20496 RULES AND REGULATIONS - US EPA · the carbon black furnace process sub-category (Subpart A), the carbon black thermal process subcategory (Subpart B), the carbon black channel

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

PART 458-CARBON BLACK MANUFAC.TURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

[r. 540-41Interim Final Rule Making

Notice Is hereby given that effluentlimitations and guidelines for existingsources to be achieved by the applica-tion of best practicable control technol-ogy currently available as set forth inInterim final form below are promulgatedby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The regulation set forth belowestablishes Part 458--carbon blackmanufacturing point source category andwill be applicable to existing sources forthe carbon black furnace process sub-category (Subpart A), the carbon blackthermal process subcategory (SubpartB), the carbon black channel processsubcategory (Subpart C), and the carbonblack lamp process (Subpart D) of thecarbon black manufacturing point sourcecategory pursuant to sections 301, 304(b) and (c), of the Federal Water Pollu-tion Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c), 86 Stat. 816et seq.; P.L. 92-500) (the Act). Simul-taneously, the Agency is publishing inproposed form effluent limitations andguidelines for existing sources to beachieved by the application of best avail-able technology economically achievable,standards of performance for new pointsources and pretreatment standards fornew sources for the carbon black fur-nace process subcategory (Subpart A),the carbon black thermal process sub-category (Subpart B), the carbon blackchannel process subcategory (SubpartC), and the carbon black lamp processsubcategory (Subpart D).

(a) Legal authority. (1) Existingpoint sources. Section 301(b) of the Actrequires the achievement by not laterthan July 1, 1977, of effluent limitationsfor point sources, other than publiclyowned treatment works, which requirethe application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently availableas defined by the Administrator pursu-ant to section 304(b) of the Act. Sec-tion 301(b) also requires the achieve-ment 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 Adminis-trator pursuant to section 304(b) of theAct.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires theAdministrator to publish regulationsproviding guidelines for effluent limita-tions setting forth the degree of effluentreduction attainable through the ap-plication of the best practicable control

technology 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. The reg-ulation herein sets forth effluent limita-tions and guidelines, pursuant to sec-tions 301 and 304(b) of the Act, for thecarbon black furnace process subcategory(Subpart, A), the carbon black thermalprocess subcategory (Subpart B), thecarbou black channel process subcate-gory (Subpart C), and the carbon blacklamp process subcategory (Subpart D)of the carbon black manufacturing pointsource category.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to issue to the States andappropriate water pollution controlagencies information on the processes,procellures or operating methods whichresult in the elimination or reductionof the discharge of pollutants to Imple-ment standards of performance undersection 306 of the Act. The report or"Development Document" referred tobelow provides, pursuant to section 304(c) of the Act, information on such proc-esses, procedures or operating methods.

(2) New Sources. Section 306 of theAct requires the achievement by newsources of a Federal standard of per-formance providing for the control of thedischarge of -pollutants which reflectsthe greatest degree of effluent reductionwhich the Administrator determines tobe achievable through application of thebest available demonstrated controltechnology, processes, operating meth-ods, or other alternatives, including,where practicable, a standard permit-ting no discharge of pollutants.

Section 306 also requires the Adminis-trator to propose regulations establish-ing. Federal standards of performancefor categories of new sources included ina list published pursuant to section 306of the Act. The regulations proposedherein set forth the standards of per-formance applicable to new sources forthe carbon black furnace process sub-category (Subpart A), the carbon blackthermal process subcategory (SubpartB), the carbon black channel processsubcategory (Subpart C), and the carbonblack lamp process subcategory (Sub-part D) of the carbon black manufac-turing point source category.

Section 307(b) of the Act requires theestablishment of pretreatment standardsfor pollutants introduced into publicly-owned treatment works and 40 CPR 128establishes that the Agency will proposespecific pretreatment standards at thetime effluent limitations are establishedfor point source discharges.

Section 307(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to promulgate pretreat-ment standards for new sources at thesame time that standards of perform-ance for new sources are promulgatedpursuant to section 306. In another sec-tion of the F-DERAL REGISTER regulationsare proposed In fulfillment of these re-quirements.

