Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 469

(WH-FRL 22984]

Electrical and Electronic ComponentsPoint Source Category; EffluentLimitations Guidelines, PretreatmentStandards, and New SourcePerformance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency.ACTION: Proposed regulation.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing regulationsunder the Clean Water Act to limiteffluent discharges to waters of theUnited States or to publicly ownedtreatment works (POTWs) from cathoderay tube and luminescent materialsmanufacturing facilities. The purpose ofthis proposal is to establish new sourceperformance standards andpretreatment standards for theseindustries. After considering commentsreceived in response to this.proposal,EPA will promulgate a final rule.DATE: Comments on this proposal mustbe submitted by May 9, 1983.ADDRESS: Send comments to: Mr. JohnNewbrough, Effluent GuidelinesDivision (WH-552), EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M St., SW,Washington, D.C. 20460, Attention:Electrical and Electronic ComponentsRules. Technical information and copiesof technical documents may be obtainedfrom Mr. John Newbrough, at theaddress listed above. The economicanalysis may be obtained from Ms.Renee Rico, Economic Analysis Staff(WH-586), Environmental ProtectionAgency, 401 M St., SW, Washington,D.C. 20460 or call (202) 382-5397. Forfurther information contact: JohnNewbrough (202-382-7158).FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.John Newbrough (202) 382-7158.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview. The preamble discusses thelegal authority and background, thetechnical and economic data bases, andother aspects of the proposedregulations. Abbreviations, acronyms,and other terms used in the preambleare defined in Appendix A.

These proposed regulations aresupported by three major documentsavailable from EPA. Analytical methods,are discussed in Sampling andAnalysisProcedures for Screening of IndustrialEffluents for Priority Pollutants. EPA'stechnical, conclusions are detailed in theDevelopment Document for EffluentLimitations Guidelines and Standardsfor the Electrical and Electronic

Component Point Source Category-Phase 2. The Agency's economicanalysis is found in Economic ImpactAnalysis of Effluent LimitationsGuidelines and Standards for theElectrical and Electronic ComponentsPoint Source Category-Phase 2.

The supporting information and allcomments on this proposal will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2402 (Rear) (EPA Library).The EPA public information regulation(40 CFR Part 2) provides that areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.

Organization of This Notice

I. Legal AuthorityIf. Background

A. The Clean Water Act and the NRDCSettlement Agreement

B. General Criteria for Effluent LimitationsC. Prior EPA RegulationsD. Overview and Description of the

IndustryIII. Summary of MethodologyIV. Data Gathering EffortsV. Sampling and Analytical ProgramVI. Industry SubcategorizationVII. Available Wastewater Control and

Treatment TechnologyA. Status of In-Place TechnologyB. Control Treatment Options

VIII. Selection of Treatment Options andEffluent Limitations

IX. Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated

A. Exclusion of PollutantsB. Exclusion of Subcategories

X. Cost and Economic ImpactXI. Non-Water Quality Environmental

'ImpactsXII. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsXIII. Variances and ModificationsXIV. Relation to NPDES PermitsXV. Solicitation of CommentsXVI. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 469XVII. Appendices

A. Abbreviations, Acronyms and OtherTerms Used in this Notice

B. List of Toxic Organics Comprising TotalToxic Organics [TTO)

C. List of Toxic Pollutants Excluded FromRegulation

I. Legal Authority

EPA is proposing the regulationsdescribed in this notice under theauthority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307,308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (theFederal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972, 33 USC 1251 etseq., as amended by the Clean WaterAct of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217) (the "Act").These regulations also are proposed inresponse to the Settlement Agreement inNatural Resources Defense Council, Inc.v. Train. 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C..1976),modified 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979),modified by order dated October 26,1982.

II. Background

A. The Clean'Water Act and theSettlement Agreement

The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments of 1972 established acomprehensive program to "restore andmaintain the chemical, physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation'swaters," Section 101(a).

* Section 301(b)(1)(A) set a deadlineof July 1, 1977, for existing industrialdirect dischargers to achieve "effluentlimitations requiring the application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available" ("BPT").

* Section 301(b)(2)(A) set a deadlineof July 1, 1983, for these dischargers toachieve "effluent limitations requiringthe application of the best availabletechnology economicallyachievable * * * which will result inreasonable further progress toward thenational goal of eliminating thedischarge of all pollutants" ("BAT").

* Section 306 required that newindustrial direct dischargers complywith new source performance standards("NSPS"}, based on best availabledemonstrated technology.

* Sections 307 (b) and (c) requirepretreatment standards for new andexisting dischargers to publicly ownedtreatment works ("POTW"). While therequirements for direct dischargers wereto be incorporated into NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permits issued under Section402, the Act made pretreatmentstandards enforceable directly againstdischargers to POTWs (indirectdischargers).

* Section 402(a) of the 1972 Act doesallow requirements for directdischargers to be set case-by-case.However, Congress intended controlrequirements to be based for the mostpart on regulations promulgated by theAdministrator of EPA.

0 Section 304(b) required regulationsthat establish effluent limitationsreflecting the ability of BPT and BAT toreduce effluent discharge.

a Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Actrequire regulations for NSPS.

* Sections 304(g), 307(b), and 307(c)require regulations for pretreatmentstandards.

* In addition to these regulations fordesignated industry categories, Section307(a) required the Administrator topromulgate effluent standardsapplicable to all dischargers of toxicpollutants.

0 Finally, Section 501(a) authorizedthe Administrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations "necessary tocarry out his functions" under the Act.

10012

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

The EPA was unable to promulgatemany of these regulations by thedeadlines contained in the Act, and as aresult, in 1976, EPA was sued by severalenvironmental groups. In settling thislawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executeda "Settlement Agreement" which wasapproved by the Court.This agreementrequired EPA to develop a program andmeet a schedule for controlling 65"priority" pollutants and classes ofpollutants. In carrying out this programEPA must promulgate BAT effluentlimitations guidelines, pretreatmentstandards, and new source performancestandards for 21 major industries. SeeNational Resources Defense Council,Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976) asmodified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979) andby order dated October 26, 1982.

Several of the basic elements of theSettlement Agreement program wereincorporated into the Clean Water Actof 1977. This law also makes severalimportant changes in the Federal waterpollution control program.

e Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now set July 1,1984 as the deadline for industries toachieve effluent limitations requiringapplication of BAT for "toxic"pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants hereincludes the 65 "priority" pollutants andclasses of pollutants which Congressdeclared "toxic" under Section 307(a) ofthe Act.

* Likewise, EPA's programs for newsource performance standards andpretreatment standards are now aimedprincipally at controlling toxicpollutants.

- To strengthen the toxics controlprogram, Section 304(e) of the Actauthorizes the Administrator toprescribe certain "best managementpractices" ("BMPs"). These BMPs are toprevent the release of toxic andhazardous pollutants from: (1) Plant siterunoff, (2) spillage or leaks, (3) sludge orwaste disposal, and (4) drainage fromraw material storage if any of thoseevents are associated with, or ancillaryto, the manufacturing or treatmentprocess.

In keeping with its emphasis on toxicpollutants, the Clean Water Act of 1977also revises the control program for non-toxic pollutants.

* For "conventional" pollutantsidentified under Section 304(a)(4)(including biochemical oxygen demand,suspended solids, fecal coliform andpH), the new Section 301(b](2)(E)requires "effluent limitations requiringthe application of the best conventionalpollutant control technology" {"BCT")-instead of BAT-to be achieved by July1, 1984. The factors considered inassessing BCT. for an industry include

the relationship between the cost ofattaining a reduction in effluents and theeffluents reduction benefits attained,and a comparison of the cost and levelof reduction of such pollutants bypublicly owned treatment works andindustrial sources.

