2 Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-AGENCY

40 CFR Part 410

[FRL 1291-11

Textile Mills Point Source CategoryEffluent Limitations Guidelines,Pretreatment Standards, and NewSource Performance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed regulation.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes regulations tolimit the discharge of effluents and theintroduction of pollutants into publiclyowned treatment works from facilitiesthat produce intermediate and finishedtextile products from various types offiber, yarn, or fabric. The purpose ofthese regulations is to provide effluentlimitations guidelines for "best availabletechnology" and "best conventionaltechnology," and to establish newsource performance standards andpretreatment standards, under Sections301, 304, 306, and 307 of the Clean-WaterAct.

The SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of thispreamble describes the legal authorityand background, technical andeconomic bases, and other aspects-ofthe proposed regulations: It alsopresents a summary of comments on thedraft technical development document,which was circulated during November

.1978, and solicits.comments antspecificareas of interest.

Many abbreviations and acronyms-are used throughout this notice to avoidexcessive, narrative;a list of these andtheir definitions is set fortkin AppendixA. Definitions of various terms. possiblyunfamiliar to some readers, also are'provided in that-appendix.

Support for these proposedregulations is in three-major documentsavailable from EPA. Analytical methpdsare discussed in Sampling andAnalysisProcedures for Screening of Industrial.Effluents for Toxic Pollutants. EPA'stechnical conclusions are de'tailed in theDevelopment Document for ProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the TextileMills Point Source Category. The ,Agency's economic analysis is found inEconomic Impact Analysis of ProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the'TextileMills Poht Source Category.DATES: A period of sixty days from thedate-of.publication-irn the Federal

Register will be allowed for submissionof comments on this proposal.Comments by December 28, 1979.ADDRESS: Send comments to:-James R.Berlow, Effluent Guidelines Division,Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M'Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.Attention: EGD Docket Clerk, Textile,(WH-552). A copy of the supportinginformation and all public commentsisubmitted in response to this proposalwill be available for inspection andcopying at the EPA Public InformationReference Unit, Roon'2404 (Rear) PM-213. (EPA Library), 401 M Street SW.,Washington; D.C. 20460. The EPAinformation regulation (40 CFR Part 2)provides that a reasonable fee may becharged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Technical information and copies oftechnical documents may be obtainedfrom James R. Berlow at the addresslisted above'after November 16, 1979 orcall (202] 426-2554. The!economicanalysis may be obtained from Ms. JeanNoroian, Water Economics Branch(WH-586J, EnvironmentatProtectionAgency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,D.C. 20460;, Tel. (202) 426-2617, afterNovember 23,1979-

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This-Notice.1. Legal AuthorityU..Background-A-The Clear Water-ActB. Prior EPA RegulationsC-Overview of the Industry1IL Scope of This Rulemaking and

Summary of Methodology -IV, Data Gathering Effort .V.Sampfling and Analytical ProgramVL Industry SubcategorizationVII. Avairabre Wastewatei Control and.

Treatment TechnologyA. Status of In-Place-TechdologyF. Gontro Technologies ConsideredVIII. BestrAvailableTelinology Effluent

LimitationsIX. Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology Effluent LimitationsX. New Sodrce Performance StandardsXI. Pretreatment Standards for Existing

SourcesXIL Pretreatment Standards for New

SourcesXIII. Regulated Pollutants "

XIV. Pollutants and Subcategories notRegulated

A. Pollutants ExcludedB. Subcategories ExcludedXV. Monitoring RequirementsXVI. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits,

and Economic impactsXVIl.Non-Water Quality Aspects of

Pollution ControlXVIIL Best Management PracticesXIX. Upset and-Bypass-ProvisionsXX. Variances and Modifications "XXI. Relaionshiii to NPDESPermits.

XXII. Small Business AdnilnlstratlonFinancial Assistance

XXIIL Summary of Public ParticipationXXIV. Solicitation of Comments

AppendicesA.Abbreviations, Acronyms and Other

Terms Used in this NoticeB. Toxic Pollutants Detected in Treated

Effluents Above the Nominal Detection LimitC.Toxic Pollutants Not Detected In Treated

EffluentsD.TxicPoIIutants Detected at Only One

Plant and atLess than the Nominal DetectionLimit in theTreated Effluent

F Toxic Pollutants Detected in TreatedEffluents at or Below the Nominal DeteclionLimit

I. Legal AuthorityThe regulations described in this'

notice are proposed under authority ofSections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501of the Clean Water Act (the FederalWater Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 etseq., as amended by the Clean WaterAct ofE1977, Pub. L. 92-517) (the "Act").These regulations are also proposed incompliance with the SettlementAgreementin Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC212a [D.D.C. 1976), modified 12 ERC 1833(D.D.C. 1979).

IL BackgroundA. The Clean Water Act. Thb Federal

Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmantain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters," (SectionlOl(a)). By July 1, 1977,existfingindustrial dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluenL limitationsrequiring the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable (BPT]," (Section 301(bJ(1)(Al).By'July I. 1983, these dischargers wererequired to achieve "effluent limitationsrequfringthe hpplication of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable (BAT), which will result Inreasonable further progress toward thenatfonal goal of eliminating thedischarge of pollutants," (Section301N(b[ZlA)). New industrial directdischargers were required to complywith section 306, new sourceperformance standards (NSPS), basedon best available demonstratedtechnology.New and existingdischargers to publicly-owned treatmentworks [POTWs) were subject topretreatment standards under sections307(b1 and (c) of the Act. While therequirements for direct dischargers wereto be incorporated into NationalPolluant Discharge Elimination SystemCNMJDESI permits issued under section4bZ of the Act.pretreatment standards

62204

Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

were made enforceable directly againstdischargers to POTWs (indirect

-dischargers].Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972

Act authorized the setting ofrequirements for direct dischargers on acase-by-case basis in the absence ofregulations, Congress intended that, forthe most part, control requirementswould be based on regulationspromulgated by the Administrator ofEPA. Section 304(b) of the Act requiredthe Administrator to promulgateregulations providing guidelines foreffluent limitations setting forth thedegree of effluent reduction attainablethrough the application of BPT and BAT.Moreover, Sections 304(c) and 306 of theAct required promulgation of regulationsfor NSPS, and Sections 304[f, 307(b),and 307(c) required promulgation ofregulations for pretreatment standards.In addition to these regulations fordesignated industry categories, Section307(a) of the Act required theAdministrator to promulgate effluentstandards applicable to all dischargersof toxic pollutants. Finally, Section501(a) of the Act authorized theAdministrat6r to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act.

The Agency was unable to promulgatemany of these toxic pollutantregulations and guidelines within thetime periods stated in the Act. In 1976,EPA was sued by several environmentalgroups and, in settlement of this lawsuit,EPA and the plaintiffs executed a"Settlement Agreement," which wasapproved by the Court. This Agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andadhere to a schedule for promulgating,for 21 major industries, BAT effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards for 65 "priority" pollutantsand classes of pollutants. (See NaturalResources Defense Council, Inc. v.Train, 8 ERC 2120 [D.D.C. 1976),modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).

On December 27,1977, the Presidentsigned into law the Clean Water Act of1977. Although this law makes severalimportant changes in the federal waterpollution control program, its most

.. significant feature is its incorporationinto the Act of-many of the basicelements of the Settlement Agreementprogram for toxic pollution control.Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and fb)(2)(C) of theAct now require the achievement byJuly 1., 1984, of effluent limitationsrequiring application of BAT for "toxic"pollutants, including the 65 "priority"pollutants and classes of pollutantswhich Congress declared "toxic" under

"section 307(a) of the Act. Likewise,

EPA's programs for new sourceperformance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimedprincipally at toxic pollutant controls.Moreover, to strengthen the toxicscontrol program, Congress added a newsection 304(e) to the Act, authorizing theAdministrator to prescribe what havebeen termed "best managementpractices (BMPs)" to prevent the releaseof toxic pollutants from plant-site runoff,spillage or leaks, sludge or wastedisposal, and drainage from rawmaterial storage associated with, orancillary to, the manufacturing ortreatment process.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977also revised the control program fornon-toxic pollutants. Instead of BAT for"conventional" pollutants identifiedunder Section 304(a)(4) (includingbiological oxygen demand, suspendedsolids, fecal coliform and pH), the newSection 301(b)(2)(E) requiresachievement by July 1, 1984, of "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology" (BCT). The factorsconsidered in assessing BCT include thereasonableness of the relationshipbetween the costs of attaining areduction in effluents and the effluentreduction benefits derived, and thecomparison of the costand level ofreduction for an industrial dischargewith the cost and level of reduction ofsimilar parameters for a typical POTW(Section 304(b)[4)(B)). For non-toxic,nonconventional pollutants, Sections301(b){2)(A) and (b)(2)[F) requireachievement of BAT effluent limitationswithin three years after theirestablishment, but not later than July 1,1987.

The purpose of these regulations is toprovide effluent limitations guidelinesfor BAT and BCT and to establish NSPSand pretreatment standards for existingand new sources (PSES, PSNS) underSections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of theClean Water Act.

B. Prior EPA Regulations. EPApromulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS, andpretreatment standards for new sources(PSMS) for the Textile Mills PointSource Category on July 5,1974, (39 FR24736; 40 CFR Part 410, Subparts A-G).The BAT regulations were challenged,and on January 3,1975, the FourthCircuit of the United States Court ofAppeals ordered EPA to reconsider BATin light of technological and economicdata being developed by the textileindustry. The order resulted in an EPAgrant (No. R-804329) to cooperativelydevelop this data. EPA promulgatedpretreatment standards for existing

sources (PSES) on May 26,1977, (42 FR26979; 40 CFR Part 410, Subparts A-G].

The regulations proposed in thisnotice include BCT and revised BATregulations and supersede prior NSPS,PSNS. and PSES regulations.

C. Overview of the Industry. The U.S.textile industry is covered by two of thetwenty major groups of manufacturingindustries in the U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau of the CensusStandard Industrial Classification (SIC).They are Textile Mill Products, MajorGroup 22, and Apparel and other TextileProducts, Major Group 23. The Textile .Mill Products group includes 30 separateindustries that manufactureapproximately 90 classes of products.The Apparel and Other Textile Productsgroup includes 33 separate industriesthat manufacture some 70 classes ofproducts. That part of the industrycovered by this proposed regulation isMajor Group 22; Major Group 23 hasbeen recommended for exclusion fromregulation based on Paragraph (a)(iii] ofthe Revised Settlement Agreement (seePollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated).

The Textile Mills Point SourceCategory covers facilities principallyengaged in receiving and preparingfibers; transforming these materials intoyam, thread, or webbing: converting theyarn and web into fabric or relatedproducts; and finishing these materialsat various stages of the processing.Many produce a final consumer productsuch as thread, yarn, bolt fabric,hosiery, towels, sheets, carpet, etc.,while the rest produce a transitionalproduct for use by other establishmentsin Major Groups 22 and 23. There areapproximately 7,200 textile mills in theU.S., of which approximately 2000 havea process-related wastewater discharge.Between 1,100 and 1,200 have asignificant amount of discharge and areconsidered to be the most important forthe purposes of this proposed regulation.Nearly 80 percent of the facilities thathave a process-related discharge arelocated in the Mid-Atlantic andSouthern regions of the country. Theremaining 20 percent are distributedabout equally between the New Englandregion and the North Central andWestern regions. Some industrysegments, particularly yarnmanufacturing, weaving, and carpetmanufacturing, are heavily concentratedin a few southeastern states.

While the industry traditionally hasconsisted of a large number of small,family-owned, closely-held highly-specialized facilities, the industry todayalso includes many large, publicly-owned, diversified corporations.Approximately 34 percent of the plants

62205

6 Federal Register [ Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29i 1979 / Proposed Rules

currently represent 80 percent of the,industry- shipments. The establishmentsin the New England area tendto-be'older structurally while theestablishments in' the' Southern statestend to be fairly modern. However, it iscommon for'older facilities in theindustry to install modern equipment ormodern facilities tor install well- ,-functiofning old, equipment. Whffe-manyof the subcategories inthe industryhaveimplemented unique technologicaladvances, the general cause for changehas been a shift to producingman-madefibers.

During the past ten years, the industryhas maintained'a steady rate of salesgrowth that has averaged approximatelryseven percent annually. In spite of thisgrowth, the industry consistently ranksamong the lowest in profitability, withthe industry's after' tax annual returnson sales averaging 2.3 percent, 40 to 50percent less than the average for allmanufacturing industries. Reasons for'the low levels of profitability include theinability'to adapt qufdkly to consumerpreference changes, excess capacity andproduction resulting in price-cuttingcompetfon, and, most importantly,increased competition from imported.fabric and consumer appareL Capitalexpenditures. traditionally have been.below the industry's levels; ofdepredation. In the. past two years,these expenditures haveincreased,however, because of the lndustry's weakprofit performance, expectations. arethat future funds for such expenditures,will be more difficult to.obtain Theindustry's continued viability has.depended on its expenditures'for,improvement in productivity.

The future of the industry dependsupon several factors. Among these, amajor concern is thegrowth of textile-imports in U.S. markets. Inrecent years,the growth rates of imports haveexceeded the growth rates of domesticproducts. Thus. the industry's marketshare has, decreased. Othermajocfactors affecting the industry'sfutureperformance include- proposed cotton.dust and noise regulations of theOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) andiincreasesinthe costs of energy, raw material, andlabor. The Agency expects six.percentfewer plantsin 1984 than. existedin.1978.0 EPA does not expect the openingof any new WooLScoarig:Facilitids,and expects the opening or constructionof small plants in other subcategories tobe unlikely. The Agency anticipates thatany ne, plants willlikely be integratedfacilties.

Productiodin the' industry ranges fromless than 1,000 pounds of finished

product per day to over 700,000-poundsper day, with a majority of the plantsprocessing less; than' 50,000-pounds ofproduct per day. Estimated totalindustry production is 45 millionpoundsper day, or approximately 14 billionpounds. annually. The'value of theproducts producedis over 40 billiondollars annually, and the industryemploys-nearly' one million people.

Many of the facilities are: integratedand perform dry, low wateruse, andmajor wet-processing operations.Principal dry operation& includespinning,, tufting knitting, and, weaving.Principal low water use operationsinclude slashing, web formation(nonwoven manufacturing only,bonding; adhesive-processing, coating,and: functional finishing. Major wetoperations fnclude scouring,carbonizing, fulling, desizing,mercerizing, bleaching, dyeing andprinting. Detailed descriptions of theprocessing operationsT and products areprovided in Section M. of the.Development Document.

Water is essential' to textileprocessing andis used insignificant.amounts in most wet-processingoperations, Water usage rate (gal/lb ofproduct) varies substantially amongthesubcategories (see IndustrySubcategorization) and facilities within,each subcategory. The typical-waterusagerates (median values) for thesubcategories-range from 1.. gallons-perpoundcof-product to34.1 gallonsperpound f product. with an average forall subcategories (typical values] ofapproximately 12 gallons per pound ofproducL

Wastewaer discharge from the wet-processing plants in the industry rangesfrom -few thousandgallons per day toover 7 million gallons per day. Amongthe wet-processing subcategories-, thetypical [median] discharge ranges -fromapproximately 50,0G0gallons per day toover 500,000'gallons per day. Theaverage plant discharge (wet processingonly is approximately 82,00 gallonsper day for direct dischargers and.380,000"gallons per day for indirectdischargers. Estimated total wastewaterdischarge fs525 million gallons- per dayover 150 billfoii gallons annually.Approximately-8 percent of thefacilitfea are indirect dischargers anddischarge wastewater to POTWr theremaining treat their wastewateron-s-iebefore dischargingthe effluent to arreceivingwater body.-A smaffnumberof.facilftiesrecycle their treated effluent.I The-wastewater characteristfcs vary'

substantially from subcategory tosubcategory (see DevelopmentDocument; Sectfon V) butin generalthe wastes are complex mixturesof

natural and synthetic organic materialiand inorganic chemicals. The wastes arehigh in BOD5 and COD, with the typicalconcentrations for the'varioussubcategories ranging from 170 to 2,270mg/1 for BOD5 and from 550 to 7,030 mg/I for COD. TSS values-are typically one-third of the BOD5 values, and color andoil and grease are problems In somesubcategories. Toxic pollutants arelikely to be present, although atgenerally low concentrations.

The most significant pollutants andpollutant parameters in terms ofoccurrence-and concentration include.(1} 17 organic and 11 metallic toxicpollutants and cyanide (see AppendixBJ; (21 conventional, pollutantsdesignated in the Act (BOD5, TSS, oilandgrease, and pH): and (3]nonconventfonal pollutants (COD andcolory.

IIL Scope of This Rulemaking andSummary of Methodology

These proposed regulationssignificantly expand the water pollutioncontrol requirements for the, textileindustry. rn EPA's' initial (Itre 1974)rulemaking, emphasis was placed on theachievement of BPT, BAT, and NSPSbased on control of familiar i(.e.,"classical"j pollutants' In 1977. EPAproposed pSESbased orn compliancewith general prohibitive wasteprovisions. By'confrast, in this round ofrulemaking: EPA's efforts are directedtoward fnstitutingBCT and BAT effluentlimitations, new source performancestandards, and pretreatment standardsfor existing and new sources, that willresult fi reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants.['classical' and toxic).

fr general, BCT represents the bestcontrol technology for conventional'pollutantsf that rs reasonable in cost andeffluent reduction benefits. It replacesBAT for conventional pollutants. BATrepresents, at a minimum, the besteconomically achievable perfoirmance Inanyindustrial category orsubcategory,and, as a result of the Clean Water Actof 1977, emphasis has shifted fromcontrol of"classical" pollutants tocontrol of& lengthylist of toxicsubstances. New source performancestandards represent the best availabledemonstrated technology for control ofall pollutants, and pretreatmentstandards-for existing and new sourcesrepresent the best economicallyachievable performance for control ofpollutants that pass through, interferewith, or are otherwise incompatible wyiththe operatfon of POTWsu includingmanagement of sludge.

I I

62206

Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 210 / Monday, October 29. 1979 / Proposed Rules ,

In the 1977 legislation, Congressrecognized that it was dealing withareas of scientific uncertainty when itdeclared the 65 "priority" pollutants andclasses of pollutants "toxic' underSection 307(aJ of the Act. The "priority"pollutants have been relativelyunknown outside of the scientifitcommunity and those engaged inwastewater sampling and control havehad little experience dealing with thesepollutants. In addition, these pollutantsoften appear andhave toxic effects atconcentrations which severely taxcurrent analytical techniques. EveiLthough Congress was aware of the state-of-the-art difficulties and expense of"toxics" control and detection, itdirected EPA to act quickly-anddecisively to detect, measure, andregulate these substances. Thus, withthe passage of the 1977 legislation, theNation's water pollution controlprogram was thrust toward the frontiersof science.

EPA's implementation of the Actrequired a complex developmentprogram, described in this section andsubsequent sections of this notice.Initially, because in many cases nopublic or private agency had done so;EPA and its laboratories andconsultants had to develop analyticalmethods for toxic pollutant detectionand meassurement, which are discussed

- under sampling and analytical program.EPA then gathered technical andfinfhncial data about the industry, whichare summarized under Data GatheringEfforts. With these data, the Agencyproceeded to develop these proposedregulations.

First, EPA studied the textile industryto determine whether differences in rawmaterials, final products manufacturingprocesses, equipment/ age and size ofmanufacturing facilities, water use,wastewater constituents, or otherfactors required the development ofseparate effluent limitations and

.standards of performance for differentsegments of the industry. This-studyrequired the identification of raw wasteand treated effluent characteristics,including: (1) The sources and volume ofwater used, the manufacturing processesemployed, and the sources of pollutantsand wastewaters within the plant, and(2) the constituents of wastewaters,including toxic pollutants. (See IndustrySubcategorization.] EPA then identifiedthe constituents of wastewaters whichshould be considered for effluentlimitations guidelines and standards ofperformance, and statistically analyzedraw waste constituents, as discussed indetail in Section V of the DevelopmentDocument.

Next. EPA identified several distinctcontrol and treatment technologies.including both in-plant and end-of-process technologies, which are In useor capable of being used to control ortreat textile industry wastewater. TheAgency compiled and analyzedhistorical and newly generated data onthe effluent quality resulting from theapplication of these technologies. Thelong-term performance, operationallimitations, and reliability of each of thetreatment and control technologies werealso.identified. In addition, EPAconsidered the non-water environmentalimpacts of these technologies, includingeffects on air quality, solid wastegeneration, and energy requirements.

The Agency then estimated the costsof each control and treatmenttechnology for the various industrysubcategories from unit cost curvesdeveloped by standard engineeringanalysis as applied to the specific textilewastewater characteristics. EPA derivedunit process costs from model plantcharacteristics [production and flow)applied to each treatment process unitcost curve (i.e., activated sludge,chemical coagulation/sedimentation,dissolved air flotation, multi-mediafiltration, activated carbon adsorption,and ozonation). These unit process costswere combined to yield total cost ateach treatment level. After confirmingthe reasonableness of this methodologyby coriparing EPA cost estimates totreatment system costs supplied by theindustry, the Agency evaluated theeconomic impacts of these costs. Costsand economic impacts are discussed Indetail under the various technologyoptions, and in the section of this noticeentitled Costs, Effluent ReductionBenefits, and Economic Impacts.

Upon consideration of these factors,as more fully described below, EPA.identified various control and treatmenttechnologies as BCT, BAT. NSPS, PSES,and PSNS. The proposed regulations.however, do not require the installationof any particular technology. Rather.they require achievement of effluentlimitations representative of the properapplication of these technologies orequivalent technologies. A plant'sexisting controls should be fullyevaluated, and existing treatmentsystems fully optimized, beforecommitment to any new or additionalend-of-pipe treatment technology.

The effluent limitations for BCT, BATand NSPS are expressed as masslimitations (lbs/1000 lbs of finishedproduct) and are calculated bymultiplying three values: (1) Effluentconcentration determined from analysisof control technology performance data:

(2) typical wastewater flow for eachsubcategory; and (3) a process ortreatment variability factor. This basiccalculation was performed for eachregulated pollutant or pollutantparameter for each.subcategory of theindustry. Effluent limitations forPSESand PSNS are expressed as allowableconcentrations in milligrams per liter(mg/I). Mass limitations are alsoprovided as guidance for POTWs thatmay wish to impose them along with. orinstead of. the concentration limitations.

IV. Data Gathering EffortsThe data gathering efforts involved

several distinct, detailed activitieswhich are summarized here. All aspectsof the program are described in detail inSection III of the DevelopmentDocument and Section I of the EconomicImpactAnalysis.

In general. the program involved: (1)Review and use of existing informationin the administrative record: (21distribution and evaluation of detailedindustry surveys: (3) collection ofhistorical wastewater data: (4) plantvisits and meetings with industry tradeassociations and other representativesof the indusry; and (5) review of theavailable literature.

The administrative record fortechnical information included theoriginal Development Document (EPA-440/1-74-022-a, June 1974) and itsappendices. and the November 1975,Draft Development Document forPretreatment StandardsEPA ContractNo. 68-01-3289, Task Order 6) and itsappendices. The latter document andappendices were especially usefulbecause they provided a considerableamount of timely data about theindustry. The administrative record foreconomic information included theEconomic Analysis of Proposed EffluentGuidelines (EPA 230)1-73-028,September 1973) and the EconomicAnalysis of Pretreatment Standards forthe Textile Industry (EPA 44011-77-009,July 1977) prepared in conjunction withthe pretreatment standards.

The industry survey for technicalinformation was conducted during thefirst half of 1977. The survey involvedthe following phases oracti~ity: (11Developing a master list of textile mills;(2) contacting mills on the master list byletter to outline the purpose and intentof the survey; (3) contacting mills on themaster list by telephone in order toassess the value of availablewastewater information and to gatherbasic facility information; (4)distributing detailed surveyquestionnaries; and (5) retrinving andanalyzing the questionnaires. Theoriginal master list included

62207

Federal Register I Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

approximately 2,600 facilities. Followingthe telephone survey, the list wasreduced to 1,973 facilities by removing627 entries that were found to be offices,services, dry-processing operations, orfacilities that were no longer in thebusiness of manufacturing textiles. Ofthe remaining facilities on the list, 808were classified as low water useprocessing. These were given secondaryconsideration in the survey, since theygenerate relatively small quantities ofpollutants. The remaining 1,165 facilitieswere classified as important wet-processing plants andwere givenprimary consideration in the survey.Detailed portfolios were distributed toapproximately 550 of these facilities,based on their reporting of availablewastewater characterization data duringthe telephone survey; 538 completedportfolios were returned tb the Agency.The Iowwater-use processing facilitieswere surve'yed separately and 315detailed portfolios were received from arandom distribution to approximatelyhalf of them.

Data for the economic analysis of theindustry were obtained from a surveyprogram under authority of Section 308of the Act. Questionnaires seekingproduction costs, balance sheet andincome data, and costs for existingpollution abatement systems weredistributed to 532 facilities. Of these, 308surveys were returned from the firstmailing,'with dbout 208 of these beingfrom wet-processing facilities. The 224nonrespondents were sent follow-upsurveys and 95 additional responseswere received; 74 were from wet-processing facilities. The economicsurvey data were supplemented by datafrom government publications, industry,members and trade associations,publicly available financial studies andsurveys, and visits to 15 plants.

Wastewater characterization datawer6 obtained, when available, directlyfrom the textile facilities as part of theindustry survey, from EPA regionaloffices and state water pollution controlagencies, and, for indirect dischargers,from POTWs. The data collectedprovide very good characterization ofthe raw wastes and treated effluents forthe various subcategories of theindustry.

