Grain Mills Effluent Guidelines - Final rule - March 20, 1974 · new sources within the corn wet milling, corn dry milling, normal wheat flour milling, bulgur wheat flour milling,

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of the EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND

STANDARDS

PART 406-GRAIN MILLS POINT SOURCECATEGORY

On December 4, 1973, notice was pub-lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR33438), that the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA or Agency) was pro-posing effluent limitations guidelines forexisting sources and standards of per-formance and pretreatment standards fornew sources within the corn wet milling,corn dry milling, normal wheat flourmilling, bulgur wheat flour milling, nor-mal rice milling, and parboiled rice proc-essing subcategories of the grain millscategory of point sources.

The purpose of this notice is to estab-lish final effluent limitations guidelinesfor existing sources and standards of per-formance and pretreatment standardsfor new sources in the grain mills cate-gory of point sources by amending 40CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, to add anew Part 406. This final rulemaking ispromulgated pursuant to sections 301,304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) and (c) and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-trol Act, as amended, (the Act) ; 33 U.S.C.1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c), 1316 (b)and (c) and 1317(c) ; 86 Stat. 816 et seq.;Pub. L. 92-500. Regulations regardingcooling water intake structures for allcategories of point sources under section316(b) of the Act will be promulgated in40 CFR Part 402.

In addition, the EPA is simultaneouslyproposing a separate provision which ap-pears in the proposed rules section of theFEDERAL REGISTER, stating the applica-tion of the limitations and. standards setforth below to users of publicly ownedtreatment works which are subject topretreatment standards under section307(b) of the Act. The basis of that pro-posed regulation Is set forth in the asso-ciated notice of proposed rulemaking.

The legal basis, methodology and fac-tual conclusions which support promul-gation of this regulation were set forthin substantial detail-in the notice of pub-lic review procedures published August 6,1973 (38 FR 21202), and in the notice ofproposed rulemaking for the corn wetmilling, corn dry milling, normal wheatflour milling, bulgur wheat flour milling,normal rice milling, and parboiled riceprocessing subcategories. In addition, theregulations as proposed were supportedby two other documents: (1) The docu-ment entitled "Development Documentfor Proposed Effluent Limitations Guide-,lines and New Source PerformanceStandards for the Grain Processing Seg-ment of the Grain Mills Point Source-Category" (December 1973) and (2) thedocument entitled "Economic Analysisof Proposed Effluent Guidelines, Grainmilling industry (August, 1973). Both ofthese documents were made available tothe public and circulated to interestedpersons at approximately the time ofpublication of the notice of proposedrulemaking.

Interested persons were invited toparticipate in the rulemaking by sub-mitting written comments within 30 daysfrom the date of publication. Prior pub-lic participation in the form of solicitedcomments and responses from the States,Federal agencies, and other interestedparties were described in the preamble tothe proposed regulation. The EPA hasconsidered carefully all of the commentsreceived and a discussion of these com-ments with the Agency's response theretofollows.

(a) Summary of comments. The fol-lowing responded to the request for com-ments which was made in the preambleto the proposed regulation: Corn Re-fifters Association, American Corn MillersFederation, U.S. Department of Com-merce, Distilled Spirits Council of theUnited States, Inc., and U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture.

Each of the comments received wascarefully reviewed and analyzed. The fol-lowing is a summary of the significantcomments and EPA's response to thosecomments.

(1) Some correspondents endorsed theproposal made to the Administrator bythe Effluent Standards and Water QualityInformation Advisory Committee that adifferent approach be taken in the de-velopment of effluent guidelines.

The committee's proposal is underevaluation as a contribution toward fu-ture refinements on guidelines for someindustries. The committee has indicatedthat their proposed methodology couldnot be developed in sufficient time to beavailable for the current phase of guide-line promulgation, which is proceedingaccording to acourt-ordered schedule. Itspresent state of development does notprovide sufficient evidence to warrantthe Agency's delaying issuance of anystandard in hopes that an alternativeapproach might be preferable.

