SUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS …...pose of determining whether separate limitations are appropriate for different segments within the category. This analysis Included

8030

Title 40-Protection of the EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND

STANDARDS

[FIML 334-7]PART 424-FERROALLOYS MANUFAC-

TURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORYInterim Regulations

Notice is hereby given that effluent lim-Itations and guidelines for existingsources set forth in Interim final fornibelow are promulgated by the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA). OnFebruary 22, 1974, EPA promulgated aregulation adding Part 424 to Chapter 40of the Code of Federal Regulations (39FR 6806). That regulation with sub-sequent amendments established effluentlimitations and guidelines for existingsources and standards of performanceand pretreatment standards for newsources for the ferroalloy manufacturingpoint source category. Thd regulation setforth below will amend 40 CFR. Part424-ferroalloy manufacturing pointsource category by adding thereto effluentlimitations and guidelines for existingsources for the covered calcium carbidefurnaces with wet air pollution controldevices subcategory (Subpart D), theother calcium carbide furnaces subcate-gory (Subpart E), the electrolytic man-ganese products subcategory (SubpartF) and the electrolytic chromium sub-category (Subpart G) pursuant to sec-tions 301, 304 (b) and (c), of the FederalWater Pollution Control Act, as amended(33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311; 1314 (b) and (c),86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500) (theAct). Simultaneously, therAgency is pub-lishing in proposed form standards ofperformance for new point sources andpretreatment standards for existingsour6es and for new sources.

Regulations for uncovered (open)calcium carbide furnaces have beenpromulgated under Part 415, inorganicchemicals manufacturing point sourcecategory (39 FR 9612), and the regula-tion herein is intended, to be comple-mentary to, that for inorganic chemicals.

(a) Legal Authority. Section 301(b) ofthe Act requires the achievement by notlater than July 1, 1977, of effluent limita-tions for point sources, other thanpublicly owned treatment works, whichrequire the application of the best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable as defined by the Administratorpursuant to section 304(b) of the Act.Section 301(b) also requires the achieve-nient by not later than July 1, 1983, ofeffluent limitations for point sources,other than publicly owned treatmentworks, which require the application ofbest available technology economicallyachievable which will result in reason-able further progress toward the nationalgoal of eliminating the discharge of allpollutants, as determined in accordancewith regulations issued by the Admin-istrator pursuant to sectibn 30r4(b) ofthe Act.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires theAdministrator to publish regulations

RULES AND REGULATIONS

providing guidelines for effluent limita-tions setting forth the degree of effluentreduction attainable through the appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently available and thedegree of effluent reduction attainablethrough the application of the best con-trol measures and practices achievableincluding treatment techniques, processand procedural innovations, operatingmethods and other alternatives. Theregulation herein sets- forth effluentlimitations and guidelines, pursuant tosections 301 and 304(b) of the Act, forthe covered calcium carbide furnaceswith wet air pollution control devicessubcategory (Subpart D), the othercalcium carbide furnaces subcategory(Subpart E), the electrolytic manganeseproducts subcategory (Subpart F) andthe electrolytic chromium subcategory(Subpart G) of the ferroalloy manufac-turing point source category.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to issue to the States andappropriate water pollution controlagencies information on the processes,procedures or operating methods whichresult in the elimination or reduction ofthe discharge of pollutants to implementstandards of performance under section306 of the Act. The reports or "Develop-ment Documents" referred to below pro-vide, pursuant to section 304(c) of theAct, information on such processes, pro-cedures or operating methods.

Section 306 of the Act requires theachievement by new sources of a Fed-eral standard of performance providingfor the control of the discharge of pol-lutants which reflects the greatest de-gree of effluent reduction which the Ad-ministrator determines to be achievablethrough application of the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods, or otheralternatives, including, where practi-cable, a standard permitting no dischargeof pollutants. Section 307(c) of the Actrequires the Administrator to promul-gate pretreatment standards for newsources at the same time that standardsof performance for new sources arepromulgated pursuant to section 306.Section 307(b) of the Act requires theestablishmen of pretreatment standr-ards for pollutants introduced intopublicly owned treatment works and 40CFR 128 establishes that the Agencywill propose specific pretreatmentstandards at the time effluent limita-tions are established for point sourcedischarges. In another section of theFEDERAL REGISTER regulations are pro-posed in fulfillment of these require-ments.

(b) Summary and Basis of ProposedEffluent Limitations and Guidelines forExisting Sources and Standards of Per-formance and Pretreatment Standardsfor New Sources-(1) General method-ology. The effluent limitations and guide-lines set forth herein were developed Inthe following manner. The point sourcecategory was first studied for the pur-pose of determining whether separatelimitations are appropriate for differentsegments within the category. This

analysis Included a determination ofwhether differences In raw materialused, product produced, manufacturingprocess employed, age, size, waste waterconstituents and other factors requiredevelopment of separate limitations fordifferent segments of the point sourcecategory. The raw waste characteristicsfor each such segment were then identi-fled. This included an analysis of thesource, flow and volume of water usedIn the process employed, the sources ofwaste and waste waters in the operation.and the constituents of all waste water.The constituents of the waste waterswhich should be subject to effluent limi-tations were Identified.

The control and treatment technol-ogies existing within each segment wereidentified. This Included an identificationof each distinct control and treatmenttechnology, including both in-plant andend-of-process technologies, which isexistent or capable of being designed foreach segment. It also included an Iden-tifidaton of, in terms of the amount ofconstituents and the chemical, physical,and biological characteristics of pollut-ants, the effluent level resulting from theapplication of each of the technologies.The problems, limitations and reliabilityof each treatment and control technol-ogy were also Identified. In addition, thenonwater quality environmental Impact,such as the effects of the application ofsuch technologies upon other pollutionproblems, including air and solid wastewere Identified. The energy requirementsof each control and treatment technologywere determined as well as the cost ofthe application of such technologies.