(b) Summary and basis of interimfinal effluent limitations and guidelinesfor existing sources, proposed effluentlimitations and guidelines for existingsources to be achieved by the applicationof the best available technology eco-nomically achievable, proposed stand-ards of performance for new sources,and proposed pretreatment standards fornew sources.

(1) General methodology. The effluentlimitations and guidelines set forthherein were developed in the followingmanner. The point source category wasfirst -studied for the purpose of deter-mining whether separate limitations areappropriate for different segments with-in the category. This analysis included adetermination of whether differences inraw material used, product produced,manufacturing process employed, age,size, wastewater constituents and otherfactors require development of separatelimitations for different segments of thepoint source category. This included asurvey of the source, flow and volume ofwater used in the process employed, thesources of waste and wastewaters in theoperation and the constituents of allwastewater. The constituents of thewastewaters which should be subject toeffluent limitations 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 is ex-istent or capable of being designed foreach segment. It also included an iden-tification of, in terms of the amount ofconstituents and the chemical, physicaland biological characteristics of pollu-tants, the effluent level resulting fromthe application of each of the technol-ogies. The problems, limitations and reli-ability of each treatment and controltechnology were also identified. In addi-tion, the nonwater quality environmentalimpact, such as the effects of the applica-tion of such technologies upon other pol-lution problems, including air, solidwaste, noise and radiation were identi-'fled. The energy requirements of eachcontrol and treatment technology weredetermined as well as the cost of theapplication 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, theprocess employed, the engineering as-pects of the application of various typesof control techniques, process changes,nonwater quality environmental impact(including energy requirements) andother factors.

The data upon which the above analy-sis was performed Included EPA pernitapplications, EPA sampling and inspec-

FEDERAL REGISTER,- VOL 41, NO. 97-TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1976

20496


tions, consultant reports,- and industrysubmissio.&(2) Summary of conclusions with re-spect to the carbon black furnace processsubcategory (Subpart A). the carbonblack thermal process-subcategory (Sub-part B), the carbon black channel process-subcategory (Subpart C), and the car-bon blacklamp process subcategory(Subpart D) of the carbon black manu-facturing point source category.

(1) Categdrization.For the purpose of establishing effluent

limitations, guidelines and standards,carbonblack manufacturing was dividedinto four- subcategories, the furnaceblack, thermal black, channel black andlamp black subcategories. Factors suchas type of. product, water requirements,ty~e of manufacturing processing, treat-ability of wastewaters, and other meanswere used to establish effluent limitationsguidelines and standards of performancefor each of the specific subcategories.The largest contributing factors areprocessing and treatability based on pro-duction volume and specific water re-quirements. For example, the production-of carbon black by thelurnace and ther-mal processes are net users of water.That is, more water enters the processesthan is discharged; therefore, the carbonblack furnace and thermal processes sub-categories operations can achieve a nodischarge of process wastewater polln-tants by recycling process effluent watersto the quench -step. The channel andlamp black processes are dry operationsalso resulting in no discharge of processwastewater pollutants,

(ii) Waste characteristics.The known significant wastewater pol-

lutants and'pollutant properties result-ing from carbon black manufacturing in-clude TDS, TSS, pH, acidity, alkalinity,'Iron, copper and manganese.

(iii) Origin of wasterwater pollutants.Sources of wastewater pollutants in the

carbon black industry include aqueouswastes from exhaust scrubbers, processequipment cleanouts, production areawashdowns, spill washdowns, and laun-dry operations.

Pollutant parameters for carbon blackmanufacturing pertain to wastewatersfrom process operations. Process waste-'water pollutants are proportional to thelevel of production and It was thereforepossible to estabilsh limitations andstandards on the basis of production.Other pollutant sources within carbonblack manufacturing plants from non-

-process -sources such as utilities, labora-tories and others are generally not re-lated to production unles otherwisenoted.