For those pollutants which are neither"toxic" pollutants nor "conventional"pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BATeffluent limitations within three yearsafter their establishment or by July 1,1984, whichever is later, but not laterthan July 1, 1987.

The purpose of this proposedregulation is to establish NSPS, PSES,and PSNS effluent standards for theElectrical and Electronic ComponentsPoint Source Category-Phase 2.

B. General Criteria for EffluentLimitations Considered Under ThisRegulation

1. New Source PerformanceStandards. The basis for new sourceperformance standards (NSPS) underSection 306 of the Act is the bestavailable demonstrated technology.New plants have the opportunity todesign the best and most efficientprocesses and wastewater treatmenttechnologies. Therefore, Congressdirected EPA to consider the bestdemonstrated process changes, in-plantcontrols, and end-of-process treatmenttechnologies that reduce pollution to themaximum extent feasible.

2. Pretreatment Standards for ExistingSources. Section 307(b) of the Actrequires EPA to promulgatepretreatment standards for existingsources (PSES), which industry mustcomply with within a time period not toexceed three years from promulgation.PSES are designed to prevent thedischarge of pollutants which passthrough, interfere with, or are otherwiseincompatible with the operation ofPOTWs.

The legislative history of the 1977 Actindicates that pretreatment standardsare to be technology-based andanalogous to the best availabletechnology for removal of toxicpollutants. The General PretreatmentRegulations which serve as theframework for the proposedpretreatment standards are in 40 CFRPart 403, 46 FR 9404 (January 28, 1981).

EPA has generally determined thatthere is pass through of pollutants if thepercent of pollutants removed by a well-operated POTW achieving secondarytreatment is less than the percentremoval by the best availabletechnology (BAT) model treatmentsystem.

This proposal does not contain a BATstandard, largely because there are onlya few direct dischargers and theyalready have technology in-place, asrequired by existing permits. Inassessing pass-through EPA hasassumed that BAT treatment would beequivalent to that required by PSES.

A study of 40 well-operated POTWswith biological treatment and meetingsecondary treatment criteria showedthat metals are typically removed atrates varying from 20 to 70 percent.POTWs with only primary treatmenthave even lower rates of removal. Incontrast to POTWs, BAT level treatmentby sources in this industrial categorycan achieve metals removals ofapproximately 96% or more.Accordingly, these metals "passthrough" POTWs.

As for toxic organics, data from thesame POTWs illustrate a wide range ofremovals, from zero to greater than 99%.By comparison, sound solventmanagement practices preventing thedumping of solvents would achieve aTTO reduction of 99% or more over thatwhich would result from solventdumping. Data regarding the removal oforganic compounds in biologicaltreatment systems used by industry intreating organic waste containingsolvents, such as used in this industry,demonstrate removals considerably lessthan this 99% achieved by solventmanagement. This indicates that pass-through of toxic organic pollutants doesoccur.

There is no removal of fluoride by aPOTW. Removals of 95-96% byprecipitation/clarification have beendemdnstrated at plants in the cathoderay tube subcategory of this industry.Thus, pass-through of flouride doesoccur.

These standards rely uponprecipitation and clarification for metalsremoval. This treatment system willalso, at no additional cost, removefluoride to the levels required by thisregulation. We propose to limit fluoridein the cathode ray tube subcategorybecause the levels of fluoride in the rawwaste in the CRT subcategory are veryhigh-up to 800 mg/l. This is in contrastto the proposed standards for Phase I ofthis category which did not rely on end-of-pipe treatment and which did not setlimits on fluoride and where fluoride'shighest occurrence-in thesemiconductor subcategory-was only146 mg/l.

3. Pretreatment Standards for NewSources. Section 307(c) of the Actrequires EPA to promulgatepretreatment standards for new sources(PSNS) at the same time that it' -

10013

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

promulgates NSPS. These standards areintended to prevent the discharge ofpollutants which pass through, interferewith or are otherwise incompatible witha POTW. New indirect dischargers, likenew direct dischargers, have theopportunity to incorporate the bestavailable demonstratedtechnologies-including process changes, in-plantcontrols, and end-of-process treatmenttechnologies-and to select plant sitesthat ensure the treatment system will beadequately installed. Therefore, theAgency sets PSNS after considering thesame criteria considered for NSPS.Indirect discharging new sources inthese subcategories are expected tohave the same pass through ofpollutants as existing sources. PSNS willhave environmental benefits similar toNSPS.

C, Prior EPA Regulations

On August 24, 1982, EPA proposedEffluent Limitations Guidelines,Pretreatment Standards, and NewSource Performance Standards as"Phase I" regulations for twosubcategories of the Electrical andElectronic Components Category (47 FR37048). Those subcategories wereSemiconductors and Electronic Crystals.No regulations have ever been proposedor promulgated for the Cathode RayTube and Luminescent Materialssubcategories of E&EC, which are theones assessed in this rulemaking.

D. Overview of the Industry

The Electrical and ElectronicComponents Point Source Category(E&EC) includes plants which are asubset of the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) Major Group 36,Electrical and Electronic Machinery,Equipment and Supplies. However,many of the industries listed under thatSIC code were not evaluated as part ofthe E&EC category because EPAconcluded that the wastewaterdischarges from these industries weremore properly associated with unitoperations addressed by the MetalFinishing Category. There wereoriginally 21 subcategories in the E&ECindustry (47 FR 37048). As part of thePhase I rulemaking, seventeen (17)subcategories were excluded fromregulation under Paragraph 8 of theSettlement Agreement, which providesthat national guidelines need not beissued for sources which are, generally,not discharging significant toxicpollutants. In Phase I EPA proposedstandards for two subcategories(Semiconductors and ElectronicCrystals) on August 24, 1982, 47 FR37048. Two further subcategories-Luminescent Materials and Electron

tubes-were to be the subject of thesePhase II Standards. 47 FR 37054. Indeveloping these standards, however,EPA has realized that Electron Tubesshould be segmented into Cathode RayTubes and Receiving and TransmittingTubes. The latter segment is excludedfrom regulation under the provision ofparagraph 8(a)(1) of the SettlementAgreement. See Section IX(a)(2), below.Thus two subcategories-Cathode RayTubes and Luminescent Materials-arethe subject of this Phase II rulemaking,which will complete the assessment ofthe electrical and electronic componentscategory.

.The cathode ray tube (CRT) segmentof the Electron Tube subcategory (nowthe Cathode Ray Tube subcategory) iscomprised of approximately twenty-two(22) plants: twenty-one (21) are indirectdischargers and one is a directdischarger. The major pollutantsdischarged by CRT plants are cadmium,zinc, chromium, lead, toxic organics,fluoride, and suspended solids.

The Luminescent Materialssubscategory consists of two (2) directdischargers, two (2) indirect dischargersand one (1) plant which used anevaporation pond with no surface waterdischarge. The major pollutantsdischarged by liminescent materialsplants are cadmium, fluiride, zinc,antimony and suspended solids.III. Summary of Methodology

EPA first studied the Electrical andElectronic Components Point SourceCategory-Phase 2 to determine whetherdifferences in raw materials, finalproducts, manufacturing processes,equipment, age and size of plants, waterusage, wastewater constituents, or otherfactors required the development ofseparate effluent limitations andstandards for different segments of thecategory. This involved a detailedanalysis of wastewater discharge andtreated effluent characteristics,including: (1) The sources and volume ofwater used, the processes employed,and the sources of pollutants andwastewaters in the plant; and (2) theconstituents of wastewaters, includingtoxic pollutants. This analysis enabledthe Agency to determine theconcentrations of toxic pollutants in themajor wastewater discharges.