The Information, as outlined above,was then evaluated in order to determinewhat levels of technology constitute the"best practicable control technology cur-rently available." In Identifying suchtechnologies, various factors were con-sidered. These included the total cost ofapplication of technology in relation tothe effluent reduction benefits to beachieved from such application, the agoof equipment and facilities Involved,the process employed, the engineeringaspects of the application of varioustypes of control techniques, processchanges, nonwater quality enyironmen-tal impact (including 'energy require-ments) and other factors.

The data upon which the above anal-ysis was performed included EPA per-mit applications, EPA sampling andInspections, consultant reports, and in-dustry submissions.

(2) Summary of conclusions with re-spect to the covered calcium carbide fur-naces with wet air pollution control de-vices subcategory (Subpart D), the othercalcium carbide furnaces subcategory(Subpart E) , the electrolytic managaneseproducts subcategory (Subpart F), andthe electrolytic chromium subcategory(Subpart G), of the ferroalloy manufac-turing point source category-(I) Cate-gorization. For purposes of establishingeffluent limitations and standards of per-formance, the calcium carbide and elec-trolytic ferroalloys segments of the fer-roalloys Industry were divided into sub-

.FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975


categories on the basis of water uses,waste control technologies, and waste-water constituents. The subcategoriesare: covered calcium carbide furnaceswith wet air pollution control devices(Subpart D) ; other calcium carbide fur-naces (Subpart E); electrolytic manga-nese products (Subpart F); and elec-trolytic chromium (Subpart G).

This method of subcategorization per-mits a discharge for those covered cal-cium carbide furnaces controlled for air

- pollution with wet systems and is not ex-* cessively permissive to those furnaceswhich are controlled with dry-systemsor which have no discharge of processwaste water.

Subcategorization of the electrolyticferroalloys segment is based largely uponthe wastewater constituents present andthe treatmentnecessary for the removalof those constituents.

(ii) Waste characteristics. The knownsignificant pollutants contained in wastewater from calcium carbide manufactureare suspended solids, with cyanide alsopresent in the waste waters from coveredfurnaces. The pollutants present in wastewaters resulting from the manufactureof electrolytic ferrlloys are suspendedsolids and ammonia. Manganese is foundto some extent in the wastes from allelectrolytic produicts, while chromium isfound only in the wastes resulting fromchromium production. Additionally, thewastewaters from calcium carbide orelectrolytic ferroalloys production may behighly acidic or alkaline.

While other pollutants, such as dis-solved solids, iron, aluminum, zinc, chlo-ride, copper, etc., sometimes may bepresent in the process waste waters,effluent limitations were not developedfor these constituents becausi () theyare discharged intermittently and insmall quantities, (ii) they are effectivelyremoved from the effluent by the applica-tion of waste water control and treat-ment technology required for the removalof process waste water constituents whichare the -subject of effluent limitations,Jiii) there is insufficient data availableupon which to base effluent limitations, or(iv) the known methods for their removalfrom waste water, are prohibitively ex-pensive at this time.

(iil) Origin of waste -water pollut-ants.-(1) Covered calcium carbide fur-,naces with wet air pollution controldevices subcategory: Wet air cleaning de-vices collect particulates from furnacegases by gas scrubbing. In. the coveredtype of furnace, the off-gases containabout 70 % carbin monoxide and smallerquantities of cyanide. Waste water fromthese sources, therefore, contains largequantities of suspended solids andsmaller quantitfies of cyanide. Since someof the particulate matter trapped in thegas is lime from the smelting process, the

.waste water is at a high pH.(2) Other calcium carbide furnaces

subcategory. Air pollution control in, thiscategory may be by baghouses in con-junction with evaporative cooling, ornonexistent, and little water pollutionpotential exists, except as runoff or leach-ate from the landfilled particulate if thefurnace gases are cleaned.

(3) Electrolytic manganese productssubcategory. All three electrolytic ferro-alloys are produced by very similar proc-esses. The process generally involvesleaching the metal from ores, ferroalloysor slag from ferroalloy production, puri-fication of the leach solution, platting ofthe product and final product .prepara-tion. Ammonia is used in the productionof electrolytic manganese and chromium,but not for that of manganese dioxide.Although there are other differences be-tween the processes, they are of limitedimportance insofar as the raw waste isconcerned and the similarities are morestriking than the differences.

Water Is used extensively, both forpreparation of the electrolyte and forwashing the finished metal. Some smallquantity of electrolyte may be pres-ent in the wastewaters, and some plantshydraulically transport leach and otherfilter residues to tailings ponds. Electro-lytic manganese plants appear to havetwo waste streams-one is a highly con-centrated stream and the other is (rela-tively) dilute. The first stream, hereinaf-ter referred to as strong electrolytic man-ganese wastes, derives from the hydraulictransport of filter residues to tailingsponds and. also contains the small quan-tity of electrolyte solution which is spilledor dumped. As a result, wastewaters maycoitain several thousand mg/1 of sus-pended solids, manganese and ammonia.and may also be at a low pHL The secondwaste stream is fairly dilute and will behereafter called the weak electrolyticmanganese wastes. This derives fromproduct washing and other miscellaneouswater uses. This -waste stream, althoughthe flow may be considerable-, only con-tains a few hundred mg/1 of suspendedsolids, manganese and ammonia.

The manganese dioxide plant surveyedhad one waste stream, which was gener-ally comparable to the weak electrolyticmanganese wastes, except that the sus-pended solids concentrations were higherand the ammonia concentration lower.

