~r 

i ~," I I 

Friday

JuSy 15, 1983 

Part !11 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

EiectroplaUn9 and Metal Finisldng Point 

Source Categories; Effluent Umitatiotw 

Guidelines, Pretreatment Stmtdafd~ 

New Source Performance Standards 
m Federal ~sister / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations ...... [ IlL I I II III I w I III I • ,L, -. ~j: .. J , . L 

E~AL PROTECTION. 

FtGENCY 

4O OFR Parts 4~3 aml 

ElectroplaUng and Metal Finishin9 

~Jnt SotWce Categodes; Effluent 

I.knitxUo~ Gtddelines, Pretreatn~nt 

Standmds, and New S",jrce Performance Standards 

)t~cNCV: Environmental Protection 

AScacy (EPA). 

4clrw~: Final rule. 

~: This regulation limits the 

pollutants that electroplating/metal 

finishing facilities may discharge to 

waters of the United States or to 

publicly owned treatment works 

.{POTW). The Metal Finishing, 

Regulations provide effluent limitations 

based on "best practicable technology" 

and "best available technology" and 

establish new source performance 

standards and pretreatment standards 

under the Clean Water Act. In addition, 

this rule amends the pretreatment 

standards for existing sources for the 

glectmplating Point Source Category. 

The preamble summarizes the legal 

authority, background, technical and 

economic bases, and other aspects of 

the regulation as well as a summary of 

comments on the proposed regulation 

and on the record supporting the 

proposed regulation. The abbreviations, 

acronyms, and other terms used in the 

preamble are defined in Appendix A. 

{See Supplementary Information" 

below for complete table of contents). 

The final rule is supported by EPA's 

technical conclusions detailed in the 

Development Document for Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines, ond Standaeds 

for the Metal Finishin 8 Point Source 

Category,June, 1983. The Agency's 

economic analysis.is found in Economic 

Analysis of Effluent Standards and 

limitations for the Metal Finishing 

Industz T, June 1983, Further supporting 

materials are filed in the reccrd 

supportin 8 this rulemaking. 

cairn: In accordance with 40 CFR 

100.01 (45 FR 26048) this regulation shall 

be considered issued for the purposes of 

judical review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time 

on July 29,1983. These regulations shall 

become effective August 29, 1983, 

The compliance date for the BAT 

regulations is as soon as possible, but no 

later than July 1,1984, 

The compliance date for New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

Pr, 'reatment Standards for New 

Sources (PSNS) is the date the new 

source begins operations. The 

compliance date for Metal Finishing 

Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources {PSES} is February 15. 1086 for 

metals and cyanide. Metal Finishing 

• PSES establishes two levels of toxic • 

organic control; the less stringent must 

be met by June 30, 1984 for most plants 

and by July 10,1085 at plants also 

subject to Part 420 (Iron and Steel); the 

more stringent must be met by Februr.ry 

15, 1988. Inaddition, Electroplating PSES 

requires toxic organic control by July 15, 

1986. 

Under Section 509[b){l) of the Clean 

Water Act judicial review of this 

regulation can be obtained only by filin 8 

a petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals witl3.in 90 days after 

these regulations are considered issued 

for the purposes of judicial review. 

Under Section 509{b}(2} of the Clean 

Water Act, the requirements of the 

regulations may not be challenged in 

later civil or criminal proceedings 

brought byEPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Reporting provisions in 40 CFR 413.03 

and 433.I2 will be reviewed by OMB 

under the paperwork reduction act and 

drenot effective until -~proved. 

aoonEslt: Technical LJormation may be 

obtained by writing to Mr. Richard 

Kinch. Effluent Guidelines Division 

(WH-552}, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M St., S,W., Washington, 

D.C. 20460, Attention: Metal Finishing 

Rules. Approximately two weeks from 

publication, the record for this 

rulemaking will be available for 

inspection and copying at the EPA 

Public Information Reference Unit, 

Room 2404 (Rear) PM-213 (E.PA Librar~j). 

The EPA public information regulation 

{40 CFR Part -.) provides that a 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. Copies of the technical and 

economic documents may be obtained 

from the National Technical Information 

Service, Spring4]eld, Virginia 22161 (703[ 

487-4650). Copies of both documents 

will be av/qlable for review'in the public 

record at EPA headquarters end 

regional libraries. 

FOR PtlRTHER INFORMATION CONTAqI~r:. 

Mr. Richard Klnch, Effluent Guidelines 

Division (WH-55Z), EPA, 401 M Street. 

S.W., Washington, D,C. 20460, or by 

calling (202) 382-7159, Economic 

information may be obtained by writing 

Ms. Kathleen Ehrensberger, Economics 

Branch (WH-888), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M St. S.W., 

Washington. D.C. 20460, or by calling 

{202) 382--6397, 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Notice 

I. Legal Authority' I1. Background 

A. The Clean Water Act 

B. Prior EPA Reg,dations 

C. Overview of the Industry 

Ill. Scope of this Rulemaking 

IV. Data Gathering Efforts 

V.Sampling and AnalyticalProgram 

VI.Industry Subcategorization 'lb 

VIi. Available Wastewater Control and 

Treatment Technology 

A. Status of In-Place Technology 

B, Control Treatment Options 

VIII.General Criteria for Limitations 

A. BPT Effluent Limitations 

B. BAT Effluent Limitations 

C. BCT Effluent Limitations 

C. BCT Effluent Limitations 

D. New Source Performance Standards 

E, Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources 

F.P~retreatmentStandards for New Sources 

IX.Summery of Final Regulations 

A. Part 433 

B. Part 413 

7,. Derivation of the Limitations 

XI.Changes from the Proposed Limits 

Xll. Pollutants and Subcategories Not 

Regulated 

A. Exclusion of Toxic Pollutants 

B. Exclusion of Subcategories 

XIII.Costs, Effluent Reduction Benefits, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. Costs and Economic Impacts 

B. Executive Order 12291 

C. Regulatory Flexibility ,~ nalysis 

D. SBA Loans 

XIV. Non-Water-Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

A. Air Pollution 

B.Noise 

C, Radiation 

D.Solid Waste 

E, Energy 

XV.Best Management Practices (BMPs} 

XVI.Upset and Bypass Provisions 

KVII. Variances and Modifications 

XVIlI. Implementation of Limitations and 

Standards 

A. Relation to NPDES Permits 

B.Indirect Dischargers 

C, Applicability and Compliance Dates 

D. Enforcement 

KIX. Summary of Public Participation 

KX. Availability of Technical Information 

XXI. OMB Review 

XXII.List of Subjects 

XXIII.Appendices 

A. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other 

Terms Used in This Notice 

B.Pollutants Rxcluded From Regulation 

C Unit Operations in the Metal Pinishin 8 

Industry 

i. legal Authority 

This regulation is being promulgated 

under the authority of Sections 801, 304. 

306,307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water 

Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U,$,C, 1251 

et seq., as amended by the Clean Water 

Act of 1977,.Pub, L 95-217) (the "Act"} 

and as further amended, This regulation 

is also'being promulgatea in response to 

the Settlement Agreement in Natural 

Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. 
-+ + - + ~/ 

+Federal legist. [ Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July .~+, 1983 I Rules andRegulations . ;-~"/. I i I I • I | I 

Trvin. 8 ERC 2"/20 (D.D.C. 1976), as 

modified, 12 ERC 1833 [D.D.C. 1979). 

modified by Order dated October 26. 

198z~ + 

IL Sa~und • 

A. The Cleon Wote~ Act 

The Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act Amendments of 1972 established a 

comprel~ensive program to "restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation's 

waters," Section 101(a). 

* Section 301(b)(l)(A) set a deadline 

of July 1,1977. for existing industrial 

direct dischargers to achieve "effluent • 

limitations requiring the application of 

the best practicable central technology 

currently available" ("BFU'). 

. Section 301(b)(Z](A) set a deadline 

of July 1,1983; for thos'., dischargers to 

achieve "effluent limitations z~qt~iring 

the application of the best available 

technology economically achievable... 

which will result in reasonable further 

progress toward the national goal of 

eliminating the discharge of all 

pollutants" ["BAT"J. 

• Section 306 required that new 

industrial direct disch}trg~rs comply 

with new source perf&mance standards 

("NSPS"), based on best available 

demonstrated technology. 

• Sections 307 (b) and {c) required 

pretreatment standards for new and 

existing dischargers to publicly owned 

treatment works ("POTW"). The Act 

made pretrea.,ment standards 

enforceable directly against dischargers 

to POTW's (indirect dischargers), unlike 

the requirements for direct dischargers 

which were to be incorporated into 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elishination System (NPDES) permits 

issued under,-~:.~ellen 402. 

. Section 40Z(a)(1) allows 

requirements for direct dischargers to be 

set case-by-case. However, Confess 

intended control requirements to be 

based for the most part on regulations 

promulgated by the Administrator of 

EPA. - Section 304(b) required regulations 

that establish effluent limitations 

reflecting the ability of BIT and BAT to 

reduce effluent discha~e, 

• Sections 204{c} and ~98 of the Act •required regulations for NSPS, 

• Sections 304(8), 397(b), and ~97(c} 

required regulations for pretreatment 

standards. 

• In addition to these regulations for 

designated industry categories. Section 

307(a} required the Administrator to 

promulgate effluent standards" 

applicable to ah dischargers of toxic 

pollutants. 

• Section 308 gave the Administrator . tinciuding blochemlcaloxygen ~ .+ 

authority to collect information suspended solids, fecal coliform and- -

necessary to develop .+and enforce pH), the new Section 3ollb)(2]~] • . 

regulations. requires "effluent limitations requ~b~ - • Finally, Section 501(a) authorized the application ofthe best cony .enfion~ 

the Administrator to prescribe miy+ pollUtant.control technolog~' |'~ • additional regulations "necessary to instead of BAT-to be achievedbyJuly 

carry out his functions" under+the Act. 1. "1984. The factors cov-'.lered iu 

ErA was unable to promulgate many assessing BCT for an industry are t~ 

of these regulations by the deadlines relationship between the cost of + 

contained in the Act, and as a result--in. attaining a reduction in effluents and the 

1976, ErA Was sued by several effluent reduction benefits attained, aud 

environmental groups. In settlin~ this a comparison of the cost and level of 

lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed reduction of such pollutants by 

a "Settlemf:at Agreement" which was publically owned treatment works and 

approved by the CourL This agreement industrial sources. For non-toxic, requiredEPAto develop a program and nonconventional pollutants, Sections 

meets schedule for controlling85 3ol ro)12)lA) and Ib)|P,)IP) require "priori~" pollutants and classes of achievement of BAT effluent ]imitations pollutants. In can'yin S out this program within three years after their 

EPA must promulgate BAT effluent establishment or by July 1, limitations guidelines, pretreatment whichever is rater, but not later than standards, and new source performance July 1,1987. standards for 21 major "industries. See The+ purpose of this regulation is to Notuml Resources De[ease Council, Inc. establish B-FI', BAT,+NSPS, PSHS, and 

v. 7~in, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), + PSNS for the Part 433 Metal Fmichin8 modified, 12 ERC 1833 {D.D.C.i979}, 

modified by Order dated October 26, Point Source Category, and tO amend 

the Part 413 Electroplati~. PSHS. 1982. 

Several of th~ .~asic elements of the B. PriorF.PA Paegut,~t/ons 

Settlement Agreement program were On March Z& 1974, EPA promulgat~ed incorporated into the Clean Water Act -BPT limitations for the electmplatin 8 of 1977. This law also makes several industry but suspended them on other important changes in the Federal Decembm + 3,. 1926. In~terim final • water pollution control program. pretreahnbnt 8tanda~Isfor the , Sections 301(b)(2)[A) and electibidatinaindustrlvwere ismsed ms 30~(b)(2)(C) of the Act now set July I,' july~ 10~7, ndmpended ~aMs~ 14. 1984 as the deadline fur industr/es to 19~ on September 7,1~ EPA achieve effluent l~nitations requiring promu~ated thePart 413PS1~ hNr the application of BAT for "toxic" 

pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants here electroplating industry. Amendedl~mS 

includes the 65 "priority" pollutants and 'were promulgated on ]anum7 28,19~t 

classes ~f polbdants which Congress (4o FR 94e~). 

declared "toxic" un~r Section ~7(a) of Currentlyonly those Electmplalins 

the Act. PSES are in effect. Noninte~'ated 

• Likewise, EPA's proteus for new indirect dischurgingfadlifles must 

source performance standards and comply with those standards by Aped 

pretreatment standards are now aimed ~, ISS4. See 47FR 4Z698, Septmnbar a, 

principally at controlling toxic 1982. A non.integrated facillty is mm 

pollutants. which does not dischm~e tdp~cmst 

• To strengthen the toxics control process wastewatar, other than from 

pronoun, Section 304(e) of the Act electroplath~ operations" throush st 

autboflzes the Administrator to treatment system ~or pnq~sed 

prescribe certain "best management treatment system). 

practices" ("BMPs"). These BMPs are to Integrated indiana dlscha~q 

prevent the release of toxic and ' • futilities are also cummtlyGovenH! by 

hazardous pollutants from: (1} Plant site the electropletlng PS]~. These. ~dlitieL 

runoff, (2) spillage or.leaks" (8) sludge or which prior to treatment comb/he 

waste dispusal, and (4) drsinnge from electroplutin8 waste streams with 

raw material storage if any of those sJ8niflcant process waste streams not 

events are associated with, or ancillary cohered by the Electroplatin8 Catesoq, 

to, the manufacturing or treatment must comply with it8 pmvildons by June 

process, 80,1964 (see 48 FR ~4, ]anua~ m, 

in keepingwith its emphasis on toxic 1983). 

pollutants, the Clean Watee Act of 197'J C. O~iew o[the lwtustrl 

also revises the control prngmm for nontoxic pollutants. There ere 13,500 plants in the 

• For "conventional" pollutants electroplstinglmetal finishing indw~. 

identified under Section 804(8)(4) Many discharge wastewatere boat 
~.~:: ::..~ -. . . 

40.. No. 137/Friday, July 15, 1983 [ Rules and Regulations. " 

meets industry'srequests forequivalent would apply to discharges from the 

limits forpmcess Hues often found second operation. 

together and gre:atly reduces the need to The following regulations will take 

:-///,-:. ....... :. ..,.. 

~..-.:=-.. . . . ~[ele~o~atlnS) currently 

,,..:.;".' appllos only to flow8 from the six ~-~~,..

~. ~'~let~procones, 

:..'::.i..... - regulatiom) ~ apply,to those 

~'~*~,--- . e]ectropla.~. streams.~d:also to 

~-:-.', wns tutreams from most ..other metal 

~i~, finl~ng openitionswithin the-same 

~-~: plents..The Part-4.,~PSES will apply 

: - anlyto plantsalread¥ covered by Part 

i~i:/: 41a;~Part 4t3,3 Will often cover 

:i~. additional:wastewaterwithin the same 

plants. Th0s the Pert 433 limits on 

discha~ Of toxic metals, toxic ~rganics. 

and eyan'nd" e will apply to most facilities 

in the ele~'oplating/metal finishin 8 

induSu'¥. 

Theindustry can be divided into the 

sectors indicated onTable L Facil Ues 

are either "capfive~" [those which in a 

calendar year 0wn more than SO%[area 

basis) of the materials undergoiag metal 

fini .sbtng]~ _ or ~ shops"[those which 

inacalendar year do not own more than 

S0~ (area basis) of material undergoing 

metst finisT~lng). 

Captives can be further divided by 

two definitions: "integrated" plants are 

those which.prior to treatment, combine 

eleetmplatin8 waste meemswith 

sisniflcantprocess waste streams not 

covered bythe eleetroplatingcategory: 

"non-integrated, facilities are. those 

which have ~cant.wastewater 

discharges ~from Operations 

ad~ by theelectroplati~ 

categ0ry. Many csptivee (5096) are 

"integrated" facilities. Whereas captives 

oftun have a complex range of 

operatiuns,: job'shops usually perform fewer operations. In theory job shops 

can be divided like captives: in 

actuality. ,however. approximately ~ of all job shops h~ this industry are 

"non-integrated". Finally. the entire industry ~n be 

divided into ,direct" and "indirect" 

dischargers. .,.Directs,, discharge 

Wastewatere to waters of the United 

States and are subject to NPDES permits 

incorporating BPT, BAT, and BCT •limitations or NSPS. "lndirects" 

discharge to POTWs and are subject to 

PSES or PENS. 