EPA also identified several distinctcontrol and treatment technologies (bothin-plant and end-of-pipe), includingthose with the potential for use in theElectrical and Electronic Componentsfor use in the Electrical and ElectronicComponents Point Source Category-Phase 2. The Agency analyzed bothhistorical and newly generate data onthe performance of these technologies,

including their non-water qualityenvironmental impacts on air quality,solid waste generation, and energyrequirements.

The cost of each control andtreatment technology was estimated'from unit cost curves developed byapplying standard engineering analysisto wastewater characteristics. EPAderived the unit process costs byapplyng model plant wastewatercharacteristics (production and flow) tothe unit cost curve of each treatmentprocess. These unit process costs wereadded together to yield the total cost ateach treatment level.

Consideration of these factorsenabled EPA to characterize the variouscontrol and treatment technologies usedas a basis for PSES, PSNS, and NSPS.The proposed regulations, however, donot require the installation of anyparticular technology. Rather, theyrequire achievement of effluentlimitations representative of the properoperation of these technologies orequivalent technologies.

IV. Data Gathering EffortsBetween 1979 and 1982, under the

authority of Section 308 of the Act, EPAand its contractors contacted by letterand phone approximately 150 plantsproducing electron tubes andluminescent materials. Usinginformation gathered from thesecontacts, EPA selected nine plants tovisit to view their operations anddiscuss products, manufacturingprocesses, water use and wastewatertreatment. Six plants were selected forsampling visiis to determine pollutantcharacteristics of the wastewater.

The Agency also collectedinformation on treatment systems notcurrently used in the industry. Incollecting this information, EPAsurveyed literature, contacted wastetreatment equipment manufacturers andobserved applicable treatment systemsused by other industries.

Data for the economic analysis wereobtained from published information,inquiries to waste treatment equipmentmanufacturers, and personal contactswith industry.

In addition to the foregoing datasources, supplementary data wereobtained from NPDES permit fies inEPA regional offices and contacts withstate pollution control offices.

V. Sampling and Analytical ProgramThe sampling and analysis program

for this rulemaking concentrated on thetoxic pollutants designated in the CleanWater Act. However, conventional andnonconventional pollutants were also

10014

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

sampled and analyzed. Both inorganictoxic and organic toxic pollutants weresampled for in the wastes. EPA used theanalytical techniques described inSampling and Analysis Procedures forScreening of Industrial Effluents forPriority Pollutants, revised April 1977. Avery similar method is found amongthose proposed on December 3, 1979.Metals analysis was by AAspectrophotometry, except that thestandard cold vapor method was usedfor mercury. We made minor changes inthe $04(h) method in order to avoidexcessive matrix interference thatcaused high limits of detection.Analyses for cyanide and cyanideamenable to chlorination also used304(h) methods. Analysis for abestosfibers used transmission electronmicroscopy with selected areadefraction; results were reported aschrysotile fiber count. Analyses forconventional pollutants (BOD5, TSS, pH,and oil and grease) andnonconventional pollutants (totalresidual chlorine, iron, ammonia,fluoride, and COD) were performed by304(h) methods. The Agency has notpromulgated analytical methods formany of the organic toxic pollutantsunder Section 304(h) of the Act, althougha number of these methods have beenproposed (44 FR 69464, December 3,1979; 44 FR 75028, December 18, 1979).Additional information on thedevelopment of sampling and analysismethods for toxic organic pollutants iscontained in the preamble to theproposed regulations for the LeatherTainning Point Source Category, 44 FR38749, July 2, 1979.

EPA checked for the presence andmagnitude of 65 toxic pollutants andclasses of pollutants (as listed in theNREIC Consent Decree) and a smallergroup of conventional and non-conventional pollutants suspected to bepresent in this industry's wastewaters.Sampled plants were selected to berepresentative of the manufacturingprocesses, the prevalent mnx ofproduction among plants, and thecurrent treatment technology in theindustry. During the sampling programEPA sampled 4 plants in the cathode raytube and 2 plants il the luminescentmaterials subcategories.

Wherever possible, each sample of anindividual raw waste stream, acombined waste stream, or a treatedeffluent was collected by an automatictime series compositor during samplingperiods as long as 72 hours; Whereautomatic composifing was not-possible,grab samples were taken andcomposited manually.

VI. Industry SubcategorizationIn developing this regulation, the

Agency considered whether differenteffluent limitations and standards areappropriate for different segments of theElectrical and Electronic Componentsmanufacturing industry. The Actrequires EPA to consider a number offactors to determine if subcategorizationis needed. These factors include rawmaterials, final products, manufacturingprocesses, geographical location, plantsize and age, wastewatercharacteristics, non-water-qualityenvironmental impacts, treatment costs,energy costs, and solid wastegeneration.

After considering the above factorsthe Agency concluded that product typewas the appropriate basis forsubcategorization. Product typedetermines both the raw and processmaterial requirements and the numberand type of manufacturing processesused. Plants manufacturing the sameproduct were found to have similarwastewater characteristics. Otherfactors affected the wastewatercharacteristics, but were not significantenough in themselves to be used as thebasis for subcategorization.

Using product type as a basis, EPAidentified (1) the Luminescent Materialssubcategory and redefined the ElectronTube subcategory as (2) Receiving andTransmitting tubes and (3) Cathode RayTubes subcategories.

This redefinition was necessarybecause Electron Tube manufacturing, iscomprised of two distinct product typesemploying different raw materials andmanufacturing processes. Therefore thissubcategory has been divided into twosegments, based on the productsproduced; (1) cathode ray tubes, and (2)receiving and transmitting tubes.

Luminescent Materials productiongenerates significant wastewater andEPA has retained it as a subcategory.Cathode Ray Tube manufacture alsoemploys raw materials and processoperations which generate wastewater.These standards cover wastewater fromthose processes. However, production of

.receiving and transmitting tubes is a dryprocess. Thus EPA is not proposing thattoday's standards cover the Receivingand Transmitting Tubes subcategory.

The Development Document providesfurther background on decisionsconcerning subcategorization and on themake-up of the regulated subcategories.

VII. Available Wastewater Control andTreatment Technology

A. Status of In-Place Technology

This section describes the .status of in-place technology for the subcategories

to be regulated by this rulemaking:Cathode Ray Tubes and LuminescentMaterials.

Wastewater treatment techniquescurrently used in the cathode ray tubesubcategory include both in-process andend-of-pipe waste treatment. In-plantprocess waste treatment is designed toremove pollutants from contaminatedmanufacturing process wastewater atsome point in the manufacturingprocess. End-of-pipe treatment iswastewater treatment at the point ofdischarge.

In-process control techniques withwidespread use in the cathode ray tubesubcategory are: (1) Collection of spentsolvents for resale, reuse or disposal,and (2) segregation of spent acid wastesfor contract hauling. Contract haulingrefers to the industry practice ofcontracting a firm to collect andtransport wastes for off-site disposal.

End-of-pipe controls in the cathoderay tube subcategory consist primarilyof neutralization. In addition, six of theseven Cathode ray tube plants, whichmanufacture tubes, and three of thefifteen remaining cathode ray tubeplants use end-of-pipe precipitation/clarification for control of toxic metals.

In the Luminescent Materialssubcategory the two direct dischargershave combined end-of-pipe treatmentsystems that utilize precipitation/clarification technologies. Of the threeother plants in the subcategory, oneevaporates its liquid waste and has noindustrial discharge and two are indirectdischargers, one of which neutralizes itswastes end-of-pipe and the third usesprecipitation/clarification technology tocontrol toxic metals prior to discharge.

