Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines - Final Rule - … › sites › production › files › 2015-07 › ... · 2015-07-13 · 36186 HeinOnline -- 39 Fed. Reg. 36186

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of the EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY[FL 274-51

SUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDEUNES ANDSTANDARDS

PART 423-STEAM ELECTRIC POWERGENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

On March 4, 1974, the EnvirdnmentalProtection Agency (EPA or Agency) pub-lished a notice of proposed rulemakingannouncing its intention to establishlimitations on the discharge of pollutantsby existing and new point cources withinthe steam electric power generating cate-gory as well as pretreatment standardsfor new sources within that category. (39R 8294)The purpose of thi& notice is to estab-

lish final effluent limitations and guide-lines for existing sources and standardsof performance and pretreatment stand-ards for new sources in the steam electricpower generating category by amending40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N to add anew Part 423. This final rulemaking ispromulgated pursuant to sections 301,304 (b) and (c), 306 (b) and (c), 307(c)and 501(a) of the Federal Water Pollu-tion Control Act, as amended, (the Act);33 USC 1215, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c),1316 (b) and (c), 1317(c), and 1361(a),86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L. 92-500. Regu-lations regarding cooling water intakestructures for all categories of pointsources under section 316(b) of the Actwill be promulgated in 40 CFR Part 402.

The legal basis, methodology and fac-tual conclusions which support promul-gation of this regulation were set forth insubstantial detail in the notice of publicreview procedures published August 6,1973 (38 FR 21202) and thenotice of pro-posed rulemaking for the steam electricpower generating point source category.n addition, the regulation as proposed

was supported by two other documents;(1) the document entitled "DevelopmentDocument for Proposed Effluent Limita-tions Guidelines and New Source Perfor-mance Standards for the Steam ElectricPower Generating Point Source Cate-gory" (March 1974) and (2) the docu-ment entitled "Economic Analysis ofProposed Effluent, Guidelines . SteamElectric Powerplants" (March 1974).Both of these documents were madeavailable to the public and circulated tointerested persons at approximately thetime of publication of the notice of pro-posed rulemaking.

(a) Summary of public participation.Prior to publication of the notice of

proposed rulemaking an initial draft ofthe Development Document was distrib-uted to several Federal agencies, allState and Territorial pollution controlagencies, industrial trade associationsand conservation organizations. Com-ments on that draft report were solicitedand over a hundred organizations, utilitycompanies and members of the publicresponded. The major comments receivedand the Agency's response were describedin the notice of proposed rulemaking (38FR 8301-8303).

Interested persons were again invitedto participate in the rulemaking by sub-mitting written comments within 90 daysof the date of publication of the pro-posed regulation. In response td requestsfor additional time the period for publiccomment was extended for 23 more days(39 FR 17449).

Thereafter, in order to afford an op-portunity for those who had submittedcomments to explain the substance oftheir position in detail and to determinethe Agency's interpretation of and basisfor its proposals, the Agency convened apublic hearing on July 11 and 12, 1974,(39 FR 24030). Agency offisias, andmembers of its technical staff, partici-pated in two days of discussion with rep-resentatives of the utility industry andenvironmentalist groups.

(b) Summary of comments.The following responded to the re-

quest for written comments contained inthe notice of proposed rulemaking:United States Department of Agricul-ture; United States Atomic Energy Com-mission; United States Department ofCommerce; Federal Power Commission;United States Department of the Inte-rior; Tennessee Valley Authority; Stateof California; State of Colorado; Stateof Illinois; State of Indiana; Stateof Iowa; State of Maryland; Stateof Michigan; State of Minnesota;State of Ohio; State of New York;Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Stateof Texas; State of Wisconsin; Honor-able David R. Bowen; HonorableOmar Burleson; Honorable Bob Casey;Honorable Harold T. Johnson; HonorableEdmund S. Muskie; Honorable CharlesWilson; Honorable Jim Wright; OmahaPublic Power District; Pacific Gas andElectric Company; Texas Electric Serv-ice Company; Missistippi Power andLight Company; Arkansas Power andLight Company; West Associates; Cityof Colorado Springs; Nebraska PublicPower District; American Electric PowerService Corporation; The Dayton Powerand Light Company; International OzoneInstitute, Inc.; Virginia Electric andPower Company; City Pubhc ServiceBoard of San Antonio, Texas; New YorkPower Pool; Resources Conservation Co.;The Toledo Edison Company; FordMotor Company; Baltimore Gas andElectric Company; Jersey Central Powerand Light Company; Metropolitan Edi-son Company; Pennsylvania ElectricCompany; National Electric ReliabilityCouncil; Public Service Company of NewMexico; United nluminating; CopperDevelopment Association, Inc.; The Cin-cinnati Gas and Electric Company; Il-linois Power Company; IndianapolisPower and Light Company; Tri-StateGeneration and Transmission Associa-tion, Inc.; Western Illinois Power Co-operative, Inc.; Alabama Electric Coop-erative, Inc.; Wisconsin Public 'ServiceCorporation; N.W. Electric Power Co-operative, Inc.; American CyanamidCompany; Carolina Power and LightCompany; Foote Mineral Company; Co-operative Farm Chemicals Association;Pollution and Environmental Problems;

Ebasco Services Incorporated; BrazesRiver Authority; Mid-Continent AreaPower Pool; Dr. Charles C. Coutant; Mr.Basil A. Bonk; Diamond ShamrockChemical Company; Offshore Power Sys-tems; Hawailan Electric Company, Inc.;United for Survival; Mr. James R. Har-ing; Nalco Chemical Company; DowChemical U.S.A.! Dairyland Power Co-operative; St. Joseph Light and PowerCompany; Burns and McDonnell En-gineering Company; Bethlehem SteelCorporation; The Metropolitan WaterDistrict of Southern California.

Washington Public Power SupplySystem; Wright Chemical Corporation;Mr. James W. Errant, Jr.; Texas WaterConservation Association; Ms. ConstanceA. Partlous, League of Women; Mr. DavidAllen; Mr. David B. Harvey; Mrs. MarvinHalye; Mr. Bruce Haflich; Mr. SamuelLabouisse, Jr.; Connie Economy; Mr.Christopher A. Libby; Mr. Zachary A.Smith; Mr. Marion L. Sanford; Mr.Henry Peck; American Association ofUniversity Women; Ms. Lea P. Tonlin;Illinois Paddling Council; Portland Gen-eral Electric Company; League of WomenVoters; Mr. Roger H. Miller; Rohmn andHaas Company; Mr. M. David Burghardt;Calgon Corporation; Stone and WebsterEngineering Corporation; The MichiganRiparian, Inc.; Olin Water Services;Florida Power and Light Company; Mrs.Martha K. Rudnckli; Don and LyndaJohnson; Mr. Lawrence D. Bahr; Mr.Harry L. Stout; Betz Laboratories, Inc.;Save the Dunes Council; Mr. and Mrs.John N. Lally; United Refining Com-pany; Mr. J. C. Berghoff; Mr. EdwardG. Talbot; Mr. Harlan Sandberg; Mr.Stephen C. Grade; Mr. Scott M. Bailey;Mr. David M. Peterson; Mr. DavidLevine; Mr. Don Puriton; A. T. Economyand Tenya Economy; County of Monroe,New York; Mr. Steve Kraatz; Burns andRoe, Inc.; Mr. R. Fenton Rood; AlaskaCenter for the Environment; Mrs. MarioB. Pettit; General Electric Company;Duke Power Company; Airco Alloys andCarbide; Johnson and Anderson, Inc.;Utah Power and Light Company; Minne-sota Pollution Control Agency; MiddleSouth Services, Inc.; Natural ResourcesDefense Council, Inc.; Lake MichiganFederation; Mead; ECAR; Salt RiverProject; Houston Lighting and PowerCompany; Kansas City Power and LightCompany; Duquesene Light; Ohio EdisonCompany; Louisiana Power and Light;Arizona Public Service Company; Con-solidated Edison Company of New York,Inc.; Wisconsin Electric Power Company;Toledo Edison; Arkansas Electric Coop-erative Corporation; Northern StatesPower Company; Plains Electric Gener-ation and Transmission Cooperative,Inc.; Houghton Cluck Coughlin andRiley; Consumers Power Company;Bechtel Power Corporation; BuckeyePower Incorporated; Public Service Com-pany of Colorado; Association of Cali-fornia Water Agencies; New OrleansPublic Service, Inc.; Mnnkota Power Co-operative, Inc.; Associated Electric Co-operative; Continental Can Company,Inc.; Niagara Mohawk Power Corpora-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36186

HeinOnline -- 39 Fed. Reg. 36186 1974

tion; -Columbus and Southern Ohio Elec-tric Company; Dolph Briscoe; Governorof Texas; San Diego Gas and ElectricCompany; Quirk, Lawler and MatuskyEngineers; Department of Water andPower of the City of Los Angeles; BasinElectric Power Cooperative; Businessand Professional People for the PublicInterest; Commonwealth Edison; GulfPower Company; Atlantic City Electric;Southern Services, Inc.; Union ElectricCompany; E duPont deNemours andCompany; Tucson Gas and Electric Com-pany; California Farm Bureau Federa-tion; Regional Planning Council; Mr.Mayne E. Bolling; University of Texas;Mr. & Mrs.-William Morlock; Ms. AliceThornycroft; Mr. & Mrs. Fred and PeggyMcAllister; Mrs. Robert Burke; Ms. Cath-.erine Benner; Mr. Frank Lahr; 'r. &Ms. Robert Upton; Dr. & Mrs. DeanAsasselin; Dr. &Mtrs. D. Steinberg; SouthTexas, Electric Cooperative, Inc.; OlinBrass; Eastern Iowa Light and PowerCooperative, Shoreline Garden Club;Southern California Edison Company;Mr. Lawrence C. Frederick; Edison Elec-tric Institute; The American PublicPower Association; -National Rural EIec-tric Cooperative Association; The UtilityWater Act Group.

The most significant comments re-ceived, and the Agency's responses tothose comments, are summarized below.The factual basis for the Agency's con-clusions will be set forth in substantiallygreater detail than is practicable here inthe "Development Document for EffluentLimitations Guidelines and New SourcePerformance Standards for the SteamElectric Power Generating Point SourceCategory" whichwill be published as soonas possible.

(1) Commenters urged that theAgency make explicit in the regulationsthat the numerical limitations on thedischarge of pollutants were merely ad-visory and that the States or RegionalAdministrators retain the discretion toimpose either more or less stringentlimitations in individual permits basedon an independent reevaluation of thefactors listed in section 304(b).

The Agency does not believe that Con-gress intended it to promulgate only ad-visory rules nor that the Act envisionsa wide-ranging reassessment of all of thetechnical, economic and environmentalconsiderations taken into account by theAgency during this extended rulemakingprocess.

In the Agency's view, the Act con-templates a careful analysis of the wastewater discharges of each industry and

--the technology available to abate thesedischarges to the levels prescribed inzections 301 and 306. The Agency is ob-ligated to consider, not only technical

-feasibility, but the -cost of achievingspecific effluent reductions, and theeconomic and environmental con-sequences of doing so. On the basis ofthis analysis, the Agency believes, Con-ress intended it to establish specific andobjective allowances for pollutant dis-charge for various subcategories withineach industry, the categories themselves


being defined on the basis of differencesin the production methods which in-fluence the engineering feasibility of par-ticular treatment methods as well as therelative significance as to that subcate-gory of the other factors enumerated insections 304(b) and 306. Once these de-terminations have been nmade, however,-the limitations are to be applied on auniform basis to all plants within thesubcategory.

The Agency, over the past year and ahalf, has assembled and considered ex-tensive information on the electric utilityindustry and the water pollution prob-lems associated with generation of elec-tric power. On the basis of this informa-tion It has prescribed varying require-ments for the control of thermal andchemical pollution from plants of differ-ing ages, sizes, present cooling tech-nologies, and locations. To the extentthat information has not been availableto the Agency which could affect theselimitations as applied to individualunits, the limitations may be modified asto that unit in accordance with the pro-cedure established by 40 CFR 423.12,423.22, 423.32 and 423.42. This provisionrepresents, in the Agency's vlew, a re-sponsible reconciliation between thestatutory emphasis on -miformity andthe diversity inherent In a large andcomplex industry. To expand the flexi-bility afforded by this provision tothe degree recommended- by some In-dustry representatives would destroythe statutory scheme of uniform treat-ment of similar plants and Impose aninsuperable and redundant burden onthe resources of the Agency's regionalpermitting offices and those of State pol-lution control agencies.

(2) An industry representative con-tended that the term "best" technologyshould be interpreted to mean that whichIs "most productive of social good".

Sections 304 and 306 direct the Admin-istrator first to identify the most effec-tive technologies in reducing water pol-lution and thereafter take into accountspecified factors e.g., nonwater qualityenvironmental effects of a standard aswell as costs to the industry. The Agency.has identified closed cycle evaporativecooling as a technology which is clearlythe most efficient means of virtuallyeliminating heated water discharges. Itis.certainly available, since It is in wide-spread use in the industry at presentand for both economic and environ-mental reasons newer plants are Increas-ingly employing one of several alterna-tive modes of closed cycle evaporativecooling, Le., mechanical draft towers,natural draft towers and cooling ponds.

The Agency has, however, also givencareful attention to each of the factorswhich the statute directs it to consider.Thus, because of the time in years thatIt takes to design, construct and placeinto operation the various types of cool-ing towers and because of the necessityfor ensuring the reliability of electri-cal generation over a limited time spanfor a very large generating capacity thatwould be affected by 1977, the Agency

36187

has concluded that no additional re-straint on heat represents the best prac;ticable control technology curently avail-able.

Moreover, taking into account factorsspecified in 304(b) (2). the Agency hasdetermined closed cycle cooling to repre-sent the best available technolo-y eco-nomically achievable for only specificsubcategories of the electric utility in-dustry.

(3) The most fundamental criticismof the Agency's approach was that ithad not estimated the improvement innational water quality attendant on con-version to closed-cycle evaporative cool-ing and had not attempted to assign amonetary value to that improvement. Arelated contention frequently advancedwas that had this been done, the eco-nomlc benefits of requiring most existingunits to retrofit closed-cycle cooling sys-tems would be shown to be substantiallyless than the costs.

The law under which the Agency haspromulgated this regulation (and hasor will promulgate over 50 additionalsets of regulations for other industries)does not require that the ultimate socialbenefits which reduction in industrialpollution of the Nation's waters will pro-duce be quantified in economic terms.The Congress, in enacting that law, madethe fundamental legislative Judgmentthat the benefits of clean water justiied'Increasingly stringent levels of controLThe statutory task of the Agency is toIdentify the waste treatment measureswhich are technologically available andto Impose limitations consistent withthat technology and with the considera-tions of cost, economic achievability,energy consumption and other environ-mental concerns which are specified inthe Act. While a "balancing" of theseconsiderations against the reduction ofwater pollution Is implicit in the statu-tory framework, the proper balance inany case may focus on the objective de-gree of efiluerit reduction and not on aprojection of the associated improve-ment in the physical environment, towhich dollar values have been assigned

An industry group did conduct suchan exercise, the results of which weresubmitted to the Agency as a portion ofIts comments. On the basis of those re-sults, the groijp recommended that theAgency subcategorize the industry so asto exclude all units-for which the costof closed-cycle cooling exceeded 1 millper kilowatt hour. This decisional rule.which would exclude virtually all exist-ing units from thermal control while re-quiring most new plants to employclozed-cycle cooling, was derived fromthe Industry's cost benefit analysis andrepresented vhat the commenters con-cluded was the maximum reasonable costwhich was justified by its calculation ofthe benefits to the aquatic environmentresulting from closed-cycle cooling. Thisanalysis consisted of a blological model-inag study purporting to estimate the en-vironmental improvement associated withreduction of thermal pollution and a re-lated effortto (1) assignmonetary values




to the predicted increase in fish popula-tions and (2) compare this value to an es-timated cost of closed cycle cooling de-rived from a consulting engineering firmreport and estimates supplied by specificutilities.

The Agency has not adopted the sug-&ested 1 mill per kilowatt-hour cost basisas its principal analytical tool. Discussionof the biological model during the publichearing held on July 11 and 12, 1974, re-vealed serious deficiencies in the method-ology by which it was developed and ap-plied. Since that modelserved as a _,sisfor calculation of economic benefits at-tributable to the abatement of wasteheat discharges, inadequacies in thatanalysis cast sufficient doubt on the sub-sequent estimate of economic benefitsthat the Agency could not responsiblyrely upon rules derived from it in pro-mulgating national regulations of thissignificance.

Moreover, there appeared to be consid-erable controversy as to ,whether thequantification of the economic value ofchanges in aquatic community structureemployed satisfactory methods of meas-uring economic value and whether it in-cluded values for social benefits not com-prehended by the commercial marketprice or imputed recreational value ofcertain fish species at the highest trophiclevel. No account was taken in either thephysical or the economic study of thedamage to aquatic communities from en-trainment in once-through cooling sys-tems. While this reglation is directed tothe control of effluent discharges, anycomplete analysis of the benefits of con-version to closed-cycle cooling systemsshould include an estimate of these bene-fits which are inseparably related to thedirect benefits of lowered heat discharge.Finally, the national costs of installingand operating closed-cycle cooling sys-tems employed in the commenters' anal-ysis were not only higher than the Agen-cy's initial estimates but higher thanthe Agency's present estimate of thatcost.