(2) A commenter pointed out a discrep-ancy in the rationale for the "best prac-ticable" limitations in the corn wet mill-ing subcategory. The Development Docu-ment claimed that the recommendedtechnology, If applied to an existingsource, would result in a monthly averagedischarge of 30 to 50 lbs/MSBu for boththe BOD5 and TSS parameters. The lim-itations, however, are 35 lbs/MSBu ofTSS and 50 lbs/MSBu of BED5. It wasargued that since EPA is only certainthat the 50 lb limit can be attained, theTSS limitation should be changed from35 to 50 lbs/MSBu.

EPA has carefully reviewed this com-ment and found it to be justified. Con-sequently, the best practicable limitationfor TSS in the corn wet milling subcate-gory has been changed from 30 to 50lbs/MSBu. EPA believes that while the 30lb limit might be attainable, the tech-nology is not yet available to achieve thiseffluent level on a routine basis. Cur-rently, many of the existing treatmentsystems exceed 50 lbs of TSS/lMBu butit is the opinion of EPA, that this Is dueto inadequate in-plant controls and op-eration of the treatment systems, and insome cases the discharge of untreatedbarometric cooling water. With proper

operation, and recycling of barometriccooling water where necessary, the lim-itation of 50 lbs of TSS/MSBu is achiev-able end represents a substantial im-provement over the present levels oftreatment.

(3) Industry objected to the methocdEPA used to calculate an average rawwaste load for the corn wet milling sub-category. EPA based its typical raw wasteload on the average raw waste loads forone year at 12 corn wet mills. Industryclaimed that such an average is unfairto more than half the plants in the in-dustry, and i-nores the fact that the rawwaste load can vary by as much as threeto ten times the average of any particu-lar plant.

EPA believes that the method used todevelop the standard raw waste load isfair and reasonable. All 17 plants in theindustry were given the opportunity tosubmit information on the characteris-tics of their waste. Twelve of these plantstransmitted usable Information on theirraw waste load to EPA. Careful evalua-tion of the data showed that these plantscould not be further subcategorlzed onthe basis of size or age of facility, nor onthe basis of product mix. Consequently,a standard raw waste load was calculatedusing an average of the available data,EPA recognized the complexity of thevarious processes of corn wet milling andtherefore, decided that the standard rawwaste load should be based on the broad-est data base available, i.e., an averageof 12 plants, rather than on one or twoof the better operations.

It is true that large fluctuations in rawwaste load may occur In corn wet mills.The variations in raw waste load at anyplant around an average figure are onlyimportant insofar as they affect thetreatment system. As described in sectionVIr of the Development Document, thesevariations can be minimized by properin-plant control and a properly designedand operated treatment system.

(4) Industry also claimed that none ofthe three eaisting treatment plants in thecorn wet milling subcategory could meetthe 1977 standards contrary to the claimsof EPA. It was alleged that one of theseplants operating under a Federal demon-stration grant has shown that It cannotmeet the effluent levels required by thepropozed limitations.

EPA evaluated this demonstrationproject during its initial stages of opera-tion. The treatment plant was found tobe overloaded, and subsequent efforts bythe manufacturEr reduced the raw wasteload normally discharged to the treat-ment system. While pollutant concentra-tions in this effluent were reduced, largequantities of pollutants In barometriccooling water continued to be dischargeduntreated. As discussed in the .Develop-ment Document, plants with barometriccooling water can drastically reduce theirpollutant discharge by recycling thiswater through cooling towers with theblowdown sent-to the treatment system.If this ware done at the above plant, ovenassuming no BOD removal in the coolingtower through biological action, the limi-tations could be achieved. It Is the

FEDEPAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 55-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1974

10512

Agency's opinion that any of the plantsin this subcategory with an adequatetreatment system can meet the effluentlimitations, provided that proper in-plantefforts are made to prevent excess rawwaste from being discharged to the plantwaste water treatment system.

(5) Industry claimed that the costs oftreatment in the corn wet milling sub-category are underestimated and, in par-ticular, the costs of in-plant controlsare not included.

In addition to the comments EPAmade in the preamble to the proposedregulation, the following factors are im-portant. The economic impact analysisof the cost of meeting the proposed limi-tations was based on the construction ofcomplete treatment systems using thebest practicable technology currentlyavailable. This technology is equaliza-tion, activated sludge, and, when neces-sary, recirculating cooling water sys-tems. In the corn wet milling industry,the actual costs of meeting the limita-tions will be less than estimated. Sinceall plants discharging to streams havesome treatment, the cost of meeting the1977 limitations will be reduced by anamount equal to the cost of the systemthey already have in place. The addi-tional treatment may include coolingtowers for recycling barometric coolingwater, and an expanded treatment sys-tem to handle the blowdown from thiscooling tower.