EPA conducted approximately 100plant visits during the development ofthe technical information leading tothese regulations to obtain informationon plant operations or to-collectwastewater samples. EPA heldnumerous meetings with committees andindividuals of trade associationsrepresenting segments of the industry

and suppliers of dyes and chemicalsused by the industry.

Literature information was animportant aid in nearly all phases of thetechnical and economic studies. Over240 articles, documents, andpublications were consulted indeveloping the technical informationand 41 were consulted in developing theeconomic analysis.

An additional very significant sourceof data was the findings of the EPA[Industry Pilot Plant Research Project. Agrant (No. R-804329) for the project wasawarded to the American TextileManufactures Institute (ATMI), theNorthern Textile Association (NTA),and the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI)on January 26, 1976; the EPA Office ofResearch and Development and theEffluent Guidelines Division cooperatedin directing the work. As part of thestudy, two mobile pilot plants wereconstructed, each containing thefollowing treatment technologies:chemical coagulation/clarification;multi-media filtration; activated carbonadsorption;, and ozonation. The unitsvisited a total of 19 textile facilities,-representing six of the nine majorsubcategories (Wool Scouring, WoolFinishing, Woven Fabric Finishing, KnitFabric Finishing, Carpet Finishing, andStock and Yarn Finishing), from May'1977 to October 1978. The units testedthe various pilot scale treatmenttechnologies for effectiveness inremoving the BPT regulated pollutants(BOD5, COD, TSS, phenol, totalchromium, sulfide, color, oil and grease,and pH) from the biologically treated-and clarified wastewaters at thesefacilities. During the initial month of avisit, the best candidate treatmentmodes were established; during thesubsequent two weeks, the effectivenessof these modes was monitored. Bench'scale dissolved air flotation (DAF) andpowdered activated carbon treatment'(PACT) studies also were.performed onthe waste from some study sites. Detailsof the research project and findings willbe available from the Office of Researchand Development after the final report iscompleted. Summaries of the findingsare available in Section VII of theDevelopment Document. ,

Samples-for determination of toxicpollutants were collected and analyzedat each of the 19 sites during the initialphase of the study. Samples of the flowinto and out of the candidate modetechnologies were collected andanalyzed for toxic pollutants at 10 of 19sites during the pilot plant visits; thesampling periods ranged from one to tendays. (See Sampling and AnalyticalProgram.)

V. Sampling and Analytical ProgramAs Congress recognized in enacting

the Clean Water Act of 1977, the state-of-the-art ability to monitor and detecttoxic pollutants is limited. Most of thcrtoxic pollutants were relatively unkownuntil only a few years ago, and only onrare occasions has EPA regulated, orhas industry monitored or evendeveloped methods to monitor for thesepollutants. As a result, analyticalmethods for many toxic pollutants underSection 304(h) of the Act have not yetbeen promulgated. Moreover, state-of-the-art techniques involve the use ofexpensive, sophisticated equipment,with costs ranging as high as $200,000per unit.

When faced with these problems, EPAscientists, including staff of theEnvironmental Research Laboratory InAthens, Georgia and staff of theEnvironmental Monitoring and SupportLaboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio,conducted a literature search andinitiated a laboratory program todevelop analytical and samplingprotocols. The result was theestablishment of a comprehensive set ofprocedures entitled, S'ampling andAnalysis Procedures for Screening ofIndustrial Effluents for PriorityPollutants, (EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, April1977).

Because Section 304(h) methods wereavailable for most toxic metals,pesticides, cyanide, and phenol, theanalytical effort focused on developingmethods for sampling and analyzingorganic toxic pollutants. The three basicanalytical approaches considered wereinfrared spectroscopy, gaschromatography (GC) with multipledetectors, and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), Inselecting among these alternatives, EPAconsidered sensitivity, laboratoryavailability, costs, applicability todiverse waste streams from numerousindustries, and capability forimplementation within the statutory andcourt-ordered time constraints of EPA'sprogram.

The Agency concluded that infraredspectroscopy was not sufficientlysensitive or specific for application Inwater, and that GC with multipledetectors without mass spectroscopywould require multiple runsincompatible with time constraints andwould possibly eliminate detection ofcertain toxic pollutants. EPA chose GC/MS because it could identify a widevariety of pollutants in many differentmatrices and do so in the presence ofinterfering compounds and within thetime constraints of the program. InEPA's judgment, GC/MS and the other

I

62208

Federal Register f Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday. October 29. 1979 / Proposed Rules

analytical methods for toxics used inthis rulemaking represent the best state-of-the-art methods for toxic pollutantsanalyses available at the time of thisstudy.

As the state-of-the-art matures, EPAintends to refine the sampling andanalytical protocols to keep pace withtechnology advancements. However,limited resources prevent EPA fromreworking completed sampling andanalyses to keep up with the evolutionof analytical methods. As a result, theanalytical techniques used in somerulemakings may differ slightly fromthose used in others. In each case,however, the analytical methods usedrepresent the best state-of-the-artavailable for a given industry study.One of the goals of EPAs analyticalprogram is the promulgation ofadditional Section 304(h) analyticalmethods for toxic pollutants, scheduledfor calendar year 1979.

The field sampling program in this.study differed from the one plant persubcategory screening phase and fiveplants per subcategory verificationphase recommended in the protocol. Thenumber of plants sampledcipersubcate ory was varied to match eachsubcategory's share of the waterpollution problem. Since the textiledyeing and finishing segments of theindustry consist of facilities withsignificant differences in productionprocesses, equipment, raw materials,finishes, dyes, and auxiliary chemicals,the screening sampling phase wasexpanded and-the verification phasereduced. Tkhirty-nine plants weresampled during tie screening phase and22 plants were sampled during theverification phase including II plantswhich had previously been screened.The sampling involved 50 separateplants (39 direct dischargers, 9 indirectdischargers, I recycle plant, and I plantthat practices land application) and a'total of 327 samples (28 source water, 64raw wastewater. 90 biological treatmenteffluent, 38 physical/chemical treatmenteffluent, and 107 waste treatment fromthe EPA/Industry Pilot Plant ResearchProject) were collected.

The primary objective of the fieldsampling program was to producecomposite samples of wastewater, fromwhich concentrations of toxic pollutantscould be ascertained. Presampling plantvisits were generally made to assess thevalue of a particular plant to thesampling program and to make thearrangements necessary for successful,time-efficient sampling. The samplingperiod varied from eight hours to overten days, but in most cases. the samplingwas conducted over a 24-hour period.

Raw wastewater samples were takeneither before treatment or after minimalpreliminary treatment (e.g., screening),depending upon the accessibility of thewastewater stream. Treated effluentsamples were taken either followingpretreatment (usually indirectdischargers) or after biological and/orphysical/chemical treatment (directdischargers). Pilot plant waste treatmentsamples were collected into and out ofpilot-scale treatment units housed in oneof two mobile pilot plants. (See DataGathering Efforts.) Source watersamples were collected from supplieswithin the processing facilities todetermine the presence of toxicpollutants prior to contamination bytextile processes.

Samples were collected by grab andcomposite sampling techniques.Automatic samplers were used to collectraw wastewater and effluent samplesfor analysis of conventional,nonconventional, nonvolatile organics.and metallic pollutants of pollutantparameters. Grab sampling techniqueswere used to collect samples for oil andgrease and volatile organic acids.*Details of the sampling techniques,sample container preparation, samplinglogistics, and sample shippingprocedures are discussed in appendix Dof the Development Document.

The analyses for the 12 toxicpollutants were performed according togroups of chemicals and associatedanalytical schemes. Organic toxicpollutants include 32 volatile (purgeable)and 82 nonvolatile pollutants. Thenonvolatile pollutants include 47 base-neutrals, 11 acid extractables, and 24pesticides. Inorganic toxic pollutantsinclude 13 heavy metals, cyanide, andasbestos.Two pollutants were notanalyzed for 2.3.7,8-tetrachlorodibeazo-a-dioxin (TCDD) and asbestos. TCDDwas omitted because of its extremetoxicity and the health hazards involvedin preparing standard solutions andbecause it was not expected to bepresent. Asbestos was omitted becauseof the presence of other fibrous materialin textile wastewaters. which madeidentification extremely difficult. Endrinaldehyde was not analyzed for duringthe initial screening phase because pureendrin aldehyde could not be obtainedin time to prepare the required standardsolutions.

The primary analytical method usedto identify volatile, base-neutral, andacid organics was gas chromatography(GC) with confirmation andquantification on all samples by massspectrometry (MS). GC was employedfor analysis of pesticides with limitedMS confirmation. The Agency analyzed

the toxic heavy metals by atomicadsorption spectrophotometry (AASI.with flame or graphite furnaceatomization following appropriatedigestion of the sample, and by theinductively coupled Argon plasma(ICAP) excitation technique. Cyanideand total phenols were measured byconventional wet chemistry techniquesas outlined in "Standard Methods forthe Examination ofrWater andVrastewater. 14th Edition." Analyses forconventional pollutants [BOD5, TSS, oiland grease, and pH). andnonconventional pollutants (COD,sulfide, and color) were accomplishedusing "Methods for Chemical Analysisof Water and Wastes" (EPA 625/6--74-003) and amendments. A detaileddiscussion of the analytical proceduresemployed for all determinations isprovided in Appendix D of theDevelopment Document.

VL Industry Subcategorization

In developing these regulations, it wasnecessary to determine whetherdifferent effluent limitations andstandards of performance wereappropriate for different groups ofplants (subcategories) within theindustry. The factors considered inidentifiying these subcategoriesincluded: Raw materials used; products;manufacturing processes employed;- sizeand age of manufacturing facility andequipment: waste characteristics; waterpollution control technology: treatmentcosts; energy requirements; and solidwaste generation and disposalrequirements. Similarity of financialcharacteristics was considered in theeconomic analysis. On the basis of thesefactors, the industry was divided intonine general subcategories, and two ofthese were each divided into threesubdivisions. (The July 4.1974.regulations were based on eightsubcategories, while the May 26, 1977,regulations were based on sevensubcategories.] The major factors andthe rationale determining thesubcategorization are set out in SectionIV of the Development Document. Ingeneral. subcategorization is based onraw materials, products, and wastecharacteristics.

The subcategories and subdivisions ofthe textile industry are:

1. Wool Scouring-facilities thatprimarily scour natural impurities fromraw wool and other animal hair fibers.Integrated mills that include woolscouring processes should calculatetheir discharge allowances by applyingthe applicable wool scouring effluentlimitations to the wool scouringproduction and the other applicable

62209 "

Federal Register / Vol. 44; No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

effluent limitations to the other kinds ofproduction.

2. Wool Finishing-facilities thatfinish fabric that is primarily animal hairfiber (wool, orpther animal hair fiber, orblends containing pri'marily wool orother animal hair fiber) by using any ofthe following operations on at least fivepercent of their total production:Carbonizing, fulling, bleaching, scouring(not including raw grease woolscouring), dyeing and/or application offunctional finish chemicals. Facilitiesthat primarily finish stock or yarn that isprimarily animal hair fiber are includedin this subcategory. Wool stock or yarnmills that do not perform carbonizingand scouring are covered under Stockand Yarn Finishing. Integrated mills thatprimarily finish wool fabric along withgreige goods manufacturing or otherfinishing operations (such as yarndyeing) are included in this subcategoryand applicable wool finishing effluentlimitations should be applied to the totalproduction (excluding weaving andother dry operations, andrwool scouring)to calculate discharge allowances.

3. Low Water Use Processing-facilitibs other than finishing facilitiesengaged only in manufacturing greigegoods, laminating or coating fabrics,texturizing yarn, tufting and backingcarpet, producing tire cord fabric, andsimilar activities in which either cleanupis the primary water use or processwater requirements are small, or both.

4. Woven Fabric Finishing-facilitiesthat primarily finish woven-fabric, byusing any of the following operations onat least five percent of their production:Desizing, scouring, bleaching,mercerizing, dyeing, printing, and/orapplication of functional finishchemicals. Denim finishing mills areincluded in this subcategory, butfacilities finishing woven fabriccomposed primarily of wool are coveredunder Wool Finishing. Integrated millsthat primarily finish woven fabric, alongwith greige goods manufacturing orother finishing operations (such as yarndyeing), are included in this subcategoryand the applicable woven fabricfinishing effluent limitations should beapplied to the total production(excluding weaving and other dryoperations) to calculate dischargeallowances. .

a. Simple Processing-subdivision ofWoven Fabric Finishing for facilitiesthat perform fiber preparation, desizing,scouring, or functional finishing, and/orone of the following processes appliedto more than five percent of totalproduction: Bleaching, dyeing,.orprinting. This subdivision includes allWoven Fabric Finishing facilities that donot qualify under either the Complex

Processing or Complex Processing PlusDesizing subdivisidn.

b. Complex Processing-subdivisionof Woven Fabric Finishing for facilitiesthat perform desizing of less than 50percent of their total production andmore than one of the following, eachapplied to more than five-percent oftotal production: Bleaching, dyeing, orprinting. These facilities may alsoperform fiber preparation, scouring,mercerizing, and functional finishing.,

c. Complex Processing Plus Desizing-subdivision of Woven Fabric Finishingfor facilities that perform desizing ofgreater than 50 percent of their totalproduction, and more than one of thefollowing, each applied to more thanfive percent of total production:Bleaching, dyeing, or printing. Thesefacilities may also perform fiberpreparation, scouring, mercerizing, andfunctional finishing.

5. Knit Fabric Finishing-facilities thatprimarily finish cotton and/or syntheticfiber fabric a mhjority of which is knit,by employing any of the followingoperations on at lent five percent oftheir production: Scouring, bleaching,dyeing, printing, and/or application oflubricants, antistatic agents, andfunctional finish chemicals. Integratedmills that primarily finish knit fabric,along with greige goods manufacturingor other finishing operations such asyarn dyeing, are included in thissubcategory and thb" applicable knitfabric finishing effluent limitationsshould be ipplied to total production(excluding knitting and other dryoperations] to calculate dischargeallowances.

a. Simple Processing-subdivision ofKnit Fabric Finishing for facilities thatperform fiber preparation, scouring, orfunctional finishing, and/or one of thefollowing processes applied to morethan five percent of total production:Bleaching, dyeing, or printing. Thissubdivision includes all Knit FabricFinishing facilities that do not qualifyunder either the Complex Processing orHosiery Products subdivision.

b. Complex ProcEssing-subdivisionof Knit Fabric Finishing for facilities thatperform more than one of the followingprocesses each applied to more than fivepercent of total production: Bleaching,dyeing, or printing. These facilities mayalso perform fiber preparation,-scouring,mercerizing, and functional finishing.

c. Hosiery Products-subdivision ofKnit Fabric Finishing for facilities thatare engaged primarily in dyeing orfinishing hosiery of any type.

6. Carpet Finishing-facilities thatprimarily finish carpet and other textile-based floor covering products, byemploying any of the following

operations on at least five percent oftheir production: Scouring, bleaching,dyeing, printing, and/or application offunctional finish chemicals. Facilitiesthat only perform carpet tufting and/orbacking are cdvered under Low WalerUse Processing. Integrated mills thatprimarily finish carpet along with tuftingor backing operations or other finishingoperations (such as yarn dyeing) areincluded in this subcategory and theapplicable carpet manufacturing effluentlimitations should be applied to totalproduction (excluding tufting, other dryprocessing, and backing) to calculatedischarge allowances.

7. Stock and Yarn Finishing-facilitiesthat primarily finish stock, yarn, orthread of cotton and/or synthetic fiberby employing any of the followingoeprations on at least five percent oftheir production: Scouring, bleaching,mercerizing, dyeing, and/or applicationof functional finish chemicals. Fadilitlesfinishing stock, yarn, or threadprincipally of wool also are covered ifthey do not peiform carbonizing.Integrated mills that primarily finishstock and yarn along with grelge goodsmanufacturing or other finishingoperations are included in thissubcategory and the applicable stockand yarn finishing effluent limitationsshould be applied to total production(excluding knitting, weaving, and otherdry operations) to calculate dischargeallowances.

8. Nonwoven Manufacturing-facilliesthat primarily manufacture nonwoventextile products of wool, cotton, orsynthetics, singly or as blends, by

.mechanical, thermal, and/or adhesivebonding procedures. (Nonwovenproducts produced by fulling and feltingprocesses are covered In Felted FabricProcessing). Integrated mills thatprimarily manufacture nonwoven textileproducts along with grelge goodsmanufacturing or other finishingoperations are included In thissubcategory and the applicablenonwoven manufacturing effluentlimitations should be applied to totalproduction (excluding dry webformation knitting, weaving, and otherdry operations) to calculate dischargeallowances.

9. Felted Fabric Processing-facilltiesthat primarily manufacture nonwovenproducts by using fulling and feltingoperations to achieve fiber bonding.Integrated mills that primarily process afelted fabric, along with grelge goodsmanufacturing or other finishingoperations, are Included in thissubcategory and the applicable feltedfabric processing effluent limitationsshould be applied to total production

62210

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

(excluding knitting, weaving, or otherdry operations) to calculate dischargeallowances.

The economic structure of the industrywas analyzed-to determine the types offacilities represented in the abovesubcategories and internal subdivisionsof subcategories. The principal factorsconsidered were product ownership andextent of integration. The types of millsidentified were: Commission mills,finishers of owned fabric or yarn, andintegrated mills. Commission mills dyeand/or finish goods owned by others ona commission basis. Finishers of ownedfabric or yam purchase greige goods forfinishing. These finishers differ from thecommission finishers because theirrevenues come from the sales of finishedtextile goods. Commission finisherrevenues consist of commission receiptsfor job finishing. Integrated millsmanufacture greige goods and performfinishing of these goods at the samefacility. For a complete discussion onthe types of facilities, see Section VI ofthe Economic Analysis.

VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place Technology. Thecontrol measures and treatmenttechnologies that are available fortextile industry processing and wastetreatment include a broad range of in-plant and process changes and end-of-pipe treatment. The in-plant controlmeasures range from minor waterconservation. such as liquid levelcontrol, to complete change of processsuch as continuous versus batchprocessing and nonaqueous versusaqueous dyeing. The treatmenttechnologies range from no treatment tocomplete recyle systems, although thelatter is certainly the exception ratherthan the rule. At most plants, programscombining elements of both control andtreatment are applicable and individualmills should consider both to determinewhich specific combination is bestsuited to their particular situation.- In-plant control measures may bedivided into five types as follows: (1)Water reuse; (2] water reduction; (3)chemical substitution; (4) materialreclamation: and (5] process changesand new process technology.

The distinction between water reuseand water reduction is not sharplydefined, but, in general, water reuse isthe use of the same water more thanonce, while water reduction is the use ofless water. These measures are the mostcommon controls in use.

Chemical substitution is practiced toreplace process chemicals having highpollutant strength or toxic properties

with others that are less polluting ormore amenable to treatment.

Material reclamation measures areoften implemented, but to reduceprocessing costs rather than pollutantloadings.

Process changes comprise a group ofrelated measures that are used toachieve benefits in the other four controlareas. They result in reductions ofhydraulic and/or pollutant loadings totreatment systems while improving thequality and efficiency of the processing.

EPA evaluated all of the in-plantcontrol technologies and processchanges noted above in developing theproposed regulations. However, theAgency did not consider any specificone in establishing the effluentlimitations for existing or new sourcedischargers. Basically, there are nospecific control measures that arenecessary in the industry as a whole orin one or more particular subcategories.However, this does not imply that thesemeasures are unimportanr or should beeliminated from further consideration.These measures can effect savings bothin manufacturing cost and In the cost oftreatment, and in the future will assumea much greater role in treatment andconservation of energy and materials.

The end-of-pipe treatment technologyemployed by the industry may beclassified as follows: No treatment:preliminary treatment (neutralization.screening, equalization, heat exchange,disinfection, primary sedimentation.and/or flotation]; biological orequivalent treatement (aerated andunaerated lagoons, biological filtration,activated sludge, and chemicalcoagulation/sedimentation withoutpreceding biological treatment); andphysical/ chemical treatment (filtration,chemical coagulation, and/or granularor powdered activated carbonadsorption following biologicaltreatment). Approximately 30 percent ofthe direct dischargers provide notreatment or only preliminary treatment.Many of these are waiting to connect toPOTWs currently in the construction ordesign stages. Most of the directdischargers provide biological orequivalent treatment with about two-thirds of these providing activatedsludge, primarily the extended-aerationmode. Less than 10 percent of the directdischargers provide advanced wastetreatment; several recycle their treatedeffluent for in-plant use.

Approximately 60 percent of theindirect dischargers surveyed provideno treatment Most of these facilitieshave been able to discharge td POTWswithout facing specific controls, but thismay change as more municipalities fullyevaluate their industrial waste

contribution and assess user charges inaccordance with EPA guidelines. Over30 percent provide preliminarytreatment similar to that noted above fordirect dischargers. Approximately 9percent provide biological or equivalenttreatment (same as noted above fordirect dischargers], with about 14percent of these employing some type ofactivated sludge to some degree. Manyof those employing activated sludge areformer direct dischargers that haveconnected to a POTW. Only one indirectdischarger surveyed employs physical/chemical wastewater treatmenttechnology.

B. Control Technologies Considered.The alternative treatment technologiesconsidered for existing direct andindirect discharge sources includevarious combinations of biologicaltreatment, chemcial coagulation andsedimentation, multi-media filtration,dissolved air flotation, activated carbonadsorption, and chemical oxidation withozone (ozonation). The specificalternatives evaluated in terms of costsand reduction benefits included: (1)Screening and 24-hour extended-aeration activated sludge with solidsrecycle; (2) chemical coagulation andsedimentation: (3) multi-media filtration;(4) chemical coagulation, sedimentation,and multi-media filtration: (5) multi-media filtration and granular activatedcarbon adsorption; (6] ozonation; (7)chemical coagulation, sedimentation,and ozonation; (8) chemical coagulation,sedimentation, multi-media filtration,and ozonation; (9) chemical coagulationand dissolved air flotation (WoolScouring only); (10) chemicalcoagulation, dissolved air flotation.multi-media filtration, and granularactivated carbon adsorption (WoolScouring only]; and (11) chemical -coagulation, dissolved air flotation, andOzonation (Wool Scouring only). Thealternatives apply differently to directand indirect dischargers and are notuniversal for all subcategories (seeSection VIII of the DevelopmentDocument).

The alternatives considered for newsources are based on the sametreatment technologies noted forexisting sources plus segregation ofprocess wastes into toxic and nontoxicwaste streams. Although not specificallypracticed in the industry, segregation ofwastes is considered feasible andappears to be especially cost-effectivefor larger flows. The specificalternatives evaluated included: (1]Screening, 24-hour extended-aerationactivated sludge with solids recycle- (2)screening, 24-hour extended-aerationactivated sludge with solids recycle.

62211

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

chemical coagulation, sedimentation,and multi-media filtration; (3) screening,equalization, multi-media filtration, andgranular activated carbon adiorption oftoxic stream and screening and 8-hour.activated sludge with solids recycle ofnontoxic stream (flows above 0.25 mgd);and screening, 24-hour extended-aeration activated sludge with solidsrecycle, multi-media filtration, andgranular activated'carbon adsorption oftotal waste flow (flows at or below 0.25ngd); and (4) screening, equalization,chemical coagulation, sedimentation,multi-media filtration, and granularactivated carbon adsorption of toxicstream and screening and 8-houractivated sludge with solids recycle of -

nontoxic stream (flows above 0.25 mgd);and screening, 24-hour extended-aeration activated sludge with-solidsrecycle, chemical coagulation,sedimentation, multi-media filtration,and granular activated carbonadsorption of total waste flow (flows ator below 0.25 mgd). For Wool Scouring,chemical coagulation and dissolved airflotation replace multi-media filtration.The alternatives apply differently todirect and indirect dischargers sincebiological treatment is not used byindirect dischargers. For those wastestreams that do-not contain measurableamounts of the 129 toxic pollutants,screening alone is required beforedischarging to a POTW collectionsystem,

None of the treatment technologiesunderlying the proposed regulations ar'econsidered to be innovative and,although not common, all are presentlyemployed in the industry.VIII. Best Available Technology EffluentLimitations

The factors considered in establishingthe best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT] level'ofcontrol include environmentalconsiderations such as air pollution,solid waste generation, and energyconsumption; the costs of applying thecontrol; the process used; the age ofprocess equipment and facilities: theengineering aspects of applying varioustypes of control techniques; and processchanges (Section 304(b](2)(B)). Ingeneral, the BAT technology levelrepresents, at a minimum, the bestexisting economically achievableperformance of plants of shared -

characteristics. Where existing-performance is uniformly inadequate,BAT technology may be transfeirredfrom a different subcategory orindustrial categoryBAT may includeprocess changes or internal controls,even when not common industrypractice. , -, I

. The .statutory assessment of BATconsiders c6sts,,but does not require abalancing of costs against effluentreduction benefits, (see Weyerhauserv.Costle, 11 ERC 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).However, in assessing the proposedBAT, the Agency has given substantial,weight to the reasonableness- of costs.The Agency has considered the volumeand nature of discharges, the volumeand nature of discharges expected afterapplication of BAT, the generalenvironmental effects of the pollutants,and the costs and economic impacts ofthe required pollution control levels.

