the range 6.0 to 0.0 (a) Except as provided below, the

English unts (pounds per 1,000 lb general definitions, abbreviations andof product) methods of analysis set forth In 40 CFR

" Ammonia(asN)._ 0.05 0.02s Part 401 shall apply to this subpart.Nitrate (as N) ------ .025 .023pH -------------- Within the range O.0 to .0 § 418.52 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent(b) The following limitations con- reduction attainable by the appliea-

stitute the maximum permissible dis- tlion of the best practicable controlcharge for ammonium nitrate manufac-. technology currently available.turing operations in -which ammonium In establishing the limitations setnitrate is prilled- or granulated: forth in this section, EPA took into ac-

count all information it was able to col-Effluent limitations lect, develop and solicit with respect to

-Effluent Averageofdaily factors (such as age and size of plant,eharacterstic maximum for values for 30 raw materials, manufacturing processes.

any 1 day consecutive days products produced, treatment technol-shall not exceed- ogy available, energy requirements and

costs) which can affect the Industry sub-letric units (ilograms per i,0 kg categorization and effluent levels estab-

of product) lished. It is, however, possible that data

Ammonia (a' N)--- 0.1 0.05 which would affect these limitations haveN itrate (as N) ...... . e5 . 01 7PH ------------------ within the rN) o.oto 9.- not been available and, as a result, these- r limitations should be adjusted for certain

Englishunts (poundsper1,0lb plants in this industry. An individualdischarger or other interested person

ANmonta (as N). 0 05 . may submit evidence to the Regional Ad-Nitrate (as N) ... . o5 .025p .-------------- Withinthe range 6.0 to 9.0. ministrator (or to the State, if the State

has the authority to issue NPI)ES per-§ 418.46 Pretreatment standards for .mits) that factors relating to the equip-

new sources., ment or facilities involved, the processThe poretreatment standards under applied, or other such factors related toeion pretre ftme t n asude such discharger are fundamentally dif-

section 307(c) of the Act for a source ferent from the factors considered inwithin the ammonium nitrate subcate- the establishment of the guidelines. Ongory, which is a user of a publicly owned the basis of such evidence or other avail-treatment works (and which would be able information, the Regional Adminis-a new source subject to section 306 of trator (or the State) will make a writtenthe Act, if it were to discharge pollutants finding that such factors are or are notto the navigable waters), shall be the fundamentally different for that facilitystandard set forth in 40 CFR Part 128, compared to those specified in the De-except that, for the purpose of this see- velopment Document. If such funda-tlon, 40 CFR 128.133 shall be amended mentally different factors are found toto read as follows: exist, the Regional Administrator or the -

In addition to the prohibitions Met forthIn 40 CI 128.131. the pretreatment stand-ard for Incompatible pollutant3 IntroducedInto a publicly owned treatment workcs chaUbe the standard or performanco for newsources specified In 40 CMl 418A5; providedthat, if the publicly owped treatment worlkwhich receives the pollutants is committed.in Its NPDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any Incompatible pollutant,the, pretreatment standard appUcablo tousers of such treatment vworks nnll be cor-respondingly reduced in stringoncy for thatpollutant.

Subpart E-Nitric Acid Subcategory

§418.50 Applicability; description ofte nitric nld subente~rvo

- FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 68-MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1974

State shall establish for the dischargereMuent limitations iu the NPD)ES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitaUons, or initiate proceedings to re-vise these regulations. .

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently available: Thereshall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters.§ 418.53 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable: There shall be.no discharge of process waste water pol-lutants into navigable waters.§ 418.54 [Reserved]§ 418.55 Standards of performance for

new sources.The following standards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties whichmay be discharged by a new source sub-Ject to the provisions of this subpart:There shall be no discharge of processwaste water pollutants into navigablewaters.§ 418.56 Pretreatment standards for

news.ources.The pretreatment standards under

section 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the nitric acid subeategory" whichis a user of a publicly owned treatmentworks (and which would be a new sourcesubject to section 306 of the Act, if itwere to discharge pollutants to the navi-gable waters), shall be the standard setforth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR128.133 shall be amended to read asfolows:

In addition to the pr6hlbitions set forthIn 40 CFR 123.131. the pretreatment stand-ard for Incompatible pollutants Introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works sballbe a follows: There shall be no discharge ofprocecs vaste water pollutants.

IFR Dcc.74--726 Flied 4-5-74:8:45 a-n]

1284