B. Water Use

The water used in the production ofCRTs is deionized DI) water which isvery expensive to produce using an ionexchange process. Because of the highcosts of DI water, the industry practiceis to reuse/recycle and conserve waterto whatever extent is practical.Therefore, further wastewater flowreduction by increased waterconservation and recycle does notappear practicable. The plant-to-plantvariability of the degree of water reuseand recycle is a function of generalproduct quality requirements and, to alesser extent, of site specific watersupply factors. This made it infeasible toderive a correlation between water flowand production. An effort was evenmade to establish a relationshipbetween DI water produced and plantproduction level. This absence of arelationship between production andwastewater flow precluded the use of

10015

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

mass based limits. That is why thisproposal would set concentration-based limits.

C. Control Treatment Options

EPA considered the followingtreatment and control options forwastewater discharges from facilitieswithin the Cathode Ray Tube andLuminescent Materials subcategories.The options evaluated are based ontreatment observed in plants EPAvisited or which described their owntreatment processes. They are discussedin further detail in the DevelopmentDocument, in Chapter VII.

Option 1-Neutralization for pflicontrol.

Option 2-Option 1 plus end-of-pipeprecipitation/clarification for treatmentof toxic metals (cadmium, chromium,antimony, lead, zinc], fluoride, and totalsuspended-solids (TSS).

Option 3-Option 2 plus filtration forfurther reduction of toxic metals.

Option 4-Solvent management forcontrol of toxic organics. Solventmanagement is not an end-of-pipetreatment system, but rather an in-plantcontrol which consists of modifyingpiping to collect used solvents for resaleor contract disposal. Processwastewater is the only other source oftoxic organics for these subcategories.Since the spent solvents would not bedischarged into the wastewater, toxicorganic limitations based on this controlwould be equivalent to the maximumconcentration of toxic organics found inthe discharge as a result of processwastewater contamination. As an in-plant control, this option could be usedin consort with any of the other optionsand it was considered in connectionwith each.

As previously stated, one plant in theluminescent materials subcategoryutilizes a non-discharging evaporationpond. Evaporation ponds were notconsidered because they achieve a zerodischarge status through eyaporativelosses only in dry, arid, regions of thecountry. Therefore, because of thegeographical constraints on the viabilityof an evaporation system, it is notamenable to being utilized in nationalregulations. In addition evaporation costis tied to space availability. The onlyplant now using evaporation as acontrol technology had processwastewater flows below those generallyobserved at larger plants. Further flowreductions are unlikely since, as

discussed above, plants already haveincentives to minimize process wateruse.

VIII. Selection of Treatment Options andEffluent Limitations

A. Cathode Ray Tubes

The technology basis for each.standard for the Cathode Ray Tubesubcategory is presented below, alongwith the rationale for selecting thespecific treatment option. Thetechnologies and wastewatercharacteristics are discussed in moredetail in the Development Document forthis rulemaking.

The Agency is proposing not toregulate existing direct dischargers forthe reasons cited in Section IX(Pollutants and Subcategories NotRegulated). Therefore, BPT, BAT andBCT effluent limitations have not beenproposed.

1. 1PSES. EPA has selectedprecipitation/clarification for the controlof toxic metals and fluoride (Option 2)plus solvent management for control -oftoxic organics (Option 4) for PSES. Thistechnology is widely demonstrated inthis industry as well as other industrieswith similar raw wastes. Metals removalgreater than 96% have beendemonstrated. Option 1 was rejectedbecause data indicated that greaterremovals were achievable at Option 2which was economically achievable andalready widely utilized. EPA iscontinuing to give serious considerationto, and is soliciting comment regarding,the selection of Option 3 as a finalregulation. Filtration is not now'theproposal of choice because theadditional 1472 annual pounds ofnational pollutant reductionaccomplished by Option 3 are notsignificant in comparison to the loweffluent levels already accomplished byOption 2 in the treatment train. SectionVII of the Development Documentcontains a discussion and tablesconcerning the effluent concentrationsthat can be achieved using limeprecipitation/clarification (Option 2)and those that would be achieved by theaddition of a filter (Option 3].

Pollutant removals and costs ofoptions 2 and 3 are summarized below.(See Section X of this preamble for theeconomic impacts.) Removals andcompliance costs are increments beyondestimates of current discharge andtreatment in place.

Pollutant removal(number per year)

Costs (dollars inthousand)

Toxics Fluoride (tb/ Capital(Ib/yr) yr) I

Annual

Option 2 62,270 1,476,000 $4.946 $2,744Option 3

(beyondOption2) ............. 1,472 ........................ 719 301

Toxic organics are being regulated asthe total of all toxic organics found inthe discharge at concentrations greaterthan 0.01 milligrams per liter. Toxicorganics summed for the total are listedin Appendix A. The rationale forregulating toxic organics as a combinedtotal is that many different solvents areused by the cathode ray tubesubcategory and it would be verydifficult to collect sufficient data to limitthe individual toxic organic compoundsresulting from the use of these solvents.(See paragraph C, in Section XIV.) Asstated before, the limitation for totaltoxic organics (TTO) is the highestconcentration of TTO found in thedischarge from any CRT plant, all ofwhich already practice in-plant solventmanagement. Accordingly, no additionalcost will result from this regulation.

Because only limited TTO date areavailable from the CRT subcategory, theAgency also reviewed data from otherindustries, including other E&ECsubcategories, to assess thereasonableness of this limitation. In themetal finishing industry, data indicatethat precipitation/clarificationtechnology reduces TTO by 80 percent.In the semiconductor subcategory of thisindustry, raw waste TTO levels atplants practicing good solventmanagement occur at from 0.03 to 1.4milligrams per liter. Thus, if the CRTsubcategory were to exhibit raw wasteTTO levels within the range observed atsemiconductor plants, reduction of TTOthrough Option 2 technology wouldresult in effluent TTO levels near theproposed 0.15 milligram per literlimitation. EPA believes, however, thatmost plants will continue to meet TTOlevels through solvent managementrather than through reliance on end-of-pipe treatment.

The Agency is not proposing amonthly average limitation for TTO.Monthly averages differ from dailylimits in order to deal with expectedperformance variations. The proposeddaily maximum limitation for TTO isbased on solvent management, which,unlike most treatment options, does notentail pollution control equipment and istherefore not subject to significantperformance variations. Accordingly,there is no need to establish a monthly

10016

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules 1

average different from the dailymaximum.

EPA is proposing to establish acompliance date of eighteen monthsfrom the date of promulgation for thesepretreatment standards because thatperiod reflects the time that ouranalyses indicate will be required toplan, install, and adjust necessarycontrol technology.

2. NSPS and PSNS. For NSPS andPSNS, the Agency is proposingstandards based on Options 3 and 4.This technology consists of molventmanagement plus end-of-pipeprecipitation/clarification followed byfiltration. Based on model plant flowsranging from 10,000 to 500,000 gals/day,incremental capital investment costs forPSNS range from $5,200 to $165,000, andannualized costs from $2,100 to $68,500.The annualized costs represent less thanan 8% increase in treatment costs overtreatment required for similarly sizedexisting plants with an additionalestimated 2.4 percent of metalsremoved. This cost should p'resent nosignificant barrier to entry of new firms.For NSPS, since BAT is not proposed,the analysis for new direct dischargersuses total costs rather than incrementalcosts. Total capital investment costs forpollution control range from $113,100 to$1.7 million, and total annualized costsrange from $77,660 to $905,200depending on the size of the relevantplants. The impact of these costs isconsidered to be small, but the Agencyinvites comment on the effect optreatment costs on new sources.