The effluent limitations weredeveloped for the 6ontrol technologyoptions in a building block fashion, byengineering analysis using the properapplication and operation of theextended-aeration activated sludge'treatment technology (BPT) as a base(BAT Option 1). The performande ofadditional end-of-pipe controltechnologies was established byengineering analysis of the applicationof these technologies and theirperformance in other relatedapplications, including full-scale andpilot-scale units. The effluent resultingfrom Option 1 was subjected to theperformance of suspended solids controlin the form of multi-media filtration,which has been demonstrated in pilotplant studies and at full scale on thewastewater from most of the textileindustry subcategories. The resultingeffluent quality was the basis for BATOption 2. The effluent resulting fromOption1 was also subjected to theperformance of physical/chemicaltreatment in the form of coagulation/sedimentation, which has beendemonstrated in pilot plant studies and.at full scale on the-wastewater frommost of the textile industrysubcategories. The resulting effluentquality was the basis for BAT Option 3.Finally, the resulting effluent fromOption 3 was subjected to theperformance of suspended solids controlin the form of multi-media filtration,with the resulting final effluent qualityserving as the basis for BAT Option 4.

All of the reductions projected by thisengineering analysis for tbtaLsuspendedsolids as an "indicator" pollutant (seeREGULATED POLLUTANTS] are base'don long-term performance, resulting infinal effluent qualities that areconsidered to be long-term. averages.Estimates of effluent quality variabilitywere made to establish maximum 30-day average and maximum day masseffluent limitations {lb/1,000 lb offinished product).,

Despite expanded consideration of -

costs, the primary determinant of BAT is

effluent reduction capability usingeconomically achievable techfiology.Moreover, as a result of the Clean WaterAct of 1977,. the achievement of BAT hasbecome the national means ofcontrolling the discharge of toxicpollutants. The textile industrydischarges 29 of the 129 toxic pollutantsand EPA has selected, among fouravailable control options, BATtechnology that will significantly reducetheir discharge. Explanation and ,analysis of these options follows. Formore detailed discussion, see Section IXof the Development Document.

JA) Option 1-Allow a dischargebased on the proper application andoperation of biological treatmenttechnology for textile wastewatersdischarged to navigable waters. Thisoption does not require in-plant controlsor additional end-of-pipe treatmenttechnology beyond BPT. The technologyrequired by this option (BPT) is welldemonstrated in the industry and wouldnot result in additional effects on non-water environmental quality. Theeffluent concentrations of ihe 29 mostsignificant toxic pollutants would be ator below 0.7 mg/l and the estimatedtotal toxic pollutant contribution fromthe direct dischargers of 600 tons/yearwould be reduced approximately 50percent (80 percent for the 17 significantorganics and 35 percent for the 11significant metallics). The COD, TSS,and oil and grease would be reduced byapproximately 70, 35, and 75 percent,respectively. Nevertheless, the dischargeof all pollutants (i.e., conventional,nonconventional, and toxic) wouldcontinue, with high levels of COD andcolor discharged at most plants. Therewould be no removal of cyanides. Atnearly half the plants so tested with BPTtechnology in place, these effluentsexhibited some degree of toxicity tofreshwater minnows, daphnia, and/oralgae.

Economic analysis indicates that thisoption may affect the 35 hosiery, ,nonwoven, and felt direct dischargers, inaddition to the remaining 204 directdischargers which are regulated underBPT limitations. Compliance with thisoption would require an estimated 9 ofthe 239 affected direct dischargers toinvest a total of $1.9 million and incurannualized costs (including operation,maintenance, interest, and depreciation)of $876 thousand. These costs mayreduce'the return on sales of the threeimpacted subcategories from a currentrange of 0.8 to 3.6 percent with currentBPT limitations to a range of-0.3 to 2.0percent with this option. The Agencyprojects that selection of this option mayresult in 3 plant closings and a loss of

62212

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules 62213

0.1 percent of industry employment forthe 1,165 wet processing plants., [B) Option 2-Allow a discharge

based on application of BAT Option 1plus suspended solids control by multi-media filtration. For Wool Scouring,BAT Option 2 is equal to Option 1.Option 2 incorporates the end-of-pipeaddition of multi-media filtration toremove toxic pollutants contained insuspended solids.

The technology behind this option hasbeen well demonstrated in this industryat full scale and in pilot-scale studies.Currently, at least 13 plants use someform of filtration; ten are directdischargers and three are plants thatrecycle their discharge. On over half (10of 19] of the textile plant effluents testedat pilot scale, multi-media filtration wasrecognized to be one of the bestcandidate technologies for removingclassical pollutants (e.g., BOD5, COD.TSS]. Treatability data from three full-scale applications and six pilot scaleinvestigations (a total of 47 samples)indicate estimated average effluentconcentrations below 0.3 mg/l fot all the29 significant toxic pollutants exceptzinc. The zinc effluent level would bebelow 0.6 mg/i. The total toxic pollutantcontribution from the direct dischargerswould be reduced approximately 20percent over Option 1 (40 percent for the17 significant'organics and 10 percentfor the 11 significant metallics],achieving an overall toxic pollutantreduction of cover 60 percent of the rawwaste load. The COD, TSS, and oil andgrease would be reduced, overall, byapproximately 75, 60, and 95 percent,respectively.

Multi-media filtration can be readilyadded to BPT systems to improveoverall system performance and dampen"peak" discharges of TSS during BPTupsets. In addition, some addedprotection is offered over Option 1against intermittent discharges of highlevels of toxic pollutants. However,Option 2 providers little additionalreduction of metallic toxic pollutants,COD, and color over Option 1. Energyrequirements will increase by anestimated 0.02 to 0.03 percent per plantfor the direct dischargers, and sludgegeneration will increase by an estimated150 tons/year/plant (33,000 tons/yearfor all existing direct dischargers).

Economic analysis indicates thatcompliance with this option may requirean estimated 210 of the 239 affecteddirect dischargers to invest a total of $41million and incur annualized costs(including operation, maintenance,iaterest, and depreciation] of $18million. These costs may reduce thereturn on sales of the impactedsubcategoies from a current range of 0.8

to 5.9 percent with BPT to a range of-0.5to 5.0 percent with this option. TheAgency projects that selection of thisoption may result In 11 plant closingsand a loss of 0.4 percent of industryemployment for the 1,165 wet processingplants.

(C) Option 3-Allow a dischargebased on application of BAT Option 1plus chemical treatment In the form ofchemical coagulation/sedimentation.For Wool Scouring. Option 3 is equal toOption 1. Option 3 incorporates the end-of-pipe addition of chemical coagulationto control organic and metallic toxicpollutants.

The technology behind this option hasbeen demonstrated in this industry atpilot and full scale for control ofconventional pollutant parameters andspecific colloidal components such aslatex (Carpet Mills Subcategory) andprint pastes (Woven Fabric FinishingSubcategory) but not specifically forcontrol of toxic pollutants. Currently atleast eight direct discharge plants usesome form of coagulation; twochemically treat raw wastes. At 6 of 13textile plants for which the secondaryeffluent was tested at pilot scale,chemical coagulation was recognized asone of the best candidate technologiesfor removing classical pollutants (e.g.,BOD5, COD, and TSS). Treatability datafrom the pilot investigations (a total of12 samples) indicate estimated averageeffluent concentrations of the 29significant toxic pollutants. except 1,2.4-trichlorobenzene and zinc, at or below0.1 mg/l. The 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene andzinc effluent levels would be at or below0.4 and 0.2 mg/l. respectively. The totaltoxic pollutant contribution from thedirect dischargers would be reducedapproximately 50 percent over Option 1(30 percent for the 17 significantorganics and 50 percent for the 11significant metallics), and 35 percentover Option 2 (no removal of the 17significant organics and 40 percent forthe 11 significant metallics), effecting anoverall toxic pollutant reduction of over75 percent of the raw waste load. TheCOD, TSS, and oil and grease would bereduced, overall, by approximately 80,60, and 90 percent, respectively; someadditional color removal over Option 2will be recognized.

Coagulation can be readily added toBPT systems to improve overall systemperformance and dampen "peak"discharges of TSS during BPT upsets.Compared to Option 2, Option 3 wouldsignificantly improve the removal ofmetallic toxic pollutants. However,Option 3 offers no additional removal oforganic toxic pollutants or COD and lessremoval of TSS. The technology has not

been demonstrated in all subcategoriesof the industry and pilot plant data haveindicated that coagulation is oftenineffective for Woven Fabric FinishingWastewaters. Energy requirements willincrease by an estimated 0.2 to 0.5percent per plant. and sludge generationwill increase by an estimated 300 tons/year/plant (65.000 tons/year for allexisting direct dischargers].

Economic analysis indicates thatcompliance with this option may requirean estimated 210 of the 239 affecteddirect dischargers to invest a total of $55million and incur annualized costs of $33million. These costs may reduce returnon sales for the impacted subcategoriesfrom a current range of 0.8 to 5.9 percentwith BPT to a range of -3.0 to 4.6percent with this option. The Agencyprojects that selection of this option mayresult in 24 plant closings and a loss of1.0 percent of industry employment forthe 1.165 wet processing plants.

(D) Option 4-Allow a dischargebased on application of BAT Option 3plus BAT Option 2 for all subcategoriesexcept Wool Scouring. This controloption incorporates the end-of-pipeaddition of chemical coagulation tocontrol organic and metallic toxicpollutants. and multi-media filtration tocontrol toxic pollutants associated withsuspendend solids. For the WoolScouring Subcategory, this optionincludes chemical coagulation anddissolved air flotation.

The technology behind this option hasbeen demonstrated at pilot and fullscale for the control of conventionalpollutant parameters but not specificallyfor control of toxic pollutants. At 6 to 13plants for which the secondary effluentwas tested at pilot scale, this controllevel was recognized as one of the bestcandidate technologies for removingclassical pollutants (e.g., BOD5, COD,and TSS). Treatability data from thepilot investigations (a total of 20samples) indicate estimated averageeffluent concentrations of all 29significant toxic pollutants except 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, antimony. and zinc, ator below 0.08 mg/l. The 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, antimony, and zinceffluent levels would be at or below 0.2,0.1, and 0.2 mg/l, respectively. The totaltoxic pollutant contribution from thedirect dischargers would be reducedapproximately 55 percent over Option 1,45 percent over Option 2. and less than10 percent over Option 3. causing anoverall toxic pollutant reduction ofapproximately 80 percent (90 percent forthe 17 significant organics and 65percent for the 11 significant metallics)of the raw waste load. The COD, TSS,and oil and grease would be reduced,

T

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

overall, by approximately 84 and 95percent, respectively.

This option is compatible withexisting BPT and would providereasonably good protection againstintermittent discharges of high levels oforganic or metallic toxic pollutants.Overall, however, this option provideslittle advantage over Option 3 in termsof total toxic pollutantp removal. Energyrequirements will increase by anestimated 0.2 to 0.5 percent per plant (nosignificant increase over Option 3), andsludge generation will increase by an,estimated 370 tons/year/plant (80,000tons/year for all existing directdischargers).

Economic analysis indicates thatcompliance with this option may require-an estimated'217 of the 239 directdischargers to invest a total of $92million and incur annualized costs of $44'million. These costs may reduce thereturn on sales for the impactedsubcategories from a current range-of-0.9 to 5.9 percent with BPT to a rangeof -b.8 to 4.2 percent with this option..The Agency projects that selection ofthis option may result in 29 plant ,closings and a loss of 1.2 percent ofindustry employment.

(E) BAT Selection and DecisionCriteria-Based on ahalyses of 'thesecontrol options, thie Agency has selectedOption 2 for Woven Fabric Finishing (allsubdivisions), Knit Fabric Finishing(except the Hosiery Productssubdivision), Carpet Finishing, Stockand Yam Finishing; and NonwovenManufacturing and Option 4 for WbolScouring, Wool Finishing, and the -Hosiery Products subdivision of KnitFabric Finishing as the basis forproposal of BAT effluent limitations.The Agency has based BAT for FeltedFhbric Processing on the properapplication of biological treatment in theform of extended-aeration activaledsludge (Option 1). No BAT regulationsare proposed for the Low Water UseProcessing subcategory (S-ee Pollutantsand Subcategories Not Regulated).

Option 2 is selected because itcontrols the discharge of highconcentrations of TSS and providessubstantial reductions of toxicpollutants of concern in this industry.The costs for this control level arereasonable, and the overall economicand non-water quality impacts are .within acceptable limits. The Agencyrejects Option 3 because treatabilitydata indicate that chemical coagulationis not always effective followingbiological treatment, especially forWoven Fabric Finishing (allsubdivisions). The added benefit ofchemical coagulation over filtration forthe other subcategories is not significant

enoughto justify the additionaleconomic and non-water environmentalimpacts. The Agency also rejects Option4 (except as noted below) because ofeconomic and non-water environmentalimpacts which are not justified by theadditional pollutant removal.

Option 4 is selected for WoolScouring, Wool Finishing, and theHosiery Products subdivision of KnitFabric Finishing because the TSSconcentrations in these Subcategoriesremain high after BPT and are notcompatible with multi-media filtrationdirectly. The added application ofchemical coagulation will control thedischarge of TSS and providesubstantial reduction of toxic pollutantsof concern in these subcategories also.

Option I is selected for Felted FabricProcessing based on the Agency'sdetermination that more advancedtreatment is not economicallyachievable.

The Agency developed the effluentlimitations in a building block fashion

'by engineering analysis using full-scaleand pilot-scale treatability data. First,median BPT effluent concentrationlevels were established for theconventional and nonconventionalpollutants for each subcategory. Long-term data were available from NPDESpermit monitoring reports and theindustry survey questionnaires. (SeeSection V of the DevelopmentDocument.) Second, separate statisticalanalyses were carried out for COD, TSS,color, and total phenol at Selected, well-operated textile waste treatmentfacilities to determine the normal andseasonal variability of the data. Themedian BPT effluent concentrationvalues were.adjusted by the medianmaximum month/average month valuefor each pollutant. The concentrationswere converted to mass loadings fkg/kkg of finished product) by applying themedian water -usage values for eachsubcategory (as established from thedata noted above) to provide the basisfor the'30-day average limitations. Thebasis for the maximum daily limitations

* was application of specific factors to the30-day average limitations. Thesefactors are determined by dividing the*median maximum day/average monthvalues by the median maximum month/average month values.

Finally, effluent limitations based onthe BAT option selected were calculated*for both the 30-day average andmaximum day by application 6festablished treatment performancefactors. The values established, and thevariability and'treatment performancefactors employed, are discussed inSection IX of the DevelopmentDocumeni.•

IX. Best Conventional Pollutant ControlTechnology Effluent Limitations

The 1977 amendments added Section301(b](2](E) to the Act, establishing"best conventional pollutant controltechnology" (BCT) for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existingindustrial point sources, Conventionalpollutants are those defined in Section304(a)(4)-BOD, TSS, fecal coliform andpH-and any additional pollutantsdefined by the Administrator asconventional" (oil and grease).BCTis not an additional limitation,

but replaces BAT for the control ofconventional pollutants. BCT requiresthat limitations for conventionalpollutants be assessed in light of a now•"cost-reasonableness" test, whichinvolves a comparison of the cost and'level of reduction of conventionalpollutants from the discharge of POTWato the cost and level of reduction of suchpollutants from a class or category ofindustrial sources. As part of its reviewof BAT for certain "secondary"industries, the Agency promulgatedmethodology for this cost test. (See 44FR 50732 (August 29, 1979)). Thismethodology compares subcategoryremoval costs (dollars per pound ofpollutant, measuring from BPT to BAT)with costs experienced by POTWs.

EPA applied this methodqlogy to thecosts for removal of conventionalpollutants in the textile industry andconcluded that BCT limitations basedupon multi-media filtration (BAT Option2) are reasonable for larger plants in theWoven Fabric Finishing. Knit FabricFinishing (except Hosiery Products),Carpet Finishing, Stock and YarnFinishing, and Nonwoven Manufacturingsubcategories. For larger plants In theWool Scouring, Wool Finishing, and'Hosiery Products Subdivision of KnitFabric Finishing subcategories, BCTlimitations based on chemicalcoagulation plus multi-media filtration(dissolved air flotation for WoolScouring) (BAT Option 4) were found tobe reasonable. Using a POTW cost of$1.17 per pound of BOD5 and TSSremoved, production sizes equal to orgreater than those noted in the followingtabulation pass the BCT "cost-reasonableness" test. Smaller sizes donot pass the test. The method used incalculating BCT costs for the textileindustry is fully discussed in Section Xof the Development Document.

ProductionSubcategory Sizo,

kkg/yr

Wool Scouring........ -..........Wool Finishing.Woven Fabric Fishing

Simple Processing ...........Complex Processing.... ...........................

3.36'5.800

13. 50012.200

62214

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

Compex Processk Pks Des~ng-Knit Fabric Fnishi0gsim- Proces.s ....complx ProcesskVHser PM&Jc1s__

Carpet FsStock ard Yam FvishingNonwoven Manufactizng

The Agency is therefore propoBCT effluent limitations at the BtOption 2 and BAT Option 4 techifor plants with production equalgreater than these values and atexisting BPT limitations for plantproduction less than these valuelimitations forplants less than thabove values in the NonwovenManufacturing Subcategory andplants in the Felted Fabric ProceSubcategory, are based on BAT1, and BCT effluent limitations foin the Low Water Use ProcessingSubcategory are based on existilimitations for all production size

X. New Source Performance StarThe basis for new source perfo

standards (NSPS) under Sectionthe Act is the best availabledemonstrated technology. New phave the opportunity to design thand most efficient textile processwastewater treatment facilities,Congress directed EPA to considbest demonstrated process changplant controls, and end-of-pipetreatment technologies that redupollution to the maximum extentfeasible. New sources are encourreduce the use andlor dischargewater and toxic pollutants byapplication of in-plant control mebut it is expected that many of thpollutants present in the dischargthe industry today will also be prin the discharges from new sourccontrol these and the conventionpollutants, the Agency has selectNSPS from three options. Explanand discussion-of these options fFor more-detailed discussion, seeSection X of the DevelopmentDocument.

(A) Option --Require performstandards based on the same tecproposed forBAT Option 1.whicbiological treatment.

This option also encourages fulapplication of appropriate in-platcontrol measures and pretreatmewhich will maximize the performthe extended-aeration activatedtreatment technology. As a resultmost significant toxic pollutantsbe reduced by approximately 50,

This technology is well demon,and would not change the rate of

Productil of new plants into the industry or slowgfyr the rate of industry growth. (See Option

-1. BAT Effluent Limitations.)9., o (B) Option 2-Require performance7=flo standards based on NSPS Option 1 plus

11.700 chemical coagulation and multi-media9.So filtration (dissolved air flotation for

irmlo Wool Scouring). This option Is28= equivalent to BAT Option 4 and Is fully

discussed in that section. Thesing technology, based on a typical plantAT with an 0.82 mgd wastewater discharge,nologies will generate approximately 1.400"tonsto or of sludge (including biological) per yearthe per new source and energy requirementts with would be 0.8 to 14 percent of facilitys. BCT totalie Economic analysis indicates that this

option may reduce the rate of entry hitoall the Felted Fabric Processingssing Subcategory and. consequently, slow theOption rate of industry growth. Return on salesirplants for these mills may be reduced from a

projected range of 3.3 to 7.4 percent withigBPT current NSPS to a range of 1.8 to 6.7aS. percent with this option. EPA does notidards anticipate that this option will seriously

affect production, employment, localirmance communities, or balance of trade for the306 of other subcategories in the industry.

(C) Option 3-Require performancelants standards based upon treatment ofe best segregated toxic waste streams anding and other process-related and nonprocess-so related waste streams. The segregateder the toxic streams are treated In a trainles, in- comprising screening, equalization,

chemical coagulationfsedimentatiqn.ce multi-media filtration, and granular

activated carbon adsorption. For Woolaged to Scouring, multi-media filtration isof both replaced by dissolved air flotation. The

remaining waste streams are treated byasures, conventional 8-hour activated sludgee toxic with prior screening and return ofles from biomass from a secondary clarifier. Forresent total mill flows of 0.25 mgd and less. thes. To toxic waste streams are not segregated.

al and the total flow is treated by 24-houred extended-aeration activated sludgeation followed by chemical coagulation,ollows. sedimentation, multl-media filtration or

dissolved air flotation, and carbonadsorption.

The technology behind this option hasance been demonstrated in this industry at'nology pilot scale for control of conventionalh is and nonconventional pollutant

parameters but not specifically for[1 control of toxic pollutants. Currently,it only three textile facilities are known tont have technology of this nature in place;ance of one Is a direct discharger and twosludge recycle their treated effluent back to the, the processing facilities. The total toxicwould pollutant contribution from each newpercent. source would be reduced approximatelystrated 25 percent over Option 1 (33 percent forentry the 17 significant organics and 25

percent for the 11 significant metallics).No additional reduction would berecognized over Option 2, effecting anoverall reduction of toxic pollutants of60 percent of the raw waste load.

This technology has not beensignificantly demonstrated in the textileIndustry, and the segregation of wastesmay not be feasible for all subcategoriesor processes within the subcategories.Based on a typical plant with an o.8Zmgd wastewater discharge,approximately 790 tons of sludge peryear per new source will be generated.and energy requirements will be 1.3 to2.0 percent of facility total.

Economic analysis indicates that thisoption may reduce the rate of entry intothe Felted Fabric ProcessingSubcategory and, consequently, slow therate of industry growth. Return on salesfor these mills may be reduced from aprojected range of 3.3 to 7.4 percent withcurrent NSPS to a range of 1.4 to 6.5percent with this option. EPA does notanticipate that this option will seriouslyaffect production, employment, localcommunities, or balance of trade for theother subcategories in the industry.

(D) NSPS Selection and DecisionCriteria-EPA has selected Option 2 asthe basis for proposed NSPS for allsubcategories except Low Water UseProcessing because it provides asignificant reduction in toxic pollutantsof concern with technology that hasbeen demonstrated at full scale on thewaste from this industry. The Agencyrejects Option 1 because it is notentirely consistent with the basis forNSPS except for Low Water UseProcessing.which has only smallamounts oftoximpollutants present. Itdoes not represent the best availabledemonstrated technology and does notreduce pollution to the maximum extentfeasible. The Agency rejects Option 3because the overall feasibility ofactivated carbon for the removal ofspecific toxic pollutants has not beensufficiently demonstrated in thisindustry or In other ndustries where itmay be transferable to this industry. Thebenefits of segregation of the toxicwaste stream for direct dischargers aredependent on the size of the facility(flow rate); however, the Agency doesfeel that segregation would be aworthwhile, cost-effective considerationfor anyone trying to comply with theproposed NSPS effluent limitations.

Xl. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources

Section 307(b) or the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor existing sources (PSES). which mustbe achieved within three years ofpromulgation. PSES are designed to

62215

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

prevent the discharge of pollutants thatpass through, interfere with, or areotherwise incompatible with theoperation of POTWs. TheClean WaterAct of 1977 adds a new dimension' byrequiring pretreatment for pollutants,such as heavy metals, that limit POTWsludge management alternatives,including the beneficial use of sludgeseon agricultural lands. The legislativehistory of the 1977 Act indicates thatpretreatment standards are to betechnology-based, analogous to the bestavailable technology for removal oftoxic pollutants. The generalpretreatment regulations (40.CFR Part403], which served as the framework forthese proposed pretreatmbnt regulationsfor the textile industry, can be found at43 FR 27730 (June 26,1978]. Based onthese requirements, EPA consideredthree options for selection of PSES. Fordetailed discussion of the optionsavailable, see Section XII of-theDevelopment Document.

(A) Option 1-Require pretreatmentstandards based oni screening,;equalization, and/or neutralization asnecessary for compliance withprohibitive waste provisions. This,option is considered the current level ofpretreatment in the industry and would,not result in added costs or addedeconomic impact. However, manyPOTWs will continue to receivesignificant concentrations of COD,cydnides, and organic and/or metallictoxic pollutants, some of which may ,regularly or intermittently pass through,interfere with the operation, orcontaminate sludges. Totalconcentration of the 29 observed toxicpollutants would be approximately 5mg/l, and it is estimated that a total of1,120 tons of toxic pollutants (38 percentsignificant organics, 58 percentsignificant metallics, and 4 percentothers) would be discharged per year toPOTWs by selecting this option.

(B] Option 2-Require pretreatmentstandards based on PSES Option I pluschemical treatment in the foifm ofchemical coagulation/sedimentation.'This option includes the preliminarymeasures of Option 1 plus the end-of-pipe addition of chemical coagulation tocontrol organic and metallic toxicpollutants. For Wool Scouring, chemicalcoagulation is followed by dissolved airflotation.

The chemical coagulation technologyhas been discussed under BAT Option 3and the discussion on treatability thereis applicable here. Based on thatinformation, it is estimated that theaverage effluent concentrations bf all'29significant toxic pollutants would be ator below 0.3 mg/l. The total toxic

pollutant contribution from the indirectdischargers would be reducedapproximately 50 percent over Option I(36 percent for the 17 significantorganics and 55 percent for the 11significant metallics). This amounts to areduction of 560 tons per year of toxicpollutants, which is approximately 32percent of the toxic pollutants beingdischarged by both direct and indirectdischargers under present regulations.The technology has been demonstratedon biologically treated textilewastewaters (see BAT Option 3] andwill provide protection against-thedischarge of high levels of COD andcolor to POTWs. In addition, it willprotect POTW sludges from toxicpollutant contamination. Energyrequirements will increase by anestimated 0.2 to 0.5 percent per plant,and an estimated 400 tons/year/plant ofindustrial sludge (approximately 43,000tons/year for all affected indirectdischargers) will be generated.