However, while the Agency did not de-velop subcategories on the basis of thisspecific rule, it carefully considered thecost of thermal control in determiningthe portions of the industry to which itshould apply. Whereas the regulation asproposed would have applied to nearlyhalf the units now operating with once-through cooling or expected to be in lineby 1978 with once-through systems, thepromulgated regulation will qpply to lessthan ten percent of such units. TheAgency estimates that the capital cost ofits original proposal would, without ac-counting for exemptions under section316(a), have aggregated by 1983 $11.8billion, expressed in constant 1974 dol-lars. The comparable cost of meetingthe thermal controls required by therevised regulation is estimated to be $5.2billion. And, while particular units maybe required to incur costs in excess of 1mill per kilowatt-hour, the Agency esti-mates that the capital and operatingcost of installing closed-cycle cooling atall plants covered by the regulation(without taking exemptions under sec-

tion 316(a) into account) will averageconsiderably less than I mill per kilowatthour by 1983, expressed in constant 1974dollars.

The capital and operating costs of eventhe revised thermal limitations are largein absolute terms. The Agency neverthe-less, has concluded that they are reason-able in light of the environmental risks ofhbat addition to aquatic systems, the re-cent dramatic increase in both size andwaste heat rejection of individual gen-erating units, and the projected expan-sion of national generating capacity.

(4) Some commenters observed thatheat is a fundamental property of mat-ter and should not be directly regulated.Instead, they suggested that the relevantconcept is water temperature: specifi-cally, the temperature of the receivingwater body.

"Heat" is specifically defined as a pol-lutant by section 502 (6) of the Act. Whilethe effect of heat on aquatic systems istypically investigated in terms of altera-tions in the receiving water temperature,the cause of those alterations is the ad-dition of water whose internal energy, orheat content, has been increased by Itspassage through condensers. The per-formance of technology in reducing theheat rejected to receiving waters is easilyand uniformily measured in units whichexpress the heat content, I.e., BTU's orJoules.

In any event, the regulations do notproscribe the discharge of heat. in ab-solute terms, but rather in rElation tothe heat added by the powerplant. Thesignificance of discharges of water at thespecified temperature, in terms of im-pact on the aquatic community at anyparticular site, may of coursq be thesubject of inquiry in proceedings undersection 316(a) of the Act which, unlikethis regulation, is designed to Essess theenvironmental impact of the heated dis-charge in specific instances.

(5) Many of the comments assertedthat the Agency's subcategorization ofthe industry was inadequate. In essence,the commenters asserted that the Agencyhad not taken into account a variety offactors which could, at specific locations,increase the cost of complying with theproposed thermal limitations or entailsignificant adverse effects on other as-pects of the environment.

The Agency has reviewed the baseson which the thermal limitations weredetermined to be applicable to units withdiffering operating character.tics, cli-matic conditions, and site related fea-tures. Additional distinctions amongunits have been made as a result of thisreview. A very large number of factorswere suggested as potential criteria forexemption from thermal control. To ad-dress them in an orderly manner requiresthat those which serve explicitly or im-plicitly as a basis for distinctions in theapplicability of' the requirement forclosed-cycle evaporative cooling be dis-cussed first.

(A) AGE

The cost, expressed in relation to powergenerated, is inversely related to the

number of years of service life remainingfor a particular generating units. Thatis, the shorter the remaining useful lifeover which the cost of the cooling systemmay be amortized, the greater will be thepercentage of the capital cost chargedagainst each unit of power generated.Moreover, the shorter the remaining use-ful life, the less heat will be rejected tothe environment particularly since manyolder units traditionally operate onlyduring periods of higher demand. Ac-cordingly, the capital cost expressed asa function of units of heat removed willbe greater for older plants.

In addition, however the absolute costof retrofitting existing once-throughunits with closed-cycle cooling Is sub-stantially greater than Is the cost of in-stalling cooling equipment at new units.An exemption cast in terms of remainingservice life accomodates this disparity butdoes so only in the most extreme caes.

In order to avoid the additional costsof conversion of older units to clozed-cycle cooling to the maximum degreeconsistent with the protection of the en-vironment, the Agency has expanded theexemption based on age. No unit placedinto operation before January 1, 1970 willbe required to meet the limitations on thedischarge of heat. Of the units placedinto operation between January 1, 1970and January 1, 1974 only the largestbaseload units (i.e., those of 500 mega-watt capacity or greater) will be subjectto control.

The Agency was urged to exempt allexisting units from thermal control, re-quiring closed-cycle cooling only of newunits. Because of the long lead timesrequired for design and construction ofpowerplants, particularly nuclear units,and the definition of the terms "newsource" and "construction" in section 306of the Act, this would have resulted Inconfining applicability of the regulationto units which will not commence opera-tion until the end of the decade. More-over, the units placed into service sincethe start of this year and those sched-uled for completion during the next sev-eral years are typically large units.Adopting a "new source" cutoff wouldexempt units exceeding 1000 megawatts,some of which will still be operating, anddischarging heat, past the year 2000. Inview of the extended periods of timeduring which these plants would be oper-a.-ng and discharging heat, the Agencyconcluded that they should remain sub-ject to thermal control.

(B) SiznThere are a very large nunber of small

units (defined by the Federal PowerCommission as units in plants of 25 meg-awatts or less and In systems of 150 meg-awatts total capacity or less). Yet thesesystems and units represent only a verysmall percentage of the total Installedgenerating capacity In the United States.Moreover, the potential for higher costsdue to site specific peculiarities at anygiven unit could be expected to be bal-anced by more favorably located unitsin a larger utility system. In very smallsystems, this expectation of counterbal-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36188



ancing unit costs is less-justiflable andthe costs of meeting the thermal limitsmay not be economically achievable. Onthis basis the Agency proposed an ex-emption from the thermal limitations de-fining best practicable control tech-nology currently available for existingsma]t units and systems.

The exemption has been extended toapply to the thermal limits required bythe best available technology economi-cally achievable, in order to preclude thenecessity of retrofitting such small units.

The promulgated regulation makes a-second distinction based on rated ca-pacity, or size. The effect of the revisionto the regulation described above is toexempt from controls on thermal dis-charge all units operating before Janu-ary 1, 1974, except for units of 500 mega-watts or greater. In the case of such verylarge units, the regulation imposes con-trol on those placed into operation onor after January 1, 1970. An analysis ofa survey of 60 plants submitted by anindustry representative during the com-ment period indicates that the capitalcost of retrofitting units placed intoservice-after Janwry 1, 1970, is inverselycorrelated with size. That is, the cost ona per kilowatt basis of installing a me-chanical draft cooling tower at a largeunit, other factors being equal, is typi-cally less than that incurred by smallerunits. -A-500 megawatt capacity unit's costs

are approximately the average costs ofall units included in the survey; costswill decline below the average as the sizeof the unit increases.

Units of this size which are now lessthan five years old may be expected to beoperating for another 30 years. In viewof this extensive remaining service life,the relatively lower retrofitting costs, andthe larger volumes of heated water dis-charged, the Agency has concluded thatthe largest units coming on line since1970 should be included while smallerinits of comparable age, should not.

(C) CAPACITY UsToiZA=ONAll generating units do not produce

power at their full capacity at all times.There are three major classifications ofpowerplants based on the degree towhich their rated capacity is utilized onan annual basis. Baseload units are de-signed to run at near full capacity al-most continuously. Peaking units areoperated to supply electricity duringperiods- of maximum system demand.Units which are operated for intermedi-ate service between the extremes of base-load and peaking are termed cyclingunits.

Generally accepted definitions termunits generating 60 percent or more oftheir annual capacity as -baseload, those

- generating less than 20 percent as peak-Ing, and those between -20 and 60 per--cent as cycling.

Most large units (over 300 megawattscapacity) are baseload units. Baseloadunits provide approximately 80 to 90percent'of the Nation's electric powerand, account, therefore, for approxi-

mately the same percentage of wasteheat. Because of their large size and highlevel of utilization, uncontrolled heateddischarges from these units are gen-erally considered to pose the greatest en-vironmental risk. And because of theirgreater power output, the costs of retro-fitting cooling systems to baseload unitsis considerably lower In mills per kilo-watt hour than costs for peaking orcycling units.

Peaking units account for le-s thanone percent of total effluent heat fromthe industry. Moreover, the cost per unitof production for thermal control Isthree to four times that of baseloadcosts. On this basis, commenters urgedthe Agency to exclude existing peakingand cycling units from thermal controland the Agency essentially has done soin the regulation promulgated today.

Though there is no explicit exemptionbased on capacity utilization, the com-bined effect of the exemptions predica-ted on age and size will effectively ex-clude almost all existing units operatingat substantially reduced capacityfactors.

Capacity utilization is related to age.With few exceptions, units begin opera-tion as baseload units. As they becomeolder and relatively less efilcient, theyare replaced by newer more efficientbaseload units and reduced to cyclingservice. As they near the end of theirservice life they are employed as peakingunits. By confining the coverage of thethermal limitations to units less thannine motiths old (except for those of 500megawatts capacity or greater), theAgency has, in effect, excluded low capac-ity utilization units. Virtually all unitswhich have come on line.since Janu-ary 1, 1970 which are In excess of 500megawatts capacity are Intended to beoperated as baseload units at the timethe conversion to closed-cycle must beeffected.(D) U=rrs W= Ex=.n CLOSun-CYCLE

COOLING SYSrzsSome commenters suggested that units

with existing closed-cycle systems em-ploying hot-side blowdown be exemptedfrom the requirement of cold-side blow-down.

The Agency agrees that incrementalcosts of converting to cold-side blow-down for units which already haveclosed-cycle systems employing hot-sideblowdown is not justified in light of thesmall reduction in thermal dischargethat would ensue.

E) SALT Del'rAlthough the environmental effects of

saltwater cooling towers vary from caseto case depending on the sensitivity oflocal environment and diverse localmeteorological conditions, experiencewith existin& saltwater cooling towersindicates that environmental problemswould be confined to areas in close prox-imity to 'the cooling tower. One studyshowed that about 70 percent of all driftmass fell within 400 feet downwind of atypical saltwater mechanical draft tower,well within the boundaries of .mozt

powerplants. The same study showedthat even under the most adverse condi-tions, all drift droplets that would reachthe ground would do so within 1000 feetdownwind. The subject of this study wasan eight-cell crossflow mechanical drafttower designed to cool 134,000 gallons perminute of water with the same chemlcalcomposition and salinity as seawater.The plant was located on an estuary orbay, two miles from the ocean. The driftrate va 0.004 percent of the circulatingwater.

Airborne drift from this tower plusnatural background salt nuclei from thesea exceeded conservative damagethresholds for follar injury for distancesup to 2200 feet downwind of the tower.The background salt nuclei contributedover 75 percent of the salt mass causingdamage at this distance from the tower.Moreover, the fractional increase in air-borne salt concentrations due to drift at2200 feet was insignificant as comparedwith normal variations in the back-ground level caused by changes In at-mospheric wind conditions.

Obviously, local plant life in areas po-tentially affected by salt drift fromtowers must be capable of withstandingthese natural airborne salt levels if theyare to survive. Other possible recipientsof incremental salt drift would likewisebe affected by the natural ambient levels.

The additional cost of drift eliminatorsdoes not represent a significant incre-ment to total cooling system cost andshould be reflected In the cost estimatessupplied by the industry- for plants rep-resenting over 12 percent of the Nation'stotal generating capacity.

Potentially significant environmentaldamage over and above that from am-blent conditions may be expected to beconfined to areas In proximity to thetower and in the prevailing downwinddirection. The regulation therefore pro-vides an exemption where landnot ownedby the plant is located within 500 feetdownwind of every practicable mechani-cal draft tower site using saline Intakewater and where no alternative closedcycle mode (such as natural draft towerswhich have signifcantly less drift loss)Is practicable.

(F) Lm AvAMAEU=Some comments urged that the Agency

liberalize its exemption from thermalcontrol for units which do not havesufficient land on which to constructthe necezsary evaporative cooling system,suggesting that where the costs of mak-Ing land available raise the total cost ofinstalling closed-cycle cooling above 1mill per klllowatt-hour the exemptionshould apply. Others recommended that,In order not to reward utilities for poorsite planning, the determination of suf-fclient land include property within twomiles of the unit whether owned by theutility or not, if It could be acquired.

The size of the evaporative coolingtower required is related to the generat-ing capacity of the unit. Taking into ac-count the other factors which can in-fluence tower size (such as heat rate,

FEDERAL RE-GISTER,, VOL 39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36189


climatic conditions, etc.) the Agency has potential exemption from chemical waste cooling and located on the property ofdetermined that 28 acres per 1000 meg- discharge requirements is needed or the utility constitute an acceptable proc-awatts generating capacity is ample afforded. The Agency expects that power ess technolbgy for the control of heat,land on which any existing plant can companies, confronted with this regula- In response to criticisms of the lach ofconstruct a mechanical draft cooling tory pattern, will construct or expand clarity of the proposal, the regulationtower, the cooling system which is most chemical treatment systems as a matter has been revised to make clear that ex-universally applicable and which provides of first priority. The determination of Isting units otherwise subject to a "nothe basis for the Agency's cost estimates. sufficiency of land for thermal control discharge" limitation on heat may dis-This conservative area-to-capacity -systems will be made taking into account charge heat into existing cooling lakesstandard Is based on Federal Power Coin- the land required for the Chemical sys- and ponds. Definitions of each term havemission estimates of mechanical draft tem, subject to the overall evaluation of also been provided which differentiatecooling tower land requirements and the the potential for land use reassignment. between "cooling ponds" (artificialAgency's review of mechanical draft (7) Some commenters urged that the water bodies constructed by means othercooling tower land use requirements at Agency exempt units discharging into than impounding the flow of navigablenuclear units, including sufficient al- oceans or coastal waters. Two reasons water) and "cooling lakes" (artiiciallowances for construction and spacing were advanced. First, because of the water bodies whose construction does on-between towers. greater dissipative capacity of oceans, tall blockage of navigable water flows).

In determining whether sufficient land heat discharges were said to be less likely While new units whose cooling systemIs available at a particular site the regu- to cause environmental damage. Second, involves creation of an "on stream"latiorls require consideration of reassign- the requirements of closed cycle cooling cooling lake would remain subject to thement of present land uses (parking would exacerbate fresh water shortages limitations on heat discharge from theareas, for example) as well as the prac- which could be expected in certain coastal condenser into such a projected im-ticability of alternate evaporative cool-- areas by the year 2000 during extreme poundment, the provisions of aectioning systems. Natural draft towers, for low flow conditions. 316(a) would be available to such units.example, require less than 40 percent No water shortage appears evident, or Chemical discharge Into artificial waterof the land needed for mechanical draft likely to ensue, by the end of the century bodies which constitute navigable waterstowers. The judgment of whether or in Washington, Oregon, Northern Call- under the Act must comply with the him-not the reassignment of existing land fornia, most Gulf Coast Stabs, or the itations on pollutants other than heat.is practicable cannot be reduced to a Atlantic Coast. Moreover, the *?rojection (9) Some commenters noted that thesingle cost per unit of output figure as of increased fresh water consumption proposed regulations did not provide ansuggested, was predicated on conversion of all exist- explicit exemption from the limitations

Moreover, in many cases adjoining ing coastal plants from onc3,-through on heat for offshore powerplants andland may be purchased at reasonable saline systems to fresh water evaporative and suggested that a separate categorycost as an alternative to reassignment of towers and adoption of fresh water towers for such plants be established. No off-existing land uses. Nevertheless, adjacent by all new ocean sited plants. Such an shore plants are presently in operationland costs could, in some instances, ma- assumption is unrealistic, however, since or undel' construction. That being theterlally increase the cost of installing salt water towers are presently in opera- case, the Agency anticipates that selec-closed cycle systems. Hence, the promul- tion and available to coastal plants in tion of suitable locations will Insure thatgated regulations do not predicate the arid areas. Use of saline water in evap- the thermal discharges from once-exemption from thermal limitations on orative towers would, of course, have no through or modified cooling systems atthe acquisition of neighboring land. In- effect on the supply of fresh water. such plants are compatible with the crl-stead it is based solely on land owned or On the other hand, there is evidence teria of section 316(a) of the Act andcontrolled by the owner or operator of to suggest that the discharge of heat that exemptions under that section forthe plant as of the date of proposal of into marine waters at sufficient depth properly sited offshore plants would bethis regulation. and distance from biologically sensitive forthcoming.

shoreline zones may pose considerably (10) Some commenters questioned the(G) AIRCRAFT SAFETY less of a threat to the environment than propriety of requiring compliance withSome comments urged the consider- do thermal discharges into rivers, lakes, limitations defining the degree of thor-

ation of the possible hazard to aircraft and estuaries. But if the compatibility mal effluent reduction attainable byof steam plumes issuing from cooling of thermal discharges with the environ- the "best available technology coo-towers. mental integrity of aquatic communities nomically achievable," In advance of

An examination of this potential haz- at particular sites can be demonstrated, 1983. In addition, the proposed regula-ard indicated that it is unlikely that an a modification of the limitations on heat tion was claimed to endanger systemexisting powerplant which will be re- may be made through the procedures reliability, particularly during the winterquired to install a recirculated cooling established by the Agency to implement of 1977-78 when reserve capacity wouldwater system would pose a hazard to section 316(a). be reduced because the outage timecommercial aircraft during periods of (8) Some commenters suggested that necessary to tie-in to closed cycle sys-takeoff and landing. However, the vul- the Agency's jurisdiction under the Act tems would exceed that required fornerability of aircraft during this portion does not extend to all artificially created normal maintenance. Since all units areof the flight pattern requires special con- lakes and ponds used as cooling water required to comply with the same sched-sideration of cases where a substantial sources by powerplants and that the ule, commenters claimed that In manyhazard may be shown to exist. The pro- Agency should confine the regulation to cases purchase of replacement capacitymulgated regulation reflects this con- those in which a significant vested public from other systems within the samesideration. interest exists. grid would not be possible. Other corn-

(6) The proposed regulation was criti- The Act applies to all "waters of the menters suggested extension In the com-cized for not indicating the relative United States" and the legislative history pliance dates In order to allow sufficientpriorities assigned to installing technol- indicates that the jurisdictional terms time for construction of natural draftogy to comply with thermal limitations, were to be given the broadest possible cooling towers where these are a prefer-and the land use requirements of other constitutional interpretation. Under con- able alternative to mechanical draftpollution control equipment such as trolling decisions of the United States towers. Still others criticized the Agencychemical waste treatment and flue gas Supreme Court, some man made cooling for Imposing no restrictions whatsoeverdesuiurization systems. water bodies may constitute navigable by 1977 and urged that the schedule as

The promulgated regulation predicates waters for the purpose of water pollution proposed be adhered to.the obligation to comply with thermal control. The Agency believes that there is clearlimitations on the availability of suffi- On the other hand, however, the statutory authority to Impose the re-cient land to construct and operate closed Agency reconized in the proposed reg- quirements of section 301(b) (2) (A)cycle cooling systems. No comparable ulation that artificial ponds built for earlier than 1983 If the technology Is


RULES AND REGULATIONSS6190


available. The dates specified in the Actare ultimate deadlines: not the earliestdates by which technological progressmay be required. It-would be consistentwith neither the language of the Act, norits legislative history, for the Agency tosanction the discharge of pollutants fornine more years if a cla§§ or category ofdischargers has the capability, both eco-nomic and technical, to reduce that dis-charge by an earlier date.

