Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 224 Friday, November 19, 1982 · Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, ... No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52291

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 125 and 423

[WH-FRL 2238-2]

Steam Electric Power Generating PointSource Category; Effluent LimitationsGuidelines, Pretreatment Standardsand New Source PerformanceStandards

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

SUMMARY: This regulation limits thedischarge of pollutants into navigablewaters and into publicly ownedtreatment works by existing and newsources of steam electric power plants.The Clean Water Act and a SettlementAgreement require EPA to issue thisregulation.

The purpose of this regulation is torevise and supplement effluentlimitations for "best practicabletechnology" (BPT), "best availabletechnology" (BAT), "new sourceperformance standards" (NSPS) fordirect dischargers, and pretreatmentstandards for new and existing indirectdischargers.

This regulation relates only to thedischarge of toxic and other chemicalpollutants; EPA is not issuingregulations for thermal discharges atthis time. The Agency is also reservingcoverage of "best conventional pollutantcontrol technology" (BCT).DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR100.01 (45 FR 26048), the regulationsdeveloped in this rulemaking shall beconsidered issued for purposes ofjudicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern timeon December 3, 1982. These regulationsshall become effective on [44 days afterpublication date], except for: 40 CFR423.13(d)(3) and 423.15(j)(3) whichconcern certification alternatives tomonitoring requirements; 40 CFR423.12(a) which concerns thefundamentally different factors variancefor BPT, and the chlorinationdemonstration language appearing at 40CFR 423.13(c)(2) and (d)(2), 423.15(h)(2),(i)(2), and (j)(2). These provisions will besubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget for approval under thePaperwork Reduction Act. Thecompliance date for the newly issuedPSNS and NSPS regulation is the datethat the new source commencesdischarge. The compliance date for BATand PSES is July 1, 1984.

Under Section 509(b)(1) of the CleanWater Act judicial review of thisregulation can be made only by filing a

petition for review in the United StatesCourt of Appeals within 90 days afterthese regulations are considered issuedfor purposes of judicial review. UnderSection 509(b)[2) of the Clean WaterAct, the requirements of the regulationsmay not be challenged later in civil orcriminal proceedings brought by EPA toenforce these requirements.

ADDRESSES: The record for thisrulemaking will be available for publicreview within four weeks after the dateof publication in EPA's PublicInformation Reference Unit, Room 2004(Rear) (EPA Library), 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. The EPA informationregulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides thata reasonable fee may be charged forcopying.

Technical information may beobtained by writing to Dennis Ruddy,Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552),EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,D.C. 20460, or calling (202) 382-7165.Copies of the technical development andeconomic documents. may be obtainedfrom the National Technical InformationService, Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703)487-6000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:For general and technical informationcontact Dennis Ruddy at (202) 382-7165.For information concerning theeconomic impact analysis contactJeannie Austin at (202) 382-2724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This Notice

I. Legal AuthorityI. Scope of this RulemakingIll. Summary of Legal BackgroundIV. Prior Regulations and Methodology and

Data Gathering EffortsV. Summary of Final Regulations and

Changes From ProposalVI. Cost and Economic ImpactVII. Non-Water Quality Environmental

ImpactA. Air PollutionB. Solid WasteC. Consumptive Water LossD. Energy Requirements

VIII. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

IX. Summary of Public Participation andRqsponses to Major Comments on theProposed Regulation

X. Best Management PracticesXI. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXII. Variances and ModificationsXIII. Relationship to NPDES PermitsXIV. Availability of Technical AssistanceXV. OMB ReviewXVI. Appendices

A. Steam Electric Point Source CategoryPollutants Excluded From Regulation

B. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and OtherTerms Used in This Notice

I. Legal Authority

This regulation is being promulgatedunder the authority of Sections 301, 304,306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean WaterAct (the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-500as amended by the Clean Water Act of1977, Pub. L. 95-217 (the "Act"). Theseregulations are also promulgated incompliance with the SettlementAgreement in Natural ResourcesDefense Council v. Train, 8 ERC 2120(D.D. C. 1976), modified at 12 ERC 1833(D.D.C. 1979).

I. Scope of this Rulemaking

The purpose of this rulemaking is torevise the effluent limitations for BAT,NSPS, pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES), andpretreatment standards for new sources(PSNS), under Sections 301, 304, 306, 307,and 501 of the Clean Water Act.

These final regulations apply toprocesses used in the steam electricpower generating industry. This industryis composed of facilities that areengaged in the generation of electricityfor distribution and sale, and use eitherfossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) ornuclear fuel in conjunction with athermal cycle that has a steam/waterthermodynamic medium. Together theseprocesses make up the steam electriccategory (Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) Major Group 4900),and relate specifically to both theElectric Services (SIC 4911) and theElectric and Other Services Combined(SIC 4931) subgroups.

There are approximately 850 steamelectric power plants in the UnitedStates representing a total of over 450gigowatts (GW). A more detaileddiscussion of the industry is presentedin the preamble to the proposedregulation of October 14, 1980 (45 FR68330).

EPA's 1973 to 1976 rulemaking effortsemphasized the achievement of bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable (BPT) by July 1, 1977. Ingeneral, BPT represents the average ofthe best existing performances of well-known technologies for control oftraditional (i.e., "classical") pollutants.

In contrast, this round of rulemakingaims for the achievement by July 1, 1984,of the best available technologyeconomically achievable (BAT) that willresult in reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants. At aminimum BAT represents the besteconomically achievable performance inany industrial category or subcategory.Moreover, as a result of the Clean Water

52290

HeinOnline -- 47 Fed. Reg. 52290 1982

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52291

Act of 1977, the emphasis of EPA'sprogram has shifted from "classical"pollutants to the control of a lengthy listof toxic pollutants.

Previously promulgated BAT, NSPS,PSES, and PSNS are amended by thesefinal regulations. The regulationspromulgated today establish new andrevised limitations, standards, andprohibitions to control the 126 toxicpollutants, iron, total residual chlorine(total residual oxidants), free availablechlorine, total suspended solids, oil andgrease, and pH. In addition, the BPTlimitations are amended to allowconcentration based limitations to beincluded in permits. The coverage oftoday's rulemaking is for the followingtypes of waste streams:(1) Once through cooling water(2) Cooling tower blowdown(3) Fly ash transport water(4) Bottom ash transport water(5) Chemical metal cleaning wastes(6) Low volume wastes(7) Coal pile runoff

EPA is reserving effluent limitationsfor four types of wastewaters for futurerulemaking. These four waste streamsare:(1) Non-chemical metal cleaning wastes(2) Flue gas desulfurization waters(3) Runoff from materials storage and

construction areas (other than coalstorage)

(4) Thermal discharges.Additionally, all best conventional

technology (BCT) limitations will bereproposed for the reasons described inSections III and V.

III. Summary of Legal Background

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical andbiological intergrity of the Nation'swaters" (Section 101(a)). To implementthe Act, EPA was to issue effluentstandards, pretreatment standards, andnew source performance standards forindustrial dischargers.

The Act included a timetable forissuing these standards. However, EPAwas unable to meet many of thedeadlines and, as a result, in 1976, it wassued by several environmental groups.In settling this lawsuit, EPA and theplaintiffs executed a court-approved"Settlement Agreement." ThisAgreement required EPA to develop aprogram and adhere to a schedule inpromulgating effluent limitationsguidelines, pretreatment standards, andnew source performance standards for65 "priority" pollutants and classes ofpollutants for 21 major industries. SeeNatural Resources Defense Council Inc.

v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).

Many of the basic elements of thisSettlement Agreement program wereincorporated into the Clean Water Actof 1977 ("the Act"). Like the SettlementAgreement, the Act stressed control ofthe "priority" pollutants. In addition, tostrengthen the toxic control program,section 304(e) of the Act authorizes theAdministrator to prescribe "bestmanagement practices" (BMP) toprevent the release of toxic andhazardous pollutants from plant site.runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or wastedisposal, and drainage from rawmaterial storage associated with, orancillary to, the manufacturing ortreatment process.

Under the Act, the EPA program is toset a number of different kinds ofeffluent limitations. These are discussedin detail in the preamble to the 1980proposal and the technical developmentdocument supporting these regulations.The following is a brief summary:

1. Best Practicable ControlTechnology Currently Available (BPT).BPT Limitations generally are based onthe average of the best existingperformance at plants of various sizes,ages, and unit processes within theindustry or subcategory. In establishingBPT limitations, EPA considers the totalcost of applying the technology inrelation to the effluent reductionderived, the age of equipment andfacilities involved, the processemployed, the engineering aspects of thecontrol technologies, process changesand non-water-quality environmentalimpacts (including energy requirements).The total cost of applying the technologyis balanced against the effluentreduction.'

2. Best Available TechnologyEconomically Achievable [BAT). BATlimitations, in general, represent the bestexisting performance in the industrialsubcategory or category. The Actestablishes BAT as the principalnational means of controlling the directdischarge of toxic and nonconventionalpollutants to navigable waters. Inarriving at BAT, the Agency considersthe age of the equipment and facilitiesinvolved, the process employed, theengineering aspects of the controltechnologies, process changes, the costof achieving such effluent reduction, andnon-water quality environmentalimpacts. The Administrator retainsconsiderable discretion in assigning theweight to be accorded these factors.

3. Best Conventional Pollutant ControlTechnology (BCT. The 1977Amendments added section 301(b)(2J)(E)to the Act establishing "bestconventional pollutant control

technology" (BCT) for discharges ofconventional pollutants from existing.industrial point sources. Conventionalpollutants are those defined in section304(a)(4) (biochemical oxygendemanding pollutants (e.g., BOD5), totalsuspended solids (TSS), fecal coliformand pH) and any additional pollutantsdefined by the Administrator as"conventional," i.e., oil and grease. See44 FR 44501; July 30, 1979.

BCT is not an additional limitation butreplaces BAT for the control ofconventional pollutants. In addition toother factors specified in section304(b)(4)(B}, the Act requires that BCTlimitations be assessed in light of a twopart "cost-reasonableness" test.American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first testcompares the cost for private industry toreduce its conventional pollutants withthe cost to publicly owned treatmentworks (POTWs) for similar levels ofreduction in their discharge of thesepollutants. The second test examines thecost-effectiveness of additionalindustrial treatment beyond BPT. EPAmust find that limitations are"reasonable" under both tests beforeestablishing them as BCT. In no casemay BCT be less stringent than BPT.

EPA published its methodology forcarrying out the BCT analysis on August29, 1979 (44 FR 50732). In the casementioned above, the Court of Appealsordered EPA to correct data errorsunderlying EPA's calculation of the firsttest, and to apply the second cost test.(EPA had argued that a second cost testwas not required). On October 29, 1982the Agency proposed a revised BCTmethodology. See 47 FR 49176. As.discussed'later, we are deferringpromulgation of BCT limitations so thatwe can apply the revised methodologyto the technologies available for controlof conventional pollutants in thisindustry. However, comments on theBCT methodology must be submittedduring the comment period for theOctober 29, 1982 BCT proposal.

4. New Source Performance Standards(NSPS). NSPS are based on the bestavailable demonstrated technology.New plants have the opportunity toinstall the best and most efficientproduction processes and wastewatertreatment technologies.

5. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources (PSES). PSES are designed tocontrol the discharge of pollutants thatpass through, interfere with, or areotherwise incompatible with theoperation of a publicly owned treatmentworks (POTW). They must be achievedwithin three years of promulgation. TheClean Water Act of 1977 requires



pretreatment for pollutants that passthrough the POTWs in amounts thatwould violate direct discharger effluentlimitations or interfere with the POTW's

/ treatment process or chosen sludgedisposal method. The legislative historyof the Act indicates that pretreatmentstandards are to be technology-based,analogous to the best availabletechnology. EPA has generallydetermined that there is pass through ofpollutants if the percent of pollutantsremoved by a well-operated POTWachieving secondary treatment is lessthan the percent removed by the BATmodel treatment system. The generalpretreatment regulations, which servedas the framework for the categoricalpretreatment regulations, are found at 40CFR Part 403 (43 FR 27736, June 26, 1978;46 FR 9462 Jnuary 28, 1981).

6. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources (PSNS). Like PSES, PSNS are tocontrol the discharge of pollutants toPOTWs which pass through, interferewith, or are otherwise incompatible withthe operation of the POTW. PSNS are tobe issued at the same time as NSPS.New indirect dischargers, like newdirect dischargers, have the opportunityto incorporate the best availabledemonstrated technologies. The Agencyconsiders the same factors inpromulgating PSNS as it considers inpromulgating PSES.

IV. Prior Regulations and Methodologyand Data Gathering Efforts

A. Prior Steam Electric Regulations.EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS, andPSNS for the steam electric point sourcecategory on October 8, 1974 (39 FR36186, as amended at 40 FR 7095,February 19, 1975; 40 FR 23987, June 4,1975) (the "1974 regulations"). The 1974regulations covered two basic kinds ofpollution from power plants: (1) Thermalpollution (discharges of heat] and (2)chemical pollution (e.g., discharges ofchlorine, phosphorous, PCBs, suspendedsolids). Chemical limitations werewritten for the following waste streams:once-through cooling water, coolingtower blowdown, bottom ash transportwater, fly ash transport water, boilerblowdown, metal cleaffing wastes, lowvolume wastes, and material storageand construction runoff (including coalpile runoff). -

On July 16, 1976, the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit remandedthe following provisions of the 1974regulations: (1] The thermal limitations,(2) the NSPS for fly ash transport water,(3) the rainfall runoff limitations formaterial storage and construction siterunoff, and (4) the BPT variance clause.All other provisions of the regulationswere upheld. Appalachian Power v.

