57, No. 177] /Friday, September .11, .1992 /Rules and ......FedaI 177 egiterI / Friday, Vl. 7,No. Seotember 11. 1992 / Rules and Remilations 41A37 support for several amendments as

41836 *Federal Retister /- Vol. 57,No17 FidSetme1,92/Rusan Rglton

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 414[FRL-4088-71

RIN 2040-AB65

Organic Chemicals, Plastics andSynthetic Fibers Category EffluentUmltatlons Guidelines, PretreatmentStandards, and New SourcePerformance Standards

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating severalamendments to agency regulationswhich limit effluent discharges to watersof the United States and the introductionof pollutants into publicly ownedtreatment works by existing and newsources in the Organic Chemicals,Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)Point Source Category. Theseamendments are based on an October18, 1990 proposal (55 FR 42332).

These amendments allow regulatoryauthorities to establish alternativecyanide limitations and standards basedon best professional judgment forelevated levels of non-,amenablecyanide that result from the unavoidablecomplexing of cyanide at the processsource of cyanide-bearing wastestreams; allow regulatory authorities toestablish alternative metals limitationsand standards to accommodate lowbackground levels of metals in non-"metal-bearing waste streams" thatresult from corrosion of constructionmaterials, intake water, contaminationof raw materials or other incidentalmetal sources deemed appropriate bythe regulatory authority: specify themethod for determining five-daybiochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) andtotal suspended solids (TSS) effluentlimitations for direct discharge plantsthat manufacture products in more thanone subcategory; correct listing errors inappendices of the agency regulations;revise the applicability sections of theOther Fibers. Thermoplastic Resins, andThermosetting Resins Subcategories tocorrespond to the rulemaking recordtechnical data and analyses; delete oneproduct and two product groups fromcoverage by this regulation; and movethe coverage of two products and oneproduct group from the Bulk OrganicChemicals Subcategory to the SpecialtyOrganic Chemicals Subcategory.DATES: These regulations shall becomeeffective October 26, 1992.

The compliance date for PSES isSeptember 11, 1995. The compliance

dates for NSPS and PSNS is the date thenew'source begins operation. Deadlinesfor compliance with BPT and BAT areestablished in permits. In accordancewith 40 CFR part 23 (50 FR 7268,February 21, 1985), this regulation shallbe considered issued for purposes ofjudicial review at I p.m. Eastern time(14-days from the date of publication inthe FR), 1992.

Under section 509(b)(1) of the CleanWater Act, jhdicial review of thisregulation can be had only be filing apetition for review in the United StatesCourt of Appeals within 120 days afterthe promulgation date of today'sregulation. Under section 509(b)(2) of theClean Water Act, the requirements inthis regulation may not be challengedlater in civil or criminal proceedingsbrought the EPA to enforce theserequirements.ADDRESSES: The supporting informationand all comments and responses on thisamendment to 40 CFR part 414 will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA*Public Information ReferenceUnit, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20460, room 2404 (EPALibrary Rear-Mail Code PM-213). Thebasis for this amendment is detailed inthe supplement to the OCPSF recordwhich is also in the PIRU. The PIRU isopen between the hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30p.m. For additional information contactGeorge M. Jett, Project Officer,Chemicals Branch, Engineering andAnalysis Division (WH-552),Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20460.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.George M. Jett at (202) 260-7151.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Organization of This NoticeI. Legal AuthorityII. Background and Rationale for

AmendmentsI. Public Participation and Responses to

CommentsA. Non-Amenable Cyanide LimitsB. Allowances for Non-Metal-Bearing

Wastes Streams1. Intake Water2. Requirements to Document Sources and

Quantities of Incidental Metals3. Plant Operating Conditions4. Agency's Consideration of Issuing

Guidance or Standards5. Establishment of Limitations at "Zero"6. Appropriateness of-Construction

materials7. Allowance for Increased ConcentrationC. Revisions to Appendices A and BD. Multi-Subcategory Calculations of BOD5

and TSS LimitationsE. Applicability of if 414.30, 414.40 and

414.50F. Amendments to §§ 414.40 and 414.70G. Timing of Promulgation and Effective

Dates of Amendments*

H. SummaryIV. Cost Impact AnalysisV. Executive Order 12291VI. Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisVII. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Legal Authority

The amendments to 40 CFR Part 414described in this notice are promulgatedunder authority of sections 301, 304, 306,307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act(the Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972, as amended (33U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), also referred to as"the Act" or "CWA."

II. Background and Rationale forAmendments

EPA's explanation of the backgroundand rationale for today's amendmentsare contained in the October 18, 1990,proposal, 55 FR 42332, as supplementedby the responses to comments in thefollowing section of this preamble.

Briefly, the cyanide amendment ispursuant to a settlement agreement withW.R. Grace & Company (Grace),Koppers Company, Inc. (Koppers), E.I.DuPont de Nemours & Company(DuPont), and the ChemicalManufacturers Association (CMA). Theagreement (March 29, 1989, D. Kaplan toR. Taylor) partially settled a disputebetween those petitioners and EPA thatwas the subject of a petition for judicialreview of the final OCPSF regulationpromulgated by EPA on November 5,1987 (52 FR 42522).

The additional amendments arise outof an agreement that was reachedamong EPA, CMA and Dupont duringlitigation (June 22,1988, D. Weitman toT. Garrett).

Lastly, based on EPA's review ofCategory Determination Requestsrelated to the applicability of the OCPSFregulations submitted pursuant to 40CFR 403.6(a), EPA is revising andcorrecting errors related to theapplicability of part 414.

III. Public Participation and Responsesto Comments

The Agency received comments fromeight (8) separate sources: the ChemicalManufacturers Association (CMA) andseven companies (Beazer East, Inc., DowChemical Company. W.R. Grace &Company, Hoechst/CelaneseCorporation, Monsanto Company,Sterling Chemicals, Inc., and UnionCamp Corporation). Generally, thecomments were favorable to theproposal, except that one commenter,Hoechst/Celanese, objected to EPA'spromulgation of the production-proportioning formulas and'severalcommenters provided conditional

No. 177] /Friday, September .11, .1992 /Rules and Regulations41836 ' Federal Re2ister :/Vol. 57,

FedaI egiterI Vl. 7,No. 177 / Friday, Seotember 11. 1992 / Rules and Remilations 41A37

support for several amendments asdescribed below.A. Non-Amenable Cyanide Limits

Today's amendment adds § 414.11(g),which allows the permit writer orcontkol authority to establish alternativecyanide limitations and standards basedon his or her best professional judgment(BPI) by evaluation of existing processconditions for elevated levels of non-amenable cyanide that result from theunavoidable complexing of cyanide atthe process source of cyanide-bearingwastestreams. Comments were receivedfrom CMA, W.R. Grace, Monsanto andSterling on this amendment,

All four comments supported theproposed amendment. CMA and Sterlingprovided anecdotal information, andGrace and Monsanto providedinformation and performance data tosubstantiate their concurrence with theproposed non-amenable cyanideamendment.B. Allowances for Non-Metal-BearingWaste Streams

Today's amendment adds I 414.11(h).which allows for the establishment bythe permit writer or control authority oflimitations for chromium, copper, lead,nickel, and zinc and discharge standardsfor lead and zinc from incidentalsources of metals, The amendmentapplies to wastestreams not listed inappendix A and not otherwisedetermined to be "metal-bearing wastestreams" where the permit writer orcontrol authority determines thatwastewater metals contamination is dueto background levels that are notreasonably avoidable from such sourcesas corrosion of construction materials orcontamination of raw materials.