The Agency is cbnvinced that theelectric utility industry has both the eco-nomic and technological capability to in-stall closed cycle cooliigsystems on thoseunits whose thermal discharges are con-trolled by this regulation and to do soby the compliance date established. Theestimates of reduced reserve capacitysubmitted were, the Agency believes,over-stated since they assume that nounits would obtain exemptions unders~ction 316(a). Moreover, significant re-visions to the proposed xegulation havebeen made to insure that the requiredconversion to closed-cycle is realistic andthat compliance with it entails no risk tothe continued reliable supply of electricpower. First, the number of units poten-tially subject to it has been reduced dras-tically. Second, the date by which thelargest units are subjected to control hasbeen extended by two years; the compli-ance date now being nearly seven yearsin the future. Finally, the permit issu-ing authority is authorized to defercompliance for an additional two yearsif, despite the above described revision,compliance by all units in a related sys-tem-could, by virtue of outages duringtie-in to the cooling system, seriously im-pact system reliability. This will permiteach utility to plan, design, and constructoff-stream cooling systems at the opti-mum time in accordance with plannedmaintenance schedules as well as in con-sideration of reliability factors. -

(11) A related comment was that theAgency should not impose* limitationsunder best available technology econom-Ically achievable in advance of the Na-tional Study Commission Report re-quired by section 315 of the Act.

There is no conflict between the pro-mulgated regulation and the report ofthe National Study Commission, whichis to be submitted to Congress in Oc-tober, 1975. While -that study is an in-tegral part of the Act's program to re-duce water pollution dramatically by1983, its existence does not preclude es-tablishing the "best available" standardseffective in advance of that date. Therewill be sufficient time for any "mid-course corrections" to be made by theCongress in the regulation of thermalpollution from the electric power in-dustry, without the industry's havingcommitted itself to any significant cap-ital expenditures for thermal pollutionabatement due to these regulations.

(12) Several comments observed thatthe cost per unit of -production of in-stalling closed cycle cooling varies asa-function of numerous factors. Some ofthese factors (such as fuel type, back-end loading, heat rate and flow rate)pertain to the mode of operation and


other physical characteristics of the unit.Other factors (such as wet-bulb temper-ature and intake water temperature) re-late to climatic or geographic conditionsencountered at particular sites. Stillother factors, while also related to localconditions, concern the potentially ad-verse impacts (such as noise generation,fogging and water consumption) whichmay be significant In individual in-stances. If unaddressed, the combinedimpact of the factors were said to im-pose physical, though not necessarilyeconomically evident, costs on the localenvironment. If steps were taken to al-leviate the problem, on the other hand,abatement of the environmental deficitwould entail direct monetary costs on theutility. A rulewas suggested which wouldexempt any unit at which the sum ofthese factors imposed costs in excess of1 mim per kilowatt-hour.The Agency has reviewed the sig-nificance of each of these factors con-sidered independently as well as theiraggregate impact. A summary of its con-clusions as to the collective significanceof site dependent factors and each In-dividual variable follows.

(A) SrIE-DEPEND=NT FACroRs 3!?nXEUEnAL

During the comment period, Industryrepresentatives supplied two sets of dataon the cost of installation of mechanicaldraft cooling towers. The first was a re-port of an engineering firm experiencedwith the construction of cooling towers.Its estimate of the capital cost of retro-fitting, on a per kilowatt basis, was onlyslightly higher than that used in theAgency's original cost estimates of theproposed regulation.

The second was based on a survey of60 plants, in several utility systems,which represent approximately 12 per-cent of the total steam electric generat-ing capacity In the United States. Theaverage capital cost of this survey wassignificantly higher than the previousindustry estimate; the disparity beingaccounted for by the commenter on theground that the higher estimates re-flected additional costs attributable tosite-specific factors. The variability ofthe plant by plant costs reported in thelatter survey approximates a normaldistribution and ranges from about $9per kilowatt to about $81 per kilowatt.The median of the sample and the ca-pacity weighted average cost is $21.9per kilowatt. The Agency adjusted itscost estimates of the economic Impactof the final regulation to a figure closelyapproximating this industry-estimatedcost. Only three of the plants reportedper kilowatt costs significantly above theaverage value (in excess by 100 per-.ent or more.) The few exceptions withextraordinarily high cost per kilowattrepresent about 3 percent of the generat-ing capacity covered by the sample.Since the extensive sample of cost esti-mates from individual plants addressesall site dependent factors In most In-stances, and includes to some extentcosts corresponding to the factors ad-dressed specifically below, EPA has de-

36191

termined that the sample adequatelydepicts the effects of the total of theslte dependent factors that materiallyinfluence thecosts of achieving the ef-fluent limitations on heat." While theestimated costs of implementingthermal controls at three of the plantswere reported to reflect costs In excessof twice the median cost, these incre-mental cost factors would not signif-icantly affect the economic achievabilityof the eliuent limitations. Favorableand unfavorable site-dependent factorsmay be expected to counterbalance oneanother, when applied across the severalunits at individual plants and the nu-merous plants in an electrical generat-ing system. Hence, the average of thecost estimates reported in the 60 plantsample represents a realistic estimate ofthe retrofitting costs likely to be en-countered by any utility system. EvenIn the extraordinary case of the oneplant in the 60 plant sample reporting acost estimate of $81 per kilowatt, theincremental cost (above that withinwhich 95 percent of plants estimatedcosts reflecting site specific factors)would not affect the economic achieva-bility of the thermal limitations. For ex-ample, the abnormal incremental costsat that site ($37 per kilowatt) wouldadd about 1 mill per kilowatt-hour tothe cost of electricity generated by thatunit. Unusual compliance costs couldimpact .the numerous small units orsmall systems more severely. Conse-quently, these units have been exemptedcategorically from the effluent limita-tions on heat.

(B) TYPz or G=rAoi

In general, nuclear units reject morewaste heat to condenser cooling waterthan do comparable fosall-fueled units.The Agency recognizes that the costs ofinstalling thermal control technologyare greater for units which reject morewaste heat. Nevertheless, the cost differ-ential due to type ofzgeneration is ap-proximately equivalent to the additionalwaste heat discharged by nuclear plantsand is within the range of costs reflect-ing the normal variability among site-dependent factors in general as dis-cussed above. In either case, the costsper unit of heat removed by close cyclecooling w ould be the same. Therefore,no distinction need be made between nu-clear and fossil-fueled units.

Conversion of a nuclear unit fromonce-through cooling to a closed cyclesystem may entail associated modifica-tions to the radioactive waste disposalsystem. Units employing once-throughcooling normally discharge treated liq-uid radioactive wastes to the largevolumes of non-recirculating coolingwater, relying on dilution in that streamto meet water quality standards on thedischarge of radioactive materids. Thevolume of the blowdown from closedcycle cooling may not provide sufficientdilution for this practice to be contin-ued. HoweVer, in three eases in whichclosed cycle cooling systems were back-fitted to nuclear powerplants, none ofthe additional costsfor radioactive




waste system modification were directlyattributed to the closed cycle backfltby the U.S. Atomic Energy Commissionin its final environmental statement.Since the Agency has received no spe-cific cost Information concerning radio-active waste system modification due toclosed-cycle cooling system backfitting,no incremental costs for this potentialmodification have been included in theAgency's cost estimates.

(C) FLow RATE

The cost of closed-cycle cooling equip-ment and the total cost of generation arehigher for units with higher flow rates,all other factors being equal. Flow ratesfor a particular unit can be reducedto some degree without significant incre-mental cost to achieve the reduced flow.In the cost analysis submitted to theAgency in support of the proposed sub-categorization criteria, the coolingequipment costs for the cases of high-est flow rate, all other factors beingequal, were less than 10 percent higherthan the average cost of all cases withvarious flow rates. Total generation postswere less than approximately 10 percenthigher for the cases with the highest flowrates. In the cost analysis for the worstcombination of intake temperature, wet-bulb temperature, and flow rate, theequipment cost exceeded the averageequipment cost by 52 percent. Thesevariations in equipment cost are withinthe range of variations in cost that areanticipated considering the numerousfactors that combine, some favorablyand some unfavorably, at each site todetermine the final cost of thermalcontrol implementation. A 10 percentcost differential is within the range ofcosts reflecting the normal variabilityamong site-dependent factors in generalas discussed above. Therefore, no distinc-tion need be made for this factor.

(D) HEAT RATEUnits with high-heat rates would be

the most costly to control due to the highincremental fuel cost associated with theincreased inefficiency attributable tothermal controls. While no specific ex-emption is provided, exemptions basedon age and size will exclude most of theunits with high heat rates.

(E) IimicE TEn1ERATmUmEPA recognizes that units with high

intake water temperature will incurhigher costs, all other fqctors beingequal. This factor, however, is significantmainly during the months when the highintake water temperatures occur and alsofor those units for which high levels ofblowdown flow are necessary, thus re-quiring relatively large quantities ofmakeup water. It Is not as significant afactor for most units which require nor-mal quantities of makeup water flow. Inthe cost analysis submitted to the Agencyin support of the proposed subcategori-zation criteria, this factor all other fac-tors being equal, added a maximum of 20percent in the most extreme case to theaverage total thermal control equipmentcost. This 20 percent cost differential is

within the range of costs reflecting thenormal variability among site-depend-ent factors in general as discussedabove. Therefore, no distinctlon needbe made for this factor.

(F) WrT-BuLB TEL!PEATJm

EPA tested the significance of wet-bulb temperature as a factor by costingvarious types of evaporative coolingsystems considering four geographic lo-cations representative of the range ofwet-bulb temperatures in the UnitedStates. The cost of cooling equipment atthe most unfavorable location based onwet-bulb temperature was 25 percenthigher than the average cost of all lo-cations tested for conditions otherwiseidentical. In the cost analysis submittedto the Agency in support of the proposedsubcategorization criteria, this factor, allother factors being equal, added a maxi-mum of 24 percent to the total thermalcontrol equipment cost for the averageof subcases covered for the most costlycase analyzed. This 24 percent cost dif-ferential is within the range of costs re-flecting the normal variability amongsite-dependent factors in general as dis-cussed above. Therefore, no distinctionneed be made for this factor.

(G) BAcK-ENu LOADnTG

The back-end loading of a unit is themaximum steam flow which the unitcan pass through the last stage blades ofthe low pressure turbine expressed as apercentage of the maximum steam flowthrough the last stage blades which theturbine is capable of accepting.

In the cost analysis submitted to theAgency in support of the proposed sub-categorization criteria, this factor, allother factors being equal, added a maxi-mum of 22 percent to the total thermalcontrol equipment costs compared to theaverage of the cases covered. The maxi-mum cost reflected the cost for a unitwith a back-end loading of approxi-mately 15 percent. Generation costs inmills per kilowatt-hour for the worstcase of a 15 percent back-end loadingwere estimated to be about 1 mill perkilowatt-hour. This 22 percen'; differ-ential in equipment costs is within therange of costs reflecting the normal vari-ability among site-dependent fEctors ingeneral, as discussed above. The worstcase generation cost is in the range rec-ommended by industry, therefore, no dis-tinction need be made for this factor.

(H) PLUsus ABATEMNT

Cooling towers can produce visibleplumes consisting of minute water drop-lets. Plumes are normally not a problemunless they reach the ground and ob-struct vision or cause icing conditions.Under normal conditions, cooling towerplumes rise due to their initial velocityand buoyancy and rarely intersect theground before they are mixed with theambient air and dissipated. However,under adverse climatic conditions (i.e.,high humidity and low temperature), themoisture could produce a fog conditionif it were trapped In the lower levels ofthe atomsphere during an invertion, i.e,

a period of high atmospheric stablilty. inalmost all cases, natural draft towers areless likely to cause fogging problemn thanmechanical draft towers. Even withmechanical draft towers, in most casesfogging or icing would be on-site (i.e.,within 1000-2000 ft of the tower). Plumeabatement technology, e.g., wet-dry cool-ing towers, is currently available. Whilewet-dry towers are more costly than con-ventional wet towers, the Agency has ac-counted for the cost of employing plumeabatement in specific cases In its esti-mate of the cost of cooling tower con-struction. This estimate is based'on cotdata supplied by Industry. The Industryestimates, In turn, were developed froma sample of 60 plants and units and thecosts for 18 of the units in the samplereflected the use of wet-dry towers.Hence, no specific exemption based onthe potential for plume generation Iswarranted except where the plume pre-sents a substantial hazard to aircraftflight paths.

(I) Nosn AATrIr=INT CosTSEPA recognizes that incremental

costs would be incurred In cases wheremechanical draft cooling towers may re-quire nois3 control, Little Information isavailable on the cost of Implementingnoise control procedures on powerplantcooling towers principally because It hasrarely been necessary to employ thesemeasures, even though powerplants withcooling towers exist In areas of highpopulation density. It Is doubtful thatthere will be a significant need for thistechnology as a result of this regulation,since many plants in areas of high popu-lation density will be exempted becatuoof the lack of sufficient land for closed-cycle cooling systems, because of the saltdrift exemption, or because of the exemp-tions based on age or size. Furthermore,alternative thermal control technologiesmay be employed that are generallyquieter than mechanical draft coolingtowers. In the only case cited by com-menters, a plant in West Germany wasreputed to have incurred twice the nor-mal capital cost for cooling towers dueto the installation of noise control equip-ment. This is a most unusual case in-deed. The plant cited Is in West Berlin,a politically land locked community iso-lated from outside power sources. In-creased demand and a paucity of avail-able sites required that a new plant beconstructed In close proximity to resi-dences in an area of high populationdensity, hence, the need for noise abate-ment technology. Furthermore, It is sig-nificant that cooling towers were em-ployed with noise suppressors in order totake advantage of the site while accom-modating the need to reduce noise tolocally required levels.

(J) MxscELLAIOUS V AcTOI1

Certain additional site-dependent fac-tors have been suggested by commenterswhich should be considered in suboate-gorization for effluent limitations on heatbecause they can materially affect coot;existing system layout, soil conditions,site geology, and topography. While It bs

E.OERAL REGISTER, VOL "39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36192



acknowledged that these factors may af-fect case-by-case costs, the costs at-

- tributable to these and other site-dependent factors have been assumed inthe computation of the economic costs ofthermal control.

(13) Some commenters observed thatclosed cycle cooling systems have side ef-fects which may be controlled by otherenvironmental regulations such as noiseordinances, air quality standards aidland use restrictions and urged that theAgency exempt units for which the ex-pense of complying with these stricturesincreases the total cost of installingclosed cycle cooling above 1 mill per kilo-watt-hour.

The Agency is not aware of any in-stances in which air quality standardshave required imposition of technologyto control droplet emissions from cool-ing towers below those presently achievedby good tower design and drift climi-nators. Nor was the Agency supplied withevidence indicating that any existingplant now employing once-through cool-ing is subject to municipal ordinances orstate laws requiring noise suppressionequipment. There are no federal environ-mental regulations on noise emissionfrom powerplants or cooling devices. Norwas the Agency advised of any local zon-ing ordinances which, while permittingconstruction of a powerplant and theassociated stacks, would preclude- On-struction of a cooling tower.

(14) The proposed regulation wascriticized by some commenters on theground that installation of closed cyclecooling systems at most units in the in-dustry would increase the amount offreshwater consumed.