Economic analysis indicates thatcompliance with this option wouldrequire an estimated 107 of the 926affected indirect dischargers to invest atotal of $38 million and to incurannualized costs of $19 million, thesecosts may reduce the return on sales ofthe affected mills from a current rangeof -1.6 to 4.1 percent with current PSESto a range of -11.8 to 3.7 percent withthis option. The Agency projects thatselection of this option may result in 20plant closings and a loss of 0.7 percentof industry employment for the 1,165 wetprodessing plants.

(C) Option 3-Require pretreatmentstandards based on PSES Option 2 plussuspended solids control by multi-mediafiltration. This option includes thepreliminary measures of Option 1, thechemical treatment of Option 2, plus theend-of-pipe addition of multi-mediafiltration to control organic and metallictoxic pollutants. For Wool Scouring,Option 3 is equal to Option 2.

The combination of chemicalcoagulation/sedimentation and multi-media filtration technology has beendiscussed under BAT Option 4, thetreatability data discussed there areapplicable here and were used toestimate pollutant removals. Based onthese data, it is estimated that theaverage effluent concentrations of the 29significant toxic pollutants would be ator below 0.2 mg/l. The total toxicpollutant contribution from the indirectdischargers would be reducedapproximately 60 percent over Option 1(64 percent for the 17 significantorganics and 55 percent for the 11significant metallics) and 21 percentover Option 2 (44 percent for the 17

organics and no removal of the 11significant metallics), causing an overalltoxic pollutant reduction of over 60percent of the raw waste load. Thisamounts to a total reduction 6f 080 tonsper year of toxic pollutants, which Isapproximately 40 percent of the toxicpollutants being discharged by bothdirect and indirect dischargers under-present regulations. This technologyfurther increases protection against thedischarge of high levels of COD andcolor and reduces the possibility ofcontamination of POTW sludges, Energyrequirements will be spproximately thesame as Option 2, but an estimated 40additional tons/year/plant of Industrial

- sludge (approximately 48,000 tons/yearfor all affected indirect dischargers) willbe generated.

Economic analysis indicates thatcompliance with this option wouldrequire an estimated 107 of the 920affected indirect dischargers to Invest atotal of $55 million and incur annualizedcosts of $24 million. These costs mayreduce the return on sales of theaffected mills from a c'urrent range of-1.6 to 4.1 percent with current PSES toa range of -12.6 to 3.7 percent with thisoption. The Agency projects.thatselection of this option may result in theclosing of 20 plants and a loss of 0.7percent of industry employment at 1,105wet processing plants.

(D) PSES Selection and DecisionCriteria-Based on'analysis of thesecontrol options, the Agency has selectedOption 2 as the basis for proposal of'PSES for all subcategories except LowWater Use Processing. This option Isselected because It ensures the removalof approximately 30 percent of the

- organic and 55 percent of the metallictoxic pollutants and allows POTWs more flexibility In sludge disposal. Itfurther protects against the discharge ofhigh levels of COD and color that oftenpass through POTWsunaffected. Totaltoxic pollutant remoiial is analogous tothat provided the wastewaters fromdirect dischargers by employing the'recommended BAT, Option I is rejectedbecause it provides no control of toxicpollutants or protection against thecontamination of POTW sludge, It Isselected for Low Water Use Processingbecause of the small'amounts of toxicpollutants present. Option 3 is rejectedbecause the addition of multi-mediafiltration provides no additionalreduction of metallic toxic pollutants,which are the pollutants of mostsignificance for textile Industry indirectdischargers.

62216

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

XIL Pretreatment Standards for NewSources

Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPAto promulgate pretreatment standardsfor new sources (PSNS) at the same timethat it promulgates NSPS. New indirectdischargers, like new direct dischargers,have the opportunity to incorporate thebest available demonstratedtechnologies including process changes,in-plant control measures, and end-of2 -pipe treatment, and to use plant siteselection to ensure adequate treatmentsystem installation. The Agencyconsidered'three options for selection ofPSNS. For a detailed discussion of theoptions available, see Section XIII of theDevelopment Document.

(AJ Option 1-Require pretreatmentstandards based on PSES Option 1(screening. equalization, and/orneutralization as necessary forcompliance with prohibitive wasteprovisions), which is fully discussed inthat section. Based on a typical plantwith a wastewater discharge of 0.38mgd. it is estimated that 6.6 pounds/dayoftoicpollutants (2.5 pounds/day ofthe 17 significant organics and 3.8.pounds/day of the 11 significantmetallics) will be discharged to POTWsfor-each new source if this option isselected.

No additional cost or economic impactwill result from selection of this option.

(B) Option 2-Require pretreatmentstandards based on treatment ofsegregated toxic waste streams andother process-related and nonprocess-related waste streams. The segregatedtoxfc streams are treated in a traincomprising PSES Option a (screening,equalization, and/or neutralization asnecessary for compliance withprohibitive waste provisions pluschemical coagulation/sedimentationand multi-media fitration or dissolvedair flotationy, while the other wastestreams are controlled according toOption 1 (screening, equalization, and/or neutralization). The average effluentconcentrations of the 29 observed toxicpollutants would be at or below 0.2 mg/1, and the total toxic pollutantcontribution from each new sourcewould be reduced approximately 6Dpercent over Option 1 (60 percent for the17 significant organics and 50 percentfor the 11 significant metailics).

The technology behind this option hasbeen demonstrated on biologicallytreated wastewaters in the textileindustry, but not specifically on rawwastewaters. Each plant must identifyits toxic waste streams for segregationsince, the generation of toxic pollutantsby any one process may vary. Use ofPSES Option 3 treatment on the higher

concentrations of toxic pollutants-associated with a segregated wastestream will improve the effectiveness ofthe technology as compared withcombined wastes. Energy requirementswould be 0.2 to 0.5 percent of facilitytotal and approximately 430 tons ofsludge per year per new source wouldbe generated.

Economic analysis Indicates that thisoption may slightly slow the rate ofentry into the Stock and Yarn FinishingSubcategory, but not significantly slowthe rate of industry growth. Return onsales for these plants may be reducedfrom a projected range of 2.7 to 8.5percent with current PSNS to a range of1.9 to 7.1 percent with this option. EPAdoes not anticipate that this option willseriously affect production, employment,local communities, or balance of tradefor the other subcategories in theindustry.

(C) Option 3-Require performancestandards based on Option 2 plus theaddition of activated carbon adsorptionto the treatment train applied to thetoxic stream.

The combination chemicalcoagulation/sedimentation, multi-mediafiltration (dissolved air flotation forWool Scouring), and activated carbonadsorption technology has beendemonstrated at pilot scale fortreatment of bilogically treated textilewastewater but has n6t beendemonstrated on raw wastewaters (seeNSPS Option 3J. No full scaletreatability data are available thatdemonstrate the effectiveness ofactivated carbon for the control ofspecific toxic pollutants. Based on thebiologically treated effluent treatabilitydata, it is estimated that the total toxicpollutant contribution from each newindirect discharge source would bereduced approximately 14 percent overOption 2 (40 percent for the 17significant organics and none for the 11significant metallics) and 62 percentover Option 1 (76 percent foy the 17significant organics and 50 percent forthe 11 significant metallics] if this optionis selected. In addition, the technologyfurther increases protection against thedischarge of high levels of COD andcolor and reduces potentialcontamination of POTWsludges.

This technology offers little additionalcontrol of toxic pollutants, especially the11 significant metallics. Sludgegeneration would be essentially thesame as Option 2, but energyrequirements would increase to 0.8 to 1.6percent of facility usage.

Economic analysis indicates that thisoptionmmay significantly reduce the rateof entry into the Stock and YamFinishing Subcategory and,

consequently. slow the rate of industrygrowth. Return on sales for these plantsmay be reduced from a projected rangeof 2.7 to 8.5 percent with current PSNSto a range of 1.2 to 6.8 percent with thisoption. EPA does not anticipate that thisoption will seriously affect production,employment, local communities, orbalance of trade for the othersubcategories in the industry.

(D) PSNS Selection and DecisionCriteria-Based on analysis of thesecontrol options, the Agency has selectedOption 2 as the basis for PSNS for allsubcategories except Low Water UseProcessing. The option was selectedbecause it ensures the removal ofapproximately 60 percent of thesignificant organics and 50 percent ofthe significant metallic toxic pollutantsand allows POTWs more flexibility insludge disposal. It further protectsagainst the discharge of high levels ofCOD and color that often pass throughPOTWs unaffected. Option I is rejectedbecause it provides no control of toxicpollutants or protection against thecontamination of POTW sludge. Option3 Is rejected because the addition ofactivated carbon adsorption only adds14 percent to the total reduction oftoxicpollutants over Option 2 and providesno additional reduction of metallic toxicpollutants. For Low Water Use, Option 1Is selected because of the small amountof toxic pollutants present.

XIIL Regulated PollutantsThe basis on which the controlled

pollutants were selected is set out inSection VI of the DevelopmentDocument. Summary information isprovided about their general nature.common industrial use, use in the textile'industry. and detection frequency andconcentration levels. Some of thesepollutants are designated toxic underSection 307(a) of the Act. and noevidence has been found to warrantremoval of any pollutant from the toxicslist.

(A) BCT-he pollutants controlledby this regulation Include the statutoryconventional pollutants. BOD5.TSS, andpH.

(B) BATand NSPS-(1) Nonconventional pollutant--

Color, as measured by the ADMIprocedure, and COD are the onlynonconventional pollutants limited byBAT and NSPS.

(2)-Toxic pollutants-The toxicpollutants expressly controlled for directdischargers in each subcategory are"total phenol." as measured by the4AAP method, and. the following metals:Total chronum, total copper, and totalzinc. These pollutants aresubject tarnumerical limitations expressed in

6221.7

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

kilograms per thousand kilograms ofproduct (lbs/1000 lbs).

(3) Indicator pollutants-Thedifficulties of analyses for other toxicpollutants have prompted EPA topropose anew method ofregulatingcertain toxic pollutants. Because.historical data are limited andinexpensive analytical methods are notwell developed for toxic pollutants, EPAis proposing numerical limitations on an"indicator" pollutant, TSS. The data.available to EPA generally show thatwhen this "indicator" pollutant iscontrolled, the concentrations of toxicpollutants are significantly lower thanwhen TSS is present in highconcentrations. While the relationships,,between TSS and toxic pollutants arenot quantifiable on a one-to-one basis,control of an "indicator" will reasonablyassure control of toxics with propertiesresponsive to similar treatmentmechanisms.

EPA's consideration.of "indicator"limitations was brought to the attentionof Congress during the formative stagesof the Clean Water Act of 1977. At thattime, EPA was examining severaltechniques to alleviate the difficulties oflengthy and expensive analyticalprocedures. The proposed alternative"indicator" limitations serve thatpurpose. This method of toxicsregulation obviates the difficulties, highcosts, and delays of monitoring andanalyses that would.result fromlimitations solely on the toxic pollutants.

Appendix B is a list of toxic pollutantsthat were found in treated effluents atconcentrations above the nominalanalytical detection limits. EPAconcludes that these pollutants will beeffectively controlled by limitation ofTSS as an "indicator" pollutant eventhough the toxics are not expresslyregulated by numerical limitations.

Many of the toxic pollutants, such aspentachlorophenol and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, are adsorbable onsuspended solids and will be controlledby TSS as an indicator.

In the future, EPA anticipates thatwhen adequate data dre available to setalternate limitations on additionalspecific toxic pollutants'or to limit a feivstatistically supported "surrogate"pollutants it will be possible to ceaserelying on nonconventional orconventional pollutants, such as TSS, as"indicators" and only controlconventional pollutants through BCTlimitations.

When limitations on indicatorpollutants are violated, additionalmonitoring may be required. Theprovisions of such monitoringrequirements will be specified in eachpermit and may include analysis for

some or all of the toxic pollutants or theuse of biomonitoring techniques. Theadditional monitoring is designed todetermine the cause of the violation,necessary corrective measures, and theidentity and quantity, of. toxic pollutantsdischarged. Each violation will beevaluated on a case-by-case basis bythe permitting authority to determinewhether or not the additional monitoringcontained in the permit is required inthat particular case.

Section IX of the Developmentdocument presents additional discussionabout the use of "indicator" pollutantsfor-predicting the control of toxicpollutants.

The "indicator" pollutant TSS isclassified as a "conventional" pollutantunder Section 304(a)(4) of the Act.Because control of this "indicator"conventional pollutant is necessary tocontrol the toxic pollutants of concern inthis industry, EPA is establishing BATlimitations bnthis basis. It is theAgency's position that when control ofconventional pollutants is necessary tocontrol toxics, BAT limitations may beestablished for conventional pollutantswithout regard to the BCT cost test.

(C) PSES and PSNS-The pollutantscontrolled by proposed PSES and PSNSare total chromium, total copper, andtotal zinc. The limitations are expressedas maximum monthly and maximumdaily concentrations (milligrams perliter). Mass limitations are provided asguidance for POTWs that may wish toimpose them along with, or.instead of,the concentration limitations. 'XIV. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

The Settlement Agreement containedprovision's authorizing the exclusionfrom regulation, in certain instances, oftoxic pollutants and industrysubcategories..These provisions havebeen rewritten in-a Revised SettlementAgreement which was recentlyapproved by the District Court for theDistrict of Cdlumbia on March 9, 1979.

A. Pollutants Excluded. Paragraph8(a)(iii) of the Revised SettlementAgreement allows the Administrator toexclude from regulation toxic pollutantsnot detectable by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-art methods. The toxic pollutants notdetected and, therefore, excluded fromregulation are.listed in Appendix C tothis notice. r' o

Paragraph 8[aJii) of the Revised -Settlement Agreemeint alsb allows theAdministrator toexclude fromregulation toxic pollutants detected inthe effluent from a small number ofsources and uniquely related to thosesources. Appendix D lists the toxic

pollutants that were detected in the rawor treated wastewaters of only one mill,which are uniquely related to those millswhere detected, and which, therefore,are excluded from regulation.

Paragraph 8(a](iii) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement also allows theAdminiStrator to exclude fromregulation toxic pollutants detected Inonly trace amounts not likely to causetoxic effects. Appendix E is a list oftoxic pollutants found in trace amounts(at or below the limit of analyticaldetection and quantification) which arenot likely to cause toxic effects, andwhich, therefore, are excluded fromregulation.

The limitations in this regulation havebeen developed to cover the generalcase for this industry category. Inspecific cases, it may be necessary forthe NPDES permitting authority toestablish permit limits on toxicpollutants which are not subject tolimitation in this regulation (seeRelationship to NPDES Permits).

B. Subcategories Excluded. While theSettlement Agreement required EPA toregulate the entire textile Industry listedunder the U.S. Department of,Commerce, Bureau of the CensusStandard Industrial Classification (SIC)code numbers 22 and 23, Paragraph8(a)(iv) of the Revised SettlementAgreement authorizes EPA to excludeportions of the industry from regulation.Plants in the Apparel and OtherFinished Products Made from Fabricsand Similar Materials Category (SIC 23)are engaged primarily In cutting up andassembling finished fabric into appareland other products. EPA surveyed alimited number of plants and queriedtrade associations, and found thatplants in this subcategory arepredominantly dry operations. No plantgenerates or discharges a significantquantity of process-related wastewater,

Within the Textile Mill ProductsCategory (SIC 22), group or industrynumbers 221, 222, 223, 224, 2253, 2271,2281, 2282, and 2283 are greige mills thatare included in the Low Wdter UseProcessing Subcategory. Thissubcategory was surveyed (see DataGathering Efforts) and raw and treatedeffluent samples were collected andanalyzed for toxic pollutants at a limitednumber of mills. It was found thatprocess-related wastewater dischargesare generally low in volume and containonly small concentrations of toxicpollutants. While up to 200 mills maydischarge process wabtewater, typicalflows amount to only 3,000 to 4,000gallons per day, Typical concentrationsrange from less than 0.05 mg/l for 0measured organic toxic pollutants toabout 0.1 mg/1 for 10 metallic toxic

62218

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

pollutants. At these levels, the totaldaily discharge of any toxic pollutantfrom all 200 mills would be less than onepound.

Also surveyed were the Padding andUpholstery Filling Industry (SIC 2293)and the Cordage and Twine industry(SIC 2298). Mills in both of theseindustry groups were found not togenerate process-related wastewater.All other facilities covered by SIC 22 areeither dry operations and are known notto generate process-related wastewateror are covered in one of the major textileindustry subcategories.

The Agency has concluded that plantsin the Apparel Category (SIC 23) andfacilities in Padding and UpholsteryFilling (SIC 2293) and Cordage andTwine [SIC 2298) industries of theTextile Mills Category (SIC 22) shouldbe excluded from regulation becausethey do not generate process-relatedwastewater. Facilities in Subcategory 3(Low Water Use Processing) should beexcluded from BAT regulation underParagraph 8(a](iv) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement because they donot discharge significant quantities ofprocess wastewater or toxic pollutants.

XV. Monitoring RequirementsThe Agency intends to establish a

regulation requiring permittees and toconduct additional monitoring whenthey violate permit limitations on"indicator" pollutants. The provisions ofsuch monitoring requirements will bespecified for each permittee and mayinclude analysis for some or all of thetoxic pollutants or the use ofbiomonitoring techniques. Theadditional monitoring is designed todetermine the cause of the violation,necessary corrective measures, and theidentity and quantity of toxic pollutantsdischarged. Each violation will beevaluated on a case-by-case basis bythe permitting authority to determinewhether or not the additional monitoringcontained in the permit is necessary. Amore lengthy discussion of thisrequirement appears at 44 FR 34407,June 14,1979. The Agency intends toamend 40 CFR Part 403, GeneralPretreatment Regulations. The Part 403amendment will require that parameters

- limited by the pretreatment standardsbe monitored at indirect dischargingplants.XVI. Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits,and Economic Impacts

Executive Order 12044 requires EPAand other agencies to performRegulatory Analyses of certainregulations. (See 43 FR 12661 (March 23,1978)]. EPA's proposed regulations forimplementing Executive Order 12044

require a Regulatory Analysis for majorsignificant regulations Involvingannualized compliance costs of morethan S100 million or meeting otherspecified criteria. (See 43 FR 29891 (July11, 1978). Where these criteria are met,the proposed regulations require EPA toprepare a formal Regulatory Analysis,including an economic impact analysisand an evaluation of alternatives suchas: (1) Alternative types of regulations,(2) alternative stringency levels, (3)alternative timing, and (4) alternativemethods of ensuring compliance.

The proposed regulations for thetextile industry do not meet theproposed criteria for a formalRegulatory Analysis. Nonetheless, thisproposed rulemaking satisfies the formalregulatory analysis requirements. Whilethe Clean Water Act does not permitconsideration of alternative timing oralternative methods of ensuringcompliance, EPA has consideredalternative stringency levels andalternative types of regulations, asdiscussed above. Moreover, the Agencyhas performed a detailed analysis of theeconomic impact of these proposedregulations.

EPA's economic impact assessment isset forth in Economic Impact Analysisof Proposed Effluent LimitationsGuidelines, New Source PerformanceStandards andPretreatment Standardsfor the Textile Mills Point SourceCategory, October 1979, EPA 440/2-79-020. This report details the investmentand annualized costs for the industry asa whole and for model plants coveredby the proposed textile mills regulations.The data underlying the analysis wereobtained from the DevelopmentDocument, publicly available financialstudies and surveys, and the results ofEPA's economic survey programdescribed under Data Gathering Efforts.The report assesses the impact ofcompliance costs in t6rms of plantclosures, production changes, pricechanged, employment changes, localcommunity impacts, and balance oftrade effects.

- The methodology used in theeconomic analysis employs basic capitalbudgeting techniquds to determinewhether or not facilities will continueoperation following imposition ofpollution control requirements, and toevaluate reductions in profitability. TheAgency developed model plants whichrepresent production type (i.e., woolscouring, wool finishing, woven fabricfinishing, etc.), ownership of goodsprocessed (commission or own fabric),complexity of operation (nonintegratedor integrated), discharge status (direct orindirect), and production size.

The decision criteria for plant closuresare based on net present value analysis(NPV) and cash flow analysis. Cashflow analysis measures the total annualexpenditures and total revenues, thedifference being the "net cash flow."Under NPV analysis, the net cash flowsfor each year (over the life of aninvestment) are discounted at theindustry cost of capital. Plants areprojected to close or refrain from entry ifboth the NPV and the sum of the NPVand annual cash flow are negative.Where best estimates were notavailable, EPA made conservativeassumptions which may tend to projectmore closures than might actually occur.

The Agency projects that compliancewith the proposed effluent limitationsmay require 321 of the 1,165 wet-processing plants to make pollutioncontrol expenditures. The Agencyfurther estimates that the remainingplants will be able to meet the proposedlimitations without additionalexpenditure.

The Agency estimates that the totalinvestment costs for all the proposedregulations will approximate $86 million,and that associated annualized costs(including interest, depredation.operation, and maintenance) will equal$40 million. The Agency's analysisprojects no increases in the price oftextile goods. Though this assumptionrepresents the worst case and someprice increases may be possible, thehighly competitive nature of the industryand import pressure make price pass-through abilities small. As a result,profitability may decline for most of the321 plants.

Further. EPA projects that theproposed regulations may result inclosure of as many as 39 of 321 affectedplants, which could cause 6,310 joblosses (1.5 percent of the industryemployment] and displace 1.4 percent ofindustry production. Some of the plantsthat may close are located in smalltowns and, therefore, severalcommunities may be affected. However.excess capacity in the industry mayallow the remaining plants to absorbsome production and employment lossesdue to the projected closures, with theremainder of the production losses beingabsorbed by increased imports. Balanceof trade may be affected as a result.EPA does not expect the proposedregulations to seriously affect the rate ofentry into the industry, nor slowconsiderably the rate of industry growth.In the past, the industry.has sustainedits viability through improvements inproductivity. Diversion of capital fundsfrom this purpose could accelerate theindustry's decline. The costs. effluent

62219

2 Federal Register' / Vol. 44,. No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

reduction benefits, and economicimpacts for each Oroposed regulationare summarized below.

(A) BAT-There are approximately239 plants that discharge wastewater tothe Nation's waters and are thus subjectto proposed BAT limitations. EPAestimates that 25 of these plants aremeeting the proposed limitations withBPT technology or more advanced-technology. The folloving estimatedcosts and impacts assume 214 plantshave insufficient treatment in place to,meet the proposed BAT requirements.

EPA estimates that compliance with'proposed BAT limitations may require214 of the 239 direct dischargers to'invest a total of $48 million, assumingBPT is already in place. This investmentwill range from a low of 1.5 percent ofthe curent book value* of fixed assets toa high of 142 percent per discharger.Annualized costs for the 214 directdischargers may equal a total of $21.million, ranging from a low of 0.1peicent to a high of 7.3 percent of salesper discharger. Current return on salesmay fall from a range of -0.9 to 5.9percent with current BPT compliance toa range of -3.8 to 5.0 percent withproposedBAT compliance. The BATrequirements may cause.19 plantclosures and the unemployment ofapproximately 3,401 persons (0.8 percentof industry wet processing, employment),and the displacement of 1.1 percent ofindustry production. These closures mayaffect the local communities in whichthe mills are located'because alternativeemployment may not be available. The"Agency does anticjpate that someemployment and'production may be'absorbed by the remaining domestictextile mills. In view of this, the Agency.does not expect the proposed BATregulations to-seriously affect thebalance of trade.

Achievement of proposed BATeffluent limitations will removeapproximately 635 additional tons peryear of toxic pollutants including 490tons of organic and 145 tons of metallictoxic pollutants.

(B) NSPS-EPA estimates that NSPSinvestment costs will range between 3.1and 16.8 percent of the book value offixed assets of a new textile mill,depending upon plant size and -production process. NSPS annualizedcosts are expected to range between 0.9and 4.4 percent of total sales. TheAgency expects that return on sales willrange between 1.8 and 6,7 percent withproposed NSPS compliance, instead of3.3 to 7.4 percent with current NSPScompliance. These reduced profits. mayinhibit the rate of entiy into the FeltedFabric Processing Subcategory andconsequentlyslow the rate of industry

growth. EPA does not anticipate that theproposed NSPS regulations willseriously affect production, employment,local communities, or balance of tradefor the other subcategoiies in theindustry.'

(C) PSES-There are approximately926 plants that'discharge process-relatedwastewater to POTWs and are thussubject to the proposed PSES-regulations. The Agency estimates that819 of these plants will be able to meetthe proposed limitations without newexpenditui'es for pollution control. Thisestimate is based on analysis of themetals data for the plants sampledduring the field sampling program andon the pretreatment technologypresently in place. From analysis of themetals data, it was established thatapproximately 80 percent of the plantssampled had raw-waste concentrationsof total chromium,,total copper, andtotal zinc, below thelevels proposed forregulation. By appl3,ing this percentageto the total indirect dischargerpopulation and including plants thathave technology in-place to controlthese metals to the proposed limitation,it was estimated that only 107 indirectdischargers will need to make pollutioncontrol expenditures.

EPA estimates that the totalinvestment costs for these plants tocomply with the proposed PSES "regulations will be approximately $38million. This investment will range froma low of 2.0 percent of current bookvalue of fixed assets to a high of 211percent per discharger.-PSES annualizedcosts may equal $19 million and rangefrom a low of 0.2 percent of sales to ahigh of 15.8 percent per discharger.Current return on sales may fall from arange of -1.6 to 4.1 percent with currentPSES compliance to a range of -11.8 to3.7 percent with proposed PSEScompliance. Compliance may result inthe closure of as miriy as 20 plants,causing the unemployment ofapproximately 2,909 persons (0.7 percentof industry employment) anddisplacement of 0.6 percent of industryproduction. Theselclosures may affectthe local communities in which the millsare located and to some extent affectcertain regions of the United States (e.g.the Southern and New England areas). Itis possible that some employment andproduction'loss maybe absorbed by the -

remaining mills, but the Agency doesexpect the proposed PSES regulations toaffect 'the balance; of frade.