As discussed above, the 

electroplating/metal fmishing indust]~, is, 

currently covered by Part 418 PSES for 

the.FJectrop!ati~g Category promu.tsated 

on September L 1979, and emended on 

January 28; i981. The effect of today's 

amendments is to create a neW 

category--Metal Finishing (Part 433].--

and to shift most electropiatent to it, 

replaetag their current I~ES with new 

limits which apply uniformly to 

discharges from their electroplating and 

other metal finishing operations. This 

rely on the Combined Waste Stream 

Formula for integrated metal finishing 

facilities. Dii~ct dischaz~er'and new 

source requirements are also beiag 

issued as part of the metal finishing 

resulatious. 

indirect discharging job shop 

electroplatere and independent printed 

circuit board mannfacbn'ere, however, •wot~ld be left under the existing Part 413 

PSES for ElectroplaUng and are 

exempted fro~ Part 433. This is 

consistent with a 1980 Settlement 

Asruement in whichthe National 

Association of Metal Finishers [NA~-AF1, 

and • the Institute for Interconnecting and 

Packnging ElectrenicCircuits 

ng~ed not to challenge the Part 413 

PSES in return for th~ 1~1 amendments 

and EPA's commitment that the Asen¢~ 

did notintend to develop significantly 

more stringent standards for those 

plants for the next several years. 

TAme L---Bnexm0ow~ oF THe 

ELECTROPLATING/METAL FINISHING INDUSTRY 

~ I~ - ~. I~r lector 1~,470] 

Captive bomaes (10~oo) 

IndJm~ 3,0el Job &. a75o s,75o 

IPCBtd ee~m~ tntoOmtod 

4ml t~Smct clpuve Oo.so~). 

~¢eet 4oelob s (q ................ (.). dJlclU~ iPca~

mS (2.909). direetL 

•The M, :al Finishing Category covers 

plants which perform one or more of the 

following six operations: electroplatins, 

electroless plaUag, anodiziag, coatin 8 

(phospba~:oo, c]',romating, and coloring), 

chemical .~tchin 8 and milling, or printed circuit board manufacture. If a plant 

performs any of those six operations 

then discharges from the 46 operations •listed in Appendix C are covered by 

these standards. 

In some cases another industrial 

category may cover wnstewater 

dischat3es from a metal finishin 8 

operatio~n..In such ~ses the more 

specific standards of the other Part(s] 

will apply to those wastewater streams 

which appear to be covered by both 

resulatioue. Fo.- example, if a plant 

performs coating operations in 

preparation for painting and also 

performs eleetroien platlag as part of a 

porcelain enameling process, then these 

Part 433 standards would apply to 

discharges from the coatlag operation: 

while Part 46e (porcelain enemellag) 

precedence over m~tal finishing (Part 

433) and electroplating (Part 413) when 

such an overltp occurs: 

Nonferrous metal smelting and refining 

(~ CFR Part 4~U} 

Coil coating (40 CFR Part 465) 

Porcelain enameling (40 CFR Part 466} 

Battery manufacturing (40 CFR Part 461) 

Iron and steel (40 CFR Part 420) 

Metal casting foun(h'ies [40 CFR Part 

464) 

Aluminum forming (40 CFR Part 467) 

Copper formin8 [40 CFR Part 468} 

PlaStic molding and formin 8 (40 CFR 

Part 463) 

In addition, EPA is excluding from the 

metal finishing (Part 433) regulation: [1) 

Metallic platemaking and 8revere 

cylinder preparation conducted within 

printing and publishing facilities;, and [2] 

existing source job shops and 

independent printed Circuit board 

manufacturers which introduce 

pollutants into a publicly owned 

traatm~t works. As noted above, the 

standards do not apply to facilities 

unless they perform at least one of the 

following:' electroplattn~ electrolees 

plating, anodizing, coatin& chemical 

etching and milling, or printed circuit 

board manufacture. 

The most important pollutants of 

concern found in metal finishing 

industry wastewaters are: [1} toxic 

metals (cadmium, copper, chromium. 

nickel, lead. and zinc); (2) cyanide; [3} 

toxic orgunics 0umped .togethor as total 

toxic organics): and]4)conventional 

pollutants (TSS and oii and ~Fease|. 

These and other chemical constituents 

degrade water quality, endanger aquatic 

life and human health, and in addition 

corrode equipment, generate hazardous 

8as, and cause treatment plant 

malfonc~ons and problems in disposing 

of sludges Containing toxic metals. 

These plants manufacture a variety of 

products that are constructed primarily 

of metals. The operations, which involve 

meterials that be~n as raw stock (rods, 

bars, sheet, cnsth)p, foraiags, etc.), can 

include the most sophisticated surface 

finishing technologies. These facilities 

include both captives and job shops. 

They vary greatly in size, age, number of 

employees, and number and type of 

operations performed. They range from 

very small Job shops with less than 10 

employeesto laqe,facilities employing 

thousands of production wo)~kem. 

Because of differonce~ in she and 

processes, production facilities are 

custom tailored to the individual plant. 

Some complex products may require the 
Federal. Realster / V ol. ,i i 1 I I I 

use of nearly all, of the 46 unit operations 

mefioned above; a simple product may 

require only one. • ' 

Many different raw materials are used 

by these plants. Basis materials (or 

".workpieces") are mostly metals; from 

common copper and steel to extremely 

expensive high-grade alloys and 

precious metals. They can also include 

plastics. Solutions used in unit 

operations can contain acids, bases, 

cyanide, metals, complexin8 agents, 

organic additives, oils, and detergents, 

All these materials may enter waste 

streams during production. 

Water use within the metal fmishin8 

industry is discussed fully in Section V 

of the development document [see 

summary above). Plating and cleaning 

operations are typically the biggest 

water users. Widle most metal firdshin 8 

operations use water, same may use 

none at all. Water use depends heavily 

on the type--and the flow rate-of the 

rinsing used. Product quality 

requirements often dictate the amount of 

rinsing needed for specific parts• Parts 

involving extensive surface preparation 

will generally require larger amounts of 

water in rinsing. 

m. Scope of this RulemRin~ 

This regulation establishes Part 433 

BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for 

the Metal Finishing Point Source 

Category and amends Part 413 PSES for 

the Electroplatin8 Point Source 

Category. The BAT goal is to achieve, by 

july 1, 1984, the best available 

technology economically achievable 

that will result in reasonable further 

progress toward the national 8~al of 

eliminating the discharge of all 

pollutants. This regulation does not alter 

the existing metal and cyanide 

standards for job shopeleclroplaters 

and printed Circuit board manufacturers 

discharging to POTWs. 

EPA first studied the electroplatina/ 

metal finishing industry to determine 

whether differences in raw materials, 

final products, manu~actqring processes, 

equipment, age and size Of plants, water 

use, wastewater constituents, or other 

factors required separate effluent 

limitations and standards foe" different 

industry subcateguries. This study 

involved a detailed analysis of 

wastewa.ter discharge and treated 

effluent characteristics, inclodina, (a) 

the sources and volume of water, the 

processes, and the sources of pollutants 

and wastewaier in the plant and (b) the 

constituents of wastewaters, i~dudin8 

toxic pollutants. This analysis enabled 

the Agency to determine the presence 

and concentrations of toxic pollutants 

on the major wastewater discharges. 

. . .-. ~.-.....-?: 

48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, lgf~ / Rules andR~.tfmm m,i .. I I I ,'~.," I I I I llll I I L "p , . .. • .. ,. , , , =, ,7,:,, : • 

EPA also identified several distinct We contacted d Federal I~PA ~ conh'oI and treatment technologies (both several State envimnmen~qande~, 

in-plant and end-of-pipe}, including and numerous supplie~:and 

those with potential use in the manufuct'.mere for the metal fmishin8 

• electmplafinalmetal finishing industry• industry to coHeGt infmmatinn on: {1) 

The Agency analyzed both historical Permits and monitoring data, {2} the use 

and newly generated data on the and properties of mnteriais,~(3) pnJceas 

performance of~these technolog/es, chemical constituents, (e~ waste 

including their non-water quality treatment equipment, (5, waste 

environmental impacts on air quality, transport. (6) and various process 

solid waste ,generation, water scarcity, modifications to minimize pollutant 

and energy requirements. - generation. 

Cost curves were used to estimate the Under the authority of Section 308 of 

cost of each control and treatment the Clean Water Act, the Agency sent 

technology. Tbees cost curves were three different data collection poHfoli~ 

developed by applying standard (DOPe) to. various industries within the 

engineering analyses to metal finishing Metal Finishing Point Sore.ca Ca~. 

wastewater characteristics. Unit px, ocess The first DCP obtained data from ~ of 

costs were than derived by applying 1,422 plants originally contacted from 

model plant characieristics {production the machinery and mechanimd products 

and flow) to the unit uost curve of each industry. The data included general 

treatment process. These unit process plant information on raw materials 

costs were added together to yield the consumed, specific processes used, 

total cost at each ~eatmant level, compositionof effluent streams, and 

By considering these factors, EPA was wastewater treatment. The semmdDCP 

able to characterize the various control obtained data hom~ of ilia 900 plants 

and treatment technologies used as the oriainal!y r.ontante~iathemedmnical 

bases for effluent limitations, new and ele~ prodnCts industries. These 

source and pretreetment standards, data covered Sanet~l plant 

However, the re~...Jtions do not require characteristics, unit ;.~p~,._eafions 

any particular technology. Rather. they performed"platim~typeopeml/on& 

require plants to achieve effluent wastewater ~ famli~ and 

limitations |m~l) which reflect the waste mmsport. We 1mat th e third DCP 

proper Operation of these technologies to 1.883 Compt~dus involved in 

or equivalent tedumloa/es. Some electroplatin& Approxima~]r 1190 

facilities are already successfully usir~ plants sent back ~© analysi~ data 

technologies other than those relied on and information on ~meral pkmt 

by the Agency, such as draaout control, characteristics, prodm:tion bistro.y, 

recycle, and recovery, to achieve these manufacturb~ prooessus, process and 

values.., waste treatment,-wutewalm" 

IV. Data Ga~ Ef~rts characteristics, and It~atment a)sts. 

EPA and its oonlrammm also via/led 

To dev" lop the regulation, EPA began 210 manufacturing facilities to collect 

with a review of previous work on the wastswater.samqdesaadpmlinent 

electroplatin8/metal linislfin8 industry, technical information on lammfactm~ 

The major source of information on this processes and various treatmeut - is the Droft Development Document [or techniques. Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Metal Finishir~f Point Source V. SampEr~ and Analylle2d Pnqluum 

Coteaory Oune 1980}. Several studies EPA focused its samptin8 and ahab.s 

• completed before this development on the toxic pollutants desiamted in the 

document was published also Clean Water Act, However, we also 

contributed technical information to the sampled and analyaeC cmmmtimml and 

metal finishing ~ata base for the nonconventional pollutants. Prior to 

following segments of the industry: Undertaking sampli~ prolpmns in 

• Machinery mid Mechanical support of ndemld~. ' actions, EPA had 

Products Manufacturing. to identify specific toxic pdllutants that 

• Electroplatin& would be appropriate eubJe,.-ts for 

• Electrolese Plating and Printed Investigation. The list of N pollutants 

Circuit Board Manufacturi~ (Segments and classes ofpdbtante potmtblly "~ 

of the Bleciroplating Category), includ~,,~ thousands of speQMo , • Mechanical andFJectrical Products. compounds, the analyses ofwhk.h could 

We ale0 gathered data on the metal overwhelm private and 8ovemment 

finishing/ndestry from literoture laboratory resources. To make the task 

surveys, Inquiries to professional more manaseable, thetefol~ RPA 

contacts, seminars and meetings, and selected ~ specific toxtc pollutants for 

the survey and evaluation of study in this rulemaking and other 

manufacturln8 facilities, industry rulemaklNla. Toe criteria for 
~i.~:: ~ ~ ~ . ~ , 

• . dmosin 8 these pollutants included the 

~i fnkpmncy of ~eir occurrence in water. 

[~,~:: ~ their chemical stability and structure, 

~j~ the amount of the chemical produced. 

~:i/~ and the availability of chemical 

standardsfor measurement. ~i/" 

In addition to the original 1~ toxic 

i" pollutahts (of which three are now 

• ~considered nonconventional pollutants}, 

EPA checked for the presence, 

frequency, and concentration of xylenes. 

alkyl epoxides, sold. fluoride. 

phosphorus, oil and grease, TSS, pH. 

aluminum, barium, h'idium, magnesium, 

molybdenum, osmium, palladium, 

platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, ~mdium. 

tin, titanium, vanadium, yttrium, and 

total phenols. 

'me criteria used to select plants f~r 

sampling visits ware: (1) A large 

percentage of the plant's effluent 

dischorse should result from the 

manofacturin8 processes listed in 

Appendix C; (2) the physi~etl layout of 

plant plumbing should facilitate 

sampling"of the ~vastewater type under 

study; (3) the plant must have waste 

treatment in place; (4) the mix of plants 

visited should contain dlscharp~ to 

t" both surface waters and publicaly 

owned treatment works: and (5} ~he 

selected plants should provide a 

representative 8eo~aphical distribution 

to avoid a data ba#e that concentrates 

i, on a unique geographical con~dition. EPA 

sampled 210 facilities to identify 

pollutants in plant wastewaters. Before 

visiting a plush EPA reviewed all 

availabledata on manofacturing 

processes and wadte treatment. We 

3. 

o., selected representative pointsat which 

to sample the raw wastewnter enterin 8 

the treatment systems and the final 

treated effluents. Finally. we prepared. 

reviewed, and approved a detailed 

sampling plan showing the selected 

sample points and the overall samplin 8 

procedure. 

Based on this sampling plan. we then 

took samples at each sample point for 1. 

2 or 3 consecutive days. The samples 

were divided into two analytical groups. 

Within each group the samples were 

subjected to various analyses, 

depending on the stability of the 

pollutants to be analyzed. The various 

levels of analysis were conducted 8t: [1) 

Local laboratories, (2) EPA's Chicago 

laboratory, (3] contracted gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry 

(GC/MS) laboratories, and [4} the 

sampling contractor's central laboratory. 

The sampling and analysis methods are 

outlined in the Development Decummt` 

The acquisition, preservation, and 

analysis of the water samples followed 

the relevant methods set forth in 40 C~ 

13e. Although the Agency has not 

promulgated analytical methods t~ 

No, 137 / Friday, July 15. 1983 / 

many organic toxic pollutants under 

Section 304(h) of the Act, a number of 

these methods have been proposed for 

40 CFR 136 (44 FR69464. December 3, 

i979:. 44 FR 75028. December 18, 1079). 

Vl industry Subcategorization 

In developing this regulation, the 

Agency considered whether different 

effluent limitations and standards are 

appropriate for different segments of the 

metal finishing industry. The Act 

requires EPA to consider a number of 

factors to deter~ dee if subcategorization 

is needed. These factors include raw 

materials, fi,ml products, manufacturing 

processes, seographical location, plant 

size and age. wastewater 

characteristics, non-water-quality 

environmental impacts, treatment costs, 

energy costs, and solid waste 

generation. 

The metal finishing industry 

comprises 45 unit operations. These 

processes generate wastewater that falls 

into five waste groups, each requiring 

different treatment to reduce the 

discharge of pollutants. The five groups 

are metals, cyanide, hexavalem 

chromium, oils, . t solvents, with 

significant toxic organics pollutants 

potentially present in the last two. 

These wastes occur in a wide variety 

of combinations. Throughout the 

industry, however the wsstestreams are 

alike in one critical sense: they all 

respond similarly to the treatment 

system which is already most widely 

used Jrl the Industry. That system was 

selected as EPA's model technology. Its 

major components, i.e., precipitation and 

clarification, are used for all waste 

strsamf After isolated treatment of 

hexavaient chromium, cyanide, and oil 

and grease, poilutanto in these waste 

streams are further reduced by passage 

through the precipitation-clarification 

system which is also used for metalbearing wastes. 

The Agency has determined that the 

Metal Finishing Point Source Category 

need not be subcategorized for 

regulation. A set of concentra~onbased 

limitations, based on the performance 

capabilities of the model technology, 

can be applied to all metal finishing 

process effluents. 