All evaporative heat rejpction systemsconsume water. Even once-through sys-tems result in water consumption byevaporation during the transfer of heatfrom the receiving water body lo theatmosphere. Consumptive use of waterby mechanical draft towers exceeds thatof once-through systems by approxi-mately 50-75 percent. Evidence receivedby the Agency suggested that were allexisting and new plants covered by theproposed regulation to install close cyclecooling, the increase in water consump-tion by the year 20f10 over that whichwould be consumed by extrapolation ofthe 1970-mix of cooling systems to thegenerating capacity expected to be online in that year, would approximate 8.5billion gallons per day. This projectedincrease, which was based on the as-sumption that no plants would qualifyfor an exemption under section 316(a) ofthe Act during the next 25 years, wasconceded to be relatively insignificantcompared to the total water available inthe United States during average flowconditions. Federal Power Commissionsupplied estimates of water consumptionattributable to closed cycling cooling sug-gest that the actual consumption maybe significantly lower.

However, for certain regions, the pro-jected increase when compared to the10 and 20 years drought conditions, wouldincrease water deficits assumed to existeven in the absence of closed cycle con-

sumptlive use. The regions of most coi-cern are southern California and theTexas Gulf.

Much of the 3.8 percent increase indeficit for California under the 20 yearlow flow conditions appears to be attrib-utable ,to the assumption that coastalplants will convert to freshwater ratherthan saline towers. The deficiencies ofthis assumption have been discussed pre-viously. In addition, however, the finalregulation has been revised to exemptmost units constructed before 1974 fromthermal control Virtually all presentlyoperating coastal units (which representnearly half of the present generating ca-pacity in California) will thus be exempt.To the extent that expansion of generat-ing capacity is composed of new coastalunits, the utility is free to select sites atwhich the discharge would protect thebalanced indigenous aquatic community,thus qualifying for exemptions undersection 316(a) and avoiding any con-sumptive use of freshwater. Moreover,saltwater cooling towers could be used atcoastal sites with the result -that nofreshwater would be consumed.

In other arid regions, such as Texas,use of closed cycle evaporative coolingsystems (both towers and cooling ponds)is already widespread for technologicalrather than environmental reasons, sincethe availiable surface water supply is notadequate for once-through cooling to beeffective. Much of the Increase in theprojected consumptive use appears at-tributale to the assumption that coolingtowers would have to be constructed atexisting man made cooling lakes and off-stream cooling ponds. The regulation hasbeen revised to make clear that coolinglakes and ponds meeting certain specifi-cations are considered acceptable heatabatement mechanisms and that towersneed not be constructed If such a systemis In operation.

(15), Many comments were received tothe effect that the Agency's estimate ofthe captial and operating costs of closedcycle cooling was understated and thatits analysis of the economic Impact ofthe regulation was therefore inaccurate.The most significant of these claimeddeficiencies are discussed in the followingsection.

(A) The Agency's capital cost esti-mates for installing cooling towers atnon-nuclear plants were based on a sur-vey of existing plant costs. It was pointedout that the capital cost for one plant Inthe survey represented the cost of anopen cycle diffuser previously in opera-tion at that plant. Commenters placedthe true cost of the spray canal retro-fitted to this plant at $28 million ratherthan the figure of $6.8 million used byEPA. Using the higher figure would In-crease the average costs reported by theplants actually retrofitted with closed-cycle cooling systems from $14 per kio-watt to $18 per kilowatt.

The Agency has recalculated costs ofbackfitting mechanical draft towers andhigher per kilowitt costs have been em-ployed In this analysis.

(B) Commenters criticized the Agen-cy's failure to Include a capital cost for

new generating capacity toriplace exist-ing generating capacity lost during out-ages for tie-in of closed cooling sys-tems.

Powerplants normally place generat-ing units out of service on a scheduledbasis for periods of a month or more Inorder to perform necessary mainte-nance. Units may also be shut down fromtime to time for unplanned maintenance.When units are shut down, the lostgenerating capacity is supplied by some-what less efficient units within the sys-teLi or by purchase of power from out-side the system. The installation ofnew generating capacity in a systemtakes into account, on a projected basis,the user demand In its service area andsuch additional factors as scheduledoutages and probabilities of unsched-uled outages. A well-engineered retro-fit design could be scheduled for tie-into an existing system In from one weekto five weeks ot actual unit outage time.The regulation has been revised to ex-clude most existing units from thermalcontrol and to defer the date of conver-sion for the remaining affected unitsfrom 1978 to 1981. Moreover, the finalregulation incorporates commenters'suggestions for flexibility in further ex-tending compliance dates -In order toavoid adversely impacting regional reli-ability. The Agency has determined thattie-in outages can be scheduled concur-rently with planned maintenance in sucha manner that one month outage timewould be required in addition to normalmalntenance and that replacement powerduring this period can be supplied bythe system's cycling units. Since no netloss n generating capacity need occurfor closed-cycle tie-ins, there is no needfor capital expenditures to be debitedagainst outages during construction.

(C) Simillarly, comments suggestedthat the Agency had underestimated theoperating cost of replacement capacity,principally by employing pre-embargofuel prices.

The fuel costs employed by the AgencyIn calculating the operating cost of re-placement capacity have been revised toreflect the best estimate of future fuelprices, $7.00 per barrel of oil and $12.50per ton of coal (n constant 1974 dol-lars). EPA assumed a heat rate of 12,500BTU per kilowatt hour and a fuel mix of80 percent coal and 20 percent oil incalculating the industrywide economicimpact of replacement capacity operat-ing costs.

(D) An industry representativeclaimed that the Agency had underes-timated the incremental cost of closed-cycle cooling because Ithad assumed thatan unrealistically high percentage ofplants would use closed-cycle cooling re-garless of whether or not they were re-quired to do so by these regulations.

Approximately 65 percent of the capac-Ity now under construction is commit-ted to close-cycle dcooling. Based on areview of information 'submitted to theAgency by Industry representatives, EPAestimated that 50 percent of units nowplanning to install closed-cycle coolingwere doing so for economic, rather than

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 196-TUESDAYi OCTOBER 8, 1974

36193



environmental considerations. The costsincurred by these units should not be in-cluded in the costs and economic impactsattributable to these regulations.

(E) Industry representatives con-tended that In order to raise the capitalneeded to finance water pollution treat-ment systems, a higher rate of return onboth debt and equity would be requiredand that this additional cost of capitalwould increase the operating revenuesrequired by the regulations.

The Agency has reevaluateC its rate ofreturn assumptions as follows: TheAgency has assumed a cost of long-termdebt of 8.0- percent, rather than 7.5 per-cent. Required rate of return on commonequity is assumed to be 14.0 percentrather than 12.0 percent. The returnrates are based on those used by theTechnical Advisory Committee on Fi-nance for the National Power Survey.Since the regulations will increase thecapital requirements of the utility in-dustry by less than four percent, withouttaking into account the exemptions re-ceived under section 316(a), they shouldnot themselves raise the required rate ofreturn on either debt or common equity.

(F) Some commenters suggested that,for the purposes of the bast-line costestimates, the costs of compliance withother environmental regulations associ-ated with the FWPCA, the Clean Air Actof 1970, or any state or local requirementsbe included and, furthermore, that an,annual inflation rate of greater than 5percent should have been used. Base-linecosts estimated for the power generatingindustry which reflect the needs for addi-tional capital, generation costs, costs toconsumers, energy consumption, etc.,which would ensue without considerationof the effects of these regulations wereprepared by EPA for the purpose ofevaluating the industry-wide costs ofcompliance with the regulations.

In consideration of these commentsand additional data, several base line costestimating assumptions were modified asfollows: (a) capital requirements werebased on current projections of a 5.5 per-cent growth rate in capital expendituresfor the Industry over the next decade;(b) an annual inflation rate of 10.6 per-cent was assumed for fossil plants and15.5 percent for nuclear plants for the1970-75 period. Corresponding figures forthe 1976-80 period were 8.0 and 8.2 per-cent respectively; (c) while the costs ofcompliance with other environmentalregulations were not quantified and in-cluded in the baseline, the Agency con-sidered the additional costs to the in-dustry attributable to complying withthese requirements in revising the ther-mal limitations.

(g) A commenter contended that be-cause of the difficulty in accurately as-sessing the effect of section 316(a), theeconomic feasibility of the thermallimitations contained in this regulationshould be determined without regard toexemptions which are expected to ensueunder that section.

The Agency originally estimated thatunits representing 80 percent of existing

capacity and 50. percent of new capacitywould receive exemptions under section316(a). The final regulation has beensubstantially modified and, as promul-gated, applies to a much smaller percent-age of presently operating units. Thosewhich are covered are the largest newunits, those over 500 megawatts ratedcapacity, which discharge the largestvolumes of heat and will do so for therest of the century. Accordingly, sincethe units which remain subject to theseregulations are those which it is reason-able to anticipate will pose the greatestdegree of environmental risk, the per-centage of exemptions assumed has beencorrespondingly reduced. The Agency hascalculated the capital and cperatingcosts of the regulations under the as-sumption that no plants will receive ex-emptions and under the assumpMon thatunits representing low environmentalrisks will obtain an exemption from ther-mal control. The Agency recognizes thedifficulty of precisely estimating the ef-fect of section 316(a) given the particu-larized nature of proceedings under thatsection. The estimate reflects Its bestcurrent projection and is based on a ran-dom sample of 180 plants with 455 unitsrepresenting one-seventh of the totalgenerating capacity in 1978. Plants andunits within the sample represent a dis-tribution of varying ages, sizes, capacityutilization rates, and locations. Themethodology of the sampling will be de-scribed in detail n the "Economic Anal-ysis of the Effluent Limitations for SteamElectric Powerplants" which will be pub-lished by the Office of Planning andEvaluation as soon as possible.

In summary, the assumptions used inestimating the percentage of capacity lo-cated on rivers which would be likely toreceive exemptions are that no unitswhich at full capacity withdraw greaterthan 70 percent of the average streamflow would receive exemptions End that50 percent of units which at full ,apacitywithdrew between 30 percent and 70 per-cent of the average flow would not re-ceive an exemption. Units representing50 percent of the capacity located on es-tuaries and lakes other than cooling lakeswere assumed not to receive an exemp-tion.

(h) A related comment was that theeconomic analysis should include thecosts of compliance with alternte efflu-ent limitations which may be imposedunder section 316(a), such as "helper"towers, diffusers, discharge canals andother partially closed cycle systems.

The Agency has taken these costs intoaccount in its assumptions as to the unitswhich would receive exemptions undersection 316(a). The "high risk" units(those described n the preceding para-graph) were assumed to receive no ex-emption and thus to employ closed cyclemechanical draft cooling towers on acontinuous year-round basis. In fact,some such units could receive partialexemptions, I.e.; modified restrictions onheated discharge-which could be met byopen or partially open cooling systems inconjunction with "helper" or "trimming"towers during all or some portion of the

year. The costs of sich modified systemswould be less than those of continuousoperation of a mechanical draft toweror, if they were not In some unusual In-stance, the cost of that tower would bethe maximum cost incurred since itwould certainly meet any modified ther-mal limitations. The EPA cost estimateiare therefore conservatively high sincethey are based on the most costly techno-logical alternative in cases where partialexemptions may be obtained under sec-tion 316(a).

(i) The Agency's capital cost estmatcsfor retrofitting cooling towers were saidto be understated because of a failure toconsider the additional costs Imposed byspecific site dependent factors such asunusual geological or topographical con-ditions or the need in individual n-stances to install additional equipmentto abate noise, control plumes, etc.

The Agency has revised Its capital co(testimates to account for the presence ofthese factors, as previously explained.The increased retrofitting costs are con-sistent with an industry survey whichincludes incremental costs attributableto site dependent factors.

Closed cycle evaporative cooling con-sumes about 50 percent more water thandoes once-through cooling systems.While this incremental water consumeddoes have an associated cost In someStates it is only In arid regions of theUnited States that unit water costathemlselves are significant. At a typicalsite in the arid regions, the cost of addi-tional water to compensate for incre-mental water consumed by closed cyclecooling would be approximately 0.01 millper kilowatt-hour of electricity gener-ated, assuming water consumption costs

.of $10 per acre-foot, By comparison, thetypical total costs of generation areapproximately 10 mills per kilowatt-hour at this site. Even under the "woritcase" assumption of a highly inefficientplant located in the area in which watercosts are five times higher than thosetypical of arid locations, incrementalwater consumptions costs would repre-sent only 0.1 mills per kilowatt-hour, or1 percent of total generating costs.

The non-monetary, environmental ef-fects of increased water consumptionare discussed above and will be discussedat greater length in the DevelopmentDocument.

(16) Several commenters suggestedthat chemical pollutant limitations beapplied to individual low volume wastestreams rather than on all low volumestreams taken as one source.

On review it was ascertained that thissuggestion was not only technically fea-sible, but would result in a higher level ofeffluent reduction benefits compared tototal cost of application of technology toachieve the limitation. The regulationshave been changed to reflect this sug-gestion.

(17) Some commenters contended thatthe limitations of total suspended solidsin blowdown from recirculating coolingwater systems and other wastb streamsshould be applied on a "net" rather thana "gross" basis. That is, the limitations


36194


should take into account the presence ofpollutants in water Intake supplies.

The effluent limitations have generallybeen developed on a gross or absolutebasis. In most cases the technologieswhich are available to control the pollut-ants or pollutant parameters willachieve.the effluent limitations estab-lished regardless of the presence of thesepollutant- in influent water. However,the Agency recognizes that in certaininstances pollutants will be present innavigable waters which supply a plant'sintake in significant concentrations,which may not be removed to the levelsspecified in the limitations, by the ap-plication of treatment technology con-templated by these regulations. Accord-ingly, the Agency is currently developingamendments to its NPDES permit regula-tions (40 CFR 125) which will specifythe situations in which the permit is-snuing authority may allow a credit forsuch pollutants. The amendment will beproposed for public comment in the nearfuture. The question of net versus grosseffluent limitations for this category willbe discussed in greater detail in the De-velopment Docpment. ,

The promulgated regulations containno limitation on suspended solids dis-charged in cooling tower bIowdown. TheAgency has removed restrictions on thedischarge-of suspended solids from thissource because they consist almost en-tirely of suspended solids not added bythe industrial process.

(18) Several commenters complainedthat certain of the proposed limitat6nsof no discharge for best available tech-nology economically achievable bad notbeen fully demonstrated for generalapplication.

The no discharge limitations on lowvolume wastes which were included inthe original proposal have been removedfrom the present regulations for BATEAsince the technology has not been dem-onstrated adequateiy for this industryand costs appear to be excessive at thistime. Mechanical cleaning systems formaintaining condenser tube cleanlinessrather than use -of blocide addition tocooling water has been determined notto be adequately demonstrated for newsource performance standards. Whileuse of these no discharge technologiesdoes not currently constitute best avail-able technology economically achievableor best demonstrated technology, theiruse on a case-by-case basis may be nec-essary to meet effluent limitations. basedon waterquality standards.

The limitations reflecting recycle ofbottom ash sluice water have been re-tained for both the BATEA and newsource performance standards, havingbeen adequately demonstrated. The newsource performance standard of no dis-charge of corrosion inhibitors, reflectingdemonstrated technology of design forcorrosion protection rather than chem-ical. addition for corrosion control inclosed-cycle cooling systems, has beenretained in the regulation.

(19) Some commenters reported thatthe specific numerical limitations in the


proposed regulation for total suspendedsolids, oil and grease, and Iron andcopper were Impracticable to achieve.

Further analysis, stimulated in parut bythese comments, revealed that based onthe application of available technologyan adjustment of some of the numericallimitations was necessary. The specificnumerical limitations in the regulationswere revised as follows: the originallyproposed total suspended solids limit of.15 mg/1 x flow was revised to 30 mg/I xflow; the oil and grease limitation of 10mg/1 x flow was Increased to 15 mg/I xflow. The originally proposed limitationson Iron and copper of 1 mzg/ were veri-fied as achievable.

(20) Several comments were addressedto the definitions used in the effluentlimitations for chlorine. It was suggestedthat the definitions of the terms "freeavailable chlorine" and "total residualchlorine" be based on ASTM methodsD-1253 and D-1427, and the use of thesimpler ortho-tolidine method ratherthan the amperometric titration methodwhich requires the use of a skilled tech-nician.

Total residual chlorine is the sun offree available chlorine and combinedavailable chlorine. EPA has issued"Guidelines Establishing Test Proceduresfor the Analysis of Pollutants" 38 F.J28758-28760" (October 16, 1973). TheseGuidelines list, as approved test proce-dures for the analysis of total residualchlorine the colorimetric and ampere-metric titration methods prescribed in"Standard Methods for the Examinationof Water and Wastewater," 13th Edition.1971 page 382 and In "Annual Book ofStandards, Part 23, Water AtmosphericAnalysis, 1972" page 238, which pre-scribes the ASTM methods. Free avail-able chlorine is not addressed by the EPAGuidelines. The Agency has determinedthat such test procedures are to be usedby permit applicants to demonstrate thateffluent discharges meet applicable pol-lutant discharge limitations.

The procedures for total residualchlorine in polluted waters prescribedbeginning at page 382 of "StandardMethods" are listed under the heading"Iodometric Method"; however, both theamperometric and starch-iodide proce-dures are given. Both free availablechlorine and total residual chlorine canbe determined by the former, but onlytotal residual chlorine can be determinedby the latter. The "Standard Methods"procedure specifically referred to by theEPA Guidelines does not describe the testfor "freeavailable chlorine." However,"Standard Methods" describes furtherbeginning at page 112, the amperometrictitration method for the determinationof free available chlorine as well as totalresidual chlorine in natural and treatedwaters.