Comments were received from CMA,Dow Chemical, W.R. Grace, Hoechst/Celanese, Monsanto, and Sterling onthis amendment. Grace and Sterlingwere completely supportive while CMA,Dow, Hoechst and Monsanto expressedconditional support for the amendments.The comments are discussed below.1. Intake Water

As proposed, I 414.11(h) would nothave provided a basis for an allowancefor metals in intake water on the groundthat such intake water contaminationwas covered under the provisions of 40CFR 122.45(g) for direct dischargers and40 CFR 403.15 for indirect dischargers,which provide authority for EPA to grantcredits for pollutants in a discharger'sintake water in certain circumstances.

CMA, Dow Chemical and Monsantoobjected to the proposed exclusion ofintake water as a source of incidentalmetals under 5 414.11(h). The

commenters pointed out thati i 122.45(g) and 403.15 are intended toaddress situations where dischargersare seeking limitations that are higherthan applicable guideline limits toaccount for intake sources of pollutants.These provisions do not provide asubstitute for § 414.11(h), as applied tointake water contamination, because§ 414.11(h) specifically provides that theincidental metal source allowancecannot exceed the applicable limitationscontained in i f 414.91 and 414.101. Inaddition, the commentors point out that§ f 122.45(g) and 403.15 generally apply

to situations where water is beingdrawn from and discharged to the samewater body and therefore would notnormally provide a basis for EPA tofactor intake water pollutants into end-of-pipe limitations for discharges intodifferent water bodies.

The Agency agrees with the threecommenters that intake water can be asource of incidental metals and that thispossibility is not adequately accountedfor by the provisions of 40 CFR 122.45(g)for direct discharge or 40CFR 403.15 forindirect dischargers, because theseprovisions apply principally tosituations where water is dischargedinto the same body from which'it Isdrawn. Therefore, the Agency modifiesthe proposal to specify that metals inintake waters may be the basis for ametals allowance under I 414.11(h).

2. Requirements to Document Sourcesand Quantities of Incidental Metals

The Agency proposed that thedetermination that incidental metals areunavoidably present must be basedupon a review of relevar f plantoperating conditions, process chemistry,engineering, and sampling and analysisinformation (55 FR 42338). CMA andDow Chemical objected to what theyconsidered to be "too rigorous anapplication of the demonstrationrequirement," and especially to therequirement that the actual quantitiesand sources of incidental metals bedemonstrated through sampling.

CMA agreed "that allowances forincidental sources of metals should bebased on more than mere estimates" butstated "it may be impossible precisely toidentify the various metals sources* * * [and] * * * it may be impossibleto quantify such metal sources." CMAspecifically took issue with thestatement in the preamble to theproposal that the presence of suchmetals must be demonstrated by actualsampling data. Dow Chemical suggestedthat EPA allow regulatory authoritiesmore freedom to use best professionaljudgment rather than limiting theallowance to situations where actual

sampling data demonstrates thepresence of incidental metals. Dow alsochallenged the permit writers' technicalability to accurately assess the factorsidentified in the proposal, arguing thatthe proposal requires the permit writerto be a metallurgist, chemical engineer,and chemist. Both CMA and Dowsuggest that the complexity of manyOCPSF plants may make it impossible toidentify the sources and quantities ofincidental metals. Both commenterssuggested that the Agency change theregulation language to read, "thedetermination should be based upon areview of relevant plant operatingconditions, process chemistry,engineering or sampling and analysisinformation", (emphasis added).

The Agency disagrees with thesecomments. It is clear from the proposalthat a permit writer or control authoritycannot grant an incidental metalsallowance unless a discharger candemonstrate that the presence ofincidental metals is not reasonablyavoidable and that in no case can theallowance exceed the amount of metalsactually present in a wastestream.These requirements are appropriate andconsistent with the June 22,1988agreement between EPA and CMA andDuPont pursuant to which the incidentalmetals allowance was proposed. If awastestream is not "metal-bearing" asdefined in the OCPSF regulation, see,e.g., 40 CFR 414.25(h), there shouldgenerally be no metals in thewastestream. The allowance providedby today's amendment should beavailable only or quantities of metalsfrom incidental sources which are notreasonably avoidable in thewastestream, which clearly cannot behigher than the quantities of such metalsactually present. If the presence ofmetals in a wastestream is reasonablyavoidable, there is no reason why thedischarger should be relieved fromcomplying with the guidelinerequirement that no metals allowancebe assigned to the wastestream. Apermit writer cannot accurately andreliably make the determination thatmetals are not reasonably avoidable incertain quantities without actualsampling data.

A principal flaw in the commenters'objection that the sources of metals maynot be ascertainable is that, independentof the inquiry into the sources ofincidental metals, the permit writer mustdetermine the quantities of incidentalmetals actually present in a non-"metal-bearing" waste-stream in order todetermine the upper bound for theallowance. This determination would be

No. 177 / Friday September 11, 1992 / Rules -and Reaulationo 41837I . ,Federa!! Regiter / Vol. 57,

413 eea eitrI ollllm~ 57,ll No. 17 /~ Frdy Seter 11 199 /~ Rules and Reuain

practically Impossible to make withoutsampling and analysis.

Moreover, despite the concededcomplexity of many chemical plants,EPA disagrees that the source(s) ofmetals cannot be identified. Today'samendment and the preamble to theproposal are clear that the metalsallowance provided in § 414.11(h) is notan end-of-pipe allowance; It applies atthe process source. When actual effluentsampling data reveals the presence ofmetals at a particular process source.additional sampling (e.g., of rawmaterials, intake water and effluent),combined with an analysis of plantoperating conditions, process chemistry,and engineering should enable thedischarger to identify, and the permitwriter to confirm, the source(s) of suchmetals in the wastestream for thespecific process in question.

