55690 Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 241

55690 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 14, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 469

[FRL 2472-2]

Electrical and Electronic ComponentsPoint Source Category PretreatmentStandards, and New SourcePerformance Standards; (Phase II)

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation limits thedischarge of pollutants into navigablewaters and publicly owned treatmentworks (POTWs) from cathode ray tubeand luminescent materialsmanufacturing facilities. The CleanWater Act and a Settlement Agreementrequire EPA to issue this regulation.

The purpose of this regulation is toprovide new source performancestandards (NSPS) for direct dischargersand pretreatment standards for new andexisting indirect dischargers.DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR100.01 (45 FR 26048), this regulation shallbe considered issued for purposes ofjudicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern timeon December 28, 1983. These regulationsshall become effective January 27, 1984.

The compliance date for new sourceperformance standards (NSPS) andpretreatment standards for new sources(PSNS) for both subcategories is thedate the new source begins operations.The compliance date for pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES) forthe cathode ray tube subcategory is July14, 1987 for control of specified toxicmetals, fluoride, and total toxic organics(TTO).

Under Section 509(b)(1) of the CleanWater Act judicial review of thisregulation can be obtained only by filinga petition for review in the United StatesCourt of Appeals within 90 days afterthese regulations are considered issuedfor purposes of judicial review. UnderSection 509(b)(2) of the Clean WaterAct, the requirements of the regulationsmay not be challenged later in civil orcriminal proceedings brought by EPA toenforce these requirements.ADDRESSES: Technical information maybe obtained by writing to Mr. JohnNewbrough, Effluent GuidelinesDivision (WH-552), EPA, 401 M Street,SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, or bycalling him at (202] 382-7158. Copies ofthe technical documents will beavailable from the National TechnicalInformation Service, Springfield,Virginia 22161 (703) 487-4600. Economicinformation may be obtained by writing

to Ms. Renee Rico, Office of Analysisand Evaluation (WH-586), 401 M Street,SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 or bycalling her at (202) 382-5386. Theeconomic analysis will also be availablefrom the National Technical InformationService.

The record supporting this rulemakingwill be available for public reviewapproximately six weeks frompublication in the Federal Register inEPA's Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2404 (Rear) (EPA Library),401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.The EPA information regulation (40 CFRPart 2) provides that a reasonable feemay be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.John Newbrough at (202) 382-7158.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Organization of This Notice

I. Legal AuthorityII. Scope of this RulemakingIII. Background

A. The Clean Water Act and the NRDCSettlement Agreement

B. Prior EPA RegulationsC. Overview of the Industry

IV. Data Gathering Efforts and Derivation ofthe Final Limitations

V. Industry SubcategorizationVI. Available Wastewater Control and

Treatment TechnologyA. Status of In-Place TechnologyB. Water UseC. Control Treatment Options

VII. General Criteria of Effluent LimitationsConsidered Under this Regulation

VIII. Summary of Final Regulations andChanges from Proposal

A. Cathode Ray Tube SubcategoryB. Luminescent Materials Subcategory

IX. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

A. Settlement Agreement and Exclusion ofSubcategories and Toxic Pollutants

B. Conventional PollutantsX. Cost and Economic Impact

A. Economic ImpactB. Executive Order 12291C. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisD. SBA Loans

XI. Non-Water Quality Aspects of PollutionControl

XII. Public Participation and Response toMajor Comments

XIII. Best Management PracticesXIV. Upset and Bypass ProvisionXV. Variances and ModificationsXVI. Implementation of Limitations and

StandardsA. Relation to NPDES PermitsB. Indirect DischargersC. Applicability and Compliance DatesD. Enforcement

XVII. Availability of Technical InformationXVIII. OMB ReviewXIX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 469XX. Appendices

A. Abbreviations, Acronyms and OtherTerms Used in this Notice

B. List of Toxic Organics Comprising TotalToxic Organics (TTO) in the CRTSubcategory

C. List Ao Toxic Pollutants Excluded fromRegulation

I. Legal Authority

This regulation is being promulgatedunder the authority of Sections 301, 304,306, 307, 308, 309, and 501 of the CleanWater Act. This regulation is also beingpromulgated in response to theSettlement Agreement in NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc. v.Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),modified by order dated October 26,1982.

H. Scope of this Rulemaking

The purpose of this rulemaking is toestablish new source performancestandards and pretreatment standardsfor existing and new cathode ray tubeand luminescent materialsmanufacturing facilities. This regulationapplies to wastewater from cathode raytube and luminescent materialsmanufacturing process operations atthese facilities, all of which are in theElectrical and Electronic Components(E&EC) Category.

EPA estimates that there are 24cathode ray tube plants in the UnitedStates; one of these plants is a directdischarger and 23 plants discharge toPOTW's. The Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory is comprised of five plants;two are direct dischargers, two areindirect dischargers, and one plantachieves zero discharge throughevaporation.

For the Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory, EPA is promulgatingpretreatment standards for existing andnew sources (PSES and PSNS) and newsource performance standards (NSPS)for direct dischargers. For theLuminescent Material Subcategory, EPAis promulgating new source standardsfor direct and indirect dischargers(NSPS and PSNS).

IIl. Background

A. The Clean Water Act and the NRDCSettlement Agreement

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters," Section 101(a).

* Section 301(b)(1)(A) set a deadlineof July 1, 1977, for existing industrialdirect dischargers to achieve "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available" ("BPT").

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 14, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 55691

* Section 301(b)(2)(A) set a deadlineof July 1, 1983, for these dischargers toachieve "effluent limitations requiringthe application of the best availabletechnoloby economically achievable* * * which will result in reasonablefurther progress toward the nationalgoal of eliminating the discharge of allpollutants" ("BAT").

* Section 306 required that newindustrial direct dischargers complywith new source performance standards("NSPS"), based on best availabledemonstrated technology.

e Section 307 (b) and (c) requiredpretreatment standards for new andexisting dischargers to publicly ownedtreatment works ("POTW"). While therequirements for direct dischargers wereto be incorporated into NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permits issued under Section402, the Act made pretreatmentstandards enforceable directly againstdischargers to POTWs (indirectdischargers).

• Section 402(a) of the 1972 Act doesallow requirements for directdischargers to be set case-by-case.However, Congress intended controlrequirements to be based for the mostpart on regulations promulgated by theAdministrator of EPA.

* Section 304(b) required regulationsthat establish effluent limitationsreflecting the ability of BPT and BAT toreduce effluent discharge.

o Section 304(c) and 306 of the Actrequired regulations for NSPS.

9 Section 304(g), 307(b), and 307(c)require regulations for pretreatmentstandards.

* In addition to these regulations fordesignated industry categories, Section307(a) required the Administrator topromulgate effluent standardsapplicable to all dischargers of toxicpollutants.

* Section 308 gave the Administratorauthority to collect informationnecessary to develop and enforceregulations.

e Finally, Section 501(a) authorizedthe Administrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act.

The EPA was unable to promulgatemany of these regulations by thedeadlines contained in the Act, and as aresult, in 1976, EPA was sued by severalenvironmental groups. In settling thislawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executeda "Settlement Agreement" which wasapproved by the Court. This agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andmeet a schedule for controlling 65"priority" pollutants and classes ofI pollutants. In carrying out this programEPA must promulgate BAT effluent

limitations guidelines, equivalentpretreatment standards, and new sourceperformance standards for 21 majorindustries. See National ResourcesDefense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC2120 (D.D.C. 1976) as modified, 12 ERC1833 (D.D.C. 1979) and by order datedOctober 26, 1982.

Several of the basic elements of theSettlement Agreement program wereincorporated into the Clean Water Actof 1977. That law also made severalimportant "mid-course corrections" tothe Federal water pollution controlprogram:

* Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now set July 1,1984 as the deadline for industries toachieve effluent limitations requiringapplication of BAT for "toxic"pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants hereincludes the 65 "priority" pollutants andclasses of pollutants which Congressdeclared "toxic" under Section 307(a) ofthe Act. They are the same as thoselisted in the Settlement Agreement.

9 Likewise, EPA's programs for newsource performance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimedprincipally, but not exclusively, atcontrolling toxic pollutants.

- To strengthen the toxics controlprogram, Section 304(e) of the Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe certain "best managementpractices" ("BMPs"). These BMPs are toprevent the release of toxic andhazardous pollutants from: (1) Plant siterunoff, (2) spillage or leaks, (3) sludge orwaste disposal, and (4) drainage fromraw material storage if any of thoseevents are associated with, or ancillaryto, the manufacturing or treatmentprocess.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977also revised the control program fornon-toxic pollutants.

e For "conventional" pollutantsidentified under Section 304(a)(4)(including biochemical oxygen demand,suspended solids, fecal coliform andpH), the new Section 301(b)(2)(E)requires "effluent limitations requiringthe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology" ("BCT")-instead of BAT-to be achieved by July1, 1984. The factors considered inassessing BCT for an industry includethe relationship between the cost ofattaining a reduction in effluents and theeffluents reduction benefits attained,and a comparison of the cost and levelof reduction of such pollutants bypublicly owned treatment works andindustrial sources.

For those pollutants which are neither"toxic" pollutants nor "conventional"pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and

(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BATeffluent limitations within three yearsafter their establishment or by July 1,1984, whichever is later, but not laterthan July 1, 1987.

B. Prior EPA Regulations

No national guidelines or standardsare now applicable to the Cathode RayTube and Luminescent MaterialSubcategories of the E & EC category.On April 8, 1983, EPA promulgatedEffluent Limitations Guidelines,Pretreatment Standards, and NewSource Performance Standards as"Phase I" regulations for twosubcategories of the electrical andelectronic components category (48 FR15382). Those subcategories wereSemiconductors and Electronic Crystals.EPA also determined at that time that 17subcategories of this industry did notrequire national guidelines or standards.

C. Overview of the Industry

The Electrical and ElectronicComponents Point Source Category(E&EC) includes plants which are asubset of the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) Major Group 36,Electrical and Electronic Machinery,Equipment and Supplies.

EPA originally considered 21subcategories in the E&EC industry (48FR 15382). As part of the Phase 3rulemaking, seventeen (17)subcategories were excluded fromregulation under Paragraph 8 of theNRDC Settlement Agreement, whichprovides that national guidelines neednot be issued for sources which are,generally, not discharging significanttoxic pollutants. In Phase I EPApromulgated standards for twosubcategories (Semiconductors andElectronic Crystals) on April 8, 1983, 48FR 15382. EPA also announced that twoother subca tegories--LuminescentMaterials and Electron Tubes-wouldbe the subject of these Phase IIStandards. In developing thesestandards, however, EPA has realizedthat the Electron Tubes Subcategoryshould be divided into twosubcategories, Cathode Ray Tubes(CRT) and Receiving and TransmittingTubes (RTT), because the firstsubcategory (CRT) is comprised ofoperations which result in wastewaterdischarges while the secondsubcategory (RTIT consists ofoperations which are primarily dry.