EPA has. however decided to exempt 

indirect discharsin 8 job shops and 

independent printed circuit board 

manufacturers from the Part 433 PSES, 

This has an effect similar to placing 

them in ~- separate subcategory. As 

noted above, Otis is consistent with the 

1980 Settlement Agreement In which the 

National Association of Metal Finishers 

promised to withdraw Its legal challenge 

to those Part 413 PSES If EPA did not, 

Rules and Regulations 

for the next several years, make them 

significantly more stringent. 

The Agency considered, but decided 

against production based standard. 

With the wide range of operations. 

product quality requirements, existing 

process configurations, and difficulties 

in measuring production, no consistent 

production normalizing relationship 

could be found. Concentration based 

limits, however, can be consistently 

attained throughout the industry. 

Vll. Available Wastewdter Control and 

Treatment Technology 

A. Stotus of In-Piece Technology 

Installed control and treatment 

technologies in the metal finishing 

industry generally consist of some form 

of alkaline precipitation and 

clarification installed at "end-of-pipe" to 

remove metals, .When cyanide or 

hexava]ent chromium wastes are 

present, these wastewaters are 

generally segregated and treated 

upstream. 

B, Control Treatment Options 

We examined the following control 

treatment option0: 

Option 1: Precipitation and 

clarification. Stream segregation for 

cyanide, hexavalent chromium and 

concentrated oily wastes followed by 

cyanide destruction, chromium 

reduction and emulsion breaking 

skimming as necessary. Solvent waste 

segregation and removal by haulin 8. 

Option 2: Option I plus filtration. 

Option 3: Option I plus in-plant 

control for c4dmium. 

VIII. General Criteria for Effluent 

Limitations 

A. BPT Effluent Limitations 

The factors considered in defining 

best practicable control technolgy 

currently available [BPT} include: (1) 

The total cost of applying the technology 

relative to the effluent reductions that 

result. (2) the age of equipment and 

facilities involved. (3) the processes 

used. (4} cngineerin 8 aspects of the 

control technology, (5) process changes, 

(6} non-water-quality environmental 

impacts (including energy requirements), 

(7) and other factors, as the 

Administrator conmders appropriate, in 

general, the BPT level r~presents the 

average of the beet existin 8 

performances of plants within the 

industry of various ages, sizes. 

processes,or other common 

characteHsttcs. When existing 

performance is uniformly Inadequate, 

BFr may be transferred from a different 

subcategory or category. ~ focuses on 
L " J +, '+ ~+?~ 

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137"~/.Friday, Ju~; .I..5, 1983 / Rules and Regulations I 

end-of-pipe treatment rather than 

process changes or internal controls, 

except when these technologies are 

common indpstry practice. ,eL j-. • ~ ~ - Th,~,,os,/be~,e,.dinquiry for BPT is a 

limited balan¢in 8of costs versus 

benefits, committed to EPA's discretion, 

which does not require the Agency to 

quantify benefits in moneta.w terms. Sez 

e.g., American Iron o~d Stcel Institute v. 

EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir. !975.).',in 

balancing costs against the benefits of 

effluent reduction, EPA considers the 

volume and natur~ ofexisting 

discharges. +the volume and vature of 

discharges expected after application of 

BPT, the general environmental effects 

of the pollutants, and the cost and 

economic impacts of the required level 

of pollution controL The Act does not 

require or permit consideration of water 

quality l~roblem~ attrJ3utuble to 

particular point sources, or water 

quality improvements in particular 

bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not 

considered these factors. See 

Weyerhaeuser Company v. Castle, 590 

F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 

8. BA T E[/Tuent Limitutions 

The factors c0nsideredin defining 

best available technology economically 

achievable [BAT)h~clude the nge of the 

equipment and facilities involved, the 

processes used, engineering aspects of 

the control teclmology, process changes. 

non-water-quality environmentkl 

impacts (including energy requirements}, 

and the costs oLapplyin8 such 

technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). The 

BAT level represents the best 

economically achievable performance of 

plants of various ages. sizes, processes, 

or other shared characteristics. As with 

BPT, uniformly inadequate performance 

within a catego~ or subcategory may 

require transfer of BAT from a different 

subcategory or category. Unlike BPT, 

however, BAT may include process 

changes or internal controls, even when 

these technologies are not common 

industry, practice. The statutory assessment of BAT 

"considers" costs, but does not require a 

balancing of costs against effluent 

reduction benefits (see Weyerhoeuserv. 

Coati& supra), In developing BAT, 

however, EPA has given substantial 

weight to the reasonableness of costs. 

The Agency has considered the volume 

and nature of discharges, the volume 

and nature of discharges expected after 

application of BAT, the senerel 

environmental effects of tbe~pollutants, 

and the costs aud economic4mpacts of 

the required pollution contrel ieypis. 

Despite this expanded consideration 

of costs, the pHmm~ factor for 

determining BAT is the effluent 

reduction capability oJ the control 

technology. The Clean Water Act of 

1 ,977, establishes the achievement of 

BAT as the principal national means of 

controlling toxic water pollution from 

direct d!scharging plants. 

C. BCT Effluent Limitations 

The 1977 amendments added Section 

301(b){2){E) to the Act, establishing 

"best conventional pollutant control 

technolngy" (BCT) for diseharges of 

conventional pollutants from existing 

industrial point sources. Section 

304(B)(4) s~'.,~cified the following as 

conventional pollutants: BOD,'TSS, fecal 

coliform, and pH. The Administrator 

desigziated oil and grease as 

"conventional" on July 30,1079, 44 FR 

44501. 

BCT is not an additional limitation but 

replaces BAT for the control of 

conventional pollutants. In addition to 

other factors specified in section + 

304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT 

limitations be assessed in light of a two 

part :"cast-reasonableness" test. 

Amer4can Paper Institute v. EPA. 660 F. 

2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981). The first test 

compares the ~. ,.t for private industry to 

reduce its conventional pollutants with 

the costs to publicly owned h'eatment 

works for similar levals of reduction in 

their discharge of these pollutants. The 

second test examines the costeffectiveness of additional industrial 

treatment beyond BPT, EPA must find 

that limitations +are "reasonable" .under 

both tests before establishing them as 

BCT.~In no ease may BCT be less 

stringent +than BFr. 

F.PApublishedtts methodology for 

curryir-; out the BCT analysis on August 

29, 19"/d. (44 FR 50732). In the case 

mentioned above, the Court of Appeals 

0rdere. dSPA to correct data errors 

underlying EPA's Calculation of the first 

test, and toapply the second cost test. 

(EPA had argued that a second cost test 

was not required). 

BCT limitations for this industry were 

proposed on October29.19~. (47 FR 

49176). They .were accompanied by a 

proposed methodology for the genera] 

development of BCT limitations.+BCT 

limits for this industry will be 

promulgated with, or soon after, the 

• promulgation of the final methodology 

for BCT development, At that time BPA 

will respond to relevant comments filed 

in either that rulemaking or in this one, 

D. New Source pe~ormance StmzdaPds 

The basis for new so~e performance 

standaeds (NSI~) undor Section 806 of 

the Act is the best ewtileble 

demonstrated tschnolo~,. New plants 

have the opportunity to design the best 

and most efficient metal finlching 

processes and wastewater treatment 

. techt/01ogies. Therefore, Congress 

directed EPA to consider the best 

demonstrated process changes, in-plant 

~ontrols, and end-of~pipe treatment 

technologies that reduce pollution to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

E. PPetPeotment Standaats [or Existin 8 

SouFces 

Section 307(b] of the Act requires EPA 

to promulgate pretreahnent standards 

for existing +sources (PSES), which 

industry must acldeve within three, years 

of promulgation. PSES mdesisned to 

prevent the discharge of pollutants 

which pass through, interfere wi~b. or 

are otherwise incompafib|e with the 

operation of POTW's. 

The legislative history of the 1977 Act 

indicates that'pretreatment standards 

are to be technology-based, analogons 

to the best available technol~ for 

removal+of tuxicpollu~mts, The General 

Pretrealment Regulations which serve as 

the framework for the find metal 

fmishing pretreatment standards are in 

40 CFR Part 403, 46 FR 9404 Oanuary 28, zm,}. 

EPA has 8enerallydetermined that j 

there is pass through of pollutants if the 

percent of pollutants removed by a welloperated POTW achiev~ secondary 

treatment.is lesa:~ :thepemont ' 

removal by+theBAT model treatment • 

system. A.study of 40well-operate~ 

POTW's with.biological l~N~tment and 

meetin8 sec0ndary trentment+criteria 

showed that regulated metals are 

typically removed 'at rates varying from 

2o to 7o~. POTWs with only primmy 

treatment have even lower rates of 

removal In contrast. BAT level 

treatment by metal Rn|~hln~_ industrial 

facilities can achieve removals of 

approximately 07% or more. Thus it is 

evident that metals from this industry do 

pass through POTW'o. As for toxic 

organics, data from the same POTWa 

lllus(rate a wide ran~ of reatoval, from. 

0 to greater than 99~. Overall POTW'e 

have removal rates of toxic aqpmJ~ 

which are lau effective than the metal 

finishing TTO technology Imds of'no 

dumping of toxic o~enlc wastes. The 

POTW'8 effluent dlschm~ of spacific toxic pollutants nmsed h~m o to 4.3 

milllgrams/liter, Many of the pollutants 

present in metal finishing weetse, at 

sufficiently high concentratkm, can 

inhibit biode~jrsdstion in 

operations, in ~tddition, !'high 

concentration of toxic pollut~ts in the 

81udp-can limit POYW u. or dudp 

menqemnt altamativet In~tdinB the 

beneficial use of eluc~m, on qd~lhnl 

lands. 
Federal Registe~ / VoL 48, No. 137 I Friday, July 1,5:. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 

~:'. Section ~ of the Clean Water Act 

provides that POTW's may grant credit 

to indirect dischargers, based on the 

dames of removul actually achieved at 

the POTW. EPA has C~neral ~ Pretr~atment Regulations regdlating 

~!: POTWs' authority to grant such credits. 

'.~ A Fedend Register notice of 

~ September 28.1982 explained EPA's ~ latest data and proposed national 

~:~ removal credit~ for well operated ~ 

~.~: POTW's achieving thenationai 

!~i. secondary treatment limits. See 47FR 

~- 42688. That proposal is not being relied 

~ on in this ru]emakin8: however if such ~..- credits are a~'ailable the costs of today's 

': standards could be sustantially reduced. 

~ F. Pretreatment Stondards for New 

: SOUrces I 

" Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA 

".- to promulgate pretreabrent standards 

::: for new sources {PSNS) at the same time 

~" that it promulgates NSPS. These 

i _ standards are intended to prevent the 

\ discharge of pollutants which pass 

~throngh, interfere with, or are otherwise 

'~ inco~,patible with a POTW. New 

: indirect dischargers, like new direct 7-

," dischargers, have the opportunity to 

~:' incorporate the best available 

-.- demonstrated technologies--including 

process changes, in-plant controls, and 

end-of-pipe treatment technolngies--end . to select plant sites that ensure the 

~ treatment system can be adequately 

' installed. Therefore. the Agency sets ~ PSNS after:considering the same criteria 

considered for NSPS. PSNS will have 

" effluent reduction benefits similar to 

NSPS. 

-: IX. Summary of F'mal Regulations 

! in the electroplating/metai finishing 

industry, the pollutants of concern are 

:;:: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead. 

;" nickel, silver, zinc. cyanide, toxic 

. 6rganics. TSS, oil and grease, and pH. 

The treatment option selected for each 

~ effluent limitation, pretreatment 

" standard and new source performance 

:- standard is based on the criteria 

sl~ecified in the Clean Water Act. The 

technologies are discussed in more 

detail in the Development Document for 

this rulemaking. 

A. Port 433 

The pollutants being regulated under 

BPT limitations are cadmium, copper, 

chromium, nickel, lead. silver, zinc, total 

cyanide. TSS, oil and grease and pH. 

Total toxic organics {TTO) is also being 

regulated. Compliance with the 1"1"O 

limit basically involves not dumping 

concentrated toxic organic wastes, e.g.. 

: solvent desreasers and paint strippers, 

• Other sources are generally small, 

infrequent, and of low concentrations. /: 

For BPT. EPA is setting limits 

achievable by techziology based on 

precipitation and clarification for all 

metal finishing effluents. In addition, for 

cyanide or hexavalent chromium the. 

technology basis incorporates 

techniques to destroy cyanide and 

reduce hexavalent chromium to its 

trtvalent state. These effluent limitations 

reflect the average of the best existing 

control technologies widely used in the 

industry and remove approximately 97.6 

percent of the raw waste of toxic metals 

and cyanide, and 99 percent of the toxic 

organics discharged. The technology is 

consistent with that used as a basis for 

PSES for the electroplating industry4 

(January 28, 1981, 40 FR 9402) and t.~e 

March 28.1974. suspended, BPT 

limitations. The limitations are derived 

in the manner discuqsed in the following 

section. They are generally more 

stringent than those found in currently 

effective electroplating pretreatment 

regulations, because EPA is now using a 

revised and updated data base. 

For BAT, EPAis establishing 

limitations for the toxic pollutants and - at a level equivalent to BPT. The Agency 

seriously consid d setting BAT and 

BAT-level PSES limitations based on 

BPT level technology plus filtration. 

Filtration would have led to an 

additional capital cost of almost $1.2 

billion. In light of the statutory mandate 

to consider cost in setting BAT, EPA 

decided to reject the filtration option, 

because of its very high aggregate cost 

on a nationwide basis. We did not select 

in-plant cadmium control be'cause it can 

require significant re-engineering of 

process water flow and of product and 

equipmp'~t handling, on a plant-by-plant 

basis. "~.,e changes vary widely and in 

many cases could be difficult for 

existing plants to apply. The compliance 

date for BAT is no later than July 1. 

1984. the maximum time allowed by the 

Act. 

For NSPS. EPA is establishing 

limitations based on BPT/BAT 

technology plus in-plant control of 

cadmium, This additional control takes 

advantage of a new plant's ability to 

achieve effluent reductions of 69% 

beyond BAT cadmium ~ evels. The 

pollutants regulated under NSPS are the 

same as those regulated under BPT 

limitations. 

For PSES in the Metal Finishln 8 

Category, limitations are based on 

technology equivalent to BAT and BPT, 

The pollutants regulated under this 

PSES are the same as the toxic 

~lollutants regulated under BPT (BAT) 

mitations. A study of 40 well-operated 

POTWs with biological treatment and 

meeting secondary treatment criteria 

showed that regulated metals and 

cyanide are typically removed at rates 

varying from 20 to 70~o. POTWs with 

primary treatment have even lower 

rates of removal. In contrast, metal 

finishing PSES-ievel treatment can 

achieve removals of approximately 97~, 

Thus it is evident that metals and 

cyanide from this industry do pass 

through POTWs. As for toxic organics, 

data from the same POTWs illustrates a 

w'de range of removal, from 0~ to 

greater than 99%. Overall POTWs have 

removal rates of toxic organics which 

are less effective than the metal 

finishing TTO technology basis of no 

dumping of toxic organic wastes. The 

POTWs effluent discharge of specific 

toxic pollutants ranged from 0 to 4.3 rag/ 

1. Many of the pollutants present in 

metal finishing wast~ at sufficiently 

high concentrations can inhibit 

biodegradation in POTW operations. In 

addition, a high concentration of toxic 

pollutants in the sludge can limit POTW 

use of sludge management alternatives. 

including the beneficial use of sludges 

on agricu!tural lands. 

The compliance date for the metal 

finishing PSES is 

February 15. 1986 for metals, cyanide; 

and TI'O. Agency analysis indicates 

that facilities can plan. design, and 

install the necessary equipment in 31 

months, which will be allowed by the 

specified compliance date. There is also 

a June 30. 1984 compliance date for an 

interim toxic organic limit, which can be 

met by in-house management and 

handling controls. 

For PSNS. limitations are based on 

technology equivalent to NSPS. The 

pollutants regulated under PSNS are the 

same as the toxics regulated under 

NSPS. As with" PSES. these pollutants 

are necessary for control in PSNS to 

prevent pas.~ through, interference, and 

sludge contamination. 