,As far as in-plant controls are con-cerned, the typical plant selected for thecalculation assumed good in-plant con-trol. Some plants in the industry alreadyhave these controls. Others do not andwould have an additional cost depend-ing on the specific circumstances of theplant..

(6) A commenter pointed out that ina few dry corn mills additional process-ing occurs which is not covered in theDevelopment Document. It was arguedthat a few of the larger mill furtherprocess the grits, meal and flour throughexpanders and/or extruders. Additionalwaste waters are generated by air pollu-tion control equipment. Since suchprocessing is not anintegral part of'thebasic milling sequence as described inthe Development Document, such wastesshould be specifically excluded from thefinal regulations.

EPA agrees with this comment and thefinal regulations published below excludewaste waters from air pollution controlequipment on expanders and/or ex-truders in the corn dry milling subcate-gory. Additional limitations to coverthese waste waters cannot be made atthis time for lack of adequate infor-mation.

(b) Revision of the proposed regula-tions prior to promulgation. As a resultof public comments, continuing reviewand evaluation of the proposed regula-tion by EPA, the following changes havebeen made in the regulation.

(1) Sections 406.11, 406.21, 406.31,406.41, 406.51, and 406.61 -entitled "Spe-cialized Definitions." now include refer-ences to general definitions, abbrevia-tions, and methods of analysis in 40 CFR


Part 401 which reduces thd need for somespecialized definitions in this regulation.

(2) The "best practicable" limitationsfor the corn wet milling subategoryhave been changed. The average monthlylimitation for TSS has been raised from35 to 50 lbs/MSBu. This decision wasmade recognizing that colids separationis a difficult problem In this Industry.While EPA feels that this problem issolvable by the methods suggested in theDevelopment Document, sufficient uncer-tainty exists to raise the TSS limitationto the same level as the EOD5. This r.-sults in an effluent concentration of125 mng.1 for a typical plant. The dailymaximum figure is three times theInonthly limitation or 150 lbs/LISBu.

(3) Section 304(b) (1) (B) of the Actprovides for "guidelines" to implementthe uniform national standards of sec-tion 301(b) (1) (A). Thus Congress recog-nized that some flexibility was necessaryin order to take into account the com-plexity of the industrial world with re-spect to the practicability of pollutioncontrol technology. In conformity withthe Congressional intent and in recogni-tion of the possible failure of these regu-lations to account for all factors bcarlngon the practicability of control technol-ogy, it was concluded that some provi-sion was needed to authorize flexibilityin the strict application of the limita-tions contained in the regulation whererequired by special circumstances appli-cable to individual dischargers. Accord-ingly, a provision allowing flexibility inthe application of the limitations repre-senting best practicable control technol-ogy currently available has been addedto each subpart, to account for -pccialcircumstances that may not have beenadequately accounted for when theseregulations were developed.

(4) In the corn dry milling subcate-gory, waste waters from air pollutioncontrol equipment on expanders and ex-truders have been excluded from the lim-itations. Insufficient data exists uponwhich to base limitations. The change isreflected in § 406.20.

(c) Economic impact. The changes tothe regulations mentioned above will notaffect the results of the economic analy-sis 'prepared for the proposed regulation.The only subcategory affected by therevisions Is the corn wet milling subcat-egory. Since the reision to the "bestpracticable" limitations raised the allow-able discharge of TSS for 1977, the cost tobe incurred by industry will be somewhatless than anticipated In the proposedregulations.

(d) Cost-benefit analysis. The detri-mental effects of The constituents ofwaste waters now discharged by pointsources within the grain processing seg-ment of the grain mills point source cat-egory are discussed in section VI of thereport entitled "Development Documentfor Effluent Limitations Guidelines forthe Grain processing Segment of theGrain MIls Point Source Category"(March 1974). It is not feasible to quan-tify In economic terms, particularly ona national basis, the costs resulting from,the discharge of these pollutants to our

10513

Nation's waterways. Nevertheles, as In-dicated In sention VI, the pollutants dis-charged have substantial and damagingimpacts on the quality of water andtherefore on Its capacity to supporthealthy populations of wildlife, ish andother aquatic wildlife and on its suita-bility for industrial, recreational anddrinking water supply uses.