Even if the source(s) cannot beidentified with absolute certainty, only afull evaluation of the listed factors willenable the permit writer to arrive at themost informed, best professionaljudgment as to the sorrcefs) ofincidental metals, whether the presenceof these metals Is not reasonablyavoidable and what quantities of thesemetals at or below the amounts actuallypresent in the discharger's wastestreamare achievable. For example, if samplingwere to reveal that the source ofincidental metals in a discharger'swastestream is raw materialscontamination, this situation should leadthe discharger and permit writer toinquire whether alternative sources areavailable, whether a different Inputcould be substituted for thecontaminated one, etc. In contrast, adetermination that the source of metalsis corrosion of piping would raise adifferent set of issues. Contrary to thecommenters' assertions, the complexityof plants in the industry is not a reasonto forego actual sampling; in fact. it isone of the principal reasons why such acomplete evaluation ia ncessary tomake the finding that certain levels ofmetals are not reasonably avoidable.

The Agency also disagrees withcommenters' assertions that permitwriters and control authorities areunqualified to assess the necessaryscientific information and data to makesound BPI decisions. The factorsidentified in today's amendment are thesame types of factors which permitwriters must evaluate on a regular basisin making BPJ determinations. Permitwriters are instructed to consider.among other things, the processemployed at a plant, the engineeringaspects of various types of controltechnologies, and process changes. 40

CFR 125.3(d). Permit writers alsoevaluate effluent data and othertechnically complex data submissions.such as the results of biological toxicitytests, required to be submitted by permitapplicants pursuant to 40 CFR122.21(g)(7). The same holds true forcontrol authorities, which collect andreview information from indirectdischargers which is similar to thatcollected and reviewed by permitwriters for direct dischargers. See 40CFR 403.12(b) (indirect dischargers mustsubmit to control authorities, amongother things. descriptions of operations,including schematic process diagrams,flow measurements, and sampling andanalysis data). Permit writers andcontrol authorities are fully qualified toevaluate these factors. Moreover, Dow'scomment rests on the false premise thata permit writer works in a vacuum. Onthe contrary, the permit writer, ofcourse, has full access to the resourcesand expertise of the Agency, whichroutinely addresses the factorsidentified in the new § 414.11(h) duringthe development of effluent guidelinesand in numerous other contexts.

3. Plant Operating Conditions

On a related point, CMA and Dowwere concerned about the requirementin the proposal that permit writersconsider "plant operating conditions" indetermining whether to grant anincidental metals allowance. Both feltthat the permit writer should addressonly how the plant is maintained andnot consider confidential processinginformation. CMA encouraged theAgency to specify that plant operatingconditions meant "how the plant is run(e.g., maintenance and repairconsiderations), not * * * confidentialprocess information." Both commentersstated that. if the Agency insists oncollecting confidential processinformation, it must provide safeguardsfor protection of such information.

EPA disagrees with these comments,EPA understands the "confidentialprocess information" referred to by thecommenters to be information relatingto how a product or product group ismanufactured. This includes suchinformation as the raw materials used inmanufacture, the reaction chemistry,and the engineering design including thematerials of construction and equipmentspecifications, This will often beprecisely the kind of information whicha permit writer needs to determinewhether incidental metals are notreasonably avoidable and at whatlevels. Information regarding rawmaterials will often be necessary todetermine whether they are the sourceof metals in a discharger's effluent.

Reaction chemistry and information onmaterials of construction will often benecessary to determine whether thesource of Incidental metals is thecorrosion of piping or other metalequipment.

Maintenance and repair information,In contrast, would rarely if ever providethe basis for a metals allowance. To theextent the presence of metals inwastewater is due to a plant operator'smaintenance or repair practices, thepresence of such metals shouldgenerally be avoidable through goodmanagement practices, such as trainingprograms, operator safety programs andproper scheduling of maintenance andrepair. Maintenance andrepairinformation alone would not providesufficient information regarding plantoperating conditions to provide thebasis for an incidental metalsallowance.

With respect to the protection ofconfidential business information (CBI),EPA regulations presently provideample safeguards against unauthorizeddisclosure of CBI collected by EPA (40CFR part 2 and 40 CFR 122.7), and noadditional protection is needed. Thetreatment of CBI collected by controlauthorities and states that areimplementing their own authorizedNPDES programs is principally governedby state and local laws, see§ § 123.25(al(3) and 403,14(b), (c). If thecommenters have concerns about theadequacy of these laws, their recourse iswith the states or localities; EPA'slongstanding position is that it will notdictate to states and localities how totreat CBI, 45 FR 33381 (May 19, 1980); 46FR 9436 (January 28, 1981).

In any event, while EPA appreciatesthe commenters' concerns regardingCBI, these concerns are not a basis toobject to today's amendment. Thecomments submitted go to the adequacyof EPA's CBI regulations generally, not,as they purport, to today's amendment.Today's amendment does not, for thefirst time, require or authorize permitwriters and control authorities to collectCBI. On the contrary, as described in thepreceding section. permit writers andcontrol authorities already collect andreview confidential process information.see, e.g., 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7) 125.3(d),403.12(b). In addition to this specificpermit-related authority, both EPA andcontrol authorities have generalauthority to collect a broad range ofInformation, including CBI, CWASection 308; 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(v),403.10(e) (POTWs and statesimplementing their own pretreatmentprograms must have informationcollection authority at least as extensive

No. 177 / Friday. September 11. 1992 / Rules and Regulations41838 Federal Register / VoL 57,

No: 177 /.Friday, September 11, 1992 1 Rules and Regulatdns 41839

as the CWA 308 authority). Dow andCMA have not alleged or demonstratedthat the information to be collectedunder today's amendment differs fromother CBI which permit writers andcontrol authorities collect routinely.Today's amendment is not the forum fora broader challenge against theAgency's ten-year-old CBI regulations.

4. Agency's Consideration of IssuingGuidance or Standards

In the preamble to the amendments(55 FR 42335) the Agency listed a tableof long-term average background levelswhich was being considered as a basisfor guidance or standards foraccommodating background levels ofmetals. The Agency requested publiccomment and data on these values andon the desirability of issuing guidance orstandards.

CMA objected to publishing guidanceconcentrations with the amendments.Furthermore, CMA indicated that if theAgency chose to require minimum ormaximum values, a medianconcentration should also be published.

Because no data was submitted andthe only comment received objected tothe publishing of guidanceconcentrations, EPA has decided not topublish numerical guidance orstandards. The Agency does not haveadequate data at this time to publishguidance concentrations or standardsfor incidental metal sources and leavesthe selection of numerical limits andstandard up to the best professionaljudgment of the permitting or controlauthority on a case-by-case basis.