Train, 545 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1976). EPArepromulgated the coal pile runoffregulations in 1980. 45 FR 37432 (June 3,1980). See 8ection XII concerning theBPT variance clause).

EPA promulgated pretreatmentstandards for existing sources (PSES) onMarch 23, 1977 (42 FR 15695) in partialresponse to the Settlement Agreement.The PSES covered copper present inmetal cleaning wastes, PCBs, and oiland grease.

Revised BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS,and new BCT regulations were proposedon October 14, 1980. (45 FR 68328) (the"1980 proposal"). At the same time, theAgency proposed to change thesubcategorization scheme, style andformat for all of the existing regulationsincluding the applicable BPT effluentlimitations. (See Section V of thispreamble). Thus, the final regulationsappearing today contain both the 1974and 1977 limitations that EPA did notchange and the revised limitations thatare the subject of this rulemaking. Thenew format, however, does not affectthe previously promulgated limitationsthat are not amended. Consequently,they are not subject to judicial review.

B. Methodology and Data GatheringEfforts. The methodology and datagathering efforts used in developing theproposed regulations were discussed inthe preamble to the 1980 proposal. Insummary, before proposal, the Agencyconducted a data collection program at36 steam electric power plants. Thisprogram stressed the acquisition of dataon the presence and treatability of thetoxic pollutants. Analytical methods arediscussed in Sampling and AnalysisProcedures for Screening of Industrial'Effluents for Priority Pollutants (U.S.EPA, April 1977). Based on the results, ofthat program, EPA identified severaldistinct treatment technologies,including both end-of-pipe and in-planttechnologies, that are or can be used totreat steam electric wastewaters.

For each of these technologies, theAgency (i) compiled and analyzedhistorical and newly-generated data oneffluent quality, (ii) identified itsreliability and constraints, (iii)cousidered the non-water qualityimpacts (including impacts on airquality, solid waste generation andenergy requirements), and (iv) estimatedthe costs and economic impacts ofapplying it industrywide. Costs andeconomic impacts of the technologyoptions considered are discussed indetail in Economic Analysis of FinalEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the SteamElectric Power Generating Point Source

Category. A more complete descriptionof the Agency's study methodology, datagathering efforts and analyticalprocedures supporting the regulationcan be found in the DevelopmentDocument for Final Effluent LimitationsGuidelines, New Source PerformanceStandards, and Pretreatment Standardsfor the Steam Electric Point SourceCategory. (EPA 440/1-82/029).

After proposal, EPA conducted atelephone survey on dechlorination andgathered data on the treatment costs ofgas-side washes. EPA also gatheredmore data to verify the costs ofcontrolling chlorine; these data arereflected in a draft report prepared forEPA titled Costs of Chlorine DischargeControl Options for Once ThroughCooling Systems at Steam ElectricPower Plants dated October 2, 1981, andthe final Development Document. As thenew information was collected torespond to comments and to confirm theaccuracy of earlier analyses, EPA didnot take public comment on it. Inaddition, to confirm its analysis of thecost for new source fly ash disposal,EPA examined two reports. The firstreport is titled Coal Ash DisposalManual, Electric Power ResearchInstitute, Report #C52049, 1981. Thesecond report is titled Economics of AshDisposal at Coal-Fired Power Plants,EPA and TVA, Report #EPA 600/7-81-170, 1981.V. Summary of Final Regulations andChanges From Proposal

A. Subcategorization

The 1974 regulations treated the steamelectric industry as three subcategories:(1) Generating units; (2] small units; and(3) old units. This subcategorizationscheme was based on considerationsthat related to thermal discharges. Asdiscussed in the preamble to the 1980proposal', the subcategorization schemewas changed to treat the entire industryas a single subcategory, with separatelimitations for each type of wastestream. This was done because theAgency determined that: (1) Since the1974 subcategorization scheme wasbased primarily upon thermalconsiderations, it was inappropriate toretain that scheme as no thermallimitations are being adopted at thistime; and (2) the basic differences withinand between plants can beaccommodated by addressing individualtypes of waste streams within a singlesubcategory. A complete descriptionand rationale for the newsubcategorization scheme is presentedin the Technical DevelopmentDocument. No comments were received

52292


Federal Register / VoL 47, No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations

opposing the changes; therefore, thefinal subcategorization scheme is thesame as proposed.B. Summary of Final Regulations andChanges From Proposal

This section first discussesrequirements or issues pertaining to allwastestreams. Each regulatedwastestream is then discussed in thefollowing order: Once-through coolingwater, cooling tower blowdown, fly ashtransport water, bottom ash transportwater, low volume wastes, metalcleaning wastes, and coal pile runoff.For each wastestream, a briefbackground is presented along with adiscussion of the existing, proposed, andfinal limitations and an explanation ofthe changes from proposal. Thediscussion covers those previouslypromulgated limitations which areretained and the revisions beingpromulgated today.

1. All Wastewater Streams. (a) BestConventional Technology (BCT). EPAproposed BCT limitations for TSS andoil and grease based on the "cost-reasonableness" test that was rejectedin part in the American Paper Institutev. EPA case mentioned previously.Therefore, before promulgating BCTlimitations, EPA must repropose thembased on the revised BCT methodologyproposed on October 29, 1982. See 47 FR49176. In the interim, EPA is reservingBCT for the entire steam electric powerindustry. The Agency is alsowithdrawing the BAT limitations now inthe Code of Federal Regulations for TSSand oil and grease since these pollutantsare now regulated under BCT, not BAT.

(b) Polychlorinated BiphenylCompounds (PCBs). The discharge ofPCBs in any type of wastewaters fromthis industry is prohibited. Thislimitation was promulgated in 1974 and1977 for BAT, NSPS, and PSES and EPAdid not propose any changes in 1980with the exception of adding PCBcoverage for PSNS.

(c) Commingling of Waste Streams.Where two or more different types ofwaste streams are combined fortreatment or discharge, the totalallowable discharge quantity of eachpollutant may not exceed the sum of theallowable amounts for each individualtype of wastewater. This requirementwas promulgated in 1974 and EPA didnot propose any changes in 1980.

(d) Mass Limitations andConcentration Limitations. The existingand proposed regulations specified thatpermits were to be based on masslimitations to be calculated bymultiplying flow by concentration. Thefinal rule allows the permitting authorityto establish either concentration or mass

limits for any effluent limitation orstandard, based on the concentrationsspecified in the regulations. See SectionIX of the preamble, "Response to MajorComments on the Proposed Regulation."

(e) Pretreatment Standards forExisting Sources (PSES). EPA iswithdrawing the 1977 PSES requirementfrom oil and grease for all wastestreams, as proposed in 1980. There wasno PSS for oil and grease. The 1977 PSESlimited oil and grease based upon amaximum concentration of 100 mg/l.The Agency has determined that, forthis industry, this level is no longerappropriate because *oil and greaselevels in raw waste streams are mosttypically less than 100 mg/l. No lowerlevel of control for oil and grease isbeing established for PSES because theAgency found that oil and grease atlevels less than 100 mg/l does notinterfere with or pass through POTWs.

2. Once-Through Cooling Water. (a)Background. In plants using once-through cooling systems, heated waterpasses through condensers before beingdischarged into the receiving water. Thethermal efficiency of the steam cyclecan be greatly reduced if biologicalgrowth (biofouling) occurs in thecondenser. This is not a problem at allplants; however, 71 percent of the once-through cooling water generatingcapacity uses chlorine to controlbiofouling. Plants using chlorine havethe potential to discharge total residualchlorine (TRC) and chlorinatedcompounds to receiving waters.

The two primary treatment optionsemployed to reduce TRC discharges are"chlorine minimization" anddechlorination. Chlorine minimization,in essence, is a program designed toassure the most efficient use of chlorineto reduce the amount of TRCdischarged. Iii such a program, plantpersonnel conduct certain tests todetermine the minimum amount ofchlorine necessary to control biofouling.Chlorination practices can then beadjusted in accordance with the testresults. Continued monitoring andinspection of the condensers on aperiodic basis is conducted to assureminimum chlorine use and properoperation.

Many power plants that undertake!some form of chlorine minimizationprogram find that they do not need touse additional chlorine removaltechnologies such as dechlorination.Their current chlorine usage can bereduced sufficiently to comply witheffluent limitations without othermethods or technologies for chlorineremoval.

Dechlorination, the second technologyoption, entails the use of chemical

treatment devices that remove asignificant amount of TRC from thecooling water before it is dischargedfrom the plant. Most of thedechlorination processes use sulfurdioxide or sodium thiosulfate toaccomplish TRC reduction.

The 1974 BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitedfree available chlorine (FAC) with masslimitations based upon 0.2 mg/l dailyaverage concentration and 0.5 mg/ldaily maximum concentration. NeitherFAC nor TRC could be discharged fromany single unit for more than two hoursper day and multi-unit chlorination wasprohibited. There was an exception fromthe latter requirements if the utilitycould demonstrate to the permittingauthority that the units in a particularlocation could not operate at or belowthis level of chlorination.

(b) Final Limitations. BAT and NSPS.EPA is promulgating a daily maximumlimitation for total residual chlorine(TRC) (also called total residualoxidants (TRO)) based upon aconcentration of 0.20 mg/l, applied atthe final discharge point to the receivingbody of water. Each individualgenerating unit is not allowed todischarge chlorine for more than twohours per day, unless the dischargerdemonstrates to the permitting authoritythat a longer duration discharge isrequired for macroinvertebrate control.Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination ormore than one generating unit isallowed.

The above limitation does not applyto plants with a total rated generatingcapacity of less than 25 megawatts. EPAIs establishing BAT and NSPS equal toBIT for those plants.

PSES and PSNS. There are nocategorical pretreatment standards foronce through boiling water for PSES andPSNS, with the exception of the PCBprohibition. The PSES for oil and greaseis withdrawn.

(c) Changes From Proposal andRationale. (i) BAT and NSPS. For BATand NSPS, EPA proposed to prohibit thedischarge of total residual chlorine(TRC) unless facilities could demonsratea need for chlorine to control condenserbiofouling. Where such demonstrationswere made, EPA proposed to limit thedischarge to the minimum amount ofTRC necessary to control biofouling, asdetermined by a chlorine minimizationprogram. However, a maximum TRClimitation based upon a concenation of0.14 mg/l at the point of discharge wouldhave been established to be achievedeither through chlorine minimization ordechlorination. In addition, EPAproposed to prohibit the discharge ofTRC for more than two hours a day

52293


52294 Federal Register I Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 I Rules and Regulations

unless the plant could show thatchlorination for a longer period wasnecessary for crustacean control.Finally, the existing prohibition (1974]on simultaneous dechlorination ofgenerating units would have beenwithdrawn.

Commenters raised a variety ofissues, leading EPA to change theproposal substantially with respect tothe TRC limitation, the two hour a daydischarge requirement, and otherrequirements. These comments and thechanges are discussed below.

Chlorine Limitation. Commentersstated that EPA has no authority toprohibit the use of chlorine or to requiredischargers to conduct a chlorineminimization program. They also statedthat the 0.14 mg/l, maximum TRClimitation was not achievable by allsources. Some comments indicated amaximum 0.2 mg/l TRC concentrationwould be achievable: other commentssaid that BAT should equal BPT.

Under the proposed regulations allplants would have been required toreduce chlorine discharges to themaximum extent feasible. However, inreviewing the comments, the Agencyconcluded that the proposed approachdeprived power plants of any flexibilityin controlling chlorine discharges.Because it is the Agency's intent in thedevelopment of effluent limitationsguidelines not to require reliance ononly one technology where it can bereasonably avoided, the requirement -that all plants institute chlorineminimization programs was deleted inthe final regulation to provide moreflexible alternatives to control chlorinedischarges.

In assessing alternative approaches,the Agency initially considered requiringthe maximum 0.14 mg/l TRC level butwithout requiring a niandatory chlorineminimization program. Based on thepublic comments, however, it appearedthat the 0.14 mg/l limit would discourageuse of chlorine minimization in favor ofdechlorination. Industry commentersexplained that many plants would stillhave to dechlorinate to meet theproposed limit even if they firstminimized chlorine usage. If that werethe case, it was stated the plants wouldrely on dechlorination exclusively toachieve the limits and not devoteresources to a chlorine minimizationprogram. However, if the final effluentlimitations were based on 0.2 mg/l, thecommenters generally believed thatmost plants could achieve the limitsolely by chlorine minimization.

The Agency is establishing a 0.20 mg/lbased limit because we think it is better,in the circumstances presented here, toestablish a limitation that generally can

be met without chemical treatmentrather than one which entails both theaddition of chlorine and its subsequentremoval by the addition of otherchemicals used to dechlorinate.Consequently, the Agency concludedthat a mass limitation based on 0.20mg/l TRC concentration would allowplants flexibility while encouragingreliance on the preferable technologyoption-chlorine minimization.

We rejected the suggestion topromulgate BAT and NSPS to equalBPT. As described in Sections VI and IXand in the Development Document, theuse of chlorine minmization and/ordechlorination is technically andeconomically achievable. Compliancewith the final regulations will remove13.5 million pounds of chlorine annually,beginning in 1985. Further, the newlimitations will control total residualchlorine in this wastestream, asdiscussed in Section IX, TRC is a bettermeasure of chlorine toxicity than freeavailable chlorine (FAC). In view of allthese factors and the absence of anysignificant economic impact, we haveconcluded that more stringentregulations are warranted under the Act.

