N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND regulations as proposed sub ...€¦ · 28/06/1974 · effluent limitations guidelines for exist- gory" (February 1974) and (2) the doc-bng sources and

Title 40-Protection of the Environment category, electric arc furnace (wet airCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL pollution control methods) subcategory,

PROTECTION AGENCY the vacuum degassing subcategory, andthe continuous casting subeategory. InSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND addition, the regulations as proposed

STANDARDSwere supported by, two other docu-PART 420-IRON AND STEEL MANU- ments: (1) The document entitled "De-

FACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY -elopment Document for ProposedOn February 19, 1974, notice was pub- Effluent I mitations Guidelines and New

lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR Source Performance Standards for the6484) that the Environmental Protection Steel Making Segment of the Iron andAgency (EPA or Agency) was proposing Steel Manufacturing Point Source Cate-effluent limitations guidelines for exist- gory" (February 1974) and (2) the doc-bng sources and standards of perform- ument entitled "Economic Analysis ofance and pretreatmentstandardsfornew Proposed Effluent Guidelines, the Inte-sources within the by-product coke sub- grated Iron and Steel Industry" (Febru-category, beehive coke subcategory, sin- ary 1974). Both of these documents weretering subcategory, blast furnace (iron) made available to the public and circu-subcategory, blast furnace (ferroman- lated to interested persons at approxi-ganede) subcategory, basic oxygen fur- mately the time of publication of the no-nace (semiwet air pollution control tice of proposed rulemaking.methods) subcategory, basic oxygen Interested persons were invited to par-furnace'(wet air pollution control meth- ticipate in the rulemaking by submit-ods) subcategory, open hearth furnace ting written comments within 30 dayssubcategory, the electric arc furnace from the date of publication. Prior pub-(semiwet air pollution control methods) lic participation in the form of solicitedsubcategory, electric art furnace (wet comments and responses from the States,air pollution control methods) sub- Federal agencies, and other interestedcategory, vacuum degassing subcategory, parties were described in the preamblean dthe continuous casting subcategory to the proposed regulation. The EPA hasof the iron and steel manufacturing cate- considered carefully all of the commentsgory of point sources, received and a discussion of these com-

The purpose of this notice is to estab- ments with the Agency's response there-lish final effluent limitations guidelines to follows.for existing sources and standards of (a) Summary t comments. The fol-performance and pretreatment stand- lowing responded to the request, in theards for new sources in the iron and steel preamble to the proposed regulation, formanufacturing category of point sources, written comments: American Iron andby amending 40 CFR Chapter I, Sub- Steel Institute; Ford Motor Company;chapter N, to add a new Part 420. This Allied Chemical Corporation; Nationalfinal rulemakingis promulgated pursuant -Steel Corporation; Republic Steel Cor-to sections 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) poration; Inland Steel Company; Stateand (c) and 307(c) of the Federal Water of Colorado, Department of PublicPollution Control Act, as amended, (the Health; State of New York, DepartmentAct); 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and of Environmental Conservation; The(c), 1316 (b) and (c) and 1317(c); 86 Alabama Conservancy; Western ReserveStat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500. Regula- Economic Development Agency; Unitedtions regarding cooling water intake States Water Resources Council; the Ef-structures for all categories of point fluent Standards and Water Quality In-sources under section 316(b) of the Act formation Advisory Committee; Unitedwill be promulgated in 40 CFR Part 402. States Steel Corporation; and the

In addition, the EPA is simultaneously Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company.proposing a separate provision which Each of the comments received wasappears in the proposed-rules section of carefully reviewed and analyzed. Thethe FEDERAL REaSTER, stating the appli- following is a summary of the significantcation of the limitations and standards comments and the Agency's response toset forth below to users of publicly owned them.treatment works which are subject to (1) A comment was made to the ef-pretreatment standards under section feet that although the Development Dec-307(b) of the Act. The basis of that pro- ument, discussion under the byproductsposed regulation is set forth in the as- coke subcategory recognizes that signifl-sociated notice of proposed rulemaking. cantly larger volumes of ammonia liquor

The legal basis, methodology and fac- are generated by the indirect ammoniatual conclusions which support promul- recovery method when compared withgation of this regulation were set forth i th6 more widely used semi-direct am-substantial detail in the notice of pub- monia recovery method, no variationslic review procedures published August from the proposed effluent limitations6, 1973 (38 FR 21202) and in the notice were permitted except for coke plantsoflproposed rulemaking for the by-prod- utilizing desulfurization units. The com-uct coke subcategory, the beehive-coke menter recommended consideration of.subcategory, the sintering subeategory, such a variation for coke plants whichthe blast furnace (iron) subcategory, use indirect ammonia recovery methods.the blast furnace (ferramanganese) The Agency has evaluated this sug-subcategory, the basic oxygen furnace gestion and has concluded that the com-(semiwet air pollution control methods) menter has a valid point. Change No. 1subcategory, the basic oxygen furnace under part (b) describes the revision that(wet air pollution control methods) sub- has been made and the rationale.category, the open hearth furnace sub- (2) One commenter pointed out thatcategory, the electric arc furnace (semi- the preamble to the proposed regulationwet air pollution control methods) sub- indicated that these limitations were in-

tended to apply only to process wastewaters and .not to non-contact coolingwaters but that the regulation itself doesnot so indicate.

The applicability section of each sub-part has been revised to indicate that thelimitations are applicable to the processwaste waters related to the operation towhich the limitations apply.

(3) One commenter pointed out thatwhile the by-product coke plant BATEAand NSPC treatment schematics Indi-cate the use of technology to reducetotal nitrogen, the guidelines as proposedlimit only ammonia and can thus bemet without Installing all of the treat-ment technology indicated as the basisfor the limitations.

,The regulations proposed (39 iR 6407and 6498) were based on the projectedcapabilities of treatment systems whichprovided not only for ammonia removalbut also for total nitrogen reduction. TheAgency believes that the full treatmentas Indicated in the schematics Is desira-ble. However, the Agency does not have asuffcient data base with which to es-tablish a total nitrogen limit at this time,

(4) One commenter suggested that thebiological denitrification process couldvery easily convert the sulfates, from theprior sulfide oxidation step, back to sul-fides in the by-product coke Alternate IXtreatment system.

The information available to theAgency indicates that this will not occurto any significant extent. Neverthelessit is undesirable, and in many areasprohibited, to discharge directly from ananaerobic treatment system as Indicatedin the by-product coke (Alternate3I), open hearth, and vacuum degasingsubcategory treatment schematics forthe BATEA level. Accordingly, a stepaerator has been added to the treatmentschematics to aerate the effiuent beforedischarge and to oxidize sulfides shouldthey be formed.

(5) A comment was made that BOD isnot a pertinent parameter in that It wasdeveloped specifically for sanitar-ysewage effluents and that It should bedeleted. ,

The proposed guidelines contained alimit for BOD5 on by-product coke plantwastes. This test has been used for yearsto quantify the oxygen requirements ofcoke plant wastes and Is decidedly ap-plicable. However, on further review, theAgency has concluded that this limita-tion can be deleted. The guidelines con-tain limits on the parameters which con-tribute to the BOD5 (except for sulfidoat the BPCTCA level which economicconsiderations precluded the provisionof a means to control) and thus thelimitation on BOD5 was concluded to beredundant.

(6) One commenter presented severalfrequency distribution curves on pollut-ant concentrations and suggested thatthe limits for "daily maximum" and "30consecutive day" values for some pollut-ant parameters should be increased.

The Agency has re-evaluated the dataavailable and has revised the regulationas indicated in Change No. 6.

(7) Comments were received to theeffect that the proposed New Source Per-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126--FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24114 RULES AND REGULATIONS

RULES AND REGULATIONS

formance Standards (NSPS) axe basedon the immediate use of technologywhich cannot be described as Best Avail-able Demonstrated Control Technology(BADCT).

The Agency has re-evaluated the dataavailable and has revised the regulationas indicated in Change No. 6.

(7) Comments were received to theeffect that the proposed New Source Per-formance Standards (NSPS) are basedon the immediate use of technologywhich cannot be described as Best Avail-able Demonstrated Control Technology(BADCT)-.

The Agency has reviewed the informa-tion available and believes that the com-menter has a valid point with respect tothe immediate application of technologyfor biological denitrification. Change No.7 describes the revision made and therationale.

(8) Comments have been received tothe effect that alkaline chlorination is anundesirable treatment technology to ap-ply to coke plitnt wastes because of itstendency to increase the toxicity of therefractory organic compounds present.

This effect has been recognized andwas the basis for including carbon ad-sorption as a part of the BATEA andNSPS treatment schematics in systemsbased on chlorination of by-product cokeplant and blast furnace wastes. Carbonadsorption is considered to achieve itsgreatest effectiveness in adsorbing chlo-rinated organics and carbon adsorption isconsidered the most efficient means forthe removal of same. The problem arisesin that the limitations can be achievedwithout installing the activated carbonportion of the envisioned systems.

The tie of carbon adsorption is in-tended as part of the7 treatment systemof plants using alkaline chlorination.However, other means may be used toremove the chlorinated organics; or suchtreatment can be deleted if no problemis found to exist. The Agency does nothave sufficient information with which toestablish limitation on chlorinatedorganics at this time. A limitation maybe established in the future, if necessary.

(9) A comment was received to theeffect that the fluoride ion solubility ex-ceeds the theoretical rate when carbondioxide is present and that 30 mg/l is thebest treatment attainable based on com-menter's survey.

The recommended treatment tech-nology to achieve BATEA limitations in-volves the addition of lime which con-verts -any carbon dioxide in the systemto calcium carbonate, keeping this po-tential interference from affecting thefluoride solubilities, and allowing maxi-mum precipitation of .solid calciumfluoride.

(101 One comment inferred that theflow rate of 209 l/kkg (50 gallons perton) for the Basic Oxygen Furnace(BOF) -Wet Subcategory was developedin part from one dry system, one non-combustion off gas (OG) system whichuses less water than an open hood com-bustion type system, and one system forwhich flows were estimated from designdata and in which the actual flows areapproximately twice design (to avoid

plugging problems). Further, the corn-menter stated "that the water use rateon existing BOF's has to be evaluated onan individual basis e 0 0" The corn-menter followed with a listing of manyfactors that should be considered.

The commenter apparently did notrecognize the division of BOF systemsinto two subcategories, i.e. those usingsemi-wet air pollution control metho(ds(Subpart F) and those using wet airpollution control methods (Subpart G).Two of the five systems visited and sam-pled (plants R and U) were used as abasis for developing the limitations forSubpart F and three of the systems wereused as a basis for developing the limita-tions for Subpart G.

The information in the DevelopmentDocument clearly indicates that plantsR and U are semi-wet systems andshould be evaluated separately relativeto the "no discharge" limitations of Sub-part F. The "dry precipitator" systemreferred to by the commenter is a semi-wet system which was recycling water atthe rate of 542 l/kkg (130 gallons perton), but the system is operated Ss aclosed system with no discharge.

The three wet systems studied andsampled (plants S, T, and V) includedone OG system and two combustion typesystems. The OG system, which sup-posedly uses less water, wa. recirculat-ing water at the rate of 4254 l/kkg (1020gallons per ton), Le. a higher rate thanfor the other two systems. Even so, thisplant was operating with a blowdown rateof 217.7 1/kkg (52.2 gallons per ton).Plant V was designed for a blowdownrate of 137.6 1/kkg (33 gallons per ton).The commenter contends that the sys-tem must be operated at twice this blow-down rate to avoid plugging problems,but other information available to theAgency indicates that the actual rate isless than 250.3 l/kkg (60 gallons per ton)and also that the plugging problems re-sulted not from operating the BOF scrub-ber portion of this multi-purpose systemat the design rate, but due to problems inthe other part of the system. The useof excessive blowdown to compensate fora problem from an external source doesnot justify this blowdown rate even forthis plant, much less for all other wetBOF shops.

(11) Comments have been received tothe effect that the eliluent limitationsguidelines should .,pecify the net loads tobe discharged rather than absolute loads.

The effluent limitations have generallybeen developed on a gross or absolutebasis. However, the Agency recognizesthat in certain instances pollutants willbe present in navigable waters whichsupply a plant's intake water in signifi-cant concentrations which may not beremoved to the levels specified In theguidelines by the appjlcatlon of treat-ment technology contemplated byBPCTCA.