5. Establishment of Limitations at"Zero"

CMA and Dow objected to theprovision in the proposed amendmentthat provided that "permit writersmay establish limitations * * betweenzero (0] and the concentration of metalsin the non-metal-bearing streams" (55FR 42338), and recommended thelanguage be changed to read "betweenthe practical quantitation level (PQL) forthe relevant analytical method and theconcentration of such metals present inwastestreams." The commenters arguedthat a level of zero (0) is not measurableand that zero is an undefined term.

Upon review, EPA agrees that itwould be inappropriate to set a permitlimitation at zero for the reasons statedby the commenters. However, EPA doesnot agree that the PQL is the appropriatelower bound. Rather, under today's rule,the individual permit writer or controlauthority will determine on a case-by-case basis what is the lowest level of anincidental metal which can be reliablymeasured in a wastestream. The permit

writer or control authority will set alimit for the metal between this lowestlevel and the amount of the metalactually present in the wastestream.EPA recommends that permit writersand control authorities use the"minimum levels" (MLs) for metals, asset forth in draft EPA method 1620, asthis lowest measurable level. The draftmethod contains the following MLs: 10micrograms per liter ([g/L) forchromium, 25 jg/L for copper, 5 ptg/L forlead, 40 ug/L for nickel, and 20 pg/L forzinc. Draft method 1620 is available forinspection and copying at the EPAPublic Information Reference Unit. EPArecommends use of the ML for guidancepurposes only; permit writers havediscretion to use whatever method theydeem most appropriate for determiningthe lowest measurable quantity.

EPA believes that the ML, rather thanthe PQL, is the appropriate guidancelevel to recommend to permit writers.The PQL is typically set as a multiple ofthe method detection limit (MDL). TheMDL is defined as "the minimumconcentration of a substance that can bemeasured and reported with 99%,confidence that the analyteconcentration is greater than zero * * *40 CFR 136, App. B. The MDL is anappropriate lower bound where thequestion to be answered is whether ananalyte is present, but is less suitablefor determining at what quantity theanalyte is present. Because exceedingthe permit level may trigger anenforcement action, the level should bemeasurable with a reasonable degree ofconfidence.

The PQL is defined as "the lowestlevel that can be reliably achievedwithin specified limits of precision andaccuracy during routine laboratoryoperation conditions." 52 FR 25699. Itgenerally ranges from three to ten timesthe MDL. The ML is related to the PQLbut is generally lower than the PQL for agiven analyte. The ML is defined as "thelevel at which the entire analyticalsystem shall give recognizable signaland acceptable calibration points." TheML is the level at which EPA hasdetermined, based on actual reports anddata from a number of laboratories, thatthe amount of a substance or compoundcan be measured reliably in industrialwastewater matrices, and is anappropriate guidance level for permitwriters. As explained in thepromulgation of the OCPSF guideline,the PQL has been used by the Office ofDrinking Water and Office of SolidWaste for drinking water and groundwater matrices. In contrast, the Office ofWater has used the ML for measuringconstituents In industrial wastewatermatrices 52 FR 42562-42563. Moreover.

the Office of Water recommended theuse of the ML concept as the basis forpermit action levels in its May 21, 1990memorandum tided "Strategy for theRegulation of Discharges of PHDDs andPHDFs from Pulp and Paper Mills toWaters of the United States" and statedits intention to continue to use the ML inestablishing numerical limitations forthe discharge of pollutants inwastewater, p. 19. Thus, EPArecommends that permit writers use theML as the lower bound in determiningthe appropriate permit level for anincidental metal.

6. Appropriateness of ConstructionMaterials

Hoechst/Celanese was concernedabout the preamble statement that"inappropriate materials of construction* * * are not the basis for metalsallowances. (55 FR 42335) Thecommenter states that its plant wasconstructed 50 years ago using copper'and copper alloy pipe, which: isgenerally more subject to corrosion than,stainless steel pipe, which thecommenter states would be used if theplant were being built today. Thecommenter requests that EPA clarifythat the appropriateness of constructionmaterial should be determined as of thetime the plant was built.

EPA* declines to providethe"clarification" requested by thecommenter. A permit writer mustdetermine, based on BPJ, whether thepresence of background levels of metalsis not reasonably avoidable in awastestream. The permit writer willconsider all relevant factors inexercising this BPJ, including, whereappropriate, the age of a plant (40 CFR125.3(d)). It is within the permit writer'sdiscretion to determine-on a case-by-case basis and in view of all relevantfactors-whether construction materialsare "appropriate." In some cases, thepermit 'writer may conclude that it isappropriate to grant an allowance forincidental metals which result fromcorrosion from pipes made from a now-obsolete construction material whichwas state-of-the-art at the time the plantwas built; in other cases, the permitwriter may, for example, determine thatit is reasonable for the plant to replacesome piping and set limits accordingly.Thus, EPA clarifies that the preamblestatement in question was not intendedto circumscribe the permit writer'sgeneral BPJ authority to consider the ageof a plant, but EPA cannot set forth ageneral rule that the appropriateness ofconstruction materials is to bedetermined as of the date ofconstruction.

Ffderat Rekister' / Vol-. 5V,

41840 Federal Rouster I Vol. 57, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 1992 / Rules and RegulationsIn reviewing this comment and the

other comments received on theproposed incidental metals allowance,EPA is concerned that the proposal mayappear to have created an inflexiblescheme in which permit writers wouldbe deprived of their normal discretion inmaking BPJ determinations. That wasnot the intent of the proposal, and EPAhas slightly modified the final rule fromthe proposed version by clarifying that,in order to qualify for the allowance, afacility must demonstrate that thepresence of metals is "not reasonablyavoidable." The proposed versionprovided that the presence of metalshad to be "unavoidable" for the facilityto qualify for the allowance. Strictlyspeaking, the incidental presence ofmetals will always be theoreticallyavoidable at some level of expense. EPAdid not intend to require that thepresence of the metals be literallyunavoidable in order for a facility toqualify for the allowance, but rather thatthe permit writer or control authoritywill use BPJ in determining whether thepresence of incidental metals is notreasonably avoidable. This means thatthe permit writer or control authoritywill consider, to the extent relevant, theage of equipment and facilities involved(as described in the precedingparagraph), the process employed (forexample, whether the wastestreamgenerated by a manufacturing processcreates incidental metals in the effluentbecause it corrodes piping, and whetherthat problem could be alleviated througha process change), the engineeringaspects of the application of varioustypes of control techniques, processchanges (for example, the substitution ofa raw material contaminated with ametal for an unadulterated rawmaterial), the cost of achieving effluentreduction (for example, an evaluation ofwhether the presence of metals can beavoided at a cost that is reasonable inlight of the quantity of metals present inthe wastestream and the quantity thatwould be removed through thecontemplated control measures), andnon-water quality environmentalimpacts. 40 CFR 125.3(d)(3).