Luminescent materials (phosphors)are those materials that emitelectromagnetic radiation (light) uponexcitation by such energy sources asphotons, electrons, applied voltage,chemical reaction, or mechanical


energy. These luminescent materials areused for a variety of applications,including flourescent lamps, high-pressure mercury vapor lamps, colortelevision picture tubes and singlephosphor tubes.

The Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory consists of two (2) directdischargers, two (2) indirect dischargersand one (1) plant which used anevaporation pond with no surface waterdischarge. The major pollutantsdischarged by luminescent materialsplants are cadmium, fluoride, zinc,antimony and suspended solids.

Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are devicesin which high velocity electrons arefocused through a vacuum within a gastight glass envelope to generate animage on a luminescent surface in apattern controlled by electrostatic andelectrodynamic forces applied to thetube. Products are comprised of twoCRT types:

* Aperture mask tubes which arecathode ray tubes that contain multiplecolor phosphors and use an aperture(shadow) mask. This type of tube isreferred to as a color television picturetube.

- Cathode ray tubes that contain asingle phosphor and no aperture maskare referred to as single phosphor tubes.These are manufactured for usage indisplay systems such as wordprocessors, computer systems andarcade video games.

The Cathode Ray Tube Subcategory iscomprised of twenty-four (24) plants:Twenty-three (23) are indirectdischargers and one is a directdischarger. The major pollutantsdischarged by CRT plants are cadmium,zinc, chromium, lead, toxic organics,fluroide, and suspended solids.

The Receiving and Transmitting TubeSubcategory includes electronic devicesin which conduction of electrons takesplace through a vacuum or a gaseousmedium within a sealed glass, quartz,metal or ceramic casing.

* Receiving tubes are multiterminaldevices that conduct electricity moreeasily in one direction than in the otherand are noted for their low voltage andlow power application. They are used toamplify electrical signals in radio andtelevision receivers, computers, andsensitive control and measuringequipment.

9 Transmitting tubes arecharacterized by the use of electrostaticand electromagnetic fields appliedexternally to a stream of electrons toamplify a radio frequency signal. Thereare several different types of

transmitting tubes such as klystrons,magnetrons, and traveling wave tubes.In addition, some specializedtransmitting tubes are manufacturedsuch as image intensifiers andphotomultipliers.

The assembly process for receivingand transmitting tubes is primarily a dryprocess. Any wastewaters that areproduced in the manufacturingprocesses are covered by othercategorical standards.

IV. Data Gathering Efforts andDerivation of the Final Limitations

The methodology and data gatheringefforts used in developing the proposedregulations were discussed in thepreamble to the March 1983 proposal. Insummary, before proposal, the Agencyconducted a data collection program atseveral cathode ray tube andluminescent materials plants. Thisprogram stressed the acquisition of dataon the presence and treatability of thetoxic pollutants. It used analyticalmethods discussed in Sampling andAnalysis Procedures for Screening ofIndustrial Effluents for PriorityPollutants (U.S. EPA, April 1977). Basedon the results of that program, EPAidentified several distinct treatmenttechnologies, including both end-of-pipeand in-plant technologies, that are orcan be used to treat wastewaters fromthese industries.

For each of these technologies, theAgency complied and analyzedhistorical and newly generated data onthe performance of these technologies,considered the non-water qualityimpacts (including impacts on airquality, solid waste generation andenergy requirements), and estimated thecosts and economic impacts of applyingeach technology industrywide.

The data gathering effort was thebasis for the Agency's first two criticaldeterminations. First, pursuant toSection 307(b) of the Act, EPA identifiedthose pollutants that were present anddetermined which would pass throughor interfere with a POTW, or its sludge.Second, EPA evaluated existing andpotential pollution control technologies.It discoveredthat a basic and "classic"pollution control technology was widelypracticed in the industry. The system isdesigned to remove toxic metals fromraw wastestreams and it has twoprincipal components-precipitationand clarification. Filters are also used tocontrol typical'pollutants.

EPA then analyzed the data todiscover what those commonly usedtreatment devices could achieve. For

each regulated pollutant EPA looked fortwo key figures: The averageconcentration that properly operatedtechnology would achieve over time,and the variability from that averagethat might occur even at well-operatedplants.

To find long-term concentrationaverages for toxic metals and fluoride,EPA examined the pollutantconcentrations measured in thewastewaters of plants which had beensampled by the Agency and/or hadsubmitted data to EPA. EPA thendeleted data that did not represent goodtreatment. In the CRT Subcategory long-term concentration averages were basedon data from one EPA sampled plantand on industry submitted data fromtwo plants. For the LuminescentMaterials Subcategory long-termconcentration averages for toxic metalsand fluoride were based on two EPA-sampled plants. If a plant intends tocomply consistently with the regulatorylimit it should use the concentrationaverages as the basis for design andoperation. They are listed, for eachpollutant, In Section VII of theDevelopment Document. Theconcentration averages were the basisfor the costs considered in thisrulemaking.

Estimates of variability are alsoincluded in the development of effluentpollutant concentrations. Theregulations specify daily maximum andmonthly average limitations. Themonthly and daily limitations requiredifferent estimates of variability. Thedaily limitations include estimates ofvariability that express the variationexpected among observations from oneday. The monthly average maximumlimitations include estimates ofvariability that express the variationexpected among the averages of tenpollutant concentration values from tendifferent days.

Finally, the Agency multiplied theresulting variability factors by theexpected long-term concentrationaverages. The results were effluentconcentration limits based on actualobservations of well-operated plantswhich allowed for the variabilityobserved at all well-operated reportingfacilities. EPA has assessed the cost ofthis regulation on the assumption thatplants design and operate to meet theselong-term concentration averages. Thefinal limits represent monthly and dailylimits which a well-designed andoperated plant can meet approximately95 and 99 percent of the time,


respectively. If a plant designs andoperates its treatment system to achievethe concentration average and controlvariability, then there should be a verylow expectation that any individualsampling of the discharge will exceedthe promulgated limit.

Costs and economic impacts of thetechnology options considered arediscussed in detail in Economic ImpactAnalysis of Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and Standards for theElectrical and Electronic ComponentsIndustry-Phase ff. A more completedescription of the Agency's studymethodology, data gathering efforts, andanalytical. procedures supporting theregulation can be found in theDevelopment Document for EffluentLimitations Guidelines and Standardsfor the Electrical and ElectronicComponents Point Source Category-Phase II.

V. Industry Subcategorization

In developing this regulation, theAgency considered whether differenteffluent limitations and standards areappropriate for different segments of theElectrical and Electronic Componentsmanufacturing industry. The Actrequires EPA to consider a number offactors to determine if subcategorizationis needed. These factors include rawmaterials, final products, manufacturingprocesses, geographical location, plantsize and age, wastewatercharacteristics, non-water-qualityenvironmental impacts, treatment costs,energy costs, and solid wastegeneration.

After considering the above factorsthe Agency concluded that product typewas the appropriate basis forsubcategorization. Product typedetermines both the raw and processmaterial requirements and the numberand type of manufacturing processesused. Plants manufacturing the sameproduct were found to have similarwastewater characterists. Other factorsaffected the wastewater characteristics,but were not significant enough inthemsleves to be used as the basis forsubcategorization.

Using product type as a basis, EPAidentified the Luminesecent MaterialsSubcategory and the Electron TubeSubcategory. Then it refined theElectron Tube Subcategory as: (1)Receiving and Transmitting Tubes and(2) Cathode Ray Tubes.

This redefinition was necessarybecause electron tube manufacturing iscomprised of two distinct product typesemploying different raw materials andmanufacturing processes, with verydifferent wastewater characteristics.Therefore this subcategory has been

divided into the above subcategories,based on the products produced.

Luminescent material productsgenerates significant wastewater andEPA has retained it as a subcategory.Cathode ray tube manufacture alsoemploys raw materials and processoperations which generate wastewater.Today's standards cover wastewatcrfrom those processes. However,production of receiving and transmittingtubes is primarily a dry process. ThusEPA is not promulgating standards tocover the Receiving and TransmittingTubes Subcategory (See Section IXbelow).

The Development Document providesfurther background on decisionsconcerning subcategorization and on themake-up of the regulated subcategories.VI. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place TechnologyThis section describes the status of in-

place technology for the subcategoriesregulated by this rulemaking: CathodeRay Tubes and Luminescent Materials.

Wastewater treatment techniquescurrently used in the Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory include both in-process andend-of-pipe waste treatment. In-plantprocess waste treatment is designed toremove pollutants from contaminatedmanufacturing process wastewater atsome point in the manufacturingprocess. End-of-pipe treatment iswastewater treatment at the point ofdischarge.

In-process control techniques withwidespread use in the Cathode RayTube Subcategory are: (1) Collection ofspent solvents for resale, reuse ordisposal, and (2) segregation of spentacid wastes for contract hauling.Contract hauling refers to the industrypractice of contracting a firm to collectand transport wastes for off-sitedisposal.

End-of-pipe controls in the CathodeRay Tube Subcategory generally includeneutralization. In addition, nine of thecathode ray tube plants use end-of-pipeprecipitation/clarification for control oftoxic metals. One plant treatswastewater by filtration, followingprecipitation/clarification.

In the Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory the two direct dischargershave central end-of-pipe treatmentsystems that utilize precipitation/clarification technologies. Of the threeother plants in'the subcategory, oneplant achieves zero discharge throughthe use of an evaporation pond and twoare indirect dischargers, one of whichneutralizes its wastes end-of-pipe, whilethe other uses precipitation/clarification

technology to control toxic metals priorto discharge.

B. Water Use

EPA attempts, when possible, to setproduction-based effluent limitationswhich will tend to reduce water usage.In the case of the CRT and LuminescentMaterial Subcategories, the Agency isnot establishi n production-basedlimitations and standards: We believethat available data do not support theestablishment of such limitations andstandards on a nation-wide basis andthat existing economic incentivesalready minimize wastewater dischargeflows.