B. Port 413 

Indirect discharging job shops and 

independent printed circuit board 

manufacturers will continue to be 

regulated under the existing PSES for 

Electroplating. This is consistent with a 

1980 Settlement Agreement in which the 

National Association of Metal Finishers 

and the Institute for Interconnecting and 

Packaging Electronic Circuits agreed not 

to challenge the Part 415 pretreatment 

standards for existing source 

electreplaters, in return for the 1981 

amendments and an ILOA commitment 

that, in light of their economic 

vulnerability, EPA d~,d not ptun to 

develop slgnlficontly more stringent 

standards for those plants for the next 

several years, 
% 

Federal Register / Voi. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 1F, 1983./.Rules and~tic, ns I 

Control of toxic organics is being 

added to the requirements for facilities 

under'the Electroplating PSES. 

Examination of the technology 

req,.d~ements, costs, economic impact, 

and timing indicates that requiring 

control of-toxic organics is consistent 

with the Settlement Agreement. 

First. it will not increase the economic 

vulnerability of job shops or 

independent printed circuit board 

manufacturers. Compliance with the 

toxic organic~qtandards can be achieved 

~y good management practices (i.e., not 

dumping waste solvents into the 

wastewaters). No additional end-of-pipe 

technology (beyond that already 

required by Part 413] is necessary. 

Economic analyses reveal that control of 

toxic o~anics doesnot impose 

significant additional costs or impacts. 

Second, these fac|~i~ie~ ~re being 

allowed 3 years to compi~j with the toXic 

organic standard, Thus, eve~ if control 

of TI'O were considered "more 

stringent", the time allowed for : 

compliance will amount to 6 years'from 

the date of the Settlement Agreement. 

That fulfills the Agency's obligation not 

to develop more stringent standards for 

these facilities in the next several years. 

X. Derlvstion Of the Limitations 

~"EPA began development of these 

standards by building on the 

information obtained in developing the 

Electroplating Pretreatment Standards. 

For Metal Finishing, 2783 companies. 

were contacted as part of two surveys 

(one of 1190 plants and the other of 365 

plants) and 1555 useable questionaire 

responses were obtained. The Agency also selected 322 plants for visits and/or 

obtained long term 8elf-monitoring data 

on them.-

The data gathering effort was the 

basis for the Agency's fi~t ,wo critical 

determinations. First, pursuant to 

Section 267(b) of the Act, EPA identified 

those pollutants that would pass through 

or interfere with a POTW, or its sludge. 

Second, EPA discovered that a basic 

and "classic" pollution control 

technology was widely practiced in the 

industry. The system is designed to 

remoye toxic metals from raw 

wastestreams and it has two principal 

components-precipitation and 

clarification. Of 1190 surveyed plants, 

689 reported treatment, present, of these, 

426 facilities practiced the precipitation 

of metals through pH adjustment of 

wastewater. 

EPA then snalyzed the data to 

discover what those classic and 

commonly used treatment device~ could 

.achieve. For each regulated pollutant 

EPA looked fro' two key figures: The 

.,/",verage concentrationthat properly 

operated technologywould achieve over 

time. end the variability from that 

average that would be ineVitable even 

at w'ell-opetated plants. , To find long-term concentration 

averages. EPA examined its file of 322 

plants which had been visited ond/ar 

had sen~long-term self-monitoring data 

to EPA. Of these plants EPA had 

sampled 72 with precipitation and 

clarificalio.n. After deletions for 

improper treatment, dilution, and low 

raw waste concentr~lUons, 30 plants 

(sampled by EPA from I to 6 days) were 

used for devel~,ping the long.term 

concentration ~verages. For these 

plants, EPA had obtained detailed 

information on treated and untreated 

(raw) wastewater characteristics. 

For most pollutants the average of this 

data was used for the long term average. 

EPA sampled data for cadmium and 

lead appeared too low to represent the 

range of raw wastes in the industry. For 

these parameters EPA used available 

self-monitorh~ data to calculate the 

long-term average. Although Lhe Agency 

h,~s less information on which to judge 

the adequacy of trr'tment in the selfmonitoring data, t~..se h'.~her values 

were used by the Agency to compensate 

for the re4atively low raw Waste 

cadmium and lead at .EPA sampled 

plants. The average of the selfmonitorin 8 data for lead and cadmium 

was used for the long-term average. 

The regulations specify daily and 

monthly average maximums. Thus, the 

limits are developed from the Agency 

assessment of long term concentration 

averages multiplied by variability factors. If a plant intends to consistently 

comply w~ :.~the regulatory limit it 

should Use the long term concentration 

averagn as the basra for design and 

operat/on. The following long-term 

concentration averages were found to be 

attainable by the technology EPA 

assessed, and were costed in this 

rulemaldng. They are prese:~ted here as 

guidance to dischargers and control 

authorities: 

Long Term Concentration Averages 

tm,on 

Polkdant of 10¢dtutanl projxt~N 

(_ms/',! ...... i 

0.~S 

~ ('~ .oooo..ooo~.oo .oo..,.,.,.o,oo.o.ooo,.oo.o..o..,..oi O,07I~ 

~..,~..:::::::::::::::::::: ............................. :..::::::::::::::; 0~0

O,01S 

" 0.~' 

0.096 

Zi~ (I"}....................... ;.............................. ;................. I O.MO C~an~ ~ ............................................... ' 0.5~ 

0,0~ 

LongTram ,Com:~ratJo~ Av~t0es-- . CiMflkNk~ 

• Itm~ wm . -. .-~' 

0~1) 

m s c~ese ................................... " ~~ 

TSS ................................. 11.16~ 

l"ro (atw waste) 1.oo 

11"0 (e~a.en~ o.434 

Variability factors were determined 

by looking at variations that have 

occurred in the pnst. This requires 

multiple observations at single 

treatment systems. The self-monit0ring 

data collected by EPA provided 

approximately12,000 self-reporting 

observations which were used to derive 

variability factors. The variability 

factors were derived by estimating 99th 

percentiles based on a lngnormal. 

distribution, and then dividing those 

numbers by the averng~ These Part 433 

metal, finishing standards are based on 

the variability expected for one.day and 

one-month time periods. The monthly 

variahili~ fact0rs.were derived. 

assuming the monthly averagn was 

comprised of tandaily observations. 

Finally, i~e Agency malliplied the 

resulting variability~factor by the 

expected long:term concentration 

averages. The results were ef~uent 

concentration limits based On actual 

observations of well-operated plants 

which allowed for the van'abillty 

observed atall types of reporlin 8 

facilities. EPA has ass~.ssed the cost of 

this regulaUon on the assumption that 

plants design and operateto meet these 

long term concentration averages. The 

final limits represent limitswhich a 

well-designed andoperated plant should 

meet approximately 99~ ofthe lhne. If a 

plant designs and operates its treatment 

s'~,~c~ to achieve the long-term 

(oncentration average and reasonable 

control fluctuations, then it should have 

very little expectation of exceeding 1he 

promulaated limit for each samplin8 of 

the discharge. 

Xl. Changes From the Pmpomd Limits 

As previously stated the limitations 

hre derived using Ion~tenu averages 

and variability factors. Both of these 

items undmsvent some shanaes between 

proposal and promul8ation;- 

With:regard to long-term 

concentration averages only sliaht 

changes were made. Additional date 

were added to the data base for lead 

ond'slnc~ a.d one plant's data for 

cadmium were eXCIUd~ due to 

complexln8 probkme. TlhQ~|olltterm • 

concentration average for lead chan~m~cA 

• ' ~ 

"~ 

:.~ 

..: --:~ 

. :-

., 

.. ; 

, .} 

,., 

!; 

4 
/Fmlmsl Besistw. t VOL 48.No 187 i' Friday. july ls, 19=I I Rules and Regulations t I i it i II li 

•"" fr0m 0.$8~ to 0~ m8/1, and Cadmium 

~,: ... cbansed fi'om 0.~,~ 0.13 qll. 

TkederivalioU of the proposed Tro 

limit did not ~tin~sb diff~.nce~ •... plnnt mments mest 

~tat plants with certain processes should be ,dlowed a higher fimit, ~,A 

mspoMe, exumined Sreuping of plantsby souncesof TTO: e.~. those that 

pe~erm solvent deareasln~ and/or 

i)ainthsa. Plants which perform~ both 

solvent degrensing ond painting had 

~daher raw waste'FrO than any other 

~Smup; The 9nal Tro limit is 

based on that pro~,essMrouping, which is 

a conservative assumption since It had 

.the ~ beck4ponnd concentration. 

]~rthermore,.-l~PA is now promulgating 

two ~rOlim4ts for plants covered by 

Pazt 438. The first is based solely on 

back8round levels found rsior to end-ofpipe treatment. It must be met by June 

30.19~.. txcept that plants covered by 

Part 41) (froa.snd steel) need not meet it 

until I -10;. es..The second Tro limit 

isbased 0neffluent data and takes into 

accost the additioul ~emm~ls 

achieved by and-of-pipe.l~ealmentThis 

secmidlb~ must:be met by Februa~ 

15.1080;Most facil/tles,should be able 

to meet:thiSlimit aftee installing end-ofpipe tmMment to'zNet the electroplating 

PSES of Pert 413. However Part 433 ."~ 

allows the ~i until February ~s, z0ee 

in casoaddittonal process streams 

preseatapecitl compliance problems. ForP$]~,-Job~ audindependent 

printed circuit.board manufacturers m 

rel~atad h only ~a~l~r Part 413. They will 

until July 15,1986 to comply with 

TTO. Thus "several years" will have 

the Sett!ement Aareement of 

in colculatms variability factors, 

dmna~ wm made to both the daily maximum vedabllit and thirty day vsriabilfly. First, the daily maximum 

variability was calculatedin the 

prepol~dby using logoormedstatistics 

for plants with less-than 10Osampling 

days and a nonparametric procedure for 

plants reporting 100 or more 

observations. For the fined regulation the 

A~en~.found that the largerdata 8eta 

bad a good fit to the-lognozmed 

distribution. Thus the Agency Is using • 

the lognormai procedure for all data 

se~. F~md. 30 day limits based on the 

avera8e of 30 samples have bosn 

replaced with a monti~ly average based 

on 10 samples per reporting period. This 

is consistent with other recent Effluent 

Guidelines for similar industrial 

cateaG;~as. 

, in addition, the ASency.respoaded to 

comments that the statistical . methodolaayuaed In proposed did not 

predict percent exosedences of the 30 

i I rv. I i t t Slit ill 

-day Umits cnn, tentiy with the subeategorlos from toxic pollutant" 

oriterion used to derive, the limiis. The resnlation. However, as discussed 

main reasou for this Was that day to day above, job shops and ~ which are 

dependence in the data was not existing indirect dischaq|ere remain •accounted for in deriving the proposed subject toth~ less stringent Part 413 

limits, bl derlvi~ the 10 saniple monthly requirements. 

limits, the Agency examined data 

x~n. Costs. Emuent Reduction Benefits, depend~m:e in three ways. First, by 

fitting the data to a statistics| time and E~nomic Impec/ 

series model: second, by incorporating A. Cost and Economic Impacts direct computations of auto-correlations 

into derivatioem of the limits; and third, The economic impact assessment of 

by fitting observed sequences of 10 day this regulation is presented in Economic 

averages to a logoormal distribution. Impact Analysis of Effluent Stondar~s 

The fimdmonthly limits were and Limitotions for the Metal Fim'shin8 

determined by fitting observed •~ndustry. The analysis details the 

sequences of 10 day averages to a investmea~ and annual costs that the 

lognormal distribution because this industry will incur aea result of this 

provided the most satisfactory fit to the regulation. The report assesses the 

data. The gonerai effect ofthese impact of effluent control costs in terms 

statistical changes was to raise some of plant closures, unemployment effects, 

limits. and increases in the costs of prod:.- ~tio~ 

Another chanse is that an alternative Since proposal, the economic impact 

amenable cyanide limit is made analysis has been revised to reflect 

available to facilities with sigoificant changes warranted on the basis of 

forum ofcyanide (i.e., iron cyanides) not comments received and as a result of 

controllable by the technology basis. continued EPA review. Monitoring and 

XIL Pollutants and Subcategories not compliance cOSts associated with the 

.Regulated control Of the regulated pollutants have 

been estimated for each industry sector 

Pare~aph 8 of toe Settlement and are presented below. Also, the 

Agreement contains provisions economic analysis ha8 been revised to 

authorizing EPA to exclude toxic reflect a current nominal cost of capital -

pollutants and industry categories and of 13 pe~ent versus the 10"percant subc, ategorlus from regulation under originally used. In addition, the 

certaincireumst,~nces, Economic Analysis was revised to more 

A. Exclusionof Toxic Pollutants clearly present, supporting data from 

elsewhere in the record. Finally, the 

Paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of the Settlement indirect discharMing captive facilities 

P~reement authorizes the Administrator with flows less than 10,000 gollons per to exclude from regulation toxic day have bean included in theaz~lysis. pollutants: Costs and impacts for this 8roup are 

• Not (..tectable by Section 30~h) presentedaeparately below. This 

analytical methods or other state-of-the- industry group was inadvertently 

art ~ethod~ or omitted from the earlier economic 

• Present in amounts too sh~aH to be impact anuiysi e. 

effectively reduced by available In order to measure the potential technologies: or economic impact, EPA reviewed its 

• Present only in trace amounts and incremental effect on each ofthe sectors 

neither causing nor likely to cause toxic of theindustrY(described above in the 

effects; or "Overview of the Industry," and Table 

• Detected in the effluent from only e 1). These impacts are presented ~mall nmnber of sources within a separately below f~ direct and indirect 

subcetegory and mdquely related to discharging facilities by Job shop, those sources: or independent pdntad ~q:uit board shop 

• That will be effectively controlled and captive shop facilities, The 

by technologies on which other effluent incremental combined investment and 

limitations and standards are based. annual costs, which include interest and 

Appendix B to this notice indicates depredation, ~ all metal flnishin8 

the reason for the exclusion of each facilities/ncundng ooots are ~ million 

toxic pollutant excluded ~om regulation and S118 million rosp~ttvel.v. These 

on the basis of the paragraph 8 criteria. costs are in 19~ dollars, as am those 

presented below. No plant closures or 8. Exclusionof Subcote$ories employment effects am projected. •In selecting effluent limitations for the Incrsasos !u the Oost of production MetaI.Fln[shiz~ ~tego~ as a whole, aveeap O.0Z peront, trail 10.400 

EPA has not established subcategorles 

and. therefore, has not axuluded any technoloales aN rsq.i;.o, by the 

A P 
Federal ReShdor / VoL 48, No. 13.7 I Friday, iul¥ 15, !983 /Rules and Regul. aUons ~ 2' II II Pll III ~,,,w:,, Illl 

municipalities and permit writers to 

monitor 10 days per month, the total 

annual costs increase by'$61 million 

from ~118 million to$179 million. No 

closures or employments effects -are 

projected to result from this level of 

monitorin~ the average increase in cost 

of production would be 003 percent 

versus the 0,02 pc:cent presented above. 

The Agency. has determined that this 

regulation would be economi.cally 

achievable even if all facilities are 

required to monitor 10 days a month. No. 

measureable balance of trade effect is -

expected from this regulation d.e to the 

estimated small change in the price of 

metal finishing products. 

BPT" 

Direct discharging facilities are not 

expected to incur costs to comply with 

the metals and cyanide l,mitations 

because these facilities are already 

covered by NPDES permits which set 

BPT limits on case-by-case best 

engineering judgments. A 1961 survey of 

randomly selected permits indicates that 

nearly all existing permits specify limits 

equivalent to, or more stringent than, 

those contained in this regulation. 

Direct discharging facilities may incur 

costs to comply with the limitation on 

total toxic organics. EPA assessed "I'FO 

compliance costs on the assumption that 

all plants would incur baseline 

monitoring costs of $I,904 on a one time 

basis. EPA believes that almost all 

plants will then comply throush the 

certification process. Nevertheless, ErA 

assumed that those facilities which 

currently dump would not be able to use 

the certification process and would 

incur annual compliance costs. (This - same procedure was used for "['F. O 

compliance under PSES.] ErA has 

assumed that the annual BPT 

compliance costs could be $29,000 for 

job shops, $34,700 fo. independent 

printed circuit board manufacturers and 

$468,000 for captive shop facilities. 

These costs apply to 10 out of 365 direct 

discharging job shops, 12 out of 44 direct 

discharging independent printed circuit 

board manufacturers, and 162 out of 

2,500 direct discharging captive shop 

facilities. Increases in the cost of 

production resulting from the control of 

TTO are not expected to exceed 0.9 

percent. No closure or employment 

effects are projected for these sectors. 