(4) Electrolytic chromium subcategory.As in the electrolytic manganese prod-ucts subcatggory, water is used exten-sively and the resulting wastewaters con-tain several tousand mg/I of chromium,suspended solids and ammonia and are ata low paL Because of process economics,hexavalent chromium is reduced to triva-lent chromium as an integral part of theprocess and only very small quantitiesappear in the wastewater. Manganesealso appears in appreciable quantities.

(iv) Treatment and control technology.Waste water treatment and control tech-nologies have been studied for each sub-category of the industry to determinewhat is the best practicable control tech-nology currently available.

(1) Treatment in the covered calciumcarbide furnaces with. wet air pollutioncontrol devices subcategory. Control andtreatment techniques consist of physical/chemical treatment to remove suspendedsolids, destroy cyanide and lower the pH.Cyanide destruction can be accomplishedby alkaline chlorination, followed byvneutralization and clarification in set-tling ponds (or lagoons), In clariflers orin sand or multi-media filters. Settling

ponds and clariflers, when well designedand operated, are capable of producingeffluent levels of 25 mg/i suspendedsolids, independent of influent concen-trations. Sand filters (when well de--signed and operated) are capable of re-ducing the suspended solids effluent con-centrations to 10 mg/l. In all types ofclarification equipment, proper opera-tion is important, since (for example)excessive solids buildup in a lagoon canreduce the detention time and therebyreduce the quantity of solids which areremoved.

Cyanide destruction can be accom-pished by alkaline chlorination, al-though other methods such as oxidationor ozonation may be used depending onthe design of the water treatment sys-tem. Alkaline chlorination can reduce theeftluent cyanide concentration to about0.2 mg/l.

The best practicable control technologycurrently available -has been determinedto be use of a clarifier flocculator andchemical treatment, the latter by alka-line chlorination and neutralization. Thebest available controltechnology eco-nomically achievable consists of the useof best practicable control technologycurrently available, plus use of sand ormulti-media filters. The best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-qsses, operating methods, or other al-ternatives for new sources consists of re-circulation of scrubber waste water, andtreatment of blowdown by best availablecontrol technology economically achiev-able.

(2) Treatment in the other calciumcarbide furnaces subcategory. Use of afabric filter or baghouse for air cleaningreduces waste water discharge to zero.This subcategory is presently achiev-Ing no discharge of process waste water.The best practicable control technologycurrently available, the best availablecontrol technology economically achiev-able and the best available demonstratedcontrol technology, processes, operatingmethods, or other alternatives for newsources consists of the use of dry dust -collection devices. -,

(3) Treatment in the electrolytic man-ganese products subcategory. Treatmentat the present time is largely by settlinglagoons, although oxidation or evapora-tion ponds are also used. Control andtreatment techniques available consist ofphysical/chemical treatment to removesuspended solids, manganese and am-monia, and neutralize the acidity. Man-ganese removal is facilitated by raisingthe pH of the wastewater to 9.5 or higher,at which point the manganese is precip-itated. Clarification-flocculation will thenremove both suspended solids and man-ganese. Ammonia removal may be ac-complished by either stripping or break-point chlorination. Choice of the partic-ular method depends largely upon con-centrations and volume to be treated.Relatively dilute wastewaters may bemore economically treated by chlorinat-ing, while with small quantities of -

stronger wastes steam stripping (and therecovery of ammonia which may be usedin the process) may be preferable. Al-though ammonia can be destroyed by bi-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

8031


ological treatment, the cost of thismethod (and also for steam strippingof the weak wastes) appears to make itunfeasible economically for this subcat-egory at this time. After treatment formanganese or ammonia, the wastewatershould be neutralized to render it suit-able for discharge.

The best practicable control technologycurrently available for the weak electro-lytic manganese wastewater stream hasbeen determined to be use of alkaline pre-cipitation of manganese, clarification-flocculation and neutralization for dis-charge: and for the strong electrolyticmanganese wastewater stream, completerecirculation after clarification. Bestpracticable control technology -currentlyavailable for electrolytic manganese di-oxide has been determined to be thesame treatment as for the weak electro-lytic manganese wastes. The best avail-able control technology economicallyachievable for electrolytic manganesewastes consists of the use of best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable, plus partial recirculation oftreated wastewater, plus breakpointchlorination of the portion to be dis-charged. Best available control technol-ogy economically achievable for electro-lytic manganese dioxide wastes has beendetermined to be the same as for theweak electrolytic manganese wastes. Bestavailable demonstrated control technol-ogy, processes, operating methods, orother alternatives for new sources pro-ducing electrolytic manganese consists ofthe limitation, through design, of thequantity of wastewater discharged, me-chanical transport of filter residues andthe use of best practicable control tech-nology currently available and' break-point chlorination. The best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc'esses, operating methods, or other alter-natives for new sources for electrolyticmanganese dioxide wastes has been de-termined to be 'the same as for bestavailable control technology economical-ly achievable.

(4) Treatment in the electrolyticchromium subcategory. Techniques areIdentical to those for electrolytic manga-nese products, with the exception- thatchromium, in addition to manganese,must be removed. Removal of chromiumis facilitated at about pH 8.0.

The best practicable control technologycurrently available has been determinedto be alkaline precipitation of chromiumand manganese, clariflcation-floccula-tion, breakpoint chlorination and neu-tralization. The best available controltechnology economically achievable con-sists of the use of best practicable controltechnology currently available, plus par-tial recirculation of treated wastewater.The best available demonstrated controltechnology, processes, operating meth-ods, or other alternatives for new sourcesconsists of the limitation, through design,of the quantity of wastewater discharged,mechanical transport of filter residuesand the use of best practicable controltechnology currently available.