B. Luminescent Materials

The technology basis for eachstandard for the Luminescent Materialssubcategory is presented below alongwith the rationale for selecting thespecific treatment option. Thetechnologies and wastewatercharacteristics are discussed, in moredetail in the Development Document.The Agency is not proposing to regulateexisting direct or indirect dischargers inthis subcategory for the reasons cited inSection IX (Pollutants and SubcategoriesNot Regulated). Therefore, BPT, BAT,BCT and PSES effluent limitations andstandards have not been proposed.

1. NSPS and PSNS. For NSPS andPSNS, EPA is proposing limitationsbased on end-of-pipe precipitation/clarification (Option 2) which has beendemonstrated within the industry. Thisoption would control cadmium,antimony, zinc, fluoride, TSS and pH inboth the NSPS and PSNS. Option 1alone lpH neutralization) was notselected because Option 2 achieved fargreater removals of toxic metals ateconomically achievable costs. Option 3

(Option 2 plus filtration) is not now theproposal of choice because it will onlyachieve minimal further reduction ofpollutant levels in the effluent, aspresented in Chapter VII of thedevelopment document. Total capitalinvestment costs for new sources in theLuminescent Materials subcategoryrange from $91,100 to $1.2 million, totalannualized costs range from $68,200 to$589,600 depending on the size of therelevant plants. A comparison of annualtreatment cost to sales indicates that theimpact on end-products would be small,and treatment costs are not expected toresult in significant barriers to entry.While the Agency does not project asignificant impact from these newsources standards, this conclusion isbased on available data, and, theAgency invites comments and data onthe effect of new source treatment costs.

IX. Pollutants, Subcategories andSubcategory Segments not Regulated

A. Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Agreement specified65 categories of toxic pollutants as of"priority" concern. EPA, by regulation,specified 126 pollutant parameters asmeasures for those pollutants. TheAgreement also contained provisionsauthorizing the exclusion fromregulation, in certain circumstances, oftoxic pollutants and industry categoriesand subcategories. These provisionshave been rewritten in a RevisedSettlement Agreement which wasapproved by the District Court for theDistrict of Columbia on March 9, 1979,NRDC v. Costle, 12 ERC 1833.

EPA proposes to set standards forsome of those 126 pollutant parametersand for two additional subcategories ofthis industry, While excluding otherpollutant parameters and one additionalsubcategory from these standards. Datasupporting exclusion of the pollutantsand subcategories and subcategorysegments identified below are presentedin the Development Document for thisrulemaking.

1. Exclusion of Pollutants in the CRTand Luminescent MaterialsSubcategories. EPA proposes to excludeninety-six (96) toxic pollutants listed inAppendix C from regulation for theCathode Ray Tube subcategory. Thebasis of the proposed exclusion foreighty-six (86) of these pollutants isParagraph 8(a)(iii) which allowsexclusion for pollutants which are notdetectable with state-of-the-artanalytical methods. The basis ofexclusion for another 10 (the nine listedin Appendix C plus antimony) is alsoprovided by Paragraph 8(a)(iii) whichallows exclusion of pollutants which are

present in amounts too small to beeffectively reduced by technologiesknown to the administrator.

For the Luminescent Materialssubcategory we are proposing toexclude 123 pollutants under paragraph8(a)(iii) of the Decree (of these, 26 areorganic solvents controlled in the CRTsubcategory by the TTO limit).Luminescent Material plants have statedthat they do not use solvents containingthese 26 pollutant parameters and EPAbelieves they will not be present indetectable levels in effluent from thissubcategory. Of the 96 toxic pollutantsexcluded under paragraph 8(a)(iii) in theCRT subcategory, one (antimony) wasfound in significant quantities and willbe regulated in the LuminescentMaterials subcategory. The remaining 95will be excluded on the basis ofparagraph 8(a)(iii), for the same reasonsas in the CRT subcategory. In addition,lead and chromium, which are regulatedin the CRT subcategory were not foundat treatable levels from plants in theLuminescent Materials subcategory andtherefore will be excluded from furtherregulation under paragraph 8(a)(iii).

2. Exclusion of Subcategories andSubcategory Segments. The manufactureof Receiving and Transmitting TypeElectron Tubes is a dry process, Thatsubcategory therefore will be excludedfrom further regulation under theprovisions of paragraph 8(a~i of the,Settlement Agreement.

The Agency is proposing to excludefrom regulation existing directdischargers in the Cathode Ray Tubesegment of the Electron Tubesubcategory. This subcategory isexcluded from regulation under theprovisions of paragraph 8(a)(iv) on thebasis that there is only one directdischarger which is already subject toan NPDES permit, and has Option 3(precipitation/clarification/filtration)treatment in place. Its current dischargeof toxic pollutants is less than 2 pounds/day.

The Agency is also proposing toexclude from regulation all existingdischargers in the LuminescentMaterials subcategory under theprovisions of paragraph 8(a)(iv). Of thefive (5) plants in this subcategory, 2 aredirect dischargers. Each of these 2plants discharge after treatmentrequired by existing NPDES permits lessthan 1 pound/plant of toxic metals perday. Two of the remaining plants in theLuminescent Materials subcategory areindirect dischargers. EPA proposes toexclude these plants from nationalcategorical pretreatment standardsunder the provisions of paragraph8(b)(ii) of the Decree on the basis that

10017

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

the amount of toxic pollutantsintroduced into POTWs is less than 2pounds/plant each operating day. Theremaining plant in the LuminescentMaterials subcategory utilizes anevaporation pond which does notdischarge to sufrace water.

B. Conventional PollutantsBOD, and oil and grease are not being

regulated for either subcategory becausethey were found only at concentrationsbelow treatability.X. Cost and Economic Impact

Executive Order 12291 requires EPAand other agencies to perform regulatoryimpacts analyses of major regulations.Major rules are those which impose acost on the economy of $100 million ayear or more or have certain othereconomic impacts. This regulation is nota major rule because its annualized costof $2.7 million is less than $100 millionand it meets none of the other criteriaspecified in Section 1(b) of the E.O.12291.

The Agency's economic impactassessment is presented in the reportentitled Economic Impact Analysis ofProposed Effluent Guidelines andStandards for the Electrical andElectronic Components Industry Phase11-Cathode Ray Tubes andLuminescent Coatings SubcategoriesEPA 440/2-83-001. This report detailsthe investment and annual costs for thePhase II portion of the Electrical andElectronic Components Category.Compliance costs are based onengineering estimates of capitalrequirements for the effluent controlsystems described earlier in thispreamble. The report assesses theimpact of effluent control costs in termsof price changes, production changes,plant closures, employment effects, andbalance of trade effects. The impacts foreach option are discussed in the reportand summarized below.

In addition, EPA has conducted ananalysis of the incremental removal costper pound equivalent for each of theproposed technology-based options. Apound equivalent is calculated bymultiplying the number of pounds ofpollutant discharged by a weightingfactor for that pollutant. The weightingfactor is equal to the water qualitycriterion for a standard pollutant,divided by the water quality criterionfor the pollutant being evaluated. Theuse of "pound equivalent" givesrelatively more weight to removal ofmore toxic pollutants. Thus, for a givenexpenditure, the cost per poundequivalent removed would be lowerwhen a highly toxic pollutant isremoved. This analysis is included in

the record of rulemaking "CostEffectiveness Analysis of ProposedEffluent Limitations and Standards forthe Electrical and ElectronicComponents Industry-Phase II". EPAinvites comments on the methodology.