BAT 

Since the BAT limitations are the 

same as the DPT limitations, there is no 

incremental cost or impact associated 

with Compliance with the BAT 

iimitationc. 

PSES 

• incli~t discharging job shop and 

independent printed.circuit board 

facilities are expected to incur costs~ 

only to comply with the 'FrO limitation 

which is being added to the 

electroplating pretreatment standards in ' 

Part 413. ThisTTO limitation is included. 

in the regulation because compliance 

will significantly reduce toxic.organic 

pollution and will cause negligible 

economic impacts on these industry 

sectors. EPA is not imposing metals and 

cyanide limitations more stringent than 

those specifir~] in the e~isting applicable 

pretreatment standards despite 

evidence that such limits can be reliably 

achieved by the technology that forms 

the basis of the current standards. This 

is consistent with a March 1980 

Settlement ~'eement in which the 

relevant trade associations agreed not to 

challenge the Part 413 pretreatment 

standards for existing source 

electroplaters. 

Approximately 77 of an estimated 

2,734 indirect dischurging job shops and 

88 of the 327 indirect independent 

printed circuit hor'~lmanufacturers are 

assumed to incur "~sts to comply with 

the 'FrO standard. Annual costs of 

$222,500 and ~.54,300respectively are 

projected for the two sectors. The 

average annual cost per facility to 

comply with the TI'O limitations is 

approximately $2"q00. primarily for 

sampling and analysis. No closures or 

employment effects are ~rojected for 

these sectors. Production cost increases 

are expected not to exceed 0.03 percent 

for the two sectors. 

Non-integrated indirect discharging 

captive fr Alities with effluent flows 

•greater then 10,000 gallons per day are 

assumed to incur additional costs to 

comply with the TrO standard. Control 

of metals and cyanide can be achieved 

through capital investment already 

required by currently effective 

electr0plating ~gulations. Although the 

metals and cyanide standards 

promulgated today are more stringent 

than those in the currently effective 

electroplating regulaticns, theycan be 

met throngh use of the same pollution 

control equipment relied on to meet the 

electmplating pretreatment standards. 

The $'167.600 of annual costs associated 

with control of TTO applies to 58 of the 

900 nonintegrated captive indirect 

dischargers with How 8rester than 

10,000 8pd, No closure or divestitures 

are expected to occur. 

Non-integrated indirect discharging 

captive facilities with Howe less than 

'10,000 8allot.., per day will Incur costs 

from both the metals and cyanide 

standards end the TTO standards, 

Unlike the prior 8mup with flows ~Im~er 

thanxo, ooospd, tUe gmup,wU, generally exempt, fromPart 413 e 

precipitationlclarjflcation based. • ,+ 

pretreatment standards. Their inclusion 

in the metal finishing standard could 

necessitate investments in both end-ofpipe and in-plant treatment 

technologies. The cost for these facilities . '. 

to comply with the metals and cyanide ~. 

siandards totals St1.8 million annually. 

These costs apply to 912 out of an 

estimated 2850 nonintegrated indirect : 

discharging captive facilities with flows • 

less then 10,000 8pd. Data indicate that 

the remainder of these plants already / 

have adequate treatment inplace. The 

annual cost to comply wi~ the TTO 

standard is $534,60~, this applies to 185 " 

facilities. The average increase in the .. 

cost of production is approximately one 

percent. No closure or employment 

impacts are projected. 

Of the 3,750 facilities in th e last 

industry Sector; integrated indirect 

discharging captives" 1,250 may incur 

aggregate costs of $104 million annually - to comply withthe metals and cyanide 

standards.and 243 of these"facilities may 

incur costs, of appro~matelyST05,000 .. annually tocemply with the ~ standard.Integrated shops perform . ._ metal finishing operations in.addition to 

electroplating processes. Thus, they are 

affected by theexisting eleciroplating 

stand.'de as wen as by today's 

regulation. EPA anticipates ~at the 

intesrated facilities Will comply with the 

metal finishing standards by treati~ 

their total process discharge through a 

single treatment system that would be 

more costly than the one required solely 

to treat electroptatin8 wastewatere. 

The costa indicated above reflect the 

additional costs of compl)dng with the 

metal finishing standard;the 

electroplating costs were reviewed in an 

earlier regulation e~O CFR Part413, 44 FR 

52590, September 7,19Y9 and they serve 

as the baseline for determining the 

impacts of the metal finishing regulation. 

To determine the baselin." costs required 

to comply with the elects, tatin 8 

pretreatment standards. ~PA first 

revised its earlier estimates, based on 

updated surveys of treatment in place, 

improved estimates of the population of 

affected captive shops, and calculated 

costs attributed to the electmplating 

flow of integrated captive indirect 

dischargers. The revised estimate (in 

1982 dollars) indicates that this sector's 

costs for compliance with the 

electroplating pretreatment standards 

are SSlY- million In cap+tel coats and ~IN 

million tx annual costs, including 

interest and depredation. EPA now 

estimates that the major economic 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. t37 [ FRday. July is, 1083 / Rules and Regulations I '_ . . . . . I I I 

~-~... ,eft eels of that re~dation wouldbe 24 

¢~-:- plant closures and six electmplatin8 

~:: divestitures which could result in 850 .~. job losses and 84 job transfers. 

~,.// In eet~Jtin8 the economic impact of 

il;:: today's metal finishing regulation. EPA 

!!.~ amassed the c0ets of~treatin8 the 

~:~.,, additional flows covered by today's 

: reaulatlon at the model plants used in 

~ the electroplatin8 analysis. The costs ~ used in cQnductin8 the economic impact 

~ analysis reflect the cost of treating all 

~-. process flows, expect for the six ~. electroplati~ process streams specified 

-- in Part 41& To the extent these flows 

~,i include processes not t~at~d under 

~-.~ metal finlshfn& the costa and resulting 

~, impacts ovemtate the effect of the metal ~ finishing regulation. 

EPA's estimates of the effects of these, 

~':.... re&~tatim~, are based on a sample of 

approximately 1.100 pla~is. The results 

/- have been extrapolated to the full 

population of 3,750 plants in this sector. 

For each model plant the analysis 

determines the incremental fnc~ease in 

the costs of production to comply with 

~:' the metal ffnishin 8 standards. If a 

plant's compliance costs relative to 

sales are blab. the analysis projects 

metal finishing process line divestitures 

:. or plant closures. Additional impacts, 

thus. are those due to today's metal 

" finishing reaulation only. Investment 

o costs are expected to total 

:: approximately $351million, while 

annual costs are projected to be 

approximately $'118 million, including 

interest and depreciation. The annual 

~ costs represent approximately 0.20 

/ peroe.nt of the $60 billion annual value of ~ shipments from integrated indirect.~... 

captive plants..EPA'a analysis projects 

that this would lead to nG plant closures 

or process line divestitures, and that no 

: employment disruption wouldresult. . The Tro portion of these total annual 

costs shown above is approximately 

~. $705,000.3"1"Ocosts apply to 243 of the 

intesrated indirect discharsing 

captive facilities. 

" lrmally, EPA assessed the combined 

' impact of today's re~ulation and the 

' electmplating pretreatment reaulation 

on the captive intearated indirect ,. dischat~gingsector of the industry. This 

analysis, like those for electroplating 

and metal thinning alone, was based on 

coets for the treatment technolosy used 

for the development of the limitations. 

Some plants may receive removal 

credits or install less expensive 

tachnoloay. In addition, EPA has 

deferred the compliance date for 

intngrated facilities, tbe~by allowing 

plants additional time to plan for 

compliance and not be subject to 

treatment costs. This analysts indicated 

? 

that the combined investment for the 

captive intearated indirect discharging 

sector for both regulations was $827 •million, with annual costs of $274 

tuition, including interest and 

depreciation. Thirty plants (out of 3,750) 

miaht divest.their electroplating lines or 

dose, and 980 jobs (out of 450.000J could 

be lost or displaced. These impacts are 

the same as those due to the 

electroplating prefreatment standards 

alone. No" additional closures, 

divestitures, or unemployment effects 

are expected from the more stringent 

standards promulgated today. 

NSPS and P~NS 

Finally, the requirements for new 

sources are the same as those for 

existing sources, except that cadmium 

must be controlled more stringently. The 

incremental cost of compliance with the 

cadmium control ranges from $14,000 to 

$24.000 per facility depending on the 

water flow. These costs represent 

between 0.02 and 2.0 percent of. 

projected value of sales for these 

facilities. Since cadmium platin 8 occurs 

at OniF about 1596 of the facilities and inplant controls ca-, be desianed into new 

facilities, there L ~xpected to be no 

com.petitive disadvantaae for new 

sources seeking to enter the industry. 

Total Toxic Orsanics 

EPA's economic analysis of the TrO 

limit had its own costing methodolgy. Its 

results were incorporated into the 

impact analyses for the other specified 

limits. EPA believes, however, that a 

certification procedm:e will make these 

costs unnecessary in almost all cases. 

The Agency is offering the 

certffica"on procedure as an alternative 

to self-monitoring because frequent 

mnnitorin 8 for toxic oraanics could be 

expensive. Under the certification 

procedures facilities can identify the 

toxic organics used and certify that the 

resultant wastes are bets8 properly 

disposed, i.e.. recovered or contract 

hauled. The Agency expe6ts that almost. 

all plants will certify. 

Some plants may still be required to 

monitor. However. estimating the 

number of facilities that may still be 

required to monitor TI'O must be 

accomplished indirectly, because there 

is no i~stnry to indicate how control 

authodt/es will apply toxic omanic 

requlremp.n~ eL-.d co~tification" 

altemptives to monitoring. The Aaency 

examined two indicators of the need to 

requ!re monitoring. The first wee the 

pereentaae of plants that currently dump 

waste solvent deareasers" This 

percentsae may approximate the 

population sin that control authorRie8 

need to check. Only ~gt of the captlvet 

use solvent degreasin& whfi:h is the 

primary source of potential toxic organic 

violations in these wastewaters. 

Comparable fib.are 10.3~ for job 

shops and 100~ for printed circuit board 

manufacturers. 

These wastes can profitably be 

recovered by the plant and some waste 

hamers, who pay for waste solvents, 

have been identified, and are cited in 

the public record. Approximately 73~ of 

the facilities which utilize solvent 

degreasem, already properly disl~se of 

this.waste. However even the 27% of the 

popular;on who now dump their ' 

solvents will probably stop that practice 

and be eligible for certification. In 

addition some of the solvent degreasers 

that these plants use do not contain any 

toxic organics. Other sources of toxic 

organics present at metal finishing 

plants may compensate for the Agency's 

consertattve assessment on degreasing 

but this should not be eianificant since 

dumped solvent deareasers are cleazly 

the sinale most sia~i/cant source of 

TrO in wastew-tars. Thus this 

approach leads to a conservative 

overestimation by the Agency. 

The second appreach was to exarrdne 

the percentaae of EPA sampled data 

which exceeded the "Fro limit and to 

consider this as a measure of the 

fraction of facilities needin8 monitorina. 

This was 2.6 percent of the data (i,e.. 

97.4% of sampled data already cm~plies 

with the "Fro limit|. The 2.6 percent 

exceedance rate of the "FrO limit darts 8 

EPA's samplin8 supports the need for 

certification and for control authorities 

to establish reasoned plant specific 

monitorin8 frequencies. 

For purposes of economic ann:yeas 

the number of facilities costed for TTO 

monitorin8 was estimated to be 

equivalent to the number of facilities 

currently dumpin8 solvent~ The 

economic impact analysis also 

performed two seasftiVRy analyses. The 

first was with a greater number of plants 

monitoring for TTO. The second 

assumed that plants monitored for 11"O 

monthly instead of quarterly. Both 

changes led to only slishtly different 

impacts. All scenarios were found to be 

acceptable and economically 

achievable, 

Summory 

The Aaen~y concludus that the final 

tabulation ts economically achievable, 

and the impacts are Justified in liRhtof 

the effluent mductiom achieved. Tha 

motel finlahlq Iq~_ a~on will remove 

an additional 3l) mlllton poundl per year 

.of metals and oyanide ~md 10 million 

pounds per year of toxic oraanica. 
.Federal Register / VoL 48, No. 137 / Friday, ~t, ly 15, 1983 / Rules and gesul~Uons m I 

B. Executive Order 12291 

Under Executive Order 12291 the 

Agency must determine whether a 

regulation is "'Major" and therefore 

subject to the requirements of a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. Major rules 

impose an annual cost to the economy 

of $100 million or more or meet other 

economic impact criteria. Based on the 

Agency's estimates this regulation could 

have an aramat effect on the economy of 

more than $100 million, ruskin 8 it a 

major regulation. 

Executive Order 122.91 does not 

require a Regulatory Impam Analysis 

where its consideration would conflict 

with the developmenl of regulations 

pursuant to a court order, as with this 

metal finishing regulation. EPA has 

prepared, however, an analysis that 

contains many of the e]emonts of• 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. A copy of 

the analysis can be obtained from Alec 

McBride. Monitoring and Data Support 

Division, WH-553, U.S. F_~A, 401 M 

Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.,. 20460. 

C. Regulotory Ftexibility Am~lysis 

Pub. L. 96.354 requires that a 

Regulatory Flexibility Anatysis be •prepared for regulations that have a 

siRuif'w, ant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The amdysis 

may be done in oonjanc~n with, or ae 

part of. any other a~a]ysis (xmducted by 

the Agency. 

A •mall business analysis is included. 

in the e~nomic hnp~ct analyzis. 

analysis shows that there will not be a 

significant impact on any segment of the 

industry, large m: small Therefore a 

formal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

was not required. 

D. SBA Loans 

The agency is coutinuin8 to encotwese 

small plants--including circuit board 

manufoctdrers--to use Small Business 

Administration ~SBA} fmanci~ as 

needed for pollution control equipment. 

The thre~, basic programs are: |1) The 

G;mranteed PoTlution Control Bond 

Program, 12) the Section 503 ]Program, 

and (3) the Regular Guarantee Pro~p'am. 

All the SBA loan programs are only 

open to businesses that have: (a) net 

~ssets less than $6 million, and [b) an 

average annual after-tax income o~ ~ess 

than $2 million, and |c) fewer than 250 

employees. 

For further in(ormation end specifics 

on the Guaranteed Pollution Control 

Bond Prosram contact: U.S. Small 

Business Administration, Office of 

Pollution Cmdrol Finsnclns, 4040 North 

Fairfax Drive, Rosslyn, Virginia 22203 

(703} s~zgoz. 

The Section 503 Pr, Jgram, as amended 

in July 1980, allows long-term loans to 

s.-:.all and medium sized businesses. 

These loans are made by SBA approved 

local development companies. These 

companies are authorized to issue 

Government-backed debentures ~het are 

brought by the Federal Financing Bank, 

an arm of the U.S. Treasury. 

Through SBA's Regular Guarantee 

Program, loans are made available by 

commercial banks and are goaranteed 

by .theSBA. This program has interest 

rates equivalent to market rates. 

For addi~onal information on the 

Regular Guarantee ami Section 503 

Programs contaCt yonrdistrict ~r local 

SBA Office. The coordinator at EPA 

headquarters is Ms. Franees Desselle 

who may be reac~l at [202} ~5373: 

XIV. Non-Water-Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

The elimination or reduction of one 

form of pollution may aggravate other 

enviromnenta| prcb~'ns. Sections 30~b] 

and 306 of the Am require EPA to 

consider the ~mn-water-qentity 

envirnnment, _mpacts [irmluding energy 

requ'n~.men~s) of certain re/pdaflons. To 

comiC, EPA considered the effect of. 

this regulation on air, noise, radiation, 

and solid waste senerat]on. Wtdle 

balancin 8 pollution problems aguins~ 

each other and against enm~ use is 

difficult, EPA believes that the final 

regulation best serves overall rtafi6na] 

goals. . 

The following are the non-waterquality environmental impacts 

(includin 8 enersy requirements) 

ass~ .•ted with today's regulation. 

A. Air Pollution 

Compliancewith the BPT. BAT;, NSP~ 

PSF.S. and PS/~ will n~t create any 

substantial dir pol]ntkm problems. 