The total cost of implementin- the ef-fluent limitations guidelines includes thedirect capital and operating costs of thepollution control technology employedto achieve compliance, and the indirecteconomic and environmental costs identi-fied, in section Vf and in the supple-mentary repart entitled "Economic Anal-ysis of Proposed Effluent GuidelinesGrain Milling Industry" (August 1973).Implementing the effluent limitationsguidelines will substantially reduce theenvironmental harm which would other-wise be attributable to the continueddischarge of polluted waste waters fromexisting and newly constructed plants inthe grain milling industry. The Agencybelieves that the benefits of thus reducingthe pollutants discharged justify the as-'sozlated costs which, though -ubstantialIn absolute terms, represent a relativelysmall percentage of the total capital in-vestment In the Industry.

(e) Publication of information onprocesse, procedure3, or operatingmethods which result in the elimfnationor reduction of the discharge of pollut-ants. In conformance with the require-ments of C-ction 304(c) of the Act, amanual entitled "Development, Documentfor Mluent Limitations Guidelines andNew Source Performance Standards forthe Grain Processing Segment of theGrain MUl Point Source Category," has'been published and Is available for pur-chi e from the Government PrintingOfce, Washington, D.C. 20401 for anominal fee.

(f) Fina- rulenaLing. In considerationof the foregoing, 40 CFR Chapter I, sub-chapter IIs hereby amended by addinga new Part 400, Grain Mills Point SourceCategory, to read as set forth below. Thisfinal regulation I- promulgated as setforth below and shall be effective May 20,1974.

Dated: March 12, 1974.

JOHN QUALES,Acting Administrator.

Subpart A-Com Wet MHi1n Subategmyee.

400,10 ApplicabIllty; dcz=ptba of the cornwot milling subc3tc.ory.

400.1I Sposlall-d daanit!o=s.03.12 Efluent llmItatlonz guldclLnez repre-

sating tho dcgrco of effluent re-ductlon attainablo by the applica-toa of the b-ee practcable controltchnology currently available.

400.13 Effluent limitationz guidaIne repre-csating the degre of effluentreduction attainable by the appu-cation of the best avaiaMe tech-nology economically achi vable.

400.14 [B--erved]406.15 Stand rds of performance for now

sources.406.10 Pretreafmnt standards for new

rsource3.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 55--WEDNESDAY, MARCi 20, 1974

10514

Subpart B--Corn Dry Milling SubcategorySee.406.20 Applicability; description of the corn

dry milling subcategory.406.21 Specialized definitions.400.22 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation oX the best practicable con-trol technology currently available.

406.23 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

400.24 [Reserved]406.25 Standards of performance for new

sources.400.20 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

Subpart C-Normal Wheat Flour MillingSubcategory

406.30 Applicability; description of the nor-mal wheat flour milling subcate-gory.

406.31 Specialized definitions.406.32 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

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



sources.

Subpart D-BuTgur Wheat Flour MillingSubcategory

406.40 Applicability; description of the bul-gur wheat flour milling subcate-gory.

:406.41 Specialized definitions.406.42 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-


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



sources.

Subpart E--Normal Rice Milling Subcategory

406.50 Applicability, description of the nor-mal rice milling subcategory.

406.51 Specialized definitions:406.02 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-


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



sources.

Subpart F-Parboiled Rice ProcessingSubcategory

406.60 Applicability; description of the par-boiled rice processing subcategory.


Sec.406.61 Specialized definitions.406.62 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable control

4 technology currently available.406.63 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-

senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technol-ogy economically achievable.



sources.

ATrrnoxr=: Sees. 301, 304 (b) and (e),306 (b) and (c), 307(c), Federal Water Pollu-tion Control Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1251,1311, 1314 (b) and (c), 1316 '(b) and (c),1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500.

Subpart A--Cm Wet Milling Subcategory

§ 406.10 Applicability; description ofthe corn wet milling subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting frqm theprocess in which shelled corn is steepedin adilute, solution of sulfurous acid andthen processed by wet means into suchproducts as animal .feed, regular andmodified starches, .corn oil, corn syrup,and dextrose.