Achievement of j,r9 posed PSESregulations is expected to remove 360tons per year of chroiiuium, copper andzinc from municipal'sludges orapproximately 55 percent of the total

burdei of toxic metals generated bythose plants discharging to POTW. Inaddition, the majority of the other heavymetals (nickel, lead) and 200 tons ofinsoluble toxic organic compounds willalso be removed from POTW sludges.

(D) PSNS-EPA estimates that PSNSinvestment costs will range between 1.2and 12.6 percent of the book value offixed assets of a new textile mill. PSNSannualized costs are expected to rangebetween 0.4 and 3.0 percent of totalsales. The Agency projects that returnon sales may range between 1.9 and 7.1percent with proposed PSNScompliance, instead of 2.7 to 8.5 percentwith current PSNS compliance. Thesereduced profits may slightly reduce therate of entry into the Stock and YarnFinishing Subcategory, but will notsignificantly slow the rate of industrygrowth. EPA does not anticipate that theproposed PSNS regulations willseriously affect prices, production,employment, local communities, orbalance of trade for the othersubcategories in the industry.XVII. Nonwater Quality Aspects ofPollution Control

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Thereifore,Sections 304(b) and 306 of theActrequire EPA to consider the non-waterquality environmental impacts(including energy requirements) ofcertain regulations. In compliance withthese provisions, EPA has consideredthe effect of these regulations on airpollution, solid waste generation, andenergy consumption. While It is difficultto balance pollution problems againsteach other and against energy use, EPAis proposing regulations that it believesbest serve often competing nationalgoals.

The following are the non-waterquality environmental impactsassociated with the proposedregulations:

(A) Air Pollution-Imposition of BAT,BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS are notanticipated to result in any additionalair pollution frbm the textile industry. Itis possible that some plants may chooseto incinerate waste treatment sludges,but this is doubtful since there are more'economical'alternatives for displosal.

(B) Solid Waste-A study by EPA'sOffice of Solid Waste Management(1976) estimated that the textile Industrygenerated 1,760,000 metric tons of solidwastes (wet basis) in 1974. Thepewastes were comprised of innocuousprocess-related materials such as dirt,vegetable matter, fiber, flock, yarn,fabric, etc. (8:5 percent); potentiallyhazardous dye and chemical containers

62220

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

with residual dyestuff and chemicals(0.5 percent): and potentially hazardouswastewater treatment sludges (91percent). The study projected that in1977 the industry would generate1,940,000 metric.tons of solid wasteswith essentially the same percentdistribution.

The sludges contain heavy metals;including arsenic, cadmium, chromium,cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,and zinc, and chlorinated organics suchas trichlorobenzene, polyvinyl chloride,and perchloroethylene. Current sludgemanagement practices in the industryinclude: Storing or retaining sludge indisposal ponds or in the bottom of pondsor lagoons that are used for aeration;dumping sludge on land generally off theplant site, spreading sludge on land forfertilizer value, again generally off theplant site; and sending sludge to generalpurpose landfills.

EPA estimates that the proposed BATand PSES limitations will contribute anadditional 40,000 and 365,000 metric tonsof sludge per year, respectively. Thesesludges will c6ntainhigherconcentrations of toxic metals andorganic toxic pollutants, which will limitdisposal options. However,implementation of the proposed PSESwill result in POTW sludges havingcommensurately lesser quantities andconcentrations of toxic pollutants.POTW sludges will become moreamenable to a wider range of disposalalternatives, possibly includingbeneficial use on agricultural lands.Many POTWs currently receive textileindustry wastewaters with little or nopretreatment Under these conditions,sludge characteristics can limit sludgedisposal alternatives available to thesePOTWs. Moreover, disposal of thesevastly greater quantities of adulteratedPOTW sludges is significantly moredifficult and costly than disposal.ofsmaller quantities of wastes generatedat individual plant sites.

Regulations proposed by EPA underSection 3001 of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA]list textile industry solid wastes as"hazardous" (43 FR 58946, 58959(December 18,1978]). These wastes,primarily the sludges from wastewatertreatment, will be subject to handling,transportation, storage, and disposalrequirements, under sections 3002-3004of RCRA. EPA's proposed generatorstandards would require generators oftextile industry wastes (dye andchemical containers and sludges)tomeet containerization, labeling, andreporting requirements, and, if theydispose of wastes off-site, to prepare amanifest that will track the movement of

the wastes from the generator'spremises to a permitted off-sitetreatment, storage, or disposal facility.(See 43 FR 58946, 58979 (December 18,1978)). The proposed transporterregulations would require transportersof textile industry wastes to complywith the manifest and assure that thewastes are delivered to a permittedfacility. (See 43 FR 18506 (April 28,1978)]). Finally, the proposed treater,storer, and disposer standards wouldestablish technical design andperformance standards for textile wastestorage facilities, and forlandfills,basins, surface impoundments,incinerators, and other facilities wheresuch wastes would be treated ordisposed, as well as security,contingency plan, employee training,record keeping, reporting, inspection,monitoring, and financial liabilityrequirements for all such facilities. (See43 FR 58946, 58982 (December 18, 1978)).

EPA's Office of Solid Waste ispreparing a pilot analysis of the solidwaste management and disposal costsrequired for the textile industry tocomply with RCRA. The costs ofcompliance with proposed RCRAregulations were not specificallyincluded in the economic impactanalysis for these proposed regulations.However, EPA considered estimatedRCRA compliance costs when itselected the technology options for theseproposed regulations.

(C) Energy Requirements-EPAestimates that the achievement ofproposed BAT, BCT, PSES, and PSNSwill each increase electrical energyconsumption by approximately 0.21o 0.5percent of present facility use for allsubcategories. Proposed NSPS willincrease consumption by approximately0.8 to 1.4 percenL

XVIIL Best Management Practices

Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe what have been termed "bestmanagement practices (BMPs)"described under Authority andBackground. EPA intends to developBMPs which are: (1) Generic in natureand applicable to all industrial sites; (2)specific in nature and applicable to aspecified industrial category; and (3)guidance to permit authorities inestablishing BMPs required by uniquecircumstances at a given plant.

The Agency anticipates regulation ofgeneric BMPs in the textile Industry. Theprimary area of concern Is the potentialfor leaks and spills from on-site storageof processing chemicals. Those plantswhich purchase and store liquidchemicals in bulk may be required to

provide protective measures to containleaks and spills such as dikes and curbs.

XIX. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsAn issue of recurrent concern has

been whether industry guidelines shouldinclude provisions authorizingnoncompliance with effluent limitationsduring periods of "upset'" or "bypass"An upset, sometimes called an"excursion," is unintentionalnoncompliance occurring for reasonsbeyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. An upset provision isnecessary, it has been argued, becausesuch upsets will inevitably occur due tolimitations in control technology.Because technology-based limitationsare to require only what technology canachieve, it is claimed that liability forsuch situations is improper. Whenconfronted with this issue, courts havedivided on the question of whether anexplicit upset or excursion exemption isnecessary or whether upset or excursionincidents may be handled through EPA'sexercise of enforcement discretion.(Compare Marathon Oil Company v. -EPA. 564 F.2c 1253 (9th Cir. 1977] withWeyerhaeuser v. Castle, 11 ERC 2149(D.C. Cir. 1978), and see AmericanPetroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023(10th Cir. 1976); CPC International, Inc.v. Train, 540 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976)].

While an upset is an unintentionalepisode during which effluent limits areexceeded, a bypass is an act ofintentional noncompliance during whichwastewater treatment facilities arecircumvented in emergency situations.Bypass provisions have, in the past.been included in NPDES permits.

EPA has determined that both upsetand bypass provisions should beincluded in NPDES permits, and hasrecently promulgated NPDES regulationswhich include upset and bypass permitprovisions. (See 44 FR 32854 (June 7,1979)). The upset provision.establishesan upset as an affirmative defense toprosecution for violation of technology-based effluent limitations. The bypassprovision authorizes bypassing toprevent loss of life, personal injury, orsevere property damage. Consequently,although permittees in the textileindustry will be entitled to upset andbypass provisions in NPDES permits.these proposed regulations do notspecifically address these issues.

XX. Variances and modificationUpon the promulgation of these

regulations, the numercial effluentlimitations for the appropriatesubcategory mustbe applied in allfederal and state NPDES permits issuedto textile industry direct dischargers. Inaddition, on promulgation, the

62221

6 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

pretreatment limitations are directlyapplicable to indirect. dischargers.

For the BCT effluent limitations, theonly exception to*the binding limitationsis EPA' "fundamentally differentfactors ' variancie. (See E. L duPont deNeniours and Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112(1977)). This variance recognizes factorsconcerning a particular, dischargerwhich are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered in thisrulemaking. Although this varianceclause was set forth in EPA's 1973-1976industry regulations, it now Will beincluded in the NPDES.regulations andnot the specific textile industryregulations. (See 44 FR 32854, 32950(June 7, 1979] for the text andexplanation of the "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance.]

The BAT limitations in theseregulations also are subject to EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance. In addition, BAT limitationsfor non-toxic pollutants are subject tomodifications under Section 301(c) and301(g) of the Act. Under Section 301(1] ofthe Act, these statutory modificationsare not applicable to "toxic" pollutants.Likewise limitations on conventionaland nonconventional pollutants used as"indicators" for toxic pollutants are notsubject to Section 301(c) or Section301(g) modifications- unless thedischarger demonstrates that a[ wasteIstream does not contain any of the toxicpollutants for which the "indicator" wasdesigned to demonstrate removal. -

Pretreatment standards for existing,sources are subject to the -"fundamentally different factors"M

variance and credits for poollutantsremoved by POTWs. (See 40 CFR 403.7,403.13; 43 FR 27736 (June 26, 1978)).Pretreatment standards for new sourcesare subject only to credit piovision in 40CFR 403.7. New source performancestandard are not subject to EPA's"fundamentally different factors"variance or any statutory or regulatorymodifications. (See duPont v. Train,supra.)

XXI. Relationship t o NPDES PermitsThe BAT, BCT, and NSPS limitations

in these regulations will be applied toindividual textile plants through NPDESpermits issued by EPA or approved stateagencies, under Section 402 of the Act.The preceding section of this preamblediscusses the binding effect of theseregulations on NPDES permits, except tothe extent that variances andmodifications are expressly authorized.This section describes several otheraspects of the interaction of theseregulation and NPDES permits.

First, one matter that has been subjectto different judicial views is the scope of

NPDES permit proceedings in theabsence of effluent limitationsguidelines and standards. Undercurrently applicable EPA regulations,states and EPA Regions issuing NPDESpermits prior to promulgation of theseregulations must include a "reopenerclause," providing for permits to bemodified to incorporate theseregulations when they are promulgated.(See 43 FR 22159 (May 23, 1978). Toavoid cumbersome modificationprocedures, EPA has adopted a policy ofissuing short-term.permits only afterpromulgation of these and other BAT'regulations. The Agency has pablishedrules designed to encourage states to dothe same. (See 43 FR 58066 (December11, 1978)]. However, in the event that

* EPA finds it necessary to issue long-term permits prior to promulgation ofBAT regulations, EPA and states willfollow essentially the same proceduresused in many cases of issuing initial

- permit. The appropriate technologylevels and limitations will be assessed.by the permit issuer on a case-by-casebasis and on consideration of thestatutory factors. (See US' Steel Corp. vTrain, 556 F. 2d.822, 844, 854 (7th Cir.1977)). In these situations, EPAdocuments and draft documents(including these proposed regulationsand supporting documents) are relevantevidence, but not bindifig, in documents)are relevant evidence, but not binding,in NPDES permit proceedings. (See 44FR 32854 (June-7,1979]).

Another noteworthy topic is the effectof these regulations on the powers ofNPDES permit-issuing authorities. The'promulgation of these regulations doesnot restrict the power of any permit-issuing authority to act on these or anyother EPA regulations, guidelines, orpolicy, in any manner consistent withlaw. For example, the fact that theseregulations do not control a particularpollutant does not preclude the permitissuer from limiting such pollutant on acase-by-case basis, when necessary tocarry out the purposes of the Act. Inaddition, to.the extent that state waterquality standards or other provisions ofstate or Federal law require limitations(or require more stringent limitations oncovered pollutants), such limitationsmust be applied by the permit-issuingauthority.

One additional topic that warrantsdiscussion is the operation of EPA'sNPDES enforcement program, manyaspects of which have been consideredin .developing these regulations. TheAgency wishes to emphasize that,although the Clean Water Act is a strictliability statute, the initiation ofenforcement proceedings by EPA is

discretionary. EPA has exercised andintends to exercise that discretion in amanner that recognizes and'promolesgood faith compliance efforts andconserves enforcement resources forthose who fail to make good faith effortsto comply with the Act.

XXII. Small Business AdministrationFinancial Assistance

There are two SBA programs that maybe important sources of funding for theTextiles Industry Point Source Category.They are the SBA's Economic InjuryLoan Program and Pollution ControlFinancing Guarantees. A

Section 8 of the FWPCA authorizesthe SBA through its Economic InjuryLoan Program, to make loans to assistany small business concern in effectingadditions to or alterations in equipmenl,facilities, or methods of operation inorder to meet water pollution controlrequirements under the Federal WaterPollution Control Act if the concern Islikely to suffer a substantial econom6injury without such assistance. Thisprogram is open to small business firmsas defined by the Small BusinessAdministration. Loans can be madeeither directly by SBA or through a bankusing an SBA guarantee. The interest ondirect loans depends on the cost ofmoney to the federal government and iscurrently set at 7% percent. Loanrepayment periods may extend up tothirty years depending on the ability of

Ahe firni to repay the loan and the usefullife of the equipment. SBA loans madethrough banks are at somewhat higherinterest rates.

Firms in the Textiles Industry PointSource Category may be eligible fordirect or indirect SBA loans. For furtherdetails on this Federal loan programwrite or telephone any of the followingindividuals at EPA Headquarters or inthe ten EPA Regional offices:Coordinator-Mr. Sheldon Socks,

Environmental Protection Agency,Financial Assistance Coordinator, Office ofAnalysis and Evaluation (WH.-530), 401 MStreet SW., Washington, D.C. 204601Telephone: (202) 755-3624.

Region 1-Mr. Ted Landry or GeraldDeGaetno, Environmental ProtectionAgency, J. F. Kennedy Federal OfficeBuilding, Room 2203, Boston.Massachusetts 02203. Telephone: (017) 223-5061.

Region Il-Mr. Kenneth Eng. Chief, Air andEnvironmental Applications Section,Environmental Protection Agency. 20Federal Plaza. New York, New York 10007,Telephone: (212) 264-4711.

Region Ill-Mr. Chuck Sapp, Environmental'Protection Agency. Curtis Building. 3EN40,6th and'Walnut Streets. Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19106. Telephone: (2151597-9433.

r

62222

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 1 Monday, October 29. 1979 / Proposed Rules-

Regior IV-Mr. John Hiirlebaus,Environmental Protection Agency, 345CbourtlandSlreet NE., Atlanta, GeorgiE30308, Telephone:[404),881-4793:

Region V-Mr. ChesterMauiyn; Contingency,Plan Coordinaton, Surveillance andAnalysis Branch, Enforcement Division,Environmental Protection Agency, 536South Clark Street. Chicago. Illinois 60605,AC (213) 53-2316.

Region Vi--Ms. Jan Horn, Attorney, WaterEnforcement-Divisiomr Water ProgramBranch, Environmental Protection Agency,Ist International Building; 1201 Elm Street,Dallas, Texas 75270, Telephone: (214) 767-2760.

Region VII-Mr. Donald Sandifer; SanitaryEngineer, Water Division. EngineeringBranch, Environmental ProtectionAgency,324 East.11th Street, Kansas City, Missouri64i0W, Telephone: (816) 374-2725.

Region Vlfl-Mr. Gerald Burke, SanitaryEngineer, Officeof Grants. WaterDivision,Environmental Protection Agency, 1860Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203,Telephone: (303) 837-3961.

RegiorrIX-Mr. Stanleibowitz or Ray Said,Permits Branch, Enforcement Division,Environmental Protection-Agency, 215Fremont Street. San Francisco, California94111, Telephone: (415) 556--3450.

Region X-Mr. Dan Bbdien, Special TechnicalAdvisor, Enforcement Division.Environmental Protectioir Agency, 1200 6thAvenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,Telephone: (206) 442-1270.

Headquarters---.i Dbnnel Nantkes, LegalCounsel; Grants Contracts and GeneralAdministration Division; EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,Washington, D.C. 20460,Telephone: (202)426-8830.

Interested persons-may also contactthe Assistant Regional, Administratorsfor Finance.and Investment in the SmallBusiness.Administration Regionaloffices for more details on federal loanassistance programs. For furtherinformation, write or telephone any ofthe following individuals:

Region I-Mr. Russell Berry, AssistantRegional Administrator for-Finance andInvestment, Small Business Administration,60 Batterymarch, 10th-Floor. BostonMassachusetts 02203. Telephone: (617) 223-3891.

Region U-Mr= John Axiotakis, AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance andInvestment, Small Business Administration,26 Federal-Plaza, New York, New York10007, Telephone: (212) 264-1452.

Region III-Mr David Malone, AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance andInvestment, Small Business Administration,231 St. Asapas Road, West Lobby. Suite646, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004,Telephone: (21) 596B-5908.

Region IV-Mr. MerrittScoggins, Assistant •Regional Administrator for Finance andInvestment, Small Business Administration.1401 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta,Georgia 30309. Telephone: (404) 881-2009.

Region V-Mr. Larry Cherry, AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance and

* Investment. Small Business Administration.219 South Dearborn Street. Chicago. Illinois600G4, Telephone: (312) 353-4533.

Region VI---. Donald Beaver, AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance andInvestment. Small Business Administration;1720 Regal Row, Suite 230. Dallas, Texas75202. Telephone: (214) 749-12035.

Region VII-Mr. Richard Whilley, AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance andInvestment. Small Business Administration.911 Walnut Street, 23rd Floor, Kansas City,Missouri 64106, Telephone: (810) 374-3927.

Region VIII-Mr. ]ames Chuculate. AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance andInvestment, Small Business Administration.1405 Curtis Street, Executive TowerBuilding--2nd Floor. Denver, Colorado80202. Telephone (303) 327-3988.

Region IX-Mr. Charles Hertzberg, AssistantRegional Administrator for Finance-andInvestment. Small Business Administration.450 Golden Gate Avenue. San Francisco.California 94102,Telephone: (415) 556-7782.

Region X-Mr. Jack Welles. RegionalAdministrator for Finance and Investment,Small Business Administration. 710 2dAvenue, Dexter Horton Bldg., 5th floor.Seattle, Washingtcn 98104, Telephone:(206) 399-5679.In-addition to the Economic Injury

Loan Program, the Small BusinessInvestment Act, as amended by Pub. L_94-305, authorizes SBA to guarantee thepayments on qualified contracts entered;into by eligible small businesses toacquire needed pollution facilities whenthe financing is provided throughtaxable and tax-exempt revenue orpollution control bonds. This program isopen to all eligible small businesses.Bond financing with SBA's guarantee ofthe payments makes available long term(20-25 years), low interest (usually 5 to 7percent) financing to small businesseson the same basis as that available tolarger national or internationalcompanies. For further details on thisprogram write to the SBA. PollutionControl Financing Division, Office ofSpecial Guarantees. 1815 North Lynn St.,Magazine Bldg., Rosslyn, VA 22209,(703) 235-2900.XXIII. Summary of Public Participation

During Tune of 1978, the Agencycirculated a draft technical contractor'sreport entitled "Second Interim Report,Textile Industry BATEA-NSPS-PSES-PSNS Study" to a number of interestedparties, including the American TextileManufacturers Institute (ATI&H), theNorthern Textile Association (NTA),Carpet and Rug Institute [CRI), variousmember firms of these groups, statewater pollution control agencies, andsome municipal authorities for publiccomment. In November of 1978, theAgency circulated a draft version of thetechnical contractor's report entitled"Technical Study Report, BATEA-

NSPS-PSES-PSNS" to a similargroup;,again for public comment. The Agencyaccepted written comments on the draftreports through early December of 1978,and a meeting was held in Washington,D.C., on December 12,1978. forpublicpresentation and discussion ofcomments on the final report. Neitherdocument included recommendationsfor effluent limitations guidelines, newsource performance standards, orpretreatment standards, but ratherpresented a technical basis for thecurrently proposeciregulations Asummary of the comments receivecitodate is presented here.

1. Comment: Several commenters-were concerned about the methodologyused to establish the significance oftoxic pollutants associated with theindustry's wastewaters,

Response: The classification of toxicpollutants is based on: an extensiveevaluation of the analytical resultsobtained throughout the study, oninformation provided.byspecial taskgroups-of the American TextileManufacturers Institute (AIMI) and theDyes Environmental and Taxicology-Organization (DE1"O); and, to a muchlesser extent, on- questionnafreinformation. The questionnaireinformation was-used-to gain insightfrom knowledgeable industry personnelabout the use and-possible presence ofthe toxic pollutants in textile processing.The analytical results from the fieldsampling program and informationsupplied by special task groups of ATMIand the Ecology Committee of DETOwere used to classify each of the 129toxic pollutants into one of five groups.Group 1 includes those pollutantsdetectecifrequently in raw wastewatersand at least once in effluents fromsecondary treatment'at concentrationsof 10 jg/I orgreater. The 10 pg/I levelwasselected as air interim limit forthetextile industry and allowed theAgencyto focus on those pollutants that cancause the most serious-problems. Group2A includes those pollutants detected ithe raw wastewater or effluents fromsecondary treatment at two mills ormore, but at less than 0 jig/I in thetreated effluents. Group 2B includesthose pollutants detected in the rawwast9water or treated effluent at onlyone mill and at less than lag/I in thetreated effluent or those established aspotentially present in textile effluents byATMI or DETO. Group 2C includesthose pollutants not detected in the fieldsampling program but suggested aspossibly present as an intermediate orcontaminant in some textile chemicalsby ATMI. DETO. or by informationprovided on the questionnaires. Group 3

622237

Federal Register / Vbl. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

includes those pollutants that were notdetected in the field-sampling programand were not suggested as possiblypresent by ATMI, DETO, or byinformation provided on thequestionnaires.

2. Comment: Several commenterswere concerned that the variability inthe wastewater characteristics amongplants within subcategories will causedifficulty in establishing meaningfulcosts and treatment effectiveness. -

Response: Variability in wastewatercharacteristics exists and is reflected'inthe expanded subcategorization of theindustry. The Agency has used a,comprehensive model plant approach toestimate costs and selected medianwaste characteristics and water usagevalues as typical for each subcategory.Median values provide the best possibleestimates of the wastewatercharacteristics for each subcategory onthe whole. Maximum or minimum valuesare unsatisfactory, and average valuesare not typical because they aredistorted by unusually high or lowvalues at individual plants. From two tofour model plants, representing variousproduction levels, were selected foreach subcategory, and'treatmerit costswere determined using treatmenteffectiveness values established duringthe EPA/Industry Pilot Plant Studiesand from long-term performance dataprovided from the industryquestionnaires and from plant visits.

3. Comment: One comment dealt withthe classification of water-jet weaving inthe framework of the subcategorization:Specifically, there was concern whetherthis operation would be classified as alow water use processing operation oras a separate subcategory.

Rdsponse: Water-jet weaving wasconsidered as part of the Low WaterUse Processing Subcategory, and oneplant using such equipment was'sampled during the screening phase toexamine the significance of thisoperation. Few toxic pollutants weredetected and conventional pollutantlevels were low, so the Agency hasrecommended that this operation beexcluded from the BAT andPretreatment regulation§ based onParagraph 8(a) (iv) of the RevisedSettlement Agreement (see Pollutantsand Subcategories Not Regulated).

4. Comment: There was considerableconcern by several commenters that"commission finishing" is no longerconsidered as a subcategory of theindustry.

Response: The term "commissionfinisher" refers to a textile facility thatfinishes material (i.e., fabric, yarn,carpet) owned by others. Such facilitieswere investigated during the study and

no significant differences wererecognized in their wastewatercharacteristics or processing that are notaddressed by the internal subdivisionsof the various subcategories. However,the Agency is presently involved in acooperative program with the industryto develop additional information aboutcommission finishers. If it is determinedfrom the results of this program thatcommission finishers have not beencorrectly addressed, appropriate',adjustments will be made and theregulations changed.. 5. Comment: One commentersuggested that the Agency considerallowing the industry to establish acorrelation between COD and toxicpollutants to ease the possible costlyburden of routinely monitoring for alltoxic pollutants.I Response: EPA recognizes the

difficulty and expense associated withmonitoring for the toxic pollutants, andhas proposed a new method that uses"indicator" pollutants to regulate certaintoxic pollutants. The "indicator"pollutant proposed for the textileindubtry is TSS. The data available toEPA generally show that when this"indicator" pollutant is controlled, theconcentrations of toxic pollutants aresignificantly lower than when TSS ispresent in high concentrations. For amore complete discussion of theindicator pollutant approach, see theRegulated Pollutants section of thisPreamble..6. Comment: It was suggested byrepresentatives of the industry that theeffect of the discharge of toxic-pollutants or environment and health begiven more consideration in establishing'limitations. -

Response: The proposed effluentlimitations are based on application ofavailable technology to reduce orremove pollutants classified asconventional, nonconventional, or toxicthat may enter the Nation's receivingwater bodies, directly or throughPOTWs. While the list of toxicpollutants was established on the basisof potential toxicity, carcinogenicity,mutagenicity, or teratogenicity, there isno Congressional intent in the CleanWater Act to evaluate environmentaland health effects in establishingefflu6nt limitations. The limitations aretechn6logy-driven and based solely ontechnological and economicconsiderations.