Alkaline c.hlorinatioa for cyanide 

destruction and chromium reduction 

train8 suh~r dioxide may produce some 

emissions to the atomusphere. 

Precipitation and ~tioa, the major 

portion o~ ~he ~ has/s, should 

not result in any air. po]lutlon pmblem~ 

In addition, control of total toxic 

organics at the source will result in a 

decrsaee in the volatilin~i0n of solvents 

from streams and POTWs. 

B. No/so 

None of the wastewater treatm~.~l 

processes cause significant 

objectio~,able noise. 

C. Radiation 

None of the treatment processes pose 

any radiation hazards. 

D. Solid Waste 

EPA has considered the-effect these 

regulations would have on the : 

accumulation of hazardous waste, as 

defined under Section 3001 of the 

Resoume Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA estinmtes that the BPT 

and BAT limitations will not contribute 

to additional solid or hazardous wastes. 

However, PSES will increase the solid 

wastes from these plants by 

approximately 165,0{]10 metric tons per 

year. This sludge can be hazardous 

because it will necessarily contain 

additional quantities fund 

• concentrations) oftoxicmetal 

pollutants. Disposal of these wastes wa~ 

costed as though they were hazardous. 

EPA's 01Ticeof Solid Waste.has 

analyzed the solid waste, nmnagement 

and dispose] costs required by flue 

industrfs complinnoe wit~ RCILA 

requirements. Son~ x~.mslte were 

published in 45 Fit 33088 fMay 19,1930}. 

In addition, RCRA oe~ have l~en 

included in the costs and economic 

impaCt analysis durin8 ~m development 

of this regulation. However, since . November 19e0. I~A has received 19e 

petitions qo ddist wastes ~onz umlal 

finishing facilities. Seven~amm~ trove 

been granted. 1e4 ~me pondiq and 15 

have b~m mkctod. 11am it sppcm~ th~ 

the decision to cost all sdid waste 

disposal as hamdom Wo~aMy 

overstated ~ crate. ~ the 

A~n~ lm mJt e~.ned eta sevhp 

likety to o~m" bemmee of ~ contaminatkm d POI'W dodges. Tlm~ 

sevinss ~ lnu~ m be mmidml~ 

E. Energy ~ts 

E~A estimates dust achieving the BPT 

and BAT effluent lb~itatimm will aot 

increase e]ectrk.al enm~omumption. 

The Agency estimates tbgt PJ~S will 

increaseelec~ce] enez~ consumption 

by approximem~y 142 mflliun ~lowatthours per year. For a qMpical exisUn~ 

indirect discharser, ~ will increese 

enersy conmnptina tess thaa one 

percent of the total ener~ ~ for 

production. 

The ener~ ~ts ~or NSPS 

and PSNS me estimated to be simibr to 

enersy t~quimmeM fe~ BAT. However, 

this~m ~I~ be ~ In~hm~ 

after pmi~ctinm ere made fen-sew plant 

construction. 

XV, nest ~~(mm,,) 

Section aiM(el of tim Clams Water Act 

authodm~ the ~ 

{"BMW'I, lw~tm, Tc~mmm~ thew. 

apply to all ~ 1firm ~ to • " 

deslgnal~ Indmtr~ ate~llr, aad m~ 

offer guidance to permit authodti~ in 
?. 

924174 hdeml hei, ter I V0 j. 48, No. 137/ Friday, July 15, 1988 / Rules and Regulations I III I 

• + 

establishing manasement practices 

required by unique circumstances at a 

given plant. 

Althoush EPA is not pre|cribing them 

at this time. future BMPscould requ/~- • 

dikes, curbs, or other measures to 

contain leaks and spills, and could 

require the treatment of toxic pollutants 

in these wastes. 

rv'L Upset and n~ Pnnddlms 

A recurring issue is whether industry 

l|mitations and standards should include 

provisions that authorize noncompliance 

durin8 "upset" or "bypasses." An upset, 

sometimes called an "excursion." is 

unintentional ~mncompliance beyond 

the reasonable control of the permitlee. 

EPA believc~ that upset provisions are 

necessary, because upsets will 

inevitably occur, even if tl-e control 

equipment is properly operated. Because 

technolosy-bused limitations can require 

only what technology can achieve, many 

claim that liability for upsets is 

improper. When confronted with this 

issue, courts have been divided on the 

questions of whether an explicit upset or 

excursion exemption is necessary or 

whether upsetor excursion ind~ents 

maybe handled throush EPA's - 

enforcement ,discretion. Compare' 

Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA. 564 F. 2¢i 1253 

lgth Cir. 1977) with Weyerhaeuser v. 

Castle, supra and Corn Refiners 

Association, et aI. v. Castle, No. 78-1069 

[8th Cir. April 2,1979). See also 

American Petw]¢um Institute v. EPA, 

~1o F. ~i lo23 (10th Cir. 1978); CPC 

International. Inc. v. Train, 540 F. 2d 

1320 (8th Cir. 1976):PMC Corp. v, Train, 

539 F. 2d 973 (4th Cir. 1978). 

Unlike an upset--whlch is an 

unintentional episode--a bypass is an 

intentional noncompliance to 

circumvent waste treatment facilities 

d,uHng an emergency. 

EPA has both upset and bypass 

provisions in NPDES permits, and tke 

NPDES regulations include upset and 

bypass permit provisions. See 40 CFR 

"Part 1Z2.41, 48 FR 14151, 14168 (April 1, 

1983). The upset provision establishes 

an upset as an afFtrmative defense to 

prosecution for violation of technologybased effluent l~mitations. The bypass 

provision authorizes bypassin8 to 

prevent loss of life, personal injury, m' 

severe property damage. Since 

permittees in the metal finishing 

industry are entitled to the upset and 

bypass provisions in NPDES permits. 

this regulation need not repeat tbese 

provisions. Upset provisions are also 

c,:,.,t,;~ned in the general pretreaiment 

regulation, 

XVII. Ve~rlances and Modifi,'atius 

Federal and State NPDES permits to 

direct dischargers must enforce these 

effluent standards. The p retreatment 

limitations apply directly to indirect 

dischargers. 

The only exception to the BPT effteent 

limitations is EPA's "fundamentally 

different factors" variance. See E. I. 

duPont de NemouPs and Co:v. Train. 

supra: WeyerJ~oeuser Co. v. Cosde, 

supra. This variance recoanize8 

char+,cteristics of a particular dischaPaer 

in the category regulated that are 

fundamentally different from the 

characteristics considered in this 

rulemakin8. Although this variance 

clause was set forth in EPA's 1973.-19;'6 

industry regulations, it need not be 

included in this regulation. See 40 CFR 

Part 125.30. 

Dischargers subject to the BAT 

limitations are also eligible for F_,PA's 

"fundamental|y different factors" 

variance, BAT limitations for 

nonconventional pollutants may be 

modified under Sections 301[c) and 

301(g) of the Act. These statutory 

modifications do n~t apply to toxic or 

conventional poilu ..is. According to 

Section 301[j)[1)[B), applications for 

these modifications must be filed withIn 

270 days after promulgation of final 

effluent limitations and standards. See 

43 FR 40859 (Sept. 13, 1978). These Part 

413 and Part 433 regulations do not 

regulate any non-conventional, nontoxic, pollutants. If any of the regulated 

pollutants are declared non-toxic, and 

non-conventionul in the future, then 

dischargers may seek 301(c) or 301(g) 

modifications. 

Indirect ".ischaPgers subject to PSF.S 

are eligible for the "fundamentally 

different factors" variance and for 

credits for toxic pollutants removed by 

POTW. See 40 CFR 403.7: 40~.13:46 FR 

9404 (January 28, 1981). Indirect 

dischargers subject to PSNS are only 

eligible for the credits provided for in 40 

CFR 403.7. New sources subject to NSPS 

are not eligible for EPA's 

"fundamentally different factors" 

variance or any statutory or regulatory 

modifi~tions. See £. 1. ~uPont de 

NemouPsv. Train, supra. 

XVIII. Implementation of Limitstlmts 

and Standards 

A. Relotion to NPDES Permits. 

The Bi~. BAT, and NSPS in this 

regulation will be applied to individual 

metal finish;n8 plants through NPDES 

permits issued by EPA or ,,~proved 

State agencies under Section 402 of the 

Act. The preceding section of this 

preamble discussed th~ bindln 8 effect of 

this regulation on NPDES permits, 

except when variances and 

modifications are expressly authorized. 

This section adds more detail on the 

relation between this resulation and 

NPDES permits~ 

EPA has developed the limitations 

and standards in this regulation to cover 

the t}.~ical facility for this point source 

category. In specific cases, the NPDES 

permitting authority may have to 

establish permit limits on toxic 

pollutants that are not covered by this 

regulation. This regulation does not 

restrict the power of any permit-issuing 

authority to comply with law or any 

EPA regulation, guideline, or policy. For 

example, if this regulation does not 

control a particular pollutant, the permit 

issuer may still limit the pollutant on a 

case-by-case basis, when such action 

conforms with the purposes of the AcL 

In addition, if State water quality 

standards or other provisions of State or 

Federal law require limits on pollutants 

not covered by this regulation (or 

require more stringent limits on covered 

pollutants), the permit-issuing authority 

must apply those limitations. 

B. Indirect DischoP3er~ 

For indirect discharse~, PSES and 

PSNS are implemented under National 

Pretreatment Program procedures 

outlined in 40 CFR Part 403. The table 

below may be of assistance in resolving 

questions about the operation of thai 

program. A brief explanation of some of 

the submise!ons indicated on the table 

follows:. 

A "request for category determination 

request" is a written request, submitted 

by an indirect discharger or its POTW. 

for a certification on whether the 

indirect discharger falls within a 

particular subcategory listed in a 

categorical pretreatment standard. This 

assists the indirect discharser in 

knowing just which PSES or PSNS limits 

it will be required to meet. See 40 CFR 

40a.ela). 

A "request for fundamentally different 

factors variance" is a mechanism by 

which a categorical pretreatment 

standard may be adjusted, making it 

more or less stringent, on a case-by-case 

basis, If an indirect discharger, a POTW, 

or any interested person believes that 

factors relating to specific indirect 

dmcharger are fundamentally different 

from those factors considered durin8, 

development of the celevant catesurical 

pretreatment standard and that the 

existence of those factors justifies a 

different dischatSe limq f~o,a that 

specifie~ in the categorical stemia~l. 

then they may submit a request to BPA 

for such a variance. See 40 CPR 408.1S. 
Federal Registe¢ / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Reaulatiuns I I ?r I I II 

A "baseline monitoring report" is the 

first report an indirect discharge." must 

file following promulgation of a 

standard applicable to it. The baseline 

report includes: an indentification of the 

indirect discharger; a description of its 

operations; a report on the flows of 

regulated streams and the results of 

sampling analyses to determine levels of 

regulated pollutants in those streams: a 

statement of the discharger's 

compliance or noncompliance with the 

standard: and a description of any 

additional steps required to achieve 

compliance. See 40 CTR 403.12{b) 

A "report on compliance" is required 

of each indirect discharger within 90 

days following the date for compliance 

with an applicable categorical 

pretreatment standard. The report must 

indicate the nature and concentration of 

all regulated pollutants in the facility's 

r',,-,dated process wastestreams; the 

ax, ,,e and maximum daily flaws af ~e 

regulated streams; and a statement of 

whether compliance is consistently 

being achieved, and if not. what 

additional operation and maintenance 

and/or pretreatment is necessary to 

achieve compliance. See 40 CFR 

403.12{d) 

A "periodic compliance report" is a 

report on continuing compliance with all 

applicable categorical pretreatment 

standards. It is submitt~ ] twice per year 

{June and December) by indirect 

dischargers subject to the standards. 

The report shall indicate the precise 

nature and co,',centrations of the 

regulated pollutants in its discharge to 

the POTW; the average and maximum 

daily flow rates of the facility; t}-e 

methods used by the indirect dis-harger 

to sample and analyze the data. and a 

certification that these methods 

conformed to those methods outlined in 

the regulvtions. See 40 CTR 403.12(e) 

TABLE 2.~iNDtRECW DISCHARGERS SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTAl" AND COMPtJ/UI~'~E 

.era/event Apl=ic=~ i D~e or time T i S0UfCeS I period i MP,,~=Mr~ ~ ~ ~ tO , ,, tr ' ...... 

Request for categon/ defer- Existing .................. ~60 days ............ 

,nination. i t w0. , 

: or 60 days " i From F~ FIEO~n~ DeDocu~em I 

/Wa,labC, ity. t 

commencement i 

of dmcharge to ] I 

POTW i I 

ReQuest for fuftdamentally /~JI ....... : ..................... 180 days ................ From effective Gate of ~ ] Oere~Lor.' 

different factors Yanance. ard. I , o*' 30 days ............ I From final decision on cats- i : i gory de~ I 

Baseline monitoring report ....... All ............................. t80 days ................. i From ~ ~ el ~ [ Cas~ol Outhor~y • 

i 

.e0o. or .............. .................... Z de" ................ 1%=" " == i 

- .......................... ,o=. .................. .i o, I 

] t oh=so= POTW. I 

Periodic Compl~lce Rel:x~ls -1 Aft ............................. ; June an¢l | ~ ~ outll0~#. = 

.... I .... ] t 

Or b) EPA Reg,o~.. wat~ Division [ .~'." actor, if State does no1 have am ~ ~mlreatntant lm~ram. = Con~._ Agtl'K)rity = a) POTW i~ it~ wetreatmont pro~'em has been ~ 1or i~) ~ ot~ ~ ~ ¢on~ 

agency wish an ~ ptetroatment wogram O~ c) EPA Regional Ao'l~trator, if b-~ doe~ ~ Itave ~ 

pretreatment program. 

C.Applicobility end Compfionce Dotes fall within the applicability of bo'.h 

In the electroplating/metal finishing Parts. althou~, for each pollutant, onJy 

industry some facilities ace'subjec t to one Part will apply at a 8iveu time. " 

the Electroplafing Category {Part 413} There are tWO exceptions: (1) Existing 

and/or the Met~ I ;"inishing Category indirect discharging job shops and 

(Part 433). Tablt J below flluslrates IPCBMs have been .~xempted " from the 

which of the regulations are applicable Part 433 Metal Finishing PSES, and [2) 

to the various types of facilities. metal finishing wastewatera at iron and 

Facilities ere subject only to Part 433 steel mills are exempted from the Part 

{metal finishing) for BPT, BAT, NSPS. 413 Electroplating PSES. 

and PSNS. Far PSES. facilities generally 

TABLE 3.--APPLICABIU'rY 

Jobst~Ps I IPCBM i ~ ~l~l~.~a 

St* "4 .,,,,Is 1 

,sEs: 

Electrc. =ding (Part 413) ....................................................... x ......................... 

I

! 

~ x......: ................. 

I 

i x .......................... 

Metal Finishing (Part 433) ..................................................... ~ .............................. ~ .............................. ~ • ........................... : x. 

sp, Met= s,, Fi~s ,~j Ps.s: ...................................................................... x ........ i.................. I = .............. ..... t l =................ i* -_,_,_ 

Eloc~oplaSng process waszm~at~r at iron ~ steel ~ was exo~ed from the E~Im D PSES by 40 ~ 4s301 

Flows from the metal finding Wocesses st those plBnta ore coverall by 40 CFR 433, 
I 

;. ~ Federal Re~ister I Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations • • - . |[~[- "[ l I I II | Ill I -i ~. ~[ II Ill II l I 

The compliance dates for the two 

cateaoHes are presented in Table 4. BPT, 

BAT, PSNS, and NSPS compliance dates 

are specified by the Clean Water Act. 

The compliance dates for F.Jectroplatlng 

PSES were set in the Federal Register on 

September 28,1982. °~ee 47 FR 42698. 

Today's regulation allows facilities 3 

yearn to comply with the ~ectz-oplating 

PSES for toxic organics consistent with 

the Settlement Agreement with NAMF. 