Accordingly, the Agency Is currentlydeveloping amendments to Its NPDESpermit regulations (40 CFR Part 125)which will specify the situations In whichthe Regional Administrator may allow acredit for. the pollutants present in aplant's intake waters. The regulations

will be proposed for public comment inthe near future.

(12) A comment was received- to theeffect that by-product coke plant wastewater volumes (per unit of production)will be increasing in the future ratherthan decreasing, as the BPCTCA andBATEA limitations indicate, due to in-creasing restrictions on disposal of wastesby use in coke quenching and due to in-creased requirements for the installationof wet air pollution control methods.

The limitations were developed on thebasis of the treatment of all processwaste waters produced, and hence willnot be affected by restrictions on the useof waste waters for coke quenching. Thelimitations were also developed on thebasis that there would be no eluent fromthe coke quenching operation to betreated. The data available to the Agencyindicates that the quench waters are notsignificantly contaminated in that useand can be recycled to extinction. Fouleffluents from -this operation appear tooriginate with the use of foul wastes asthe quench medium. The limitations donot make allowance for waste watersfrom wet air pollution control systems,other than desulfurization units, and ifsuch systems are developed and em-ployed, an Individual or case by case de-termination will need to be made as tothe added waste load to allow until suchtime that the limitations can be revisedto reflect the changing conditions.

(13) Comments were received to theeffect that the recycling of blast furnacescrubber waste waters with the verylim-ited amount of blowdown allowed wouldin all probability adversely affect blastfurnace opeitions and would, therefore,not be practical.

Five Iron-aking blast furnace systemswere sampled and studied for the pur-pose of developing these limitations. Oneof these was treating its waste watersand discharging "once through" with noattempt to recycle. The other four plantswere operating recycle systems. Three ofthese were discharging at a rateless thanthe 521.4 1/kk g (125 gallons per ton) basisused in establishing the limitations andthe fourth had no discharge. The latterplant could not be adequately evaluatedbecause the company failed to supply re-quested data. However, the Agency be-lieves that the other three recycle sys-tems provide adequate verification thatiron making blast furnace recycle sys-tems can achieve the flow rates on whichthese limitations are based.

(14) A comment was made to the ef-fect that the proposed limitations for&inter plants were developed from datafrom a plant using wet dust controlmethods only at the discharge end andthat no limitations should be establisheduntil a study and analysis has been madeof a plant which uses wet gas cleaningsystems on both the windbox and thededuster.

The limitations were developed on thebasis of the data from a plant whichuses wet scrubbers on both operations.Confusion on this point probably re-sulted from theincorrect identificationof figures in the Development Document.

(15) A comment was made to the ef-fect that BATEA limitations should in-

FEbERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-FRItDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24115


lude a limit on total cyanides, in addi-tion to, or in place of, a limit- on onlythose cyanides amenable to chlorination.

Since the effluent limitations for BPC-CTCA are based on demonstrated treat-ment technologies, and since data onthe total cyanide removal capabilities ofthose technologies is available, such limi-tations could be and were developed fortotal cyanides.

However, the BATEA limitations arebased on the destruction of only the sim-ple or free (and most toxic) cyanidesrather than total cyanides. The degreeof destruction of free cyanides via alka-line chlorination and break point chlori-nation is known, and provides a basisfor establishing limits on cyanides amen-able to chlorination. The effect of thesetreatments upon the less toxic cyanidecomplexes is diffcult to evaluate at thistime. Additional information will be re-quired before limitations based on totalcyanides can be established for the3ATEA technologies.

(16) One commenter stated that it isnot explained how the data presenteddemonstrates that the factors of age andsize have been considered and furtherstates that the commenter believes theAgency is erroneous in concluding thatthese factors do not require subcategorl-zation on this basis.

The Agency has subdivided the steelmaking segment primarily along opera-tional lines because the waste water vol-umes and pollutant parameters varywith the type of operation being con-ducted. In addition, the processes reflectthe age of the technology employed. Sub-categorization of coke making by theolder beehive and the neweirby-productoperations and steel making by the olderopen hearth and the newer basic oxygenand electric arc furnace operations isindirectly subcategorization by age.

The treatment technology to be appliedis primarily a function of the pollutantspresent and hence is a function of thetype of operation conducted. The typeof pollutants present is not a functionof the age or size of the operating facil-ity. Land availability for application ofthe treatment technology is not a func-tion of size or age since many new aswell as old mills are limited on the areaavailable for installation of treatmentfacilities and vice versa. The same canbe said with respect to size. Many of theolder mills have better treatment thansome of the newer ones and vice versa.The treatment technologies proposed donot require large land areas and in ad-dition alternatives are available to thosefacilities which do have a land availabil-ity problem.

The limitations are primarily a func-tion of the kinds of pollutants present,the unit volume of wastes that must bedischarged, and the capabilities of the'applicable treatment technology. All ofthese factors relate to the type of opera-tion conducted and not to the size orage of the facility.

(17) One comment was received to theeffect that the limitations for sinterplants were based on only one plant be-cause the water systems at the other

plants .visited were so intricate as to makeseparate identification of the unit rawwaste and unit effluent loads from thesintering operation obscure, yet the plantused as a basis for the limitations wasalso intricate.

A total of four sinter plant operationswere vdsited during the industry study.The plant used as a basis for the limi-tations received some input from theblast furnace system but, by comparisonto the other plants, was relativelystraight forward and the data was con-sidered representative and capable ofbeing adequately interpreted.

(18) A comment was received objectingto the large energy consumption requiredto provide cyanide destruction via alka-line chlorination, especially since thecommenter assumed that this process isapplicable only to waste streams whichhave been raised to elevated tempera-tures.

The BATEA cyanide limitations donot require additional heating of wastestreams over and above the temperaturesnormally encountered. The one blast fur-nace operation surveyed which was uti-lizing alkaline chlorination achieved lowconcentrations of cyanides in the treatedeffluent 'without additional heating.Moreover, the BATEA cyanide limitationis specifically based upon cyanides amen-able to chlorination, rather than totalcyanides, for reasons cited above. Thiscommenter has previously contendedthat chlorination is not effective In de-stroying complex cyanides except at ele-vated temperatures. This does not apply,to the simple cyanides, i.e, the cyanidesamenable to chlorination, to which theBATEA and NSPS limitations apply.

(19) One commenter stated that hisbest engineering judgment indicated thatthe Agency's cost estimates are one-third to one-half of the true cost of con-structing the proposed facilities.

The costs likely to be incurred at anylocation are included but costs for un-usual conditions that may occur at aspecific location were not included. Thusnormal excavation-costs were included,but costs for blasting, which may or may

-not be required at a specific location,were not. Costs include only the instru-ments related to control of pH and fluo-ride on which limitations have been set.Other instruments frequently are in-stalled but this is a matter of choice andthe result of weighing the added con-venience and perhaps reduced operatinglabor costs against the relatively insig-nificant increased capital cost. Costs for

-supporting utility requirements were sosmall In most instances that In fact noadditional capacity would need to leconstructed. This would. obviously reducethe excess capacity available to the plant.If the. excess utility capacity at a par-ticular mill is so marginal that addi-tional capacity must be added to handlethe new load, then in all probability the,added facilities will be much larger thanthe new load requires and thus most ofthe costs will be related to providingreserve capacity and flexibility whichthe plant did not previously have. Inaddition, the costs, even as projected by

the comimenter, are a very small part ofthe revenues generated by the opera-tions and a very small part of the neces-sary costs of conducting these operations,

(20) One commenter states that thestudy (in addressing the energy require-ments of the proposed regulations) com-pletely overlooked the fact that the majorenergy demand Is steam for operation ofthe treatment systems and for maintain-ing effective operating temperatures inbiological treatment systems, etc.

Item (iv) of the preamble to the pro-posed regulation (39 FR 0402) did infact refer only to the added electricalenergy requirements. However, both theelectrical and the thermal energy re-quirements have been reviewed. It Is esti-mated that the annual electrical andthermal energy requirements to achievethese limitations will be less than 1.5percent and less than 0.00002 percentrespectively of the electrical and thermalenergy used by the steel industry in 1972.

(21) Oihe commenter Inferred thatwaste water recycle is an "in-process"control and as such cannot be defined asBPCTCA unless It Is normal practice inthe industry.

In-process controls are changes in theoperating process itself such that a sub-stitution of one process for another willalter, reduce, or eliminate the raw wasteloads produced, or render them less ob-Jectionable, or more amenable to'treat-ment. In-process controls, which are inuse by the average of the best facilities,as well as end-ofpipe treatment, canbe used as the basis for establishing theBPCTCA limitations.

However, recycle Is not an "in-process"control in this context in that It Is theaddition of facilities, usually at the out-let of a once through treatment facility,which permits the effluent to be recycledback to a scrubber system and does notrequire a change in the process or thescrubber system Itself. -

(22) One commenter stated that thebiological oxidation process will parti-ally oxidize most of the thiocyanatespresent to ammQnia and hence recom-mended that the ammonia limit for by-product coke plants, using treatmentAlternate II to achieve the BPCTCAlimitations, be doubled.

Neither the data available to theAgency nor the reference materials stud-ied indicate that this change would beJustified. The biological system studiedand sampled showed a reduction in am.monia as a result of treatment. The plantwasnot achieving the ammonia limita-tion proposed but this plant was not em-ploying the ammonia removal step aheadof the biological system as proposed inthe treatment schematic,

(23) One commenter stated that "theeconomic impact of the proposed effluentlimitations guidelines upon the steel In-dustry has been grossly underestimatedby EPA,"

The Agency believes that the EPA cco-nomlc impact analysis report has as-sessed the magnitude of the potentialeconomic impact as accurately as pos-sible based on the cost estimates providedby the industry study contractor. This

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 126--FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24116

- RULES AND REGULATIONS

issue Is addressed further under the dis-cussion of economic Impact.

(24) One commenter has claimed thatthe proposed guidelines will result In theloss of 12,000 jobs from the steel em-ployment in the Mahoning River Valleyregion. Furthermore, the commernuterasserts that "there is ample justificationfor adding to the guidelines a subcate-gory based on the age of the facility.".

The Agency has analyzed subcategori-zation on the basis of age per se and hasconcluded that such subcategorizatlonis not appropriate (see comment #16).

The Agency intends to secure and eval-uate additional Information on possibleeconomic Impacts in this region as dis-cussed under "(c) Economic Impact" andwould consider revision of the regula-tions if the information appears to war-rant this action.

(25) One comment was received to theeffect that ranges of numbers (limita-tions) should be specified rather thanspecific limitations.

The Agency considers that the limita-tions already represent ranges, takinginto account differences in processes usedand other factors. Subcategorizatlon hasbeen used to take these factors into ac-count with different limitations for eachsubcategory. Within subcategories, ex-ceptions to the limitations have beenprovided where appropriate, thus consti-tuting a range. Each numerical limita-tion represents a maximum value over agiven period of time. This, In effect, rep-resents a range from zero up to the spe-cific limitation.

(26) One commenter stated generally,and with regard to individual subcate-gories, that the Agency had failed tospecify factors to be taken into accountby the permitting authority in establish-ing effluent limitations for individual per-mits, and that the Agency had errone-ously established national applicableeffluent limitations.

Section 304(b) (1) (B) of the Act pro-vides for "guidelines" to implement theuniform national standards of section301(b) (1) (A). Thus, Congress recog-nized that some flexibility was necessaryin order to take into account the com-plexity of the industrial world with re-spect to the practicability of pollutioncontrol technology. In conformity 'iththe Congressional intent and in recogni-tion of the possible failure of these regu-latons to account for all factors bearingon the practicability of control tech-nology, it was concluded that some pro-vision was needed to authorize flexibilityin the strict application of the limita-tions contained in the regulation whererequired by special circumstances ap-plicable 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.

(27) One commenter suggested thatsince new source performance standardsare not specifically required by an out-standing court order concerning the ef-

fluent limitations guidelines, regulationsfor new sources for this industry shouldbe dropped until a later time.

Section 306(b) (1) (B) of the Act pro-vides for establishment of standards ofperformance for new sources within spec-Ifled time frames. It Is the opinion ofthe Agency that sullclent'Information isavailable on which to base a definition ofbest available demonstrated technologyfor new sources. Moreover, effluent limi-tations for new sources for some sub-categories have been changed as a resultof a reassessment of technologies withregard to adequacy of demonstrationand availability to new sources for appli-cation in the immediate future.