Two Hour Chlorine Discharge Limit.The final rule also differs from theproposed rule on the two hour chlorinedischarge limit. The Agency proposed tolimit the discharge of chlorine to twohours per day per plant. We alsoproposed to relax the prohibition in the1974 regulations on simultaneouschlorination of generating units because.of our concern that some plants wouldnot be able to adequately controlbiological growth on the condenserswhen limited to chlorine discharges totwo hours per day for the entire facility.

The final regulations limit the durationof chlorine discharge to two hours pergenerating unit. For example, a plantwith four units is allowed to dischargechlorine for a maximum of eight hoursper day. This change is consistent withthe BPT requirement and was made inresponse to comments that the proposedchange would have disrupted theestablished chlorination operatingprocedures required by BPT and thatsignificant expediture of resourceswould have been required to complywith the proposed BAT requirement.Many plants installed chlorinationsystems capable of chlorinating onlyone unit at a time to comply with the1974 BPT chlorine requirements. Theproposed new BAT may have requiredthose plants with single discharge pointsserving multiple units to significantlyenlarge their existing chlorinationfacilities. The Agency believes there areno compelling reasons to require this

change for BAT or to set different limitsfor new sources.

Comments on the 1980 proposalsupported the proposal to allowsimultaneous chlorination. While wehave deleted the proposed prohibitionon the discharge of chlorine for morethan two hours a day per plant, we havealso decided to retain the proposal toallow simultaneous chlorination. Theoption to chlorinate generating unitssimultaneously will provide moreoperational flexibility to the dischargerwhile maintaining the more stringentcontrol of chlorine discharge with TRClimitations. For multi-unit discharges,these requirements will allow for naturalchlorine demand to reduce chlorinedischarge levels.

Crustacean Control. EPA proposed toallow an exception to the two hour aday chlorination limit if-plantsdemonstrated that chlorination for alonger period of time was necessary forcrustacean control. Because commenterspointed out that othermacroinvertebrates besides crustaceanscould impede the operation of thecooling tower, EPA is broadening theexception to cover macroinvertebrates.

[ii) PSES/PSNS. There were nochanges in PSES and PSNS from theproposed regulation. No known facilitiesdischarge once through cooling water toPOTWs and none are known to beplanned. These very high flow volumeswould be unacceptable for discharge toPOTWs.

3. Cooling Tower Blowdown. (a)Background. In this type of wastestream, the cooling water is recirculatedsev6ral times before being discharged toreceiving waters. This is accomplishedthrough the use of mechanical or naturaldraft evaporative cooling towers. Theselarge towers use fans or tower design tomove air past the droplets or films of'Water to be cooled. The mechanism forcooling in both types of towers is waterevaporation.

As in once-through cooling systems,EPA is concerned with the discharged ofchlorine that is added to preventbiological growth in the condensers. Inaddition to chlorine, other chemicalsmay be added to control scaling,corrosion, and biofouling of the toweritself. The most common chemicalsadded (besides chlorine) are chromiumand zinc. These chemicals aredischarged in the cooling towerblowdown. There are about 300 plantswith recirculating cooling systems: thisrepresents 58 percent of the totalgenerating capacity of steam electricpower plants.

The 1974 BPT limits control freeavailable chlorine (FAC) with mass

52294 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations



limitations based upon 0.2 mg/l dailyaverage and 0.5 mg/I daily maximumconcentrations. FAC and TRCdischarges are limited to 2 hours per dayper generating unit and simultaneousmulti-unit chlorination is prohibited. The1974 BAT and NSPS contain limitationsequivalent to 1974 BPT, plus masslimitations for zinc, chromium, andphosphorous based upon concentrationsof 1.0 mg/i, 0.2 mg/l, and 5.0 mg/l,respectively, and for PCBs. The 1974PSNS contained no categoricalpretreatment standards for cooling,tower blowdown. The 1977 PSES limitsoil and grease with a mass limitationbased upon 100 mg/l and prohibits thedischarge of PCBs.

The major technology options for thiswastestream are dechlorination,chemical substitution, and chemicalprecipitation.

(b) Final Limitations. BAT and NSPS.Chlorine. EPA is promulgating BAT andNSPS limitations equivalent to the 1974BAT and NSPS level of control. Theselimitations are based upon daily averageand daily maximum concentrations forFAC of 0.2 mg/l and 0.5 mg/l,respectively.

Toxics. The discharge of one hundredtwenty-four toxic pollutants isprohibited in detectable amounts fromcooling tower discharges if thepollutants come from cooling towermaintenance chemicals. The dischargermay demonstrate compliance with suchlimitations to the permitting authorityby either routinely sampling andanalyzing for the pollutants in thedischarge, or providing mass balancecalculations to demonstrate that use ofparticular maintenance chemicals willnot result in detectable amounts of thetoxic pollutants in the discharge. Inaddition, EPA is promulgating a dailymaximum BAT limitation and NSPS forchromium and zinc based uponconcentrations of 0.2 mg/l and 1.0 mg/l,respectively.

The existing limitation forphosphorous is deleted.

PSES and PSNS. The final regulationsprohibit or limit the 126 toxic pollutantsas discussed above for BAT and NSPS.Oil and grease PSES are withdrawn.

(c) Changes from Proposal andRationale. Chlorine. For BAT and NSPS,EPA proposed a limitation on TRCdischarges based upon a maximumconcentration of 0.14 mg/l times flow. Achlorine minimization program was notrequired. The Agency also proposed toprohibit all discharges of cooling towermaintenance chemicals containing anyof the 129 priority pollutants. Since thenthree of the 129 toxic pollutants havebeen "delisted." They aredichlorodifluoromethane,

trichlorofluoromethane, and bis-chloromethyl ether. See 46 FR 2266; 46FR 10723.

Public comments opposed thelimitations on chlorine, stating that theproposed limit was unachievable andwould not result in any environmentalbenefit. We do not agree that the limitwould be unachievable or result in noeffluent reduction benefits; however wedid reexamine the data pertaining tochlorine. We found that the flow of thiswaste stream was less than one percentof the once through cooling water flow.Further, less than 0.5 percent of the TRCwhich would be removed by regulatingboth cooling tower blowdown and once-through cooling water is attributable tocooling tower blowdown. We thereforeconcluded that the appropriate emphasison chlorine control should be in theonce-through cooling water wastestream and that BAT and NSPS for thiswaste stream should equal thepreviously promulgated BPT, BAT, andNSPS Limits. This will result in a costsavings of $25 million in annual costs in1985 and similar savings in future years.

Toxics. For BAT and NSPS, EPAproposed to prohibit any discharge ofcooling tower maintenance chemicalcontaining the 129 priority pollutants.The same prohibition was proposed-forPSES and PSNS. Since equivalentpollutant removals are required forindirect and direct dischargers, EPAdetermined that a zero dischargepretreatment standard was the onlymeans of assuring that no prioritypollutant would pass through thePOTW.

Commenters objected to the proposedzero discharge requirement formaintenance chemicals, raisingconcerns about the regulation ofmaintenance chemicals instead ofpriority pollutants and the means ofmeasuring compliance with a zerodischarge limit. In response, we havesubstituted "no detectable" for "zerodischarge" and made clear that the limitapplies to priority pollutants frommaintenance chemicals, and not thechemicals themselves. EPA presentlyconsiders the nominal detection limit formost of the toxics to be 10;Lg/1 (i.e., 10parts per billion). See, Sampling andAnalysis Procedures for Screening ofIndustrial Effluents for PriorityPollutants; EPA, 1977.

Another concern expressed bycommenters was that EPA did notaccount for those prohibited toxics thatare present in new constructionmaterials for cooling towers. Forexample, wooden supporting structuresor other construction materials in new.or rebuilt cooling towers may containpreservatives which contain trace

amounts of certain of the toxicpollutants. These may leach for a periodof time from contact with the coolingwater. The Agency recognizes suchsituations. Thus, the prohibition in thefinal rule, as in the proposed rule, isapplicable only to pollutants that arepresent in cooling tower blowdown as aresult of cooling tower maintenancechemicals.

Commenters also expressed concernover potentially substantial compliancecosts in analyzing for "the 129 toxicpollutants in their discharges. TheAgency agrees that the costs of routinecompliance monitoring for the toxicscould be quite expensive, and that thereare alternative compliance mechanisms.Therefore, as an alternative to routinemonitoring by sampling and analysis ofeffluents, the final rule provides formass balance calculations todemonstrate compliance with theprohibition. For example, the dischargermay provide the certified analyticalcontents of all biofouling andmaintenance formulations used andengineering calculations demonstratingthat any of the priority pollutantspresent in the maintenance chemicalswould not be detectable in the coolingtower discharge using appropriateanalytical methods. The permit issuingauthority shall determine theappropriate approach.

Many commenters also indicated thatthere are presently no acceptablesubstitutes for the use of chromium andzinc based cooling tower maintenancechemicals. The Agency agrees thatadequate substitutes are not presentlyavailable for many facilities. This is duein part to site specific conditions,including cooling water intake qualityand the presence of constructionmaterials susceptible to foulingcorrosion. Further, there is a potentialfor substitutes to be more toxic than thesubstances they are meant to replace.Therefore, the final BAT, NSPS andpretreatment standards allow for thedischarge of chromium and zinc incooling tower blowdown. Thelimitations are the same as thoseadopted in 1974 for BAT and are basedupon pH adjustment, chemicalprecipitation, and sedimentation orfiltration to remove precipitated metals.

No comments were received on theproposal to delete the phosphorouslimitations; therefore, the final rule is thesame as proposed.

4. Fly Ash Transport. (a) Background.Coal or oil that is burned in a boilerproduces ash that requires disposal. Therelatively fine and light-weight ash thatis commonly discharged with the fluegases and collected with air pollution

52295



equipment is called "fly ash." Fly ash,enters the water primarily throughdissolution of reactive compounds onthe surface of the fly ash particles. Onlyplants handling fly ash using partiallyrecirculating water or once-throughwater systems generate this type ofwastewater.

The 1974 BPT and BAT regulationscovered PCBs and contained masslimitations for sevei'al pollutants basedon the following concentrations: totalsuspended solids at 30 mg/l dailyaverage and 100 mg/l daily maximum;oil and grease at 15 mg/l daily averageand 20 mg/l daily maximum. The 1974NSPS required zero discharge basedupon use of dry fly ash transport. (Thisstandard was remanded in 1976). The1974 PSNS contained no categoricalpretreatment standards for the wastestream. The 1977 PSES contains & masslimit for oil and grease based upon amaximum concentration of 100 mg/l anda prohibition on the discharge of PCBs.

(b) Final Limitations. BAT and PSES.As discussed below, there are no BATor PSES limitations for fly ash transportwater, with the exception of theprohibition on discharges of PCBs. BATlimitations for conventional pollutantsare withdrawn, as discussed earlier.

NSPS and PSNS. As discussed below,the final regulation prohibits thedischarge of all pollutants from fly ashtransport systems.

(c) Changes From Proposal andRational. EPA determined at proposalthat the available data regarding thedegree of toxic pollutant reduction to beachieved beyond BPT were too limitedto support national limitations.Therefore, EPA did not propose BATlimitations or PSES for the prioritypollutants. The Agency consideredrequiring a zero discharge option forexisting sources but rejected it becausethe high cost of retrofitting does notjustify the additional pollutantreductions beyond BPT. EPA did notreceive any comments that we shouldestablish BAT and revised PSES for thepriority pollutants found in thiswastestream. Therefore, no changeswere made in the approach to BAT andPSES for the final rule. However, theAgency will be evaluating the level ofcontrol that is appropriate forconventional pollutants for BCT asdiscussed previously.

For NSPS and PSNS, the coverage ofthe proposal was ambiguous. Thepreamble and development documentindicated that EPA was prohibiting alldischarges of fly ash water. 45 FR 68338.However, the proposed regulatorylanguage only prohibited the dischargeof copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, andselenium. It did not cover the remaining

toxic pollutants or conventionalpollutants. Because the preamblecorrectly reflected EPA's intent, the finalrule follows the preamble and not theproposed regulation. There is nopractical difference between the twoapproaches since the fly ash technologyoption identified by EPA (dry fly ashtransport systems) eliminates anydischarge of wastewater whatsoever.The absence of any wastewaterdischarge means that all pollutantswould be controlled, not just the fivemetals listed in the proposed regulation.

Comments were received concerningthe proposed NSPA and PSNS but EPAdid not make any changes as a result ofthem. The commenters stated that mostnew sources can meet the NSPS.However, they stated that EPA's costestimates did not support the conclusionthat the costs of dry and wet fly ashsystems are not appreciably different.They also stated that EPA shouldprovide a less stringent NSPS for thoseplants which could not meet the NSPSbecause of solid waste disposalconstraints or air pollution problems.

We do not believe that less stringentNSPS or PSNS are warranted. Almosthalf of the existing plants already usedry fly ash systems; we are unaware ofany particular technical, air pollution,disposal, or other problems they haveencountered, or any reasons why allnew plants cannot install dry fly ashsystems. No specific examples orproblems were given by thecommenters. Further, as discussed inSection VI of this preamble, we believethe costs for wet and dry fly ashsystems are comparable.

We believe that a zero dischargeNSPS and PSNS is practicable and fullydemonstrated for new sources. Manyexisting plants are achieving zerodischarge and new plants are at least ascapable of implementing dry fly ashsystems. We estimate that a typical sizenew plant operating a dry fly ashhandling system will reduce toxicmetals discharges by approximately4800 pounds per year beyond the BATlevel of control. Therefore, we havedetermined that the nonwater qualityenvironmental and energy impacts arereasonable in view of the effluentreduction that is achieved.