§ 406.11 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "corn" shall mean theshelled corn delivered to a plant beforeprocessing.

(c) The term "standard bushel" shallmean a bushel of shelled corn weighing56 pounds.

(d) The abbreviation "MSBu" shallmean 1000 standard bushels.

§ 406.12 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age andl size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, If the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipmentor facilities involved, the process applied,or other such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered in the establish-ment of the guidelines. On the basis of

such evidence or other available infor-mation, the Regional Administrator (orthe State) will make a written findingthat such factors are or are not funda-mentally different for that facility com-pared to those specified in the Develop-ment Document. If such fundamentallydifferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator (or the State)shall establish for the discharger efflu-ent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(b) The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effluent llmitalon

Effluent Averaog o dallycharactedstio Maximum for vau I for. 1

any 1 day conceuiivodays shall not- e~almd-

Metric units (kiogran per 1,000hg of corn)

BOD5 -------------- 2.07 0.61TSS --------------- 2.07 . 9pH ---------------- Within the ranro 0.0 to 0.0,

English units (pounds poe 1,000stdbu of corn)

BOD5 .......... 10 COTSS ............. 150 topH ................ Within the raugo 0.0 to 0.0.

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

'The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutant3 or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the beotavailable technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent llmltntlons

Effluent Averago of dailycharacterlstio Maximum for valus for 10

nay 1 day conmcutlvodays rhall not

exceed-

lHotric units Mk~~onn per 1,0M0 kgof corn)

130DS ---- 1.03 ao-gTSS -........... . .5.11DIE ......... Within the =!aze 0.0 to 0.

EngLeh units (pounds per 1,000stdbu of corn)

B lO .--. o 20TSS...n-- - 50 10

Within the rage 0.0 to .0

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 55-WEDNESDAY, MARCHK 20, 1974


§ 406.14 [Reserved]

§ 406.15 Standards of performance fornew sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

Effluent limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for 30

any I day consecutivedays shall not

exceed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 kgof corn)

BOD5 -.---------- 1.08 0,36T8 .----.----------. 54 .18pH ....-----. Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

English units (pounds per 1,000stdbu of corn)

OD5 -------------- 60 20TSS ---------------- 30 10pH ---------------- Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

§ 406.16 Pretreatment standards fornew sources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the corn wet milling subcate-gory, which is a user of a publicly ownedtreatment works (and which would be anew source subject to section 306 of theAct, if it were to discharge pollutantsto the navigable waters), shall be thestandard set forth in Part 128 of thischapter, except that, for the purpose ofthis section. § 128.133 of this chaptershall be amended to read as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthin 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment Works shall bethe standard of performance for new sourcesspecified in 40 CFR 406.15: Provided, That,if the publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed, in ItsNPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any Incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works shall, except in thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly reduced instringency for that pollutant. '

Subpart B---Corn Dry Milling Subcategory

§ 406.20 Applicability; description ofthe corn dry milling subcategory.

(a) The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges resulting fromthe process in which shelled corn iswashed and subsequently milled by dryprocesses into such products as cornmeal, grits, flour, oil, and animal feed.

(b) The provisions of this subpart donot apply to discharges from subsequentmanufacturing operations to produce ex-panded or extruded feed or feed products.

§ 406.21 Specialized definitions.


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

(b) The term "corn" shall mean theshelled corn delivered to a plant beforeprocessing.

(c) The term "standard bushel" shallmean a bushel of shelled corn weighing56 pounds.

(d) The abbreviation "MTSBu" shallmean 1000 standard bushels.

§ 406.22 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-ministrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to issue NPDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentally dif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment of the guidelines. On thebasis of such evidence or other availableinformation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are not fun-damentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the Devel-opment Document. If such fundamental-ly different factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator (or the State)shall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations In the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

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



any 1 day consecutivedays shall not

exceed-


BOD5 -------------- 0.21 0.07TSS ------------ .18 .06pH . .--------- - Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.


BOD5 ------.------- 12,0 4.0TSS -------------- 10. 5 3.5pit -------------- Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

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

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



any 1 day consecutivedays shell not

eceed-


BOD5 .............. 0.11 0.036T8 -----------------. 054 .018pH ---------------- Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.