(28) One commenter also expressedconcern about the Agency's concentra-tion on exemplary plants, questioningthe representativeness of the plantsstudied, as well as the application oftransfer technologies.

In establishing subcategories and set-ting effluent limitations the Agency spec-ified the factors to be considered, suchas type of operation and nature of pol-lutants discharged, and considered howthese factors would be applied In Identi-fying the amount of pollutant reductionattainable by particular subcategories ofthe industry. The resulting limitationsidentify specifically the amount of pol-lutant reduction attainable, in accord-ance with the provisions of section 304(b) (1) (A). The Act did not intend thatfactors should be described generally andthen applied on a case by case basis tospecific plants. Such an Interpretationwould be contrary to the intention ofthe Congress that national standards beestablished.

The determination of what .consti-tutes "best practicable" technology formany industries involves, at first, a gen-eral review of the industry to determinethe best technologies being practiced Inthe Industry. Then. after closer reviewand Investigation of these technologies,the "best practicable" technology is as-sessed as the average of the best, thoughnot necessarily the best technology, af-ter taking into account information re-lating to other factors spelled out In theAct.

In those industries where prezenttreatment is uniformly inadequate, ahigher degree of treatment than is pres-ently practiced may be required basedon a comparison with existng treatmentfor similar wastes in other industries orother subcategories of the same Industry.Factors for determining the "best avail-able" technology are similar except thatrather than assessing the average of thebest, the focus would be on the very besttechnology currently In use or demon-strably achievable.

Under this analysis of the statutorystandard, it is the opinion of the Agencythat it is not necessary that "best prac-tlcable" technology be currently in useas a single treatment. As applied to thisindustry, the methodology employed re-sulted n sufficient data to support theresulting limitations, and is com-pletely consistent with the statutoryrequirements.

(b) Revision of proposed regulationsprior to promulgatfon. As a result of pub-lic comments and continuing review andevaluation of the proposed regulation bythe EPA, the following changes have beenmade in the regulation.

(1) Sections 42012, 42013, and 420.15have been revised to include a provisionfor increased waste loads from by-product coke from plants using the in-direct ammonia recovery process. Thisprocess produces 375.4 l/kkg (90 gallonsper ton) more weak ammonia liquor thanthe semi-direct system on which the pro-posed guidelines were based. This in-crease in WAL volume is partially offsetby reductions in other waste sources.These reductions are related to the ab-sence of final coolers and of barometercondensers associated with the operationof crystalizers. The provision added to1 420.12 allows for a 30 percent increasein waste loads corresponding to an in-crease in waste water volume from 730to 938 l/kkg (175 to 225 gallons per ton).The provisions added to I§ 420.13 and420.15 allow for a 70 percent Incre;se inwaste loads corresponding to an increaseIn waste water volume from 417 to 709l/kkg (100 to 170 gallons per ton). Thereduction in waste volume from BPCTCAto BATEA of '730 to 417 l/kkg (175 to 100gallons per ton) on the semi-direct sys-tems is accomplished by cooling and re-cycling the barometric condenser waters.Since the indirect ammonia systems useless barometric condenser water the op-portunites for reduction here are lessand the reduction in waste water volumefrom BPCTCA to BATEA is less for theIndirect ammonia plants, te., from 93al/kkg to 709 llkkg (225 gallons per tonto 170 gallons per ton). Approximately15 percent of the by-product coke plantsuse the Indirect ammonia recoveryprocess.

(2) The applicability section of eachsubpart has been revised to indicate thatthe limitations are applicable to theprocess waste waters related to the op-eration to which the limitations apply.

(3) The Agency has continued to re-view the limitations proposed for theBlast Furnace (Ferromanganese) Sub-category. Several Iron making blast fur-naces have been successfully retro-fittedwith recycle systems and the ferroman-ganece furnace visited was recycling thescrubber waters with no blowdown assuch although there was an appreciableamount of water leaving the system inthe filter cake (74 percent moisture) andas entrainment In the gas stream. How-ever, there is no ferromanganese furnacepracticing recycle of the cooler systemeffluents. Since the Agency is of the opin-ion that these systems can be recycled(as iron mak.ng blast furnaces are al-ready doing) and since there is no sys-tem to sample at this time as a basis forthe development of limitations, it hasbeen necessary to base the limitations onthe results of a detailed study of theonce-through cooler system sampled andIts associated scrubber recycle system.The study for this industry was made bya consulting engineering firm with manyyears of industrial water treatment sys-tem design experience and a reservoir of

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-FIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

241171


water chemistry expertise. Neverthelessin recognition of the projected nature ofthe limitations the agency has revisedthe BPCTCA limitations as follows:

Proposed (39 PromulgatedFR 6500 1)501 Herein kg/kkg

kg/kkg or lbs/lOOO or lbs/1OO lbsIbs.

TSS ............. 1043 .1043Cyanidoe........ 0.0312 .1563Phenol 0.0042 .0203Ammonla..... 0.2086 .5212

These are the "30 donsecutive day"limitations. The maximum values forany one day have been increased to threetimes these amounts. The BATEA limi-tatiors remain as proposed.

(4) It is undesirable, and in manyareas prohibited, to discharge directlyfrom an anaerobic treatment system asIndicated n the by-product coke (Al-ternate 11), open hearth, and vacuumdegassing subcategory treatment sche-matics for the BATEA level. Accordinglya step aerator has been added to thetreatment schematics to aerate the ef-fluent before discharge and to oxidizesulfides should they be formed in theanaerobic step.

(5) The proposed guidelines containeda limit for BOD5 on by-product cokeplant wastes. This test hs been used foryears to quantify the oxygen require-ments of coke plant wastes. However, onfurther review, the Agency has conclud-ed that this limitation can be deleted.The guidelines contain limits on the pa-rameters which contribute to the BOD5(except for sulfide at the BPCTCA levelwhich economic considerations precludedthe provision of a means to control) andthus the limitation on BOD5 was con-cluded to be redundant.

(6) As a precaution against the dailymaximum limitations being violated onan intolerably frequent basis, the dailymaximum limitations 'have been in-creased to three times the Values permit-ted on the "30 consecutive day" basis.Higher daily limits should not result -insignificantly increased waste loads dis-charged since the same thirty day valuesmust still be achieved. The daily limitsallow for normal daily fluctuations in awell designed and well operated plant,but are intended to be below those valuesthat could result from severe upsets suchas may result from equipment malfunc-tions.

(7) The technologies oiI which theNSPS limitations were based have beenfurther reviewed. In consideration of thenature of the biological denitrificationprocess and that it has been demon-strated full scale only on municipalwastes and other types of industrialwastes, but not on steel industry wastes,the nitrate limitation has been deletedfrom the NSPS for the open hearth andvacuum degassing subcategories. Thelimitations of the by-product coke sub-category can still be achieved by thealkaline chlorination and breakpontchlorination process and is not affectedby this change. The alkaline chlorinationprocess is being used full scale on blast

furnace wastes and thus is consideredtransferable to the very similar cokeplant wastes. Breakpoint chlorinationhas been broadly applied for many yearsin the treatment of drinking water sup-plies. Its application following alkalinechlorination is considered not to be sig-nificantly different from its applicationto the treatment of drinking watersupplies.

(8) The BATEA and NSPS limitationfor suspended solids for the by-productcoke and blast furnace subcategories wasinitially set on the basis of the need tofilter the influent of the carbon columnsenvisioned as a part of the treatmentschematics. This would reduce the TSSto the 10 mg/I level on which the limita-tion was based. However, treatment Al-ternate II (Biological) for by-productcoke plants does not require filtration tooperate properly. Clarification achiev-ing a TSS level of 25 mg/1 should be suM-cient for a final step in this treatmentalternate. The added cost of filtrationcannot be justified by the relativelyminor reduction in TSS load dischargesachieved. The BATEA and NSPS sus-pd'nded solids limitation has thereforebeen revised and is now based on 25 mg/1at the established flow rate.

(9) 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 recogni-tion of the possible failure of these reg-ulations to account for all factors bear-ing on the practicability of control tech-nology, it was concluded that some pro-vision was needed to authorize flexibilityin the strict application of the limita-tions contained in the regulation whererequired by special circumstances ap-plicable 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 economicimpact analyses conducted in conjunc-tion with the development of the effluentlimitations guidelines assessed the eco-nomic impact on an overall Industrybasis. It was necessary to restrict theanalysis to this level due to the lack of(1) detailed estimates of the costs foreffluent control for individual plants and(2) detailed financial information forindividual plants as a basis for assessingthe effects of these costs upon profit-ability.

.Whe Agency is aware of the contentionthat these guidelines may result in largeemployment reductions in the multi-community Mahoning River Valleyregion of eastern Ohio as contrasted tosituations where employment impactsare localized. The information which the

Agency presently has Is not sufficient tosupport different requirements for thisarea, and thus the effluent limitationsguidelines now being promulgated do nottreat any region of the nation differentlyfrom other areas of the country. Com-panies contending that the effluent limi-tations guidelines will cause curtailmentof operations and heavy unemploymentin the Mahoning Valley area will havethe opportunity to present detailed tech-nical, c6st and financial information tosupport this contention. The Agency willanalyze this information and also willutilize its legal authority under section308 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-trol Act to obtain relevant cost and fi-nancial data for the affected plants.

This information will be used to deter-mine whether revision of this regulationfor the Mahoning Valley area is appro-priate.

(d) Cost-benefit analysis. The detrl-mental effects of the constituents ofwaste waters now discharged by pointsources within the steel making segmentof the Iron and steel manufacturingpoint source category are discussed InSection VI of the report entitled "De-velopment Document for Effluent Limita-tions Guidelines for the Steel MakingSegment of the Iron and Steel Manu-facturing Point Source Category"(June 1974). It is not feasible to quantifyin economic terms, particularly on anational basis, the costs resulting fromthe discharge of these pollutants tQ ourNation's waterways. Nevertheless, as in-dicated In Section VI, the pollutants dis-charged have substantial and damagingimpacts on the quality of water andtherefore on Its capacity to supporthealthy populations of wildlife, fish andother aquatic wildlife and on Its suita-bility for Industrial, recreational anddrinking water supply uses.

The total cost of implementing theeffluent limitations guidelines Includesthe direct capital and operating costs ofthe pollution control technology em-ployed to achieve compliance and theindirect economic and environmentalcosts identified In Section VI and Inthe supplementary report entitled "Eco-nomic Analysis of Proposed EffluentGuidelines the Integrated Iron and SteelIndustry" (February 1974). Implement-ing the effluent limitations guidelineswill substantially reduce the environ-mental harm which would otherwise beattributable to the continued dischargeof polluted waste waters from existingand newly constructed plants In the Ironand steel industry. The Agency believesthat the benefits of thus reducing thepollutants discharged Justify the assool-ated costs which, though substantial inabsolute 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 Iron and steelindustry may contain a considerablevolume of metals in various forms as apart of the suspended solids pollutant.Best practicable control technology andbest available control technology as they

IEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24118


are known today, require disposal of the• pollutants removed from waste waters

In this industry in the form of solidwastes and liquid concentrates. In somecases these are nonhazardous substancesrequiring only minimal custodial care.However, some constituents may behazardous and may require special con-sideration. In order to ensure long termprotection of the environment from thesehazardous or harmful constituents,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 materlals. Where-appropriate,the location of solid hazardous materialsdisposal sites should be permanentlyrecorded in the appropriate office of thelegal jurisdiction In which the site islocated.

) Publication of information onprocesses, procedures, or operatingmethods whick result in the eliminationor reduction of the discharge ofPollutants. In conformance with the re-quirements of Section 304(c) of the Act,a manual entitled, "Development Docu-ment for Effluent Limitations Guidelinesand New Source Performance Standardsfor the Steel Making Segment of theIron and Steel Manufacturing PointSource Category," is being published andwill be available for purchase In thenear future from the Government Print-Iug Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, fora nominal fee.

(g) Final rulemaking. In considera-tion of the foregoing, 40 CFR Chapter I,Subchapter N is hereby amended byadding a new Part 420, Iron and SteelManufacturing Point Source Category,to read as set forth below. This finalregulation Is promulgated as set forthbelow, and shall be effective July 28,1974.

Dated: June 14,1974

RUSSEL.L E. TMNm,Administrator.

Subpart A--By-Product Coke SubcategorySec.420.10 Applicability: description of the

by-product coke subc.tegory.420.11 Specialized definitions.420A2 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicableconmrol technology currentlyavailable.