7. Comment: There was a-generalcomment that data are lacking toeffectively recommend activated carbonadsorption as a viable treatmentalternative for textile industrywastewafers. It was also suggested that

powdered activated carbon treatment(PACT) be given more consideration.

Response: The Agency has obtaineddata on the effectiveness of activatedcarbon adsorption from the EPA/Industry Pilot Plant Research Project,from one full-scale facility that treatswasfe from a woven fabric finishingplant, and from other industries in whichthe data are transferable to the textileindustry. The pilot plant activatedcarbon adsorption treatment mode wastested on the secondary effluent at 10textile plants; over 100 compositesamples (generally 24-hr) were collectedand analyzed to evaluate theeffectiveness of the mode. In addition, atotal of 25 separate composite sampleswere collected at eight of the ten plantsto evaluate the effectiveness-of carbonadsorption in removing toxic pollutants.While there are data available, theAgency has not considered activatedcarbon adsorption as a control option Inproposing effluent limitations because ofits high cost and operational difficulties,Activated carbon does remain aneffective alternative for some mills tomeet the proposed BAT and NSPS •effluent limitations.

Powdered activated carbon. treatmentis employed full-scale In at least onetextile plant and was investigated inlaboratory bench-scale studies as part ofthe EPA/Industry Pilot Plant ResearchProject. It was considered as a possiblealternative and the full-scale plant wassampled during the verification phase.Performance data obtained wereinconclusive because operation of theprocess is still in the developmentphase. The Agency is seeking moreinformation on the performance of thePACT process and is currentlysupporting a joint PACT research effortbetween the Office of Research andDevelopment (ORD) and ATMI at twotextile plants. The Agency also requeststhat anyone in the industry with data orexperience with the PACT system bringthe information to its attention.-. Comment: There were severalcomments to the effect that theoperation and performance of the BPTtechnology at many facilities isinadequate, and that the true ability ofthe BPT technology in controlling thetoxic pollutants was not fully evaluatedby EPA.

Responser The Agency recognizes thatthere may be problems with theoperation and design of some plantsemploying the BPT technology and hasattempted to take this into accountwhen evaluating the performance ofthese systems. The Agency hasreevaluated these data and alsorequests that all plants with the BPT

* technology in place providd additional

62224

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / PRoposed Rules-

data and information regardifig theadequacy bf the operation andperformance of these, systems. Thecurrent proposed BAT standards willrequire that some plants makeimprovements- in design and operationof their present biological treatmentsystems.before incorporating theBATtreatment technology. These steps, alongwith the integration of manufacturingoperations with treatment operationsand in-plant control measures such aswater reduction, chemical substitution,and effective scheduling, should beinvestigated before additional treatmentis installed.

9. Comment: There was generalconcern by the ihdustry that the costestimates, for the various alternativesare too row andinneed.ofbeingupdated- Therewere.severaltspecifccomments on inadequacies ofthemodeIplant approach andin, the assumptionsuse&indhveloping cost estimates. Itwas suggested:that tliebasis for atechnology an&performance of the,technology beexpanded to include-(.)Degree of treatment and~selection-of unit.processes,.(2] quantities ofpollutants to-be removed.and [3) loading rates.expectec It was generally felt that flow

-rate alone, or what appearstabe flowrate alonein the-approach.usedby the-Agency, is inadequate..

Response: For.all cost estimates, anattempt was made to achieve accuracyin magnitude, basedon typical rawwaste and BPT effluent wastewatercharacteristics. It was necessary tomake assumptions in developing thecosts in-order to-maintain consistencyand obtain avalid confparison among-the alternative technologies andsubcategories. The-Agency understandsthat certain assumptions are not idealfor all cases, an& may appear high orlow-in specific comparisons-, butmaintains that the approach andassumptibns used,allow a workablemethodology andprovide useffl,meaningful costs that arecomparable t-the economic profile.afithe:industry. The.Agency has. done the-best it couldL-with,the information availablebut is seekingto better estimatetreatment costs;especially-withregard to site-specifbconsiderations, andplhas:to evaluate:data currently being obtained from the:EPA/JndustryPilotPlantResearchProjectUn addition,.the:Agency-welcomes-additional fulL-scale cost dataand solicits available informatiorr from:the industry..E2A will-consider this newinformation beforz making theregulations-final.

Many of the initial assumptions madein estimating-tHe effectivenesszof severaltreatment tchnolbgies-were basedon

theoretical consideration without thebenefit of the findings from the EPA/Industry Pilot Plant Research ProjecLThe Agency has planned since thebeginning of the BAT Revision Study, to-use these findings and has-done so indeveloping the proposed regulations.Consequently, many of th; specificcomments on treatment effectivenessare no longer applicable.

The specific requirementso'theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct (RCRA) have only just recently beenproposed and the Agency has-not yetdetermined the quantitative effect on thetextile industry of complying with therequirements. An effort is underway todo this and findings will be included asbest as possible in the final regolationsThe Agency- expects much more-information to be available berorepromulgation ofthese regulations. The-Agency invites the industry to providecomments and- data on sludgecharacteristics disposaLpractices,disposal-costs and concerns associatedwith compliance with RCRA.

10. Comment: Several commentersquestioned whether the treatmentalternatives for newsources wouldproduce the results expected by theAgency. They suggested that the eight-hour biological treatment aerationdetention time is too low, and that costs-be adjusted to reflect a longer detentiontime..Response: For new sources the

Agency has proposed the segregation ofwaste streams containing-significanttoxic chemicals from the mill's domesticand non-toxic process-wastes. The eight-hour aeration time proposed is only for'treatment ofthe more easilybiodegraded-pollutants that will be-'present ir the-domestic-and non-toxicpollutant stream. The-toxic wastestream, including wastes whicrbiodegrade slowly, will be treated using-advanced technology. New sources willbe able to incorporate these steps--innew construction withoutthe problems'that wouldibe experienced at existing-plants-.

Tht Agency also circulated apreliminary drafteconomic contractor'sreport entitled. "Economic ImpactAnalysis- of Proposed EffluentLimitations Guidelines and New Source-Performance Standard for the TextileMills Industry Point Source Category",dated January 1979, to the AmericanTextile Manufacturers Institute (AT-iwho in-turn distributed it to a number ofother interested individuals, and toother industry- trade associations and-individhals. This document did notinclude recommendations-for effluentlimitations guidelines, new sourceperformance standards, or pretreatment

standards, but rather presentedpreliminary'economicimpacts for all the-proposed effluent treatmentalternatives. A summary of commentsreceived to date- is presented below.

1. Comment: Whire the-necessity forusing"model plants"was notquestioned, one comment stated that themodel plant approach generallyunderstates treatment costs and thatthis approach poses accuracy problemswhen "synthesizing" data for individualplants.

Response: The use of individual plantanalyses would have the advantage ofdepicting the industry with moreaccuracy than does the-use of modelplants. However, sufficient data toanalyze every-plant are not available.Furthermore, the depictionf would-bestatic in nature. Assessing-pollutioncontrol impactsunderthe-net presentvalue (NPV) approach involvesprojecting the profile of the industry intcrthe future. This requires theincorporation of a numberof parametersto include price and costincreases,growth rates, and proposed controlcosts; The development of theseparameters is feasible only-at some levelof aggregation: ir this case, modelplants. The development of model plantpollution control treatment costs utilizesimilar estimating procedures as wouldbe used for an actual plant. Certafibasic assumptions depicting the specificconditions and requirements associatedwitlh each model are determined andthese are believed to- be representativeof actual plants associatedwith themodels. A detailed explanation of thedevelopment of controls costingprocedures-is presented in.theDevelopment Document forProposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines, New-Source Performance Standards, andPretreatment Standards forthe TextileIndustry Point Source Category.

2. Comment: One-commentreceivedconcerned the inclusion of otherregulatory costs (cottorrdust controls,toics, noise abatement) and the impactof these-on the-BATEA closure decision.

Response: Other regulatory costsincluded in this-impact analyses-werethose represented in-the baselinemodelsas having been already incurred by thffindustry priorto orduring the:baselineyear (1977). Giverr theprelinminarydevclopment stage ofmany-,egulatoryrequirements', costs: areimpossible toforecast. The economicimpact-report forproposal describes' these-variou otherreguratory'requirements- that have beenassessed.

3. CommentrSeveral comments werereceived regarding clarification of thetechnical aspects of the impactmethodology. These includ-ed such

62225

62226' Federal Register ] Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

issue6 as: (a) The origin of future cashflows; (b) the assumed growth and'inflation rates; (c) the suggestion toforecast individual items inthe cashflow and compute these on gear-by-yearbasis; (d) the liquidation value for theterminal year and its difference from thecurrent salvage value; (e) the terminalyear liquidation value and inclusion ofthe salvage value of pollution controlfacilities; and (f) the justification for useof 21 years in the net present value(NPVJ analysis instead of a shorterperiod.

Response: These comments areanswered in summary here. Detaileddiscussions of these topics are presentedin the economic impact analysis and inthe appropriate sections of this notice.

(a) Origin, of future cash flows: Futurecash flows are calculated based-onprojections of the models' future after-tax profits and depreciations..(b) Growth and inflationrate's: An

inflation rate of 6 percent wasincorporated into the net presentvalueanalysis, this corresponds with the rateutilized in a Staff Report prepared bythe CoUncil on Wage and Price Stabilityentitled, "A Study of the Textile andApparel Industries," July 1978. Growthin the industry has been generallyprojected to be between 2 and 3 percentover the next ten years. However, therate has not been translated intoindividual subcategory rates and noincreases have been applied to themodel plants. Any increases associatedwith wet processors can be expected tobe absorbed by increases in utilizationrates and new source plants.Consequently, growth rates appropriatefor each of the model plants would beminor and would have only minoreffects on profitability.

(c) Forecasting items of cash flow:One of the key steps in developing thefinancial analysis of the model plantswas to project the profitability over thelife of the plants. These pro4ections,along with the depreciation estimates,determined the cash flows. Althoughlisting individual items in the cash flowmight be appropriate for an individualplant in the industry, it is notappropriate for model plants which weredeveloped to represent a number ofplants of different ages with a widevariety of individual requirements.

(d) Difference between liquidationvalue and salvage value: In this study,the salvage value of a plant issynonorhous with its liquidation value.Implicit within the model plant conceptis that the annual reinvestment will besuch that the salvage yalue of fixedassets will remain at the same level(adjusted for inflation) throughout theperiod of consideration.

(e) Salvage value of pollution controlfacilities: The terminal year liquidationvalue representa the salvage value of theplant assuming the plant will notcontinue to be used for textilesmanufacturing. This plus the fact thatmost pollution controls tend to reflectrelatively fixed, site specific structuresmake it unlikely that pollution controlfacilities would have any appreciableliquidation value in the terminal year.

(f) Discount period of NPV analysis:The NPV concept is based on anexamination of cash flows over theexpected life time of proposed-investments. The 21 year time frame

I was selected since it coincides with theexpected life of dyeing and finishingequipment as shown in Department ofTreasury, The Textile Industry, 1976. Itwas assumed that this time horizonwould,be appropriate for existing plantsas well as new sources. Whileindividual'firms will be making,decisions in the short tern, the industryas a composite will be making decisionsin the long term.

4. Comment: .There were severalcomments provided concerning thesevqrity of specific impacts depicted inthe economic report. These commentsconcerned price impacts, supply anddemand analysis, production impacts,employment impacts, and variousfinancial and other impacts. The basesfor these comments were theconclusions of the impact analysispresented in the preliminary report.

Response: The Agency has refined theeconomic analysis presented in thepreliminary report. The preliminaryimpacts assumed all 1,165 wetprocessors would need to invest in, andoperate, pollution control facilities: Thisestimate has been revised to 319 plants,based on an estimated 846 plants withsufficient treatment currently in place.The Agency has considered thepotential economic impacts of eachregulatory option evaluated in itsdecision criteria as described inSections VIII, X, XI, XII of this notice.Because of economic impacts projectedfor the Felted Fabric ProcessingSubcategory under BAT Option 4,Option 1 limitations are proposed forthis subcategory. EPA believes that theoptions selected for the proposedregulations are economicallyachievable.

XXIV. Solicitation-of Comments

EPA invites and encourages publicparticipation in this rulemaking. The"Agency asks that any deficiencies in therecord of this proposal be pointed towith specificity and that suggestedrevisions or corrections be supported bydata.

EPA is particularly interested Inreceiving additional comments andinformation in connection with thefollowing: , .

(1) The Agency is reviewing thesampling and analytical methods usedto determine the presence andmagnitude of toxic pollutants, andsolicits comments on the data producedby these methods, and the methodsthemselves.

(2) In order to provide a moreextensive data base for this rulemaking,EPA requests that textile facilitiesvoluntarily sample and analyze for thetoxic, conventional, andnonconventional pollutants proposed forregulation. Samples should be taken, ata minimum, from intake water, rawwastewater, and pretreated or finaleffluent where treatment Is in place.Voluntary sampling arid analyses mustbe conducted by the same methods usedby EPA and, therefore, plants thatintend to participate in this effort shouldcontact James R. Berlow (see ADDRESSat beginning of preamble) for furtherassistance. Sampling and analysisprotocols and a list of laboratorlescapable of performing the analyses willbe made available to plants wishing toparticipate in this program.

(3) In recognition of the limits ofavailable data on some toxic pollutants,the Agency is proposing "indicator"limitations on total suspended solids.EPA requests the submission of datathat either support or refute its beliefthat when TSS is removed to lowconcentrations, the concentrations Oftoxic pollutants are substantially lossthan when the concentrations of the"indicator" pollutant is high. Under the"indicator" strategy, "indicator"pollutants will be treated as toxicpollutants for all purposes. Effluentlimitations will be established for themat BAT levels; "indicator" conventionalswill not have topass the BOT cost-comparison test normally required forconventional pollutants, and "Indicator"nonconventional pollutants will not besubject to modifications under Sections301(c) and 301(8) unless a permittee canshow that the waste stream does notcontain any of the toxic pollutants forwhich the "indicator" was designed todemonstrate removal. EPA requestscomments on this approach.

(4] EPA has noted some anomalies orpotentially erroneous data points forconventional, nonconventional andtoxic pollutants, and requests thatplants review all data submitted to theAgency, including data for flow andproduction, to insure their accuracy. Inaddition, EPA has had difficulty inobtaining data for plants in the LowWater Use Processing, Nonwoven

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

Manufacturing, Ind Felted FabricProcessing.Subcategories, and requeststhat these plants submit available dataincluding production, wastewater flow,pollutant parameters, andconcentrations.

(5) Characterization of the nature andamount of sludges generated by textilewaste treatment plants and the costs ofsludge handling and disposal areimportant to these regulations andregulations beingdeveloped by EPA'sOffice of Solid Waste, under authority ofthe Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). The Agencysolicits additional data concerning thequantities, pollutant content, andhandling and disposal costs for all solidwastes.

(6) Possible underestimation of controltechnology costs was a significant issueraised during the public commentmeeting. In order to perform ameaningful comparison of EPA cost dataand industry cost data, EPA requestsdetailed information on salient designand operating characteristics; actualinstalled cost (not estimates ofreplacement costs) for each unitt eatment operation or piece ofequipment (e.g., screens, clarifiers,aeration equipment, etc.]; the date ofinstallation and the amount ofinstallation labor provided by plantpersonnel; and the actual cost foroperation and maintenance brokendown into units of usage and cost forenergy (kilowatt hours or equivalent),chemicals, and labor (work-years orequivalent).

(7) EPA's economic ihpact analysisindicated that up to 39 plant closingsmay result from the proposedregulations. The closure candidatesoccur among small- and medium-sizedplants and are concentrated amongWool Scouring, Wool Finishers, andStock and Yarn producers, althoughother subcategories may be affected aswell. The Agency is concerned about theclosures. Before promulgating theregulations, EPA-mtends to further studythe conditions that lead to closures.During this assessment, the Agencyplans to consider whether alternativelevels of zontrol are appropriate forregulating segments of the textileindustry. EPA solicits comments thatcould provide the Agency moreunderstanding of the problems somesmall- and medium-sized plants face incomplying without proposed standards.EPA welcomes suggestions onalternative control technologies that theAgency should consider prior topromulgating these regulations.

(8) EPA has obtained from theindustry a substantial data base for thecontrol and treatment technologies

which serve as the basis for theproposed regulations. Plants that havenot submitted data, or that havecompiled more recent data orengineering studies are requested toforward these data to EPA. These datashould be individual data points, notaverages or other summary data,including flow, production, and allpollutant parameters for which analyseswere run. Please submit anyqualifications to the data, such asdescriptions of facility design, operatingprocedures, and upset problems duringspecified periods.

(9) EPA requests that POTVs whichreceive wastewaters from textile plantssubmit data which would document theoccurrence of interference withcollection system and treatment plantoperations, permit violations, sludgedisposal difficulties, or other incidentsattributable to the pollutants containedin POTW's influent.

Dated: October 16,1979.Douglas X. Castle,Administrator.

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronyms,and Other Terms Used in this NoticeAct-The Clean Water Act.Agency-The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.BAT-The best available technology

economically achievable, applicableto effluent limitations to be achievedby July 1,1984, for industrialdischarges to surface waters, asdefined by Section 304(b) (2) (B) of theAcL

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, applicable todischarges of conventional pollutantsfrom existing industrial point sources,as defined by Section 304(b) (4) of theAct.

BMP-Best management practices, asdefined by Section 304(e) of the Act.

BPT-The best practicable controltechnology currently available,applicable to effluent limitations to beachieved by July 1, 1977, for industrialdischarges to surface waters, asdefined by Section 304(b) (1) of theAct.

Classical Pollutants-A general termused to refer to the pollutants ofprimary concern before the"conventional, nonconventional, andtoxic pollutant" designations set forthin the Act as amended.

Clean Water Act-The Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). asamended by the Clean Water Act of1977 (Pub. L 95-217).

Conventional Pallutants-Constituents-of wastewater hs determined by

Section 304(a) (4) of the Act, including,but not limited to, pollutants classifiedas biological oxygen demand,suspended solids, oil and grease, fecalcoliform, and pH.

Development Document-DevelopmentDocument for Proposed EffluentLimitations Guidelines, New SourcePerformance Standards, and -Pretreatment Standards for the TextileMills Point Source Category, preparedby the Effluent Guidelines Division ofEPA.

Direct Discharger-An industrialdischarger that introduces wastewaterto a receiving body of water or land,with or without treatment by thedischarger.

Economic Analysis-Economic ImpactAnalysis of Proposed EffluentLimitations Guidelines, New SourcePerformance Standards, andPretreatment Standards for the TextileMills Point Source Category, preparedby the Office of Analysis andEvaluation of EPA.

Effluent Limitation-A maximumamount per unit of production (orother unit) of each specific constituent

.of the effluent that is subject tolimitation from an existing pointsource.

Federal Water Pollution ControlActAmendments of 1972-Pub. L 92-500,which provides the legal authority forcurrent EPA water pollutionabatement projects, regulations, andpolicies. The Federal Water PollutionControl Act was amended further in1977 in legislation referred to as TheClean Water Act.

Indicator Pollutants-A group ofpollutants, including, but not limitedto, BOD5, COD, and TSS, which canserve as a basis for limitations ontoxic pollutants, which in themselvesare very difficult to monitor andexpensive to analyze.

Indirect Discharger-An industrialdischarger that introduces wastewater to a publicly-owned collectionsystem.

In-plant Control Technologies-Controlsor measures applied within themanufacturing process to reduce oreliminate pollutant and hydraulicloadings of raw wastewater. Typicalin-plant control measures includechemical substitution, materialreclamation, water reuse, waterreduction, and process changes.

Internal Subcategorization-Divisionswithin a subcategory to groupfacilities that, while producing relatedproducts from similar raw materials,have differing raw wastecharacteristics due to the complexityof manufacturing processes employed.

New.Source--Industrial facilities fromwhich there is, or may be, a discharge

6229-7

Federal Register I VoL 44. No. 210 ' Monday, Octobdr 29, 1979 J Proposed Rules

oT;pollutants, and whose constructionis begun after 'the publication of the.proposed regulations.

Nonconventional Pollutanls-'Parameters selected for 'use indeveloping effluent limitationguidelines and new sourceperformance standards. which have-not been previously designated aseither conventional pllutants or toxic,pollutants.

Non-Water Environmental Qualityinlpact-Deleterious aspects ofcontrol and treatment technologiesapplicable lo point source bategorywastes, including,-but nollimnited to,air pollution, noise, radiation, sludgeand solid waste generation, andenergy usage.

NPDES-National Pollutant DischargeElimination System, a Federalprogram'requirihng industry andmunicipalities to-oblain permits todischarge plant effluents to .the -nations water courses, under-Section402 of the Act.

NSPS-New source performancestandards, applicable to industrialfacilities whose construction is begunafter the publication of the proposed "regulations, as deflned bySection-305ofthe Act.

Performance Standards-A nanxi mum.weight discharged per unit ofproduction for each constituent that issubject to limitations. Performancestandards are applicable -to new -sources, as opposed 'to exisitngsources, which are subject to effluent'limitations.

Point Source Category-A-collection ofindustrial sources with similarfunction or product, established by-Section 306(b)(1)(A) of 'the'FederalWater'Pollution Control Act,'as"amendedor'the purpose ofestablishing Federal standards for"thedisposal of wastewater. _.

Pollutant Loadin-Ratio of the total'daily mass discharge of a particularpollutant 'to the total daily wetproduction of a mill expressdin-lerms.of'(kg pollutant)/(kkg 'wet production).

POTW-Publicly owned treatmnt _ "works, facilities that collect, treat, orotherwise dispose of wastewaters,'owned and operated by a village,town, tounty, 'authority, or otherpublic -agency.

Pretreatment Standard-ndustrial.wastewater 'effluent quality requiredfor discharge 'to a publicly-ownedtreatment works.

PSES-Pretreatment standards forexisting sources of *indirectdischarges, 'under Section 307b)-of'theAct.

PSVS- -Pretreatment standards 'for 'newsources of indirect discharges, underSection 307 {b) and (r) of the, Act.

RCRA-Resource.Conservation andRecovery Act {Pub. L.'94-580) of 1976,Amendments 'to Solid Waste DisposalAct.

Revised Settlemeit ;4greement-Arewritten form uf the 'SettlementAgreement-which describedprovisions -authorizing The exclusionfrom Tegulation, in certain instances,rf toxic pollutants 'andindustrysubcategories.

Settlement Agreement-Agreemeitenteredirto by EPA with the NaturalResourcesDefense ,Council and otherenvironmental groups 'and alprovedbyi the U.S. Distict 'Court for theDBistfidt dfColumbia'on June 7,1976.One of 'th principal provisionsof'theSettlement Agreement -was to -directEPA Jto consider anextended list of 65classes ofpollutants in '21industrialca'tegories, 'including'Textile Mills, inthe .devdlopmentofeffluentlinitations guidelines and new 'source'performance standards.

SIC-Stafidard Industrial Classification,a numerical categorization schemeused by the U.S. Department of(Commerce to denote segmentsof,industry.

Toxic Pollutants-All compoundsspecifically named or xeferred to inthe Settlement Agreement, as well asrecommended .specific-compoundsrepresentative .of lthe .nonspecific orambiguous groups -or compoundsnamed in Ihe ,agreement. 'This list 'ofpollutants was .develop ed basedonthe .useofcriteria such as knownoccurrence in point source 'effluents, -in .the aquatic environment, in iishJndrinirg water;,and hrough.evaluations of carcinogenicity other.chronic toxicity, bloaccumulation. and.persistence. -

Water Use-Ratio of the spent waterfrom a manufacturing operation to 'thetotal 'wet productionby-the mill,expressed in terms of (liters -ofwastewaterjdpy)Jj(fklogram of Wet,productionlday).