(iv) Treatment and control tech-nology. ,

Wastewater treatment and controltechnologies have been studies for eachsubcategory of this industry to deter-mine whatis the best practicable control.echnology currently available.

Two of the four subcategories are "dryprocesses", ie., they have only facil-ities which do not discarge Wastewaters.The following discussion of treatmenttechnology provides the basis for the ef-

fluent limitations guidelines. This dis-cussion does not preclude the selectionof other wastewater treatment alterna-tives which provide equivalent or betterlevels of treatment.

Wastewater impoundments have beenidentified as a practicable pollution con-trol technology, for all subcategoriesother than channel black, which is not awater user. However, if not properly de-signed, maintained and operated, theymay be subject to runoff from theirdrainage are. New sources can be prop-

- erly located and designed to avoid thisproblem. Furthermore, existing im-poundments can be modified by construc-tion of diversion ditches or by increasingthe amount of surge capacity of the Im-poundment with either a higher dam or alower operating water level.

The application and performance ofvarious control and treatment technol-ogies to reduce the quantities of pollut-ants discharged to navigable waters as aresult of the production or processing op-erations In catbon, black manufacturingare specific to the product manufacturedor processed. However, many in-processcontrol measures, may be generally ap-plied to several process subcategories.

Good in-process control is a significantpollution abatement technique for allproducts produced in the carbon blackindustry. Practices such as minmiztionand containment of spills and leaks, seg-Tegaton of waste streams, monitoringProcess wastewater, water conservationand reuse, vstewater equalization andgood housekeeping, process operation andequipment maintenance are necessary toeliminate or reduce the volume of proc-ess wastewater requiring treatment.

Most carbon blackproduction from the-furnace and thermal processes generatesno efluent discharge if end-of-pipeevaporation/recycle of process waters areused. Plants in this subategory fre-quently achievemo discharge by virtue ofuse of evaporative ponds.

The channel and lamp black processesare essentially dry, requiring no addi-tional effluent treatment, because the ex-isting technology averts the discharge of

-process wastewater pollutants undernormal operating conditions. One plantemploys a wet scrubber system, but thisfacility also achieves no discharge.

Solid waste control must be considered.Pollution control technologies generatemany different amounts and types ofsolid wastes and liquid concentratesthrough the removal of pollutants. Thesesubstances vary greatly.in their chem-ical and physlcal composition and maybe either hazardous or non-hazardous. Avariety of potential techniques may beemployed to dispose of these substancesdepending on the degree of hazard.

If thermal processing (incineration) isthe choice for disposal, provisions mustbe made to ensure against entry of haz-ardous pollutants into the atmosphere.Consideration should also be given torecovery of materials of value in the-wastes.

For those waste materials consideredto be nonhazardous where land disposalIs the choice for disposal, practices sim-

lar to proper sanitary landfill technol-Pzy may be followed. The principles setforth in the EPA's Land Dlsposal of SolidWastes Guidelines 40 CFR Part 241 maybe used as guidance for acceptable landdisposal techniques.

Best practicable control technology re--quires disposal of the pollutants removedfrom wastewaters in this industry In theform of solid wastes and liquid concen-trates. In most cases these are nonhaz-ardous substances requiring only rinimalcustodial care. However, some constitu-ents may be hazardous and may requirespecial consideration. In order to ensurelong-term protection of the environmentfrom these hazardous or harmful con-stituents. special consideration of dis-posal sites must be made. All landfill siteswhere such hazardous wastes are dis-posed should be selected so as to preventmigration of these contaminants toground or surface waters. In cases wheregeologic conditions may not reasonablyensure this, adequate legal and mechani-cal precautions (e.g., impervious liners)should be taken to ensure long-term pro-tection to the environment from haz-ardous materials. Where appropriate, thelocation of solid hazardous materials dis-pal sites should be permanently re-corded In the appropriate office of legaljurisdiction.(v) Coat estimatesfor control of waste-

water pollutants.Capital and annual costs were com-

puted for each product type/processwithin a subcategory on the basis of thecost per 1,000 pounds of production.Some simplifying assumptions were madeto determine costs on a product by prod-uct basis. Theseassumptions are:

(1) that each product type/process isa discrete plant whose process waste-water is treated in a single end-of-processwaste treatment system.