420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines Tep-resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-

- nology achievable.420.14 rRaserved]420.15 Standards of performance for new

sources.420.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

Subpart B--Beehive Coke Subcategoy

Sec.420.20 Applicability: description of the

beehive coke subcategory.420.21 Specialized definitions.420.22 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction att-oinnble by the ap-plicatlon of the be-t practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degre of effuentreduction attainable by thoapplication of the best avail-able technology economicallySpchlovable.

420.24 [Reservedl420.25 Standards of performance for new


sources.Subpart C-Slntering Subcategory

420.0 Applicability: description of thesIntering subcategory.

420.31 Special med definitions.42022 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attain be by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

420.33 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of eduentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically acbIva-ble.

420.34 [-served].420235 Standards of performance for new

sources.42030 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

Subpart D-Blast Furnace (Iron) Subcategory420.40 Applicability; description of the

blast furnace (iron) subcategory.420.41 Specialized definitions.420.42 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavalable.

420.43 Eflluent limitations guidellnes rep-resenting the degree of eMuentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achieva-ble.

420.44 lleserved].420.45 Standards of performance for new

sources.420.46 Pretreatnient standards for new

sources.

Subpart E-Blast Furnace Ferromanganese)Subcategory

420.50 ApplIoability; descriptlon of theblast furnace (ferromangneac)subcategory.

420.51 Specialized definitions.420.62 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

420.53 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the dege of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achleva-ble.

420.54 Ileservedi.

Sec.420.5 Standards of performance for new


sources.Subpart F-Basic Oxygen Furnace (Serniwet Air

Pol ution Control Methods) Subcategory420.60 Applicability; description of the

basic oxygen furnace (semiwetair pollution control methods)subcategory.

420.61 Specialized definitions.420.62 Effluent limitations guldel ln- rep-

resentlng the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best priacticablecontrol technology currentlyavallable.

420.63 Effluent limltatlons; guldlines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

420.04 [f-srved]420.65 Standards of performance for new

s~ources3.420.66 Pretreatment standards for ner,

iource.Subpart G-Bastc Oxygen Furnace (Wet AirPollution Control Methods) Subcategory

420.70 Applicability; descrlptlon of thebasl oxygen furnace (wet airpollution control methods) sub-category.

420.71 Speclalized definitons.420.72 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effuentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

420.73 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluent;reduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

420.74 lRecerved]420.75 Standards of perfor uce for new


sourcesSubpart H-Open Hearth Furnace Subcategoy

4200 Applicability; description of theopen hearth furnace subcategory.

420.81 Specialized definitlons.420. Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appl-cation of the best Vaccable con-trol technology currently avail-able.

420.83 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-p1ication of the best availabletechnology economically achiev-able.

42o4 lueserved]420J35 Standards of performance for new

4208 Pretreatment standards for newsources.

Subprt i-Eectric Arc Furnace (Semlwet AirPollution Control Methods) Subcategory

420.0 Appllcablty description of theelectric arc furnace (semwet airpollution control methods) sub-category.

420DI SpechIld definitions.420.2 Effluent limltations guidelines rep-

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

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24119


Soc.420.93 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

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

420.94 [Reserved]420.95 Standards of performance for new


sources.Subpart J-Electric Arc Furnace (Wet Air

Pollution Control Methods) Subcategory420.100 Applicability; description -of the

electric arc furnace (wet air'pol-lution control methods)' sub-category.

420.101 Specialized deflnitions.420.102 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-


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



sources.

Subpart K-Vacuum Degassing Subcategory420.110 Applicability; description of the vac-

uum degassing subcategory.420.111 Specialized definitions.420.112 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-


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



sources.

Subpart L-Continuous Casting Subcategory420.120 Applicability, description of the

continuous casting subcategory.420.121 Specialized definitions.420.122 Effluent linitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degreeof effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

420.123 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best available-technology economically achiev-able.

420.124 [Reserved]420.121' Standards of performance for new

sources.420.128 Pretreatment' standards for new

sources.

AuTHonrr: Sees. 301, 304 (b), (c), 306(b). (o), 301(c), Federal Water PollutionControl Act, as amended (the Act) (33U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 (b). (c), 1316 (b), (c)."317(o) ); 86 Stat. 816 ot seq;; Pub. L. 92-500.

Subpart A-By-Product Coke Subcategory§ 420.10 Applicability; description of

the by-product coke subcategory.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the coke makingoperations conducted by the heating ofcoal in slot type ovens in the absenceof air to produce coke.§ 420.11 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 "cyanide A" shall meanthose cyanides amenable to chlorinationas described in 1972 Annual Book ofASTM Standards, 1972, standard D2036-72, Method B, page 553.

(c) The term "product" shall meancoke.

(d) The term "indirect ammonia re-covery process" shall mean the produc-tion of concentrated ammonia liquor byscrubbing coke-oven gas with a counter-current water wash, rather than' am-monia recovery utilizing a sulfuric acidammonia absorber.§ 420.12 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology 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 technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adJusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An Individ-ual discharger or other Interested per-son may submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother availabale information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-ified in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factorsare found to exist, the Regional Admin-istrator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by such

fundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. Thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tity or quality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this sectlon,which may be diseharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graphs (b) and (c) of this section andbased upon the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable the effluent quality required tobe achieved under section 301(b) (1) (A)of the Act Is aS set forth in the followingtable:

Effluont UmltntlonsAverage of daily

Emuent Maximum for, values for thirtycharacteristie any one day consecutive days

shall not exceed

(Metric units) kg/kkg of product

Ammonia .......... 03--..0913Cyanide .......- .. 0657 .--------- 019Oil and Grease ...... 0327 ........ .0105Phenol ............... m ............. 0015TS --------------. 105 ............. 03DpH --------------- Within the

rango 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/000 lb of product

Aymmona-, --------- 2' . ......... C.0013Cyanide .......... .057 ............. 019Oil and Orcas0 ...... a27 ........... . 0109Phenol.......-O.l. ...... .0016TSS.... .1095 ............ .030SpH ---------------- Within the

rano 0.0 to9.0.

(b) Application of the factors listedin section 304(b) (1) (B) will requirevariation from the effluent limitationsset forth in this section for any pointsource subject to such effluent limitationsfor those coke plants utilizing desulfuri-zation units. The limitations specifiedmay be exceeded up to 15 percent bythose facilities equipped with gas desul-furization units to the extent that suchmeasured discharge is necessary byreason of the increased effluent volumegenerated by these facilities.

(c) Application of the factors listed Insection 304(b) (1) (B) will require varla-tion from the effluent limitations setforth in this section for any point sourcesubject to such effluent limitations forthose coke plants utilizing the Indirectammonia recovery process. The limita-tions specified In paragraph (a) of thissection may be exceeded up to 30 per-cent by those facilities recovering am-monia by this technique, to the extentthat such measured discharge is neces-sary by reason of the Increased effluentvolume generated by this process.


24120


§ 420.13 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.lion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

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

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graphs (b) and (c) of this section andbased upon the application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable, the effluent quality requirecto be achieved under section 301(b) (2)(A) of the Act is as set forth in the fol-lowing table:

Effluent limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic 1aximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutive daysshall not exceed

(Metric units) kglkkg of product

Cyaunlde A --------- 0003 --.- 00-1Phenol ------- -- .- 0006 ----...... 002Ammonia ----------. 0126 ............. 0042Sulfide -------------.. 0003 ------------. 001Oil and Grease -. 0126 ----------. 0042TSS.------.... -------0312 .0104

-. Within therange 6.0to 9.0.

(English units) lbflOD lb of product

Cyanide A---...-- . .0003 -----------. 0001Phenol ------------ 0006 ---. 0002Ammonia -------- 0126 ............. 0042Sulfide --------- 0 3 .. .. . .0001Oil and Grease --- -0126 ......... .0X2TSS ------------- 0312 ............. 0104p -....---------- Within the

range 6.0to 9.0.

(b) Application of the factors listedin Sction 304(b) (2) (B) will requirevariation from the effluent limitationsset forth in this section for any pointsource subject to such effluent limitations'for those coke plants utilizing desulfuri-zation units. The limitations specifiedmay be exceeded up to 25 percent bythose facilities equipped with gas desul-furization units to the extent that suchmeasured discharge is necessary byreason of the increased effluent volumegenerated by these facilities.

(c) Application of the factors listedin section 304(b)(2)(B) will requirevariation from theeffluent limitationsset forth in this section for any pointsource subject to such effluent limitationsfor those coke plants utilizing the in-direct ammonia recovery process. Thelimitations specified in paragraph (a) ofthis section may be exceeded- up to 70percent by those facilities recoveringammonia by this technique, to the extentthat such-measured discharge is neces-sary by reason of the increased effluentvolume generated by this process.§ 420.14 [Reserved]

§ 420.15 Standards of performance fornew" 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) Subject to the provisions of para-graphs (b) and (c) of this section andbased upon the application of the bestavailable demonstrated control tech-nology, processes, operating methods, orother alternatives, the effluent quality re-quired to be achieved by new sourcesunder section 306(e) of the Act Is as setforth in the following table:

rMucnt Ilm~tltnim

Efiluent Avrzedc dlychar:tAcr-1c Naxtmum, ,r valu-st r ttrty

tiny ouQ day cons:%-ut~re da~zEhall ra~ cierd

(Mdric units) fg C r t

Cy=Ildo A_..... MM6 . .......... .t)PhCnol ............. 0003 .0031

AmmonI3 ------- -0120. .......Sulfide ---------- 0 . ............. owOn and Grea--- -. 0125 ......... . C612TSS ................. 03U ............. 0161pL -............. Within the

ranO 0.0 toO.

tEnr1hh umat) 11?!1O00 lb otr pcduz.t

Cyanide . . .03..........PheoL --------- -03 ............. . 0 0Ammonia ------- 01,........... 12Sulfide - -... 03....... - .0001Oil and Grease- --. 010 ........ .M2TSS ---------- 2..... ... 0101ptL ................ Within the

range 0.0 to

(b) Application of the factors listed insection 306(b) (1) (B) will require varia-tion from the effluent limitations setforth in this section for any point sourcesubject to such effluent limitations forthose coke plants utilizing desulfurizationunits. The limitations specified may beexceeded up to 25 percent in the case offacilities equipped with gas desulfuriza-tion units to the extent that such meas-ured discharge is necessary by reasonof the increased effluent volume generatedby these facilities.

(c) Application of the factors listedin section 304(b) (2) (B) will require vari-ation from the effluent limitations setforth in this section for any point sourcesubject to such effluent limitations forthose coke plants utilizing the Indirectammonia recovery process. The limita-tions specified in paragraph (a) of thissection may be exceeded up to 70 percentby those facilities recovering ammoniaby this technique, to the extent that suchmeasured discharge is necessary by rea-son of the increased effluent volume gen-erated by this process.§ 420.16 Pretreatment stndaras for

nelf sourceS.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the by-product coke subcategory,

which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section, 306 of the Act,If It were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CFR Part 123, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addition to the prohibtions set forth in40 CFR 123.131, the pretreatment standardfor Incompatible pollutant3 introduced intoa publicly ow.ned treatment works s1all bethe standard of performance for n= sourcesspecifled In 40 CFR 420.15; provided that, Ifthe publicly owned treatment wozis whichrecelvc the pollutantu Is committed, In ItsNPDES permlt, to remove a specified per-centage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to uzersof such treatmenti orls sball, except in thecase of standards providing for no dischargeor pollutantz, be correzpondingly reduced In'stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart B-Beehive Coke Subcategory

§ 42Q.20 Applicability; descripiton ofthe beehive coke subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the coke malkingoperations conducted by the heating ofcoal with the admission of air in con-trolled amounts for the purpose of pro-ducing coke. There are no by-productplants associated with the beehive opera-tion.

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

tions and methods of analysis set forthin 40 CFR Part 401 shall apply to thissubpart.§ 420.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing- the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnolog- 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 and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorizaton and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, these limi-tations should be adjusted for certainplants In this industry. An individualdischarger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-ministrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to Issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities Involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availableinformation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written findingthat such factors are or are not funda-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974No. 126-Pt. II-2

241-91

24122

mentally different for that facility com-pared to those specified in the Develop-ment Document. If such fundamentallydifferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger effluent limi-tations in the NPDES permit either moreor less stringent than the limitationsestablished herein, to the extent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator .of the Environmen-tal Protection Agency. The Administra-tor may approve or disapprove such limi-tations, specify other limitations, or ini-tiate proceedings to revise these regula-tions. 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 the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable: There shall be no discharge ofprocess waste Water pollutants to navi-gable waters.