The water used in the production ofCRTs is deionized (DI) water producedby using an ion exchange process.Because of the higher costs associatedwith deionizing water, the industrypractice is to reuse and conserve waterto whatever extent practical. Therefore,further wastewater flow reduction byincreasedwater'conservation does notappear practicable. Moreover, theAgency was unable to determine anationally applicable relation betweenproduction and wastewater discharge.This was because the degree to whichplants practice water reuse andconservation depends on productquality requirements and, to a lesserextent, site-specific water supplyfactors.

C. Control Treatment Options

EPA considered the followingtreatment and control options forwastewater discharges from facilitieswithin the Cathode Ray Tube andLuminescent Materials Subcategories.The options evaluated are based ontreatment observed in plants EPAvisited or which described their owntreatment processes. They are discussedin further detail in the DevelopmentDocument, in Chapter VII.

Option 1-Neutralization for pHcontrol.

Option 2--Option I plus preliminarychromium reduction, and end-of-pipeprecipitation/clarification for treatmentof toxic metals (cadmium, chromium,antimony, lead, zinc), fluoride, and totalsuspended solids (TSS).

Option 3--Option 2 plus filtration forfurther reduction of toxic metals.

Option 4-Solvent management forcontrol of toxic organics. Solventmanagement is not an end-of-pipetreatment system, but rather an in-plantcontrol which consists of segregationand collection of used solvents forresale or contract disposal. Processwastewater is the only other source oftoxic organics for these subcategories.


Since the spent solvents would not bedischarged into the wastewater, toxicorganic limitations based on this controlwould be equivalent to the maximum"background" concentration of toxicorganics found in the discharge as aresult of process wastewatercontamination. Because it is an in-plantcontrol, this option could be used inconsort with any of the other optionsand it was considered in connectionwith the effect of each other option.

Option 5--End-of-pipe carbonadsorption for additional removal oftoxic organics.

As previously stated, one plant in theLuminescent Materials Subcategoryutilizes an evaporation pond to achievezero discharge. Evaporation ponds wererejected as the basis for nationalstandards because of their limitedeffectiveness, except in dry, arid,regions of the country. In addition.evaporation ponds require significantspace availability.

The only plant now using evaporationas a control technology had processwastewater flows below those generallyobserved at larger plants. Flowreductions to an equivalent level maynot be achievable by some larger plantssince, as discussed above, plants thatuse DI water already have incentives tominimize process water use.

VII. General Criteria for EffluentLimitations Considered Under ThisRegulation

1. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources. Section 307(b) of the Actrequires EPA to promulgatepretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES), which industry mustcomply with within a time period not toexceed three years from promulgation.PSES are designed to prevent thedischarge of pollutants which passthrough, interfere with, or are otherwiseincompatible with the operation ofPOTWs.

The legislative history of the 1977 Actindicates that pretreatment standardsare to be technology-based andanalogous to the best availabletechnology for removal of toxicpollutants. The General PretreatmentRegulations which serve as theframework for the pretreatmentstandards are in 40 CFR Part 403, 46 FR9404 (January 28, 1981).

EPA has generally determined thatthere is pass through of pollutants If thepercent of pollutants removed by a well-operated POTW achieving secondarytreatment is less than the percentremoval by the best availabletechnology (BAT) model treatmentsystem.

This regulation does not promulgate aBAT standard, because neithersubcategory contains more than twodirect dischargers and these plantsalready have technology in-place, asrequired by existing permits. However,in assessing pass-through EPA hasassumed a BAT equivalent to thetreatment technology already installedby direct discharging plants (i.e. end-of-pipe precipitation/clarification), whichis the same as that selected for PSES.

A study of 40 well-operated POTWswith biological treatment and meetingthe secondary treatment criteria showedthat the toxic metals regulated by thisregulation (cadmium, chromium,antimony, lead, and zinc) are typicallyremoved at rates varying from 20 to 70percent. POTWs with only primarytreatment have even lower rates ofremoval. In contrast to POTWs, BATlevel treatment by sources in thisindustrial category can remove thesemetals at rates of approximately 96percent or more. Accordingly, thesemetals "pass through" POWs.

The same POTW study indicates thatone-fourth of well-operated POTWswith secondary treatment achievedremovals of less than 40 percent forchloroform, less than 85 percent for1,1,1,-trichloroethane, less than 29percent for methylene chloride, less than34 percent for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, less than 88 percent fortoluene, and less thah 87 percent fortrichloroethylene. By comparison, soundsolvent management practices achieve aTTO reduction of greater than 99percent. Accordingly, pass-through oftoxic organic pollutants does occur.

There is no significant removal offluoride by typical POTW treatmentsystems, while BAT level treatmentconsisting of precipitation/clarificationhas been shown to remove as much as95 percent from these waste streams.Thus, pass-through of fluoride doesoccur.

These standards rely uponprecipitation and clarification for metalsremoval. This treatment system will alsoremove fluoride to the levels required bythis regulation. We are regulatingfluoride in the Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory because the levels offluoride in the raw waste in thatSubcategory are very high-up to 970m8/l. This is in contrast to the limits forPhase I of this category which did notrely on end-of-pipe treatment and whichdid not set limits on fluoride. In Phase Ithe highest occurrence of fluoride in rawwastewater-in the semiconductorsubcategory-was only 146 mg/l.

2. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources. Section 307(c) of the Actrequires EPA to promulgate

pretreatment standards for new sources(PSNS) at the same time that itpromulgates NSPS. These standards areintended to prevent the discharge ofpollutants which pass through, interferewith or are otherwise incompatible witha POTW. New indirect dischargers, likenew direct dischargers, have theopportunity to incorporate the bestavailable demonstrated technologies--including process changes. in-plantcontrols, and end-of-process treatmenttechnologies and to select plant sitesthat ensure the treatment system can beadequately installed. Therefore, theAgency sets PSNS after considering thesame criteria considered for NSPS.Indirect discharging new sources inthese subcategories are expected tohave the same pass through ofpollutants as existing sources; bothluminescent materials plants and CRTplants have high levels of fluoride intheir raw effluent-indicating a need toregulate that pollutant for bothsubcategories.

3. New Source PerformanceStandards. The basis for new sourceperformance standards (NSPS) underSection 306 of the Act is the bestavailable demonstrated technology.New plants have the opportunity todesign the best and most efficientprocesses and wastewater treatmenttechnologies. Therefore, Congressdirected EPA to consider the bestdemonstrated process changes, in-plantcontrols, and end-of-process treatmenttechnologies that reduce pollution to themaximum extent feasible.VIII. Summary of Final Regulations andChanges From Proposal

This section describes the technologybasis and final effluent limitations foreach subcategory and discusses thechanges we have made in response topublic comments.A. Cathode Ray Tube Subcategory

Within this subcategory the pollutantparameters of concern that weredetected in EPA's sampling and analysisefforts are pH, chromium, TSS, fluoride,cadmium, lead, zinc, and numerous toxicorganics.

EPA is promulgating the sametechnology control options that itproposed. No commenters suggestedthat the Agency promulgate finalregulations based on other technologies.

1. BPT, BAT, and BCT. The Agency isnot regulating existing direct dischargersfor the reasons cited in Section IX(Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated).

2. PSES. For PSES, EPA has selectedprecipitation/clarification (Option 2) for


the control of toxic metals and fluorideand solvent management (Option 4) forcontrol of toxic organics. As notedabove, this technology is widelydemonstrated in this industry (as well asin other industries with similar rawwastes). Metal removals greater than 96percent have been demonstrated. Option1 (pH neutralization alone) was rejectedbecause data indicated that greaterremovals were achievable at Option 2which was economically achievable andalready widely utilized. Filtration(Option 3) has not been selectedbecause the additional 1496 annualpounds of national pollutant reductionaccomplished by Option 3 are notsignificant in comparison to the loweffluent levels already accomplished byOption 2 in the treatment train. Thiswould only increase expected removalsby 1.5 percent. Option 3 would have anadditional capital cost of about 1.2million. Also, no commenters suggestedthat the Agency promulgate finalregulations based on Option 3. For all ofthese reasons, EPA has decided not topromulgate standards based uponOption 3 technology. Section VII of theDevelopment Document contains adiscussion and tables concerning theeffluent concentrations that can beachieved using lime precipitation/clarification (Option 2) and those thatwould be achieved by the addition of afilter (Option 3). Option 5 (carbonadsorption for toxic organics) wasrejected for technical reasons. EPAcalculated the theoretical concentrationsof organics that Option 5 would lead to,and found that it would result in TTOlevels equal to, or perhaps worse than,those achieved by proper solventdisposal.

The Agency estimates thatimplementation of PSES will result inthe removal of 109,000 pounds per yearof toxic metals and 894,000 pounds peryear of fluoride. Plants not presently incompliance with PSES are expected toincur capital costs of $6.5 million andannual costs of $3.4 million. The Agencyprojects no plant closures or job lossesas a result of this regulation. Therefore,PSES is economically achievable.

As in the proposed rule, cadmium,chromium, lead, zinc, and fluoride arebeing regulated. Following proposal,various industrial sources submittedadditional data. EPA has consideredthese data and consequently both thelong-term concentration averages andthe variability factors have undergonesome changes.

With regard to long-termconcentration averages only slightchanges were made. The data base wasrevised for all of the above pollutants.

The long-term concentration average (inmg/l) for cadmium changed from 0.019to 0.020, for chromium from 0.20 to 0.23,for lead from 0.28 to 0.27, for zinc from0.34 to 0.40, and for fluoride from 20.5 to14.5.

In calculating variability factors,changes were made to both the dailymaximum variability and monthlyvariability. These changes were partly aresult of changes to the data base. Theyalso reflected the change from a monthlyaverage, based on the averagevariability expected for 22 samples, to amonthly average based on the averagevariability expected for 10 samples.Sampling frequency is specified byindividual control authorities, but 10times per month is a typical figure forthis industry and for other industrialcategories.

As in the proposed rule, toxic organicsare being regulated as the total of alllisted toxic organics found in thedischarge at concentrations greater than0.01 milligrams per liter. This cumulativelimit is defined as total toxic organics('ITO) and the specific toxic organiccompounds included in the total arelisted in Appendix B of this preambleand in $459.31. The TTO list has beenrevised to reflect those organics found inwastes from plants in the CRTSubcategory. Toxic organics were notfound at significant levels in theLuminescent Materials Subcategory.

In addition, as a result of newinformation and submitted data, theproposed TTO limit of 0.15 milligramsper liter has been changed to 1,58milligrams per liter. The Agency is notpromulgating a 30-day averagelimitation for TTO. The daily maximumlimitation for TrO is based on solventmanagement which, unlike mosttreatment options, does not entailpollution control equipment and istherefore not subject to significantperformance variations. (See Section XIIfor a further discussion of the basis forthe TO limit).