7. Allowance for IncreasedConcentration

Monsanto suggested that the Agencyexpand the incidental metalsamendment to include allowances formass discharges for process operationsthat involve evaporation, which couldresult in greater metals concentrations.No supporting data was provided.

The Agency declines to expand theproposed amendment. The suggestedexpansion is completely distinct fromEPA's proposal, pursuant to the

settlement agreement with Grace.Koppers, DuPont and CMA, to amendthe OCPSF guidelines to provide anallowance for Incidental sources ofmetals. Moreover, the logic ofMonsanto's suggestion to allow forincreased concentration due toevaporation would appear in theory toapply to all pollutants, not just tometals. EPA lacks data to provide thetechnical basis for such a significantamendment to the OCPSF guidelines,and, in any event, could not promulgatesuch an amendment without providingnotice and an opportunity for comment.

C. Revisions to Appendices A and BAppendix A of part 414 contains a list

of product/processes with cyanide-bearing wastestreams. Thesewastestreams are subject to the cyanidelimitations established in part 414.Appendix B of part 414 is a list ofproduct/processes with complexedmetal-bearing wastestreams. Thesewastestreams are not subject to the part414 metals limitations, but are regulatedon a BPJ basis (40 CFR 414.11(f)). EPAproposed several changes to the lists ofproduct/processes in these Appendicesto more accurately reflect the nature ofthe metals associated with the product/process.

Two favorable comments werereceived on the proposed revisions toAppendices A & B. CMA providedanecdotal information to support itsconcurrence with the proposal. DowChemical supported the proposedlanguage, which, it stated, would betterrepresent the waste characteristics ofthe product/processes. EPA ispromulgating these amendments asproposed.

D. Multi-Subcategory Calculations ofBOD5 and TSS Limitations •

EPA today effects a technicalamendment by adding § 414.11(i). whichincorporates into the body of theregulations the formula for proportioningBOD and TSS concentration limitationsfor different subcategories to a plantwhich manufactures products in morethan one subcategory covered by part414.

Favorable comments were receivedfrom CMA, Dow Chemical, andMonsanto. CMA stated, and Dow andMonsanto agreed, that "the volume ofproduction within each subcategory isthe correct basis for calculating end-of-pipe limits for multi-subcategoryplants." As CMA correctly observed."[because the derivation of the BPTguideline limits was based on thepercentage of production within thevarious BPT categories, so too must theapplication of the limits be based on the

production volumes within eachsubcategory."

One negative comment was received.Hoechst/Celanese took issue with whatit characterized as the Agency'sproposal to "mandate [ I use of theproduction-proportioning formula" andargued that multi-subcategorylimitations should be based on theproportion of a plant's wastewater flowin each subcqtegory, not the proportionof the plant's production in eacbsubcategory.

EPA disagrees with Hoechst/Celanese. Contrary to the commenter'sassertion, today's promulgationdoesnot, for the first time, mandate-the use ofthe production-proportioning formula,which was already the required methodfor calculating limits for multi-subcategory plants. Rather, today'samendment merely responds toconcerns raised-by-CMA, DuPont, andother petitioners in the litigation thatpermit writers might fail to use theformula set forth in the preamble to theNovember 5,1987 final OCPSF rulepromulgation and the accompanyingDevelopment Document.

The Development Document sets outthe formulas contained in today'samendment and explains that, "forplants with production activitiesclassified by two or more subcategories,the permit writer would use a building-block approach based on productionproportioning to use the promulgatedsubcategorical limitations as a basis forestablishing plant-specific permitrequirements." (OCPSF DevelopmentDocument, EPA 440/1-87/009, October1987 at IX-10 (emphasis added)).Similarly, the preamble to the finalOCPSF rule states that, "[iun applyingthe limitations set forth in the regulation,the permit writer will use what isessentially a building-block approachthat takes into consideration applicablesubcategory characteristics and theproportion of production quantitieswithin each subcategory at the plant."(52 FR 42533 (emphasis added).) Thesestatements reflect EPA's intention andunderstanding that the production-proportioning formula would be thebasis for setting limits at multi-subcategory plants.

This method of deriving permit limitsfor multi-subcategory plants is anecessary corollary of EPA'smethodology in developing the OCPSFBPT limitations. The regression equationused by EPA in establishing the BPTlimitations "modelfed} long-termaverage effluent BOD as a function ofthe proportion of the production of eachsubcategory at each [multi-subcategory]facility." (52 FR 42533 (emphasis

No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 1992 / Rules and Regulatiorns41840 Federal Register / Vol. 57.

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 177 / Friday. September 11, 1992 Rules and Regulations 41041

added)). Similarly, the DevelopmentDocument states that EPA establishedlimitations for the various subcategoriesbased on a "regulatory approach thatproportions the various subcategorylong-term averages for each plant basedon the reported proportion of productionby product group * * *." (OCPSFDevelopment Document, page IV-6.October 1987) EPA specifically foundthat flow proportioning was "notappropriate" as a basis for establishinglimitations and that "there was notechnical basis in the record to concludethat achievable long-term mean effluentconcentrations were significantlyaffected by water use practice in theindustry." 52 FR 42533. Given the factthat EPA established the OCPSF BPTlimitations-and determined that theywere technically and economicallyachievable as required by the CWA-byproportioning the data from multi-subcategory plants on a productionbasis, rather than flow basis, theAgency could not implement theguideline by setting actual permit limitson a flow-proportioned basis.

Today's amendment simply clarifiesan approach which was alreadyinherent in the guideline itself. Hoechst/Celanese could have challenged theproduction-proportioning approachwithin 120 days of promulgation of theOCPSF guideline pursuant to section509(b) of the Clean Water Act. EPA didnot intend to re-open this fundamental.underlying aspect of the guideline byproposing to publish the production-proportioning formula in the body of theregulations.

Even if this were the appropriateforum to challenge the production-proportioning approach, EPA believes,for the reasons set forth above, that theapproach is correct; Hoechst/Celanesehas provided no data or information inits comments which undercut thevalidity of the findings which EPA madefor the OCPSF industry during therulemaking. To the extent thecommenter believes that its facilitypresents factors which differ from thoseconsidered for the industry during therulemaking, the proper remedy wouldhave been a request for a fundamentallydifferent factors variance from theguideline under section 301(n) of theAct.E. Applicability of§§ 414.30, 414.40 and414.50

The Agency proposed to amend theapplicability of subpart C. Other Fibers(§ 414.30), subpart D, ThermoplasticResins (§ 414.40), and Subpart E.Thermosetting.Resins (§ 414.50). toinclude all products defined In terms ofthe four- and five-digit Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) codeswhich the Subparts were intended tocover. EPA Intended that the regulationwould cover all production within theSIC codes which define the OCPSFindustry. For subparts F through H.covering commodity, bulk. and specialtyorganic chemicals respectively, theOCPSF regulation accomplishes thisintent by capturing the production of allorganic chemicals not specifically listedin subparts F and G under subpart H asspecialty products. Subparts C, D, and E.however, incorrectly limit the coverageof the guidelines to production of theproducts and product groups specificallylisted in §I 414.30, 414.40, and 414.50respectively, thus creating the potentialfor production of fibers and resins toescape coverage. EPA intended theproducts listed in these sections to beillustrative rather than exclusive, andtoday's amendmjnt accomplishes thatintention.