§ 420.23 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: There shall be no dischargeof process waste water pollutants to nav-Igable waters.§ 420.24 [Reseryed]

§ 420.25 Standards of performance fornew sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters

§420.26 Pretreatment standards fornew sources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the beehive coke subcategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 306 of the Act,if it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CER Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section. 40 CPR128.133 shall be amended to read as fol-lows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forth in40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor Incompatible pollutants Introduced Intoa publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for new sourcesspecified in 40 CER 420.25; provided that,

If the publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed, In Its

NPDES permit, to remove a specified per-


centage of any Incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works sbll, except inthe case of standards providing foi no dis-charge of pollutants, be correspondingly re-duced In stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart C-Sintering Subcategory§ 420.30 Applicability; description of

the sintering subeategory.

The provisions of this sublart are ap-plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the sintering op-erations conducted by the heating of ironbearing wastes (mill scale and dust fromblast and steelmaking furnaces) togetherwith fine iron ore, limestone, and cokefines in an ignition furnace to produceand agglomerate for charging to theblast furnace.§ 420.31 Specialized, definitions.



(b) The term "product" thall meansinter.§ 420.32 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechmology 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 technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry 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 in-dividual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to theRegional Administrator .(or to the State,if the State has the authority to IssueNPDES permits) that factors relatingto the equipment or facilities involved,the process applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) will makea written finding that such factors are orare not fundamentally different for thatfacility compared to those specified in theDevelopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, t6 the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency, The

i Administrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-

tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations. The following limita-tions establish the quantity or qualityof pollutants or pollutant properties,controlled by this section, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart after ap-plication of the best practicable control'technology currently available:

Lffluont limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacterstle Maximum for valuea for thirty

any one day rcoznztlvo daysshall not uxeycd

wMow-io units) kgfJkkg of produt

TSB-------- .Cf32...- . .0101Oil and greas ....... 0063 ............ 021pH ---------------- Within the

rancg 0.0 to0.0.

(English units) lb/bO00 lb of product

TSB.------------032....... .0101Oil and Oreo---- .0063 ........... .001pH ----------------. Within the

rano 0.0 to0.0.

§ 420.33 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appliea-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:

Eflurat lhnttloans

Effluent Avorago of dillycharacterstlio Maximum for valus for thirty

any one day conrmntvvo daysahall not tcoed

(Motri units) kg/kkg of product

Oil and OCnare. ---- 0.s-.C- .0t2Sullde_ .. - .08 -- ,00

TSS-z . -- .01.002plL=t ------- =-_. Within thb

rn.o .0 to

(English units) lb/l,000 lb of product

ol and Ore=so...:. C0O3...w.l- * .021Sulf1do ---------- -008 -...... .. .000M

TSS_ - -...... .-.- .0156 ....... . - .M3S -pH-.............. Within the

rango 0.0 to9.0.

§ 420.34 [Reserved]§ 420.35 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 the

- provisions of this subpart:



Emuent umitations

Emuent A'erap of dilyearacteristle . aximum for vralues for thirty

any one day consecutive day=~shall not exceed

(Metric units) kgrkkg of product

OR and Gresse ... .-... .0321

&lfld e _ - .0 0018 . . . 0TSS.__ 0156 _. .... 0052

,pH---- - Within the range6.0 to 9.0.

(English units) lb1000 lb of product

Ol and. Grease.... .0363 ...... ...- .0021Sulfide ... .03018 ........ ----.. .- 06Fluoride_ ........ .0126. . . 00,12

- TSS .. 0156 ....- - .... 0012p. ....... Within the range

6.0 to 9.0.

§ 420.36 Pretreatment standards fornew sources.

The pretreatment standards under-section 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the sintering subcategory, 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 asfollows:

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 the standard of performance for newsources specified n 40 CPR 420.35; providedthat, if the publicly owned treatment workswhich receives the pollutants Is committed,n its NPDES permit, to remove a specified

percentage of any incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment standard applicable tousers of such treatment works shall, exceptin the case of standards providing for nodischarge of pollutants, be correspondinglyreduced in stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart D-Blast Furnace (Iron)Subcategory

§ 420.40 Applicability; description ofthe blast furnace (iron) subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dischargesresulting from the iron makng opera-tions in which iron ore is ieduced to mol-ten iron in a blast furnace.§ 420.41 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis, set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "cyanide A" shall meanthose cyanides amenable to chlorinationas described in 1972 Annual Book ofASTM Standaras, 1972, Standard D2036--72, Method B, page 553.

.(c) The term "product" shall meaniron.§ 420.42 Effluent limitations guidelines


In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into account all

information it was able to collect, de-velop and solicit with respect to factors(such as age and size of plant, raw ma-terials, manufacturing processes, prod-ucts produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations" should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individualdischarger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-ministratr (or to the State, If the Statehas the authority to issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availableinformation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-Ing that such factors are or are not fun-damentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the Devel-opment Document. If such fundamen-tally different factors are found to exist,the Regiondl Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the dz::!arger efflu-ent 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 disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations. The following limita-tions establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled, by this section, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart after ap-plication of the best practicable controltechnology currently available:

Effluent umltotons

Effluent Avcra oi dnllychnctcristle Maximum far vur far thirty

nay one day conacutire dayschill net exceed

(Mcrie unit) kgikkg of pro.ut

TSS ....- --- ------- 070 ........... . CeCyanide ...-..... -0eni ............ .0=07rhenol ......... .0 .... . MMAmmonia ........ 3 ..... . .0.1pIL -------------- V,tin the

r.ge 0.0 to

(English unit-) 1tsJI1000 lb of rrcduct

TSS ------------- 07 ........... 0Cyanide -........... 3. 3 ...... ....Phenol ............ .00G3 -------- .. -t --Ainmonla ----------.. 19M3 ----......... 0CZplL ................ Within tWe

ran &0to


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-ion, which may be discharged by a point

source subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Efflusnt l1mitatIons

Averaga of dalyeharactaLtiz ka.fanu fer values far thirty

any one day co-ecutlve daysshall n-ot exceed

(Metrthun) kgikkg cp drcdut

CanldeA ...... ..... =.0.CU2t

pl.............. Withintherage6.O to 9.0.

(English un3) IblICCO lb of prcduer

TSS .... .... O ..... 0130CvadeA ...... .031....... .c0313Ammnt ..... ... ..8 ..... .. (032

ulid ........ - ......F"lido ... . ... 2,.............. . .01C4p.. . Within the rarge

6.0 to 9.0.

§ 420.44 !Reserved]§ 420.45 Standards of performance for

new sourmes.The following standards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a new source subject to theprovUisons of this subpart:

Ef-laat "llmitatlfnsr01uint Average of dfaiy

cLW, .atCrt3 MaxImum for valu for thlrtyany one day consecutivo dvs

Shan not exceed

(td-.unitQ kgikkg of prodact

.0120Cynd-A-..... -. ........... . COlS

Am~nt.. _ =l6 ... . .. CZ-1,ASui...... 6 ...... . . .0352

p1 ............. Withia therane 0.0to 9.0.

tEc~rdaunIQc %hfltO lb of prcdu-t

TSS ........... X=4. AmR C dan -.... 4... .00C13

eanVl......... .0.... .00C3Aramrs...... XK6-. .--. CZ2Fuaido... .. CS_ -- - - OCIFluoride--.- .-- 12.. .0104p .......... Within the

rma 6.0to 9.0.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126--FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

2412.3



The pretreatment standards under sec-tion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinthe blast furnace (iron) subeategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 306 of the Actif it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forth In40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for new sourcesspecified In 40 CPR 420.45; provided that, ifthe publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants Is committed, in its"PDES permit, to remove a specined per-

contago of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works shall, except n thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly reduced Instringency for that pollutant.

Subpart E-Blast Furnace(Ferromanganese) 'Subcategory

§ 420.50 Applicability; description ofthe blast furnace (ferromanganese)subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the Iron makingoperations in which iron/manganese oreis reduced to molten ferromanganese ina blast furnace.§ 429.51 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "cyanide A" shall meanthose cyanides amenable to chlorinationas described in 1972 Anntil Book ofASTM Standards, 1972, Standard D2036-72, Method B, page 553.(c) The term "product' shall mean

ferromanganese.§ 420.52 Effluent limitations guidelines


In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA: took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such'as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this Industry. An indi-

vidual discharger or other Interested per-son may submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in theestablishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-Ifled in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Adminis-trator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in the"NPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. Thefollowing limitations establishthe quan-tity or quality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

EflIuent limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic alximmn for values for thirty


(Metric units) kglkkg of product

TSS_-. ..-" 2_-- ... 1043ya do_.- . .4G89 . . .1563

Phenol - , .0208Ammonia .... . ..... .5212pH ----------- Within the range

6.0 to 9.0.

(English units) Ib]1000 lb of product

TSS. -. .3129.-..-. - .1043Cyanld ...... .. 4659......-....1563P enol - - 028.......... .......Ammonia - 1.563M ....... ... 5212pH. ------------ Within the range

6.0 to 9.0.


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 limitatons

EZuent Average of dailycharacterisic Maiumn fox values for thirty

any one day conzrctlvo daysshall not exceed

(etrio units) kgfrkg of product

TS8_._ Mf . + +-'z..... OhnfALd.._._.oo. .-009 -- - - -0003

pH ......... -.. __. Within therange 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lbI1OO lb of product

TS..:.z cG8____. .0260pCodrA z 0000 n .0002

lfeol- 00 z~ .03Ammonia .. 5 .1 * 0101

PH---; --------.. Within therange 6.0 to9.0

§ 420.54 [Reserved] "§ 420.55 Standards of performanco for

new sourceThe 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:

E.fflt llmdttlona

Effluent Average of dailycharacterlstfc Matimnm fo valuca for thirty

any oeo day concutivo days.shall not exceed


TSSc ~ WMn.0.....z MOOCyanideA.= r .0OS.....n . D2aPhenoL_.=_rn .O01i.. .00032Amicnl...--a---- .03l2 .. ,...... .0101

Manganese.... - .O1.....u .0052pH ............ r.= Within the

rango 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) IbAlOr lb of product

TS... . .078..:n * ,020CFnonoldO.. r .-0--..r .00020

Ammonia.. _-x= .0312..... s4-.;2 .0101

Sulfd..z .0 . .0003Mangauenso.. . .015. . • 0053pH ------------- Within the

raugo 6.0 to9.0.


The pretreatment standards under sec-tion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinthe blast furnace (ferromanganese) sub-category, which is a user of a publiclyowned treatment "works (and whichwould be a new source subject to section306 of the Act, if It were to dischargepollutants to the navigable waters), shallbe the standard set forth in 40 CFR Part128, except that, for the purpose of this


2412A


section, 40 CFR 128.133 shall be amendedto read as follows:

In addition to the probibitions set forthin 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment stand-ard for incompatible pollutants Introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works shallbe the standard of performance for newsources specified In 40 CFR 420.55; providedthat, If the publicly owned treatment workswhich receives the pollutants Is committed,in its PDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works -hall, except in thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly 'reduced Instringency for that pollutant.

Subpart F-Basic Oxygen Furnace (Semi-wet Air Pollution Control Methods)Subcategory

§420.60 Applicability; description ofthe basic oxygen furnace (seraiwetair pollution control methods) sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water discbargesresulting from the steelmaldng opera-tions conducted for the manufacture ofcarbon steel in basic oxygen furnacesequipped with a semi-wet dust collectionsystem.

§ 420.61 Specialized definitions.F~br the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eraldefiuitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seiwet' as associatedvith basic oxygen furnaces shall mean-those systems which employ a spraychamber to spray water In excess of theamounts evaporated to condition fur-nace off-gases to a temperature wherethe fume and dusts can be removed bydry dust collection equipment. Becauseexcess spray water is used In the spraychamber, an aqueous discharge fromthat chamber occurs.§ 420.62 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-lion of the best practicable controltechnology 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 and costs)which can affect the Industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect theselimitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An indi-vidual discharger or other interested per-son may submit evidence to the RegionalAdmisistrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, the proc-ess applied, or other such factors relatedto such discharger are fundamentallydifferent from the factors considered in

the establishment of the guildelines. Onthe basis of such evidence or other avail-able information, the Regional Adminis-trator (or the State) will make a writtenfinding that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the De-velopment Document. If such fundamen-tally different factors are found to exist,the Regional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger ef-fluent 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 to re-vise these regulations. The following lim-itations establish the quantity or qualityof pollutants or pollutant properties,controlled by this section, which maybe discharged by a point source subjectto the provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available:There shall be no discharge of proceswaste water pollutants to navigablewaters.§ 420.63 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreducfion attainable by the applica-tion of the best available tec ologyeconomically achievalle.