The proper management of solid wastesresulting from pollution control systems

must be practiced. Pollution controltechnologies generate many differentamounts and types of solid wastes andliquid concentrates through the removalof pollutants. These substances varygreatly in their chemical and physicalcomposition and may be either hazardousor non-hazardous. A variety of tech-niques may be employed to dispose ofthese substances depending on thedegree of hazard.

If thermal processing (incineration) isthe choice for disposal, provisions mustbe made to ensure against entry ofhazardous pollutants into the atmos-phere. Consideration should also be givento recovery of materials of value in thewastes.

For those waste materials considered tobe nonhazardous where land disposal isthe choice for disposal, practices similarto proper sanitary landfill technologymay be followed. The principles set forthin the EPA's Land Disposal of SolidWastes Guidelines 40 CFR Part 241 maybe used as guidance for acceptable landdisposal techniques.

For those waste materials consideredto be hazardous, disposal will require spe-cial precautions. In order to ensure long-term protection of public health and theenvironment, special preparation andDretreatment may be required prior todisposal. If land disposal is to be prac-ticed, these sites must nbt allow move-ment of pollutants to either ground orsurface waters. Sites should be selectedthat have natural soil and geologicalconditions to prevent such contaminationor, if such conditions do not exist, artifi-cial means (e.g. liners) must be providedto ensure long-term protection of theenvironment from hazardous materials.Where appropriate, the location of solidhazirdous materials disposal sites shouldbe premanently recorded In the appro-priate office of the legal jurisdiction inwhich the site is located.

(v) Cost estimates for control of wastewater pollutants. In the calcium carbidesegment, only the plants within SubpartD will incur any co~ts in meeting theproposed limitations. All plants withinSubpart E are presently achieving zerodischarge and therefore will not be Im-pacted by that limitation.

It is estimated that the cost of meetingthe best practicable control technologycurrently available -limitations will costless than $10,000 for the covered calciumcarbide subcategory. The unit price ofpollution control is estimated at a maxi-mum of $0.19 per metric ton. Additionalannual costs are estimated to be $0.02per metric ton for Subpart t). For 1983,it is estimated that additional pollutioncontrol costs will total about $168,000 ininvestment for Subpart D, or a maximumof $0.88 per metric ton. Additional an-nual costs will amount to a maximumof $0.26 per metric ton.

The use of best practicable controltechnology for the electrolytic manga-nese products subcategory will cost theindustry about 1.8 percent of the salesprice of this commodity. Investment costsper ton are estimated at $29.79 for elec-trolytic manganese and $23.40 for elec-

trolytic manganese dioxide. Annual costsare estimated at $12.42 per ton for elec-trolytic manganese and $9.75 per tonfor manganese dioxide. The investmentcost for the electrolytic chromium sub-category is estimated to be $90.71 perton and the total annual cost $37.81 perton. Although the annual cost per tonfor chromium is high, It represents lessthan 1 percent of the sales price of thismetal.

The cost of the application of thetest available technology economicallyachievable Is estimated to be an addi-tional $8.51 per ton for electrolytic man-ganese and $7.11 per ton for manganesedioxide for Investment costs. The addi-tional annual costs are estimated at$3.55 per ton for electrolytic manganeseand $2.97 for manganese dioxide. Theadditional Investment and annual costsper ton for electrolytic chromium areestimated to be $8.96 and $3.74 respec-tively. These costs will be borne to thegreatest degree by older, isolated plants,I.e., those plants which do not have an-other electrolytic or similar process withwhich the wastes could be combined toachieve overall cost reductions.. (vi) Energy requirements and non-water quality environmental impacts.Energy requirements for operation ofwater pollution control systems are esti-mated to be less than 0.1 percent of thepower required for the production ofcalcium carbide.

For the electrolytic ferroalloys seg-ment, the energy requirements are esti-mated to be less than 1 percent of theproduction power requirements for theelectrolytic manganese products sub-category and less than 2 percent for theelectrolytic chromium, subcategory.

(vii) Economic impact analysis. Thegeneral conclusion of the economic Im-pact analysis Is that the guidelines willhave little economic impact on theindustries In question. Estimated Incre-mental capital costs for both BPCTCAand BATEA compliance amount to lessthan 1 Percent of 1973 net earnings foreach of these industries in questionwhile combined incremental operatingcosts per ton of product will be less thanthree percent of current selling prices ineach case. All of the firms operating in.these Industries are large, financiallystrong enterprises well able to respondto the guidelines without danger to theirbasic stability and growth. It should benoted in this connection that the demandfor ferroalloys is derived from the de-mand for other products In which theyconstitute relatively minor inputs, Fur-theimore, there are no close substitutesin most cases, except for calcium carbide.Consequently, the elasticity of demandfor these products Is relatively low, In-dicating that the modest cost increasesgenerated by compliance with the guide-lines can be passed on without signlflcant-consequences In terms of reduced de-mand and employment. SincQ theferroalloys In question are relativelyminor Inputs to their consumer indus-tries, it also follows that insignificantinternal and external impacts are to beanticipated for the consumer Industries,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

8032


No plant closures or reductions in pro-ductiozi and employment are anticipated.

The reports entitled "DevelopmentDocument for- Interim Final EffluentIdmitations Guidelines and Proposed

New Source Performance Standards forthe Calcium Carbide Segment of the-Ferroalloy Manufacturing Point SourceCategory" and "Development'Documentfor Interim Final Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and Proposed New SourcePerformance Standards for the Electro-lytic Ferroallo-ys Segment of the Ferro-alloy Manufacturing Point Source Cate-gory" detail the analysis undertaken insupport -of the interim final regulationset forth herein and are available forinspection in the EPA Freedom of Infor-mation Center, Room 204, West Tower,Waterside Mall, Washington, D.C., at allEPA regional offices, and at.State waterpollution control offices. A supplementaryanalysis prepared for EPA of the possi-ble economic effects of the regulation isalso available for inspection at theselocations. Copies of these documents arebeing sent to persons or institutionsaffected by the prop6sed regulation orwho have placed themselves on a mailinglist for this purpose (see EPA's AdvanceNotice 'f Public Review Procedures, 38PR 21202, August 6, 1973). An additionallimited number of copies of these reportsare available. Persons wishing to obtaina copy may'write the EPA Office ofPublic Affairs, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, D.C. 20460, Atten-tion: Ms. Ruth Brown, A-107.