3. NSPS and PSNS. For NSPS andPSNS, the Agency is establishinglimitations based on Options 3 and 4.This technology consists of solventmanagement plus end-of-pipeprecipitation/clarification, followed byfiltration.

Option 3 was selected over Option 2for new source standards because theinstallation of filtration technology hasbeen demonstrated by the one existingdirect discharger and will accomplishadditional removal of toxic metals.Furthermore, new plants have theopportunity to install the bestdemonstrated technolgy in the mostefficient way. Option 1 was rejected for

the same reasons as cited under PSESand because NSPS and PSNS should notbe less stringent than PSES. Thesestandards are not expected to cause abarrier to entry.

Since proposal, the Agency hasrevised the limitations due to revisionsof the data base. In many cases this hascaused the limitation to increase. Forfurther discussion of the derivation ofthese limits see Sections IV and XII ofthis notice and Section VII of theDevelopment Document for EffluentLimitations Guidelines and Standardsfor the Electrical and ElectronicComponents Point Source Category-Phase IL

4. Definitions. In response to acomment concerning the coverage ofthis subcategory, EPA has revised thedefinition of cathode ray tubes. Theterm "cathode ray tubes" meanselectronic devices in which electronsfocus through avacuum to generate acontrolled image on a luminescentsurface. This definition does not includereceiving and transmitting tubes.

5. TrO Monitoring. The TrOcertification which control authoritiesmay allow in lieu of monitoring has beenchanged to reflect concerns expressedby commenters. It is now identical to thepromulgated Phase I regulations for thisindustry (40 CFR Part 469.13 (a) (b) (c)and (d), 48 FR 15394), and similar toprovisions of the categorical standardsfor the metal finishing and electroplatingindustry. (40 CFR Parts 433 and 413, 48FR 32462). Indirect dischargers shouldnote that plants which plan to requestcertification in lieu of monitoring forTTO must still submit a baselinemonitoring report as required by 40 CFR403.12(b). Among other information, thisreport must show the dischargeconcentration of all regulated pollutants,including the six toxic organicscomprising TTO.

B. Luminescent Materials Subcategory

The technology basis for eachstandard for the Luminescent Materialssubcategory is presented below, alongwith the rationale for selecting thespecific treatment option. Thetechnologies and wastewatercharacteristics are discussed in moredetail in the Development Document.The Agency is not regulating existingdirect or indirect dischargers in thissubcategory for the reasons cited inSection IX (Pollutants and SubcategoriesNot Regulated). Therefore, BPT, BAT,BCT and PSES effluent limitations andstandards have not been promulgated.

1. NSPS and PSNS. For NSPS andPSNS, EPA is promulgating limitationsand standards based on end-of-pipe


precipitation/clarification (Option 2),which has been demonstrated within theindustry. This option will controlcadmium, antimony, zinc, and fluoride inboth the NSPS and PSNS, and also TSSand pH in NSPS. Option I alone (pHneutralization) was not selected becauseOption 2 achieved greater removals oftoxic metals at reasonable costs whichwill not impose a barrier to entry.Option 3 (Option 2 plus filtration] wasnot selected because the installation offiltration technology would have aninsignificant effect (only an additional0.16 percent) on pollutant removals.Option 4 (control of solvents) was notselected because TTO were not detectedin significant quantities in this industry.Option 5 (carbon adsorption) was notselected for similar reasons.

Since proposal, the Agency hasrevised the limitations due to additionsto the data base. In most cases theserevisions have caused the limitatigns toincrease. For further discussion of thederivation of these limits see SectionsIV and XII of this Notice and Section VIIof the Development Document.

2. Definition. EPA has amended theproposed definition to include specificexamples of luminescent materials.

IX. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

A. Settlement Agreement and Exclusionof Subcategories and Toxic Pollutants

The Settlement Agreement specified65 categories of toxic pollutants as of"priority" concern. EPA, by regulation,has specified 126 pollutants andparameters as measures for those 65categories. The Agreement alsospecified certain industrial categories,including the Electrical and Electronicsindustry, as of "priority" concern. Theagreement did contain provisionsauthorizing the exclusion fromregulation, in defined circumstances, oftoxic pollutants and industrialcategories or subcategories.,

EPA is now setting standards forsome of the specified 126 pollutants insegments of two subcategories of thisindustry. EPA has also found itappropriate not to regulate otherpollutants in these same subcategoriesand to exclude certain subcategorysegments and one additionalsubcategory from these standards. Datasupporting exclusion of the pollutantsand subcategories and subcategorysegments identified below are presentedin the Development Document for thisrulemaking.

1. Exclusion of Pollutants. Toxicpollutants identified in Appendix C tothis notice are excluded from regulationfor the Cathode Ray Tube Subcategory

and the Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory under Paragraph 8(a)(iii) ofthe Settlement Agreement.

For the Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory, ten (10) pollutants areexcluded because they are present inamounts too small to be effectivelyreduced by available technologies, andone hundred and six (106) pollutants areexcluded because they were notdetected in the effluent.

For the Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory, eleven (11) pollutants areexcluded because they are present inamounts too small to be effectivelyreduced by available technologies, andone hundred twelve (112) pollutants areexcluded because they were notdetected in the effluent.

2. Exclusion of Subcategories andSubcategory Segments. The manufactureof Receiving and Transmitting TypeElectron Tubes is a dry process. Thatsubcategory, therefore, will be excludedfrom regulation under the provisions ofparagraph 8(a)(iv) of the SettlementAgreement.

The Agency is excluding existingdirect dischargers in the Cathode RayTube Subcategory from this regulation.This exclusion from regulation is underthe provisions or Paragraph 8(a)(iv) ofthe Settlement Agreement, on the basisthat there is only one direct dischargerwhich is already subject to an NPDESpermit, and has Option 3 (precipitation/clarification/filtration) treatment inplace. Its current discharge of toxicpollutants is less then 2 pounds/day.Thus, as Paragraph 8(a)(iv) provides,"The amount and toxicity of eachpollutant in the discharge does notjustify developing national standards."

The Agency is also exluding fromregulations all existing dischargers inthe Luminescent Materials Subcategoryunder the provisions of Paragraph8(a)(iv) of the Settlement Agreement. Ofthe five (5) plants in this subcategory, 2are in the direct dischargers segment.Each of these 2 plants discharges (aftertreatment required by existing NPDESpermits) less than 1 pound of toxicmetals per plant per day. Two of theremaining plants in the LuminescentMaterials Subcategory are indirectdischargers. EPA is excluding theseplants form national categoricalpretreatment sto.ndardo under theprovisions of paragraph 6(b)(ii) of theDecree on tha basis that only two suchplants exist and the amount of toxicpollutants that tnose 2 plants introduceinto POTWs is less than 2 pounds perplant per day. The remaining plant inthe Luminescent Materials Subcategoryutilizes an evaporation pond which doesnot discharge to surface water.

B. Conventional Pollutants

BOD and oil and grease are not beingregulated for either subcategory becausethey were found only at concentrationsbelow treatability.

IX. Cost and Economic Impact

A. Economic Impact

The Agency's economic impactassessment is presented in the reportentitled "Economic Impact Analysis ofEffluent Guidelines and Standards forthe Electrical and ElectronicComponents Industry Phase II-CathodeRay Tubes and Luminescent MaterialsSubcategories", EPA 440/2-83-.012. Thisreport details the investment and annualcosts for the Phase II portion of theElectrical and Electronic ComponentsCategory. Compliance costs are basedon engineering estimates of capitalrequirements and operations andmaintenance costs for the effluentcontrol systems described earlier in thispreamble. The report assesses theimpact of effluent control costs in termsof production changes, plant closures,employment effects, and balance oftrade effects.

EPA requested comments on thisanalysis at the time of proposal. It hasrevised this report as a result of publiccomment and continued analysis. Thecompliance costs for individual plantshave changed as a result of additionaldata submitted to the Agency. EPA hasalso revised its estimates of theexpected growth in the industry as aresult of new publicly availableinformation. EPA has identified 29plants in the Phase II subcategories thatare covered by this regulation, Of these29 plants, 3 are direct dischargers, 25 areindirect dischargers, and one dischargesno wastewater. Only 17 of the plants areexpected to incur costs to comply withthe PSES regulations for the CathodeRay Tube Subcategory. All other plantseither have appropriate equipment inplace or were exempted from nationalstandards for reasons discussed abovein Section IX.

PSES

Seventeen of the 23 indirectdischargers in the Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory are expected to incurcumulative compliance costs of $6.5million in capital investment and $3.4million annually (1982 dollars). Thesecosts are primarily associated withinstallation of Option 2 (precipitation/clarification). In addition, these costsinclude compliance monitoring at twelvetimes per month for metals and fluorideand once per month for TrO. EPAexpects that average industry

No. 241 / Wednesday, December 14, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 55697

profitability will be reduced by amaximum of 1.8 percent. No plantclosures or job losses are projected as aresult of this regulation.

The control of toxic organics isexpected to result in minimal additionalcosts because all facilities alreadypractice solvent management to someextent and because the solvents can becollected and sold for reuse.Nevertheless, EPA performed asensitivity analysis on the costs ofcompliance for those facilities that theAgency is uncertain already mreet thetoxic organic limit. That estimate ofcompliance costs for these facilitiesassumed that spent solvents would bedispoge-2 of as hazardous wastes underthe Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). The analysisshowed that these costs would furtherdecrease profitability by a maximum ofonly 0,2 percent and would not result inany plant closures or job losses. EPA,therefore, has determined that thesestandards are economically achievableeven if additional spent solvents need tobe disposed of in accordance withRCRA.

PSNS

For model plants in the CRTsubcategory, incremental capitalinvestment costs range from $5,830 to$228,500 and incremental annualizedcosts range from $2,400 to $94,800depending on assumptions concerningplant size (1982 dollars). The capitalinvestment costs represent less than a13 percent increase over treatment costsfor similarly sized existing plants. Thatincrement is an insignificant part of thetotal cost of constructing new plants.The ratios of annual treatment costs toannual plant sales range from 0.01 to0.14 percent of sales and are not likelyto result in a competitive disadvantagefor new sources.