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 economically achie-vable: There shall be no discharge ofprocess.waste water pollutants to navi-gable waters.§ 420.64 [Reserved]•§ 420.65 Standards of performiance for

new sources.The following standard* of perform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.§ 420.66 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.The pretreatment standards under

section 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the basic oxygen furnace (seml-wet air pollution control methods) sub-category, which Is a user of a publiclyowned treatment works (and whichwould be a new source subject to section336 of the Act, if it were to dischargepollutants to the navigable waters).shall be the standard set forth in 40 CFRPart 128, except that, for the purpose ofthis section, 40 CFR 18.133 shall beamended to read as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions ret forthIn 40 CFM 128.131. the pretrcatment &tand-ard for Incompatible pollutants Introduced

Into a publicly ow. ned treatment works Fbh,1be the standard of performance for newsources specified in 40 CFM 420.65; providedthat. If the publicly owned treatment wozkswhich receives the pollutants is committed.In Its NPDES permit, to remove a specifiedperce t z of any Incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment &tandard npplcable touacra of such treatment works Ehall, exceptin the c~e of standard3 providing for nodi-harge of pollutants, be correspondlng yreduced ia-trInZency for that pollutcnt.

Subpart G-Basic Oxygen Furnace (WetKr Pollution Control Methods) Subcate-

gory5420.70 Applicability; descriplion of

the basic oxygen furnace (wet airpollution control 3nethods) subcate-gory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the steelmakingoperations conducted for the manufac-ture of carbon steel in a basic oxygenfurnace equipped with a wet dust collec-tion system.§ 420.71 Specialized defimitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CM Part401 shall applyto this subpart.

(b) The term "wea" as associated withbasic oxygen furnaces shall mean thoseoff-gas dust cleaning systems which useentirely web gas cooling and dust re-moval operations to scrub contaminantsfrom furnace off-gases, and which pro-duce an aqueous discharge from this op-eration.

(c) The term "product' qhall meansteel§ 420.72 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information it was able to col-lect, deyelop and sollclt with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It Is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theseliniltations 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 differentfrom the factors considered in the estab-lshment 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 Devel-


24125


opment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thefimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify other lim-itations, or Initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations. The following limita-tions establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart after ap-plication of the best practicable,controltechnology currently available:

Effluent limitationsEffluent Average of daily

characteristio Maximum for values for thirtyany one day consecutive days

shall not exceed


TSS..... .0312.a. . .0104p.. .. -Within the

Wrang 6.0 to

(English units) lb/1000 lb of product

TSS.=-- .0312 .0104pH.:. ..... .-- Within the9.rnge 6.0 to

§ 420.73 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 pollu-tant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:


Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty



TS.O. .-.. -0..; .. . 0052.Flu-de-... .0126 ----- - .0042pH ........... ;z Within the

range 0.0. to9.0.

(English units) lb1O00 lb of product

TSS-.:-- .0103 .. 0052Fluflde - .. 0128...-..'.. - 04pH.=;.W...... == within the

range 6.0 to0.0.

§ 420.74 EReserved]§ 420.75 Standards of performance for

new sources.The following standards of perform-

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




(Metric units) kgJkkg of product

Fluoride ....- = 012..... .0012pH ..------------ Within the

range 6.0 to. 9.0.

(English units) hIlO000 lb of product

--- .01 .0052Fluoride-- ----- 012.. . 002pH ------------- .. Within the

ranoe 6.0 to0.0.


The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the basic oxygen furnace (wetair pollution control methods) subcate-gory, which Is a user of a publicly ownedtreatment works (and which would be anew source subject to section 306 of theAct, if it were to discharge pollutantsto the navigable waters), shall be thestandard set forth in 40 CFR Part 128,except that, for the purpose of this sec-tion, 40 CFR 128.133 shall be amendedto read as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthin 40 OPH 128.131, the pretreatment stand-ard for incompatible pollutants introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works shallbe the standard of performance for newsources specified in 40 CM 420.75; providedthat, if the publicly owned treatihent workswhich receives the pollutants is committed,in Its NPDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any Incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment stsandard applicable tousers of such treatment works shall, ex-cept In the case of standards providing forno dischcarge of pollutants, be correspond-ingly reduced in stringency for thatpollutant.

Subpart H--Open Hearth FurnaceSubcategory

§420.80 Applicability; description ofthe open hearth furnace subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the steelmakingoperations conducted for the manufac-ture of carbon steelin an open hearthfurnace equipped with wet dust collec-tion systems.§ 420.81 Specialized definitions.

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

general definitions, abbreviations and

methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall'apply to this subpart.

. (b) The term "product" shall meansteel§ 420.81 Effluent limitations guidelines


In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established,It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, these lim-itations should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individualdischarger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, If theState has the authority to Issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities Involved, theprocess applied, or other such factors re-lated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) will make awritten finding that such factors are orare not fundamentally different for thatfacility compared to those specified in theDevelopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate procedings to re-vise these regulations. The followinglimitations establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant proper-ties, controlled by this section, which maybe discharged by a point source subjectto the provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available:

Effluent limitaton

Effluent Avorao of dailycharacteristic Iliaxdmum for valu c for thirty

any one day coasn'ctivo daysshall not exceed

(Metric units) kgikg of product

T.------------- 0312 .......... .0101pH -----------...... Within the range

6.0 to 9.0.

(English unlts) Ib/1000 lb of product

T88--------r. .0312. .0104pH----------....Within the range

0.0 tO 9.0.


24126


The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

Effinct limitations

Effuent Ivrgeo dailyebaracterstle Maximum for vefor thirty

any one day consecutivershall not exceed

(Metric units) kgkb:g of product

__SS ___ - 1..._. .0032"luoride -- - -0125 - - .0042

Witrate- -..m .00947inc- === - %0w_- ....- .0010pH -.... Witbnthe range- 60 toQ4

(English units) 1b11003 lb of product

TSS - "W.W_ .0=52Fluoride - - .026. . = 0042

. 94p :=.... Withinthe range .to19.0.

§420.84 aleserved]§ 420.M5 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of perfor-mance establish the quantity or qualityof pollutants orpollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

Effluent limItatlons

Effluent Ae ege of dailytrcteistle 3laxlmumlor values for thirty

any oe day consecutivedasshall not exceed

(Met&mnits)kgaNkgo product

TSSA ----0l58... .00527"n_- . . 0 - - - .0310pH..... ....... Within tne range

0.0 to 9.0.

(English units) lbl00lb of product

zinc__________ .0=-.. .0110pH-__ -... Wil u be range. to 9.0.

§ 420.86 Pretreatment standards fornew Sources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 207(c) of the Act for a source-within the open hearth furnace subcate-gory, which is a user of a publicly ownedtreatment works (and which would be anew source subject to section 306 of theAct, if It were to discharge pollutantsto the navigable waters), sha3l be the


standard set forth in 40 CFR Part 128,except that, for the purpose of this sec-tion, 40 CFR 128.133 sball be amendedto read as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthIn 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for new sourcesspecified in 40 CFR 420.85; provided that ifthe publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants Is committed. In ItsNPDES permit, to removo a Epeclfled per-centage of any incompatible pollutant thepretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works shall except In thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correzpondingly reduced Instringency for that pollutant.Subpart I--Electric Arc Furnace (Semiwet

Air Pollution Control Methods) Subcate-gory

§ 420.90 Applicability; description ofthe electric arc furnace (semiwet airpollution control methods) subcate-gory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dischargesresulting from the steelmaking opera-tions conducted for the manufacture ofcarbon steel utilizing electric arc furnacesequipped with semi-wet dust collectionsystems.§ 420.91 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis ,set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "semi-wet" as associatedwith electric arc furnaces shall mean thedust collection systems which use a spraychamber to spray water in excess of theamounts evaporated to condition furnaceoff-gases to a temperature where thefume and dusts can be removed by drydust collection equipment. Because ex-cess spray water is used In the spraychamber, an aqueous discharge occurs§ 420.92 Effluent limitatiQns guidelines

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

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 technol-ogy available, eniergy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorlzation and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An in-dividual 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-

24127

tally different from the factors consid-ered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the Eeglonal:Almlnilstrator (or the State) will makea written finding that such factors are orare not fundamentally different for thatfacility compared to those specified Inthe Development Document. If such fun-damentaly different factors are found toexist, the Rezional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations In the NPDES per-mit either more or less stringent thanthe limitations established herein, to theextent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or Initiate proceedings to re-vise these regulations. The followinglimitations establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant prop-erties, controlled by this section, whichmay be discharged by a point source sub-Ject to the provisions of this subpartafter application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available:There shall be no discharge of processwaste water pollutants to navigablewaters.§ 420.93 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, 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: There shall be no dischargeof process waste water pollutants to navi-gable waters.§ 420.94 Illeserved]§ 420.95 Standards of performance for

newsources.The following standards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or qualityof pollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.§420.96 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.The pretreatment standards under sec-

tion 307(c) of the Act for asourcewithinthe electric arc furnace (semiwet air pol-lution control methods) subcategory,which Is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 306 of the Act,if it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth In 40 CFRPart 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addition to th5 prohibitions set forthIn 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incompatible pollutants introduced into



a publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for new sourcesspecified In 40 CFR 420.95; provided that, Ifthe publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed, in itsNPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to users ofsuch treatment works shall, except in thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly reduced inpyingency for that pollutant.

Subpart J-Electric Arc Furnace (Wet AirPollution Control Methods) Subcategory

§ 420.100 Applicability; description ofthe electric arc furnace (wet air pol-lution control methods) subcate-gory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the steelmakingoperations conducted for the manufac-ture of carbon steel utilizing electric arcfurnaces equipped with wet furnace off-gas dust collection.§ 420.101 Specialized definitions.



(b) The term "wet" as associated withelectric arc furnaces shall mean thosefurnace off-gas dust cleaning systemswhich use entirely wet gas cooling anddust removal operations to scrub con-taminants from furnace off-gases, pro-ducing aqueous discharges from theoperation.

(c) The term "product" shall meansteel.§ 420.102 -Effluent limitations guide-

lines representing the degree of ef-fluent reduction attainable by the ap-.plication of the best practicable conAtrol technology 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 (suc as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants In this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, 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 Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding-that such factorsare or are not fundamentally different

for that facility compared to those speci-fied in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. SUchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. Thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tity or quality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a ,pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:





TS. --- -- .. 0312 ------------.. 010.1pH ---------------- Within the

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/O000 lb of product

TSS ........ 0312 ............. 0104pH ---------------- Within the

range 6.0 to9.0.

§420.103 Effluent limitations guide-lines representing the degree of ef-fluent reduction attainable by theapplication of the best availabletechnology economically 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 limitatIons


any one day consecutive daysshall net exceed


TS-. _ .0156 0052Fluoride_ .. :.._ .0126 .0012

- .0030 ............ 0010pH.-- . Within the range

6.0 to 9.0.

(English units) lbll000 lb of product

TS8__T= .. . .0156 -----------. 0052Fluoride- . .0126 .0042

. . 0030:............ .0010pH ................ Within the range

6.0 to 9.0.

§ 420.104 Eleserved]§ 420.105 Standards of performance for


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

Effluont limitations

Effluent Averago of dallycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day cotmeeutivo dawishall not exceed

(Metric units) kf/kkg of product

TS- --------------- -0160 ............. 00,Yluoride --------- 0120 ............ 001Zinc ------------- 0030 ............. 0010pH ------------- Within the

range 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/10 lb of produot

TSS ----------- .0150 ........... z .0033Fluoride ............ 0120 .......... 001,Zinc-- .-- -30 .......... 0010PH ---------- Within the

rge 0.0 to0.0.