For metal finishing, the Agency is 

allowing 31 months for compliance with 

all parameters. In addition an interim 

"FrO limit has been estab!ishe~ .~or 

compliance by June 30,1984: except for 

metal finishing wastewaters from plants 

which are also subject to P.~rt420 (iron 

end steel), which must comply by July 

10,1985. This last exception is pursuant 

to a settlement agreemer~t with Lhe steel 

industry in which EPA agreed that 

pretreatmer, requirements would apply 

to steel discharges in July 1985. It is 

possible thai control of TrO in metal 

finishing waste t=+reams could, in some 

cases, lead steel facilities to install 

treatment technology on the discharge 

from their steel processes. Therefore, 

EPA has decided tQ allow plants 

covered by Part .k20 until ]une. 1985 to 

comply with the 'Fro limit, 

TABLE 4.--CoM~:ClANCE DATES 

Regulation ~COmldiance date 

E~ectroOtat~ps~s for ........... 27. 1984 (rot r~k~te. 

grazed l~mtm. 

Me~s =r~ Cvan,~e (Pan 'June30. tge4 (tOt imegrate~ 

4;3). plants). ~t~9 ~oES pen Ju~y 15. 1986 

4t3) for TTO. ~, 

Metal Fmi~niog BPT (Pa¢l AI sos, as pos..~)m ,130).

Mofal Rnishi~ BAT .................. Ju~ I. 1984. 

Meta~ I~ loSES fo~: June 30. 1984 (exce~ for 

TTO '. covered by PaR 

420); July 10. 1985 (for 

I~am~ coerced bY Pa..,f 

Metal R~I~cj PARS. for Fel~ua~ is. 19sa. 

Metals, Cyankle ana TTO.=. 

MaRl Finishing NSPS and Ff,m~ commeocemem of disPSNS. charge. 

' FO¢ these faciMies the first l-tO Ira,at ts I~Lsed on managementwscW,es o~y. • Th{s TFO limit t~ based Do management ioracbo~ fol. 

D. _nforcement 

A final topic of concern is the 

operation of EPA's enforcement 

program. This was an important 

consideration in developing this 

regu]atlon. EPA deliberately sought to 

avoid standards which would be 

exceeded by routine fluctuations of 

weU-designed and operated treatment 

systems. These standards were 

developed so as to represent limits 

which such a plant would meet 

approximately 99% of the time. 

The Clean Water Act is a strict 

liability statute. EPA emphasizes. 

however, that it can exercise discretion 

in deciding to initiate enforcement 

proceedings (C3ierm Club v. Train, 557 F. 

2d 485. 5th Cir.. 1977). EPA has 

exercised, and intends to exercise, that 

discretion in a manner that recogni'.:es 

and promotes good-faith compliance. 

XIX. Summary of Public Participation i 

At the time of publication of the 

proposed metal finishing regulation 

(August 31, 1982), EPA solicited 

comments cn the proposed rules and, in 

particular, on six specific issues. Ninetyone commenters responded to these and 

other issues relat;ng to the electroplating 

and metal finish~ ~standards. The 

following parties submitted comments: 

Air Transport Association of America 

Alpha Industries Inc. 

The Aluminum Association Incorporated 

American Airlines 

American Foundrymen's Society 

American Hot Dip Galvanizers 

American Metal'Stamping Association 

Anerock Corporation 

Anaconda Aluminum Company 

Ansul Fire Protection 

Apollo Metals. inc. 

Americm Telephone and Telegraph 

Company

Atwood 

Babcock and Wilcox 

Bausch and Lomb 

California Metal Enameling Co. 

Caterpillar Tra~:tor Company 

Charles A. Frawley 

Chrysler Corp. 

Control Data Corporation 

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles 

County 

Cumberland Corporation 

D.A.B. Industries, Inc. 

Deere and Company 

Delta Airlines, Inc. 

Department of the Air Force 

Eaton Corporation 

E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. 

Eltech Systems Corp, 

EMP Laboratories, Incorpor, ted 

EPA Region V 

ERC--Laney 

Federal-Mogul Corporation 

Ferro Corporation 

Ford Motor Co. 

General Electric Company 

General Motors Corporation 

Goodyear Aerospace Corporation 

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. 

Gould Electronics and Electrical Products 

CTE Services Corporation 

GWS Technology. Inc. 

Harris Corporation 

Harvey Hubbell Incorporated 

Hofmann Industries Incorporated 

Honeywell 

Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance 

Huntington Alloys 

Imperial Clevite. Inc. 

Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging 

Electronic Circuits 

ITT Telecommunications Corporation 

lenn-Air Corporation 

Jayto Corporation 

Kaiser Aluminunliepnd Chemical Corporation 

Masco Corporation 

Manufacturing Association of Central New 

York 

Maytag 

Metal Finishing Association of Southern 

California 

Metro Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 

Midland RossCorpora,ion 

Milwaukee MetropolitanSewerage District 

3M Company 

Mobay Chemical Corporation 

Modine Manu[acturin~ Company 

National Association of M~,tal Finishers 

National Electrical Manufacturers' 

Associat;~n 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Con: ':rvation 

Nor{ ern Telecom 

Ozark Airlines 

PCK Technology D;vision 

PEC Industries 

Pioneer Metal Finishing. Inc. 

Porcelain Enamel Institute 

Porcelain Metals Corporation Praegitzer Industries Inc. 

Raytheon Company 

Republic Airlines 

Rexnord 

Reynolds Aluminum 

Rockford ARa Cha~lbers of Commerce 

R.R.Donnelley ..nd Sons 

Sanders Associates Inc. 

Sanitary District of Rockford 

Sperry Corporation 

Square D Company 

State of Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection 

State of Vermont Agency of Environmental 

Conservation 

State of Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 

United Airline~ 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 1.% 1083 I Rules and Regulations llI4YP' 

Whirlpool Corporation York Metal Finishing Co. 

The major issues raised by 

commenters are addressed in this 

section. A summary of all comments 

received and of o,,~r responses is 

included in the public record for this 

regulation. 

1. Comment: Many corraneJJters 

objected to the certificatmn language 

EPA proposed as an alternative to 'vro 

Monitoring. One commenter pointed out 

that EPA had recently proposed new 

certification language for signatories to 

Permit apl~lications and reno,s (40 CFR 

122.6~ as part of a settles, .,~. agreement 

in the consolidated permits litigation, 

(NRDC v. EPA, and consolidated cases, 

No. 80--1607, D.C. Cir.} and suggested 

that EPA adopt that language here. 

Response: EPA agrees that changes in 

the certification language are warranted. 

First, we believe it is appropriate to 

modify the proposed language to accord 

mo~, closely with the certification 

language agreed to in tLe consolidated 

permits settlement agreement 

concernin~ 40 CFR § 122.22, formerly 

§ 122.6. 47 FR 2.5548, 25553 {June 14. 

1982}. We do not see a significant 

enou8h difference between this 

regnla~ion and § 1~.22 to justify 

substantially different language. Thus, 

we have adapted the proposed 

•settlement language with minor 

differences reflecting the particular 

nattlre of the ~ certification 

requirement. This language is 

substantially :,milar to that now 

available for the electrical and 

electronics industry {Phase I). See 48 FR 

15382, April 8, 1983. 

Second, we have amended the 

language to aJ]ow the discharger to 

certify that "no dumping of concentrated 

toxic organics into the wastewater has 

occurred since filing the last discharge 

monitoring report." The proposed 

language appeared to require the 

discharger to certify that he is in 

compliance with the limit; we recognize 

that it may be difficult to certify to this 

ia .nguage in the absence of monitoring. 

Now, the discharger will be allowed to 

certify as to his to.v.ic organic 

management practices. However, 

because the new wording is less precise 

{i.e., no "dumping of concentrated toxic 

organics") and because some 

commenters pointed to the need for 

more specificity about certification 

procedures, we are adding more explicit 

language requiring the discharger to 

describe his toxic organic management 

plan. The proposed lr nguage would 

have required the discharger to specify 

the tome organic compounds used and 

the procedure used to prevent excessive 

wastewater discharge o; toxic organics, 

whereas the final language requires the 

discharger to submit a toxic organic 

management plan that specifies to the 

permitting or control authority's 

satisfaction the toxic organic 

compounds used; the method of disposal 

used'instead of dumping, such as resale, 

reclamaticn, contract hauling, or 

incineration; and procedttres for 

assuring that toxic organics do not 

routinely spill or leak into the 

wastewater. The discharger must also 

certify that ~he facility is implementing 

the toxic orjanic management plan. 

Finally, for direct dischargers, the 

solvent management plan will be 

incorporated as a condition of their 

NPDES permits. A similar requirement 

does not exist for indirect dischargers 

because under the Clean Water Act 

permits are not issued for them by the 

control authority. However, the 

pretre~,tment standard does require 

indirect dischargers to implement the 

plan which they submit to the control 

authority. Both these requirements 

reinforce the discharger's responsibility 

to implement hit certification statement. 

Addition of c, ,fication language is 

intended to reduce monitoring burdens. 

It does not in any way dimish the 

discharger's liability for noncompliance 

with the 'IWO limitation. 

2. Comment: Several commenters 

questioned EPA's estimate of minimal 

costs for TFO control stating that 

signficant costs would be incurred from 

solvent disposal and from compliance 

monitoring. A number of commenters 

questioned the stateme-, that costs for 

solvent disposal could be offset by 

reclams"on of these wastes. 

Response: The Agency recognizes that 

costs can be associated with proper 

solvent ~anagement and compliance 

monitoring. However, the Agency does 

not believe these cos,. will be 

significant for the majority of the 

facilities in the industry. 24% of the 

captives, 10.3% of the job •shops and 

100% of the printed circuit board 

facilities perform solvent degreasing. An 

estimated 73 percent of ~ze facilities 

using solvent degreasing are already 

practicing proper d~sposal of these 

wastes and would, therefore, not be 

expected to incur additional costs to 

comply with the electropletin 8 or metal 

finishing TI'O limits. Facilities not 

presently practicing proper solvent 

management wouid need to implement 

practices such as contractor removal 

end/or reclamation. 

Costs of proper solvent disposal can 

be offset by solvent reclamation, in 

response to comments, the Agency 

cohtacted representatives of national 

solvent reclamation associations. These 

representatives indicated that solvent 

reclamation is a widespread, readily 

available, and growing practice, in 

addition to the numerous plants with onsite reclamation facilities, it is estimated 

that more thep 100 independent 

reclaimers are in operation throughout 

th~ country and that reclaimers will pay 

for spent solvents especially if the 

solvents are segreguted and there is a 

market demand for the particular 

solvents. 

The Agency recognizes that frequent 

monitoring for TTO can be expensive. 

The Agency has attempted to reduce the 

cost by establishing the certification 

alternative and by allowing monitorin& 

when necessary, to be limited to those 

toxic organics likely to be pre~nt in the 

wastewater Of a plant. The Agency 

believes that almost all facilities will be 

able to cortify in lieu of monitoring. 

However, in response to comments on 

the Cost of compliance monitoring, the 

Agency has re-assessed its cost estimate 

to consider quarterly monitoring for 

1"I'O. This frequency is reflective of a 

common monitoring frequency required 

by control authorities. For the reasons 

explained in section FA, above, EPA 

believes that ~s economic anasyses of 

:he impacts ol the TTO limit arc 

conservative and fully state or overstate 

the likely actual economic iznpects. 

3. Comment: Some commenters 

pointed out that the new source limits 

for cadmium wc:e not supported by 

historical performance data. However. 

no commenters submitted data on 

performance capabilities of new source 

technology. 

Reaper, as: New ~kmrce standards for 

cadmium arc based on control 

technology which ~:~ designed to reduce 

cadmium in westewater discharge from 

cadmium sources, e,g. cadmium plating, 

chromating of cadmium plated parts, 

and acid cleaning of cadmium plated 

parts. The new source standards for 

cadmium are based on the amounts of 

cadmium expected as a background 

level to be found in wastewaters from 

plants not involved with cadmium 

plating. The standards wero'determinmi 

from data on concentrations observed in 

untreated waetewater from metal 

finishing plants that do not plate 

cadmium. It represents the amount of 

cadmium present from incidental 

sources, when the principal c,.dmium 

sources ore full controlled..Tbe data 

consist of 61 observations from27 

plants. The data were divided it.to 

statistically hoL~ngoneot, s Foups by 

plant, The average upon which the 

standards were based was taken from 

the group with the hls~est average 

cadmium concentration. Estimatec of 
II 

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 137 I F~day, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations II I I I I I II " I " - II i I • I I 

variability used in determinin ~ the limits 

w, ra obtained from the two highest 

groups. This was somewhat 

conservative~ becanseprecipit, fion/ 

clarification systems should achieve 

significant further removals from these 

t~w waste streams. 

The Agency also checked the 

consistency of the limit with c]ata from 

EPA sampled precipitation/clarification 

systems. These data indicated that the 

new source limit could be achieved 

alternatively by using precipitation/ 

clarification, rather than total control of 

the principal cadmium source. Thie 

review included plants with cadmium 

raw wastes of from 0.012 to 1.88 mall. 

The Agency also reviewed the data base 

used to develop the cadmium iimit to 

verify that ft ~cluded all available data 

from non-c,,dmium plating plants. Prior 

to promulgation costs were also reexamined to include expenses for 

control of chrematin8 and acid cleaning 

of cadmium plated parts, in addition to 

controlling cadmium plating which was 

assessed in the proposal. 

4. Comment: Commenters suggested 

various averasin 8 times as the basis for 

monthly limitations, including @day, 30- 

day, and "N" day averase~ 

Response: The ABet'-,..has evaluated 

the merits of the su88e~tc~t alternatives 

and decided ~hat an average of ten 

samples {obtained withi~l a one-month 

l, eriod} would provide a ~easonable 

basis for montLly limitations, 

minimizing the number of sarr, ples 

necessary. 

• Although it is not anticipated that a 

monitoring frequenc,/of 10 times per 

r~onth will always be ~'. ,,uired. the cost 

of this frequency of munttoring is 

presented in the economic impact 

analysis to t,m metal finishing 

regulaCon. That frequency was selected 

because if facilities sample lO times per 

month they can expect a compliance 

rate of approximately 99 percent, if they 

are operating at the expected mean and 

variability. Plant personnel, in 

agreement with the control authority. 

may choose to take fewer samples if 

their U'eatment system achieves better 

long term coP~entrations or lower 

variabili~ ~han the basis for the limits, 

,r it plant personnel are willin8 to 

accept a statistical possibility of 

increased violations. The 10 sample 

monthly limit is con~istent with other 

regulations and recent proposals for 

other metals industries, e.g., porcelain 

enameling, coil coating, batteries, 

copper, and aluminum forming. 

The @day average is an inadequate 

measure of treatment system 

performance over extended periods. 

This basis was used for the 

electroplating roles only under the 

special circumstances of a Se*.tlement 

Agreement. 

The N~qy average suggested by two 

commenters was considered by the 

Agency but was rejected as 

unnecessarily complex and likely to 

create confusion for both dischargers 

and control authorities. 

5. Comment: Commenters disagreed 

on the desirability or need to rescind the 

electroplating regulations for captive 

electroplaters upon the compliance date 

of the .'-aetal finishing PSES. 

Response: The Part 413 Electrop|ating 

PSES will no !oP~er be applicable to 

captive electroplating when they must 

comply with the Metal Finishing PSES 

for metals and cyanide is reached. 

Captive electmplaters will then be 

regulated under the Part 433 Metal 

Finishing PSES. There is no need to 

maintain two sets of requirements for 

the same pollutants at the same plants. 

If, for some.reason, Part 433 should 

become inapplicable, then Part 413 will 

apply to them. 

6. Comment: The majority of 

commenters responding to the question 

of the PSES compliance date stated that 

Match 30,1984 war . .~ot provide 

sufficient time for compliance. 

Response: To allow facilities 

sufficient time to install or upgrade the 

necessary treatment systems, the 

Agency is establishing the compliance 

date of the metal finishing PSES for 

metals and cyanide to be 31 months 

from the date of promulgation. This 

extension is based on an Agency study 

which showed that 31 months is 

required to plan, design, and install the 

recommended treatment technology. 

This extension does r.~t apply to 

compliance with the tox~. e :ganic~ limit. 

however. For Metal Finishihg PSES, an 

interim TTO level must be achieved by 

June 30, 1984, based on no end-of-pipe 

treatment, and the final TFO limit based 

on end-of-pipe treatment must be 

achieved 31 months from the date of 

promulgation. For Electroplating PSES, 

the "]WO compliance date is 3 years from 

promulgation of this rulemaking. That 

allows the job shop and IPCBM sectors 

the maximum allowable ~ime for 

compliance under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA. 

7. CarameL, t: Commenters stated that 

the proposed lead limit was not 

achievable based m, the technology 

recomme-ded. Some argued that plants 

with high raw waste lead values were 

not adequately represetded in the data 

base. One commentar subm!ited 

additional data. 