EPA has identified 27 plants in thePhase II subcategories that are coveredby this regulation. Of these 27 plants, 3plants are direct dischargers, 18 areindirect dischargers, and 6 discharge nowastewater.

PSES: Compliance costs for PSES forthe CFR subcategory total $4.9 millionfor capital investment and $2.7 millionannually (1982 dollars). These are allassociated with installation of Option 2(precipitation/clarification). Noadditional costs are predicted for Option4 since all plants already practicesolvent recovery. No plant closures orjob losses are projected as a result ofcompliance costs for this regulation.

PSNS: For model plants in the CFTsubcategory, incremental capitalinvestment costs range from $5,200 to$165,000, and incremental annualizedcosts range from $2,100 to $68,000depending on assumptions concerningplant size. The annualized costsrepresent less than an 8 percent increaseover treatment costs for similarly sizedexisting plants. The price increasesassociated with these costs range from0.1 to 0.8 percent and are not likely toresult in a competitive disadvantage fornew sources. For the LuminescentMaterials subcategory, new source costsreflect the total cost of the treatmenttechnology (not incremental) because nopretreatment standards are proposed forexisting indirect dischargers. Capitalinvestment costs range from $91,100 to$1.2 million depending on the size of theplant. Total annualized costs range from$68,200 to $589,600. The analysis of newsource costs for this subcategorycompares annual treatment costs toannual plant sales. The impacts for anaverage or large new plant are smalland are not expected to result insignificant barriers to their entry into thesubcategory. The impacts on thesmallest new plants, while larger thanfor the other sizes, are not expected tocause severe problems in entering theindustry. Total annual treatment costsas a percentage of sales are expected torange from 1.8 to 10.4% for new smallplants.

NSPS: For model plants in the CFRsubcategory, new source costs for directdischargers reflect the total costs of thepollution control technology. Capitalinvestment ranges from $113,100 to $1.7million, and total annualized costs rangefrom $77,600 to $905,200 depending onplant size. The impact of the treatmentcosts per tube ranges from 0.2 to 3.1

percent. These impacts are consideredto be small, but the Agency invitescomment on the effect of treatment costson new sources. For new sources in theLuminescent Materials subcategory, thecosts and impacts are the same for bothdirect and indirect dischargers. Thecosts and comparisons to sales areshown above, under PSNS. Nosignificant barriers to entry areexpected.

Public Law 96-354 requires EPA toprepare an initial Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis for all proposed regulationsthat have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities.This analysis may be done inconjunction with or as a part of anyother analysis conducted by the Agency.The economic impact analysis describedabove indicates that there will not be asignificant impact on any segment of theregulated population, large or small.Therefor'e, a formal regulatory flexibilityanalysis is not reqiured.

XI. Non-Water Quality Aspects ofPollution Contol

The elimination or reduction of oneform of pollution may aggravate otherenvironmental problems. Sections 304(b)and 306 of the Act require EPA toconsider the non-water qualityenvironmental inpacts of theseregulations including air and noisepollution, radiation, solid wastegeneration, and energy requirements.

Compliance with the proposedregulations, including NSPS and PSNSwill have no effect on air, noise, orradition pollution and will only result inminimal solid waste generation and willonly result in minimal solid wastegeneration and minimal increasedenergy usage. The amount of solid wastegenerated per year will be 1,200 metrictons, beyond that now generated.Available information indicates that thesolid waste generated will not behazardous as defined in the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Energy requirements associatedwith these regulations will be 24,000kilowatt-hours per year of only 6.4kilowatt-hours per day per facility,beyond that now used for wastewatertreatment.

EPA's relevant program offices havehad an opportunity to review this dataand, based on the above non-waterquality impacts from these regulations,the Agency has concluded that theproposed regulation best serves overallnational environmental goals.

XII. Upset and Bypass ProvisionsI

A recurring issue is whether industrylimitations and standards should include

10018

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday; March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

provisions that authorize noncomplianceduring "excursion" is unintentionalnoncompliance beyond the reasonablecontrol of the permittee. EPA believesthat upset provisions are necessary,because upsets will inevitably occur,even if the control equipment is properlyoperated. Because technology basedlimitations can require orly whattechnology can achieve, many claim thatliability for upsets is improper. Whenconfronted with this issue, courts havebeen divided on the questions ofwhether an explicit upset or excursionexemption is necessary or whetherupset or excursions incidents may behandled through EPA's enforcementdiscretion. Compare Marathon Oil Co. v.EPA, 564 F. 2d 1253 (9th C:r. 1977) withWeyerhaeuser v. Castle, supra and CornRefiners Association, et aL v. Castle,No. 78-1069 (8th Cir. April 2, 1979]. Seealso American Petroleum Institute v.EPA, 540 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir. 1976);(CPC International, Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1.320 (8th Cir. 1976); FMC Corp. v.Train, 539 F. 2d 973 (4th C!r. 1979).

Unlike an upset-which is anunintentional episode-a bypass is anintentional noncompliance tocircumvent waste treatment facilitiesduring an emergency. EPA has bothupset and bypass provisions in NPDESpermits, and the NPDES portions of theConsolidated Permit regulations includeupset and bypass permit provision. See40 CFR Part 122.60, 44 FR 32854, 32862-3(june 7, 1979). The upset provisionestablishes an upset as an affirmativedefense to prosecution for violation oftechnology-base effluent limitations.The bypass provision authorizesbypassing to prevent loss of life,personal injury, or severe propertydamage. Since permittees in the cathoderay tube and luminescent materialssubcategories are entitled to the upsetand bypass provisions in NPDESpermits, this proposed regulation doesnot repeat these provisions. Upsetprovisions are also contained in theGenral Pretreatment regulation.

XIH. Variances and Modifications

When the final regulation for a pointsource category is promulgated,subsequent Federal and State NPDESpermits to direct dischargers mustenforce the effluent standards. Also, thepretreatment limitations apply directlyto indirect dischargers.

Indirect dischargers subject to PSESare eligible for the "fundamentallydifferent factors" variance and creditsfor pollutants removed by POTW. See40.CFR 403.7; 403.13; 46 FR 9404 (January28, 1981). Indirect dischargers subject toPSNS are eligible only for the creditsprovided for in 40 CFR 403.7. New

sources subject to PSNS are not eligiblefor EPA's "fundamentally differentfactors" variance or any statutory orregulatory modifications. See E. I. duPont de Nemours v. Train, supra.

XIV. Relation to NPDES Permits andGeneral BCT Treatment

A. The NSPS in this regulation will beapplied to individual plants throughNPDES permits issued by EPA orapproved State agencies under Section402 of the Act. Under the proposedregulation for the Electrical andElectronic Components Category, alllimitations are concentration based. Asdiscussed in section VII-B, nationalmass based limitations are not providedbecause the Agency has determined thata fundamental relationship betweenproduction and pollutant loadingscannot be broadly established for eithersubcategory. See 40 CFR 122.63(f).Permitting authorities can derive massbased limitations by multiplying theconcentration limit by the undiluteddischarge flow. The Effluent GuidelinesDivision can assist the permittingauthorities in making this determination,especially with respect to the validity ofthe flow levels presented by a permitteeas representative of their plant.

The preceding section of thispreamble discusses the binding effect ofthis regulation on NPDES permits,except when variances andmodifications are expressly authorized.The following adds more detail on therelation between this regulation andNPDES permits.

B. One subject that has receiveddifferent judicial rulings is the scope ofNPDES permit proceedings wheneffluent limitations and standards do notexist. Under current EPA regulations,States and EPA regions that issueNPDES permits before regulations arepromulgated must do so on a case-by-case basis. This regulation provides atechnical and legal base for newpermits.