The amperometric titration method isemployed by commercially available feed-back control Instrumentation which canbe employed to achieve the prescribedeffluent limitations on free availablechlorine. The amperometric titrationmethod is among the most accurate forthe determination of free or combined

36195

available chlorine. The method Is largelyunaffected by the presence of commonoxidizing agents, temperature variations,and turbidity and color, which interferewith the accuracy of the other methods.The ASTLI reference for "total residualchlorine" describes the afhperometrictitration method under the heading"Referee Method." Two nonrefereemethods are prescribed, a colorimetricmethod and a dilution-colorimetricmethod, both of which use ortho-tolidinesolution as a reagent. Both free availablechlorine residual and total chlorine resid-ual can be determined by the ampere-metric titration and the colorimetricmethods as described in the ASTM pro-cedures but only total chlorine residualcan be determined by the dilution-colori-metric method. Based on the above, theAgency has determined that the ampere-metric titration method dezeribed begin-ning at page 112 of "Standard Methods"should provide the basis for the defini-nitien of "free available chlorine" for thepurpose of this regulation.

(21) Several comments suggested al-ternative limitations on the discharge offree available chlorine and total residualchlorine from cooling water systems.The major contentions were as follows:(a) That seawater systems require high-er levels than the proposed limitations;(b) that the limitations should be ap-plied to non-recirculating house servicewater systems as well as to main con-denser cooling water; (c) that the limi-tations should be clarified; (d) that, thelimitations were significantly higherthanwater quality levels recommendedfor aquatic life in freshwater and inmarine and estuarine waters; (e) thatthe two-hou period per day limit foreach unit could not be attained wherea plant had more than twelve unitsif no two units could be chlbrinatedsimultaneously; (f) that the limita-tions should allow chlorination formore than one period a day providedthat the total span of chlorinationtime did not exceed two hours aday; (g) that where two or more unitsshare common intake- and dischargeconduits, the discharge of free availablechlorine might be minimized by simul-taneous chlorination of the units; (h)that chlorination be limited to individ-ual units during periods of low flowthrough the condenser of the unit un-dergoing chlorination and high flowthrough other units; (1) that chlorinelimitations be based on total residualchlorine rather than free availablechlorine since It Is the former that de-termines damage to acquatic life; (j)that ozone offered promise as a substi-tute for chlorine; (k) that the dischargeof blccldes other than chlorine be al-lowed but not In excess of the 96 hourTLM5O for natural fish species; () thatthe teclmology for achleving no dis-charge of total residual chlorine from re-circulating cooling water systems hadnot been fully demonstrated and thuscannot be used as a basis for the stand-ards; (m) that since meclbanlcal meansof biological control of main condensers




are not always adequate and must besupplemented by chlorination, the nodischarge limitation on total residualchlorine or other biocides used for bio-logical control in main condenser tubesof noncirculating cooling water systemsis not generally achievable; (n) that re-quiring chlorination during periods oflowest flow through condensers was notin accordance with practical operatingprocedures; (o) that the no dischargechlorine limitations are not consistentwith requirements for sewage treatmentplants to maintain chlorine residuals;(p) that even if effective mechanicalmeans were employed to maintain con-denser tube cleanliness, chlorine addi-tion would be required from time to timeto prevent biological fouling of otherparts of the cooling systems; (q) thatdischarge limitations o other biocides beconsidered; and (r) that no dischargelimits on biocides would discourage de-velopment of biocides that will not haveadverse environmental effects. -

The Agency recognizes jthe signifi-cance of the effluent limitations onchlorine in view of the extremely largevolume of cooling water discharged bypowerplants, the large quantities ofchlorine added to cooling water by pow-erplants, and the knoivn adverse effectsof chlorine on aquatic organisms. It isfurther recognized by EPA that thechlorine residuals required to maintainadequate condenser tube cleanliness andto prevent biological fouling in otherparts of cooling systems and the effec-tiveness of means other than chlorinationvary seasonally and from site-to-sitelargely due to widespread differences inthe type and quantities of organisms en-countered. Thus, rather than establish-ing technology-based effluent limitationson chlorine which can be met by alldischargers at all times and whichwould therefore of necessity be verylenient in all but the worst cases, EPAhas established effluent limitations on theconcentrations in which chlorine maybe discharged and the times duringwhich chlorination may be practiced,has authorized modification in theselimitations if a discharger can demon-strate that compliance with them willnot allow an adequate level of condensertube cleanliness or adequate biologicalprotection for other parts of a unit'scooling system. The establishment ofgenerally achievable effluent limitationson chlorine does not constitute a deter-mination by EPA that the compliance byindividual dischargers with more strin-gent effluent -limitations required to pro-tect aquatic life would not be technicallyachievable while still assuring adequatebiological control of powerplant coolingsystems. The limitations on chlorine donot reflect mechanical means of con-denser tube cleaning or chlorination andblowdown control programs for recircu-lating cooling water systems since thesetechnologies have not been adequatelydemonstrated for industry-wide appli-cation.

(22) Several commenters addressed thegeneral subject of corrosion inhibitorsin closed-cycle cooling systems. The most

significant issuei raised were as follows:(a) that a no discharge limitation oncorrosion inhibitors would disrourage de-velopment of inhibitors havin:,, no signifi-cant adverse environmental impacts; (b)that since antiscalants could not be used,higher blowdown rates would be neededto adequately control the higher calciumsulfate concentration arising due to acidaddition for scale control in cooling sys-tems; (c) that the allowance of 5 mg/lof phosphorous is lenient consideringthat discharges from sewerage treatmentplants into Lake Michigan are limited to1 mg/l; (d) that for non-chromate cor-rosion inhibitors the discharge levelsshould not exceed the 96 hour TIM 50for native fish species; (e) that a chro-mate limit of 5 mg/l would permit lowchromate treatment for corrosion con-trol without the addition of a chromaterecovery system; f) that a no dischargelimitation on corrosion inhibitors wouldresult in the need for expensive corrosionresistant metals, many of which are inshort supply; and (g) that non-toxiccorrosion inhibitors are available and inuse and should not be prohibited.

The design of closed-cycle cooling sys-tems for corrosion protection without theneed for the addition of corrosion in-hibitors is a fully demonstrated tech-nology for steam-electric powerplants.Recommended construction materialsfor components of cooling towers in salt-water service, the most severe case forcorrosion protection, include asbestoscement, certain types of concrete, paintand epoxy coatings, plastics includingreinforced fiberglass and polyvinyl-chloride, stainless steel, silicon bronze,and pressure-treated wood. The use ofthese materials rather than-conventionalmaterials is estimated to add about 2 to3 percent to the costs of saltwater cool-ing systems. The overall costs of closed-cycle saltwater cooling systems includingthe added capital cost for the condenser,can be as much as 8 to 2.0 percentgreater than for closed-cycle fresh-water cooling systems.

The development and use of non-toxiccorrosion inhibitors would continue tothe extent that many powerplants andother uses of closed-cycle water systemsare not required to meet the no dischargeeffluent limitation, which applies only tonew steam electiic powerplants. Sincedesign for corrosion protection does notpreclude the necessity for the additionof antiscalants and other materialswhere needed for control of coling sys-tem water chemistry for reasons otherthan corrosion inhibition, no limitationon these materials is established bythese regulations. The regulation reflect-ing best available technologr econom-ically achievable is based on chemicaltreatment technology for the removal ofchromium, zinc, -and phosphorus fromcooling tower blowdown. The effluentlimitations prescribed reflect the use ofalternate corrosion inhibitors and arebased on generally achievable limits forchemical treatment to remove all threepollutants. Chemical treatment for phos-phorus removal from sewage treatmentplant effluents could be designed for

phosphorus removal only, hence, lowereffluent phosphorus concentrations maybe achievable for sewage plants on LakeMichigan. According to NPDES permitapplication data, major steam electricpowerplants discharge an estimated56,000,000 pounds per year of chromiumand 7,300,000 pounds per year of zinc.These amounts represent, respectively,50 percent and 21 percent of the totalamounts of these materials discharged byall major industrial dischargers com-bined. Hence, the Importance of effluentlimitations on the discharge of thesepollutants from steam electric power-plants Is demonstrated.(23) Some commenters suggested thatmaximum design rainfall runoff, andareas requiring runoff protection, bemore clearly defined and that runoff inexcess of designed runoff be allowedwithout limitation.

The regulation has been revised tomore clearly define rainfall runoff areasmore explicitly and provides for dis-charge -without limitation when rainfallexceeds the specified design capacity.

(24) Some commenters suggested thatthe regulations allow sufflient flexibilityfor a variety of water reuse and treat-ment schemes, e.g., the use of coolingtower blowdown and other reclaimedwastewater for the transport of fly ash,

It Is the position of the Agency that,since available waste water treatmentsystems are generally effluent concentra-tion limited, reduction In the quantitiesof waste water requiring treatmentshould be encouraged in order to reducethe amounts of pollutants discharged toreceiving waters. In-plant water reusocan reduce the quantities of waste waterrequiring treatment and, hence, theamounts of pollutants discharged. It isalso recognized by EPA that, due to theeconomies of scale, combining similarwaste streams for treatment to removethe same pollutants is generally lesmcostly than separate treatment of theewaste streams, The employment of cost-saving alternatives In meeting the eldu-ent limitations should not be discouraged.Therefore, the regulations provide that,where various parallel waste streams arecombined for treatment or discharge, thequantity of each pollutant at the dis-charge and attributable to each wastesource shall not exceed the limitationspecified for that waste source. Such aprovision is designed to allow generallyfor combined treatment to meet the sameeffluent limitations that Would be appliedif the waste streams were treated sepa-rately. Furthermore, the regulationsallow for a variety of possible combina-tions for treatment or discharge of wastestreams, so long as the quantity of eachcontrolled pollutant attributable to eachwaste source does not exceed the speci-fied limitatloi for that waste source.

(25) Some commenters suggested that,based on cost considerations, smallplants and plants scheduled to be retiredwithin six years following the BATAcompliance date be exempted from theBATEA requirements of the proposedguidelines for pollutants other thanheat.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, UO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36196


The proposed JATEA limitations werebased on a significantly more costlytechnology than that upon which thefinal regulations are based. EPA recog--nizes that the cost of equipment isgreater -in relation to the generatingcapacity of the plant for a small plantthan for a large plant. However, tech-nological means for achieving theBATEA limitations on pollutants otherthan heat are -available which requirelower capital expenditure than the treat-ment models used by EPA to estimate thecosts for achieving the BATFA limita-tions. Operating costs for meetingBATEA would reflect the extent of theoperation of the plant in any case, aswould the pollutant discharges thatwould ensue. Therefore, costs do notjustify a general exemption of either oldor small plants from the BATMA limita-tions on pollutants other than heat.

(26) Some commenters suggested thatthe regulations for chemical pollutantsshould permit a discharger to proceeddirectly to a system to meet the 1983standards by an accelerated date, even ifthis precludes meeting the 1977 effluentlimitations by July 1, 1977. This couldthen avoid the wasteful backfitting re-quired to substantially alter the bestpracticable (1977) treatment system tomeet the 1983 limitations.

This comment was based on the pro-posed BATEA - chemical limitationswhich have been significantly revised inthe final regulation. The Agency hasestablished best practicable and bestavailable technologies to represent a logi-cal technical progression toward meetingthe goals of the Act. The treatment andcontrol systems which provide the basisfor best available technology are add-onsystems which require no significantbackfitting to the best practicable treat-ment and control technologie. Accord-ingly, there would.be no technical rea-son for delaying compliance with thedeadlines of the Act.

(27) Some commenters suggested thatEPA had not adequately analyzed thecosts for disposal of chemical wastesfrom treatment of powerplant effluentsand waste solids such as sludge. Thestorage and control of the large volumesof soluble salts would have a substantialenvironmental impact which could begreater than the impact of dischargingthese salts to receiving waters.

The Agency has determined, based onthe above and other factors, that theeffluent limitations on low volumes wastesources should reflect the technology ofchemical treatment and solids removalrather than concentration by evapora-tion and total recycle to achieve no dis-charge of pollutants. 'Nationally uniformapplication of this latter 'technologywould have required the land disposal ofthe dissolved solids removed from lowvolume waste waters of all U.S. power-plants. The remaining sludges from theapplication of chemical treatment and

" solids -removal technology require somedewatering prior to land disposal. Costsfor dewatering by filtration have beenconsidered. EPA estimates that for a

typical new 1000 megawatt coal-fired, 4,270,000 pounds per year of total iron,plant about 5 acres of land would be re- and 135,000 pounds per year of total cop-quired for disposal of chemical treat- per that would otherwise be dischared.ment sludges over the life of the plant Furthermore, large amounts of othercompared to approximately 120 acres re- pollutants such as phosphorus, chro-quired for ash disposal. Plants with wet- mium zinc and other heavy metals'crubber air pollution control devices would also be removed. Powerplantswould require considerably more land, as are estimated, based on NPDES per-a base, for disposal of sludges. All other mIt applications, to currently dis-powerpants would require typically an charge approximately 5,6C0,000 poundsestimated less thnn one acre of land per of chromium per year and 7,300,0001000 megawatts of generating capacity pounds of zinc per year, which are,for disposal of chemical treatment respectively, 50 percent and 21 per-sludges over the life of the plant. cent of the total quantities currently dis-

(28) Some commenters suggested that charged by all major Industrial dis-EPA had underestimated the costs of chargers In the U.S. Powerplants added,compliance with the proposed effluent according to FPC statistics, about 3,-limitations for pollutants other than 900,000 pounds of phosphates, 42,000,-heat. In support of this suggestion, addi- 000 pounds of lime, 76,000,000 pounds oftional data was submitted on the quan- caustic soda, 21,000,000 pounds of alum,titles of waste water from the individual and 51.000,000 pounds of chlorine chem-waste sources requiring treatment. It Icals to cooling water and boiler waterwas also suggested that, In support of an In 1970.alternative cost analysis submitted by (30) Some commenters suggested thatcommenters, the installation costs for the proposed limitations on chemicalwaste water treatment and control at pollutants would impose enormous costs.existing plants would be best estimated EPA has determined the nationwideat 150 percent of equipment costs rather costs associated with compliance withthan the 50 percent figure used In the the effluent limitations on pollutantsEPA cost analysis, The incremental 100 other than heat by 1983 could be as fol-percent would reflect the incremental lows: the Increased capital required iscosts attendant to backfitting those con- $1.4 billion, the increase in electricaltrols, while the 50 percent figure would generating costs is 0.2 mills per kilowattreflect only installations which would not hour. The increase in fuel consumptionrequire backfitting, as would be the case and lost generating capacity would befor new sources. Additional information negligible. The Agency has concludedwas submitted concerning the costs of that the cost of installing and operatingmodifications to once-through ash ban- chemical treatment systems are reason-dling systems to achieve recycle of bot- able in view of the effluent reductiontom ash transport water, the cost of dry benefits.fly ash handling systems, the costs of (31) Some commenters noted that therainfall runoff control and treatment, proposed regulations were not made di-and the additional costs that would be rectly applicable to discharges from elec-incurred to treat ash pond discharges In trical generating facilities using sourcesthe cases where bottom ash sluice water of heat other than coal, ol, gas, or nu-and fly ash sluice water already are corn- clear fuel. Such sources would poten-bined in the same ash pond and the re- tialy include geothermal steam and in-sulting ash pond discharge, after industrial by-products such as carboncorporation of recycle to bottom ash monoxide, blast-furnace gas, pitch andhandling, would require final treatment tar, bagasse, and wood refuse.to meet the effluent limitations. Some of These regulations apply to the op-the industry-wide costs analyses sub- eration of steam electric power gener-mitted by commenters were based, how- ating point sources by an establishmentever, on applying the worst case across primarily engaged in the generation ofthe total U.S. generating capacity, electricity for distribution and sale,

In consideration of these comments which generation results prlha fromfor the purpose of estimating the cost a process utilizing fossil-type fuel. (coal,of compliance, EPA has modified the bil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjune-waste water flow quantities for some of tion with a thermal cycle employing thethe individual waste sources, has used steam water system as a thermodynamican installation cost factor of 100 percent medium. It Is estimated that very fewof equipment costs for existing plants, utility-type steam electric units are notand has revised Its estimates of the costs covered by this regulation. Other elec-of meeting the effluent limitations on trical generating sources, such as thoseash sluice transport water and on rain- employed as captive operations at otherfall. industrial point sources, e.g., steel mills,

(29) Some comments suggested that chemical plants, etc., will be covered inEPA as failed to consider the benefits a sepa ate regulation.that would result from the chemical ef- (C) Ecoxorc IPmcTfluent limitations.

EPA has determined the effluent re- The revisions to the regulation de-duction benefits of the chemical limita- scribed above will significantly reducetions in coal-fired plants alone by 1990 its cost and economicimpact. TheAgencywould be the removal of approximately estimates that the regulation will in-280,000,000,000 pounds per year of total crease the utility industy's capital re-suspended solids (not including ash quirements by an additional 6.6 billionsolids normally removed by ash ponds), dollars by 1983, without allowing for the

FEDERAl. REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

3619-7RULES AND REGULATIONS



reduction in capital cost which may beexpected as a result of exemptions fromthe thermal limitations obtained undersection 316(a). (These and all other esti-mates are expressed in constant 1974 dol-lars). After having given effect to thenumber of exemptions which the Agencyanticipates under that section, the com-parable figure is 4.1 billion dollars.