For the Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory, new source costs reflectthe total cost of the treatmenttechnology (not incremental) because nopretreatment standards are proposed forexisting indirect dischargers. However,the existing plants do have sometreatment installed. Therefore, theimpacts stated here are the maximumpossible impact. Capital investmentcosts range from $100,500 to $1.2 milliondepending on the size of the plant. Totalannualized costs range from $58,990 to$583,000. The analysis of new sourcecosts for this subcategory comparesannual treatment costs to annual plantsales. The impacts on either an averageor large new plant are small and are notexpected to result in significant barriersto their entry into the subcategory. Theimpacts on the smallest new plants,

while larger than for the other sizes, arealso not expected to cause barriers toentering the industry. Total annualtreatment costs as a percentage of salesare expected to range from 1.4 to 7.8percent for a new small plant.

NSPSFor model plants in the CRT

subcategory, new source costs for directdischargers reflect the total costs of thepollution control technology. Capitalinvestment ranges from $129,400 to $1.8million, and total annualized costs rangefrom $71,700 to $921,100 depending onplant size (1982 dollars). The totalannual treatment costs as a percentageof sales are expected to range from 0.1to 1.3 percent. However, it should benoted that the one direct dischargoralready has Option 3 technologyinstalled; thus this cost assessmentactually overstates the likely differencein cost. These impacts are considered tobe small.

For new sources in the LuminescentMaterials Subcategory, the costs andimpacts are the same for both direct andindirect dischargers. The costs andcomparisons to sales are shown above,under PSNS. No significant barriers toentry are expected.

B. Executive Order 12291Executive Order 12291 requires EPA

and other agencies to perform regulatoryimpact analyses on major regulations.Major rules are those which impose acost on the economy of $100 million ayear or more or have certain othereconomic impacts. This regulation is nota major rule because its annualized costof $3.4 million is less than $100 millionand it meets none of the other criteriaspecified in Section 1(b) of the E.O.12291.

C. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisPublic Law 96-354 requires EPA to

prepare an initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis for all proposed regulationsthat have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This analysis may be done inconjunction with or as a part of anyother analysis conducted by the Agency.The economic impact analysis describedabove indicates that there will not be asignificant impact on any segment of theregulated population, large or small.Therefore, a formal regulatory flexibilityanalysis is not required.

D. SBA LoansThe Agency is continuing to

encourage small plants to use SmallBusiness Administration (SBA)financing as needed for pollution controlequipment. The three basic programs

are: (1) The Guaranteed PollutionControl Bond Program, (2) the Section503 Program, and (3) the RegularGuarantee Program. All the SBA loanprograms are only open to businessesthat have: (a) Net assets of less than $6million, and (b) an average annual after-tax income of less than $2 million, and(c) fewer than 250 employees.

For further information on theGuaranteed Pollution Control BondProgram contact: U.S. Small BusinessAdministration, Office of PollutionControl Financing, 4040 North FairfaxDrive, Rosslyn, Virginia 22203, (703) 235-2902.

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

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

For additional infornation on theRegular Guarantee and Section 503Programs contact your district or localSBA office. The coordinator at EPAHeadquarters is Ms. Frances Desselle,who may be reached at (202) 382-5373.Xl. Non-Water Quality Aspects ofPollution Control

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Sections 304(b)and 306 of the Act require EPA toconsider the non-water qualityenvironmental impacts of theseregulations including air and noisepollution, radiation, solid wastegeneration, and energy requirements.While balancing pollution problemsagainst each other, and against energyuse, is difficult, EPA believes that thisfinal regulation best serves overallnational goals.

Compliance with the regulation,including PSES, NSPS, and PSNS willhave no effect on air, noise, or radiationpollution and will only result in minimalsolid waste generation and minimalincreased energy usage. The amount ofsolid waste generated per year will be1,200 metric tons beyond that nowgenerated. However, PSES and PSNSwill result in less contamination ofsludge being produced by POTWs.Available information indicates that thesolid waste generated will not behazardous as defined in the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act

Federal Register / Vol. 48,


(RCRA). Energy requirements associatedwith these regulations will be 390,000kilowatt-hours per year or only 65kilowatt-hours per day per facility,beyond that now used for wastewatertreatment

EPA's relevant program offices havehad an opportunity to review thisanalysis. Based on the above non-waterquality impacts from these regulations,the Agency has concluded that theeffluent reduction benefits justify anynon-water quality environmentalimpacts and that this regulation bestserves overall national environmentalgoals.

XII. Public Participation and Responseto Major Comments

On March 9, 1983, the Agencypublished proposed rules for effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards under the Clean Water Actfor the Cathode Ray Tube andLuminescent Materials Subcategories ofthe Electrical and ElectronicComponents Point Source Category.Following the publication of tfieproposed rules, we provided thetechnical development document andeconomic document supporting theproposed rules to industry,environmental groups, governmentagencies, and the public sector. Aworkshop was held on the Electrical andElectronic Components Phase IIRulemaking in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania on April 29, 1983. On May4, 1983, in Washington, D.C., apretreatment public hearing was held atwhich no persons presented testimony.

The comment period closed on May 9,1983. Comments were received from thefollowing: Sanitary District of Rockford,Clinton Electronics Corporation, PhilipsECG, Litton Electron Tube Division,American Electronics Association,Vulcan Chemicals, Electronic IndustriesAssociation, RCA Corporation, GeneralElectric Company.

All comments received have beencarefully considered, and appropriatechanges in the regulations have beenmade whenever available data andinformation supported these changes.Major issues raised by commenters areaddressed in Section Vill and thissection. A summary of all commentsreceived and our responses to them isincluded in a report "Response to PublicComments, Electrical and ElectronicComponents Effluent Guidelines andStandards": Phase II, which is a part ofthe public record for this regulation.

1. Comment. Commenters contendedthat the data in the record to support theTTO limit are insufficient. They arguedthat TTO data from one plant were

insufficient and not representative, andthat plants could not achieve the limitusing solvent management technology.In addition, the proposed TTO limit wassaid to be too stringent because thecontributions of TTO from individualprocess streams were allegedly notreflected.

Response: EPA visited and sampledrepresentative CRT facilities. All ofthese facilities practice solventmanagement by segregating andcollecting spent solvents used in themanufacturing process. Sampling datagenerally showed very low quantities ofTTO. Data from one plant (11114) wereunusable at proposal because availableflow data did not allow the Agency toaccount for dilution problems. Becauseof limited data, the proposed limit forTTO (0.15 mg/l) was in fact based onthe maximum TrO observed duringthree days of sampling at one plant.Recognizing the limited data base, EPArequested in the preamble to theproposed regulations that additionaldata be submitted by industry.

In response to this request one facilitysubmitted usable data for one-daysampling. Another plant also submitteddata; however, the sampling methodologyused did not comply with EPA samplingprotocol since the grab samples werenot composited for analysis. Thereforethat data was not used in evaluating the

TITO limit. Additionally, Plant 11114submitted flow-data which allowed usto calculate the TTO value for oneobservation by deleting the dilution ofcooling water and other non-relatedprocess streams. Combining the twoadditional usable data points with thethree data points from the plant used atproposal provided a total of five treatedeffluent data points from three plants.These data ranged from .045 mg/l to 1.58mg/l of TTO. Based on informationsubmitted by industry and onengineering site visits to all three plants,the Agency believes that the availableTTO data reflect effective solventmanagement. Accordingly, the TTO limitis being revised to 1.58 mg/l. Thisreflects the maximum backgroundconcentration at any known plantpracticing effective solvent managementand precipitation/clarification, the BAT-level control options selected for thisparameter.

Regarding the concern aboutindividual process streams, the TTOlimit is based on effluent data aftermixing of process streams. Thus itaccounts for the contribution of TTOfrom all of the process streams. EPA,therefore, is not persuaded by thecomment that the TTO limit is notachievable because it does not accountfor residual toxic organic contamination

from all process wastewater streams.The contribution of process streams isreflected in the final effluent from aplant.

The Agency examined carbonadsorption (Option 5) to determine ifthis end-of-pipe treatment technologywould achieve greater toxic organicreduction than in-plant control usingsolvent management. The Agencycalculated the theoretical discharge oftoxic organics after treatment withcarbon adsorption. It found that effluentTTO levels would be approximately thesame as, and perhaps greater than, theTTO concentration from residualprocess contamination at plants practicinisolvent management. Therefore, EPArejected the option of carbon adsorptionfor technological reasons. See SectionVII of the Development Document for afurther discussion of toxic organicremoval achieved by carbon adsorption.

2. Comment: Commenters contendedthat the proposed CRT effluentconcentration limits for toxic metals aretoo stringent. They argued that a largerdata base was needed and thatvariability factors should be based onconsistent assumptions about thenumber of observations that will betaken each month. Commenters also hada few critiques relevant to specificmetals, most of which concernedcadmium. Commenters asserted thattreatment for cadmium was itselfdifficult, and could also make it hard tomeet limits for other metals. (For furtherdiscussion of comments on EPA's metallimitations, see EPA's Response toComments Document.)

RESPONSE: EPA has significantlyrevised its data base for calculation ofall toxic metals limitations. It is nowusing additional self-monitoring effluentdata submitted by industry. EPAsampling data is now used inconjunction with that data to calculateappropriate effluent limits. EPA has alsorecalculated all limitations, using newvariability factors based on anexpectation of ten observations permonth. That frequency is the same asthat assumed for many similarguidelines and standards and theeconomic analysis was based onassumptions that monitoring wouldoccur at least that often. The revisedlimitations generally allow somewhatgreater effluent concentrations.

The Agency has also considered themore specific issues commenters raisedabout specific metals. In regard tocadmium for example, one commenterstated that treatment of some processstreams could produce cadmiumhydroxide, a form of cadmium that isparticularly difficult to remove. EPA


considered the possibility that this couldlead to a plant's inability to meet thecadmium limit. Actual data from EPAsamplings and data submitted bydischargers suggested that this is not aserious problem in actual practice. Themeasured effluent concentrations ofcadmium were consistently below theseregulatory limits, whether or notcadmium hydroxide was formed.

Another commeriter asserted thatcadmium treatment required pH levelsthat would make it impossible to meetthe reg1ltory limit for chromium. Datadid not support thpt claim. In fact therewas ample evidence that cadmium andchromium could be adequatelycontrolled at the same time. Thecommenter had citsd the theoretical pHlevel for optimal cadmium control;however, the data base indicated thatcadmium could be reduced to theregulatory limit over a broader range ofpH levels, including pH levels thatallowed adequate control of chromiumand other toxic metals.

Other commenters questioned thederivation of specific metals limitations.The Development Document andResponse to Comments Document in therecord further explain how specificmetals limitations were derived.