When this regulation is promulgatedin final rather than-interim form, revisedcopies of the Development Documentswill be available from the Superintend-ent of Documents, Government Print-ing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Cop-ies of the economic analysis documentwill be available through the National'Technical Information Service, Spring-field, VA 22151.(c) Summary of public varticipation.

Prior to this publication, the agenciesand groups listed below were consultedand given an opportunity to participatein the development of effluent limitations,guidelines and standards proposed forthe ferroalloys manufacturing category.All participating agencies have been in-formed of project developments. Initialdrafts of the Development Documentswas sent to all participants and com-ments were solicited on that report. Thefollowing are the principal agencies andgroups consulted: (1) Effluent Standardsand Water Quality Information Ad-visory Committee (established undersection 515 of the Act);, (2) all Stateand U.S. Territory Pollution ControlAgencies; (3) Ohio River Valley WaterSanitation Commission; (4) New Eng-land Interstate Water Pollution ControlCommission; (5) Delaware River BasinCommission'; (6) Conservation Founda-

•tion; (7) Businessmen for the Public In-terest; (8) -Environmental Defense Fund,Inc.; (9) Natural Resources, DefenseCouncil; (10) The Americah Society ofCivil Engineers; (11) Water PollutionControl Federation; (12) National Wild-life Federation; (13) The American So-

clety of Mechanical Engineers; (14) theManufacturing Chemists Association;and (15) The Ferroalloys Association.

The following responded with com-ments: -the Delaware River Basin Com-mission, the Manufacturing ChemistsAssociation, the New York State Depart-ment of Environmental Conservation, theIllinois Environmental Protection Agen-cy, the Michigan Department of Envl-ronmental Resources, Foote MineralCompany, Kerr-McGee Corporation,Union Carbide Corporation and the Fer-roalloys Association.

The primary issues raised in thedevelonment of the proposed, effluentlimitations guidelines and st=ndards ofperformance and the treatment of theseIssues herein are as follows:

1. The industry requested that cal-cium carbide be placed within the ferro-alloy industry (rather than the inorganicchemicals industry) for regulation. Itwas also requested that the standardsbe written on the basis of pollutant permegawatt hour of furnace power con-sumption, rather than pollutant per tonof product.

Since thd manufacturing process char-acteristics are similar for ferroalloys andcalcium carbide production, those cal-cium carbide furnaces not included Inthe inorganic chemicals effluent guide-lines have been included in the ferro-alloys manufacturing category for theIssuance of effluent limitations. Open(uncovered) furnaces are regulated inthe inorganic chemicals guidelines andduplication would be pointless. There Isa limited justification for expressing thelimitations on the basis of furnace power(i.e., megawatt-hours) rather than onproduction tonnage. Furnace power wasused as the basis for the first group offerroalloy regulations because this wassimpler and more consistent within the.categories than was tonnage. Power con-sumption can also be related to produc-tion of a specific alloy, so that by know-ing power usage, tonnages of the variousalloys can be calculated. Within the cal-cium carbide sector, however, power us-age Is a relatively uniform 2.9 mwhr/kkg (2.6 mwhr/ton), whereas in the alloysegment power usage may range from2.6 mwhr/kkg (2.4 mwhr/ton) for ferro-manganese to 15.4 mwhr/kkg (14.0rnwhr/ton) for silicon metal. Because ofthis relatively constant power usage andthe lack of other than very generalizeddata regarding power usage for calciumcarbide production, while specific data isavailable regarding tonnage, productiontonnage is presently the better basis forthe limitations.

2. It was remarked that the effluentlimitations as presented in the contrac-tor's report for covered carbide furnacesare more stringent than the effluent lim-itations promulgated for covered ferro-alloy furnaces contained in Subpart B ofthis regulation. It was also noted thatthe covered carbide subcategory wouldrequire no discharge for new sourceswhereas Subpart B does permit somediccharge.

That the limitations are more strin-gent for covered carbide furnaces than

for covered ferroalloy furnaces is basedupon the resuective water uses for thetwo types. Water use per megawatt-hourfor the only calcium carbide plant pres-ently diccharging was found to be ap-proximately one-third that of ferroalloyfurnaces with similar scrubbers. Al-though -ome consideration was givento including covered carbide furnaceswithin the scope of Subpart B, this wouldallow higher levels of pollutant dischargethan would a separate standard. Theproposed new source standard for cov-ered carbide furnaces has been revisedto allow for -discharge of treated blow-down from scrubber recirculation sys-tems, since some plants may not be ableto utilize the carbon monoxide contentof the furnace off-gas for the fuel valuewithout using wet gas cleaning methodsand may be unable to evaporate thewastewater.

3. It was noted that although am-monia and sulfate were Included in a listof pollutant parameters for electrolyticferroalloys, no limits had been set forthese in the contractor's draft reportOne person suggested that aluminum bedeleted as a parameter.

Although ammonia was not limited inthe contractor's suggested guidelines, thestandards do limit this parameter. Wastedata and information relating to treat-ment are included in the DevelopmentDocument. No limitation will be placedon sulfate, since the cost of removalwould be prohibitive for this industry atthis time. Additionally, no limits are pro-posed for either aluminum or iron.Aluminum s present in large quantitiesonlv from electrolytic minganese dioxideuroduction and survey data indicatesthat it, precipitates with the suspendedsolids and reaches an acceptable level inthe discharge. Iron Is present In dis-charges from all three products. Irow-ever, iron precipitates most readily at orabove pH 8.0, indicating that treatmentfor manganese and/or chromium re-moval will also control iron.