The capital requirements attributableto thermal control are 5.2 billion, assum-ing no 316(a) exemptions, and 2.7 billionafter taking the estimated exemptionsunder that section into account,

The operating expenditures duringthe period 1974-1983 associated with thethermal limitations are estimated to be1.3 billion dollars and 0.8 billion dollars,before and after 316(a) exemptions, re-spectively, an increase of 0.4 to 0.2 per-cent of total industry operating expenses.

The fuel penalty associated with thethermal limitations consists of additionalfuel required to operate the closed-cyclecooling system and additional fuel re-quired per kilowatt-hour resulting fromefficiency losses due to increased turbinebackpressure. The combined annual fuelpenalty is approximately 3 percent. Inaddition, there will be a transient 2.1 per-cent fuel penalty associated with genera-tion of interim replacement capacityduring outages for conversion to closedcycle. The fuel penalty estimated repre-sents approximately 16 million tons ofcoal (a 1.6 percent increase in projected1983 coal consumption) and 44,000 bar-rels per day of oil (a 0.2 percent increasein projected 1983 oil consumption).After 316(a) exemptions, the correspond-ing figures are reduced by about one-half.

The capital cost of construction oftreatment facilities to comply with therestrictions on chemical discharges isestimated to aggregate 1.4 billion by 1983.Operating costs during this period at-tributable to chemical control are esti-mated at 2.0 billion, imposing an approx-imately 0.6 percent increase in the indus-try's total operating expenses.

The combined effect of capital andoperating costs for both thermal andchemical pollution control would in-crease the cost of electricity to consum-ers by a maximum of 2.2 percent by 1983.This price increase is not expected tohave a significant affect on the growth ofdemand for electricity. Moreover, whilethe capital costs are substantial in ab-solute terms, they represent, without ac-counting for expected exemptions forthermal limitations, approximately 3 per-cent of the capital which the industry isplanning to invest over the sext decadefor expansion of its generation capacity.The Agency has concluded that the in-dustry will be able to obtain sufficientadditional capital to finance the expendi-tures for water pollution control.

The costs of complying with the waterpollution control requirements are notexpected to have any effect on the pro-duction of electricity nor on employmentin the :ndustry.

(d) Publication of information onprocesses, procedures, or operating meth-ods which result in the elimination orreduction of the discharge of pollutants.

n conformance with the requirementsof section 304(c) of the Act, a manualentitled "Development Document forEffluent Limitations Guidelines and NewSource Performance Standards for theSteam Electric Power Generat;ing PointSource Category" is being published andwill be available for purchase from theGovernment Printing Office, Washing-ton, D.C. 20402 for a nominal fee.

The Agency anticipates that approxi-mately six weeks will be required to com-plete preparation of the final Develop-ment Document so that it accuratelydescribes the regulation, revised as in-dicated above. The Development Docu-ment, of course, will be prepared on thebasis of information and data now avail-able to the Agency; no additional datawill be solicited, collected or accepted.As soon as the Development Document Issubmitted to the Government PrintingOffice, copies of the text will be madeavailable for review and duplication inthe Agency's Public Information Office.

(E) FINAL RULEMXAING

In consideration of the foregoing, 40CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, is herebyamended by adding a new Part 423,Steam Electric Power Generating PointSource Category, to read as set forthbelow.

An order of the Federal District Courtfor the District of Columbia entered inNatural Resources Defense Coumcil; Inc.v. Train (Cv. No. 1609-73) required thatthe Administrator sign final effluentlimitations guidelines for this industrycategory by July 26, 1974. Subsequentmodifications of that order extended thedate for promulgation until September25, 1974. However, on March 15, 1974, theDistrict Court ordered that the effec-tive dates for regulations established byits initial order remain applicable andnot be affected by extensions in the pro-mulgation date. That initial order re-quires that effluent limitations guidelinesestablishing "best practicable controltechnology currently available" for thisindustry be effective upon publication.Accordingly, good cause is found for thefinal regulations promulgated below es-tablishing best practicable control tech-nology currently available for each sub-part to be effective upon publication inthe FEDERA REGISTER.

The regulations, establishing the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable, the standards of performancefor new sources and the new source pre-treatment standards shall become effec-tive on November 7, 1974.

Dated: October 2, 1974.

RUSSELL E. TaAn,Adminivtrator.

Subpart A-Generating Unit Subcztegory

Sec.423.10

423.11423.12

Applicability; description of the gen-erating unit subcategory.

Specialized definitions.Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

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

423.13 Effluent limitations guldolnc repre-senting tho degree of emuent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available tcohnol-ogy economically achievable.

423.14 [Reserved)423.15 Standards of Performance for now

sources.423.10 Pretreatment standards for now

sources.

Subpart B-Small Unit Subcatcgory

423.20 Applicability; description of thesmall unit subcategory.

423.21 Specialized definittons.423.22 Effluent limitations guidelines repro-

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

423.23 Effluent limitations guidelines repre-senting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available teohnol-ogy economically achievable,

423.24 (Reserved]423.25 Standards of performance for now

sources.423.26 Pretreatment standards for now

sources.

Subpart C-Old Unit Subcategory

423.30 Applicability; description of the oldunit subcategory.

423.31 Specialized definitions.423.32 Effluent limitations guldolines repre-

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

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

423.34 [Reserved.]

Subpart D-Area Runoff Subcategory

423.40 Applicability; description of the area-unoff subcategory.

423.41 Specialized definitions,423.42 Effluent limitations guidolineo rep-

resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technol-ogy currently available,

423.43 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of efflupnt re-duction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

423A4 Reserved.423A5 Standards of performance for novw

sources.423.46 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

Auriorry: Sees. 301, 301 (b) and (e),306 (b) and (c), 307(o) and 601(a) of theFederal Water Pollution Control Act, aqamended (33 U.S.O. 1215, 1311, 1314 (b) and(c), 1316 (b) and (o), 1317(o) and 1301(a)),86 Stat. 816 et zeq4 Pub. L. 02-500.

Subpart A-Generating Unit Subcategoy§423.10 Applicability; description of

the generating unit subcategory.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resulting from theoperation of a generating unit by an es-tablishment primarily engaged in thegeneration of electricity for distributionand sale which rez.ults primarily from aprocess utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal,oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunc-tion with a thermal cycle employing thesteam-water system as the thermody-namic medium.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39 , NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36198



o§ 423.11 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a), Except as provided below, the

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods.of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "generating unit" shallmean any generating unit subject to theprovisions of this part, except those unitsdefined below as small, or old.

(c) The term "small unit" shall meanany generating unit subject to the pro-visions of this part, except a unit de-fined below as old, of less than 25 mega-watts rated net generating capacity orany unit which is part of an electricutilities system with a total net gener-ating capacity of less thap 150 mega-watts.

(d) The term "old unit" shall meanany generating unit, subject to the pro-visions of this part, of 500 megawattsor greater rated net generating capacitywhich was first placed in service on orbefore January 1, 1970 and any generat-ing unit of less than 500 megawattsrated net generating capacity which wasfirst placed in service on or before Jan-uary 1, 1974.

(e) The term "blowdown" shall meanthe minimum discharge of recirculat-ing water for the purpose of discharg-ing materials contained in the water, thefurther buildup of which would causeconcentrations in amounts exceedinglimits established by best engineeringpractice.

f) The term "free available chlorine"shall mean the value obtained using theamperometric titration method for freeavailable chlorine described in "Stand-ard Methods for the Examination ofWater and Wastewater", page 112 (13thedition).

(g) The term "sufficient land" shallmean 100 sq m (1100 sq ft) or more permegawatt of nameplate generatingcapacity.

(h) The term -'low volume wastesources" shall mean, taken collectivelyas if from one source, wastewater fromall sources except those for which spe-cific limitations are otherwise estab-lished in this subpart. Low volumewastes sources would include but are notlimited to waste waters from wetscrubber air pollution control systems,ion exchange water treatment systems,water treatment evaporator blowdown,laboratory, and sampling streams, floordrainage, cooling tower basin cleaningwastes and blowdown from recirculatinghouse service water systems.

(i) The term "ash transport water"shall mean water used in the.hydraulictransport of either fly ash or bottomash.

Q) The term "metal cleaning wastes"shall mean any cleaning compouids,rinse waters, 'or any other waterborneresidues derived from cleaning any metalprocess equipment including, but notlimited to, boiler tube cleaning, boilerfireside cleaning and air preheatercleaning.

(k) The term "once through coolingwater" shall mean water passed through

the main cooling condensers In one ortwo passes for the purpose of removingwaste heat from the generating unit.(D The term "recirculated cooling

water" shall mean water which Is pasedthrough the main condensers for thepurpose of removing waste heat fromthe generating unit, passed through acooling device, other than a cooling pondor a cooling lake, for the purpose of re-moving such heat from the water andthen passed again, except for blowdown,through the main condenser.(m) The term "cooling pond" shall

mean any manmade water impoundmentwhich does not Impede the flow of anavigable stream and which Is used toremove waste heat from heated con-denser water prior to returning the re-circulated cooling water to the maincondenser.

(n) The term "cooling lake" shallmean any manmade water Impound-ment which impedes the flow of a navi-gable stream and which Is used to re-move waste heat from heated condenserwater prior to recirculating the water tothe main condenser.§ 423.12 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applicationof the best practicable control tech-nology 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,utilitation of facilities, raw materials,manufacturing processes, non-waterquality environmental impacts, controland treatment technology available,energy requirements and costs) whichcan affect the industry subcategorizationand effluent levels established. It Is, how-ever, possible that data which wouldaffect these limitations have not beenavailable and, as a result these limita-tions should be adjusted for certainplants In this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to Issue HPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipmentor facilities involved, the process applied,or other such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors considered in the estab-lishment of the guidelines. On the basisof such evidence or other available in-formation, the Regional Administrator(or the State) will make a written find-ing that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specifled In the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. The

Administrator may approve or dis-approve such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings to re-vise these 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:

(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 blphenol compoundssuch as those commonly used for trans-former fluid.

(3) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from low volume waste sourcesshall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of low volumewaste sources times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

Average of &iflyEffum' 3fxlm f~rvahuefarthfrty

¢ h tCr!TUo any ono scutive da

011=1 G oz. a.."J0jL.____ 2L5=]L

(4) The quality of pollutants dis-sharged in ash transport water shall notexceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of ash transport watertimes the concentration listed in the fol-lowing table:

eb Average of daify

cltarzterc onyorlay cos-cutivadaysshall not exceed

T8S......9.. ----- __ 100raQ1 ... 30 nxcLOil no Grceo.__ 2m/jL.L____ 5m fL

(5) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of metal cleaningwastes times the concentration listed inthe following table:

Averagoa of dallyEmfuent axmum for vaouesfortbIry

chba-ztez sta any ate d3y con7ecutivedays

Oil and G . 140 2---... I magf.Copper, To!tL. 1.0 mgL..... 1.0 mgjL.Iron, TotaL_. .O 1_ . . 1.0a igiL

(6) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-ceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of boiler blowdown timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:

Average of dailyEffuent Malntalufor value fortlirty

Cestc:fetl0 any one day conecutive da-s

T3S_9h_- 110 Z -- slaOil oad orewao....... L __gJ ........ 5migit,,p rTaieaL__...1.0 , L........1.Om1L

Vea, oal-....... 1.0 2L......n LOigXl

FEDERAL REGISTER, .VOL 39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36199



(7) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in once through cooling watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcooling water sources times the concen-tration listed in the following table:

Effluent Maximum AverageCharnetcrliall Concentration Concentration

.ree available 0.5 mg ---------- 0.2 mg/I.chlorine.

(8) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in cooling tower blowdown shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of cooling towerblowdown sources times the concentra-tion listed in the following table:

Effluent Maximum AverageCharacteristic Concentration Concentration

rFio available 0.5 mg/L...... D2 m3g/.chlorine.

(9) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may be dischargedfrom any unit for more than two hours inany one day and not more than one unitIn any plant may discharge free avail-able or total residual chlorine at any onetime unless the utility can demonstrateto the regional administrator or State, ifthe State has NPDES permit issuing au-thority, that the units in a particularlocation cannot operate at jr below thislevel of chlorination.

(10) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant property con-trolled in paragraphs (a) (1) through(10) of this section attributable to eachcontrolled waste source shall not exceedthe specified limitation for that wastesource.§ 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the npplica-tion of diee 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:

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

(b) There shall be no discharge of-polychlorinated biphenol compoundssuch as those commonly used for trans-former fluid.

(c) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from low volume waste sourcesshall not exceed the quantity determinedb.y multiplying the flow of low volumewaste sources times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

-1vg of da ilyEffuent - Maximum for I -0eor thirty

characterstc uny ono day ensecutivo daysEhallnot exceed

T-S- ....-----------100 mglL n------ .3 3gLOil and Grease .... 20 mgL ...- 15 mgh.

(d) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in bottom ash traniport watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of bottom ashtransport water times the concentrationlisted in the following table and dividingthe product by 12.5:

Average of dellyEffluent Maximum for values for thirty

characteristic any one day c secutive daysaiall not exceed

TSS ............. O Omg/L -------- 3OmJLOIl and Grea.-_.. 20 nglL ....-..... I, n.

(e) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in fly ash sluicing shall not ex-ceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of fly ash transport watertimes the concentration listed in the fol-lowing table:

Arereg of dailyEffluent Maximum for vxjus for thirty

characteristic any one day consecutive daysslall not exceed

ITSS ......... 100 mg/L --. ... g LOlland Grea,,o._. 2OmJ-1- ..... 15ingf-

(f) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of metl cleaningwastes times the concentraticn listed inthe following table:

Avera go of dalyEffluent Maximum for value for thirty

characteristic any one day coisccutiv laysshall not exceed

G'SS 100 mgJIL .-.. 30 mg/.,Oil and Grcase --- 20 ing/L -..... .15 m.ag/ICopper, TotaL 1.. 0 t0 m/I...... 0 mgI.Iron, Total...... 0 mgl-- ----- LO m/LI

(g) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-ceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of boiler blowdown timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:

Avrago of dailyEfIluent maximum for valnes for thirty

charsaterlstle anyone day conscutive daysshilnotese:cd

T5S..~ - -10 --mg/ -- .....- l 2i/ILOil and Grease --- 20 nig/L --------- 15 ingjl.Copper, TotaL-- 1.0 mgJI.... LO mg/iron, rotal.... 1.0 agI.... 1.0 Mcdl.

(h) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in once through condenser watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcondenser water sources times the con-centration listed in the following table:

Eflluent tlnwi, na Avcrt:,1Cha.rxcrlstlo Concentration Concentrotlon

Freo availablo O. M ......... 0.2 lchorino.

(1) The quantity of pollutanto di-charged from coolln tower blowdownshall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of cooling towerblowdown times the concentration lstdin the following table:

Effluent Maximum AvveragoCharcteristlo Conccatratlon Concntratlcn

rreo avallablochlorine.

O = L ........ 0.2 mg/l,

Averogr of dailyMaximum for valun 5'e thirtyny one day conOcutlvo dayn

rhall not esceed

Zinc -------------- 1.0 io ....... . 1.0 m/I.Chromium ..... 0.2 mgl -......... 0.2 a ,rhpho-rou 0 -.... 5.0 igi-L ......... 0 rna/1,Other corroeloa Limit to be etabIlieil on a ve

inhiblting by caso bwaj.materdau

(j) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may be d!Wchargedfrom any unit for more than two hours inany one day and not more than one unitin any plant may discharge free avail-able or total residual chlorine at anyone time unless the utility can demon-strate to the regIonal admini trator orstate, if the state has IPES permitissuing authority, that the units in aparticular location cannot operate tit orbelow this level of chlorination.

(W) In the event that wote streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant property con-trolled n paragraphs (a) through (W ofthis section attributable to each con-trolled waste source shall not exceed thespecified limitation for that waste source.

(1) There shall be no discharge of heatfrom the main condensers except,

(1) Heat may be discharged in blow-down from recirculated cooling watersystems provided the temperature atwhich the blowdown is discharged doesnot exceed at any time the lowest tem-perature of recirculating cooling waterprior to the addition of the make-upwater.

(2) Heat may be discharged In blow-down from recirculated cooling watersystems which have been designed to dis-charge blowdown water at a tempera-ture above the lowest temperature of re-circulated cooling water prior to theaddition of make-up water providingsuch recirculating cooling systems havobleen placed in operation or are undrconstruction prior to the effective dateof this regulation.

(3) Heat may be discharged where theowner or operator of a unit otherwisesubject to this limitation -can demon-strate that a cooling pond or cooling lakeis used or is under construction as of theeffective date of this relation to cool

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36200



recirculated cooling water before it Isrecirculated to the main condensers.

(4) Heat may be discharged wherethe owner or operator of a unit otherwisesubject to this limitation can demon-strate that sufficient land for the on-struction and operation of mechanicaldraft evaporative cooling towers is notavailable (after consideration of alter-nate land use assignments) on the prem-ises or on adjoining property under theownership or control of the owner oroperator as of March 4, 1974, and thatno alternate recirculating cooling systemis practicable.