3. Comment: Commenters argued thatfluoride should not be regulated since itis not found on the priority pollutant listand because it was not regulated in thesemiconductor subcategory (FECPhase I). They also contended that theproposed limits are not consistentlyachievable on a long-term operatingbasis with the identified technology. Inaddition, two commenters stated thatCRT plantg with lower fluoride rawwaste concentrations should be exemptfrom the proposed fluoride standard,either because there contributions werenot significant or because lowconcentrations.were difficult to treat.

Response: Although fluoride is notlisted as a toxic pollutant, it is apollutant of concern because it can beharmful to livestock and plants, and cancause tooth mottling in humans. Afluoride limit was proposed for PSES inthe CRT subcategory and for all newsources because the levels of fluoride inraw wastes are very high; a maximum of970 mg/I and a mean of 360 mg/I wereobserved. Fluoride discharged at 3e0mg/l would increase the concentrationin receiving waters by up to 3.3 mg/I atlow flow, which exceeds drinking waterstandards. In contrast, the occurrence offluoride in the raw waste of thesemiconductor subcategory (regulated inPhase I) was a maximum of 146 mg/land a mean of 66 rg/l, and in theelectronic crystals subcategory (Phase I)

was a maximum of 380 mg/I and a meanof 129 mgil.

Furthermore, unlike Phase I, Phase IICRT limits are based on end-of-pipetechnology (lime precipitation/clarification] Which requires onlyminimal technology additions to controlfluoride. The costs associated with theadded technology are quite small (seeSection IX of the DevelopmentDocument). Economic analysis of modelplants has shown that this cost wouldnot result in any plant closures or joblosses.

EPA considered relying on limits forother pollutants as an indirect way ofcontrolling fluoride, but decided that itcould not. This is because plants in theCRT subcategory with treatmentsystems designed to control toxicmetals, but not fluoride, have beenfound to discharge concentrations offluoride as high as 275-350 mg/I.

There is no justification for exemptingsome CRT plants because fluorideconcentrations in their raw wastes arelower than the CRT raw waste averageof 360 mg/l. Available data indicate thatone commenter with low concentrationsof fluoride in raw wastes is achievingthat by dilution with cooling water. Noris there any evidence that lowconcentrations of fluoride makecompliance infeasible. The commenterwho suggested this was not usingcalcium chloride, which EPA has costedfor, and relied upon, as part of its modeltreatment technology. Thus it did nothave adequate control for fluoride inplace. Plants that treat fluoride properlydo meet the limits consistently. Studiesof categories where raw wasteconcentrations of fluoride are oftenlower also demonstrate that limitscomparable to these can be achieved.

4. Comment: Commenters assertedthat EPA's conclusion that compliancecosts to meet the proposed TTO Limitwill not be significant is Inaccurate andnot supported by the record. They statedthat plants that collect solvents but donot meet the proposed limit will need toinstall and operate very expensivetreatment technologies, such as carbonadsorption and air strippers. They alsochallenged EPA's assumption thatsolvents used as degreasers and paintstrippers could be profitably recovered.They contended that it was not true fordilute aqueous organic wastes such asrinses and scrubber effluents and thatthese solvents frequently cannot besegregated in order to sell them toreclaimers. In addition, in order toaccumulate solvents in sufficientquantities to make them marketable, asmall facility would probably be subject

to RCRA requirements and associatedcosts.

Response: Available data show thatrepresentative CRT plants are alreadycollecting solvents and are incompliance with the TTO revised limitof 1.58 mg/l. The degree to which plantspractice solvent management can vary,but EPA does not believe that treatmenttechnology (beyond that required forOption 2) will be required to meet theTTO limit. A plant will, at most, need toimprove its solvent collection andmanagement practices. The costsassociated with these activities areminimal and would in most cases beoffset by the recoverable value ofrecovered solvents.

One commenter correctly noted thatthere was little market for diluteaqueous organic wastes such as rinsesand scrubber effluents. However, thecommenter was incorrect in hisassumption that those wastes wouldoften need to be sold or contract hauled.Dilute aqueous streams of that naturewill not have significant organiccontamination in them If a good solventmanagement plan is practiced, thus theywill not need to be sold or contracthauled. The specified TTO limit hasbeen developed to reflect the minor,unavoidable, contamination that mayoccur. In addition, there is an alternativeto using solvents for some cleaning anddegreasing operations. At least one largeCRT manufacturer has an alkalinecleaning process in place and uses nosolvents for cleaning.

A plant not already in compliance (ifany such plant exists) could potentiallyincur costs for the disposal of anincremental amount of spent solventsneeded to comply with the TrO limit.An EPA sensitivity analysis for theCathode Ray Tube Subcategory showedthe impact of these costs is insignificant,even if the spent solvents are all sent toRCRA permitted hazardous wastefacilities and even if they are shippedoften enough to ensure that plants didnot need to secure RCRA permits tooperate as hazardous waste storagefacilities.

Available information indicate thatsome reclaimers have no minimumquantity limitation on solventreclamation services and do provideservices to small generators.

The proposed rule included aprovision which allows plants (with theconsent of their control authorities) tocertify that they are in compliance withthe TTO limit, rather than monitoring fornumerous toxic organics. Thecertification language in this finalregulation has been changed to beconsistent with that in other guidelines,


including Phase I for this industry andPart 433 for the Metal Finishing Industry.Our intent is to provide industry with aless costly way of showing compliancewith the 'TO limit. Some dischargersmay still find the certification languageto be too restrictive or their specificcontrol authority may not agree to theiruse of certification. Such dischargerswill have to monitor. Based on contactwith state and regional permitters, weestimate that, on average, monitoring forTTO will be required once per quarterfor those who do not certify. In somecases, plants may be required to monitormore frequently, sometimes as often asonce per month. The annualizedmonitoring costs for monthly monitoringare estimated to be $13,700 per year. Weestimate that these costs will not resultin any economic impacts.

5. Comment- The factors supportingthe price increases EPA calculated inthe economic analysis are not identifiedin the report. Our customers will notaccept price increases for our product,and the prices of our inputs toproduction (bulbs, phosphors, etc.) haveincreased greatly.

Response: The revised analysisresponds to this comment in two ways.First, it is assumed that cost increasesdue to additional wastewater treatmentare not passed on by the industry interms of price increases, but arereflected in reduced profitability of theplants. Both the impact and closureanalyses are based on this assumptionand therefore the conclusions that aredrawn account for the difficulties firmshave experienced with price increases.This is a conservative assumption. Tothe extent that it is in error, theeconomic analysis will tend to overpredict likely impacts and closures.

Second, a sensitivity analysis wasconducted on the manufacturing costsand profit levels used for each plant inthe TV tube and other CRT industrysegments. The sensitivity analysis usedan alternative profit level ten percentagepoints lower (i.e., assuming a tenpercent increase in costs) than that usedin the impact analysis. This alternativeaccounts for the possibility thatmanufacturing input costs may Increasefaster than the rate assumed (five to sixpercent inflation rate) for other costsand may therefore lead to decreasedprofits. As the sensitivity analysisshows, none of the impact measures aresignificantly affected by this alternativeanalysis and no conclusions would bechanged as a result.

6. Comment- Foreign competition hasincreased greatly over the last fewyears. We are struggling to survive inthe marketplace and additional cost of

production increases due to regulationsare intolerable.

Response: The revised analysisresponds to these comments. Theeconomic analysis for the proposedrules assumed two alternatives: one,that increased costs incurred by plantsto comply with the required wastewatertreatment standards would be passed onas price increases to customers: andtwo, that these increased costs would beabsorbed by the plants, thus reducingtheir profitability. Closure analysis wasbased on both these assumptions. In therevised analy3is for the final rules,because of the above comments whichemphasized the severity of foreigncompetition and other comments thatdiscussed domestic competition and thedifficulties of increasing prices, it wasdecided that the Industry would not belikely to respond to increased treatmentcost requirements by passing them on asprice increases. In light of theseconsiderations, the only reasonableassumption would be that plantprofitability would be reduced and thatthe closure analysis would depend onthe severity of that impact. Therefore,EPA based its analysis on thatassumption.

XIII. Best Management PracticesSec.ion 304(e) of the Clean Water Act

authorizes the Administrator toprescribe "best management practices"("BMP"), described in Section III of thispreamble. EPA is not now promulgatingBMP for the e.ectrical and electroniccomponents category.

XIV. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsA recurring issue is whether industry

limitations and standards should includeprovisions that authorize noncomplianceduring "upsets" or "bypasses." Anupset, sometimes called an "excursion."is unintentional noncompliance beyondthe reasonable control of the permittee.EPA believes that upset provisions arenecessary, because upsets willinevitably occur, even if the controlequipment is properly operated. Becausetechnology based limitations can requireonly what technology can achieve, manyclaim that liability for upsets isimproper. When confronted with thisissue, courts have been divided on thequestions of whether an explicit upset orexcursion exemption is necessary orwhether upset or excursions incidentsmay be handled through EPA'senforcement discretion. CompareMarathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F. 2d 1253(9th Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v.Castle, supra and Corn RefinersAssociation, eta]. v. Castle, No. 78-1069(8th Cir., April 2, 1979). See alsoAmerican Petroleum Institute v. EPA,

540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1978); (CPCInternational, Inc. v. Train, 540 F. 2d1320 (8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v. Train,539 F. 2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).

Unlike an upset-which is anunintentional episode-a bypass is anintentional noncompliance tocircumvent waste treatment facilitiesduring an emergency.

EPA has both upset and bypassprovisions in the NPDES regulations.See 40 CFR 122.41, 48 FR 14151, 14168(April 1, 1983). The upset provisionestablishes an upset as an affirmativedefense to prosecution for violation oftechnology-based effluent limitations.The bypass provision authorizesbypassing to prevent loss of life,personal injury, or severe propertydamage. Permittees in the Cathode RayTube and Luminescent MaterialsSubcategories are entitled to the upsetand bypass provisions in NPDESpermits. Thus, this regulation does notrepeat those provisions. Upsetprovisions are also contained in theGeneral Pretreatment regulation.

XV. Variances and Modifications

When the final regulation for a pointsource category is promulgated,subsequent Federal and State NPDESpermits to direct dischargers mustenforce the effluent standards. Also, thepretreatment limitations apply directlyto indirect dischargers.

EPA has not promulgated BPT or BATstandards for direct dischargers in thesesubcategories. It is, however,promulgating NSPS for new sourcedirect dischargers. Those limits must befollowed when NPDES permits areissued for any relevant new sources.