(2) that all-watewaters are treatedby the model end-of-process system re-gardless of alternate disposal techniquesand in-process changes.

The cost for carbon black plants usingthe furnace process or the thermal proc-ezs is low enough to be passed on throughas price changes or absorbed into theprofit margin with minimum economiceffects. Mie total nvestment cost to meetBPCTCA and BATEA Is $2,380,000. An-nual cost for the carbon black subcate-gories for BPCTCA and BATEA is $500,-000. Hence, the economic impact of xeg:ulating the carbon black industry Is ex-pected to be -sma.

New plants being built can avoid majorfuture waste abatement costs by inclu-slon of: (1) dikes, emergency holdingponds, catch basins and other contain-ment facilltes, for leaks, spills andvwazhdowns, in those cases where it isnot possible to Tinimize these by meansof in-plant operatons, (2) piping,trenches, seers, sumps, and other isola-tion facilities to keep leaks, spMs andprocess rater separate from cooling andsanitary water, (3) non-contact con-densers for cooling water, (4) efficientreuse, recycling and recovery of all pos-sible raw materials and by-products and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 97-TUE5DAY, M;,AY 18, 1976

20497


(5) closed cycle water utilization when-ever possible.

Alternate disposal methods such as in-cineration or like processes are also com-monly used for disposal of highly con-centrated and difficult wastes. In anyspecific case, the manufacturer can bestdetermine the most attractive economicalternatives for in-process controls andend-of-process treatment, which- willmeet the limitations required.

Cost information was obtained fromIndustry, from engineering firms, equip-ment suppliers, government sources, andavailable literature. Costs are based onactual industrial installations or en-gineering estimates for projected facili-ties as supplied by contributing com-panies. In the absence of such informa-tion, cost estimates have been developedfrom either plant-supplied costs for sim-Ilar waste treatment installation atplants making similar products or gen-eral cost estimates for treatment tech-nology.

(vi) Energy requirements and non-.water quality environiiiental impacts.

There are no major nonwater qualityconsiderations which may be associatedwith ultimate waste disposal since thewastes flows range from zero to quitesmall quantities.

Other nonwater quality aspects, suchas noise levels, will not be perceptibly af-fected. Most chemical plants generatefairly high noise levels (85-95 decibels)within the battery limits because ofequipment such as pumps, compressors,steam jets, flare stacks, etc. Equipmentassociated with in-process control sys-tems would not add significantly to theselevels.

Energy requirements associated withtreatment and control technologies arenot significant when compared to thetotal energy requirements for this in-dustry. Power consumption for the in-plant recycle system would require 0.2 ofone percent of the-total plant power con-sumption for typical carbon black plants.

(vii) Economic andinflationary im-pact analysis. '

Ekecutive Order 11821-(November 27,1974) requires that major proposals forlegislation and promulgation of regula-tions and rules by Agencies of the execu-tive branch be accompanied by a state-ment certifying that the inflationary im-pact of the proposals has been evaluated.The Administrator has directed that allregulatory actions that are likely to re-suit in (1) annualized costs of $100 mil-lion, (2) additional costs of productionmore than 5%'of the selling price, or (3)an energy consumption increase equiva-lent to 25,000 barrels of oil per day willrequire a certified inflationary impactstatement. The analysis indicates thatthe total investment required to meetthese regulations is $2.4 million with anannualized cost of $0.5 million. The costsas a percent of selling price are no morethan 0.8%. Although the criteria for per-forming a certified inflationary -impactstatement have not been exceeded, theanalysis that'has been performed meetsall the necessary requirements. It Is

hereby certified that the economic andinflationary effects of this proposal havebeen carefully evaluated in accordancewith Executive Order 11821.