CMA, Dow Chemical, Monsanto andUnion Camp submitted comments onthis proposal. CMA and Dow stated theAgency must demonstrate that Itactually intended the coverage of theseSubparts to be comprehensive, and thatthe OCPSF record supports the proposedamendment. Both also were concernedthat plants be given sufficient time tocomply with the limitations for theadded product/processes in the affectedsubparts.

The OCPSF record demonstrates thatEPA intended the coverage of theseSubparts to be comprehensive and fullysupports today's amendment. EPAdeveloped and promulgated the OCPSFguideline in part pursuant to asettlement agreement entered by theAgency in settlement of a 1976 law suitbrought by several environmentalgroups to compel EPA to promulgateguidelines (Development Document at I-2). The agreement required EPA topromulgate the OCPSF guideline anddefined the OCPSF industry to Includeall production within SIC codes 2885,2889, 2821, 2823 and 2824 (id. at 1I-4).Accordingly, the original October 1983OCPSF Clean Water Act section 308Survey collected production and relatedtechnical and economic informationbased on SIC codes.

The introduction of the questionnaire,page 1, explains that, "[flor the purposeof this survey, the OCPSF industry isdefined as all establishments thatmanufacture: (1) Organic chemicalproducts included within the U.S.Department of Commerce Bureau of theCensus Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) major groups 2885and 2869 and/or (2)-plastics andsynthetic fibers products included in SIC

major groups 2821, 2823, and 2824." Thequestionnaire collected OCPSFproduction information from allproduction within these SIC codes.Indeed, much of the information wasreported in aggregate form based on SICcodes; only respondents that wereprimary manufacturers of OCPSFproducts (g8nerally, where at least onehalf of a manufacturer's production wasof OCPSF products or where OCPSFprocess wastewaters are treated in asystem with 25 percent or less dilutionby non-OCPSF process wastewater)reported the specific products theyproduced, and only for products whichconstituted at least one percent of totalproduction. The remaining productioninformation was reported by SIC codeonly. The questionnaire was plainlyintended to provide the basis for acomprehensive regulation of theindustry covering all relevant SIC codes.This intent Is further evidenced by theSelected Summary of Information inSupport of the OCPSF Point SourceCategory, which was the supportdocument for the July 17. 1985 Notice ofAvailability, 50 FR 29068. The documentexplains that "[tjhe Agency has definedthe Plastic/Synthetic Fibers industry(subparts C, D, and E) to include allfacilities within SIC codes 2821, 2823and 2824" (p. 2, emphasis added).

EPA used the data it collected todevelop limitations and standards thatcould be applied across subcategoriesthat covered all production within therelevant SIC codes. The aggregated SICcode data which EPA received, alongwith the product-specific data, wereassigned to the appropriatesubcategories, and formed part of thebasis for the existing OCPSF limitationsand standards. (Assignment of Part Aand Part B Production to OCPSFSubcategories, A. Shattuck to theRecord July 8, 1992.) Thus, theregulation is based, in part, on genericSIC code data; EPA's data basedcontains no information on the specificproducts represented by this aggregateddata. Today's correcting amendmentmerely conforms the regulations toEPA's intention in establishing thelimitations, and. in any event, asexplained below, is fully supported bythe methodology employed indeveloping the limitations.

The OCPSF subcategorization schemewas challenged in the litigation over theguideline on the grounds that SIC codesdid not provide a rational basis tosubcategorize. and that the BPTlimitations established were thereforearbitrary and capricious (as explainedbelow, the BAT limitatioas are aindependent of the rule's product-based

41842 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

subcategorization). The Fifth Circuitupheld the scheme, concluding, based onits review of the rulemaking record, that"SIC codes tend to be organized aroundthe products produced by varioussegments of the industry, and that thetype of product in turn influences thewastestream characteristics of thoseplants" (870 F.2d at 216).

Where EPA found that wastewatertreatability varied within a SIC code tosuch an extent that all production withinthe SIC code could not be groupedwithin a single subcategory, the Agencyfurther subcategorized to accommodatethis variety. For example, productionwithin SIC codes 2823 and 2824 iscovered by subpart C. except forproduction of rayon fibers, a SIC code2823 product, which EPA determinedwas sufficiently distinct to merit aseparate subcategory (Dev. Doc. p. IV-20). EPA also divided production withinSIC code 2821 between thermoplasticresins (SIC code 28213, subpart D) andthermosetting resins (SIC code 28214,subpart E). The Agency concluded that"process chemistry and engineering arebroadly consistent within thesegroupings" (id.). Similarly, productionwithin SIC codes 2865 and 2869 isdivided among three subcategories-F(commodity organic chemicils), G (bulkorganic chemicals), and H (specialtyorganic chemicals)-based on theqjjantity of a chemical producednationally, because EPA concluded thatthe rate of biodegradation, and thereforethe treatability, of organic pollutantsvaried with parameters related to thevolume of national production (id. at IV-21). Overall, EPA concluded that,"[b]ased on the distribution of rawwaste and effluent BOD5concentrations, the relative consistencyof percent removal data across the finalseven subcategories, and BOD5 effluentwithin subcategories and within productgroups within those subcategories, * * *the adopted BPT subcategorizationaccounts sufficiently for wastewatercharacteristics and treatability" (id. atIV-37).

Production that falls within the SICcodes which define subcategories Cthrough E should be similar in natureand should therefore have similarwastewater and treatabilitycharacteristics regardless of whetherEPA collected and assessed data withrespect to the specific product inquestion. EPA concludes that the BPTlimitations for these subparts areachievable for all such production. Tothe extent a specific plant haswastewater characteristics that differfundamentally from the other plantswithin the subcategory, that plant may

of course seek alternative limits througha fundamentally different factors (FDF)variance under CWA section 301(n).However, the fact that individual plantsmay present plant-specific concernsdoes not invalidate thesubcategorization.

With respect to the BAT limitations,EPA concluded in the OCPSFrulemaking that "OCPSF plants caneconomically achieve compliance withthe BAT limitations * * * through somecombination of in-plant or end-of-pipedemonstrated technology irrespective ofproducts produced," and therefore didnot subcategorize based on production.(52 FR 42532). EPA concludes, therefore,that OCPSF production that falls withinthe SIC codes which define subparts Cthrough E will, like production of thespecifically listed products, have similarwastewater characteristics and willsimilarly be able to achiet compliancewith the BAT limitations. Again, plant-specific concerns, if any exist, can beaddressed through the FDF mechanism.