BOD -------------- 0 2. 0T8 -------------- -3.0 1.0pH ------ _-------- Within the range 6.0 to 9,0,

§ 406.24 [Reserved]§ 406.25 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:




Metric units (kilograms per 1,000kg of corn)

BODS -------------- -0 0.036T88 . .---------------. 054 .018pIL.------------ Within the range 6.0 to 9,0.


DODS------- &-6. 0 20TSS. . 3.0 1.0pH... 1 ------.. Within the range '6.0 to 9.0.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 55-WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1974

10515



Th pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the corn dry milling subcategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 306 of the Act,if it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in Part 128 of this chapter, ex-cept that, for the purpose of this section,g 128.133 of this chapter shall beamended to read as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthin 40 CF.R 128.131, the pretreatment stand-ard for Incompatible pollutants introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works shallbe the standard of performance for newsources specified in 40 CFR 406.25; Provided,That, if the publicly owned treatment workswhich receives the pollutants is committed,in its NPDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment standard applicable to usersof such treatment works shall, except in thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be correspondingly reduced instringency for that pollutant.

Subpart C-Normal Wheat Flour MillingSubcategory

§ 406.30 Applicability; description -ofthe normal wheat flour milling sub-category.

-The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocesses in which wheat and othergrains are milled by dry processes intoflour and millfeed.§ 406.31 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set 'forth in Part 401 ofthis chapter shall apply to this subpart.§ 406.32 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-couhit all information it was able to col-lect, to develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities involved, the process applied, orother such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors contdered in the estab-lishment of the guidelines. On the basisof such evidence or other available infor-

.2

mation, the Regional Administrator (orthe State) will make a written findingthat such factors are or are not funda-mentally different for that facility com-pared to those specified in the Develop-ment Document. If such fundamentallydifferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger effluent limi-tations in the NPDES permit either moreor less *stringent than the limitationsestablished herein, to the extent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved by theAdministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties which may bedischarged by a point source subject tothe provisions of this subpart after ap-plication of the best practicable controltechnology currently available: Thereshall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.§ 406.33 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable: there shall beno discharge of process waste water pol-lutants to navigable waters.§ 406.34 [Reserved]§ 406.35 Standards of performance for

new sources.The following standards of Ierform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties whichmay be discharged by a new source sub-ject to the provisions of this subpart:There shall be no discharge of processwaste water pollutants to navigablewaters.§ 406.36 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.The pretreatment standards under sec-

tion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinthe normal wheat flour milling subeate-gory, which is a user of a publicly ownedtreatment works (and which would be anew source subject to section 306 of theAct, if it were to discharge pollutantsto the navigable waters), shall be thestandard set forth in Part 128 *of thischapter, except that, for the purpose ofthis section, § 128.133 of this chaptershall be amended to read as follows

In addition to the prohibitions set forthn 40 CPRn 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment works shall bethe standard of performance for new sourcesspecified in,40 CFR 406.35: Provided, That, ifthe publicly owned treatment works whichreceives the pollutants is committed, in its

NPDES permit, to remove a specified percent-age of any Incompatible pollutant, the pre-treatment standard applicablo to neri ofsuch treatment worl's shball, except In the eamteof standards providing for no dicharge ofpollutants, be correspondingly reduced litstringency for that pollutant.

Subpart D-Bulgur Wheat Flour MillingSubcategory

§406.40 Applicability; description ofthe bulmur wheat flour milling sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocess In which wheat is parboiled,dried, and partially debranned In theproduction of bulgur.§ 406.41 Specialized definitions,

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

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

(b) The term "wheat" shall meanwheat delivered tr a plant beforeprocessing.

(c) The term "standard bushel" shallmean a bushel of wheat weighing (10pounds.

(d) The abbreviation "MSBu" 1hallmean 1,000 standard bushels.