Indirect dischargers subject to PSEShave, in the past, been eligible for the"fundamentally different factors" (FDF)variance. See 40 CI"R 403.13. However,on September 20, 1983, the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuitheld that "FDF variances for toxicpollutants are forbidden by the Act."and remanded § 403.13 to EPA. NAMF eta]. v. EPA, Nos. 79-2256 et al. (3rd Cir..September 20, 1983). EPA is consideringthe effect of that decision. Since theopinion addressed only the availabilityof FDF variances for toxic pollutants,indirect dischargers are still eligible forFDF variances for nonconventionalpollutants. The agency will soon amend40 CFR 403.13 in accordance with thecourt's opinion.

In a few cases, information whichwould affect these PSES may not havebeen available to EPA or affectedparties in the course of this rulemaking.As a result it may be appropriate toissue specific categorical standards for


such facilities, treating them as aseparate subcategory with more, or less,stringent standards as appropriate. Thiswill only be done if a different standardis appropriate because of unique aspectsof the factors listed in Section304(b)(2)(B) of the Act: The age ofequipment and facilities involved, theprocess employed, the engineeringaspects of applying control techniques,nonwater quality environmental impacts(including ene.-gy requirements) or thecost of required efflucnt reductions (butnot of ability to pay that cost].

Indirect dischargers and otheraffected parties may petition theAdministrator to examine those factorsand determine whether these PSES areproperly applicable in specific cases orshould be revised. Such petitions mustcontain specific and detailed supportdata, documentation, and evidenceindicating why the relevant factorsjustify a mere, or less, stringentstandard, and must also indicate whythose factors could not have beenbrought to the attention of the Agency inthe course of this rulemaking. TheAdministrator will consider suchrulemaking petitions and determinewhether a rulemaking should beinitiated.

XVI. Implementation of Limitations andStandards

A. Relation to NPDES Permits

The NSPS in this regulation will beapplied to individual plants throughNPDES permits issued by EPA orapproved State agencies under Section402 of the Act. Under this regulation forthe Electrical and ElectronicComponents Category, all limitationsare concentration based for reasonspresented in Section VI-B. On a case-by-case basis permitting authorities mayderive mass based limitations bymultiplying the concentration limit bythe undiluted discharge flow. TheEffluent Guidelines Division can assistthe permitting authorities in making thisdetermination, especially with respect tothe validity of the flow levels which apermittee asserts are representative ofits plant.

One subject that has receiveddifferent judicial rulings is the scope ofNPDES permit proceedings wheneffluent limitations and standards do notexist. Under current EPA regulations,State and EPA regions that issue NPDES

permits before regulations arepromulgated must do so on a case-by-case basis. This regulation provides atechnical and legal base for newpermits.

Another issue is how the regulationaffects the authority of those that issueNPDES permits. EPA has developed thelimitations and standards in thisregulation to cover the typical facilityfor this point source category. In specificcases, the NPDES permitting authoritymay have to establish permit limits ontoxic.pollutants that are not covered bythis regulation. This regulation does notrestrict the power of any permit-issuingauthority to comply with law or anyEPA regulation, guideline, or policy. Forexample, if this regulation does notcontrol a particular pollutant, the permitissuer may still limit the pollutant on acase-by-case basis, when such actionconforms with the purposes of the Act.In addition, if State water qualitystandards or other provisions of State orFederal law require limits on pollutantsnot covered by this regulation (orrequire more stringent limits on coveredpollutants), the permit-issuing authoritymust apply those limitations.

B. Indirect Dischargers

For indirect dischargers, PSES andPSNS are implemented under NationalPretreatment Program proceduresoutlined in 40 CFR 403. The table belowmay be of assistance in resolvingquestions about the operation of thatprogram. A brief explanation of some ofthe submissions indicated on the table.follows:

A "request for categorydetermination" is a written request,submitted by an indirect discharger orits POTW, for a certification on whetherthe indirect discharger falls within aparticular subcategory listed in acategorical pretreatment standard. Thisassists the indirect discharger inknowing just which PSES or PSNS limitsit will be required to meet. See 40 CFR403.6(a).

A "request for fundamentally differentfactors variance" for non-toxic,nonconventional, pollutants is amechanism by which a categoricalpretreatment standard may be adjusted,making it more or less stringent, on acase-by-case basis. If an indirectdischarger, a POTW, or any interestedperson believes that factors relating to a

specific indirect discharger arefundamentally different from thosefactors considered during developmentof the relevant categorical pretreatmentstandard for any nonconventionalpollutant and that the existence of thosefactors justifies a different dischargelimit from that specified in thecategorical standard, then they maysubmit a request to EPA for such avariance. See 40 CFR 403.13.

A "baseline monitoring report" is thefirst report an indirect discharger mustfile following promulgation of astandard applicable to it. The baselinereport includes: An identification of theindirect discharger; a description of itsoperations; a report on the flows ofregulated streams and the results ofsampling analyses to determine levels ofregulated pollutants in those streams; astatement of the discharger'scompliance or noncompliance with thestandard and a description of anyadditional steps required to achievecompliance. See 40 CFR 403.12(b).'

A "report on compliance" is requiredof each indirect discharger within 90days following the date for compliancewith an applicable categoricalpretreatment standard. The report mustindicate the nature and concentration ofall regulated pollutants in the facility'sregulated process wastestreams; theaverage and maximum daily flows of theregulated streams; and a statement ofwhether compliance is consistentlybeing achieved, and if not, whatadditional operation and maintenanceand/or pretreatment is necessary toachieve compliance. See 40 CFR403.12(d).

A "periodic compliance report" is areport on continuing compliance with allapplicable categorical pretreatmentstandards. It is submitted twice per year(June and December) by indirectdischargers subject to the standards.The report shall indicate the precisenature and concentrations of theregulated pollutants in its discharge tothe POTW; the average and maximumdaily flow rates of the facility; themethods used by the indirect dischargerto sample and analyze the data, and acertification that these methodsconformed to those methods outlined inthe regulation. See 40 CFR 403.12 (e) and(g).

ftem/Event App(lcate Sojroef Date or tie Measured from omIt @tAxn to

Request for category determination .............................. EFxistin................... 60 daysr. From effoctive date of standard........................................Dorector (1).Or 60 days. Promn PEOERALREGISTER Devslo~mt Document Avalefiy.


Item/Event Applicebe Sources Date or Ime Measured from Item submitted to

New ............................ Rio to

commerce-mont ofdischarge toPOTW.

Reqest for fundamentally different factors varanc . ......... E36stIng 150 days. From effective date standard ........................ Diretor (1).nonconventionapollutants only.

Or 30 days . From final decision on category determination ................................Baseline mo toing report ............................................................ Al .................................. 180 days ............ From effective date of standard or ................................................... Control Authority

(2).Or 30 days . From final decision on category determinatlon ................................

eport on complianc ...................................................................... Fxstin g .......................... 90 days ............. rrom date for final compliance .......................................................... Control Authority(2).New ............................... 90 days ............... From commencement of discharge to POTI ..........................

Periodic compliance s .............................................................. A ................................... June and Control AuthorityDecember. (2).

(1) Director=a) Chief Administrative Officer of a State water pollution control agency with an approved pretreatment program or b) EPA Regional Water Division Director, It State does nothave an approved prereatment program.

(2) Control Authority! POTW If Its pretreatment program has been approved or b) Director of State water pollution control agency with an approved pretreatment program or c) EPARegional Administrator. if state does not have an approved pretreatment program.

The provisions of 40 CFR 403.6(e) alsoprovide a "combined waste streamformula" for determining pretreatmentstandards when waste streams subjectto this regulation are combined withsignificant quantities from other wastestreams. Since the plants covered bythis regulation rarely combine wasteswith significant quantities of otherwaste streams, that provision shouldseldom be needed for thesesubcategories.

C. Applicability and Compliance Dates

The Electrical and Electronic Phase IIregulations are applicable to dischargesfrom the manufacture of cathode raytubes and luminescent materials.Cathode ray tube manufacturers aresubject to PSES, PSNS and NSPSregulations. Luminescent materialsmanufacturers are subject to PSNS andNSPS regulations.

The compliance dates for the twosubcategories are presented in the tablebelow. PSNS and NSPS compliancedates are specified by the Clean WaterAct. For PSES for cathode ray tubefacilities, the Agency is allowing 31months for compliance with metals andfluoride limitations. One commenterindicated that 30 months might berequired to install and "fine tune"pollution control equipment. Similarly, asurvey conducted under the metalfinishing project showed that, onaverage, plants need thirty one monthsto design, install, and "start-up" thetreatment system (lime precipitation/clarification) used as the basis for thelimits in that industry and for theregulated metals and fluoride standardsin the E & EC industry. For TIO, thecompliance date is also thirty-onemonths. The TTO limit reflects a solventmanagement plan and also removalsachieved by precipitation/clarification.Thus EPA is establishing a compliancedate which allows for the installation of

that technology.

Regulation Compliance date

Cathode Ray Tubes. PSES for July 14. 1987.metals. fluoride, and riO.

.Cathode Ray Tubes. NSPS and From commencementPSNS. of discharge.

Luminescent Materials, NSPS and From commencementPSNS. of discharge.

D. Enforcement

A final topic of concern is theoperation of EPA's NPDES enforcementprogram, which was an importantconsideration in developing thisregulation. The Agency emphasizes thatalthough the Clean Water Act is a strictliability statute, EPA can initiateenforcement proceedings at itsdiscretion (Sierra Club v. Train, 557, F.2d 485, 5th Cir., 1977). EPA has exercisedand intends to exercise that discretionin a manner that recognizes andpromotes good-faith compliance.

XVH. Availability of TechnicalInformation

The basis for this regulation Isdetailed in four major documents.Analytical methods are discussed inSampling and Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants. EPA's technicalconclusions are detailed in DevelopmentDocument for Effluent Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards, andPretreatment Standards for theElectrical and Electronic ComponentsPoint Source Category-Phase II. TheAgency's economic analysis ispresented in Economic Impact Analysisof Effluent Limitations and Standardsfor the Electrical and ElectronicComponents Industry-Phase II. Asummary of the public commentsreceived on the proposed regulation ispresented in a report "Responses toPublic Comments, Proposed Electricaland Electronic Components Effluent

Guidelines and Standards" Phase II,which is part of the public record for thisregulation.

Technical information may beobtained by writing to John Newbrough,Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552),EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,D.C. 20460 or through calling (202) 382-7158.