The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the electric arc furnace (wet airpollution control methods) subeategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 300 of the Act,if it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addition to the prohibitions cot forth In40 OFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for now rourcesspecified in 40 CFR 420.105; provided that, ifthe publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed, in itsNPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works shall, except inthe cas of standards providing for no dis-charge of pollutants, be correspondingly re-duced in stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart K-Vacuum DegassingSubcategory

§ 420.110 Applicability; description ofthe vacuum degassing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the degassingoperations conducted by /applying avacuum to molten steel to further refinethe steel produced:§ 420.111 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth In 40 CFR401 shall apply to this subpart.


i4128


(b) The term "product" shall meansteel.§ 420.112 Effluent limitations guide-

lines representing the degree of ef-fluent reduction attainable by theapplication of the best practicablecontrol technology currently avail-able.

In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into accountall information it was able to collect,develop and solicit with respect to fac-tors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing proces-ses, products produced, treatment tech-nology available, energy requirementsand costs) which can affect the indus-try subcategorization and effluent levelsestablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limitationshave not been available and, asa result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An in-dividual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to the Re-gional Admini trator (or the State) willIf the State has the authority to IssueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those speci-fied n the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations In theNPDES permit either more or less string-ent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by such-fundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator -mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiateproceedings 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 provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Efincnt limitations

Effluent Average of daily-characteristic 3fnximum for values for thirty

any one day consezutIve daysshall not exceed

(metric units) kgjkkg of product

T SS - - .0156 --------- --Within the range6.0 to 9.0.

(English units) I/1000 lb- of product

T5ss=....... ...... -. =- -....... Within the rnge96.0 to 9.0.

§ 420.113 Effluent limitations guide-lines representing te degree of ef-fluent reduction attainable by tieapplication of the best available tecd-nology economically addevable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pollu-tant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions; ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technolou economicalyachievable:

E~ucnt ltatlori

Eficent Av-rZo cI dailychirsttristlo Ifasrnum for val=u for tilrty

any one day carz--ntrve darhall ret an~

(Mctrl unit:) kZIkUig c prc,3ct

Trss ............. ... W, a .............Zinc............06-15 ............. 5Man--M-------tO---- .----- -owl ........... K"

Nitrate ............ ..4 ............. C-17p- ............. ithin the

re L.0 to9.9.

(Enls nit!) lbj078. .b of rrciluct

T5n............. W15 ... .... . CZim_nc ....... .01............Manganese- ---- .IS.... . .......

Nitrate .....----- .......... . C47p -......---------- Withia the

rano 0.0 to0.0.

§ 420.114 [Reserved]

§ 420.115 Standards of performance fornew sources .

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

Eiluent llmlations

Effluent Average of dallycharacteristiL Mnrmum for vuc fr thirty

any one day cowtcutlyo days

(Metric units) krk g f iproduct

TS ................. 0Can...:.Zinc ............. . W.3

...._:==.00...._ .plL. . Within the rargo 0.0 to P.0.

(English units) M11003 lb of produt

TSS....----------- -.. -OWLS.--- -....__ -- iO.......~ _ ~--. tOiS.1.......... . 00(ox3

p1 .............. Within the rargo 0.0 to O.0.


The pretreatment standards under sec-tion 307(c) of the Act for a source with-

In the vacuum degassing subcategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 306 of the Act,if It were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CIR128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addltia to the prohibitions set forthin 40 CFR 123.131, the pretreatment stand-ard for Incompatible pollutants IntroducedInto a publicly owoned treatment worl shall.be the standard of performance for ne=sourcea e-ecilod in 40 CFP 420.115; providedthat, if the publicly owned treatment roreswhich receives the pollutants Is committed,in It ITPDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment rtandard applicable to usersof such treatment works; shall, except in thecae of standards providing for no dizchargeof pollutant-, be correspondingly reduced Instringency for that pollutant.

Subpart L-Continuous CastingSubcategory

§ 420.120 Applicability; description ofthe continuous castinz subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to process waste water dis-charges resulting from the operations inwhich steel is continuously cast.

§ 420.121 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 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "product" shall meansteel.§ 420.122 Effluent limitations guide-

lines representing the degree of ef-fluent reduction attainable by theapplication of the best practicablecontrol technology currently avail-able.

In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcatego-rization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for certainplants In this industry. Anindividual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Ad-minitrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to Issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equiu-ment or facilities involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974No. 126-Pt. IlI----3

24129


ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availableinformation the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are not fun-damentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the De--velopment Document. If such fundamen-tally different factors are found to exist,the Regional Administrator or. the Stateshall establish for the discharger efflu-ent 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 disdp-prove such limitations, specify other lim-itations, or initiate proceedings to re-vise these regulations. The followinglimitations establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant prop-erties, controlled by -this section, whichmay be discharged by a point source sub-Ject to the provisions of this subpartafter application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available:





TOO - .0200Oil and Gres. .-= . .0078pH ....... Within the

range 0.0to 9.0.

(English units) lb/O00 lb of product

T5O~- ~o7S.. -. 020Oil and reaso.. ,0234..- -. ; .0078pH....----------Within the

rango.0to O.Oj

§ 420.123 Effluent limitations guide-lines representing the degree of ef-fluent reduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best available tech-nology economically 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 ofthis subpart after application, of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

/


Effluent, Average of dailycharacterIstio M1aXimum for values for thirty

any one day consecutivo daysshall not exceed

(metric units) kgUg of product

T sl ... . .. "J. ------ 0052Oiland :rea.. .Oli a .0052

Within therane.0t9. 60. t

(English units) b,11000 lb of product

Oil and Gre.._ae .01 5. . .0052Within the

range 6.0 to

§ 420.124 [Reserved]§ 420.105 Standards of performance for


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:

Efmunt limitatlon -

Effluont Averag of dailyeharactristclo ]aximurn for valuas for thirty

any one day comecutivo daysshall not oeced

(Metric unit:) h9gjkk of product

Ta. .. 01. ,.0052Oil and Greaan l&=.OlpH._.....-.. Within the

ra 0.0 to

(English units) Ib/lO00 lb of product

TSS....,. 0il1,0..---- " 0033Oil and OrcasO.._= .. 0l.2...pH - Within the

rang 0.0 to9.0.


The pretrectment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the continuous casting subcate-gory, which Is a user of a publicly ownedtreatment works (and which would be anew source subject to section 306 of theAct, If It were to discharge pollutantsto the navigable waters), shall be thestandard set forth in 40 CFR Part 128,except that, for the purpose of this .ec-tion, 40 CER 128.133 shall be amended toread as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions cot forth in40 CFR 128.131, the pretroatmont standardfor Incompatible pollutants Introduced intoa publicly owned, treatment works shall. bethe standard of performance for now source3specified in 40 CFR 420.125; provided that,if the publicly owned trelitment works whichreceives the pollutants 13 committed, in ItaNPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any Incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to users ofsuch treatment works ahall, except in thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly reduced instringency for that pollutant

[FR Doc.74-14433 Filed G-27-74:8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTERk VOL 39, NO. 126--FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24130

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION* AGENCY

[40 CFR Part 420]IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING;

POINT SOURCE CATEGORYApplication of Effluent Limitations Guide-

lines for Existing Sources to Pretreat-ment Standards for Incompatible Pol-lutants; Notice of.Proposed RulemakingNotice is hereby given pursuant to sec-

tions 301, 304 and 307(b) of the FederalWater Pollution Control Act, as amended(the Act); 33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314 and1317(b); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L.92-500, that the proposed regulation setforth below concerns the application ofeffluent limitations guidelines for exist-ing sources to pretreatment standardsfor incompatible pollutants. The pro-posal will amend 40 CFR Part 420, Ironand Steel Manufacturing Point SourceCategory, establishing for each subcate-gory therein the extent of application ofeffluent limitations guidelines to existingsources which discharge to publiclyowned treatment works. The regulationis intended to be complementary to thegeneral regulation for pretreatmentstandards set forth at 40 CFR Part 128.The general regulation was proposedJuly 19, 1973 (38 FR 19236), and pub-lished in final form on November 8, 1973(38 FR 30982).

The proposed regulation is also in-tended to supplement a final regulationbeing simultaneously promulgated by theEnvironmental Protection AgenCl (EPAor Agency) which provides effluent limi-tations guidelines for existing sourcesand standards of performance and pre-treatment standards for new sourceswithin the by-product coke subcategory,the beehive coke subcategory, the sinter-ing subcategory, the blast furnace (iron)subcategory, the blast furnace (ferro-manganese) subcategory, the basic oxy-gen furnace (semiwet air pollution con-trol methods) subcategory, the basic ox-ygen furnace (wet air pollution controlmethods) subcategory, the open hearthfurnace subcategory, the electric arc fur-nance (semiwet air pollution controlmethods) subategory, the electric arcfurnace (wet air pollution control meth-ods) subcategory, the vacuum degassingsubeategory, and the continuous castingsubcategory of the iron and steel manu-facturing point source category. Thelatter regulation applies to the portionof a discharge which is directed to thenavigable waters. The regulation pro-posed below applies to users of publiclyowned treatment works which fall withinthe description of the point source cate-gory to which the guidelines and stand-ards (40 CPR Part 420) promulgatedsimultaneously apply. However, the pro-posed regulation applies to the introduc-tion of incompatible pollutants whichare directed into a publicly owned treat-ment works, rather than to discharges ofpollutants to navigable waters.

The general pretreatment standarddivides pollutants discharged by usersof publicly owned treatment works intotwo broad categories: "compatible" and"incompatible." Compatible pollutants

PROPOSED RULES

are generally not subject to pretreatmentstandards. (See 40 CFR 128.110 (State orlocal law) and 40 CFR 128.131 (Pro-hiblted wastes) for requirements whichmay be applicable to compatible pol-lutants). Incompatible pollutants aresubject to pretreatment standards asprovided in 40 CFR 128.133, whichprovides as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthin Section 128.131, the pretreatment stand-ard for incompatible pollutants Introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works by amajor contributing industry not subject toSection 307(c) of the Act haUll be, for rourceswithin the corresponding Industrial or com-mercial category, that establirhed by a pro-mulgated effluent limitations guidelines de-fining best practicable control technologycurrently available pursuant to Sections 301(b) and 304(b) of the Act; provided that,If the publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed. In itsNPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to uersof such treatment works shall be corre-spondingly reduced for that pollutant; andprovided further that when the effluent lim-itations guidelines for each Industry is pro-mulgated, a separate provision will be pro-posed concerning the application of suchguidelines to pretreatment.

The regulation proposed below is in-tended to implement that portion of§ 128.133, above, requiring that a sepa-rate provision be made stating the ap-plication to pretreatment standards ofeffluent limitations guidelines based uponbest practicable control technology cur-rently available.

Questions were raised during the pub-lic comment period on the proposed gen-eral pretreatment standard (40 CFRPart 128) about the propriety of apply-ing a standard based upon best practica-ble control technology currently avail-able to all plants subject to pretreatmentstandards. In general, EPA believes theanalysis supporting the effluent limita-tions guidelines is adequate to make adetermination regarding the applicationof those standards to users of publiclyowned treatment works. HoweVer, to en-sure that those standards are appro-priate in all cases, EPA now seeks addi-tional comments focusing upon the ap-plication of effluent limitations guidelinesto users of publicly owned treatmentworks.

Sections 420.15, 420.25, 420.35, 420.45.420.55, 420.65, 420.75, 420.85, 420.95,

,420.105, 420.115 and 420.125 of the pro-posed regulation for point sources withinthe by-product coke subcategory, thebeehive coke subategory, the sinteringsubcategory; the blast furnace (iron)subategory, the blast furnace (ferro-manganese) subcategory, the basic oxy-gen furnace (semlwet air pollution con-trol methods) subcategory, the basicoxygen furnace (wet air pollution con-trol methods) subcategory, the openhearth furnace subcategory, the electricarc furnace (semiwet air pollution con-trol methods) subcategory, the electricarc furnace (wet air polltulon controlmethods) subategory, the vacuum de-gassing subcategory, and the continuouscasting subcategory (February 19, 1973;

24131

39 FR 6484), contained the proposed pre-treatment standards for new sources.The regulation promulgated simultane-ously herewith contains §§ 420.16, 420.26,420.36, 420A6, 420.56, 420.66, 420.76,420.86, 420.96, 420.106, 420.116 and 420.-126 which state the applicability ofstandards of performance for purposesof pretreatment standards for newsources.