4. Some commenters critlcized thecontractor's attempt to apply the effluentconcentrations attainable for metals insteel mill pickling rinse waters as a basisfor the guidelines for electrolytic wastes.It was Pointed out that the two wastesare not comparable, since pickling rinsewater Is relatively dilute and electrolyticwastes are fairly concentrated.

It is agreed that the two wastes arenot totally comparable, and the reportand guidelines have been rewritten toreflect this.

5. Concern was expressed about thesmall difference between. the contractor'ssuggested 1977 and 1983 electrolytic fer-roalloy limitations when compared to thevery large difference in costs. One personnoted that his plant would be spending$6/lb of manganese removed for 1977,but fifty times that ($318/lb Mn re-moved) for 1983.

The costs presented n the contractor'sreport were based upon actual plant; dataand may have been either insufficientlyor overly inclusive of Items relevant towater pollution control and treatment.Costs for the treatment models have

FEDERAL REGISTER,-VOL 40, NO. 37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY

8033

24, 1975

8034

been estimated and it is thought that thecost data, as presented in the revisedrenort, is more reflective of actusl co't;which would be incurred for treatmentat' isolated plants. Based on the revisedcost data'and guidelines, treatment forthe 1983 standards will remove a"-proximately half the dischargeable 1977load at a total cost one-third higherthan for the 1977 standards. The 1983removal cost would be about' 60 perpound of manganese removed.

6. It was thought that the dischargelevels suggested in the contractor's re-port for electrolytic plants for dissolvedchromium and dissolved manganese (3.0and 1.5 mg/l, resuectivelv) were too highto meet water quality standards.

Water quality standards are nota basisfor effluent guidelines, which are basedon economic and technological achieva-bility. The Act contemplates that addi-tional treatment may be necessary tomeet water quality standards on someparticular stream segments. For purposesof establishing a national standard, EPAhas confined itself to essentially conven-tional treatment, which for chromiumcan reduce concentrations to below 0.5mg/i as total chromium. Manganese canbe removed to low levels by Various meth-ods, most of which are primarily applica-ble to the low inlet concentrations foundat water treatment plants. Precipitationby lime addition and pH adjustment canreduce effluents to less than 5.0 mg/1 astotal manganese.

7. It was requested that the 1977 stand-ards for electrolytic manganese be basedupon the best plant.

The 1977 standards are to be based onthe average of the best plants, also tak-ing into account economic and otherfactors that impact on actual achiev-ability. The standards for 1983 are to bebased on the best available technologyeconomically achievable. Although thebest plant in each subcategory was dis-charging at lower rates than the flow onwhich the standards for 1983 were for-mulated, it is the opinion of the Agencythat these low levels could not beachieved across-the-board by this in-dustry without economic dislocationsand therefore, are not economicallyachievable.

Moreover, Plant B, which had the low-est discharge from electrolytic manga-ntse production, is only 6 years old. Thisplant was designed to minimize wastedischarge. During a visit by EPA, plantpersonnel noted that they could probablynot meet or even come close to theirpresent conditions if their plant weresome years older (as are Plants A and C).Plant D, a nev plant, is presently dis-charging from their chromium operationat about 2 percent of the rate of Plant A,again reflecting differences due to age(and to some extent, geographical loca-tion).

8. Electrolytic industry commentersstated that the data is inadequate, in-complete and does not support the stand-ards recommended by the contractor.

Internal review reVealed some deficien-cies within the document and furthertesting was performed and additional


data collected. It is now believed that thedata base is as adequate and complete aspossible and is supportive of the sug-gested standards.

9. One commenter mentioned that inhis experience, lime neutralization doesnot precipitate manganese readily or insignificant quantities from dilute solu-tions.

Although simple neutralization, i.e., toa pH around 7.0, does not appreciablyremove manganese, a pH of 9.5 or greaterwill cause the dissolved manganese toform as manganese hydroxide and pre-cipitate. Additionally the manganeselevel suggested is more easily attainableif the wastes are not diluted prior totreatment with wastes from other opera-tions.

The Agency is subject to an order ofthe United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia entered in NaturalResources Defense Council v Train et. al.(Cv. No. 1609-73) which requires the pro-mulgation of regulations for this industrycategory no later than December 30,1974. This order also requirds that suchregulations become effective immedi-ately upon publication. In addition, it isne?escarl, to "?romulgate regulationsestablishing limitations on the dischargeof pollutants from point sources in thiscategory so that the process of issuingpermits to individual dischargers undersection 402 of the Act is not delayed.

It has not been practicable to developand publish regulations for this categoryin proposed form, to' provide a 30 daycomment period, and to make any neces-

,sary revisions in light of the commentsreceived within the time constraints im-posed by the court order referred toabove. Accordingly, the Agency hasdetermined pursuant to 5 USC 553(b)that notice and comment on the interimfinal regulations would be imlpracticableand contrary to the public interest. Goodcause is also found for these regulationsto become effective immediately uponpublication.