(5) Heat may be discharged wherethe owner or operator of a unit other-wise subject to this limitation can dem-onstrate that the total dissolved solidsconcentration in blowdown exceeds 30,-000 mg/1 and land not owned or con-trolled by the owner or operator as ofMaxch 4, 1974, is located within 150meters (500 feet) in the prevailing down-wind direction of every practicable loca-tion for mechanical draft cooling towersand that no alternate recirculating cool-ing system is practicable. -

(6) Heat may be discharged where theowner 'or operator of a unit otherwisesubject to this limitation can demon-strate to the regional administrator orState, if the State has NPDES permitissuing authority, that the plume whichmust necessarily emit from a coolingtower would cause a substantial hazardto commercial aviation and that no alter-nate recirculated cooling water systemis practicable. In making such demon-stration to the regional administratr orState the owner or operator of such unitmust include a finding by the FederalAviation Administration that the visibleplume emitted from a well-operated cool-ing tower would in fact cause a substan--tial hazard to commerical aviation in thevicinity of a major commercial airport.

(in) The limitation of paragraph '(1)of this section shall become effective onJuly 1, 1981.- (n) In the event tfiat a regional re-

liability council, or when no functioningregional reliability council exists, a majorutility or consortium of utilities, candemonstrate to the regional administra-tor or State, if the State has NPDESpermit issuing authority, that the systemreliability would be seriously impactedby complying with the effective date setforth in paragraph (in) above, the re-gional administrator may accept an al-ternative proposed schedule of compli-ance on the part of all the utilitiesdoncerned providing, however, that suchschedule of compliance will require thatunits representing not less than 50 per-cent of the affected generating. capacityshall meet the compliance date, thatunits representing not less than an addi-tional 30 percent of the generatingcapacity shall comply not later thanJuly 1, 1932 and the balance of units shallcomply not later than July 1,1983.S423.14 [Reserved]

§ 423.15 Standards of performance fornew sources.

The following standards of perform-ance establish the quantity or quality of

pollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may bedischarged by a new source subject tothe provisions of this subpart:

(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 biphenol compoundssuch as those commonly used for trans-former fluid.

(c) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from low volume waste sourcesshall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of low volumewaste sources times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

Aero:o ofdailyEffluent Maxun fr alue3far thirty

charactrutlo any oo nday onr,cutivo days,hall not cxcvd

TS5 ----------- 100o ogil. ... Z0 =n1.Ottand as.. 20 l ......... 15fL

(d) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in bottom ash transport watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of bottom ashtransport water times the concentrationlisted in the following table and dividingthe product by 20:

Averc.o of dailyEffluent Mnyttumt far valucs for thirty

charaeterstlo anyeno day crzrcutlvodashall at ct ed

TSS ........... !... 100 . 35 M!JZ.Ol and -reasn..27)L ....... mtll.

(e) There shall be no discharge of TSSor oil and grease In fly ash transportwater.

(fW The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of metal cleaningwastes times the concentration listed inthe following table:

Avrao of dalyEffluent Maximum for NIalurst r thirty

clxarntastfo any ono day consecuUvo daysrhall not ciced

TSS---. - OD - -- ......Z wall.OU and Oreaso.... 20 niL. ..... 15 ma;JLCopper, Total. .--. 1.0Iron, TotaL ........ 1.0 rog/i.--.1.0 mgi.


Avertro of dailyEffluent 3!axtmum far v=lur far thirty

chnrarterisUo any one day onr reUvo d3ysUaltnt

TBS ............ 100 ixnfL_...... 5 mg/l.Oilnd G reae...20gL ........ 15 mg/I.Copper, Total ... LO =:-U .------ 1.0 znAg/Iron, Total ...... -LO mg/L -....- 1.0 mZ/.

(h) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged In once through cooling watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcooling water times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

Efflunt Mailma An,Chancta"i:ll Concentzratn Co=entroa

Fre available o0 gt .. .2WZJL

(I) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in cooling tower blowdownshall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of cooling towerblowdown sources times the concentra-tion listed in the following table:

Efflut MaimUM AvcrraaChcttC&iJ0 Cocentratin Conceatmration

reo av naltlaz .5 L...... o2igILchtrsliw.

Avragoeofdally31aximam for valucs for thirtycons oa day conzecative days

I'latb rU-1 No dcctab!3 No detectablafare armlon aun. amounT.Jnhltltotol-eludla,- but notlimited to ZlvM,chnmulum,

(j) Neither free available chlorinenor total residual chlorine may be dis-charged from any unit for more thantwo hours in any one day and not morethan one unit in any plant may dis-charge free available or total residualchlorine at any one time unless theutility can demonstrate to the regionaladminitrator or state, if the state hasNPDES permit issuing authority, thatthe units in a particular location cannotoperate at or below this level of chlori-nation.

(k) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant propertycontrolled in paragraphs (a) through(j) of this section attributable to eachcontrolled waste source shall not exceedthe specified limitation for that wastesource.(1) There shall be no discharge of

heat from the main condensers except:(1) Heat may be discharged n blow-

down from recirculated cooling watersystems provided the temperature atwhich the blowdown is discharged doesnot exceed at any time the lowest tem-perature of recirculated cooling waterprior to the addition of the make-upwater.

(2) Heat may be discharged in blow-down from cooling ponds provided thetemperature at which the blowdown isdischarged does not exceed at any timethe lowest temperature of recirculatedcooling water prior to the addition ofthe make-up water.§ 423.16 Pretreatment standards for new

sourcmsThe pretreatment standards under sec-

tion 307(c) of the Act for a source withinthe generating unit subcategory, which isa user of a publicly owned treatmentworks (and which would be a new sourcesubject to section 306 of the Act, if itwere to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth In 40 CFR Part 128, except that,


36-901


36202

for the purpose of this section, 40CP128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In addition to the prohibitions set forth in40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor Incompatible pollutants introduced into apublicly owned treatment works shall be thestandard of performance for new zourcesspecified In 40 CFR 423.15 except for the fol-lowing pollutants or pollutant parametersfor which the following pretreatment stand-ards are establlshed:

Pollutant or pollutant Pretreatmentparameter: standard

Heat ------------------- o limitation.Free available chlorine-... .-noTotal residual chlorine - .. -Do.If the publicly owned treatment works

which receives the pollutants is committed,In its 14PDES permit, to remove a specifiedpercentage of any Incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment standard applicable tousers of such treatment works shall, exceptin the case of standards providing for nodischrage of pollutants, be correspondinglyreduced in stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart B-Small Unit Subcategory§ 423.20 Applicability; description of

the small unit sub category.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resulting from theoperation of a small unit by an establish-ment primarily engaged in the genera-tion of electricity for distribution andsale which results primarily from aproc-ess utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, orgas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction witha thermal cycle employing the steam-water system as the thermodynamicmedium.§ 423.21 Specialized definitions.

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

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "small unit" shall meanany generating unit subject to the pro-visions of this part, except a unit de-fined below as old, of less than 25 mega-watts rated net generating capacity orany unit which is part of an electricutilities system with a total net gen-erating capacity of less than 150 mega-watts.

(c) The term "old unit" shall meanany generating unit, subjectto the pro-visions of this part, of 500 megawatts orgreater rated net generating capacitywhich was first placed in service on orbefore January 1, 1970 and any generat-ing unit of less-than 500 megawatts ratednet generating capacity which was firstplaced in service on or before January 1,1974.

(d) The term "blowdown" shall meanthe minimum discharge of recirculatingwater for the purpose of discharging ma-terials contained in the water, the fur-ther buildup of which would cause con-centrations in amounts exceeding limitsestablished by best engineering practice.

(e) The term "free available chlorine"shall mean the value obtained using theamperometric titration method for freeavailable chlorine described in "Stand-ard Methods for the Examination of


Water and Wastewater", page 112 (13thEdition).

(f) The term "low volume wastesources" shall mean, taken collectivelyas if from one source, wastewater fromall sources except those for which spe-cific limitations are otherwise estab-lished in this subpart. Low volume wastessources include but are not limited towaste waters from wet scrubber air pol-lution control systems, Ion exchangewater treatment systems, water treat-ment evaporator blowdown, laboratoryand sampling streams, floor drainage,cooling tower basin cleaning wastes,blowdown from recirculating house serv-ice water systems.

(g) The term "ash transport water"shall mean water used in the hydraulictransport of either fly ash or b)ttom ash.

(h) The term "'metal cleaningwastes" shall mean any cleaning com-pounds rinse waters, or any other water-borne residues derived from cleaningany metal process equipment including,but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning,boiler fireside cleaning and air pre-heater cleaning.(i) The term "once through cooling

water" shall mean water passed throughthe main cooling condensers in one ortwo passes for the purpose of removingwaste heat from the generating unit.

(j) The term "recirculated coolingwater" shall mean water which is passedthrough the main condensers for thepurpose of removing waste heat fromthe generating unit, passed through acooling device, other than a coolingpond or a cooling lake, for the purposeof removing such heat from the waterand then passed again, except for blow-

,down, through the main condenser.(k) Thc term "cooling pond" shall

mean any manmade water impundmentwhich does not impede the flow of anavigable stream and which is used toremove waste heat from heated con-denser water prior to returning the re-circulated cooling water to the main con-denser.§ 423.22 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree cf effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controTtechnology currently available;

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA tool: into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (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 industry subcategorizationand effluent levels established. It is, how-ever, possible that data which wouldaffect these limitations have not beenavailable and, as a result, these limita-tions should be adjisted 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 N/PDES permits)

that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities Involved, the process applied, orother such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally differentfrom the factors considered In the etab-lfshment of the guidelines. On the bazisof 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 Statoshall 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 differ-ent factors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of the Vn-vironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator ma; approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings to re-vise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations cztab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, which may be discharged bya point source subject to the provilonoof this subpart after application of thebest practicable control technology cur-rently available:

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

(2) There shall be no dischargo ofpolychlorinated biphenol compotmdisuch as those commonly used for trans-former fluid.

(3) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from low volume waste tourceashall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of low volumewaste sources times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

Avcragto of (l!ilyEffluent ifasimum for valtci for thirty

eharcterl tlo any one day contcutIvo ,lm i

Oil and arcao ..... 20 mwjL ...... 15 wil,

(4) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged In ash transport water shall notexceed the quantity determined by mul-tiplying the flow of ash transport watertimes the concentration listed in thefollowing table:

Avcx ."n of ,iidlyEflluent Mxlmumn for valuri for tl~rty

charactcrktle any one day connutlvo dEvashall not eccid

WOO -........-- 100 m'IL -........ .5hr',fl.01u

and Grco- . 20J/L ......... 15 i.

(5) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultipIying the flow of metal cleaningwastes times the concentration listed Inthe following table:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 196--TUESDAY, OCTOEII 8, 1974



Averageof dalyEffluent Maxtmum for values for thirty

characteristic anyone day consecative daysshall not exceed

TSS ----------- 1-moog. 30mg/I.Oil end Greas -...- 2GxgL-- 15 mg/ICopper, TotaL-_0 agIO..--L.... I.Iron, TotaL -..--- L0 mg/L.-..... 1.0 mg/

(6) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-ceed the quantity determined by mul-tiplying the flow of boiler blowdowntimes the concentration listed in thefollowing table:

Average ofdallyEffluent Maximum for values for thirty

characterLstio any one day consocutive daysShal not exceed

T5S.....---- .-..;. 100mX -----ra-30 -/1.Oil and Grease..---- 20mg/L....... 15 mg/LCopper, TotaL.-. LomWL -------- L0 mg/LIron, TotaL -..... - 1.0 mgI.- .... L0 mg/IL

(7) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged.in once through cooling watershall not exceed the quantitydeterminedby multiplying the flow of once throughcooling water sources times the concen-tration listed in the following table:

Effluent Maximum Average-Characteristic Concentration Concentration

Free available o.x md I-. 2 mg/Lchlorine.

(8) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in cooling tower blowdown shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of cooling towerblowdown sources times the concentra-tion-listed in the following table:


Free available 0.5 mg/1 .-.... 0.2 mg/Lchlorim

§ 423.23 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the dcgree of effluentreduction attainablo by the npplica-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 ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:(a) The PH of all discharges, except

once through cooling water, shall bewithin the range of 6.0-9.0.



AvroodailyEffluent Maximum far yee lfar thirty

charactcristio anyone day c u iv daysShall not exce-d

TS ------------ I00 mga --.- -. mSo/l.Ol antlreaso. 20 mg/L.... 15 mZj.

(d) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in bottom ash transport watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of bottom ashtransport water times the codcentrationlisted in the following table and dividingthe product by 12.5:

Averag otdallyEffluent Maximum for valuca for thirty

characteristo nany on day conftcutvrodaysShall not exceed

TBS -------------- 100 mgIL .. m.. .Ol land ore so .- 20mgjL.--. 14--.

Ce) The quantity of pollutants dis-(9) Neither free available chlorine nor (e Th qy of Portats s-total residual chlorine may be discharged charged in fly ash transport water shallfrom any unit for more than two hours not exceed the quantity determined byin any one day and not more than one multiplying the flow of fly ash transportunit in any plant may discharge free water times the concentration listed inavailable or total residual chlorine at the following table:any one time unless the utility can dem-onstrate to the regional admifitrator or Avceraotdllstate, if the state has INPDES permit is- Effluent raxinmum for values ar thirtysuing authority, that the units in a par- characteristic any one day coracutiedayticular location cannot operate at or shall_____ =3below this level of chlorination. T5S---------- mg3 mg/I

(10) In the event that waste streams Oil and rese.....20 L..... 15mIfrom various sources are combined fortreatnient or discharge, the quantity of Cf) The quantity of pollutants dis-each pollutant or pollutant property con-trolled in paragraphs (a) (1) through charged in metal cleaning wastes shall(10) of this section attributable to each not exceed the quantity determined bycontrolled waste source shall not exceed multiplying the flow of metal cleaningthe specified limitation for-that waste wastes times the concentration listed insource. I - the following table:

AverageofdailyEfflunt Maximum fr values for thirty

charactertitle any Mon day consecutivo daysShan not exceed

30mg/LOi.ad ...m--- 20 m= L---- .... ;Copr,TtaL.. 1.0mo - 1.0ag1 .Iron, Total.._ 5.0mr . 1.0 mg/..

(g) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged In boiler blowdown shall not ex-ceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of boiler blowdown timesthe concentration listed in thIe followingtable:

Averageofdily-Eff~l-m; Maxim= for values for thirty

charatcrLtila any oe day comecuflve daysshailnot ciceed

Oiad Grc...... 0 1 1. =g.Copper,'..Total- 1.0mJL.. 1.0mg/I.Iron, TOWn._ 2.0m~._ 1.0 ,, .

(h) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged In once through condenser water-shall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcondenser water sources times the con-centration listed In the following table:

Effluent Maximum AveragaChrn-tcrL&t Conueentmtln Concentratlon

Free availbl o.5m . . 0.2 mg,.chlorine.

() The quantity of pollutants dis-charged In cooling tower blowdown shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of low volume wastesources times the concentration listed inthe following table:

Effiunt aximum AverageCharatc&zt Coi.natlen Concentatfen

Fro avlbbh!*chtorine

0ZmZA-- 0.2mg/I

Averaga of dailyMaximum fr vatue for thirtyany one day concumtivdays

shall n t exceed

Chromium----0, O&- zp t....F 5. r....0n..Other corec-ica i/mit to be c aehlihad onacao by•

inhibiing cnae hees.matneIals.

(J) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may be dischargedfrom any unit for more than two hoursin any one day and not more than oneunit in any plant may discharge freeavailable or total residual chlorine atany one time unless the utility candemonstrate to the regional administra-tor or state, If the state has NMDES per-mit issuing authority, that the units in aparticular location cannot operate at orbelow this level of chlorination.

(k) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined for


36-03



treatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant property con-trolled in paragraphs (a) through (j) ofthis section attributable to each con-trolled waste source shall not exceed thespecified limitation for that waste source.§ 423.24 [Reserved]§ 423.25 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 bedischarged by a new source subject tothe provisions of this subpart:

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


(c) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from low volume waste sourcesshall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of low -volumewaste sources times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

&verago of dailyEffluent Maximum for values for thirty

elaratcristlo any one day consecutive daysshall not exceed

T8 ........... --. 00mg -. 0mg/l.Oil and Grease ..... 20 mgL -.-..... 15

(d) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in bottom -ash transport watershall not exceed the quantity deter-mined by multiplying the flow of bottomash transport water times the concen-tration listed in the following table anddividing the product by 20:

Average of dailyEffluent maximumfor values forthirty

characteratio anyane day consecutive daysshall not ececd

T5........... 00IDO .. 30 mg/LOnl and 0rase__. 2O0,mgIL.--. 15 ag/I

(e) There shall be no discharge of TSSor oil and grease in fy ash transportwater.

(f The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of metal cleaningwastes times the concentration listed inthe following table:

Average o dallyffluent 2Iaxlmumfor values for thirty

characteristio any one day anscutive daaUsi not exceed

Tss..--------- -- 10 0 m)L__..__ 30g/ILOil and Grc e- 20 mg ........-- 15 mg/LCopper, Total-.... 1.0g ---- 1.0 mg/.Iron, Total ------....... .... 1.0mg/.