A preliminary Development Documentwas made available to the public at ap-proximately the time of publication ofthe notice of proposed rulemaking andthe final Development Document en-titled "Development Document for Efflu-ent Limitations Guidelines and NewSource Performance Standards for theSteel Making Segment of the Iron andSteel Manufacturing Point Source Cate-gory" Is now being published. The eco-nomic analysis report entitled "EconomicAnalysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines,the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry",(February 1974) was made available atthe time of proposal. Copies of the pre-liminary Development Document andeconomic analysis report will continue tobe maintained for inspection and copy-Ing during the comment period at theEPA Information Center, Room 227,West Tower, Waterside Mall, 401 MStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C. CopieswiMl also be available for inspection atEPA regional offices and at State waterpollution control agency offices. Copiesof the Development Document may bepurchased from the Superintendent ofDocuments, Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C. 20402. Copies of theeconomic analysis report will be avail-able for purchase through the NationalTechnical Information Service, Spring-field. Virginia 22151.

On June 14,1973, the Agency publishedprocedures designed to insure that, whencertain major standards, regulations, andguidelines are proposed, an explanationof their basis, purpose and environmentaleffects is made available to the public(38 FR 15653). The procedures -are ap-plicable to major standards, regulationsand guidelines which are proposed on orafter December.31, 1973, and which eitherprescribe national standards of environ-mental quality or require national emis-slon, effluent or performance standards orlimitations.

The Agency determined to implementthese procedures in order to insure thatthe public was provided with backgroundinformation to assist It In commentingon the merits of a proposed action. Inbrief, the procedures call for the Agencyto make public the Information availableto it delineating the major environmentaleffects of a proposed action, to discuss thepertinent nonenvironmental factors af-fecting the dIecislon, and to explain theviable options available to it and thereasons for the option selected.

The procedures contemplate publica-tion of this information in the FmRnR' .REasn, where this Is practicable. Theyprovide, however, that where such publi-cation is impracticable because of thelength of this material, the material maybe made available in an alternate format.

The Development Document referred

.FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126-.RIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

PROPOSED RULES

to above contains Information availableto the Agency concerning the major en-vironmental effects of the regulation pro-posed below. The information includes:(1) The identification of pollutants pres-ent in waste waters resulting from themanufacture of iron and steel, the char-acteristics of these pollutants, and thedegree of pollutant reduction obtainablethrough implementation of the proposedstandards; and (2) the anticipated ef-fects on other aspects of the environment(including air pollution, solid waste dis-posal and energy requirements) of the'treatment technologies available to meetthe standard proposed.

The Development Document and theeconomic analysis report referred toabove also contain Information availableto the Agency regarding the estimatedcost and energy consumption implica-tions of those treatment technologies andthe potential effects of those costs on theprice and production of iron and steel.The two reports exceed, in the aggregate,100 pages in length and contain a sub-stantial number of charts, diagrams andtables. It Is clearly impracticable to pub-lish the material contained in these docu-ments in the FEDERAL REGISTER. To theextent possible, significant aspects of thematerial have been presented in sum--mary form in the preamble to the pro-posed regulation containing effluent limi-tations guidelines, new source perform-ance standards and pretreatment stand-ards for new sources within the iron andsteel manufacturing category (39 FR6484; February 19, 1974). Additional dis-cussion Is contained in the analysis ofpublic comments on the proposed regu-lation and the Agency's response to thosecomments. This discussion appears in thepreamble to the promulgated regulation(40 CFR Part 420) which currently is be-ing published in the Rules and Regula-tions section of the FEDERAL REGiSTER.

The options available to the Agency inestablishing the level of pollutant reduc-tion pbtainable through the best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable, and the reasons for the par-ticular level of reduction selected arediscussed In the documents describedabove. In applying the effluent limitationsguidelines to pretreatment standards forthe introduction of incompatible pol-lutants into municipal systems by exist-ing sources in the by-productcoke sub-category, the beehive coke subcategory,the sintering subcategory, the blast fur-nace (iron)- subcategory, the blast fur-nace (ferromanganese) subcategory, thebasic oxygen furnace (semiwet air pol-lution control methods) subeategory, thebasic oxygen furnace (wet air pollutioncontrol methods) subcategory, the openhearth furnace subcategory, the electricarc furnace (semiwet air pollution con-trol methods) subcategory, the electricAre furnace (wet air pollution controlmethods) subcategory, the vacuum de-gassing subcategory, and the continuouscasting subeategory, the Agency has,essentially, three options. The first is todeclare that the guidelines do not apply.The second is to apply the guidelinesunchanged. The third Is to modify the

guidelines to reflect: (1) Differences be-tween direct dischargers and plants uti-lizing municipal systems which affectthe practicability of the latter employingthe technology available to achieve theeffluent limitations guidelines; or (2);characteristics of the relevant pollutantswhich require higher levels of reduction(or permit less stringent levels) in ordertoiasure that the pollutants do not inter-fere with the treatment works or passthrough them untreated.

The process waste waters from thesteel making segment subcategories maycontain high concentrations of ammonIa,oil and grease, cyanide, sulfide, phenol.fluoride, nitrate, lead, zinc and manga-nese which could interfere with the oper-ation of publicly owned treatment works,pass through such works untreated orinadequately treated or otherwise be in-compatible with such treatment works.Therefore, such process waste watersshould receive special consideration bythe operator of the publicly ownedtreatment works and may be the subjectof subsequent further regulation pur-suant to Section 307(b) of the Act.

Interested persons may participate inthis rulemaking by submitting writtencomments in triplicate to the EPA Infor-mation Center, Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, At-tention: Mr. Philip B. Wisman Com-ments on all aspects of the proposed reg-ulations are solicited. In the event com-ments are in the nature of criticisms asto the adequacy of data which are avail-able, or which may be relied upon by theAgency, comments should Identify and, Ifpossible, provide any additional datawhich may be available and should indi-cate why such data are essential to thedevelopment of the regulations. n theevent comments address the approachtaken by the Agency in establishing pre-treatment standards for existing sources,EPA solicits suggestions as to what alter-native approach should be taken andwhy and how this alternative bettersatisfies the detailed requirements of sec-tions 301, 304 and 307(b) of the Act.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for Inspection and copying atthe EPA Information Center, Room 227,West Tower, Waterside Mall, 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. TheEPA information regulation, 40 CFR Part2, provides that a reasonable fee may becharged for copying.

In consideration of the foregoing, itIs hereby proposed that 40 CFR Part 420be amended to add §§ 420.14, 420.24,420.34, 420.44, 420.54, 420.64, 420.74,420.84, 420.94, 420.104, 420.114 and-420.124 as set forth below. All commentsreceived on or before July 29, 1974, willbe considered.

Dated: June 14, 1974.RUSSELL E. TRAn;,

Administrator.

Part 420 is proposed to be amended asfollows:

Subpart A Is amended by adding§ 420.14 as follows:

§ 420.14 Pretreatment standards for ex-isting sources,

For the purpose of pretreatmentstandards for incompatible pollutantsestablished under § 128.133 of this chap-ter, the effluent limikions guidelines setforth In § 420.12 shall not presentlyapply. Some of the constituents of theprocess waste waters from this subcate-gory may interfere vth certain treat-ment works or may pass through suchtreatment works Inadequately treated.Therefore, such proces waste watersshould receive special consideration bythe operator of the publicly owned treat-ment works and may be the subject ofsubsequent further regulation pursuantto section 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart B Is amended by adding§ 420.24 as follows.§ 420.24 Pretreatment standards for ex-

isting sources.For the purpose of pretreatment stand-

ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guldeline3 setforth in § 420.22 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of theprocess waste waters from this subcate-gory may interfere with certain treat-ment works or may pass through suchtreatment works inadequately treated.Therefore, such process waste watersshould receive special consideration bythe operator of the publicly owned treat-ment works and may be the subject ofsubsequent further regulation pursuantto section 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart C Is amended by adding§ 420.34 as follows:§ 420.34 Pretreatment standards for ex-


ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.32 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of theprocess waste waters from this subcate-gory may interfere with certain treat-ment works or may pass through suchtreatment works inadequately treated.Therefore, such process waste watersshould receive special consideration bythe operator of the publicly owned treat-ment works and may be the subject ofsubsequent further regulation pursuantto section 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart D is amended by adding§ 420.44 as follows:§ 420.44, Pretreatment standards for ex-


ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.42 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of theprocess waste waters from this subcate-gory may interfere with certain treat-ment works or may pass through suchtreatment works Inadequately treated.Therefore, such process waste watersshould receive special consideration by

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126---FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24132

PROPOSED RULES

the operator of the publicly owned treat-ment works and may be the subject ofsubsequent further regulation pursuantto section 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart E is amended by adding§ 420.54 as follows:§ 420.54 Pretreatment standards for ex-


ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.52 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of theprocess waste waters from this subcate-gory may interfere with certain treat-ment works or may pass through suchtreatment works inadequately treated.Therefore, such process waste watersshould receive special consideration bythe operator of the publicly owned treat-ment works and may be the subject ofsubsequent further regulation pursuantto section 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart F is amended by adding§ 420.64 as follows:§ 420.64 Pretreatment standards for cx-


ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.62 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of the proc-ess waste waters from this subcategorymay interfere with certain treatmentworks or may pass through such treat-ment works Inadequately treated. There-fore, such process waste waters shouldreceive special consideration by the op-erator of the publicly owned treatmentworks and may be the subject of subse-quent further regulation pursuant tosection 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart G is amended by adding§ 420.74 as follows:§ 420.74 Pretreatment standards for ex-

isting sources.For-the purpose of pretreatment stand-

ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter, theeffluent limitations guidelines set forth In§.420.72 shall not preSently apply. Someof the constituents of the process wastewaters from this subcategory may inter-

fere with certain treatment works or maypass through such treatment works in-adequately treated. Therefore, such proc-ess waste waters should receive specialconsideration by the operator of the pub-licly owned treatment works and may bethe subject of subsequent further rezla-tion pursuant to section 307(b) of theAct.

Subpart H Is amended by adding§ 420.84 as follows:§ 420.84 Pretreatment standards for ex-

isting sources.

For the purpose of pretreatment stand-ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.82 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of the proc-ess waste waters from this subeategorymay interfere with certain treatmentworks or may pass through such treat-ment works inadequately treated. There-fore, such process waste waters shouldreceive special consideration by the oP-erator of the publicly owned treatmentworks and may be the subject of subse-quent further regulation pursuant tosection 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart I is amended by adding§ 420.94 as follows:§ 420.94 Pietreatment standards for ex-

isting sources.

For the purpose of pretreatmentstandards for incompatible pollutantsestablished under § 128.133 of this chap-ter, the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.92 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of the proc-ess waste waters from this subeategorymay interfere with certain treatmentworks or may pass through such treat-ment works inadequately treated. There-fore, such process waste waters shouldreceive special consideration by the op-erator of the publicly owned treatmentworks and may be the subject of subse-quent further regulation pursuant tosection 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart J Is amended by adding § 420.-104asfollows:§420.104 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources.For the purpose of pretreatment stand-

ards for incompatible pollutants estab-

lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth In § 420.102 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of the proc-ess waste waters from this subcategorymay interfere with certain treatmentworks or may pass through such treat-ment works inadequately treated. There-fore, such process waste waters shouldreceive special consideration by the op-erator of the publicly owned treatmentworls and may be the subject of subse-quent further regulation pursuant tosection 307(b) of the Act.

Subpart K Is amended by adding§ 420.114 as follows:§420.114 Pretreatment standards for


ards for incompatible pollutants estab-lished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.112 shall not presently ap-ply. Some of the constituents of the proc-e3s waste waters from this subcategorymay interfere with certain treatmentworks or may pass through such treat-ment works inadequately treated. There-fore, such process waste waters shouldreceive special consideration by the oper-ator of the publicly owned treatmentworks and may be the subject of subse-quent further regulation pursuant tosction307(b) of theAct.

Subpart L Is amended by adding § 420.-124 as follows:§420.124 Pretreatment standards for


ards for incompatible pollutants estab-ished under § 128.133 of this chapter,the effluent limitations guidelines setforth in § 420.122 shall not presentlyapply. Some of the constituents of theprocess waste waters from this subcate-gory may nterfere with certain treat-ment works or may pass through suchtreatment works inadequately treated.Therefore, such process waste watersshould receive special consideration bythe operator of the publicly owned treat-ment works and may be the subject ofsubsequent further regulation pursuanttosection307(b) of theAct.

[R DIc.74-14434 Filed 6-27-74.8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 126--RIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

24133