The Agency has considered the eco-nomic impact of the internal and ex-ternal costs of -the effluent limitations.Internal costs given in 1974 dollars aredefined as investment and annual cost,where annual cost is composed of op-erating costs, maintenance cost, the costof capital, and depreciation. The cost ofpollution treatment was obtained fromthe Development Document and is basedupon water recycle technology. The costsdo not include work such as storm sewerpiping or changes in plant equipmentthat might be necessary in some plants.These plant modifications would causethe economic .and inflationary impact tobe greater than indicated below, but notso much as to cause a severe effect on theindustry. External cost deals with theassessment of the economic impact of theinternal costs in terms of price increases,production 6urtailments, &plant closures,resultant unemp5loyment, community andregional impacts, international trade,and industry growth.

The furnace black subcategory re--quires an investment of $1,870,000 andincurs annual costs of $380,000. Thesecosts are incurred in 1977 with no addi-tional expense required in 1983. The unittreatment costs-are only 0.4% of sellingprice, thus limiting the price increase toa like magnitude. These furnace blackplants have small washdown and storm-water runoff streams that could be seg-regated. This process uses fuel oil as afeedstock rather than the higher pricednatural gas as used by the thermal blackprocess, causing some growth of the fur-nace black process.' There is a thermal black plant which

is a direct discharger, using wet scrub-bers for air pollution control. This planthas significantly higher wastewaterflows than the norm for the subcategory.Other plants who have no discharge alsouse wet scrubbers. It is possible that thisthermal black plant could incur substan-tially higher costs for meeting the 1977standards than the figures indicated.

The thermal black subeategory re-quires an investment of $510,000 and in-curs annual costs of $120,000. These costsare incurred in 1977 with no additionalexpense necessary in 1983. The unittreatment costs are 0.8%, thus limitingthe likely price increase to a similaramount. This manufacturing processuses natural g4 as a feedstock, causingthe use of the thermal black process todecline as naturaligas became relativelymore expensive than fuel oil. There arecurrently three thermal black plantsthat are achieving zero discharge. Thereappear to be no major -differences inproduct between the one dischargingand the three nondischarging plants inthis subcategory. Additionally, the re-cent up-swing in automotive production,to which carbon black production isclosely tied, has increased the demandand decreased the price elasticity. It isprimarily this increase in demand cou-

pled with the relatively low treatmentcosts involved that cause the economicImpact to this Industry to be minimal.

Neither the channel black or lampblack subcategories discharged processwastewater, so there is no economic im-pact on these subcategories.

The report entitled "DevelopmentDocument for Interim Final EffluentLimitations, Guidelines and ProposedNew Source Performance Standards forthe Carbon Black Manufacturing PointSource Category" details the analysesundertaken In support of the Interimfinal regulations set forth herein and Isavailable for inspection In the EPA Pub-lic Information Reference Unit, Room2922 (EPA Library), Waterside Mall,Washington, D.C., 20460, at all EPA re-gional offices, and at State water pollu-tion control offices. A supplementaryanalysis prepared for EPA of the pos-sible economic effects of the regulationIs also available for inspection at theselocations. Copies of both of these docu-ments are being sent to persons or Insti-tutions affected by the proposed regula-tion or who have placed themselves on amailing list for this purpose (see EPA'sAdvance Notice of Public Review Pro-cedures, 38 F.R. 21202, August 6, 1073).An additional limited riumber of copiesof both reports are available. Personswishing to obtain a copy may write theEnvironmental Protection Agency, Ef-fluent Guidelines Division, Washington,D.C. 20460. Attention: Distribution 0111-cer, WH-552,

When this regulation Is promulgatedin final rather than interim form, re-vised copies of the Development Docu-ment will be available from the Superin-tendent of Documents, GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.Copies of the economic analysis docu-ment will be available through the Na-tional Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA 22151,

(c) Summary of public participation.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 carbon black manufacturing cate-gory. All participating agencies have beeninformed of project developments. Aninitial draft of the Development Docu-ment was sent to participants and com-ments were solicited on that report, Thefollowing are the principal agencies andgroups consulted: Effluent Standards andWater Quality Information AdvisoryCommittee (established under section 515of the Act); all State and U.S. TerritoryPollution Control Agencies; MonsantoCompany; U.S. Department of IRealth,Education and Welfare; Cabot Corpora-tion; National Ecolgical ResearchCenter; Office of Environmental Affairs:Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commis-sion; The Conservation' Foundation;Businessmen for the Public Interest: En-vironmental Defense Fund, Inc.: Nat-ural Resources Defense Council; Ameri-can Society of Civil Engineers; WaterPollution Control Federation; National