Finally, EPA notes that it would havebeen virtually impossible to collect andanalyze data for each individual productin the OCPSF industry. The industrymanufactures over 25,000 products.EPA collected product or product group-specific data for about 1000 of these, andaggregated data for the remainder. Evenwith the data so aggregated, EPArequired four years from the time itdistributed the original questionnaire topromulgate the final OCPSF regulation.The Agency had no choice but todevelop a methodology to group plantsinto categories based on similarcharacteristics and to make reasonableconclusions about the discharge levelsthat those plants can achieve. Asexplained above, the subcategorizationscheme adopted by EPA accomplishesthat result.

The compliance dates for today'samendment will follow the samestatutory requirements as any new rule.In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, thisregulation shall be considered issued forpurposes of judicial review at 1 p.m.,Eastern time (14-days from the date ofpublication in the FR), 1992. Theseregulations shall become effective (45-days from the date of publication in theFR). 1992.

The compliance date for PSES is(three years from the date of publicationin the FR], 1995. The compliance datesfor NSPS and PSNS is the date the newsource begins operation. Deadlines for

I Note that NSPS. PSES and PSNS under theOCPSP guideline are based on BAT and BPT. Theconclusions reached above for BAT end BPrtherefore apply to all of the limitations andstandards established In the guideline.

compliance with BPT and BAT areestablished in permits.

F. Amendments to §§ 414.40 and 414.70

The Agency proposed to amend§ 414.70 by removing Citric Acid andFatty Acids from § 414.70(a) andremoving Aspirin from § 414.70(c) andregulating them as specialty organics.Dow and Union Camp supported theseproposed amendments.

The Agency proposed to amend part414.40 by removing "cellulose sponge".The Agency also proposed to amendpart 414.70(e) by removing"dithiophosphates, sodium salt" and"waxes, emulsions-dispersions". Nocomments were received on these threeamendments.

G. Timing of Promulgation and EffectiveDates of Amendments

Monsanto objected to the timing of thepromulgation of these amendments,arguing that the Agency was notproceeding "as expeditiously aspossible" as it agreed to do in thesettlement agreement on which theseamendments are based. Monsantocharacterized the issues involved as"relatively straightforward."

EPA disagrees with Monsanto.Today's amendment raises a number ofcomplex issues and have requiredthorough evaluation by EPA. Inparticular, EPA has devoted asubstantial amount of time toconsidering and responding to thecomments submitted by Monsanto andothers. EPA believes it is in both theAgency's and the commenters' bestinterest that EPA carefully evaluate allcomments and other issues raised by aregulatory change. The Agency hasproceeded on this amendment asexpeditiously as possible.

H. Summary

Having thoroughly reviewed all of thecomments, the Agency has decided toamend part 414 as proposed in theOctober 10, 1990 FR notice except aschanged to add intake water as apossible source of incidental metals, toprovide that an incidental metalsallowance may be granted where thepresence of metals is "not reasonablyavoidable," and to provide thatincidental metals limitations must beestablished between the lowest levelwhich the permit writer or controlauthority determines can be reliablymeasured and the concentration of suchmetals present in the wastestreams notto exceed the applicable limitationscontained in §§ 414.91 and 414.101. Theremainder of 40 CFR part 414 isunchanged.

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No 177 / Friday, September 11, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 4184S

IV. Cost Impact AnalysisEPA does not anticipate additional

incremental costs or impacts to theOCPSF industry as a result of theseamendments. While these amendmentsexpand the applicability of threesubparts, this expansion simplyconforms the regulation to the originalrulemaking methodology, including theoriginal costing methodology, which wadone on a SIC-code basis. There hasbeen no change to the costing procedureused in the 1987 promulgation.

V. Executive Order 12291Executive Order 12291 requires EPA

and other agencies to perform regulator)analyses of major regulations. Majorrules are those which impose a cost onthe economy of $100 million or moreannually or have certain other economicimpacts. This regulation is not a majorrule because it merely clarifies theapplicability of the regulation, correctslisting errors and establishes flexibilityin implementing an existing regulationby allowing regulatory authorities toaccommodate site specific factorsrelating to complexed-cyanide andbackground levels of metals in non-metal-bearing waste streams that arenot reasonably avoidable. Today'samendments do not impose significantnew requirements; thus, they meet noneof the criteria of a major rule as set forthin section 1(b) of the Executive Order.This rule was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget for review.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires EPA andother agencies to prepare an initialregulatory flexibility analysis for allregulations that have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. No regulatory flexibilityanalysis is required, however, where thehead of the Agency certifies that the ruhwill not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. Based on the reasons discussedIn the preceding paragraph, I herebycertify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), thatthis regulation will not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.

VII. Paperwork Reduction ActIn accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3500 etseq., EPA must submit a copy of anyrule that contains a collection-of-information requirement to the Directorof the Office of Management and Budgelfor review and approval. This noticecontains no additional information-collection requirements beyond those

already required by 40 CPR 400and 40CFR 122, and therefore the PaperworkReduction Act is not applicable

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 414Chemicals, Plastics materials and

synthetics, Water pollution control.Water treatment and disposal.

Dated: September 1, 1992.F. Henry Habicht ILActing Administrator.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, 40 CFR part 414 is amendedas set forth below.

PART 414-ORGANIC CHEMICALS,PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS

1. The authority citation for part 414continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501,Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L 95-217, 91Stat. 156, Pub. L. 100-4. 101 Stat. 7 (33 U.S.C.1311. 1314, 1316, 1317, and 1361).

2. Section 414.11 is amended byadding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) toread as follows:

§ 414.11 Applicability.

(g) Non-amenable cyanide. Dischargesof cyanide in "cyanide-bearing wastestreams" (listed in Appendix A to thispart) are not subject to the cyanidelimitations and standards of this part ifthe permit writer or control authoritydetermines that the cyanide limitationsand standards are not achievable due toelevated levels of non-amenablecyanide (i.e., cyanide that is notoxidized by chlorine treatment) thatresult from the unavoidable complexingof cyanide at the process source of thecyanide-bearing waste stream andestablishes an alternative total cyanideor amenable cyanide limitation thatreflects the best available technology

i economically achievable. Thedetermination must be based upon areview of relevant engineering,production, and sampling and analysisinformation, including measurements ofboth total and amenable cyanide in thewaste stream. An analysis of the extentof complexing in the waste stream,based on the foregoing information, andits impact on cyanide treatability shallbe set forth in writing and, for directdischargers, be contained in the factsheet required by 40 CFR 124.8.