406.42 Effluent limitations vuidellnvirepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations s:tforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing proces.,s,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the Industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It Is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this Industry. An in-dividual discharger or other Interestedperson may submit evidence to the R1, -gional Administrator (or to the Stde,if the State has the authority to is'sueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities Involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors conx-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available Information, the IZQ-glonal Administrator (or the State) wlmake a written finding that such factornare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-ified In the Development Document, Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Adminl.-trator (or the State) shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or lessstringent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors, Suchl


10516


limitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiateprqceedings to revise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-blish the quantity or quality of pollut-ants or pollutant properties, controlledby this section, which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the provi-sions of this subpart after application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available:

Effluent limitatlons

Effluent Average of dallycharaeteristicC J imum fer values for 30

any I day conseutivedays shall notexeed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,0)kg of wheat)

BOD5 -------------- 0.025 0.053"SS --------------- . 02a5 .MpL ----- ------- Within the range6.0 to 9.0.

English units (pounds per 1.000stdbu of wheat)

BODS --------------- L 0.50TSS ---------------- L50 .50pH. ------------ Within the range .0 to 9.0.

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

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

Efflunt limitatlons

Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Mafximum for values for 30


exceed-

Metric units (kilograms per 1,000N kg of wheat)

BOD5 ------------- 0.015 0.035TSS ----------------. 0099 .033pH ------------ Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

English units (pounds per 1,0)0stdhu of wheat)

BOD5. ------------- 0.90 0.50TSS. -------------- .6) .20p.. ------------.... .Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

§ 406.44 [Reserved]§ 406.45 Standards of performance for

new sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity, or qualityof pollutants or pollutant properties,controlled by this section, which may bedischarged by a new source subject tothe provisions of this subpart:

Eflunt lltations

Effluent Avc,:zoof 3I1ych maetertlo Maximum f-r vueC3 kx 3 3

any 1 d3y Co,-cutIvodays rhal not

Metio nils (kUlEms r:r 1,@0W1'r of ,hmt) ,

BOD5 ......... 015 0.005TSS . )9 .Oa33p...t. Witin itho rmZ 0.0 to 9.0

Eua t{h units (P-=43d pr iO00

BOD ......... 0. 0.,9

pIL ................ Withln tho eraz 0.0 to Q.0.


The pretreatment standards under sec-tion 307 (c) of the Act for a source with-in the bulgur wheat flour milling sub-category, which Is a uer of a publiclyowned treatment works (and whichwould be a new source subject to section306 of the Act, if it were to discharge pol-lutants to the navigable waters), shallbe the standard set forth in Part 128 ofthis chapter, except that, for the pur-pose of this section, § 128.133 of thischapter shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addition to the prohlbitions ret forthin 40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment Gtand-ard for Incompatible pollutants introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works challbe the standard of performance for newsources specified in 40 CFR 40.4S: Prordded,That. if the publicly owned treatment wori-which receives the pollutants Is committed.in its N1PDES permit, to remove a vpecifIcdpercdntage of any Incompatible pollutant.the pretreatment standard applicable to uorsof such treatment works shall. except In thecase of standards providing for no dtechnrgeof pollutants, be correspondingly reduced Instringency for that pollutant.

Subpart E-Normal Rice MillingSubcategory

§406.50 Applicability; description ofthe normal rice milling subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocess in which rice Is cleaned andmilled by dry processes.

§ 406.51 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

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

§ 406.52 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by te applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into qc-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,

raw materials, manufacturing processes.products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levelsestabliehed. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An in-dividual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to the Re-gional Administrator (or to the State,if the State has the authority to issueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theproc=s applied, or other 'such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-ified in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Adminis-trator (or the State) shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or lessstringent than the limitations estab-lished herein, to the extent dictated bysuch fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or initi-ate proceedings to revise theseregulations.

(b) The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovislons of this subpart after applica-tion of the best practicable control tech-nology currently available: There shallbe no discharge of process waste waterpollutants to navigable waters.§ 406.53 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of efflumtreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the lest available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after applica-tion of the best available technology eco-nomlcally achievable: there shall be nodischarge of process waste water pollu-tants to navigable waters.§ 406.54 [Reserved]§ 406.55 Standards of performance for

new sourcem.The following stindards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties whichmay be discharged by a new source sub-


10517


ject to the provisions of this subpart:there shall be no discharge of processwaste water pollutants to navigablewaters.§ 406.56 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.The pretreatment standards under sec-

tion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinthe normal rice milling subcategory,which is a user of a publicly owned treat-ment works (and which would be a newsource subject to section 300 of the Act,if it were to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth in Part 128 of this Chapter, ex-cept that, for the purpose of this section,§ 128.133 of this Chapter shall beamended to read as follows-:

In addition to the prohibitions set forthin 40 CFR 128,131, the pretreatment stand-ard for Incompatible pollutants introducedinto a publicly owned treatment works shallbe the standard of performance for newsources specified in 40 CM 406.55 Provtdea,Tha t if the publicly owned treatment workswhich receives the pollutaltn Is committed,In its NMDES permit, to remove a speciLedpercentage of any incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment standard applicable tousers of such treatment works shall, exceptin the case of standards providing forno dis-charg of pollutants, be correspondinglyreduced in stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart F-Parboiled Rice ProcessingSubcategory

§ 406.60 Applicability; description ofthe parboiled, rice processing sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting fromthe process in which rice is cleaned,cooked and dried before being milled.

§ 406.61 spedalized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

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

(b) The term "rice" shall mean ricedelivered to a plant before processing.

(e) The abbreviation "cwt shall meanhundred weight.§ 406.62 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information it was able to col-lect develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry suotego-rizatlon and efuent levels established. ItIs, however, possible that data whichwould affect these llmitatlons have notbeen available and, as a result, these limi-

tatlons should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An ladividual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, If the State hasthe authority to issue NPDFS permits)that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities involved, the process applied,or othersuch factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors considered in the estab-lishment of the guidelines. On the basisof such evidence or other available infor-mation, the Regional Administrator (orthe State) will make a written findingthat such factors are or are not funda-mentally different for that facility com-pared to those specified in the Develop-ment Document. If such fundamentallydifferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator (or the State)shall establish for the discharged efiluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or Initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(W) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity dr quality 9f pollutahitsor pollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effuent lImi[ttions

Effluent Awerag etfdailyehmraeterAste Maxtmum for u for 39

any I day ense utvedays shalt net

Metre units Oklora=m per 1,00kg ofr ice)

RoD 5....... 0.42 04Ts5.........24 0p- -----... Wwthin the range 0.0 to 90.

tbU~ nitsurrh ndred-

BO ............ -0.042 0,014T5...---------.04 .00pR --------... Wihin the range (O to 9".

§ 406.63 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluent

reduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisionsof this subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

Eflunt litt~atios r ,

Emfuent Mvrg of dailychant"ertt M Mxnr for vaigtfar 2'

u d of tWilln

Medount .... ruv per f1,(

Dot'--------art .03

T$5............... . . 3To$ ........ 0,9 0.09TI$5................0hi *h 003k t~

§ 406.64 (Reserved]§ 406.65 Standards of perfornumne for

new sourcesThe following standards of perform-

ance establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

flunt limitationsEfflunt Averg ttially3

chaterialo MArwtu for vt for 34any I day cotwrr allv

BOD ..... atl Iat tTM .......... 03p................W ithin the twigo O.O Iv O

wet t oa

$O......, 009pH......... Within the range 0.0 tb t

§ 406.66 Pretreatment standardtq fornew sourc".

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the parboiled rice processing ,ub-category, which Is a user of a publiclyowned treatment works (and whichwould be a new source subject to ce-tion 306 of the Act; If It were to dis-charge pollutants to the navigablewaters), shall be the standard set fortllin part 128 of this chapter, except that,for the purpose of this section, § 128.133of this chapter shall be amended to readas follows:

In additlon to the prohibitions set forth in40 OM =31, the pretreatmont standardfor Incompatible pollutants introduced intoa publicly owned treatment worlw shall hWthe standard of performance for new oturcesspecified in 40 MR 4006: Provided, That,if the publicly owned treatment wort whichreceives the pollutants is committed, in ItoNPDS permit, to remove a speciict pr-centago of any Incompatiblo pollutant, thopretreatment standard applicablo to u.-or ofsuch treatment works shall, e~cept In thecase of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutants, be corrospondinaly reduced instringency for that pollutant.

[FR Doc.74-0280 Plied 3-iO-74;8:45 aun


10518

Documents

Grain Mills Effluent Guidelines - Final rule - March 20, 1974 · new sources within the corn wet milling, corn dry milling, normal wheat flour milling, bulgur wheat flour milling,