.Lvera eof dailyEffluent Maimumfor val ne or thirty

characterstic any one day eenscculTve i da.1, I nt ece

TSS ---------------- 100 m gL---..--- 3) mg/.Olland Orcasa__ 2 tJ____.1 Lnag/I.Copper. Total.__. 1.0 mg/ _ ... 10gLIron, Total --------- 1.0 mg/l --------- 1.0ngi.

(h) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in once through cooling watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcooling water times the concentrationlisted in the following table:

Effluent Maximum AveragoCharacteristic Concentration Concentrtlon

Tree available 05 mg/I-. -- 0.2 mg/l.chlorine.

(1) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in cooling tower blowdown shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of cooling towerblowd6wn sources times the concentra-tion listed in the following table:

Efflunt Maxlmum AverageCharmaterdstc Concentration Concentration

Free available 0.5 m,___ 0.2 mg/ILchlorine.

Averco of dailyafhxnun for values for thirtyany one d3y consecutive daysrhalhot axceed

Materials ndde l No detectable N) detectablofor zorrosion In- amount. amounthlbition Includ-ingrz l nc,

om, phos-phorous andother.

(j) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may be dischargedfrom any unit for more than two hoursin any one day and not more than oneunt in any plant may discharge -freeavailable or total residual chlorine at anyone time unless the utility can demon-strate to the regional administrator orstate, if the state has NPDES permit is-suing authority, that the units in a par-ticular location cannot operate at or be-low this level of chlorination.

(k) In the event that waste steamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment, or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant property con-trolled in paragraphs (a) through () ofthis section attributable to each con-trolled waste source shall not exceed thespecified limitation for that wastesource.

(1) 'There shall be no discharge ofheat from the main condensers except:

(1) Heat may be discharged in blow-down from recirculated cooiLng watersystems provided the temperature atwhich the blowdown is discharged doesnot exceed at any time the lowest tem-perature of recirculated cooling waterprior to the addition of the make-upwater.

(2) Heat may be discharged in blow-down from cooling ponds provided the

temperature ttt -which the blowdown ladischarged does not exceed at any timethe lowest temperature of recirculatedcooling water prior to the addition ofthe make-up water.§ 423.26 Pretreatment standards for new

sources.

The pretreatment standards undersection 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the small unit subcategory, whichIs a user of a publicly owned treatmentworks (and which would be a new sourcosubject to section 306 of the Act, if It were%o discharge pollutants to the navigablewaters), shall be the standard sct forthIn 40 CFR Part 128, except that, for thepurpose of this section, 40 CPR 128.133shall be amended to read as follows:

In addition to the prohibitions cot forth In40 CPR 128.131, the pretrcatmont atandardfor incompatible pollutants Introduced intoa publicly owned treoatment worlm c hal1 bethe standard of performance for now courccispecified In 40 CPR 423.25 except for thefollowing pollutants or pollutant parametersfor which the follovng pretreatment ctand-urds ar ectablIshcd:Polhtant or pollutant Pretreatment

parameter standardIeat ------------------ No limitation.Freo availablo chlorine. Do.Total residual chlorine- Do.

If the publicly owned treatment vvorklwhich receives the pollutants b3 committed,in its NPDES permit, to remove a speclfi(epercentage of any Incompatible pollutant,the pretreatment standard applicable tousers of such treatment worlm shall, exceptIn the caso of standards providing for no dis-charge of pollutants, be correpondingly ro-duced in stringency for that pollutant.

Subpart C-Old Unit Subcategory§423.30 Applicability; dcscriptlon of

the old unit vubcategory.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resulting from theoperation of an old unit by an establish-ment primarily engaged in the genera-tion of electricity for distribution andsale which generally results primarilyfrom a process utiliing foszll-typo fuel(coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in con-Junction with a thermal cycle employ-ing the steam-water zsytem as thethermodynamic medium.§ 423.31 Specialized definitions.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except asprovidedbelow, the gen-

eral deflnitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart,

(b) The term "old unit" shall meanany generating unit, subject to the pro-visions of this part, of 500 me-awatts orgreater rated net generating capacitywhich was first placed In service on orbefore January 1, 1970 and any gener-ating unit of less than 500 megawattsrated net generating capacity which wasfirst placed in service on or before Jan-uary 1, 1974.

(c) The term 'rblowdowniP shall meanthe minimum discharge of rectrculatingwater for the purpose of discharging ma-terials contained in the water, the fur-ther buildup of which would cause con-

FEDERAL REGISTER, YOL 39, NO. 196-TUFSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1974

36204



centrations in ampunts exceeding limitsestablished by- best engineering prac-tice.(d) The term "Tree avaiIfble chlo-

rine" shall mean thevalue obtained usingthe amperometric titration method forfree available chlorine described in"Standard Methods for the Examina-tion of Water and Wastewater"', page112 (13th Edition).

(e) The term "low volume wastesources" shall mean, taken collectivelyas if from one source, wastewater fromall sources except those for whichspecific limitations are otherwise estab-lished in this subpart Low volumewastes sources include but are not lim-ited to waste waters from wet scrubberair pollution. control systems, ion ex-change water treatment systems, watertreatment evaporator blowdown, labora-tory and sampling streams, floor drain-age, cooling tower basin cleaning wastes,blowdown from recirculating houseservice water systems.

(f) The term "ash transport water"shall mean water used in the hydraulictransport of either fly ash or bottomash.

(g) The.term. "metal cleaning wastes"shall mean any cleaning compounds,rinse waters, or any other waterborneresidues derived from cleaning anymetal process- equipment, including, butnot limited to, boiler tube cleaning,boilerfireside cleaning and air preheatercleaning.

(h) The term, "once through coolingwater" shall mean water passed throughthe main cooling condensers in one ortwo passes for the purpose of removingwaste -process heat from the generatingunit.(i) The, term "recirculated cooling

water" shall mean water which is passedthrough the main_ condensers for thepurpose of-removingwaste heat from thegenerating unit, passed through a cool-ing device for the purpose of removingsuch heat from the water and. thenpassed again through the main con-denser.§ 423.32 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

(a) In establishing the limitationsset forth, 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 availableenergy requirements and. costs) whichcan affect the Industry subeategoriza-ton and effuent levels establishe(. Itis, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An Individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-

ministrator (or to the State, if the Statehas the authority to isue 14PDES per-mits that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities ivolved 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 writter find-ing that such factors are or &re not fun-damentaily different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the De-velopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither, more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or dls-approve, such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings torevise these regulations.

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

(1) The pI of all discharges, exceptonce through cooling water, sh bewithin. the range of .01..

(2M There shn be no discharge ofpolychlorinated biphenoI compoundssuch as those commonly used for trans-former fluid.

(3) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged from low volume waste sourcesshall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of low volumewaste sources times the concentrationIrsted In. the following table:

Av=a ofdAyEfflu nt -Madmum for vaue far thirty

chnaterfstro any ona day, Ca Luvo dayrbunot=

TSS-. . .10 L........ LOil and . mL ..... 1 m.

(4) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in ash. transport water shall notexceed. the quantity determined by mul-tiprying the flow of ash transport watertimes the concentration I sted in the foI-lowing table-

Av actdanychanterstl a ay oan da=r diall not war~cd

TS-...- 100 l MMILO and Gre. 20 2aJl.. 15 m=j1

(5) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged In metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of metal cleaning

3G205

wastes times the concentration listed Inthe following table:

EfflhuZt Avcro aTC3- n- tCG=,L Z eshr2O

T02 . . .or -- ;2 11_-. 2 5 /01Ca;-cz.TLa1 - 15 uZJLLmir.Tla/.._ 1.0 -__ 1.0=L

(6) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in boiler blowdown shal not ex-ceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of boiler blowdown timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:

Avemiga ordiaffyEfmlct "Immufr v ea rI

Ch=1teZff3 ar I day

OH1 =d Grc.. Tj.... _ lmj.

imn, Tow-.__ 2o.0 _ 1.0=j/Lt

(7) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in once through cooling watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcooling water sources times the concen-tration listed in the following table:

Eflnryn, VM , AT-,,

Eraear~'-4 0.mJ... . .. a c

(8) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in cooling tower blowdown shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of cooling towerblowdown sources times the concen-tration. listed in the following table:

chanta-iz conaetMUMr C.mnm±a

=toalaha 0.szJL. 0.2ma L

(9) Neither frew available chlorinenortotal r-sidual chlorine may be disehargedfrom any unit for more than twa hoursin. any one day and, not more than oneunit in any plant may discharge freeavailable or total residual elor atany one time unless the utility can demn-onstrate to the regional administratoror state. If the state has NPDES permitissuing authority, that the unfs in aparticular location cannot operate at orbelow thIs Ievel of chlorination.

(0) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutan=t orpollutant property con-trolled in paragraphs (a) (I) through(10) of this section attributable to eachcontrolled waste source shall not exceedthe specified limitation for that wastesource.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 196-TUESDAY, OCTOBER, , 1974


36206

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

The following limitations establish theqdantity 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:

(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 ofpolychorinated biphenol compoundssuch as those commonly used for trans-former fluid.


I Average ofdailyEffluent Mfaximum for values for thirty

characteristic any one day consecutive daysshall not exeed-

T53 -------------- 100 mg/ ---------- 30 mg/.011 and Grease- - 20 mg/L -........ 15 Mg/.

(d) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in bottom ash transport watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of bottom ashtransport water times the concentrationlisted in the following table and dividingthe product by 12.5:

Average of dailyEffluent Maximum for values for thirty

characteristic any one day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

T8 -------------- 100 m/L.- 30mg/l.Oil and Grease-- 20mg/L-- ....... 15mng/L

(e) The quantity; of pollutants dis-charged in fly ash transport water shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of fly ash transportwater times the concentration listed inthe following table:

Average of dailyEffluent Maximn. for values Yor 30

characteristic any 1 day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

TSS -............... 100 mg/L -- - 0mg/iOil and Grease - 20 mgIL- 15 .. g/L

(f) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in metal cleaning wastes shallnot exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of metal cleaningwastes times the concentration listed inthe following table:

RULES AND REGUUTIONS

Average of dailyEffluent - Maximum for values for 30

characteristic any 1 day 3.onsecutive days,3hall not exceed-

T S S ---------------- 100 ,m g/L .. ...... 30 m g/lOR and Grease ----- 20 mg/L ------- 15 mgl.Copper, Total- ----- 1.0 mgl-....... 1.0 mg/I.Iron, Total; -..... 1 1.0 mg/ --------- 1.0 mg/I.

(g) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in boiler blowdown shall notexceed the quantity determined by multi-plying the flow of boiler blowdown timesthe concentration listed in the followingtable:

Average of dailyEffluent Maximum for values forthifly

characteristic any one day , onsceutlv daysshall not exce

TSS -------------- 100 mg/L --- 30 mg/l.Oil and Grease --- 20 mgjL ------ 15 mg/I.Copper, Total- ---- 1.0 mg/I 1.0 mg/i.Iron, Total --------- 1.0 mg/I - 1.0 mg/l.

(h) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in once through condenser watershall not exceed the quantity determinedby multiplying the flow of once throughcondenser water sources times the con-centration listed in the following table:


Free available 0.5 mg/ i--------- 0.2 mg/I.chlorine.

(i) The quantity of pollutants dis-charged in cooling tower blowdown shallnot exceed the quantity determined bymultiplying the flow of low volume wastesources times the concentration listed inthe following table:


Free avallabb 0.5 mg/I --------- (.2 mg/I.chlorine.

Average of dailyMaximum for values for 30

any I day c.rnsecutivo days:aall not exceed-

Zinc ------------- 1.0 mg/i --------- 1.0 mgil.Chromium - 0.2 mg/i- ----- 0.2 mg/I.Phosphate ------- 5.0 mg/i -------- 5.0 mgi.Other corrosion Limit to be establhed on a casoeby

Inhibiting case bAis.materials.

(j) Neither free available chlorine nortotal residual chlorine may be dischargedfrom any unit for more than two hoursin any one day and not more than oneunit In any plant may discharge freeavailable or total residual chlorine at anyone time unless the utility can demon-strate to the regional administrator orstate, if the state has NPDES permitissuing authority, that the unts in a par-

ticular location cannot operate at orbelow this level of chlorination.

(k) In the event that waste streamsfrom various sources are combined fortreatment or discharge, the quantity ofeach pollutant or pollutant property con-trolled in paragraphs (a) through () ofthis section attributable to each con-trolled waste source shall not exceed thespecified limitation for that waste source.§ 423.34 [Reserved]

Subpart D-Area Runoff Subcategory§423.40 Applicability; description of

the area runoff subcategory.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resutling from ma-terial storage runoff and constructionrunoff which are used in or derived fromunits subject to the limitations in sub-parts A, B. or C of this part.§ 423.41 Specialized defitdionq0

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 CI'RPart 401 shall apply to this subpart,

(b) The term "material storage run-off" shall mean the rainfall runoff fromor through any coal, ash or other ma-terial storage pile.

(c) The term "construction runoff"shall mean the rainfall runoff from anyconstruction activity and any earth sur-face disturbed by such activity from theinception of the construction until con-struction is complete and any disturbedearth is returned to a vegetative or othercover commensurate with the Intendedland use.(d) The term "10 year, 24 hour rainfall

event" shall mean a rainfall event witha probable recurrence interval of oncein ten years as defined by the NationalWeather Service in Technical Paper No.40, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of theUnited States," May 1961, and subse-quent amendments, or equivalent re-gional or State rainfall probability In-formation developed therefrom.§ 423.42 Effluent limitations gtldelhtco

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the best practicable control

-. technology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set,forth 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,utilization of facilities, raw materials,manufacturing processes, non-waterquality environmental impacts, controland treatment technology availtble, en-ergy requirements and costs) which canaffect the industry subeategorlzatilonand effluent levels established. It is, how-




ever, possible that data which would af-fect these limitations have not beenavailable and, as a result, these limita-tions should be adjusted for certainplants In this Industry. An Individualdischarger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional Ad-minitrator (or to the State, If the Statehas the authority to issue N'PDES per-mits) that factors relating to the equip-ment or facilities involved, the processapplied, or other such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentallydifferent from the factors. considered in,the establishment of the guidelines. Onthe basis of such evidence or other avail-able information, the Regional Adminis-trator (or the State) will make a writ-ten finding that such factors are or arenot fundamentally different for that fa-cility compared to those specified in theDevelopment Document. If such funda-mentally different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES permiteither more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentallydifferent factors. Such limitations mustbe approved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify other lim-itations, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graph (b) of this section, the followinglimitations establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant prop-erties, controlled by this section, whichmay be discharged by a point source sub-ject to the provisions of this subpartafter application of the best practicablecontrol technology currently available:

Effluent Effluentcharacteristic: limitations

TSS ......... Not to exceed 5 mg/.ph-------... Within the range 0.0 to 9.0.

(b) Any untreated overflow from fa-clilties designed, constructed and oper-ated to treat the volume of material stor-age runoff and construction runoff whichis associated with a 10 year, 24 hour rain-fall event shal not be subject to thelimitations In subparagraph (a) of thissection.§ 423.43 Effluent limitations guidelines

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

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graph (b) of this section, the followinglimitations establish the quantity orquality of pollutants or pollutant prop-erties, controlled by this section, whichmay be discharged by a point source sub-ject to the provisions of this subpart afterapplication of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available:

Effluent Efflhjentcharacteristic: limitations

TSS -- Not to exceed 50 mg/l.ph -------- thin the range 0.0 to 9.0.

(b) Any untreated overflow from fa-cilities designed, constructed and oper-ated to treat the volume of material Btor-age runoff and construction runoff whichresults from a 10 year, 24 hour rainfallevent shall not be subject to the limita-tions In paragraph (a) of this section.§ 423.44 [leserved]§ 423.45 Standards of performance for

new sources.

(a) Subject to the provisions of para-graph (b) of this section, the followingstandards of performance establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-

lutant properties, which may be dis-charged by a new source subject to theprovisions of this subpart:

Efluent Effluentcharacteristld: limitations

TS --- Not to exceed Bo mg/I.ph Wi "thin the range 6.0 top.0.(b) Any untreated overflow from fa-

clities designed, constructed and oper-ated to treat the volume of material stor-age runoff and construction runoff whichresults from a 10 year, 24 hour rainfallevent shall not be subject to the ph andTSS limitations stipulated in paragraph(a) of this section.§ 423.46 Pretreatment standards for

new sources.The pretreatment standards under

section 307(c) of the Act for a sourcewithin the area runoff 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 w ere to discharge pollutants to thenavigable waters), shall be the standardset forth In 40 CFR Part 128, except that,for the purpose of this section, 40 CPR128.133 shall be amended to read asfollows:

In additlon to the prohibtlons set forth in40 CER 128.131, the pretreatment standardfor incomp3blo pollutanta introduced intoa publicly ovned treatment works sball bethe standard of performance for new sourcescpecifled in 40 CF 423.45; Provided, That,If the publicly owned tre ant works whlchrecolves the pollutanta is committed, in itsNPDES permit, to remove a specified per-centage of any incompatible pollutant, thepretreatment standard applicable to users ofsuch treatment works thall, except in thecaso of standards providing for no dischargeof pollutant, be corre--pondingly reduced inctringency for that pollutant.

[FR Doc.74-Z$333 Filed 10-7-74;8:45 am]


36-907


Documents

Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines - Final Rule - … › sites › production › files › 2015-07 › ... · 2015-07-13 · 36186 HeinOnline -- 39 Fed. Reg. 36186