Additional information concerning theeconomic impact analysis may beobtained from Ms. Renee Rico,Economic Analysis Staff (WH-586).EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 382-5386.Copies of the technical and economicdocuments will be available from theNational Technical Information Service,Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703) 487-4600.

XVIII. OMB Review

The regulation was submitted to theOffice of Management and Budget forreview as required by Executive Order12291. Any comments from OMB to EPAand any EPA response to thosecomments are available for publicinspection at Room M2404, U.S. EPA,401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.20460 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.Monday-Friday excluding federalholidays.

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L 96-511),the reporting and recordkeepingprovisions in 40 CFR 469.32 that areincluded in this regulation will besubmitted for approval to OMB. Theyare not effective until OMB approval isobtained and the public is notified tothat effect through a technficalamendment to this regulation.

XIX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 469

Electrical and electronic equipment,Water pollution control. Wastetreatment and disposal,

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 14, 1983 /- Rules and Regulations 55703

Dated: November 30, 1983William D. Ruckelshaus,Administrator.

XX. Applendices

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronyms,and Other Terms Used in This Notice

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

Protection Agency.BAT-The best available technology

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Discharger-A facility whichdischarges or may discharge pollutantsinto waters of the United States.

Indirect Discharger-A facility whichdischarges or may discharge pollutantsinto a publicly owned treatment works.

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

NSPS-New source performancestandards under Section 308 of the Act.

POTW-Publicly owned treatmentworks.

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

PSNS-Pretreatment standards fornew sources of direct discharges underSection 307 (b) and (c) of the Act.

RCRA-Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 1976.Aredments to Solid Waste DisposalAct.

Appendix B- List of Toxic OrganicsComprising Total Toxic Organics (T17O)for the Cathode Ray Tube Subcategory

1,1,1chloroformtrichloretbaremethylere chloridebis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatetoluenetrichloroethylene

Appendix C-List of Toxic PollutantsExcluded From Regulation

The following nine (9] pollutants arebeing excluded from further regulationsfor both subcategories under Paragraph8(a)(iii) of the NRDC consent decreebecause they are present in amounts too

small to be effectively reduced bytechnologies known to theadministrator1. Arsenic2. Beryllium3. Copper4. Mercury5. Nickel6. Selenium7. Silver8. Thallium9. Cyanide

The following list of one hundred andsix pollutants are excluded from furtherregulation for both subcategories underParagraph 8(a)(iii) of the NRDC consentdecree because they were not detectedin the effluent.1. Acenaphthene2. Acrolein3. Acrylonitrile4. Benzene5. Benzidine6. Carbon Tetrachloride7. Chlorobenzene8. 1,2,4, Trichlorobenzene9. Hexachlorobenzene10. 1,2-Dichloroethane11. Hexachloroethane12. 1,1-Dichloroethane13. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane14. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane15. Chloroethane16. Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether17. 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)18. 2-Chloronaphthalene19. 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol20. Parachlorometa Cresol21. 2-Chlorophenol22. 1,2-Dichlcrobenzene23. 1,3-dichlorobcnzene24. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene25. 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine28. 1,1-Dichloroethylene27. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene28. 2,4-Dichloropbenol7.9. 1,2-Dichloropropane30. 1,3-Dichloropropylene31. 2,4-Dimethylphenol32. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene33. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene34. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine35. Ethylbenzene36. Fluoranthene37. 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether38. 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether39. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) Ether40. Bis-(2-chloroethoxy) Methane41. Methyl Chloride42. Methyl Bromide43. Bromoform44. Dichlorobromomethane45. Chlorodibromomethane46. Hexachlorobutadiene47. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene48. Isophorone49. Naphthalene50. Nitrobenzene

51. 2-Nitrophenol52. 4-Nitrophenol53. 2,4-dinitrophenol54. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol55. N-nitrosodimethylamine56, N-nitrosodiphenylamine57. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine58. Pentachlorophenol59. Phenol60. Butyl benzyl phthalate61. Di-n-butyl phthalate62. Di-n-octyl phthalate63. diethyl phthalate64. dimethyl phthalate65. Benzo(a)anthracene66. Benzo(a)pyrene67. Benzo(b)fluoranthene68. Benzo(k)fluoranthene69. Chrysene70. Acenaphthylene71. Anthracene72. Benzo(ghi)perylene73. Fluorene74. Phenanthrene75. Dibenyo(a,h)anthracene76. Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene77. Pyrene78. Tetrachloroethylene79. 2.3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin80. Vinyl Chloride81. Aldrin82. Dieldrin83. Chlordane84. 4,4'-DDT85. 4,4'-DDE86. 4,4'-DDD87. Alpha-endosulfan88. Beta-endosulfan89. Endosulfan Sulfate90. Endrin91. Endrin Aldehyde92. Heptachlor93. Heptachlor Epoxide94. Alpha-BHC95. Beta-BHC96. Depta-BHC97. Gamma-BHC98. PCB-124299. PCB-1254100. PCB-1221101. PCB-1232102. PCB-1248103. PCB-1260104. PCB-1016105. Toxaphene106. Asbestos

Eight additional toxic pollutants arebeing excluded from regulation in theLuminescent Materials subcategoryunder Paragraph 8(a){iii) of the NRDCconsent decree because they are notpresent at detectable concentrations.These pollutants are:Chloroform1,1,1, trichloroethanMethylene chlorideBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

55704 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 14,

TolueneTrichloroethyleneLeadChromium

An additional toxic pollutant,antimony, is excluded from regulation inthe CRT subcategory under Paragraph8(a)(iii), because it was found inamounts too small to be effectivelytreated.

For the reasons stated above, EPA isadding new subparts C and D to Part 469of 40 CFR, Chapter I and amending thetable of contents to read as follows:

PART 469-ELECTRICAL ANDELECTRONIC COMPONENTS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

Subpart C-Cathode Ray TubeSubeategory

Sec.469.30 Applicability.469.31 Specialized definitions.469.32 Monitoring requirements.469.34 Pretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES).469.35 New source performance standards

(NSPS].469.36 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart D-Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory469.40 Applicability.469.41 Specialized definitions.469.42 New source performance standards

(NSPS].469.43 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 309,

and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the FederalWater Pollution Control Act Amendments of1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of1977, 33 U.S.C. 1311,1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,and 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat.1567, Pub. L 95-217).Subpart C-Cathode Ray Tube

Subcategory

§ 469.30 Applicability.(a) The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting fromthe manufacture of cathode ray tubes.

(b) The compliance deadline for PSESshall be no later than July 14, 1987.

§ 469.31 Specialized definitions.The definitions in 40 CFR Part 401 and

the chemical analysis methods in 40CFR Part 136 apply to this subpart. Inaddition,

(a) The term "cathode ray tubes"means electronic devices in whichelectrons focus through a vacuum togenerate a controlled image on aluminescent surface. This definitiondoes not include receiving andtransmitting tubes.

(b) The term "total toxic organics(TTO)" means the sum of theconcentrations for each of the followingtoxic organic compounds which is foundin the discharge at a concentrationgreater than ten (10) micrograms perliter:1,1,1

chloroformtrichloroethrnemethylene chloridebis (2--ethylliexyl) phthalatetoluenetrichloroethy.ene

§ 469.32 Monitoting requirements.The certification alternative to

monitoring for TTO specified in 469.13(a), (b), (c) and (6), is applicable to thissubpart.

§ 460.34 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart which introducespollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works must comply with 40CFR Part 403 and achieve the followingpretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES):

Maximum MonthlyPollutant or Pollutant property for any I average

shall notday exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

Tro ... ....... .......... 1.58 .................Cadmium ....... . .. 0.06 0.03Chromium .................... .0.65 0.30Load .......................... 1.12 0.41Zinc ............ ............. 1.38 0.56Fluoride .............................................. 350 18.0

I Total toxic organics.

§ 469.35 "New source performancestandards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart must achieve the following newsource performance standards (NSPS):

Maximum MonthlyPollutant or pollutant propety for any averagshall notday exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

pH ...................................................... (1 0TTo ' . . . . . . .. 1.58 ..................Cadmium .......................................... 0.06 0.03Chromium .......................................... 0.56 0.26Lead ................................................... 0.72 0.27Zlnc ......................... 0.80 0.33Fluoide ...................... 35.0 18.0TSS .................................................... 46.0 24.0

' Total toxic organics.2Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

§ 469.36 Pretreatment standards for newsource (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,any new source subject to this subpartwhich introduces pollutants into a

publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Maximum MonthlyPollutant or potlutant property for any 1 saeragedray shavernge

oxceed

Mllgrams pfr liter (mg/I)

TTO I .................................................. 1.52 -....................Cadmium .............. ...................... 0.06 0.03Chromium ............................. 0.56 0.26Load ................. . ......................... 0.72 0.27Zinc ................. . ......................... 0.80 0.33FlucrI de ....................................... 35.0 18.0

STcal toxic organics.

Subpart D-Luminescent Materials

Subcategory

§ 469.40 Applicability.The provisions of this subpart are

'applicable to discharges resulting fromthe manufacture of luminescentmaterials.

§ 469.41 Specialized definitions.The definitions in 40 CFR Part 401 and

the chemical analysis methods in 40CFR Part 136 apply to this subpart. Inaddition,

(a) The term "luminescent materials"shall mean materials that emit lightupon excitation by such energy sourcesas photons, electrons, applied voltage,chemical reactions or mechanical energyand which are specifically used ascoatings in fluorescent lamps andcathode ray tubes. Luminescentmaterials include, but are not limited to,calcium halophosphate, yttrium oxide,zinc sulfide, and zinc-cadmium suLfide.

§ 469.42 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart must achieve the following newsource performance standards (NSPS):

Maximum MonthlyPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 average

_ day shail notay exceed

Milligrams per liter (mgI)

pH .................................................... ... 0 I )Cadmium ........................................... 0.55 0.26Antimony ............................................ 0.10 0.04Zinc .................................................... 11 64 0.67Fluoride.............................................. 35.0 18.0TSS .......................................... 60.0 31.0

-Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

§ 469.43 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,any new source subject to this subpartwhich introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 and

II __ ._ JDtla i li , l l|l l I II I1983 / Rules and Regulations


achieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Pollutant pmel For SM y I eaday Is ro.exceed

M;lDltams per liter (ng/)

Cadmium . . . . .. 0.55 0.26Antimony .......................................... 0.10 0.04Znc ................ . . .. 1.64 0.67Flork de ......................................- 35.0 18.0

[FR Doc. 83-33165 Filed 12-13-63; &:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6580-60-M

Documents

55690 Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 241