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 97-TUESDAY, MAY. 18, 1976

20498


'Wildlife Federation; Carbon Adsorption-Systems; American Carbon Committee;Carbon Black Producers Traffic Commit-tee; Manufacturing Chemists Associa-tion; American Society of MechanicalEngineers; American Medical Associa-tion, Public Health Division; U.S. WaterResources Council; U.S. Department ofDefense; U.S. Department of Interior;Ashland Carbon Company; Cabot Cor-poration; -Cities Services; ContinentalCarbon Company; J. M. Huber Corpora-

--tlon; Sid Richardson Carbon and Gaso-line Company; Thermoatomic CarbonCompany.

It should be noted that some of therecipients of the contractor's draft docu-ments appear to be from persons involvedin manufacturing- activities not coveredin this regulation. This situation may bedue to the fact that eight industrieswere handled administratively within theproject called miscellaneous chemicals,

o and that the development document putout for public comment embraced alleight industries.

The following responded with com-ments: Cabot Corporation; EffluentStandards and Water Quality Informa:tion Advisory Committee; J. M. HuberCorporation; Michigan Department ofNatural and Economic Resources; Na-tional Ecological Research Center;North Carolina Department of Naturaland Economic Resources; State of Dela-ware Department of Natural Resources-and Environmental Control; U.S. De-partment of Interior; U.S. EPA RegionT; and U.S. Water Resource Council.

The primary issues raised in the de-velopment of these interim final effluentlimitations and guidelines are as follows:

(1) One commenter's concern wasthermal pollution can be as drastic Ingroundwater as in surface water andshould be considered in setting effluentlimitations guidelines.

All cooling water in this Industry isdirect contact quench water and is ventedas steam to the atmosphere; thereforethermal pollution to groundwater is not aproblem ip the carbon black segment.

(2)- One commenter was concerned-with the potential groundwater problemof landfllling solid wastes.

This is not expected to.be a problemfor the carbon 'black manufacturingpoint source category- since all knownpotentially toxic or hazardous materialsin carbon black are essentially inert.Some plants, due to a lack of availablespace and the fact that carbon is com-bustible, are burning the solid wastes inenclosed brick-lined pits. This is an in-expensive viable alternate to the landfillproblem.

(3) Several commenters felt that theno discharge of process wastewater forthe furnace blackprocess was unrealistic.The no discharge level could not be metwithout product contamination resultingdue to excess dissolved solids build-upresulting In high ash content on thecarbon product.

This problem does not exist in the aridregion of the southwest where -all fifteenfurnace plants have achieved no dis-charge of process wastewater, nor is this

expected to be a problem In the watersurplus region. The EPA survey pre-sented in the development documentclearly shows that eight out of nineteenof these plants manufacturing all grade3of carbon black in water surplus regionsbave also achieved no discharge of proc-ess wastewater pollutants without prod-uct contamination. The other elevenplants in the water surplus regions, mak-ing the same range of products, caneasily convert to no discharge withoutproduct contamination. Data availableat this time indicate that recycle will notcause a quality problem since the ratioof recycled water to total quench wateris small.

(4) One commenter believed that dual-media filtration Is not a demonstratedcontrol technology.

It should be understood that the treat-ment system s presented only for a costmodel. The choice of treatment is up tothe Individual plant. Dual-media flltra-tion Is well known and demonstratedtechnology, currently used In the petro-leum refining, grain milling and otherIndustries for effluent solids control. Thebasic characteristics of the solids in thiseffluent are amenable to treatment in thisway.

A number of other comments were re-ceived and were considered not to beapplicable to the subategory(les) beingpromulgated today and have beenomitted from the preceding discussion.Appropriate consideration and responsesWill be made at the time of publicationof the regulations applicable to theesubcategories.