Another issue is how the regulationaffects the authority of those that issueNPDES permits. EPA has developed thelimitations and standards in thisregulationto cover the typical facilityfor this point source category. In specificcases, the NPDES permitting authoritymay have to establish permit limits ontoxic pollutants that are not covered bythis regulation. This regulation does notrestrict the power of any permit-issuingauthority to comply with law or anyEPA regulation, guideline, or policy. Forexample, if this regulation does notcontrol a particular pollutant, ihe permitissuer may still limit the pollutant on acase-by-case basis, when such actionconforms with the purposes of the Act.

In addition, if State water qualitystandards or other provisions of State orFederal law require limits on pollutantsnot covered by this regulation (orrequire more stringent limits on coveredpollutants), the permit-issuing authoritymust apply those limitations.

C. An alternative to effluentmonitoring for TTO was proposed in§ 469.12 of the E&EC Phase I regulationproposed August 24, 1982, 47 FR 37058.In lieu of monitoring for TTO, EPAproposed to allow the permit authorityto allow direct dischargers to make thefollowing certification as a "Comment".on the Discharge Monitoring Reportrequired by § 122.62(e) "I certify that,since filing the last discharge monitoringreport, toxic organic compounds havenot entered the wastewater in quantitiesthat will exceed the discharge limits forTTO". In addition, in lieu of requiringmonitoring for TTO, EPA proposed topermit control authorities to allowindustrial users of POTWs to make thefollowing certification as a comment tothe periodic reports required by§ 403.12(e) "Periodic reports oncontinued compliance." The Phase Iproposal also specified that dischargersmust specify the toxic organiccompounds used and the proceduresused to prevent excessive wastewaterdischarge of toxic organics. EPArequests comment on applying this sameapproach to dischargers in the CathodeRay Tube subcategory.

In response to the Phase I proposal, anumber of comments were receivedsuggesting that the certificationlanguage was overly restrictive andrecommending revision of the language.These comments are being considered,and where appropriate, will beincorporated in the final E&EC Phase Iregulation upon promulgation. Thatregulation is scheduled to be signed bythe Administrator by March 31, 1983.

D. A final topic of concern is theoperation of EPA's NPDES enforcementprogram, which was an importantconsideration in developing thisregulation. The Agency emphasizes thatalthough the Clean Water Act is a strictliability statute, EPA can initiateenforcement proceedings at itsdiscretion (Sierra Club v. Train, 557, F2d 485, 5th Cir., 1977). EPA has exercisedand intends to exercise that discretionin a manner that recognizes andpromotes good-faith compliance.

E. Indirect dischargers covered by thePSES and PSNS standards proposedtoday may also be subject to localpretreatment ordinances and therequirements of EPA's GeneralPretreatment Regulations. See, 40 CFR§ 403. Those regulations include

10019

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

provisions for base-line monitoringreports, compliance reports, credits forpollutant removals achieved by POTWs,and standards prohibiting interferencewith POTW operations. The provisionsof 40 CFR 403.6(e) also provide a"combined waste stream formula" fordetermining effluent significant limitswhen quantities of differing wastestreams are combined. Since the plantscovered by today's proposal do notcombine E&EC wastes with significantother waste streams, that provisionshould seldom be needed for thesesubcategories.

XV. Solicitation of Comments

EPA invites and encourages publicparticipation in this rulemaking. TheAgency asks that any deficiencies in therecord of this proposal be specificallyaddressed and particularly asks thatsuggested revisions or corrections besupported by data.

EPA is particularly interested inreceiving additional comments andinformation on the following issues:

1. The Agency is continuing to seekadditional data, specifically from thoseplants engaged in the production ofcathode ray tubes and use solvents inthe productions process for cleaning anddegreasing operations. To regulate theboard array of toxic organics, TTO hasbeen selected as the control parameter.The limit for TTO is not based on.aspecific treatment technology butrepresents the amount of toxic organicswhich were detected in the raw wasteloan from plants in the data base whichpractice solvent recovery. The Agencyrequests that those plants that may haveanalyzed their effluent for toxic organiccompounds known to be present in thesolvents used, submit that data alongwith the analytical method used.

2. The Agency requests comments onthe selection of chemical precipitation/clarification versus filtration for newsources and existing sources in thecathode ray tube and luminescentmaterials subcategories.

The reporting provisions in this rulewill be submitted for approval to theOffice of Management and Budget of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Any final rule willexplain how its reporting provisionsrespond.to any Office of Managementand Budget or public comments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 489

Electric and electronic equipment,Waste treatment and disposal, Waterpollution control. ;

Date: February 28, 1983.Anne M. Burford,Administrator.

XVII. Appendices

Appendix A-Abbreviations, Acronyms,and Other Terms Used in This Notice

Act-The Clean Water Act.Agency-The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.BAT-The best available technology

economically achievable under Section304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.

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

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

BPT-The best practicable controltechnology currently available under Section304(b)(1) of the Act.

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

Direct Discharger-A facility whichdischarges or may discharge pollutants into.waters of the United States.

Indirect Discharger-A facility whichdischarges or may discharge pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works.

NPDES Permit-A National PollutantDischarge Elimination System permit issuedunder Section 402 of the Act.

NSPS-New source performance standardsunder Section 306 of the Act.

POTW-Publicly owned treatment works.PSES-Pretreatment standards for existing

sources of indirect discharges under Section307(b) of the Act.

PSNS--Pretreatment standards for newsources of direct discharges under Section307(b) and (c) of the Act.

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

Appendix B-List of Toxic OrganicsComprising Total Toxic Organics (TTO)for the Cathode Ray Tube Subcategoryand excluded from the LuminescentMaterials Subcategory.

1,2,4 trichlorobenzenechloroform1.2, dichlorobenzene1,3 dichlorobenzene1,4 dichlorobenzeneethylbenzene1,1,1 trichloroethanemethylene chloridenapthalene2 nitrophenolphenolbis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatetetrachloroethylenetoluenetrichloroethylene2 chlorophenol2,4 dichlorophenol4 nitrophenolpentachlorophenoldi-n-butyl phthalateanthracene1,2 diphenylhydrazine

isophoronebutyl benzyl phthalate1,1 dichloroethylene2,4,6 trichlorophenol

Appendix C-List of PollutantsExcluded From Regulation

The following nine (9) pollutants arebeing proposed for exclusion fromfurther regulation for both subcategoriesunder Paragraph 8(a)(iii) because theyare present in amounts too small to beeffectively reduced by technologiesknown to the administrator- arsenic,beryllium, copper, mercury, nickel,selenium, silver, thallium, and cyanide.