Finally, EPA has changed thedefinition of fly ash to includeeconomizer ash where economizer ashis collected with fly ash. This changewas not proposed; it is based on acomment which correctly pointed outthat steam electric plants may collecteconomizer ash with either fly ash orbottom ash. The 1974 definition section,however, only included economizer ashin the bottom ash definition. Therefore,

we are changing both the definition offly ash and bottom ash to resolve thisproblem. EPA is not providing theopportunity for comment since thechange was made in response to publiccomment and is necessary to correct aprior oversight.

5. Bottom Ash Transport Water. (a)Background. Bottom ash refers to therelatively bulky and heavy ash thatsettles at the bottom of the boilerfurnace. Approximately 70 plantscurrently transport their bottom ashusing a dry system and report nodischarge to the navigable waters.

Many plants recirculate their bottom.ash transport water with a blowdownstream to control the buildup ofdissolved solids. A completelyrecirculating system returns all of theash sluice water to the ash collectinghoppers for repeated use in sluicing. Arecirculating system can be operated atpartial recirculation, usually from 12.5 to25 times recycle, or operated with acomplete recycle of bottom ash sluicewater. The Agency has not identifiedany plants with complete recirculationexcept those in arid areas which hadland available to evaporate all excesswater.

The 1974 BPT regulations containmass limitations for PCB and for severalpollutants based on the followingconcentrations: total suspended solidsof 30 mg/l daily average / 100 mg/l dailymaximum and oil and grease of 15 mg/ldaily average / 20 mg/l daily maximum.In addition, the pH is limited to withinthe range of 6.0 to 9.0. The 1974 BAT /contains the same total suspendedsolids, oil and grease, pH and PCB limitsas BPT, plus a recycle requirement of12.5 cycles of bottom ash sluice water.The 1974 NSPS contains the same totalsuspended solids, oil and grease, and pHlimits as BPT, plus a recycle requirementof 20 cycles of bottom ash sluice water.The 1974 PSNS do not'contain anycategorical pretreatment standards andthe 1977 PSES contains a masslimitation forbil and grease based upona maximum limitation of 100 mg/l, andprohibits the discharge of PCBs.

(b) Final Limitations. BAT. The finalregulations contain BAT limitations forPCBs. The BAT limitations forconventional pollutants are withdrawn.

NSPS. The final regulations containlimitations for total suspended solids, oiland grease, PCBs, and pH equal to theexisting BPT. The 1974 recyclerequirement for 20 cycles of bottom ashsluice water is withdrawn.

PSES and PSNS. The final regulationscontain categorical pretreatmentrequirements on PCBs for this


Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982/ Rules and Regulations 52297

wastestream. PSES for oil and grease iswithdrawn.

(c) Changes From Proposal andRationale. EPA did notpropose BAT limitations forthe priority pollutants. Analysis ofavailable wastewater sampling data didnot indicate that a quantifiablereduction of toxic pollutants would beachieved by requiring technologiesbeyond the BPT level of control. Thesetechnologies include bottom ashrecirculation systems and dry bottomash transport systems. No commentswere received objecting to the proposal;therefore, the final rule is the same asproposed. As explained before, EPA willexamine conventional pollutanttechnology options in light of the revisedBCT cost test.

For NSPS, PSES, andPSNS, nocomments were received. Therefore, theproposed and final regulation areidentical.

Finally, EPA is changing the definitionof bottom ash for the reasons discussedin the previous section on fly ash.

6. Low Volume Wastes. (a)Background. Low volume wastesinclude boiler blowdown, wet airscrubber pollution control systems, ionexchange water treatment systemdischarges, water treatment evaporationblowdown, laboratory and samplingwaste streams, floor drains, coolingtower basin cleaning wastes, anddischarges from house service watersystems.

The existing BPT, BAT, and NSPSregulation establishes mass limitationsfor conventional pollutants: (1) Totalsuspended solids based upon 30 mg/ldaily average and 100 mg/l dailymaximum concentrations; (2) oil andgrease based upon 15 mg/l daily averageand 20 mg/I daily maximumconcentrations; and (3] pH between 6and 9. There are no existing categoricalpretreatment standards, with theexception of PCBs and oil and grease forPSES.

(b) Final Limits. EPA did not proposenew or revised limitations for this wastestream with the exception ofsubstituting BCT for the control ofconventional pollutants instead of BATand withdrawing the PSES for oil andgrease. BCT limitations are nowreserved. However, EPA changed thedefinition of low volume waste toinclude boiler blowdown and iswithdrawing the separate regulations forboiler blowdown.

(c) Changes from Proposal andRationale. EPA proposed to includeboiler blowdown as a low volumewaste. This represents-a change incoverage from the 1974 regulation.Information collected and analyzed by

the Agency since 1974 led to theconclusion that there is no need toregulate boiler blowdown as a separatewaste stream. Boiler blowdown issufficiently similar in characteristics tothe other specific types of low volumewastes. No commenters objected to theproposed change; therefore, theproposed and final rule are identical.

7. Metal Cleaning Wastes. (a)Background-"Metal cleaning wastes"is the generic name for a class of wastestreams which results from the cleaningof boiler tubes, air preheater washwater, and boiler fireside wash water.This may be accomplished with eitherchemical cleaning solutions such asacids, degreasers, and metalcomplexers, or with plant service wateronly.

The 1974 BPT and BAT limitationsand NSPS contain mass limitations forseveral pollutants based on thefollowing concentrations: totalsuspended solids of 30 mg/l dailyaverage / 100 mg/l daily maximum; oiland grease of 15 mg/l daily average / 20mg/l daily maximum; total copper of 1.0mg/l daily average and daily maximum;total iron 1.0 mg/l daily average anddaily maximum pH is limited within therange of 6.0 to 9.0. The discharge ofPCBs is prohibited.

The 1974 PSNS contains nocategorical pretreatment standards forthis waste stream. The 1977 PSEScontains: a mass limitation for totalcopper based upon a maximumconcentraton of 1.0 mg/l; a masslimitation for oil and grease based upona maximum concentration of 100 mg/l;and a prohibition on the discharge ofPCBs.

(b) Final Limitations. Chemical MetalCleaning Wastes. BAT. With oneexception, BAT is equal to the 1974regulations. The BAT limitations forconventional pollutants are withdrawnsince BAT no longer applies to them.

NSPS. There are no changes from the1974 NSPS.

PSES and PSNS. The final PSES andPSNS contain a maximum concentrationlimitation of 1.0 mg/1 for total copper,and prohibit the discharge of PCBs. ThePSES for oil and grease is withdrawn.

Non-Chemical Metal CleaningWastes. BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS forthis waste stream are reserved for future.rulemaking.

(c) Changes From Proposal andRationale. For chemical metal cleaningwastes, the final BAT, NSPS, PSES andPSNS are equivalent to the 1980proposal. The 1980 proposal containedfirst time coverage of copper for PSNSand, for PSES, copper was changed froma mass-based limitation to aconcentration limitation. Unlike the

existing regulations and the 1980proposal, however, the requirements donot cover non-chemical metal cleaningwastes.

In the preamble to the 1980 proposal,EPA explained that the existingrequirements applied to all metalcleaning wastes, whether the wastesresulted from cleaning with chemicalsolutions or with water only. EPArejected an earlier guidance statementwhich stated that wastes from metalcleaning with water would beconsidered "low volume" wastes.However, because many dischargersmay have relied on this guidance, EPAproposed in 1980 to adopt the guidancefor purposes of BPT and to change theBPT limitation to apply only to"chemical" metal cleaning wastes. See45 FR 68333 (October 14, 1980) for a fulldiscussion of the issue.

Commenters argued that EPA'sclarified interpretation of the existingregulations would result in extremelyhigh compliance costs and were notsupported by the record. In response tothe comments, we examined theavailable data on waste characteristicsof non-chemical metal cleaning wastesand the costs and economic impacts ofcontrolling them. The data indicatedthat there was a definite potential fordifferences in concentration levels ofinorganic pollutants depending onwhether the plants were coal or oil-fired.Further, compliance with the existingeffluent limitations and standards couldbe very costly and result in significantadverse economic impacts. However,the data were too limited for EPA tomake a final decision.

EPA requested that the Utility WaterAct Group provide specific, additionalinformation. The data were submittedtoo late for the Agency to use at thistime. Consequently. EPA is reservingBAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS for non-chemical metal cleaning wastes intoday's rule.

EPA is withdrawing the proposal tochange the BPT definition of metalcleaning wastes. However, until theAgency promulgates new limitationsand standards, the previous guidancepolicy may continue to be applied inthose cases in which it was applied inthe past.

8. Coal Pile Runoff. (a) Background.Area runoff limitations werepromulgated in 1974. The 1974regulations included coverage formaterials storage, including coal, ash,and chemical storage, and runoff fromconstruction area activities. InAppalachian Power v. Train, 545 F.2d1351, 1378 (4th Cir. 1976) the Courtremanded the area runoff regulations. In



1980, EPA repromulgated the 1974 coalpile runoff limitations but did notrepromulgate any other area runofflimitations.

The BPT and BAT limitations andNSPS for coal pile runoff contain amaximum concentration limitation of 50mg/I for total suspended solids and pHwithin the range 6.0 to 9.0. Anyuntreated overflow from a treatmentfacility sized to treat coal pile runoffwhich results from a 10 year-24 hourevent is not subject to these 1974limitations. The 1974 PSNS and 1977PSES for coal pile runoff contain nolimitations for specific pollutants.

(b) Final Limits. There are no changesto the existing regulations with theexception of the BAT limitations forconventional pollutants. The latterregulations are withdrawn since BATlimits no longer apply to conventionalpollutants.

(c) Changes From Proposal andRationale. EPA did not propose anychanges to the existing coal pile runoffregulations with the exception ofproposing BCT limitations to replaceBAT. As stated previously, we arereserving BCT until we apply the revisedBCT methodology to the technologyoptions for controlling conventionalpollutants.

VI. Costs and Economic Impact

The Agency's economic impactassessment is set forth in the EconomicAnalysis of Final Effluent Limitations,New Source Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the SteamElectric Power Generating Point SourceCategory, (EPA 230/11-83/00). Thereport presents the detailed annualizedand investment costs for the industry asa whole and for model plants covered inthis regulation. Underlying cost datawere obtained from the technicaldevelopment document and supportingdocuments, while the economic impactassessment was developed based on ananalysis of current and projected costsfor the industry under this regulation.

Nationally, the total annual revenuerequirements for this regulation rangefrom $11.5 million in 1985 to $10.9million in 1995 (1982 dollars] comparedto baseline annual revenue requirementsto $120 to $175 billion over this period.This range reflects the change in costsas old facilities retire and new facilitiesare added. This represents a nationwideaverage increase in consumer charges ofless than one-tenth of one percent overthat period. Through this period, 85percent of these costs are for existingfacilities. These costs are associatedentirely with the BAT and NSPSlimitations on total residual chloyine foronce-through cooling water. It i7

estimated that the regulation will resultin the removal of 13.5 million pounds oftotal residual chlorine in 1985.

Limits for several waste streamsbeyond current limits are also being set,which provide no incremental cost ovethe existing regulatory requirements. ForBAT and PSES, this regulation prohibitsthe discharge of 124 of the 126 toxicpollutants in detectable amounts forcooling water blowdown discharges.Substitutes for these heat exchangermaintenance chemicals are availablewhich do not contain these toxics, andthe cost differentials are minimal. Forthe other two toxics, chromium and zinc,mass limitations are being setequivalent to the existing BAT.Therefore, there are no new costs.associated with this requirement.

While the final PSNS for chemicalmetal cleaning wastes contains firsttime coverage of copper, the copperlimitation is no more stringent than theexisting PSES. Therefore, there are noincremental costs for new sourceindirect dischargers as a result of thisrequirement.

An NSPS limitation and PSNS of zerodischarge from 'fly ash disposal is alsobeing promulgated, while BAT will beset equal to BPT for existing facilities.All existing plants must use either dry orwet fly ash disposal systems to disposeof their waste. Since EPA determinedthat there are no appreciable costdifferences between dry and wet fly ashdisposal systems, the economic analysisperformed at proposal assumed that noincremental costs beyond BPT would beassociated with meeting NSPS.

While stating that most new sourcescan meet the NSPS, commentersasserted that EPA's DevelopmentDocument did not support theconclusion that the costs for bothdisposal systems are comparable. Thefinal development Document indicatesthat the costs for plants of 500 MW orgreater capacity are less for dry than forwet fly ash handling systems. This isconfirmed by a recent TVA study,Economics of Ash Disposal at Coal-Fired Power Plants, EPA-600/7-81-170,October 1981. The Agency also believesthat dry fly ash handling costs are nomore than wet fly ash handling costs forsmaller plants, but more detailedanalyses are not available. The absenceof analyses to confirm these conclusionsis not critical because it is unlikely thatplants smaller than 500 MW capacitywill be built in the future. However,should the industry plan to build suchsmaller plants, and demonstrate that useof dry fly ash systems would pose asignificant hardship when compared tothe expense of a wet fly ash system,they may file a petition for rulemaking

concerning the suitability of thesestandards for smaller plants.

In summary, in the absence of casespecific, contrary data, we haveconcluded that the costs of both systemsare comparable. Thus, the NSPSrequirement will add no incrementalcost.

For all other waste streams, no newlimitations or standards more stringentthan existing requirements areestablished. Thus there are no otherincremental costs associated with theregulation promulgated today.