The Agency is subject to an order ofthe United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia entered in NaturalResources Defense Council v. Train et aZ.(Cv. No. 1609-73) which requires thepromulgation of regulations for this in-dustry category no later than April 30,1976. This order also requires that suchregulations become effective immediatelyupon publication.

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 has de-termined pursuant to 5 USC § 553(b)that notice and comment on the interimfinal regulations would be Impracticableand 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 intriplicate to theEnvironmental Protection Agency, 401M St. S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460, At-tention: Distribution Officer, WH-552.Comments on all aspects of the regula-tion are solicited. In the event commentsare in the nature of criticinms as to theadequacy of data which are available, orwhich may be relied upon by the Agency,comments should identify and, if possible,

provide any additional data which maybe available and should indicate whysuch data are essential to the amend-ment or modification of the regulation.In the event comments address the ap-proach taken by the Agency In establish-ing an effluent limitation or guidelineEPA solicits suggestions as to what alter-native approach should be taken andwhy and how this alternative better sat-lsfles the detailed requirements of sec-tions 301 and 304(b) of the Act.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2922 (EPA Library), Water-side Mall. 401 .1 Street, S.W., Washing-ton, D.C. 20460. A copy of preliminarydraft contractor reports, the Develop-ment Document and economic study re-ferred to above, and certain supplemen-tary materials supporting the study ofthe industry concerned wll also be main-tained at this location for public reviewand copying. The EPA Information reg-ulation. 40 CFR Part 2, provides that areasonable fee may be charged for copy-lug.

All comments received on or beforeJune 17, 1976 will be considered. Stepspreviously taken by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to facilitate public re-sponse 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 withthese interim final regulations.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40CFR Part 458 is hereby established as setforth below.

Dated: April 30, 1976.RUS.L R. TAnv,

Administrator.Subpart A--Carbon Black Furnace Process

Subcategory

458.10 Applicabillt, deccription of the car-bon black furnace procezs sub-category.

453.11 Specialized definitions.453.12 Effluent limitations and guidelines

repre-nting the degree of emauentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently avall-able.

Subpart B-Carbon Black Thermal Process- Subcategory

4=20 Applicability. de.cription of the car-bon black thermal pjceis sub-cate.ory.

458321 Specialized deflnltlonn.45,: Efiluent limitations and guidelines

representing the degree of effuentreduction attainable by the appll-catlon of the best practicable con-trol tecbnolo-r currently avail-able.

Subpart C-Carbon Black Channel ProcessSubcategory

458. Applicability; description of thecarbon black channel procew sub-category.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 97-TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1976

,20499


Sec.458.31458.32

.Specialized definitlons.Effluent limitations and guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practical con-trol technology currently avail-able,

Subpart D-Carbon Black Lamp ProcessSubcategory

458.40 Applicability; description of the car-bon black lamp process sub-category.

438.41 Specialized definitions.458.42 Effluent limitations and guidelines

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

AuTHoarrY: Sees. 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306(b), 307 (b) and (c), Federal Water PollutionControl Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311,1314(b) and (c), 1316(b), and 1317(b) and(c), 86 Stat. 816 et. seq.; Pub. L. 92-500) (theAct).

Subpart A--Carbon Black Furnace ProcessSubcategory

§ 458.10 Applicability; description ofthe carbon black furnace process sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from thefrom the production of carbon black bythe furnace process.§ 458.11 Specialized definitions.