Interested persons are encouraged tosubmit written comments. Commentsshould be submitted in triplicate to theEPA Office of Public Affairs, Environ-mental Protection Agency, Washington,D.C. 20460, Attention: Ms. Ruth Brown,A-107. Comments on all aspects of theregulation are solicited. In the eventcomments are in the nature of criticismsas to the adequacy of data which areavailable, or which may be relied upon bythe Agency, comments should identifyand, if possible, provide any additionaldata which may be available and shouldindicate why such data are essential tothe amendment or modification Of theregulation. In the event comments ad-dress the approach taken by the Agencyin establishing an effluent limitation orguideline EI A solicits suggestions as towhat alternative approach should betaken and why and how this alternativebetter satisfies the detoiled require-ments of sections 301 and 304(b) of theAct.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Freedom of Information Center,

Room 204, West Tower Waterside Mall,401 M Street, S.W., Washington D.C. Acopy of preliminary draft contractor re-ports, the Development Documents andeconomic study referred to above, andcertain supplementary materials sup-porting the study of the industry con-cerned will also be maintained at thislocation for public review and copying.The EPA information regulation, 40 CPRPart 2, provides that a reasonable fcemay be charged for copying.

All comments received on or beforeMarch 26, 1975 will be considered. Stepspreviously taken by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to facilitate publicresponse within this time period are out-lined in the advance notice concerningpublic review procedures published onAugust 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202). In theevent that the final regulation differssubstantially from the interim final reg-ulation set forth herein the Agency willconsider petitions for reconsideration ofany permits Issued In accordance withthis interim final regulation.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40CPR Part 424 is hereby amended by add-ing Subparts D, E, F, and G as set forthbelow.

Dated: February 10, 1975.RUSSELL E. TnaA,

Administrator.Suboart D--Covered Calcium Carbide Furnaces

With Wet Air Pollution Control Devices Sub.category

Sec.424.40 Applicability; description of the cov-

ered calcium carbide furnaces withwet air pollution control devicessubcategory.

424.41 Specialized definitions.424.42 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applicit-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available,

424.43 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

Subpart E--Other Calcium Carbide Furnaces

Sec. Subcategory

424.50 Applicability; description of the othercalcium carbide furnaces subcato-gory.

424.51 Specialized definitions.424.52 Effluent limitations guidelines rop-

resenting the degree of effluent to-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable con-trol technology currently avail-able.

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

Subpart F-Electrolytic Manganese Products

Sec. Subcategory

424.60 Applicability; description of the olee-trolytic manganese products sub-category.

424.61 Specialized definitions.424.62 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicablecontrol technology currently avail-able.

F:EDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

RtULES AND REGULATIONS0

424.63 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-senting th degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technol-ogy economically achievable. ,

Subpart G-Electrolytic Chromium Subcategory

Sec.424.70. Applicability; description of the

electrolytic chromium subcategory.,424.71 Specialized definitions.

424.72 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

424.73 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-- senting the degree of effluent re-

duction attainable by the applica-tion of .the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

Anrn oar: Sees. 301, 304(b) and (c),Federal Water Pollution Control Act, asamended (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314(b) and(c), 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500.

Subpart D--Covered Calcium Carbide Fur-naces With Wet Air Pollution ControlDevices Subcategory

§ 424.40 Applicability; description ofthe covered calcium-carbide furnaceswith wet air pollution control devicessubcategory.-

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theproduction of calcium carbide in coveredelectric furnaces which use wet air pollu-tion control devices. This subcategory in-cludes those electric furnaces of suchconstruction oi configuration (known ascovered, closed, sealed, semi-covered orsemi-closed furnaces) that the furnaceoff-gases are not burned prior to collec-tion and cleaning, and which off-gasesare cleaned after collection in a wet airpollution control device such as ascrubber, 'wet' baghouse, etc. This sub-category does not include noncontactcooling water or those furnaces whichutilize dry dust collection techniques,such as dry baghouses.§ 424.41 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.§ 424.42 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

In establishing the limitations setforth, in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop aid solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be' adjusted for

certain plants In this industry. All In-dividual discharger or other interestednerson may submit evidence to theRegional Administrator (or to the State,if the State has the authority to issueNPDES permits) that factotr relatingto the equipment or facilities involved,the process applied, or other such fac-tors related to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-cldered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis o.f such evidence orother available Information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) will-nake a written finding that such fac-tors are or are not fundamentally dif-ferent for that facility compared to thosespecified in the Development Document.If such fundamentally different factorsare found to exist, the Regional Admin-istrator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by theAdniinistrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limlta-tions, specify other limitations, or ini-tiate proceedings to revise these regula-tions. The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effluent limitatIons

Effluent Averapotdailycharactertstle Maximum far values for thirty

any one day conzeuUttedaysshall not excoed-

(Metria units) Izkkg of product

T88- ------ 0.M ..... 0.190Total o. ---- 0 ....... 0.002-Within the ..................

rn IO to9.0.

(English units) lb/100D lb of product

TSS --------------- 0 ............ 0.190Total Cyanide ..... 0.00M ------- 0.0023pH --------------- Within the ..................

ranG .0 to0.0.

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

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of Pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Subpart E---Other Calcium.CarbideFurnaces Subcategory

§ 424.50 Applicability; description ofthe other calcium carbide furnacessubcateg6ry.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theproduction of calcium carbide in thosecovered furnaces which do not utilizewet air pollution control methods. Cov-ered calcium carbide furnaces using wetair pollution control devices are reg-ulated in Subpart D. Open (uncovered)calcium carbide furnaces are regulatedin Part 415, inorganic chemicals manu-facturing point source category (39 FR9612).§ 424.51 Specialized definitions.

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

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.§ 424.52 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested per-son may submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factors re-lated to such discharger are fundamen-tally different from the factors consid-erMd in the establishment of the guide-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. .37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

8035

Effluentlirhltation

Effluent Average of dailychar -- ertst*I Maimum for vales for thirty

=7 one day coneuveshall no exceed-

(Metric units) kgJkkg of product

r -............a- anTotal Cyanide---,. 0.tS..5,0.1C2SpU ............. Wlth.nthe

ran 6.0 to9.0,.