Individual plants and ufility systemswhich use once-through cooling waterwill bear somewhat varying costs incontrolling chlorine, depending on thecontrol technology used by those plantsto meet the individual limits. Forty-twopercent of the generating capacity usesrecirculating cooling water and thereforefaces no incremental compliance costs.Of the 58 percent of steam generatingcapacity that uses once-through coolingwater, some plants do not find itnecessary to use chlorine and thereforedo not have to engage in a chlorineminimization program or usedechlorination or other chlorinereduction technologies. For those plantsthat are 25 MW or greater which willrequire the use of dechlorination, themost expensive compliance option, tomeet the chlorine limitation, costs canrange as high as 0.4 mills per kilowatthour generated, representing up to,1percent of the baseline generating costsfor that facility. However, most plantsWhich are of larger size will bear lowercosts, ranging from 0.02 mills per kwh to0.11 mills per kwh or less than onepercent of baseline generating costs,even when they must usedechlorination.

Cost increases for a utility systemrepresent the aggregate of control costincreases for all facilities in the system.The increases in cost for installingcontrol technologies must be comparedto the costs of generating power from allplants in that system to evaluate theeffects of this regulation on the costs toa utility and to the consumer. As aresult, the upper bound for increases incost for a utility system is representedby assuming that all facilities in asystem would install the most expensivecontrol option.Utility systems will generally bear costswhich are lower than those faced byindividual plants, since the regulationpromulgated today will not likelyrequire all facilities in a system to installthe most expensive control technology.On a national basis, 29 percent of totalgenerating capacity of plants with oncethrough cooling water 'do not add



chlorine and therefore automaticallymeet the TRC limitation. Forty-fivepercent of this capacity can meet thelimit through chlorine minimizationwhile 26 percent must usedechlorination. Industry estimates statethat a greater percentage of capacitywill be able to meet the TRC limit bychlorine minimization than EPA haspredicted.

However, single plants with less than25 MW of capacity are projected toexperience cost increases if required toinstall the most expensive technology,dechlorination. Their costs will rangefrom 0.18 mills per kwh to 4.0 mills perkwh, depending on the amount of powergenerated from these facilities. Thisrepresents a disproportionate increaseon this segment of the industrycompared to all other facilities. EPA hasidentified 130 such plants; theyconstitute less than one percent of thetotal industry generation. These costincreases are estimated to represent upto a 10 percent increase in generatingcosts for those facilities. Furthermore,since many of these facilities are ownedby utilities with few other power plants,the percentage increase in generatingcosts for these facilities is likely torepresent actual percentage costincreases to the consumer. This isbecause the increase in generating costswill not be diluted by other plantsowned by the same utility that havelower generating costs and compliancecosts. Because there is no less stringenttechnology option between BPT and thefinal BAT, BAT will be set equal to BPTfor these facilities to avoid thedisproportionate costs to facilities andto the consumer.

As a result of this action, EPA doesnot expect any adverse economicimpacts on a plant level or utility levelto occur as a result of this regulation.This regulation also is not expected toaffect employment and will result in aminimal increase in energyrequirements.VII. Nonwater Quality EnvironmentalImpact

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Therefore,Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Actrequire the Agency to consider thenonwater quality environmental impacts(including energy requirements) ofcertain regulations. In compliance withthese provisions, the Agency hasconsidered the effect of theseregulations on air pollution, solid wastegeneration, water scarcity, and energyconsumption. This proposal wascirculated to and reviewed by Agencypersonnel responsible for nonwater

quality environmental programs. Whileit is difficult to balance pollutionproblems against each other and againstenergy use, the Agency is proposingregulations that it believes best serveoften competing national goals.

The following are the nonwaterquality environmental impactsassociated with the final regulations:

A. Air Pollution.-Application of dryfly ash handling may cause a higher dustloading in localized areas around the flyash transport transfer points. Abaghouse or other type of dust collectionsystem will minimize such impacts. Thecosts of such dust control systems areincluded in the economic analysis: Dryfly ash landfill sites are subject todusting problems, especially in aridregions. Until the site can be sealed witha cap or vegetative cover, watering tocontrol dust may be required.

B. Solid Waste.-No additional solidwastes are expected as a result of theseregulations, including for dry fly ashtransport and disposal. Further, fly ash,whether wet or dry, has a wide varietyof industrial uses, such as fill or covermaterial, soil conditioners, roadwaybases, drainage media, pozzolan,structural products, aggregate, grout,and metal extraction. Usage of thismaterial eases disposal requirements.

C. Consumptive Water Loss.-Lessconsumptive water loss is expected fromdry fly ash handling and disposal thanwet fly ash handling and disposalbecause of less overall water usage. Theamounts of water used for dust controlin dry fly ash systems should be nomore than the amounts of waterconsumed in wet fly ash transport anddisposal.

D. Energy Requirements.-Additionalenergy requirements imposed by theseregulations are due primarily to thepumping of dechlorination chemicals.These requirements are insignificantcompared to a facility's powergenerating capacity, as indicated byinformation in the DevelopmentDocument. Energy costs are no greaterfor dry fly ash systems than for wet flyash systems.

VIII. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

The Settlement Agreement containsprovisions authorizing the exclusionfrom regulation, in certaincircumstances, of the 126 toxicpollutants for this industry. Paragraph8(a)(iii) specifically authorizes theAdministrator to exclude toxicpollutants from regulation for thefollowing reasons: (a) Those notdetectable by Section 304(h) analyticalmethods or other state-of-the-artmethods; (b) those present in amounts

too small to be effectively reduced byavailable technologies; (c) those presentonly in trace amounts and neithercausing nor likely to cause toxic effects:(d) those detected in the effluent fromonly a small number of sources within asubcatigory and uniquely related tothose sources; and (e) those that will beeffectively controlled by thetechnologies on which other effluentlimitations and standards are based.

Paragraph 8(b) of the SettlementAgreement authorizes the Administratorto exclude from regulation acategory if:(i) 95 percent or more of all pointsources in the subcategory introduceinto POTWs only pollutants which aresusceptible to treatment by the POTWand which do not interfere with, do notpass through, or are not otherwiseincompatible with such treatmentworks; or (ii) the toxicity and amount ofthe incompatible pollutants introducedby such point sources into POTWs is soinsignificant as not to justify developinga pretreatment regulation.

The pollutants and waste streamsexcluded from regulation on the basis ofParagraph 8 considerations arepresented in Appendix A of thispreamble for direct dischargers andindirect dischargers. A summary of theParagraph 8 determinations by wastestream follows:

BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS

Once Through Cooling Water-Theseven polychlorinated biphenylcompounds are regulated. The remaining119 pollutants are excluded fromregulation.

Cooling Tower Biowdown-All 126toxic pollutants are regulated.

Low Volume Wastes-The sevenpolychlorinated biphenyl compoundsare regulated. The remaining 119pollutants are excluded from regulation.

Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes-Copper and the seven polychlorinatedbiphenyl compounds are regulated. Theremaining 118 pollutants are excludedfrom regulation.

Coal Pile Runoff-The sevenpolychlorinated biphenyl compoundsare regulated. The remaining 119pollutants are excluded from regulation.

Non-Chemical Metal CleaningWastes, Ash Pile Runoff, ChemicalHandling Area Runoff, ConstructionArea Runoff. No Paragraph 8determinations are made at this timebecause regulation of these wastestreams is reserved for futurerulemaking.

52299



IX. Summary of Public Participation andResponses to Major Comments on theProposed Regulation

On October 14, 1980, the Agencypublished proposed rules for effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards under the Clean Water Actfor the Steam Electric Power GeneratingPoint Source Category. EPA alsoconducted technical workshops on theproposal in Chicago on December 2,1980; Atlanta on December 5, 1980; andBoston on December 8, 1980. A publichearing was held in Washington, D.C.during the comment period on thepretreatment standards.

All comments received have beencarefully considered, and appropriatechanges in the regulations have beenmade whenever available data andinformation supported those changes.Major issues raised by commenters areaddressed in Section V and this section.A summary of all the commentsreceived and our detailed responses toall comments are included in a report,"Responses to Public Comments,Proposed Steam Electric EffluentGuidelines and Standards," which is apart of the public record for thisregulation.

1. Comment: For BPT, EPA regul atedfree available chlorine (FAC) and nottotal residual chlorine (TRC). Severalcommenters stated that EPA should notchange to controlling TRC.

Response: Chlorine may be present inthe effluent as free available chlorine(FAC) or as combined residual chlorine(CRC). It may be measured as FAC,CRC, or total residual chlorine (TRC);the latter measures both CRC and-FAC.EPA has determined that TRC is a moreappropriate measure for chlorine thaneither FAC or CRC.

FAC is the most toxic pollutant of thethree. However, CRC is also toxic toaquatic life. 12 3 Limits on FAC alonewould ignore the toxic contribution ofCRC; therefore, EPA concluded thatregulation of TRC would better protectaquatic life from the toxic effects of bothFAC and CRC. For this same reasonEPA based the EPA water qualitycriteria for chlorine on TRC rather thanFAC or TRC.I

The agency recognizes that FAC isused by plants to determine the amountof chlorine used in once through coolingwater to control biofouling. However,

!Quality Criteria for Water, EPA, July 1976.1 Chlorine Toxicity in Aquatic Ecosystems. Turner

end Thayer, 1980."Chlorine Toxicity as a Function of

Environimnental Variables and Species Tolerance.Edison Electric Institute, November, 1981.

this does not mean that FAC is theproper parameter for measuring chlorinein the effluent for pollution controlpurposes.,

2. Comment: One commenterrequested that EPA interpret or amendthe regulations to allow concentrationbased limitations to be established inpermits instead of mass limitation andbased upon concentration and flow. Themain reason given by the commenterwas that the highly variable nature ofwaste stream flows in electric powergenerating facilities makes it verydifficult to select an appropriate flowupon which to base a mass based limit.This was said to be particularly true forash sluice water. The commenter alsoraised the problem of measuring thecontribution of flow to an ash pond fromcontaminated and noncontaminatedrunoffs.

Response: After reviewing thecomment and consulting with permitwriters familiar with power plants, weagree that the use of mass based limitsin all circumstances is undesirable. Thepotentially large variations in flowmakes it difficult in some cases tochoose a representative flow. Incorrectselection of a representative flow mayresult in limits that are either toostringent or too lenient.

Accordingly, we have decided to givethe permit writer the authority toincorporate either concentration basedlimits or mass based limits into thepermit. Case-by-case determinationsmay be made, depending on thecharacteristics of the particular facility.We believe giving the permittingauthority this flexibility will allow thechoice of the most suitable limits foreach plant, thereby promoting effluentreduction benefits. The Agency plans toprepare guidance for permit writers tofurther clarify the instances in whichsetting concentration or mass-basedpermit limitations Is appropriate for thevarious fuel types (nuclear, coal, etc.) aswell as types of waste streams.

We have changed the regulations tothis effect. See, e.g., § 423.12(b)(11). Inaddition, where the permit containsconcentration based limits at the outfallfor a combined waste treatment facility(e.g. ash ponds), the permit writer mayestablish numerical limits andmonitoring on the individual, regulatedwaste stream prior to their mixing. See40 CFR 122.63(i). The use ofconcentration based limits maynecessitate the internal monitoring ofseveral waste streams (i.e., coolingtower blowdown, metal cleaningwastes) to ensure that the pollutants ofconcern are not diluted by other wastestreams where commingling occurs.

Finally, it should be noted that the"actual production" rule in 40 CFR122.63(b)(2) does not apply to this

industry since mass limitations, whereused, are based on flow andconcentrations, and not on production orother measures of operation.

These changes also apply to BPTpermits since BPT permits may continueto be written for conventional pollutantsuntil BCT limits are promulgated.

3. Comment: The proposed regulationsrequire zero discharge of maintenancechemicals containing the 129 prioritypollutants used in cooling towers andzero discharge of fly ash water. EPA hasno authority under the Act to imposethese restrictions without performing acost/benefit analysis.

Response: EPA disagrees with thiscontention. We believe there is nostatutory requirement to conduct a cost/benefit analysis for either BAT limits orNSPS. There-is a requirement, however,to show that a zero discharge NSPS ispracticable. EPA has made this findingfor the pertinent wastestreams.

4. Comment: While admitting that a .2mg/1 TRC concentration is generallyachievable through dechlorination orchlorine minimization, commenters haveargued that the data do not demonstratethat the limit is consistently achievableon a national basis. They assert that oneConsumers' power plant and one DetroitEdison plant do not achieve .14 mg/1TRC with dechlorination and thereforecould not be expected to meet a 0.20mg/1 standard. Further, they identifyvarious operational problems and assertthat site-specific factors could preventsome plants from achieving compliance.One commenter argued that a specialmechanism must be established to allowhigher limitations for those plants thatcould not meet the limit.

Response: EPA has reviewed all theavailable data on plants usingdechlorination and found that the threeConsumers power plants as well asseveral others are attaining a .20 mg/1TRC concentration throughdechlorination. In 1980 the DetroitEdison plant exceeded .20 mg/1 onnumerous occasions but by 1981 hadimproved its performance significantly.Therefore, its more recent experience isconsistent with that of the other plantsthat are dechlorinating. Many otherplants are achieving .20 mg/1 TRCthrough minimization.

We see no reason why all plantscould not meet the 0.20 mg/1 standard.The operational difficulties thecommenters have identified have notprevented them from attaining 0.20 mg/1TRC, and have been fully addressed inthe Development Document andResponse to Comments Document. Thecommenters even acknowledge thatthese limits are attained by make-shift,primitive systems; should they improvethese systems, even better performance



should be achieved. Further, because thedechlorination technology basicallyinvolves the addition of chemicals, nospecial geographic or site specificfactors are expected to affectperformance. (Indeed, plants EPA has'identified as successfully achieving 0.20mg/i TRC are located in geographicallydiverse sections of the country.)Therefore, as explained more fully in the"Response to Comments" Document andDevelopment Document, EPA hasdetermined that the final TRClimitations can be achieved on anationwide basis. Therefore, we believethe proposal to allow plants to exemptthemselves from the TRC limitation isunnecessary and inappropriate.Variances are available for those plantswhich are fundamentally different fromthose evaluated in the course ofdeveloping the BAT regulations.