The following list of eighty-six (86pollutants are being proposed forexclusion from further regulation forboth subcategories under Paragraph8(a)(iii) because they were not detectedin the effluent.1. Acenaphthene2. Acrolein3. Acrylonitrile4. Benzene5. Benzidine6. Carbon Tetrachloride7. Chlorobenzene8. Hexachlorobenzene9. 1,2-Dichloroeihane

10. Hexachloroethane11. 1,1-Dichloroethane12. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane13. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane14. Chloroethane15. Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether16. 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)17. 2-Chloronaphthalene18. Parachlorometa Cresol19. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine20. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene21. 1,2-Dichloropropane22. 1,2-Dichloropropylene23. 2,4-Dimethylphenol24. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene25. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene26. Fluorathene27. 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether28. 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether29. Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) Ether.30. Bis-(2-chloroethoxy) Methane31. Methyl Chloride32. Methyl Bromide33. Bromoform34. Dichlorobromomethane35. Chlorodibromomethane36. Hexachlorobutadiene37. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene38. Nitrobenzene39. 2,4-dinitrophenol40. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol41. N-nitrosodimethylamine42. N-nitrosodiphenylamine43. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine44. Di-n-octyl phthalate45. diethyl phtha/ate46. dimethyl phthalate47. Benzo (a) anthracene48. Benzo (a) pyrene49. 3. 4-benzofluorathene50. Benzo (k) fluoranthane51. Chrysene

10020

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

52. Acenaphthylene53. Benzo(ghi) perylene54. Fluorene55. Phenanthrene56. Dibenzo(ahanthracene57. Indeno(1,2,3-cdlpyrene58. Pyrene59. 2.3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p -dioxin60. Vinyl Chloride61. Aldrin62. Dieldrin63. Chlordane64.4,4' DDT65.4,4' DDE66.4,4' DDD67. A-endosulfan-Alpha68. B-endosulfan-Beta69. Endosulfan Sulfate70. Endrin71. Endrin Aldehyde72. Heptachlor73. Heptachlor Epoxide74. A-BHC-Alpha75. R- BHC-Beta76. G-DHC-Delta77. PCB-124378. PCB-125479. PCB-122180. PCB-123281. PCB-124882. PCB-126083. PCB-101684. Toxaphene85. Asbestos

For the Cathode Ray Tubesubcategory only, an additional toxicpollulant, antimony, is being. proposedfor exclusion from further regulationunder Paragraph 8(a)(iii), because it wasfound in amounts too small to beeffectively treated.

In the Luminescent Materialssubcategory, the twenty-six (26)additional toxic pollutants ,sted in.appendix C are being propo3ed forexclu:3ion under Paragraph 8(a)(iii)because EPA believes they are notpresent at detectable concentrationsusing state-of-the-art analyticalmethods. The two additional toxicpollutants being considered forexclusion under paragraph 8(a)(iii) arelead and chromium which were notdetected in effluents from thesubcategory.

For the reasons statedabove, EPAproposes to add new subpart C and D toPart 469 of 40 CFR, Chapter I as follows:

PART 469-ELECTRICAL ANDELECTRONIC COMPONENTS POINTSOURCE CATEGORY

Subpart C--Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory

Sec..469.30 Applicablity.. ......469.31 Specialized definitonts. '469.32 Monitoring requiremenis.469.34 Pretreatment. standards for existing

sources (PSES).

Sec.469.35 New source performance standards

(NSPS).469.36 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).

Subpart D-Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory449.40 Applicability469.41 Specialized definitions.469.42 New source performance standards

(NSPS}.469.43 Pretreatment standards for new

sources (PSNS).Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and

501, Clean Water Act (the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977,33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92500; 91 Stat. 1567,Pub. L 95-217).

Subpart C-Cathode Ray TubeSubcategory

§ 469.30 Applicability.(a) The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting fromthe manufacture of cathode ray tubes.

(b) The compliance deadline for PSESstandards shall be no later thanSeptember 10, 1984.

§ 469.31 Specialized definitions.The definitions in 40 CFR Part 401 and

the chemical analysis methods in40CFR Part 136 apply to this subpart. Inaddition,

(a) The term "total toxic organics(TTO)" shall mean the sum of theconcentrations for each of the followingtoxic organic compounds which is foundin the discharge at a concentrationgreater than ten (10) micrograms perliter:1,2,4 trichlorobenzenechloroform1,2 dichlorobenzene1,3 dichlorobenzene1,4 dichlorobenzeneethylbeniene1,1,1 trichloroethanemethylene chloridenapthalene2 nitrophenolphenolbis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatetetrachloroethylenetoluene .

trichloroethylene2 chlorophenol2,4 dichlorophenol4 nitrophenolpentachlorophenoldi-n-butyl phthalateanthracene1,2 diphenylhydrazineisophoronebutyl benzyl phthalate1,1 dichloroethylene2,4,6 trichlorophenol

(b) The term "cathode ray tubes" shallmean electronic devices in which high

velocity electrons focus through avacuum to generate an image on aluminescent surface.

§469.32 Monitoring.

Certification for TTO as specified in§ 469.12(a), 47 FR 37058 will beapplicable to this subpart.§ 469.34 Pretreatment standards forexisting sources (PSES).

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

Avers-g f

Maximum daily valuesPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 cfecut30

day days shallnot exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

TrO I ........................... - 0.15 . .....................Cadmium ............................................ 0.046 0.022Chromium ... . . 0.91 0.26Lead .................. . . .... 1.13 036Zinc ....................... 2.06 0.49Fluoride ............................................. . 32.6 22.3

'Total toxic organics.

§ 469.35 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

Average ofMaximum daily values

Pollutant or pollutant property for any A shall

dy days shallnot exceed

Miligrams per liter (mg/I)

ph ....................................................... (2) (2)o .......................... .. o-s - 0.15 ................

Cadmium ........................................... 0.046 0.022Chromium ........................................ 0.77 0.22Lead ................................................... 0.73 0.23Zinc .................................................... 1.18 0.28Fluoride ............................................. 32.6 22.3TSS .................................................... 42.9 16.1

'Total toxic organics. .2Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

§ 469.36 Pretreatment standards for newsource (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,any new source subject to this subpartwhich introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS)

10021

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 9, 1983 / Proposed Rules

Average ofm daily values

Pollutant or pollutant property for any 1 consecutiveday days shall

not exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

TTo ................................ .......... 0.015 ..........Cadmium .................... 0.046 0.022Chromium .......................................... 0.77 0.22Lead ....................... 0.73 0.23Zinc ........................ 1.18 0.28Fluoride .............................................. 32.6 22.3

Total toxic organics.

Subpart D-Luminescent MaterialsSubcategory

§ 469.40 Applicability.(a) The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to discharges resulting fromthe manufacture of luminescentmaterials.

(b) The compliance deadline for PSESstandards shall be no later thanSeptember 10, 1984.

§ 469.41 Specialized definitions.The definitions in 40 CFR Part 401 and

the chemical analysis methods in 40

CFR Part 136 apply to this subpart. Inaddition,

(a) The term "luminescent materials"shall mean materials that emitelectromagnetic radiati6n (light] uponexcitation by such energy sources asphotons, electrons, applied voltage,chemical reactions or mechanical energyand which are specifically used ascoatings in fluorescent lamps andcathode ray tubes.

§ 469.42 New source performancestandards (NSPS).

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

Average of

Maximum daily valuesPollutant or pollutant property for any 1 for 30da consecutive

day days shallnot exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

pH ....................................................... ( ) (')Cadmium .................................. 0.48 0.23Antimony ................. . ................" 0.18 0.044Zinc ................................................... 2.84 0.68

Average ofMaximum daily values

Pollutant or pollutant property for any 1 core30day days shall

not exceed

Fluoride ..................... 32.6 22.3

TSS ........................ 61.0 22.9

'Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.

§ 469.43 Pretreatment standards for newsources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,any new source subject to this subpartwhich introduces pollutants into apublicly owned treatment works mustcomply with 40 CFR Part 403 andachieve the following pretreatmentstandards for new sources (PSNS):

Average ofMaximum daily values

Pollutant or pollutant property for any 1 for 30consecutiveday days shall

not exceed

Milligrams per liter (mg/I)

Cadmium .................................... 0.48 0.23Antimony ..................... 0.18 0.044Zinc .................... 2.84 0.68Fluoride ............................................ 32.6 22.3

[FR Doc. 83-5877 Filed 3-6-83; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

10022