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

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

(b) The term "product" shall meancarbon black by the furnace process.§ 458.12 Effluent limitations and guide-

lines representing the degree of efflu-ent reduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into account allinformation it was able to collect, developand solicit with respect to factors (suchas age and size of plant, raw materials,manufacturing processes, products pro-duced, treatment technology available,energy requirements and costs) whichcan affect the industry subcategoriza-tion and effluent levels established. It is,however, possible that data which wouldaffect these limitations have not beenavailable and, as a result, these limita-tions should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individual-dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities involved, the process applied, orother such factors related to" such dis-charger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors considered in the estab-lishment of the guidelines. On the basisof such evidence or other available in-formation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are not fun-

damentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the Devel-opment Document. If such fundamen-tally different factors are found to exist,the Regional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this par-agraph,'which may be discharged fromthe manufacture of carbon black by thefurnace process a point source subject tothe provisions of this paragraph afterapplication of the best prauticable con-trol technology currently available:There shall be no discharge of processwastewater pollutants to navigablewaters.Subpart B-Carbon Black Thermal Process

Subcategory§ 458.20 Applicability; description of

the carbon black thermal process sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theproduction of carbon black by the ther-mal process.§ 458.21 Specialized definitions.

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

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in Part 401of*this chapter shall apply to this sub-part. I

(b) The term "product" shall meancarbon black by the thermal process.§ 458.22 Effluent limitations and guide-

lines represcnting the degree of efflu-ent reduction attainable by the appli-cation 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 personmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factors re-lated to such discharger are fundamen-

tally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishmont of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available Information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the Stato willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spco-ified in the Development Document, Xfsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger effluent limitations in thdNPDES permit either more or lessstringent than the limitations estab-lished herein, to the extent dictated bysuch fundamentally different factors,Such limitations must be approved by theAdministrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or Initiateproceedings to revise these regulations,

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this para-graph, which may be discharged from themanufacture of carbon black by thethermal process a point source subjectto the provisions of this paragraph afterapplication of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available:There shall be no discharge of -processwastewater pollutants to navigablewaters.Subpart C-Carbon Black Channel Process

Subcategory§458.30 Applicability; description of

the carbon black channel process sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theproduction of carbon black by the chan-nel process.§ 458.31 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in Part 401of this chapter shall apply to, this sub-part.

(b) The term "product" shall meancarbon black by the channel process.§ 458.32 Effluent limitations and gui-de

lines representing the degree of efflu-ent reduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took Into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants in this indus-try. An individual discharger or otherinterested person may submit evidence

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 97-- TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1976

20500


to the Regional Administrator (or to theState, if the State has the authority toissue NPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment or facilities in-volved, the process applied, or other suchfactors related, to such discharger arefundamentally different from the factorsconsidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other avpilable information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such fac-tors are or are not fundamentally dif-ferent for that facility compared tothose specified in the Development Docu-ment. If such fundamentally differentfactors are found to exist, the RegionalAdministrator or the State shall estab-lish for the discharger effluent limita-tions in the NPDES permit either moreor less stringent than the limitations es-tablished herein, to the e.xtent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection -Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or ini-tiate proceedings to revise these regula-tions.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant Properties, controlled by thisparagraph, which may be dischargedfrom the manufacture of carbon blackby the channel process a point sourcesubject to the-provisions of this para-graph after application of the best prac-ticable control technology currentlyavailable: There shall be no discharge ofprocess wastewater pollutants to navi-gable waters.

Subpart D--Carbon Black Lamp ProcessSubcategory

§458.40 Applicability; description ofthe carbon black process subcatcgory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theproduction of carbon black by the lampprocess.§ 458.41 Specialized defintion,5.


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

(b) The term "product' shall meancarbon black by the lamp process.§ 458.42 Effluent limitations and guide-

lines representing the degree of efflu.ent reduction attninablc by the appli-cation of the Lest practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into accountall information it was able to collect,develop and solicit with respectto factors(such as age and size of plant, raw ma-terials, manufacturing processes, prod-ucts produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State. if the

State has the authority to Issue NPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available Information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those speci-fied 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 approveda 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.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of Pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by thisparagraph, which may be dischargedfrom the manufacture of carbon blackby the lamp process a point source sub-Ject to the provisions of this paragraphafter application of the best prac-icablecontrol technology currently avalable:There shall be no discharge of processwastewater pollutants to navigablewaters.

IFn Dcc. e-3i1 fled 5-17-7(;;8:45 cm1

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 97-TU$DAY, MAY M 1976

20501