(h) Allowances for non-metal-bearingwaste streams. Discharge limitations forchromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zincor discharge standards for lead and zinc

t may be established for waste streamsnot listed in Appendix A of this part andnot otherwise determined to be "metal-bearing waste streams" if the permit

writer or control authority determinesthat 4the wastewater metals

.,contamination Is due to backgroundlevels that are not reasonably avoidablofrom sources sueh as intake water.corrosion of construction materials orcontamination of raw materials. Thedetermination must be based upon areview of relevant plant operatingconditions, process chemistry,engineering, and sampling and analysisinformation. An analysis of the sourcesand levels of the metals, based on theforegoing Information, shall be set forthin writing: for direct dischargers, theanalysis shall be contained in the factsheet required by 40 CFR 124.8. Fordirect dischargers, the permit writer mayestablish limitations for chromium,copper, lead, nickel, and zinc for non-"metal-bearing waste streams" betweenthe lowest level which the permit writerdetermines based on best professionalJudgment can be reliably measured andthe concentrations of such metalspresent in the wastestreams, but not toexceed the applicable limitationscontained in § § 414.91 and 414.101. (Forzinc, the applicable limitations whichmay not be exceeded are thoseappearing in the tables in 1 § 414.91 and414.101, not the alternative limitationsfor rayon fiber manufacture by theviscose process and the acrylic fibermanufacture by the zinc chloride/solvent process set forth in footnote 2 toeach of these tables.) For indirectdischargers, the control authority mayestablish standards for lead and zinc fornon-"metal-bearing waste streams"between the lowest level which thecontrol authority determines based onbest professional judgment can bereliably measured and the concentrationof such metals present In thewastestreams, but not to exceed theapplicable standards contained in§ § 414.25, 414.35, 414.45, 414.55, 414.65,414.75, and 414.85. (For zinc, theapplicable standards which may not beexceeded are those appearing in thetables in the above referenced sections,not the alternative standards for rayonfilber manufacture by the viscoseprocess set forth in footnote 2 to thetable in § 414.25, or the alternativestandards for acrylic fiber manufactureby the zinc chloride/solvent process setforth in footnote 2 to the table in§ 414.35.) The limitations and standardsfor individual dischargers shall be set ona mass basis by multiplying theconcentration allowance established bythe permit writer or control authority bythe process wastewater flow from theindividual wastestreams for whichincidental metals have been found to bepresent.

41844 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 177 I Friday, September 11, 1992 I Rules and Regulations

(i) BOD6 and TSS limitations forplants with production in two or moresubcategories. Any existing or newsource direct discharge point sourcesubject to two or more of subparts Bthrough H must achieve BOI and TSSdischarges not exceeding the quantity(mass) determined by multiplying thetotal OCPSF process wastewater flowsubject to subparts B through H timesthe following "OCPSF production-proportioned concentration": For aspecific plant, let wj be the proportion ofthe plant's total OCPSF production insubcategory J. Then the plant-specificproduction-proportioned concentrationlimitations are given by:

HPtnt BOD, Limit - (w,) (BOD S Unin andi-s

IIPlant TSS Limit - Z (w,) (TSS Umit,).

J-B

The "BOD Limit," and "TSS Limitj" arethe respective subcategorical BOD andTSS Maximum for Any One Day orMaximum for Monthly Averagelimitations.

§§ 414.21, 414.31, 414.41,414.51, 414.61,414.71 and 414.81 [Amended]

3. In each of § § 414.21, 414.31, 414.41,414.51. 414.41, 414.71 and 414.81, the firstsentence which reads "Except asprovided in 40 CFR 125.30 through125.32, any existing point source subjectto this subpart must achieve dischargesnot exceeding the quantity (mass)determined by multiplying the processwastewater flow subject to this subparttimes the concentration listed in thefollowing table." is revised to read"Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30through 125.32, and in 40 CFR 414.11(i)for point sources with production in twoor more subcategories, any existingpoint source subject to this subpart mustachieve discharges not exceeding thequantity (mass) determined bymultiplying the process wastewater flow

subject to this subpart times theconcentration listed in the followingtable."

4. Section 414.30 is amended byrevising the first sentence to read asfollows:

§ 414.30 Applicability; description of theother fibers subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to the process wastewaterdischarges resulting from themanufacture of products classifiedunder SIC 2823 cellulosic man-madefibers, except Rayon, and SIC 2824synthetic organic fibers including thosefibers and fiber groups listedbelow. * *

5. Section 414.40 is amended byrevising the first sentence of the textand by removing from the list the entry,"Cellulose Sponge" to read as follows:

* 414.40 Applicability; description of thethermoplastic resins subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to the process wastewaterdischarges resulting from themanufacture of the products classifiedunder SIC 28213 thermoplastic resinsincluding those resins and resin groupslisted below.' * *

* * * * *

6. Section 414.50 is amended byrevising the first sentence of the text toread as follows:

§ 414.50 Applicability; description of thethermosetting resins subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to the process wastewaterdischarges resulting from themanufacture of the products classifiedunder SIC 28214 thermosetting resins

including those resins and resin groupslisted below.* * *

* * * *

§ 414.70 [Amended]7. Section 414.70 is amended by

removing from the listing in paragraph(a) the entries, "Citric Acid" and "'FattyAcids"; by removing from the listing inparagraph (c) the entry, "Aspirin"; andby removing from the listing inparagraph (e) the entries,"Dithiophosphates, Sodium Salt" and"*Waxes, Emulsions-Dispersions".

Appendix A /Amended]

8. Part 414, Appendix A is amendedby removing from the Cyanide listing theentries, "Hexamethylene diisocyanate/Hexamethylene diamine (1,6-Diaminohexane) +phosgene"'"Methylene Diphenylisocyanate (MDI)/Phosgenation of methylene dianilinefrom Aniline + Formaldehyde","Polyurethane resins/Diisocyanate +Polyoxyalkylene glycol". "Polyurethanefibers (Spandex)/Polyoxyalkylene glycol+ Tolylene diisocyanate +dialkylamine" and "Tolylenediisocyanate (isomeric mixture)/Tolylene diamines + Phosgene".

9. Appendix B to Part 414 is amendedby adding two entries to the end of thelisting for Lead to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 414-ComplexedMetal-Bearing Waste Streams

Lead* * * * *

Tetraethyl lead/Alkyl halide + sodium-leadalloy

Tetramethyl lead/Alkyl halide + sodium-lead alloy

[FR Doc. 92-21780 Filed 9-10-92; 8:45 am]BILLING COOE 6660-6"0-

No. 177 / Friday, September 11, 1992 / Rules and Regulations41844 .Fed eral Register / Vol. 57,