5. Comment. EPA has notdemonstrated that the proposedstandards would produce anyenvironmental or health benefits.

Response: Under provisions of theClean Water Act and the SettlementAgreement, EPA is required to establishtechnology-based limitations andstandards. These regulations are applieduniformly on a national basis wherethere are technically and economicallyfeasible technologies for reducing theamount of pollutants discharged. Webelieve the removal of the regulatedpollutants will produce environmentaland health benefits. Nevertheless, insetting these.limits, EPA does notconsider, and in fact is excluded fromconsidering, specific impacts onreceiving water quality. SeeWeyerhauser Co. v. Castle, 590 F.2d1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978); AppalachianPower Co. v. EPA, Cir. No. 80-1663 (4thCir. February 8, 1982).

6. Comment: EPA should amend theregulations to allow permits to bewritten on a "net" basis. This change isnecessary to cover those situationswhere the ambient concentration of TRCin the intake water may exceed 0.2 mg/l.

Response: The Consolidated PermitRegulations allow permits to be writtenon a "net" basis. See 40 CFR§ 122.63(h)(1)(i)(B). Thus, there is noneed to address "net" limits in theseregulations.X. Best Management Practices

Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Actgives the Administrator authority toprescribe "best management practices"(BMPs).

- Although EPA is establishing BMPs atthis time, we are evaluating theappropriateness of BMPs specific to thesteam electric industry. Numerousproblem' areas are known to exist,

including leaks and spills, storm watercontamination, groundwater infiltrationfrom storage areas and on-site solidwaste disposal.

XI. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsA recurring issue of concern has been

whether industry guidelines shouldinclude provisions authorizingnoncompliance with effluent limitationsduring periods of "upset" or "bypass."An upset, sometimes calleit an$excursion", is an unintentional'noncompliance occurring for reasonsbeyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. It has been argued that anupset provision is necessary in EPA'seffluent limitations because such upsetswill inevitably occur even in properlyoperated control. equipment. Becausetechnology based limitations requireonly what technology can achieve, it isclaimed that liability for such situationsis improper. When confronted with thisissue, courts have disagreed on whetheran explicit upset or excursion exemptionis necessary, or whether upset orexcursion incidents may be handledthrough EPA's exercise of enforcementdiscretion. Compare Marathon Oil Co. v.EPA, 564 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1977) withWeyerhaeuser v. Castle, 590 F.2d 1011(D.C. Cir., 1978], and Corn RefinersAssociation, et a]. v. Castle, 594 F.2d1223 (8th Cir., 1979). See also AmericanPetroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023(10th Cir. 1976); CPC International, Inc.v. Train, 540 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1976);and FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 F.2d 973(4th Cir. 1976).

A bypass is an act of intentionalnoncompliance during which wastetreatment facilities are circumventedbecause of an emergency situation. EPAhas in the past included bypassprovisions in NPDES permits.

The Agency has determined that bothupset and bypass provisions should beincluded in NPDES permits and haspromulgated Consolidated PermitRegulations which include upset andbypass permit provisions [see 40 CFR122.60, 45 FR 33290, May 19, 1980]. Theupset provision establishes an upset asan affirmative defense to prosecution forviolation of technology-based effluentlimitations. The bypass provisionauthorizes bypassing to prevent loss oflife, personal injury, or severe propertydamage. Consequently, althoughpermittees in the steam electric industywill be entitled to upset and bypassprovisions in NPDES permits, the finalsteam electric regulations do notaddress these issues.XII. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of theregulations, the effluent limitations for

the appropriate subcategory must beapplied in all Federal and State NPDESpermits thereafter issued to directdischargers in the steam electricindustry. In addition, uponpromulgation, the pretreatmentlimitations are applicable to any indirectdischargers.

For the BPT effluent limitations, theonly exception to the binding limitationsis EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" (FDF) variance. See E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430U.S. 112 (1977); Weyerhaeuser Co. v.Costle, supra. This variance recognizesfactors concerning a particulardischarger that are fundamentally'different from the factors considered inthis rulemaking. While the BPT varianceclause for all other industrial categoriesis contained in the NPDES regulationsand referenced in the categoricalregulations, there is a special BPTvariance clause for the steam electriccategory. This clause is being amendedtoday for the following reasons.

As originally established in 1974, theFDF provision Part 423 was identical tothose contained in all other BPT effluentlimitations guidelines. It was amerdedin 1978 (43 FR 44846--8 in obedience toan order by the Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals to allow for consideration ofthe cost and affordability factors listedin section 301(c) and section 304(b) ofthe Act. Appalachian Power Co. v.Train, 545 F. 2d 1351, 1358-60 (4th Cir.1976) ("Appalachian Power I'l. Thisamendment applied only to thisindustry. The clause, as amended, waschallenged again on the grounds that itshould have been expanded further topermit consideration of receiving watercharacteristics. The Fourth Circuitrefused to review the amended varianceclause because of doubt whether EPAhad in fact taken the position that itwould not consider receiving watercharacteristics. Appalachian Power Co.v. Train, 620 F.2d 1040 (4th Cir. 1980)("Appalachian Power II"). In responseto the latter decision, EPA amended theclause again to state explicitly thatreceiving water quality may not beconsidered as an FDF factor. 45 FR61619 (1980). The petitioners thenreturned to the Fourth Circuit,contending that the 1980 amendmentviolated the Appalachian Power Imandate.

On February 8, 1982, the FourthCircuit decided the latest challenge andconcluded that the 1980 variance clausewas valid. Appalachian Power Co. v.EPA, Civ. No. 80-1663 (4th Cir. February8, 1982) ("Appalachian Power II"). Inexplaining its decision the Court notedthat a reent Supreme Court case made it

52301



clear that section 301(c) factors are notto be considered in making BPTvariance determinations. NationalCrushed Stone Association v. EPA, 449U.S. 64 (1980). Since the first twoAppalachian Power decisions suggestedthat the requirement to considerreceiving water quality derived in partfrom section 301(c)(2), the Courtconcluded that a BPT variance clauseallowing consideration of receivingwater quality would have to be justifiedon another basis. However, the Courtrejected the use of section 304(b)(1)(B)as an alternative ground explaining thatthe Fourth Circuit had alreadyconcluded that section 304(b)(1)(B) didnot provide that authority.Consolidation Coal Co. v. Castle, 604F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1979) reviewed in partsub nom., EPA v. National CrushedStone Association, 449 U.S. 64 (1980).Based on the relevant court decisionsand the legislative history of the Act, theCourt affirmed the variance clause.

As a result of these decisions EPA isretaining the portion of thb current andproposed BPT variance clause thatprecludes consideration of impacts onreceiving water quality. In addition, EPAis deleting the reference to Section301(c) factors in the BPT varianceclause. Because Appalachian Power IIIdid not affect EPA's use of "significantcost differentials" in referring to Section304(b)(1)(B) economic factors, EPA isleaving that aspect of the varianceclause in place. EPA is not providingnotice and opportunity for comment onthe deletion of the reference to Section301(c) factors since the charge reflectsjudicial interpretation of the varianceclause. Finally, EPA is deleting thereference in the BPT clause to a 1974EPA legal interpretation since thatinterpretation has since beenwithdrawn.

With respect to BAT, EPA proposed toextend the FDF variance clause thatapplies to all other categories to thisindustry. See 40 CFR 125.30-32. Nocomments were received. Accordingly,EPA is retaining the proposed wordingin the final rule.

BAT limitations for nonconventionalpollutants are also subject tomodifications under Sections 301(c) and301(g) of the Act. These statutorymodifications do not apply to toxic orconventional pollutants. According toSection 301(j)(1)(B), applications forthese modifications must be filed within270 days after promulgation of finaleffluent limitations guidelines. See 43 FR40895, September 13, 1978.

Section 301(j)(1)(B) of the Act requiresthat application for modifications undersection 301 (c) or (g) must be filed within270 days after the promulgation of an

applicable effluent guideline. Initialapplications must be filed with theRegional Administrator and, in thoseStates that participate in the NPDESprogram, a copy must be sent to theDirector of the State program. Initialapplications to comply with 301(j) mustinclude the name of the permittee, thepermit and outfall number, theapplicable effluent guideline, andwhether the permittee is applying for the301(c) or 301(g) modification or both.Applicants interested in applying forboth must do so in their initialapplication. For further details, see 43FR 40859, September 13, 1978.

The nonconventional pollutant limitedunder BAT in this regulation is totalresidual chlorine. No regulationsestablishing criteria for 301(c) and 301(g)determinations have been proposed orpromulgated, but the Agency recentlyannounced plans to propose suchregulations by December, 1982 (47 FR15702, April 12, 1982). All dischargerswho file an initial application within 270days will be sent a copy of thesubstantive requirements for 301(c) and301(g) determinations once they arepromulgated. Modificationdeterminations will be considered at thetime the NPDES permit is beingreissued.

Pretreatment standards for existingsources are subject to the"fundamentally different factors"variance and credits for pollutantsremoved by POTW. (See 40 CFR 403.7,403.13). Pretreatment standards for newsources are subject only to the creditsprovision in 40 CFR 403.7. NSPS are notsubject to EPA's "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance or anystatutory or regulatory modifications.See E. I. duPont de Nemours and Co. v.Train, supra.

XIII. Relationship to NPDES PermitsThe BAT limitations in this regulation

will be applied to individual steamelectric plants through NPDES permitsissued by EPA or approved stateagencies, under Section 402 of the Act.As discussed in the preceeding sectionof this preamble, these limitations mustbe applied in all Federal and StateNPDES permits except to the extent thatvariances and modifications areexpressly authorized. Other aspects ofthe interaction between theselimitations and NPDES permits arediscussed below.

One issue that warrants considerationis the effect of this regulation on thepowers of NPDES permit-issuingauthorities. The promulgation of thisregulation does not restrict the power ofany permitting authority to act in anymanner consistent with law or these or

any other EPA regulations, guidelines, orpolicy. For example, even if thisregulation does not control a particularpollutant, the permit issuer may stilllimit such pollutant on a case-by-casebasis when limitations are necessary tocarry out the purposes of the Act. Inaddition, to the extent that State waterquality standards or other provisions ofState or Federal law require limitationof pollutants not covered by thisregulation (or require more stringentlimitations on covered pollutants), suchlimitations must be applied by thepermit-issuing authority.

A second topic that warrantsdiscussion is the operation of EPA'sNPDES enforcement program, manyaspects of which were considered indeveloping this regulation. Although theClean Water Act is a strict liabilitystatute, the initiation of enforcementproceedings by EPA is discretionary.EPA has exercised and intends toexercise that discretion in a manner thatrecognizes and promotes good-faithcompliance efforts.

XIV. Availability of TechnicalAssistance

The major documents upon whichthese regulations are based are: (1) theDevelopment Document for FinalEffluent Limitations Guidelines, NewSource Performance Standards, andPretreatment Standards for the SteamElectric Point Source Category (EPA440/1-82/029); (2) in Economic Analysisof Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines,New Source Performance Standards andPretreatment Standards for the SteamElectric Power Generating Point SourceCategory, and (3) the technicaldevelopment document and recordsupporting the proposed regulations, andthe "Responses to Public Comments,Proposed Steam Electric EffluentGuidelines and Standards."

XV. OMB Review

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

In accordance with the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511),the reporting and recordkeepingprovisions that are included in thisregulation will be submitted forapproval to OMB. They are not effectiveuntil OMB approval has been obtainedand the public is notified to that effect



through a technical amendment to thisregulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 419Electric power, Water pollution

control, Waste treatment and disposal.Dated: November 7, 1982.

Anne M. Gorsuch,Administrator.

XVII. AppendicesAppendix A-Steam Electric Point SourceCategory Pollutants Excluded FromRegulation

Pollutants excluded from regulation basedupon Paragraph 8 of the SettlementAgreement are addressed by waste streamsin the following sections. No Paragraph 8determinations are made at this time for non-chemical metal cleaning wastes, ash pilerunoff, chemical handling area runoff, andconstruction area runoff because regulationof these waste streams is reserved for futurerulemaking.