(EnglIsh units) lb/lO0C lb of product -

TSS ........ ..... 0.22 ........... 0.11Total Cy ld...... O.thlnth...... ..pU....... . .. wthnthe

raTg 6.0 to


lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) will makea written finding that such factors areor are not fundamentally different forthat facility compared to those specifiedin the Development Document. If suchfundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Adminis-trator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-,ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. Thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tity or quality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable: there shall be no discharge ofprocess waste water pollutants to naviga-ble waters.§ 424.53 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisionsof the best available technology economi-cally achievable: there shall be no dis-charge of process waste water. pollutantsto naviagable waters.

Subpart F-Electrolytic ManganeseProducts Subcategory

§ 424.60 Applicability; description ofthe electrolytic manganese productssubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from themanufacture of electrolytic manganeseproducts such as electrolytic manganesemetal or electrolytic manganese dioxide.§ 424.61 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.. 424.62 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA, took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with: respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,

products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities Involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such disdhaiger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of. such evidence orother available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are-not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-ified in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

(a) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of nolutantsor pollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may-be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart producing electrolytic man-ganese after application of the best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effluent limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirtyany one day consecutive days

shall not exceed-

(Metric units) kg/kkg of product

TSS ---------------- 6.778 ........... 3389Manganese --------- 2.771 -------------. 356A _monla-N ----- 40.667 -- ------... 334PH -------------- Within the

rango 6.0"to9.0.

(English units).lb/lt000lb of product

TSS -------------- 6.778 ............ 3.389Manganese - 2.771 ------------ 1.356Anuonla-N - 40.667 ----------- 20.33pH------------- Within the ------------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled by

this section, which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the pro-visions of this subpart producing electro-lytic manganese dioxide after applica-tion of the best practicable control tech-nology currently available:

Effluent limltatloniEffluent Average of daily

characteristic Maximum for value3 for thirtyany one day consecutive dava

Phall not excced-

(Metric units) kg/kkg of product

TSS ................ 1.702 ............ 0.831Manganese. ........ 0.705 ........... 0.35.Ammonla-N ....... 10.574 ........... 5,287pH -------------- Within the ............

range 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/1000.lb of product

TS ......... 1.72 .... 01Manganese ...... 0.705 ............ 0,352Ammonia-N ..... 10.574 ........... 5.1287pH --------------- Within the ..................

range 6.0 to9.0.

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

(a) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, which may be dischargedby- a point source subject to the pro-visions of this subpart producing electro-lytic manganese after application of thobest available technology economicallyachievable:


Effluent Averdge of dallycharacteristic Maximum for value for thltt'

any one day eonsecutive daysshlaU not exceed-

(Metri0 unit) kg/kkg of product

TSS ............ 339 1 69Manganes . 0.78 ............ 0.339Ammonla-N ....... 6.778 ............ 3. 3SOpH --------------- Within the .................

range 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/100 lb o? product

TSS ---------- 3.389 1. 695Mang nse -....... 0,78:........... 0.339Ammonia-N ..... 6.778 ............ .39pH --------------- Within the ..................

range 0.0 to9.0.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the pro-visions of this subpart producing electro-lytic manganese dioxide after applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 37--MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

8036



Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutive dayshalnot exceed

(Metric units) kglkkg of product

TSS ----------- 0.881 ........ 0.441anganese.. 0.17 6 . . 0.013Aanmona-N ....... 1.762 ..... 0.331

pH . Within the ...................range 6.0to 96..

(English units) lb/1000 lb of product

TSS 0---------- .. 31 ....... .. 0.4413Mnanese ..... 0.17 ...... . 0.013Amnmon-N-...U62. .. S31pH ---- ............ Within the ------------------

range 6.0to 9.0.

Subpart G-Electrolytic ChromiumSubcategory

§ 424.70 Applicability; description ofthe electrolytic chromium subcnte.gory.

The provisions of thls subpart ardapplicable to discharges resulting fromthe-manufacture of chromium metal bythe electrolytic process. They are notapplicable to discharges resulting fromthe manufacture of chromium metal byaluminothernc or other methods.§ 424.71 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysi set forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.§ 424.72 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of cffluentreduction attainable by the applica-tidn of the -best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that data,which would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-ministrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availableinformation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found to

exist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations In the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdmintrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings to re-yise these regulations. The followinglimitations establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant prop-erties, controlled by this section, whichmay be discharged by a point source sub-Ject to the provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best practicable controltechnology currently available:

Effluent lImItatins

Effluent Average of dailycliaracterlstl maximuma f=r Values for thirty

any one day conr-etivedshall nat ad-

(Metrio unitsl k J~kg i f podct

TSS ........ 52Ma ------- 2=mManga ._...... 2.l.......... 1.=Chromium. ........ OD ---.-- -- O3Asmola.N .... "0= ......... 6527pHL .... ... Within the

rage of &0to 9.0

(English units) Ibj0O0 Ib of product

TS .......... 5278 .......... 2M3Mgnes...... .U.......... .1

Ammonia-N ...... 20M ......... 276plL .............. Within the

range 6.0 to9.

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

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

Effluent litltattons

Effluent Average of daffyCharacteristic Waximum for valued far thirty

any one day comecutisveShall not exceed-

(eftic units) kjkkg of product

TSS ............... 2.M--. __ L324Mangan=___... m...... 0.13 _ 0.26SChronium ......... 042 ........ 0.007Asnmona.N&...... 5.2T............. 2. C4pIL .............. Within the ............

rang 0.0 to

(English units) lbJl00 lb of product

TSS ..... OZW . ........ 0.9Chrmium ........ 0M3_. 0.2Ain -N .... 5.27 ......... 2.e.9pH. ............. Within the

ran u to

[FR Doc.75-4679 Filed 2-21-75;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 37-MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

8037