Appendix iB-2Toiic Pollutants Detectedin Treated 'Effluent Above the 'NominalDetection Limit -

acrylonilrile-benzene1,2,4-trichlordbenzene2,4,6-trichlornphlenolparachlorome'tacresolchloroform1,2-dichlorobenzeneethylbenzenetrichiorofluoromethanenaphthaleneN-nritrosodi-n-propylaminepentachlorophenolphenol

(a) 4-AAP

(b) GCIMSbis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatotetrachloreethylenetoluenetrichloroethyleneantimonyarseniccadmiumchromiumcoppercyanideleadpnercurynickelseleniumsilverzinc

Appendix C-Toxic Pollutants notDetected in Treated Effluents

benzidine* 3,3-dichlor benzidinemethyl bromide2;4-dinitrophenolN-nitrosodimethylamiinephenanthrenecarbon tetrachloride1,1,2-trichloroethanechloroethane4-chlorophenyl phenyl etherdichlorodifluoromethaneisophoronenitrobenzene

- 4,6-dinitro-o-cresolacenaphthylenealdrinchlordane4,4'-DDE4,4t-DDDalpha-endosulfanbeta-endosulfanendosulfan sulfateendrinendrin aldehydeheptachlorheptaclorepoxidealpha-BHCbeta-BHCgamma-BlC'flindane)delta-BHCtoxapheneacroleirrhexachloroethane1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethanebis (c'hlbromethyl) etherbis(2-chloroethyl),ether2-chlorodthyl vinyl ether1,3-dichlorobenzene1,2-trans-didchdloroethylene1,3-dicliloropropylene2,4-dini7trotoluenefluoranthene4-bromophenyl phenyl etherbis (2-chloroisopropyl) 'etherbis (2-chloroethoxy) methanebromoformchlarodibromomelhanehexachlorobutadienehexachlorocyclopentadieno

6=28 "

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 1 Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

di-n-octyl phthalate1,2-benzanthracenebenzo(a)pyrenechrysene1,12-benzoperylene1,2,5,6-dibenzanthraceneindeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrenePCB-1242PCB-1254PCB-1221PCB-1232PCB-1248PCB-1260PCB-1016asbestos2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD]

Appendix D-Toxic Pollutants Detectedat Only One Plant and at Less Than theNominal Detection Limit in the TreatedEffluent

1,2-dichloroethane1,1-dichloroethane2-chloronaphthalene2-chlorophenol1,1-dichloroethylene1,2-dichloropropane2,4-dimethylphenol2,6-dinitrotoluene1,2-diphenylhydfazineMethyl chloridedichlorobromomethane2-nitrophenol4-nitrophenol-3,4-benzofluoranthene11,12-benzofluoranthenefluorenevinyl chloridedieldrin4,4'-DDTberyllium

Appendix E--Toxic Pollutants Detectedin Treated Effluents at or-Below theNominal Detection Limit

acenaphthenechlorobenzenehexachlorobenzene1,1,1-trichloroethane1,4-dichlorobenzene2,4-dichlorophenolMethylene chlorideN-nitrosodiphenylaminebutyl benzyl phthalatedi-n-butyl phthalatediethyl phthalatedimethyl phthalateanthracenepyrenethallium

It is proposed to amend Title 40 byrevising Part 410 to read as follows:

PART 410-TEXTILE MILLS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.410.10 Applicability:

See.410.11 General definitions.Subpart A-Wool Scouring Subcategory410.20 Applicability- description of the

Wool Scouring Subcategory.410.21 Specialized definitions.410.23 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

410.24 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

410.25 New source performance standards(NSPS).

410.26 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES].

410.27 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Subpart B-Wool Finishing Subcategory410.30 Applicability; description of the

, Wool Finishing Subcategory.410.31 Specialized definitions.410.33 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (13CT).

410.34 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

410.35 New source performance standards(NSPS).

410.35 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

410.37 Pretreatment standards for newsources [PSNS).

Subpart C-Low Water Use ProcessingSubcategory410.40 Applicability- description of the Low

Water Use Processing Subcategory.410.41 Specialized definitions.410.43 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology [BCT).

410.45 New source performance standards(NSPS).

410.45 Pretreatment standards for existingsources [PSES).

410.47 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Subpart D-Woven Fabric FinishingSubcategory410.50 Applicability- description of the

Woven Fabric Finishing Subcategory.410.51 Specialized definitions.410.53 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

410.54 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

410.55 New source performance standards[NSPS).

410.56 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

410.57 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Subpart E-Knlt Fabric FinishingSubcategorysee.410.60 Applicability; description of the Knit

Fabric Finishing Subcategory.410.61 Specialized definitions.410.63 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT].

410.04 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

410.03 New source performance standards(NSPS).

410.66 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

410.07 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS.

Subpart F-Carpet Finishing Subcategory410.70 Applicability- description of the

Carpet Finishing Subcategory.410.71 Specialized definitions.410.73 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCr).

410.74 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

410.75 New source performance standards(NSPS).

410.76 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

410.77 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS].

Subpart G-Stock & Yam FinishingSubcategory410.80 Applicability description of the

Stock & Yarn Finishing Subcategory.410.51 Specialized definitions.410.83 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCTI.

410.84 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

410.85 New source performance standardsCNSPS).

410.86 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

410.87 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Subpart H-Nonwoven ManufacturingSubcategory410.90 Applicability- description of the

Nonwoven Manufacturing Subcategory.410.91 Specialized definitions.410.93 Effluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCll.

410.94 Effluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

II

62229

Federal Register / Vol. _44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 ,/ Proposed Rules

Sec.410.95 New source performance standards

.(NSPS).41096 'Pretreatment slandards'for-existing

sources (PSES).410.97 Pretreatment standards Tor new

sources '[PSNSJr .

Subpart I-Felted FabricProcesslhgSubcategory410.1,00 Applicalbility:,desciption.of the

Felted1Fabric Subcategory..410.101 Specialized'definitions.410,103 Effiuentlimitations'representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainable by,the application of the best-conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

410104° Effluent limnitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainable bythe application of the best availa'ble -technology economically acievable(BAT).

410.105 New source performance standards(NSPS).

410.106 Pretreatment standards'forexistingsources (PSES).

410.107 ,fretreatment standards fornew- sources (PSNS).

Authority. Sections 301, 304(b), (c,'(e), and(g), 300(b) and,(c), 307(b) end 1c), and 501'ofthe Clean 'Water Actf(the Federal'WalerPollution'Control Act Amendments .df'1972,as amended by the-Clean Water Act of 1977)(the "Act'j;'33,United States C. 1311, 1314(b),(c), (e), and (g), 1316(b) and (c), 1317(b) and(c).,and 1361;.86Stat. 816, Pub.;. 92-500;_91Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217.

General Provisions

§ 410.10 Applicability. -

This part applies to any textile millwhich discharges or may dischargepollutants to waters of the United Statesor which introduces -or may introducepollutants into a publicly owned -treatment works.

§ '410.1.1 -Generaldefinitions.In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFRPart 401, the followingdefinitionapplies .to tis'part:

"Color" means that color as measuredby the modified tristimulus method asdeveloped by the American DyeManufactures Institute (ADMI) anddescribed in the Proceedings of the 28thIndustrial Waste Conference,-PurdueUniversity.

Subpart A-Wool ScouringSubcategory

§ 410.20 Appllcability, description of theWool ScouringSubcategory.

The provisions of fissubpart areapplicable todischarges-containingprocess wastes that enter the waters ofthe UnitedStates, and ntroductions ofpollutants iinto publicly owned treatmentworks resulting 'from facilities that scournatural impurities from raw 'wool andother animal hair fibers as the majority

of their processing. Integrated mills thatperform .wool :scouring -and otherfinishingshould apply ,the applicablewool scouring effluent limitations lo 'hewool scouring production and the otherfinishing production to applicableeffluen'tlimitations covering thatproduction.?m order to calculatedischarge ,allowances.

§ 410.2,1 Specialized definitions.In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinition applies to this subpart:

[a) 'MRaw grease wool" means the nawwool as obtained from the sheep. withall natural 'and acquired impurities such"as grease. soluble salts fsunt), and'dirt.

§410.23 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reductidn attainableby the applicatlonof the bestconventionalpollutant control .technology.(BCI).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-12522, any existing point source subjectto thissubpart'must -achidve thefollowrg effluentlimitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentredactions attainable ,by the a.pplicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol -technology TBCTJ:

Subpart A,Pessithan 3,300 kkglyr total~productior

BCT effluent ritations

Pollutant'or Maidmum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

'kglkkg (ordtbTlOOO.b) of raw grease'wool

BOD..___ 30.6 5.3TSS..-- 32.2 16.1pH. .......Wthin the range of 6.0 to 9.0at all.limes

Subpart A (3.300 kkg/yr total production or greater)

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Averageof dailypollutant property any 1 day ,vakies for 30

consecutive days

,kg/kkg.(or;lb/1000 Ib) of rawgrease wool

BODS 1.5 -0.9TSS . 10.9 16.3PH .... . Wthin the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§-410.24 Effluent fimltations representing,the'degree ofeffluent reduction attainableby the applicationolthebestavallabletechnology iconomically achlevable (BAT).

Excqpt asprovidedin 40 CFR 125.30-.32. any existing point source subject tothis subpart must .achieve -the followingeffluent limitations representing the

degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the beft'availibletechnology economically achieva ble(BAT):

'OAT dluont lirriltallonsi

Pollutant or Maximum for Averagol tailty'pollutant property any I day valueas'fotaO

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/t0O0 Ib) of raw,grease wool

COD .................... 36.3 24.0TSS.... 10.9 6.,3Total Phenol .... 0.002 0.001Total Chromium .0.1 "0.00oTotal Copper......, 0.01 . 0DTotal Zinc........... 0.02 0.01Color!(ADMI'unis).. 2400 1500

§ 410.25 New source performance.standards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart must achievethe following mewsource performance standards :(NSPS)"

Subpart A

NSPS effluont limitations

Pollutant or . Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

,consecutive days

kg/kkg (or rb/lOO lb),of rawgreaso wool

BED5 ............... 1.5 0.9COD .............. . 36.3 24.0TS. 10.9 .6.3Total Phenol.---- 0.002 0.001Total Chromium. 0.01 0.000Total Copper. 0.01 . 0.000Total Zinc___ 0.02 (0.01Color (ADMI units).. 2400 1500pHl- - Withinthe rangeo 6.0oto 9.0 at all tWes

§ 410.26 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13.any existing source subjectlo zhissubjiiart that introduces pollutants into apublicly dwned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part,403 andachieve the followingpretreatmentstandards for existing sources {PSES):

Subpart A

PSES ettluent firnitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daIlypollutant property any I day values for 30

consocutiyo days

Milligrams per hlate (mgl)

Total chromium .. .0.00 0.50Total copper ...... 0.90 0.50Tstal zinc.....-........ 1.80 100

62230623

Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance-

Subpart A

PSES effluent ,ritations

Pollutant or Maxinurn for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

coecut days

kgftg (oetbfIooo Ib) of rawgrease woof

Total d'horniain. 0.01 0.006Total copper-. 0.01 0.006TOt Z.c . 0.02 0.012

§ 410.27 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 40a andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Subpart A

PSNS effluent L adlons

Pollutant or MmDmum for Average of dlpollutant property any I day, values for 30

consecutive days

Mililgrams per Vta'(MAll

Tota0l. 0 0.50Total copper -. 0.90 0.50Total zinc. . 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart A

PSNS effluent Rtoos

Pollutant or Mamun ftr Average of dailypollutan t property many1 day values tor-3O

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or Ib/1000 1b) of rawgreasawool

Total chdwomim .. 0.01 0.006Total copper.. 0.01 0".00Total zinc - 0.02 0.012

Subpart B-Wool FinishingSubcategory

§ 410.30 Applicability; descriptlon of theWool Finishing Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges containingprocess wastes that enter the waters ofthe United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks resulting from facilities that finishfabric, a majority of which is wool, otheranimal hair fiber, or blends containingprimarily wool or other animal hairfiber, by employing any of the followingprocessing operations on at least fivepercent of their total production:Carbonizing, fulling, bleaching, scouring(not including raw grease woolscouring), dyeing and/or application offunctional finish chemicals. Facilitiesthat primarily finish stock or yarn ofwool, other animal hair fiber, or blendscontaining primarily wool or otheranimal hair fiber and that performcarbonizing, are included in this subpart.Wool stock or yam mills that do notperform carbonizing and scouring arecovered under Stock & Yam Finishing.Integrated miffs that finish a majority ofwool fabric along with grelge goodsmanufacturing or other finishingoperations such as yam dyeing areincluded in this subpart and totalproduction (excluding wxeaving andother dry operations) should be appliedto the applicable effluent limitations tocalculate discharge allowances.

§ 410.31 SpecIallzeddefinitions.

In 6ddition to the deffnitionsset forthin 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinition applies to this subpart-

(a) "Product" means the final materialproduced or processed by the mill.

§ 410.33 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology ([CT]:

Subpart 0 Oms Uian 5.50 kIgfy1 tota procicn)

Bar etsfuedinTtascrs

Palkir cc maxkiaa for AY-e CC dai~fpok*otproporlj arny I day values or"uO

o15 days

kgkkg (of b/10CO b) of prodct

2Z4 iZT3

- 352 17.6

PH -.... . te range of &0 to 9.0 ataltm-as

Subpart 0 (5=0 ksr ttal pra1Jction or groom)

BCT etuen kuladons

Pokfta or Ma.Xim for Average o dairpolat propy any Iday values fW30

kglk.% (-'ibl0O lJ cC produc

15A aTSS 11.0 &4pH Ws erange of O for 8 at aN ftes

§ 410.34 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT):

subpart s

BAT efflu 3iitakson

Polktjoatr MCxtkrtir Avarge of &l1pobuart prop ary 1rdw voluealor 30

cos.mcae days

Vflhk (or tIoOO lb) of product

TSS 11.0 .4ToW pl0wol. 0.0=2 0.01SToldycr*x. 0.26 0.14ToW cOcff.... 0.25 8.14ToWa ZrAc 0.52 0.25Color (AM ud)_ 190 120

§ 410.35 New source performance

standards (NSPS).

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

62231

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules'

Subpart B

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutint property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kgl/kg (or Ib/l000 Ib) of pr"oduc

SODS. 15.4 8.9COD 82.4 56.2TSS.. 11.0 6.4Total phenol - 0.032 0.018Total chromium . 0.26 0.14Total copper-. 0.26 0.14Total zinc...... 0.52 0.28Color (ADMI units). 190 120pH ... .. Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§ 410.36 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13,any existing source subjeci to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly, owned treatment works must-comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and.achieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES):

Subpart 8

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant propey any I day* values for 30

consecutive days

Mfligrams per Ifter (mg/I)

Total chromium - 0.90 0.50Total copper.....-. 0.90 0.50Total znc .... 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find it'necesary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

SubpartB

PSES effluent rimitalions

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 0

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/l000 lb) of Product

Total chromium... 0.26 0.14Total copper...... 0.26 0.14Total zinc ........... 0.52 0.28

§ 410.37 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any nbw source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources [PSNS]:

Subpart 8

PSNS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day- values for 30

- consecutive days

Mil lgrams per lter (mg/)

Toal chrom.ium . 0.90 0.50Total copper-. 0.90 ' 0.50Total zinc 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecesary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following-equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart S

PSNs effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/io000 Ib) of product

Total chromium 0.26 0.14Total copper- 0.26 0.14Total zinc 0.52 0.28

cSubpart C-Low Water Use ProcessingSubcategory

§ 410.40 Applicability; description of theLow Water Use Processing Subcategory.The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges containingprocess wastes that enter the waters ofthe United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks resulting from facilities other thanfinishing facilities engaged only inmanufacturing greige goods, laminating-or coating fabrics, texturizing yarn,tfting and backing carpet, producingtire cord fabric, and similar activities inwhich either cleanup is the primarywater use or process water requirementsare-small, or both.

§ 410.41 Specialized definitions.In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinition applies to this subpart:

(a) "Product" means the final materialproduced orprocessed by the" mill.

§ 410.43 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BOT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepiesenting the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT:

Subpart C

BCT effluent llmitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dallypollutant property any I day values fto 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or rb/l000 Ib) of productBOD_ - 1.4 0.7TSS............ 1.4 0.7pH ........ Within the range of 6.0 1o 9.0 at at limos

§ 410.45 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

Subpart C

NSPS effluent ,mltatlon.

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consocutve days

kg/tag (or lb1000 Ib) of product

805- - 1.4 0.7CoDo _ 2.8 1.4TSS 1A 0.7pH - Within the range of 06.0 to 9.0 at all limos

§410.46 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources(PSES).

-Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13,any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants Into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403.

§ 410.47 Pretreatment standards for nowsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403.

Subpart D-Woven Fabric FinishingSubcategory

I

§ 410.50 Appiicablilty; description of theWoven Fabric Finishing Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges containingprocess, wastes that enter the waters ofthe United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicity ownedtreatment works resulting from facilitiesthat primarily finish fabric, a majority ofwhich is woven, by employing any ofthe following processing operations onat least five percent of their production:Desizing, scouring, bleaching,mercerizing, dyeing, printing, and/orapplication of functional finishchemicals. Denim finishing mills areincluded in this subpart, but facilitiesfinishing woven fabric composedprimarily of wool are covered underWool Finishing. Integrated mill that

62232

Federal Register [ Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 [ Proposed Rules

finish a majority of woven fabric alongwith greige goods manufacturing orother finishing operations such as yarndyeing are included in this subpart arldtotal production (excluding weaving andother dry operations should be appliedto the applicable effluent limitations tocalculate discharge allowances.

§ 410.51 Specialized definitions.In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinitions apply to this subpart:

(a) "Product" means the final materialproduced or processed by the mill.

(bl "Simple Processing" means theinternal subdivision of Woven FabricFinishing for facilities that perform fiberpreparations, desizing, scouring, orfunctional finishing, and/or one of thefollowing processes applied to morethan five percent.of total production:bleaching, dyeing, or printing. Thissubdivision includes all Woven FabricFinishing facilities that do not qualifyunder either the Complex Processing orComplex Processing Plus Desizingsubdivision.

(c) "Complex Processing" means theinternal subdivision of Woven FabricFinishing for facilities that performdesizing of less than 50 percent of theirtotal production and more than one ofthe following, each applied to more thanfive percent of total production:Bleaching, dyeing, or printing. Thesefacilities may also uperform fiberpreparation, scouring, mercerizing, andfunctional finishing.

(d] "Complex ProcessingPlusDesizing" means theinternalsubdivision of Woven Fabric Finishingfor facilities that perform desizng ofgreater than 50 percent of their totalproduction, and more than one 6f thefollowing, each applied to more thanfive percent of'total production:Bleaching, dyeing, or printing. Thesefacilities may also perform fiberpreparation, scouring, mercerizing, andfunctional finishing.

§ 410.5A Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventional

pollutant control technology (BCT).Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-

125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the application

of the best conventional pollutant Subpart O-Cctrpica Proce Plus Deslzmg (9,300 l*gf~r

of the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT):

Subpar O-Ssrpi Ptocessas(I-s ta- 135W0 krr W

60T fkwrd Wi 4

Poltutant or Matrokr for Av -a. of damPollutant Plop"rt ary 1 day VIDW for 30

kgJ$g (or If000181 of 'podct

B6005 6A6 3ZTss 17.8 LSpH With rn* g of &a o 9 0 at a m s

Subpat 0-S Procs (13.500 Wgfyi .il

production or gcoafel

orf6.JeW50r5

Poilutart or LjAsIaufor Average of daiy

Tss__ 3.4 2.0pH - Wrduthe range o U to 9.0 at ailrAs

Subpar 0-Complex Protesan Omssthan 12200 U41ylow 13roci)

Pobutant or Mairmnm for Averag of d yPOiU&M p"et &V I day vatml for 30

C~onscuiv days

kgf,,kg (or Wbf1oo Ib) of ;podd

B005 6.6 13TSS___ . .. 17.8 6-9pt .. . .W n the mr14

ooan to o .0 at am *

&kWar 0-Cmpex PR-iaaln (t2.200 k'gty totalPoCution or geate)

SCT efto.t F

Polutant or Maxmu for A-r of dalypoaultantpropey aryI day vaus for 0o

omcxwetia dars

kg (m9or W 1000 lb) ofproduct

6005 5.0 29TSS 4.7 27pH * ft ran of O& o o9.0 at allk fs

SubptD--Compx MrOre's 0 e 1ge an9-SO khgty, total produvton)

Polkuart or MCAsmm for Average o+ daypolluitant proper any I day vahue fo 30

cociuW. ea days

kgftrg (or W 1000lb) of pvoct

6005 -6.6 3T"_SS 17.8 8.9pH - Wthn te rg o5.0 to 9.0 al aIN tn

lowa ptcduofn or greaer)

BCT eff luenA tajons

PC4IMf or Maximmj for Average c4da1W.pct 0t rerly any I day va*s forS

comecui vedays

hgkk~g (orb I1000 1b) of produt

6005 6.6 1

pH ,e e cf o to a.0 at an

§410.54 Effluent lImitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in40 CFR 125.30-125.32. any existingpoint source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainableby the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT):

&~pt O--5ir Processilng

EATefflued ifntasi

PoRAgf or Maxinsxn for AWrage of cypolluot ~pty any I day vekaesfor 30

ccmeo.tivdays

kgIg (cc co000Yof orprodx

coo 33.1 22.6TSS 3.4 2.0Tots 014 1.05 0.O03Totl ehrorr. 0.07 0.04ToW copper . 0.07 0.04Tc. € - 0.14 0.08Co M,&N ots). 340 220

sutw D-C- rocassings

BA efffuermra itaSom

Polkat ot Maimm for Arage of dailypoAaMt pWoirty ay 1 day values for 30

corwwiedr

kq/Utg (orn111000 18orp~dxr

coo 38.1 26.0755 4.7 22Towup t 0.013 0.04Tota dorim O.M& 0.0.4

Totafc:W.m.. 0.05 0.04Total mw 0.16 0.08Colr "06t] .!.s). 340 220

62233

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

Subpsrt D-Complex Processing Plus Desizing

SAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/10O Ib) of product

COD ............... 49.9 34.0TSS ...................... 6.2 3.6Total phenol ......... 0.012 0.007Total cbromium-.. 0.10 0.06Total copper..... 0.10 .0.06Total zinc........... 0.20 0.11Color (ADMI units). 340 220

§ 410:55 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

Subpart D-Simple Processing,

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property. any-1 day, values for 30

consecutive days:

kg/lkg (or tb/l000 Ib) of product

BED .................. 1.3 0.74COD ................- 22.8 - 15.5TSS ....................... 2.4 1.4Total phenol ....... 0.003 0.002Total chromium..... 0.07 0.04Total copper....... . 0.07 0.04Total zinc.......... 0.14 0.08Color (ADMI units). 190 120pH . .. ........... Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

Subpart D--Complex Processing

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/1000 Ib) of product

BOD5. ............... 2.4 1.4COD ................... . 26.2 17.9TSS . ........ 3.4 2.0Tots) phenol ....... 0.008- 0.005Total chromium ., 0.08 0.04Total copper........ 0.08 0.04Total zinc ........... 0.16 0.08Color (ADMI units).. 190 120pH...................... Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

Subpart D-Complex Processing Plus Desiring

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kglkkg (or lb/1000 Ib) of product

BE05-... 3.1 1.8C= - - 34.3 23.4TSS.... 4.4 2.6Total phenol .... 0.008 0.005Total chromum . 0.10 0.06Total copper -. 0.10 0.00Total mnc..... 0.20 0.11Color (ADMI unit).. 190 120pH ....... Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tknes

§ 410.56 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR. 403.13,any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES):

Subpart D-Simple Processing

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maamum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

Total chromium-.. 0.90 0.50Total copper-.- 0.90 0.50Total zinc . - 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance: -- -

Subpart D--Simple Processing

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daily-pollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/100 Ib) of product

Total chromium ..... 0.07 0.04Total copper-. 0.07" 0.04Total zinc. -. - 0.14 0.08

Subpart D-Complex Processing

PSES effluent tlmitatlons

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

Total chromium ..... 0.90 0.0Total copper .......-.. 0.90 0.50Total zinc ........... "1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find Itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart D-Complex Processing

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dallypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/1000 Ib) of product

Total chromium 0.08 0.04Total copper.'- 0.08 0.04Total zinc........... 0.16 0.00

Subpart D-Complex Processing Plus Dosiing

PSES effluent limitatlions

Average of dslyPollutant or Maximum for values for 30

pollutant property any i day consocutlvo days

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

Total chrorum ..... 0.90 0.50Total copper........ 0.90 0.50Total 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart D-,Complex Processing Plus Doszlng

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average o dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/000 lb) of product

Total chromium 0.10 0.00Total c6pper.......... 0.10 0,00Total zinc .............. 0.20 0.11

62234I I

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

§ 410.57 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Sub.P-S e Processng

PSNS effluent liitations

"Polutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

Mrirgrams per iter (rng1l)

Total chromium 0.90 0.50Total copper- 0.90 0.50Total zinc . 0.60 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart 0--Simple Procsi

PSNS effluent kmita

Pollutant or Maximum for Avenaporlutant property any 1 day vah

consc

kglkkg (or lb/lO0 Ib) o

Total cbrornium.. 0.07Total copper - 0.07Total zinc - 0.14

Subpart D-Complex Pocessig

PSNS effluent rit

Pollutant or Maximum for Averpollutant property any 1 day val.

corse

Mirigrarns per Iter (rTotal chrium.... 0.90Total cop_er . 0.90Total zinc. . 1.80

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluelimitations, the following equivamass limitations are provided asguidance.

Subpart D-Comnplex Processig

PSNS effluenftliita

Pollutant or Maximum for Averspollutant property any 1 day vak

cons

kg/kkg (or lb/10OO Ib) o

Total chroniumn. 0.08Total copper.. 0.08*Total zinc 0.16

lions

ge of dailyes for 30cutle days

f podct

Subpart 0-Cornpe processing Plus Desirng

PSNiS efflnt k,aWtis

Polut&nt or MLAxss for Amage cf dalyPosutant property any I day vMlues for 30

ccn se days

11 9as We Pier (mgII)

Tot chvomium.. 00 0.50Total copper- 090 0.50TO1.0 10

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subipart D--Cotc PRocsslng Plin Desig

PSNS elfflent ftivtaw

Pollutant or Maxins for Avege ci dalyPonutant property any 1 d y vales for 30

c"oveutle dwy

ligWig (as rIb1020M) ofprodut

Total chromlirn- 0.10 0.06Total copper-..o 0.10 O8Total zinc' 020 0.11

Subpart E--Knit Fabric FinishingSubcategory

§ 410.60 Applicability; description of theKnlt Fabric Finishing Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are0.04 applicable to discharges containingo.o8 process wastes that enter the waters of

the United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks resulting from facilities that

tioP. primarily finish fabric niade of cottonof "Iy aid/or synthetic fiber, a majority of

e for 30 which is knit, by employing any of theace days following processing operations on at

ng/l) least five percent of their production:$os Scouring, bleaching, dyeing, printing,

0.so and/or application of lubricants,1.00 antistatic agents, and functional finish

chemicals. Integrated mills that finish amajority of knit fabric along with greige

nt goods manufacturing or other finishinglent operations such as yarn dyeing are

included in this subpart and totalproduction (excluding knitting and otherdry operations) should be applied to theapplicable effluent limitations tocalculate discharge allowances.

tions

§ 410.61 Specialized definitlops.ge of dailysfor 30 In addition to the definitions set forth

vutive days in 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinitions apply to this subpart:

prut (a) "Product" means the final material0.04 produced or processed by the mill.0.040.08

(b) "Simple Processing" reans theinternal subdivision of Knit FabricFinishing for facilities that perform fiberpreparation, scouring, or functionalfinishing, and/or one of the followingprocesses applied to more than fivepercent of total productiom Bleaching,dyeing, or printing. This subdivisionincludes all Knit Fabric Finishingfacilities that do not qualify under eitherthe Complex Processing or HosieryProducts subdivision.