Once-Through Cooling Water, Low VolumeWastes, Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes,Coal Pile Runoff

The following 73 toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausethey were not detected by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-artmethods:AcenaphtheneAcroleinAcrylonitrileBenzideneCarbon Tetrachloride1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzeneHexachloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneChloroethaneBis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)2,4,6-TrichlorophenolParachlorometa Cresol1,3-Dichlorobenzene3,3-Dichlorobenzidine1,2-Dichloropropane1,3-Dichloropropene2,4-Dimethylphenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene1,2-DiphenylhydrazineFluoranthene4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether(Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) EtherBis(2-Chlororethoxy) MethaneMethyl ChlorideMethyl BromideHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneIsophoroneNapthalene2-Nitrophenol4-Nitrophenol2,4-Dinitrophenol4,6-Dinitro-O-CresolN-NitrosodimethylamineN-NitrosodiphenylamineN-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine

Benzo(A)AnthraceneBenzo(A)PyreneBenzo(B)FluorantheneBenzo(K)FluorantheneChryseneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenzo(G,H,I)PeryleneFluorenePhenanthreneDibenzo(A,H)AnthraceneIndeno(1,2,3,-C,D) PyrenePyreneVinyl ChlorideAldrinDieldrinChlordane4,4-DDT4,4-DDEEndosulfan-AlphaEndosulfan-BetaEndosulfan SulfateEndrinEndrin AldehydeHeptachlorHeptachlor EpoxideBHC-AlphaBHC-BetaBHC(Lindane)-GamaBHC-DeltaTosaphene2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin

The following seven toxic pollutants areexluded from regulation because theirdetection in the final effluent samples isbelieved to be attributed to laboratoryanalysis and sampling contamination.Therefore, they are detectable in the effluentfrom only a small number of sources or nosources within the industry.Methylene ChlorideBis(2-Ethylhexyl) PhthalateButyl Benzyl PhthalateDi-N-Butyl PhthalateDi-N-Octyl PhthalateDiethyl PhthalateDimethyl Phthalate

Once-Through Cooling Water

The following 12 toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausethey were not detected by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-artmethods:Chlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane2-Chlorbphenol1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Trans-DichloroethyleneDichlorobromomethaneNitrobenzene4,4-DDDAsbestosBerylliumCyanide

The following 24 toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausethey are present in amounts too small to beeffectively reduced by technologies known tothe Administrator:Benzene1,1,1-Trichloroethane2-Chloronaphthalene1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,1-Dichloroethylene

2,4-DichlorophenolEthylbenzenePentachlorophenolPhenolTetrachloroethyleneTolueneTrichloroethyleneAntimonyArsenicCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadMercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

The following three toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausethe pollutants are detectable in only a smallnumber of sources and are uniquely relatedto those sources and because the pollutantsare present in amounts too small to beeffectively reduced by technologies known tothe Administrator:ChloroformBromoformChlorodibromethane

Low Volume Wostewaters

The following five toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausethey were not detected by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-artmethods.2-Chloronaphthalene1,1-DichloroethylenePentachlorophenolAsbestosBeryllium

The following 34 toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausethey are present in amounts too small to beeffectively reduced by technologies known tothe Administrator:BenzbneChlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-TrichloroethaneChloroform2-Chlorohenol1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene2,4-DichlorophenolEthylbenzeneBromoformDichlorobromomethaneChlordibromomethaneNitrobenzenePhenolTetrachloroethyleneTolueneTrichloroethylene4,4-DDDAntimonyArsenicCadmiumChromiumCopperCyanideLead

52303



MercuryNickelSeleniumSilverThalliumZinc

Chemical Metal Cleaning WastewaterThe following 32 toxic pollutants are

excluded from national regulation becausethey were not detected by Section 304(h)analytical methods or other state-of-the-artmethods.BenzeneChlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane2-ChloronaphthaleneChloroform2-Chlorophenol1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,1-Dichloroethylene1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene2,4-DichlorophenolEthylbenzeneBromoformDichlorobromomethaneChlorodibromomethaneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenolTetrachloroethyleneToluene

' Trichloroethylene4,4-DDDAntimonyArsenicAsbestosCyanideMercurySeleniumSilverThallium

The following six toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausesufficient protection is already provided bythe Agency's guidelines and standards underthe Act.BerylliumCadmiumChromiumLeadNickelZinc

Coal Pile RunoffThe following 32 toxic pollutants are

excluded from national regulation becausethey were not detected by Section 304(h)analytical methods or state-of-the-artmethods.BenzeneChlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane2-ChloronaphthaleneChloroform2-Chlorophenol1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene1,1-Dichloroethylene1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene2,4-Dichlorophenol

EthylbenzeneBromoformDichlorobromomethaneChlorodibromomethaneNitrobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenolTetrachloroethyleneTolueneTrichloroethylene4,4-DDDAntimonyArsenicAsbestosCyanideMercurySeleniumSilverThaIlium

The following seven toxic pollutants areexcluded from national regulation becausesufficient protection is already provided bythe Agency's guidelines and standards underthe Act.BerylliumCadmiumChromiumCopperLeadNickelZinc

Appendix B-Abbreviations, Acronyms andOther Terms Used In This NoticeAct-The Clean Water Act.Agency-The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

BAT-The best available technologyeconomically achievable, under Section304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

BCT-The best conventional pollutantcontrol technology, under Section 304(b)(4)of the Act.

BMP-Best management practices underSection 304(e) of the Act.

BOD5-Five day biochemical oxygendemand.

BPT-The best practicable control technologycurrently available, under Section 304(b)(1)of the Act.

-Clean Water Act-The Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of 1972(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by theClean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217).

Direct discharger-A facility whichdischarges or may discharge pollutants intowaters of the United States.

FAC-Free Available ChlorineGW-gigawatts; one billion wattsIndirect discharger-A facility which

discharges or may discharge pollutants intoa publicly owned treatment works.

MW-megawatts; one million wattsmg/I-Milligrams per literNPDES permit-A National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System permitissued under section 402 of the Act.

NSPS-New source performance standards,under Section 304 of the Act.

PCB-Polychlorinated biphenyl compoundppb-Parts per billion.POTW-Publicly owned treatment works.PSES-Pretreatment standards for existing

sources of indirect discharges, undersection 307(b) of the Act.

PSNS-Pretreatment standards for newsources of direct discharges, under section307(b) and (c) of the Act.

RCRA-Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (P.L. 94-580) of 1976,Amendments to Solid Waste Disposal Act.

TRC-Total Residual Chlorine -

TRO-Total Residual OxidantsTSS-Total suspended solidsp.g/I-Micrograms per liter

40 CFR Part 423 is revised to read asfollows:

PART 423-STEAM ELECTRIC POWERGENERATING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

Sec.423.10 Applicability.423.11 Specialized defiaitions.423.12 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofbest practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

423.13 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofbest available technology economicallyachievable (BAT).

423.14 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT). [Reserved.]

423.15 New source performance standards(NSPS).

423.16 Pretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES).

423.17 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Appendix A-126 Priority Pollutants

Authority: Sec. 301; 304(b), (c), (e), and (g);306(b) and (c); 307(b) and (c); and 501, CleanWater Act (Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972, as amended byClean Water Act of 1977) (the "Act"; 33U.S.C. 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g); 1316(b)and (c); 1317(b) and (c); and 1361; 86 Stat. 816,Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217).

§ 423.10 Applicability.

The provisions of this part are,applicable to discharges resulting fromthe operation of a generating unit by anestablishment primarily engaged in thegeneration of electricity for distributionand sale which results primarily from aprocess utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal,oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunctionwith a thermal cycle employing thesteam water system as thethermodynamic medium.

§ 423.11 Specialized definitions.

In addition to the definitions set forthin 40 CFR Part 401, the followingdefinitions apply to this part:

(a) The term "total residual chlorine"(or total residual oxidants for intakewater with bromides) means the valueobtained using the amperometric



method for total residual chlorinedescribed in 40 CFR Part 136.

(b) The term "low volume wastesources" means, taken collectively as iffrom one source, wastewater from allsources except those for which specificlimitations are otherwise established inthis part. Low volume wastes sourcesinclude, but are not limited to:wastewaters from wet scrubber airpollution control systems, ion exchangewater treatment system, watertreatment evaporator blowdown,laboratory and sampling streams, boilerblowdown, floor drains, cooling towerbasin cleaning wastes, and recirculatinghouse service water systems. Sanitaryand air conditioning wastes are notincluded.

(c) The term "chemical metal cleaningwaste" means any wastewater resultingfrom the cleaning of any metal processequipment with chemical compounds,including, but not limited to, boiler tubecleaning.

(d] The term "metal cleaning waste"means any wastewater resulting fromcleaning [with or without chemicalcleaning compounds] any metal processequipment including, but not limited to,boiler tube cleaning, boiler firesidecleaning, and air preheater cleaning.

(e) the term "fly ash" means the ashthat is carried out of the furnace by thegas stream and collected by mechanicalprecipitators, electrostatic precipitators,and/or fabric filters. Economizer ash isincluded when it is collected with flyash.

[f The term "bottom ash" means theash that drops out of the furnace gasstream in the furnace and in theeconomizer sections. Economizer ash isincluded when it is collected withbottom ash.

(g) The term "once through coolingwater" means water passed through themain cooling condensers in one or twopasses for the purpose of removingwaste heat.

(h) The term "recirculated coolingwater" means water which is passedthrough the main condensers for thepurpose of removing waste heat, passedthrough a cooling device for the purposeof removing such heat from the waterand then passed again, except forblowdown, through the main condenser.

fi) The term "10 year, 24/hour rainfall,event" means a rainfall event with aprobable recurrence interval of once inten years as defined by the NationalWeather Service in Technical Paper No.40. "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of theUnited States," May 1961 or equivalentregional rainfall-probability informationdeveloped therefrom.

(j) The term "blowdown" means theminimum discharge of recirculatingwater for the purpose of dischargingmaterials contained in the water, thefurther buildup of which would cause*concentration in amounts exceedinglimits established by best engineeringpractices.

(k) The term "average concentration"as it relates to chlorine discharge meansthe average of analyses made over asingle period of chlorine release whichdoes not exceed two hours.

(1) The term "free available chlorine"shall mean the value obtained using theamperometric titration method for freeavailable chlorine described in"Standard Methods for the Examinationof Water and Wastewater," page 112(13th edition).(m) The term "coal pile runoff' means

the rainfall runoff from or through anycoal storage pile.

§ 423.12 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available (BPT).

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took intoaccount all information it was able tocollect, develop and solicit with respectto factors (such as age and size of plant,utilization of facilities, raw materials,manufacturing processes, non-waterquality environmental impacts, controland treatment technology available,energy requirements and costs) whichcan affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levelsestablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect theselimitations have not been available and,as a result, these limitations should beadjusted for certain plants in thisindustry. An individual discharger orother interested person may submitevidence to the Regional Administrator.(or to the State, if the State has theauthority to issue NPDES permits) thatfactors relating to the equipment orfacilities involved, the process applied,'or other such factors related to suchdischarger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or otheravailable information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) will make awritten finding that such factors are orare not fundamentally different for thatfacility compared to those specified inthe Development Document. If suchfundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the RegionalAdministrator or the State shall

establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES Permit eithermore or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to theextent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve ordisapprove such limitations, specifyother limitations, or initiate proceedingsto revise these regulations. The phrase"other such factors" appearing abovemay include significant costdifferentials. In no event may adischarger's impact on receiving waterquality be considered as a factor underthis paragraph.

(b) Any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve thefollowing effluent limitationsrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction by the application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable (BPT):

(1) The pH of all discharges, exceptonce through cooling water, shall bewithin the range of 6.0-9.0.

(2) There shall be no discharge ofpolychlorinated biphenyl compoundssuch as those commonly used fortransformer fluid.

(3) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged from low volume wastesources shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow oflow volume waste sources times theconcentration lised in the followingtable:

BPT effluent limitations

Average ofdaily values

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for 30for any 1 consecutive

day (mg/I) days shallnot exceed

_____________________ _________ (mg/I)

TSS ................................. 100.0 30.0Oil and grease ................................ 20.0 15.0

(4) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in fly ash and bottom ashtransport water shall not exceed thequantity determined by multiplying theflow of fly ash and bottom ash transportwater times the concentration listed inthe following table:



Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for 30for any 1I consecutive


(mg/I)

TSS .................. .. ................... 100.0 30.0Oil and grease ................................ 20.0 15.0

52305



(5) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in metal cleaning wastesshall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofmetal cleaning wastes times theconcentration listed in the followingtable:


Average ofudail values

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum or 30for any gI consecutiveday (rag/I) days shall

not exceed______ (mg/I)

TSS ................................... 100.0 30.0Oil and grease ................................ 20.0 15.0Copper, total .................. 1.0 1.0Iron, total ......................................... 1.0 1.0

(6) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in once through coolingwater shall not exceed -the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofonce through cooling water sourcestimes the concentation listed in thefollowing table:


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Averageconcentra- concentra-tion (mg/I) lion (mg/I)

Free available chlorine .................. 0.5 0.2

(7) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in cooling tower blowdownshall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofcooling tower blowdown sources timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Averageconcentra. concentra-ion (mg/I) lion (mg/I)


(8) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may bedischarged from any unit for more thantwo hours in any one day and not morethan one unit in any plant maydischarge free available or total residualchlorine at any one time unless theutility can demonstrate to the RegionalAdministrator or State, if the State hasNPDES permit issuing authority, that theunits in a particular location cannotoperate at or below this level orchlorination.

(9) Subject to the provisions ofparagraph b(10) of this section, the

following effluent limitations shall applyto the point source discharges of coalpile runoff:


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration

for any time (mg/I)

TSS ............ ; ....................................... 50

(10) Any untreated overflow fromfacilities designed, constructed, andoperated to treat the volume of coal pilerunoff which is associated with a 10year, 24 hour rainfall event shall not besubject to the limitations in paragraph(b)(9) of this section.

(11) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, the quantity of pollutantallowed to be discharged may beexpressed as a concentration limitationinstead of the mass based limitationsspecified in paragraphs (b](3 through (7)of this section. Concentration limitationsshall be those concentrations specifiedin this section.

(12) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant propertycontrolled in paragraphs (b](1) through(11) of this section attributable to eachcontrolled waste source shall not exceedthe specified limitations for that wastesource.

§ 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best available technology economicallyachievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-32, any existing point' source subject tothis part must achieve the followingeffluent limitations representing thedegree of effluent reduction attainableby the application of the best availabletechnology economically achievable(BAT).

(a) There shall be no discharge ofpolychlorinated biphenyl compoundssuch as those commonly used fortransformer fluid.