(c) "Complex Processing" means theinternal subdivision of Knit FabricFinishing for facilities that perform morethan one of the following processes eachapplied to more than five percent oftotal production: Bleaching, dyeing, orprinting. These facilities may alsoperform fiber preparation, scouring,mercerizing, and functional finishing.

(d) "Hosiery Products" means theinternal subdivision of Knit FabricFinishing for facilities that are engagedprimarily in dyeing or finishing hosieryof any type.

§ 410.63 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCTh

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32. any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degreee of effluentreductions attainable by theapplications of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT):

Sbpart E-rnpu Processing ('-5 thn 7.2=0 kijfyr total

BCT eflue nitatio-s

Pokluant or 'Maku n for Average of daRyPo a tt Papert any 1 day vakes for 30

consecutiv~e days

V4kg/'g (or lb/tO0 lb)Of pro=~c

o5________ 5.0 5SS 21.8 10.9

PH WttIn tfhe rarge of 6.0 lo 9.0 at alt limes

StpkW E-& l Procesng (7.=0 kAglyi fota prcdiortor geaer)

ECT ef.uent knitatbins

Polutant or Mzatnyem for Average of dWaypolutant property any 1 day vakues for 30

consecutive days

liglhlg (or lbilOOri,) of product

8co00 4.7 25"USS__, 5.2 3.0pH - W'hn to rarGa of 6Z to 9.0 at alt taes

62235

Federal Register' Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed RulesSubpart 8-Complex Processing (lessIhan 11.700 kkgT~

Subpart E-o~lex Prcessi'ng (litn'thah 11.7W0 kgryrtotal productiorr

BCTeffluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kgfkkg (or lb/1000 lb)'of product

BOOS 5.0 2.5TSS 2..... 28 10.9pH ................... Wthinth range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

Subpart E -Complex Processing (11.7o kkg/yr.total.production or greater)'

OCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average ofdailypollutant property any 1 day values for30

cqnsecutive days

kgfkkg (or lb/1000 Ib) of product

BeD 3.9 2.3TSS.... 5.0- 2.9-pH..---_:_. Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all ,time

Subpart E-Hoslery Produbts less than 14100 ldg.lyrotal

production)

BCTeffluent limitations:

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant propery any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kgldmg (orlbl00O Ib) of product.

BOD 5............... 15.0 8.7TSS. 28.0 16.0pH ................. Within the range of 6.0 io 9.0 at ai times

Subpart E-Hosiery Products (14,100 kkg/yr total productionor greater

SCT effluent limitations.

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant prop&ty any I day, valies-for30-

consecutive days

kg/klkg (or lb/1 Gob) of product

BO .. .5.3 3.1

TSS..................... 7.0 - 4.0pH _ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§ 410.64 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainablebythe application of the bestavallabletechnology economically achievable (BAT);

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable bythe applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT):

Subpat E--Smple Processing

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any l day, values for 30

consecutive days

kglkkg (orlb/100 Ib) of product

64.6 44.0TS ........... .. 5.2 .0Total phenol -.... 0.018 0.010Total chronium- - 0.12 0.07Total copper-- 0.12 0.07Total zinc..... 0.24 0.14Color (ADMI units)- 340 220

Subpart E-Complex Processing

BAT effluent lmitations

Pollulantor MaximLmc"r Average of dailypollutant properly any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kgtkrg (orbo/1000 Ib) of product

OD 4ET. 28.orTSS..... 5.0 2.9Total phenol . 0.011 0.006Total chromiun 0.05 0.04Totacopper - 0.08 0.04Total zinc...... 0.15 0.08Color (ADMI units). 340 220

Subpart E-Hosery Products

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maxi ur for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutiwe days,

kgrklg (or lb/1000"lb) of product

COD-:....-- - 47.7 325TSS...-..' _7.0 4.01Totar phenor_ 0.006 0.003Total chronium 0.06 0.03 -Total copper.. 0.06 0.03Total . .12 0.07Color (ADMr units)_ -190" 120

§410.65 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

Any new source'subject to thissubpart must achieve the following newsource performance standards (NSPS-

Subpait!E-Simple Processing

NSPSefiluent lritations

Pollutant or Iar mn for Averageof dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecule days

kg/ldg (or.rb/100d lb)'of product

OD5........ 2.2 1.3COD ------- 4.4 - 30.3TSS.. . 3.7 2.1Total phenol .... 0.011" 0.007Total chromiunm__ 0.12 0.07Total Copper..%-- 0.12 9.07Total zinc.....--- . 024 0.14Color (ADMI units?_ . 190! , 120pH._ . _ Withir the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at.all times

Subpart E--Complax Processing

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maxlnu for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for S0

consecutive days

kgmlig for Ib/1000 tb) of product

BOD5 .................... 1.8 1.1COD ............... 28.3 19.0

Total phenol...... 0.007 0.004Total chromnium-_ 0.08 0.04Total copper ....... 0.08 0.04Total zinc.......... 0.15 0.08Color (ADMI units). 190 120pH................. Win the rangeolf 6.0 to 0.0 at tll Ves

Subpart E-Hosery Products

NSPS effluent imitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutivo days

kg/kkg (or lb/1000 lb) of product

47.7 32.8TSS .................... 7.0 "4.0Total ghenol.-- 0.006 0.003Tolar chromium .- 0.06 0.003Total copper ...... 0.06 0.03Total zin ...........- 0.12 0.07Color (ADMI units),. 19O 120pH ......... Within the range of 8.0 to 9.0 at all tlmos

§ 410.66 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13,any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into a,publicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards forlexisting sources (PSES):

Subpart E-Simple Processing

PSESeffliuent limitalons

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant'property any 1 day Values leV 30

consecutive days

Milligrams per liter (mg/l)

Total chromium.... 0.90 0.50Total copper . 0.90 0.50Total zinc ..... 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWS find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitatiohs are provided asguidance:

62236

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

Subpart E-/sroe Processing

PSES effluent keitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kgkkg (or Ib1000 lb) of product

Total chromiurn 0.12 0.07Total copper-. 0.12 0.07Total Zinc 0.24 0.14,

Subpart E-Corplex Processing

PSES effluent linitations

Pollutant or Mairmum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

Milrams per liter (mgh)

Total chrorniurmn 0.90 0.50Total copper-. 0.90 0.50Total zinc - 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart E-Complex Processing

PSES effluent initatiois

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kglkkg (or Ib1000 lb) of product

Total chrorniumn- 0.08 0.04Total copper- 0.08 0.04Total z=in 0.15 0.08

Subpart E-Hosiery Products

PSES effluent lrnitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consectie days

Milligrams per liter (mgfl)

Total chronajm - 0.90 0.50Total copper- Q.90 0.50Total zinc - - 1.80 1.00

In" cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart E--Hosiery Products

PSES effluent lirtatlons

Pollutant or Maxiinum for Average of dallypoluant property any I day Values for 30

consecutive days

kglkkg (or li/I000 Ib) of product

Total chromium 0.06 0.03Total copper- 0.06 0.03Total zinc 0.12 0.07

§ 410.67 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Subpart E-Srntfe PRoc*g

P&NS effluent IWa rtons

Pollutant or V.AimuM for Avers" of d0WPollutant propey any I day values or 30

corsectmi day

&Q9-am per litr (nt)

Total &t'rnl;umn 0.90 0.50Tot copp, . 0.0 0-mTotal znc . 1.30 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpa S-Simple ProcessIng

P=5 effivent Irrtatons

Polutant or MAmrn fo Aversg of dailyPolutant propery yI day vA, lo 30

conseauiv days

kgflukg (as StuCCO0 lb) of produd

Total chwon*xumn. 0.12 0.07Total copper...... 0.12 0.07Total zirc. 0.24 0.14

Sub p E-Conplex Proctning

P5S effluentnItalons

Pollutant or Ma*=n lot Average of dailyPollutant roperty ay I day va for 30

eonsec*r days

Mmvrrn per m (sigmt

Total lornium. 0.90 0.50Total copper. 0.90 0.50Total Zinc . 1.0 1.00

In cases when POTWs find it.necessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided aguidance:

Subpart E--CVex ProceM

PISS effluent IWiton

Poaulant or Mairrjt for AYNag of dailyPollutant roperty a I day values for 30

consecu~ya days

kgfg (or t1:41CO li) of product

Total ctronlsn. OM.8 0.04Total copper - 0.08 0.04

Subpart E-C-n x Processi

PSNS effluent initations

Pclfuttait Maxlnrum for Aeragef dailyPotant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kIkkg (or bI10CO l) of product

Tot. z 0.15 0.08

SLbart E-Hoslery Products

PS S effuent ritasos

Pc&AUX or Mxtrmxn for AveaLge of dailyPca uet proper,/ any 1 day values for 30

criaecutve days

lllgranr pe liter (rog!r)

TotWl choniwmn 0.90 0.50Tota copper.. 0.90 0.50ToW snc. 1.0 too

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided aguidance:

Subpar S-Hosiery roducts

FSNS effluent Wirffaios

Pol ant or Masimrmn foc Average of dailyPok mprope any d value for 30

consectv4e days

kgikg (or tI1000 lb) of prvdct

ToW cvorrxn. 0.06 0.3TO coppor.. 0.06 0.03Tcal Zinc 0.12 0.07

Subpart F-Carpet FinishingSubcategory

410.70 Applicability- description of theCarpet Finishing Subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges containingprocess wastes that enter the waters ofthe United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks resulting from facilities thatprimarily finish textile-based floorcovering products, of which carpet is theprimary element, by employing any ofthe following processing operations onat least five percent of their productiomScouring, bleaching, dyeing, printing,and/or application of functional finishchemicals. Facilities that only performcarpet tufting and/or backing arecovered under Low Water UseProcessing. Integrated mills that finish amajority of carpet along with tufting orbacking operations or other finishing

62237

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 21G / Monday, October 29, 1979 / -Proposed Rules

operations such as yarn dyeing areincluded in this subpart and totalproduction (excluding tufting, other,dryprocessing, or backing, should.beapplied to, the applicable effluentlimitations to calculate dischargeallowances.

§ 410.71 Specialized definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forthin 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinition applies to this subpart:

(a) "Product" means the final carpetproduced or'processed including theprimary backdng but excluding, thesecondary backing..

§410.73 Effluent limitatioos representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant controltechnoiogy (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any ekisting point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the.applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCTJ:

Subpart F (lss than 9.50 kkgly total production)

aCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

tkgkdg (or lb/lOO lb) of product

0D5... .7.8 .9TSS..-. . 11.0 . 5.5pH... ....... Within the range of 60to 9.0 at all times

Subpart F (9.500 kkg/yrtotal productiorror greater)

ECT'effluent rimitations

Pollutant or Maximum fat - Averageordailypolutant property any l day values for3O

consecutive days

kg/kkg (orlb1O000 Ib) orproduct

605-3. 22TSS. 3.0 1.pH ..... Wthin the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§ 410.74, Effluent limiltations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically'achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFRI125.30Y-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT).

Subpart F

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for -Average of dailypolhitantpropeny any I day, values for 30,

consecutive days-

kg/kkg (or fb/1000 tb) of product

23.8 16.3TSS_.... 3.1 1.8Total phenol---. - 0.010- 0.006,Total chromium-... 0.04 0.02Total copper. 0.04 0.02Total znc - 0.08 0.05Color (ADMtunits) -340 220

§ 410.75 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

Any new source subject to this subjectmust achieve the following new sourceperformance standards (NSPS):

Subpart F

NSPS effluent limitatkins

Pollutant or Maximum to' Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/g (or rb/10O Ib) of product

BaD5 . 1.8 1.0COD 16.4 11.2TSS_ 2.2 1.3Total phenol. 0.007 0.004Total chromium - 0.04 0.02Total copper . 0.04 0.0TTotal zinc. - 0.08 0.05"Color (ADMI units). 190 120pH_.... Wthin the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§ 410.76 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13,any existingsource subject to this 'subpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources {PSES)-

SubpatF

PSESelluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

Miligrms perliter (mgtl)

Total'chrorm _...-. 0.90" 0.50Total copper-.,.-- 0.90 0.50Total zinc 1.80 1.00

- In caseswhen POTWs find itnecessary tar impose mass effluentlimitations the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart F

PSES effluent limitationsAvurage of daly

Pollutant or. Maximum for veluos for 30pollutant property. any I day consecutive days

kb/kkg (or lb/1000 lb) of product

Totarchromiumi..... 0.04 0.02Total copper .. 0.04 0.02Total 71nc. 0.08 0.05

§410.77 Pretreatment standards for nowsources (PSNS).

Anynew source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants Into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS.

Subpart F

PSES effluent grnifatons.

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consocutive days

Miligrams per lifor (mg/1)

Total chromium.. 0.90 0.50Total copper-_ 0.90 0.50Total zinc. . 1.80 1.00

lIn cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart F

PSNM effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkf (or rb/1000 Ib) of product

Total chromium ...... 0.04 0.02Total copper ...... 0.04 0.02Total zinc...... 1.08 0.05

Subpart G-Stock and yarn FinishingSubcategory

§ 410.80 Applicability; description of thestock and yarn finishing subcategory.

The provisions ofthi subpart areapplicable to discharges containingprocess. wastes that enter the waters of

'the United States, and introductions ofpollutints into publicily ownedtreatment works resulting from facilitiesthat primarily finish stock, yarn, orthread of cotton and/or synthetic fiberby employing any of the followingprocessing operations on at least fivepercent of their production: Scouring.bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, and or

62238

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October Z9, 1979 / Proposed Rules

application of functional finishchemicals. Facilities finishing stock,yarn, or thread principally of wool alsoare covered by this subpart if they donot perform carbonizing as needed forcoverage under Wool Finishing.Integrated mills that finish a majority ofstock and yam along with greige goodsmanufactilring or other finishingoperations are included in this subpartand. total production (eicluding knitting,weaving, or other dry -operations) shouldbe applied to the applicable effluentlimitations to calculate dischargeallowances.

§ 410.81 Specialized definitions..In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR Part 401 the followingdefinitionapplies to this part:

(a) "Product" means the final materialproduced or processed by the mill.

§ 410.83 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT):

Subpac S pass G aV 16.400 Adgfyr IOWa! produc"

BCT effluent lImitations

Pomitant or Maxmyt for Average of dapo.ant property mny I day valus tor 30

cortsecutive days

kglkcg (or lb/lOOO It) of product

BODS 6.8 .4TSS- 17.4 8.7pH -. Watin the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at al times

Sabp G (16.400 kkgfyr total production or greater)

BCT effluent finitaon

Polhitarr or Mnakimu for Average of daypo.utant prpery any 1-day values for 30

wnsastie daps

kgtkkg (or lb/bl0O lb) of product

BOD8- 2.3 1.4TSS2 .7 1.6pH - yWtin range o(6D to 9.0 at an times

§ 410.84 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best avallabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).,

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application

of the h et available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT):

Stubai G

SAT a lkwe ktlAng

Positant M&Artn fr Average of dalypo&APan p"ro/ any luy vaakm Ior 30

conse"Wv days

Wgkkg (or 3lb100 MC l) of peoduct

COD - 24.7 18.TSS____ 2.7 1.5Total Phenol. 0.013 0.8M8Total dvromxn - 0.09 0.05Total Coppar- 0 0.05Total zlnC 0.18 0.10Color (AODM unt 340 220

§ 410.85 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

skepat (3

NSPS aeibent k za s

PolstarA or UZArrurn for Average of d*lpoltaf prope" a"I day valueslor30

comoc~mo days

kgfhJkg (or W100 lb) 01 procxt

0 --- 1.1 0."3COD______ 17.0 11.8" 1.9 1.1Total penol - 0.6 0.o5Total dvorn..-. 0.09 0.05Total coppor 0.09 0.05Total zkc. - 0.18 0.10Color(ADutxA1.. 190 1pH -W1 herane of&Co 9.0 at al &s

§ 410.86 Pretreatment standards for

existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13.any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES:

5~tpar1

PsESVIWA k.tao

PoLtnt or .t irsnm for Average of d0ypoictAntProPet arty 1day vs)" s~or

oCU&Ie days

V-57 per Rer (nml

ToW cytvof 090 050Total copr- 0.90 0_50Totl zmc - 1.A0 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

PSis e12%vfoflosalin

Spvz Lthrs lor Aawlg of dyrou"f -mod &V I day %aja for 30

Whg (or 1000 b)ot pdxct

Tciclrdvcnm 0.0 005Tou Copr 0.09 0M5Total z. . . 0.15 U.10

§ 410.87 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

4.twm G

PSNS elitiritalons

Pc,'ua.aort SAs .um io r Average of dalyPCAALIA Propert any Ifta value lor 30

Comfeve days

M~nffa Per (-Ag

To.a, T'.oJrrw 0.90 0.50To'.l cope - 0.90 0.50Total . 1180 LOG

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

S'.tpaft G

PSN3S effuent u5nrabors

Pe~awoe cc U3==n! for Ameage dfdaiV;,UtMA po et ary I day vakes for 3

co-rmecufve days

kgA5g (or WbI0CVO1b) of product

Tc'al €.orra... . 0.09 0.05TctCO;ope........ 0.09 005Tot.lZ,.;... 0.18 0.10

Subpart H-Nonwoven manufacturingSubcategory

§ 410.90 Appllcablity; description of thenonwoven manufacturing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges containingprocess wastes that enter the waters ofthe United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks resulting from facilities thatprimarily manufacture nonwoven textileproducts of wool. cotton, or synthetics,singly or as blends, by mechanical.thermal, and/or adhesive bondingprocedures. Nonwoven productsproduced by fulling and felting

62239

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979/ Proposed Rules

processes are covered in Felted FabricProcessing. Integrated mills thatmanufacture a majority of nonwoventextile products along with greige goodsmanufacturing or other finishingoperations are included in this subpartand total production- (excluding dry webformation,-knitting, weaving, or oth6rdry operations) should be applied to theapplicable effluent limitations tocalculated discharge allowances, -

§ 410.91 Specialized definitions.In addition to the definitions set forth

in 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinition applies to this subpart:-

(a) "Product" means the final. materialproduced or processed by the mill.

§ 410.93 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitations ,representing the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT):

Subpart H (less than 28,300 kkg/yr total production)

OCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for , Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/1000 ib) of product

BO . 4.3 2-59.3 6:4

pH ........................ Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

Subpart H (29,300 kkg/yr total production or greater)

BCT effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values for 30consecutive days

kgfkkg (or lb/I000 Ib) of product

BODE .................. 3.3 1.9TSS ....................... 3.3 1.9pH ......................... Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times.

§ 410.94 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the-best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT):

Subpart H

Oat effluent limitations-

Polutant or Maximum for " Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or lb/1000 Ib) of product

COD---- 39.8 27.1TSS ...... . 3.3 1.9Total phenol ._ 0.002 0.001Total chromium . 0.04 0.02Total copper - 0.04 0.02Total zinc ....-. 0.07 0.04Color (ADMI units). 340 220

§410.95 New source performancestandards (NSPS). -

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

Subpar H

NSPS effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

kg/klrg (or lb/1000 Ib) of product

BOD5- 1.5 .0.88

COD--- 27.3 18.6TSS. "- 2.3 1.4Total phenol . 0.001 0.006Total chromium - 0.04 0.02Total copper-- 0.04 0.02Total zinc 0.07 0.04Color (ADMI units). 190 .120pH - -. ,,, Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

§410.96 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources. (PSES)."

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.13,any existing gource subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 4) CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES):

Subpart H

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive days

Milligrams per liter (rg/i)

Total chromium . 0.90 0.50Total copper. 0.90 ' 0.50Total zinc. .. 1.80 1.00

In cases when. POTWs find it .

necessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart H

PSES effluent limitations

Pollutant or Maximum fat Average e1 dailypollutant property any 1 day value for 30

contecutlvo days

kg/kkg (or lb/00 Ib) of product

Total chromium ..... 0.04 0.02Total copper. 0.04 0.02Total zinc_........... 0.07 0.04

§ 410.97 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces'pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Subparl H

PENS ellluent limitations

Pollutant of Maximum for Average of daily,pollutant property any I dag Values for 30

consecutive days

MXligrarns pei lter (mg/I)

Total chromium .. 0.90 0.50Total copper ..... 0.90 0.50Total zinc ......... 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose massIeffluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

Subpart H,

PSNS effluent tinitations

Pollutant or -Maximum for Average of dailypollutant property any I day values of 30

consecutive days

kg/kkg (or b/1000 b) of product'

Total chromium.- 0.04 0.02Total copper........ 0.04 0.02Total zinc ..... 0.07 0.04

Subpart I-Felted Fabric ProcessingSubcategory

§ 410.100 Applicability; description of thefelted fabric processing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart proapplicable to discharges containingprocess wastes that enter the waters ofth United States, and introductions ofpollutants into publicly owned treatmentworks resulting form facilities thatprimarily manufacture nonwovenproducts by employing fulling andfelting operations as a means ofachieving fiber bonding. Integrated millsthat process a nmajority of felted fabricalong with greige goods manufacturing

II62240

Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 210 1 Monday, October 29, 1979 / Proposed Rules

or other finishing operations areincluded in this subpart and totalproduction (excluding knitting, weaving,or other dry operations] should be..applied to the applicable effluentlimitations to calculate dischargeallowances.

§ 410.101 Specialized definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forthin 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinition applies to this subpart-

(a] "Product' means the final materialproduced or processed by the mill.

§ 410.103 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreductions attainable by the applicationof the best conventional pollutantcontrol technology (BCT):

- 'Subpart I

BT effluent rngtahons

PoLtant or Madmuin for Average of dadyporutant property any 1 day values for 30

conSecive days.

kglkkg (or /Ib10O lb) of product

6D5 23.1 13.4TSS...... 62.0 36.0

p11 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at al tknes

§ 410.104 Effluent limitations representingthe degree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided In 40 CFR 125.30-12 5.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart'must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applicationof the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT):

Sdapart !

BAT-effluent limitations

Polltant or Maximum for Average of dailypolutant property any 1 day values for 30

consecutive da)s

kgfkkg (or bl1000 Ib) of product

CO0. 143.0 97.0TSS 62.0 36.0Total phenol . 0.05 0.01Total chromiurn . 0.19 0.11Total copper- 0.19 0.11Total Zi - 0.38 0,21color (ADMI units).. 380 240

§ 410.1095 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

subprt I

Pojnt or 14x4*rurn for Average of da*ypotutant property any I day values for 30

consea.1oe days

kglkkg (or Wt DDO lb) o4prt

B0s 8.1 4.7coo 78.5 535T"TS ..... _ .... 15.7 91Total phenol 0.024 0U14Total chvorniurn 0.19 0.11Total copper- 0.19 0.11Total Zinc 0.38 021Colo (ADMt l s). 190 120PH- W er, f M0 01&0 o at aTftn

§ 410.106 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided In 40 CFR 403.13,any existing source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES):

PSES e*At1 knOlta

Po'lutant or Ma.knurn for A,,age o( dlypollutant Wproery any 1 day vab"e Wo 30

csecut-. daya

Llgqm pw ee r (nn

TotW ctrr*xn-.. 0.90 050Total copper-. 0.20 050TotaW z 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provided asguidance:

PSES elfluent krtaons

Potlltant or Mma t lor Averae of dlpolutant property ay I day values fr 30

CWMOAe days

kgfKg (orl 0O lb) of product

Totalchronvrnt 0.19 0.11Total coppW 0.19 0.11Total zac - 03 0.21

§ 410.107 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Any new source subject to thissubpart that introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 and

achieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS]:

PSNlS efflfuen~o~~ns

Pffu* or Ma)&.1Wr for Airag of dailyPeah*- Prop"rt ay I day viaes b'30

cormodae days

Mew-ans peer m- (mgJt)

Totachm~llxn.. om0 0450Toal cpper- 0.90 0.50Tol m . . 1.80 1.00

In cases when POTWs find itnecessary to impose mass effluentlimitations, the following equivalentmass limitations are provjded asguidance:

P r effutitations

Potar or umdrnum for A-Arage of dailyp0%tan popery any 1 day values for 30

cumsecutve days

k.g21 (or lb/lCOO t) of product

TOW hctYwoiur 0.19 0.11Tota copper-..... 0.19 0.11TcW = s 0.38 O.-1

After November 23.1979.FR =7%C-33 Me. &0-- 5: a.BILLING CODE 656"4I-U

62241