(b)(1) For any plant with a total ratedelectric generating capacity of 25 ormore megawatts, the quantity ofpollutants discharged in once throughcooling water from each discharge pointshall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow of

once through cooling water from eachdischarge point times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

BAT Effluent Limitations

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration(mg/i)

Total residual chlorine ....................... 0.20

(2) Total residual chlorine may not bedischarged from any single generatingunit for more than two hours per dayunless the discharger demonstrates tothe permitting authority that dischargefor more than two hours is required formacroinvertebrate control.Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination ispermitted.

(c)(1) For any plant with a total ratedgenerating capacity of less than 25megawatts, the quantity of pollutantsdischarged in once through coolingwater shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofonce through cooling water sourcestimes the concentration listed in thefollowing table:

BAT effluent limitations

Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Averageconcentra- concentra-tion (mg/I) tion (mg/I)


(2) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may bedischarged from any unit for more thantwo hours in any one day and not morethan one unit in any plant maydischarge free available or total residualchlorine at any one time unless theutility can demonstrate to the RegionalAdministrator or State, if the State hasNPDES permit issuing authority, that theunits in a particular location cannotoperate at or below this level ofchlorination.

(d)(1) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in cooling tower blowdownshall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofcooling tower blowdown times theconcentration listed below:


Pollutant or pollutant properly Maximum Averageconcentra- concentra-lion (mg/I) lion (mg/I)

Free available chlorine .......... 0.5 0.2



Average of

Maximum daily valuesfrayI for 30.Pollutant or pollutant property for any f consecutive

days shallnot exceed=(mg/I)

The 126 priority pollutants (Ap-pendix A) contained in chemi-cals added for cooling towermaintenance, except: () ()Chromium, total ......................... 0.2 0.2Zinc, total ............................. 1.0 1.0

No detectable amount.

(2) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may bedischarged from any unit for more thantwo hours in any one day and not more ,than one unit in any plant maydischarge free available or total residualchlorine at any one time unless theutility can demonstrate to the RegionalAdministrator or State, if the State hasNPDES permit issuing authority, that theunits in a particular location cannotoperate at or below this level ofchlorination.

(3) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, instead of the monitoringspecified in 40 CFR 122.11(b) compliancewith the limitations for the 126 prioritypollutants in paragraph (d)(1) of thissection may be determined byengineering calculations whichdemonstrate that the regulatedpollutants are not detectable in the finaldischarge by the analytical methods in40 CFR Part 136.(e) The quantity of pollutants

discharged in chemical metal cleaningwastes shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofchemical metal cleaning wastes timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:





_____________ ......___ -(mg/I)

Copper,total ........... 1.0 1.0

Iron, total 1 .0 1.0

(f) [Reserved-Nonchemical MetalCleaning Wastes].

(g) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, the quantity of pollutantallowed to be discharged may beexpressed as a concentration limitationinstead of the mass based limitationsspecified in paragraphs (b) through (e) ofthis section. Concentration limitations

shall be those concentrations specifiedin this section.

(h) In the event that Waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant propertycontrolled in paragraphs (a) through (g)of this section attributable to eachcontrolled waste source shall not exceedthe specified limitation for that wastesource.

§ 423.14 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the application ofthe best conventional pollutant controltechnology (BCT). [Reserved]§ 423.15 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

(a) The pH of all discharges, exceptonce through cooling water, shall bewithin the range of 6.0-9.0.

(b) There shall be no discharge ofpolychlorinated biphenyl compoundssuch as those commonly used fortransformer fluid.

(c) The quantity of pollutants'discharged from low volume wastesources shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow oflow volume waste sources times theconcentration listed in the followingtable:

NSPS effluent limitations


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum . for 30for any 1 consecutive


__________________ ________ (mg/Il

TSS ........................ 100.0 30.0Oil and grease ........................... 20.0 15.0

(d) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in chemical metal cleaningwastes shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofchemical metal cleaning wastes timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:





______________________(mg/I)

TSS ....... ....... ...... .. 100.0 300Oil and grease./ 20.0 15.0Copper. total .... ................ 1.0 1.0Iron. total ...................... 1.0 1.0

(e) [Reserved-Nonchemical MetalCleaning Wastes].

(f) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in bottom ash tratsportwater shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofthe bottom ash transport water times theconcentration listed in the followingtable:

Pollutant or pollutant property



Maximum for 30for any 1 consecutive


(mg/)

TSS ............................................ 0.0 300Oil and grease ................................ 200 50

(g] There shall be no discharge ofwastewater pollutants from fly ashtransport water.

(h)(1) For any plant with a total ratedelectric generating capacity of 25 ormore megawatts, the quantity Ofpollutants discharged in once throughcooling water from each discharge pointshall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofonce through cooling water from eachdischarge point times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

NSPS effluentlimitations

Pollutant or pollutant propertyMaximum concentration

(mg/I)

Total residual chlorine ...................... 0.20

(2) Total residual chlorine may not bedischarged from any single generatingunit for more than two hours per day •unless the discharger demonstrates tothe permitting authority that dischargefor more than two hours is required formacroinvertebrate control.Simultaneous multi-unit chlorination ispermitted.

(i)(1) For any plant with a totAl ratedgenerating capacity of less than 25megawatts, the quantity of pollutantsdischarged in once through coolingwater shall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofonce through cooling water sourcestimes the concentration listed in thefollowing table:

52307




Pollutant of pollutant property Maximum Averageconcentra- concentra-tion (mg/I) lion (mg/I)



(j)(1) The quantity of pollutantsdischarged in cooling tower blowdownshall not exceed the quantitydetermined by multiplying the flow ofcooling tower blowdown times theconcentration listed below:


Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum Averageconcentra- concentra-tion (mg/I) tion (mg/I)



Maximum for 30Pollutant or pollutant property for any 1 consecutive


-(mg/I)

The 126 priority pollutants (Ap-pendix A) contained in chemi-cals added for cooling towermaintenance, except: (') (1)Chromium, total .......................... 0.2 0.2Zinc, total ........................... 1.0 1.0

'No detectable amount.


(3) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, instead of the monitoring in40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with thelimitations for the 126 priority pollutantsin paragraph (j)(1) of this section may bedetermined by engineering calculationswhich demonstrate that the regulatedpollutants are not detectable in the final

discharge by the analytical methods in40 CFR Part 136.

(k) Subject to the provisions of§ 423.15(1), the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant parametersdisclarged in coal pile runoff shall notexceed the limitations specified below:

Pollutant or pollutant property NSPS effluent limitationsfor any time

TSS ...................................................... Not to exceed 50 mg/I.

(1) Any untreated overflow fromfacilities designed, constructed, andoperated to treat the coal pile runoffwhich results from a 10 year, 24 hourrainfall event shall not be subject to thelimitations in § 423.15(k).

(m) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, the quantity of pollutantallowed to be discharged may beexpressed as a concentration limitationinstead of the mass based limitationspecified in paragraphs (c) through (j) ofthis section. Concentration limits shallbe based on the concentrations specifiedin this section.

(n) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant propertycontrolled in paragraphs (a) through (m)of this section attributable to eachcontrolled waste source shall not exceedthe specified limitation for that wastesource.

§ 423.16 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source subjectto this subpart which introducespollutants into a publicly ownedtreatment works must comply with 40CFR Part 403 and achieve the followingpretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES) by July 1, 1984:

(a) There shall be no discharge ofpolychlorinated biphenol compoundssuch as those used for transformer fluid.

(b) The pollutants discharged inchemical metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the concentration listed inthe following table:

PSES pretreatmentstandards

Pollutant or pollutant propertyMaximum for 1 day

(mg/I)

Copper, total ....................................... 1.0

(c) [Reserved-Nonchemical MetalCleaning Wastes].

(d)(1) The pollutants discharged in

cooling tower blowdown shall notexceed the concentration listed in thefollowing table:

PSES pretreatmentstandards

Pollutant or pollutant property standsMaximum for any time_______________________ (mg/I)

The 126 priority pollutants (Ap-pendix A) contained in chemi-cals added for cooling towermaintenance, except: ()

Chromium, total ......................... 0.2Zinc, total ................................... 1.0

No detectable amount.

(2) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, instead of the monitoring in40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with thelimitations for the 126 priority pollutantsin paragraph (d)(1) of this section maybe determined by engineeringcalculations which demonstrate that theregulated pollutants are not detectablein the final discharge by the analyticalmethods in 40 CFR Part 136.

§ 423.17 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,any new source subject to this subpartpart which introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 and thefollowing pretreatment standards fornew sources (PSNS).

(a) There shall be no discharge ofpolychlorinated biphenyl compoundssuch as those used for transformer fluid.

(b) The pollutants discharged inchemical metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the concentration listed inthe following table:

PSNS pretreatmentstandards

Pollutant or pollutant propertyMaximum for 1 day

(mg/I)

Copper, total ..........................0............. t0

(c) [Reserved-Nonchemical MetalCleaning Wastes].

(d)(1) The pollutants discharged incooling tower blowdown shall notexceed the concentration listed in thefollowing table:

PSNS pretreatmentstandards

Pollutant or pollutant propertyMaximum for any time

(mg/I)

The 126 priority pollutants (Ap-"pendix A) contained in chemi-cals added for cooling towermaintenance, except:

Chromium, total ............... ...... 0.2Zinc, total ..................................... 1.0


224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52309

(2) At the permitting authority'sdiscretion, instead of the monitoring in40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with thelimitations for the 126 priority pollutantsin paragraph (d)(1) of this section maybe determined by engineeringcalculations which demonstrate that theregulated pollutants are not detectablein the final discharge by the analyticalmethods in 40 CFR Part 136.

(e) There shall be no discharge ofwastewater pollutants from fly ashtransport water.

Appendix A-126 Priority Pollutants

001 Acenaphthene002 Acrolein003 Acrylonitrile004 Benzene005 Benzidine006 Carbon tetrachloride

(tetrachloromethane)007 Chlorobenzene008 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene009 Hexachlorobenzene010 1,2-dichloroethane011 1,1,1-trichloreothane012 Hexachloroethane013 1,1-dichloroethane014 1,1,2-trichloroethane015 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane016 Chloroethane018 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether019 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)020 2-chloronaphthalene021 2.4, 6-trichlorophenol022 Parachlorometa cresol023 Chloroform (trichloromethane)024 2-chlorophenol025 1,2-dichlorobenzene026 1.3-dichlorobenzene027 1,4-dichlorobenzene028 3,3-dichlorobenzidine029 1,1-dichloroethylene030 1.2-trans-dichloroethylene031 2,4-dichlorophenol032 1,2-dichloropropane033 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-

dichloropropene)034 2,4-dimethylphenol035 2,4-dinitrotoluene036 2,6-dinitrotoluene037 1,2-diphenylhydrazine038 Ethylbenzene039 Fluoranthene040 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether041 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether

042 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether043 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane044 Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)045 Methyl chloride (dichloromethane)046 Methyl bromide (bromomethane)047 Bromoform (tribromomethane)048 Dichlorobromomethane051 Chlorodibromomethane052 Hexachlorobutadiene053 Hexachloromyclopentadiene054 Isophorone055 Naphthalene056 Nitrobenzene057 2-nitrophenol058 4-nitrophenol059 2,4:dinitrophenol060 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol061 N-nitrosodimethylamine062 N-nitrosodiphenylamine063 N-nitrosodi-n-propylamin064 Pentachlorophenol

.06,5 Phenol066 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate067 Butyl benzyl phthalate068 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate069 Di-n-octyl phthalate070 Diethyl Phthalate071 Dimethyl phthalate072 1,2-benzanthracene (benzo(a)

anthracene073 Benzo(alpyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)074 3,4-Benzofluoranthene (benzo(b)

fluoranthene)075 11,12-benzofluoranthene (benzo(b]

fluoranthene)076 Chrysene077 Acenaphthylene078 Anthracene079 1,12-benzoperylene (benzo(ghi)

perylene)080 Fluorene081 Phenifnthrene082 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene (dibenzo(,hJ

anthracene)083 Indeno (,1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-o-.pheynylene pyrene)084 Pyrene085 Tetrachloroethylene086 Toluene087 Trichloroethylene088 Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)089 Aldrin090 Dieldrin091 Chlordane (technical mixture and

metabolites)092 4,4-DDT093 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)094 4.4-DDD (p,p-TDE)095 Alpha-endosulfan

096 Beta-endosulfan097 Endosulfan sulfate098 Endrin099 Endrin aldehyde100 Heptachlor101 Heptachlor epoxide (BHC-

hexachlorocyclohexanel102 Alpha-BHC103 Beta-BHC104 Gamma-BHC (lindaneJ105 Delta-BHC (PCB-polychlorinated

biphenyls)106 PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)107 PCB-1254 (Aiochlor 1254)108 PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)109 PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)110 PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248]111 PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)112 PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)113 Toxaphene114 Antimony115 Arsenic.116 Asbestos117 Beryllium118 Cadmium119 Chromium120 Copper121 Cyanide, Total,122 Lead123 Mercury124 Nickel125 Selenium126 Silver127 Thallium126 Silver128 Zinc129 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin

(TCDD)

PART 125--[AMENDED]

40 CFR 125.30(a) is amended to revisethe-last sentence thereof to read asfollows:

§ 125.30 Purpose and scope.

(a) *** This subpart applies to allnational -limitations promulgated underSections 301 and 304 of the Act, exceptfor the BPT limits contained in 40 CFR423.12 (steam electric generating pointsource category).

JFR Doc. 82-31271 Filed 11-18-82:8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

Federal Register / Vol. 47, No.


Documents

Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 224 Friday, November 19, 1982 · Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 224 / Friday, ... No. 224 / Friday, November 19, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 52291