Response: The Agency reviewed the 

lead data base to assure that all usable 

data from plants having a I~ad source 

were included. BPA did consider some 

additional self-monitoring data that 

wen found to be applicable and 

excluded data from an originallyconsidered plant which was not 

adequately controlling wastewaters. The 

revised EPA data base was used to 

derive a final lead limit. The daily 

maximum for lead has been changed 

slightly from 0.67 rag/! to 0.89 mg/l. The 

Agency also examined data submitted 

during the comment period. These data 

were not included because of 

inadequate treatment design and/or 

operation. For example. TSS values as 

•high as 119 mg/l were submitted, oil and 

grease was as high as 1395 mg/l and 

hexavalent chromium was as high as 

1.21 mg/l. An examination of the 

possible effect of including the 

commenter's data for lead revealed that 

only a slight change in the limit would 

have occu~'ed. 

8. Comment: Some commenters 

suggested a small plant exemption from 

the Metal Finishing regulations, a.guing 

that an exemption should be granted 

similar to that provided by Part 413 for 

plants ~'i~charging less than 10,00(3 

gallons p~r day. 

Response: Small indL'ect discharging 

facilities { <10.000 GPD discharge) were 

given less stringent requirements in the 

Electroplating Pt~etreatment Standards. 

Many of these facilities are job shops 

and for the reasons stated above will 

not be covered by the Part 43~ 

requirements. 

'I~e Agency re-examined the effect of 

the ~ drt 433 metal finishing regulations 

3n small facilities, and. has determined 

that because job shops and IPCBMs are 

exempted from the metal finishing PSES 

there would be no significant economic 

impacts if the remainder were covered 

by the metal finishing standards. Ft,~ 

indirect captives discharging less than 

10,000 GPD. the investment cost would 

amount to $36 million with annual costs 

of $12 million. There are no estimated 

plant closure or divestitures. A small 

facility exemption is not warranted for 

the Metal Finishing regulation. 

9. Comment: Some commenters stated 

that the addition of a 3"I"O limit to the 

Electroplating PSES is a violation of the 

NAMF Settlement Agreement. 

Response: Under the March ~980 

Settlement Agreement the Agency 

agreed that: 

any further BAT analog standards will be 

based on treatment te~h~logy compatible 

with the model technolqg upon which theem 

standards were based .... In developtn8 

BAT analog standards for the industry, EPA 

wql take into account the cumulative impact 

ot these' cPr" .'..$ulations In determining 

what is "economically acl,.levable."" " "As 

m this segment of the metal [inlehin 8 tndust W 
f 

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 1% 1983 / Rules and Regulations -% 

that is economically vulnerable, EPA does 

not believe that more stringent regulations 

are now economically : chievable. Therefore, 

EPA does not plan to develop mare stringent 

new pretreament standards for .... job shop" 

metal finishin 8 segment in the next several 

yea~. Nor does EPA plan to develop in the 

next several years more stringent standards 

for the independent printed circuit board 

segment where significant economh: 

vulnerability also exists. 

EPA is not imposing metals and 

cyanide limitations more stringent than 

":hose specifier] in the Part 413 existing 

applicable pretreatment standards', 

despite evidence that such limits can be 

reliably achieved by the technology that 

forms the basis of the current standards. 

Indirect discharging job s;mp and 

independent printed circuit board 

facilities are expected to incur costs 

only to comply with the TTO limitation 

which is being added to the 

electroplating pretreatment s.andards in 

Part 413. This TrO limitation is included 

in the regulation because it will 

substantially red||ce a significant toxic 

"~roblem, while compliance wtl~ cause 

negligible econon:.~c impacts on these 

industry sectors. Compliame with the 

'oxic organic standard (;an oe achieved 

by good management practices {i.e., not 

dumping waste solvent~ into the 

wastewaters}. No additional end-of-pipe 

technology {beyond that required for 

metals removed) is necessary. 

Even under very conservative 

estimates only 77 of an estimated 2734 

indirect dischargi.~g job shops and 88 of 

the 327 indirect independent printed 

circuit board manufacturers may incur 

costs to comply with the Tro standard. 

Total annual costs for all plants of 

$222,500 and "~4,300 respectiveFy are 

projected Jar the t o sectors. The 

average annual c:~, per facility to 

comply with the TrO limitations is 

approxi,~, ately $2900, primarily for 

m, mpling and analysis. No closures or 

employment effects are projected for 

these sectors. Production cost increases 

are expected not to exceed 0.03 percent 

for the two sectors. 

The economic impact analysis also 

perfor|||ed two sensitivity analyses: the 

first with a greater number of plants 

monitoring and, the second, with plants 

monitozing monthly instead of quarterly. 

Both changes led to only slightly 

different impacts. At most only one 

plant w~uld be affected. All scenarios 

were found to be eccept.,ble and 

economically achievable. Thus the TrO 

limits are not "more Stringent 

standards" in the sense of the 

Settlement Agreement, which expr~ sly 

tied "stringency" to "economic 

vulnerability". 

Finally, the Tro limits heed not be 

comolfed w~th before 1986. T!ms, even if 

control of TTO were considered 

significantly more stringent the time 

allowed for compliance will amount tO 6 

years from the date of the Settlement 

Agreement. That fulfills the Agericy's 

1980 obligation not to develop 

significantly more stringent standards 

for those facilities for the next several 

years. 

10. Commem: some commenters 

stated that the proposed Tro limit could 

not be met using a combination of 

~olvent management and common 

metals treatment. Several commenters 

also pointed out that plants previously 

in compliance with the metals 

limitations under Electroplating PSES 

may now require installation of common 

metals treatment to meet the Tro liz,dt. 

Response: The Agency has reviewed 

the TTO data base, reevaluated the 

mean and variability factor, and revised 

the effluent limit for "I~O. TBe major 

factor contributing to the change was 

the examination of the TTO levels at 

certain groupings of plants. The most 

no:able discove,'T -,~s that plants that 

pe~'formed both so,~ent degreasing and 

painting tended to have the highest 

background concentrations of any 

process grouping. The limit has been 

basedon these plants. Where plants are 

otherwise subject to a regulation whose 

technology basis includes precipitation/ 

clarification for removal of metals, the 

TTO limit has been based on effluent 

data from precipitation/clarification 

treatment syster, m. We have also 

established a "Fro limit of 4.57 mg/l 

based on o,dy management practices. 

This limit s being used as an interim 

requi: :ment prior to installation of 

pollution/equivalent to precipitation/ 

clarifica':,,,l, and for plants discharging 

less then 10,000 gpd and now covered by 

the Part 413 Electroplating PSES. Thus 

today's regulation specifies an interim 

TTO limit for small p]ants{ <10.000 

gallons per day) because these plants 

may not already have common metals 

treatment in place. Furthe~ more. the 

Agency notes that most facilities should 

be capable of achieving compliance with 

the ultimate TI'O standard even without 

end-of-pipe treatment, simply through 

strict management control of toxic 

organics. 89% of the .'Fro data prior to 

end-of.pipe '.reatment would comply 

with the finalTTO limit ~'ased on the 

inclusion of preclpitatlon/clarification. 

11. Comment: Several commenters 

recommended an amenable cyanide 

limit as an alternative to a total cyanide 

limit because amenable cyanide more 

accurately reflects the performance of 

alkaline chlorination treat,,ent. 

Response: Most facilities should be 

able to meet the total cyanide limit.. 

However, sufficient information has 

been presented on cyanide formulations 

and formation of complexes to support 

the possibility that a significant 

population could fail to meet the 

limitations. The technology basis is 

alkaline chlorination which destroys 

amenable cyanides. Thus, the final rules 

include an alternative cyanide limit for 

plants generating significant quantities 

of complexed cyanide. The data and 

basic calculations for the alternative 

cyanide limit were presented in the 

proposed development document. The 

~gency rejected specifying a limit only 

for amenable cyanide. While complexed 

cyanide are substantially less toxic, a 

review of literature indicates that 

significant transformatioin of complexed 

cyanides into amenable cyanides will 

occur in the aquatic environment due to 

the presence of sunlighL If any water 

quality problems occur due to the use of 

this alternative, the control authority 

should examine alternative 

technologies, i.e., precipitation with 

ferrous sulfate 

12. Comment: Seve~i commenters 

suggested that fluor,Je, iron. and 

hexavalent chromium be regulated. 

Response: The Agency did not 

establish limitations for fluorides, iron. 

or hexavalent chromium because it was 

determined that these p. mmeters were 

{1) not present in sufficiently hie~L 

quantities to warrant regulation or {2} 

, .ould be removed by controlling a 

regulated parameter 

The historical performance data for 

flouride in effluent from plants with 

Option I treatment systems shows that 

the mean concentration was 6.58 n~g/l: 

well below levels required by 

categorical regulations for other 

industries, i.e., inorgani~ chemicals, and 

electrical and electronic cn~ponents 

(phase I). 

Iron was not selected for regulation 

because it would be substantially 

reduced during proper precipitation/ 

clarification t~atment. Thus control of 

regulated pollutantswill also effect 

control of iron. 

A limit was not established for 

hexavalent ~,nromium because it will be 

controlled by regulating total chromium. 

The technology basis does include the 

cost for hexavalent chromium stream 

segregation and reduction. P,s stated in 

the development document, chemical 

hexavaletd chromium reduction can 

readily achieve final hexo,~alent 

chromium concentratious of 0.16 mall 

for a daily maximum and 0.10 mS/I for a 

maximum monthly average, 

Additionally, monltorin8 for total 
Fedm'al Registe¢ / Vol. 48, No. 137 I Friday, ]uly 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations - - IL I I I " , = = [ I I'-

chromium has a distinct cost advantage 

e~er monitorin 8 for hexavalent and 

subsequently trivalent chromium. If any 

of these or other parameters reuse 

problems with achieving local water 

quality req,,irements, then the control 

authority must specify further 

requirements on a plant-by-plant basis. 

13. Comment: Several commenters 

stated ~at F_.PA's method for 

distributin 8 costs for indirect 

dischargers between the Part 413 

electroplatin8 and the Part 433 metal 

finishing regulations is misleading p, -; 

unrealistic. Electroplatin 8 compliance 

costs for captive indirect dischargers 

have not yet been incurred. When these. 

p~ants do comply, it will be with both 

regula~ons in a one-time investment. 

Therefore, no costs should be attributed 

to Electroplatin8: rather, all costs should 

be considered as Me~al Fix.ishing 

compliance costs. 

Response: The fact that a company 

may make a one time investment doesn't 

necessarily mean that all the costs 

should be attr;'~uted to the P.art 433 

Metal Finishing Standard. The 

compliance date for Part 433is now 

generally two years after compliance is 

required by Part 413. 

When EPA conducts its economic 

analysis of a guideline, it identifies the 

incremental costs and impac:s, as well 

as the incremental pollutant |,.morals. 

of that particular guideline. If other 

previously promulgated regulations 

pertain to the same indust~-= the costs 

and associated pcUutant removals 

would have been identified in previous 

economic and environmental analyses. 

With the m~'al fini3hing regulation, the 

electroplating costs are baseline costs; 

the will occur even if metal finishing is 

not promulgated. Costs and impacts of 

metal finishing are incremental to 

electroplating; the effect of 

electroplating isn't negated or obviated 

because it may be more efficie-1 for 

plants to make a one time inw ~,ment. 

For non-integrated capti-Je indirect 

dischargers [more than 10.000gallons 

per day). this incremental investment 

cost is zero. Non-i,tegrated facE:,ties 

discharge process wastewaters from 

electroplating operations only. Althoustz 

these wastewaters are covered by metal 

finishing standards which are more 

stringent than elect ,'opiating standards. 

the treatment systf m installed to meet 

the electroplating ctandards will be 

sufficien: ~.~ meet the metal finishing 

limits. This treatment system will be the 

same whether or not metal finishing is 

promulgated. The costs associ'ted with 

installation of this treatment system 

have already been included in the 

electroplating analys!s and there is no 

need to include them in the -natal 

finishing regulatory costs. 

For integrated captive indirect 

dischargers, the incremental investment 

cost is not zero. Integrated facilities 

discharge wastewaters from other types 

of processes in addition to 

eiectroplating. Although the facility may 

segregate its electroplating effluent 

stream for treazment, it is usually more 

economical to combine waste streams 

and bu~.'d a single treatment facility. 

This t;eatment facility will be larger 

than the facility which would have been 

constructed to ~at a segregated 

electroplatipg effluent stream alone. The 

costs assigned to metal fini.~ ,ire 

those incremental costs over .,(, above 

the amount that would have been spent 

for treatment of the segregated 

electroplating effluent stream. 

Finally, as noted above. EPA did 

assess the combined inpact of today's 

regulatiop and the electroplating 

pretreatment regulations on the captive 

integrated indirect discharging sector of 

the industry, assuming both costs would 

be borne at the same time. The impacts 

are the same as tho~e due to the 

electroplating preh J,ment standards 

alone. No additional closures. 

divestitures, or unemployment effects 

are expected from the more stringent 

standards promulgated today. 

14. Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Agency sn,mld do a 

Regulatory unpact Analysis as required 

by Executive Order 12291. 

Response: F-:ecutive Order 12291 does 

not require a Rea"alatory Impact 

Analysis where its consideration would 

conflict with the development of 

regulation' pursuant to a court order, as 

with this metal finish{ng regulation. EPA 

has prepared, however, an analysis that 

contains many of the elements of a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. Thi~ report 

is included in the public record for this 

regulation. 

15. Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Metal Finishing 

Guidelines are not economically 

achievable. 

Response'. EPA's Economic Anolysis 

of Proposed Effluent Stondords and 

Limitotions for the Metal Finishh:g Industry provides an in-depth analysis 

of the economic impacts of the proposed 

glddelines, This analysis considet's the 

compliance costs [both capital and 

annual} for two regulatory options, The 

economic impacts in terms of plant 

closures, process divestitures. 

employment losses, and cost increases 

are also presented for both options. 

Analysis result', ,re presented for each 

segment of the industry, that is bein 8 

regulated: direct discharging !ob shops 

and captives, indirect discharging job 

shops and captives, and integrated 

printed circuit board manufactures. 

Results for Option 1, the selected 

option, are summarized on Exhibit 1--4 

and I--5 of the referenced report. 11ze 

direct discharging segment {both j-,b 

shops ~nd captives} will incur costs to 

comply with the TTO limitation only. 

Indirect discharging job shops and 

independent printed circuit boards also 

will incur costs to comply with the TTO 

standard only, Annual compliance costs 

at these facilities are less than $2,900. 

No closqres or employment effects are 

projected. Indirect discharging captives 

will incur a total of $116 million in 

annual compliance costs. The analysis 

indicates that this segment is composed 

primarily of large plants, many of .which 

are members of diversified industrial 

corporations. As a result, there are no 

projected impacts among captive plants. 

The costs of production for indirect 

discharging captives are projected to 

increase from 0.2 io 1.0 percent. 

The absence of closure or employment 

effects combined with a small inc,"ease 

in the cost of production rangin 8 f,-om 

0.2 to 1.0 percent for al! plants covered 

by the metal finishing regulation 

indicaze that the guidelines are 

economically achievable. 

16. Comment: Commenter~ :estioned 

the assumption that captive .f .-ations 

have no capital availability problem 

They say that the economic conditions 

have changed and capital avai!ahility 

could indeed be a problem. 

Response: Changes in the availability 

of capital are reflected :~ the cost of 

capital. To reflJc~ the increase in the 

cost of capital, EPA adjusted ils nominal 

cost of capital ass,lmption in the 

Economic Impa~t Analysis t~ 13 pe;cent 

from the 10 p,~rcent cost of capital used 

in the proposed regulation. To the extent 

that an increase in the cost of capital is 

a problem today for metal finishers, it 

would show up in the impact analysis 

conducted under the higher cost of 

capital. No changes in closures or 

divestitures resulted from the increased 

co~t of capital assumption. 

17 Comment: Several commenters 

stated that E~A did not properly 

consider the impact on small businessb,,, 

specifically the costs of compliance and 

restdtant economic impacts for captive 

indirect dischargers whose 

electroplatlng process flow is less than 

10,000 gpd. EPA implicitly assumed that 

all of these plants are in compliance 

with the Electroplatin 8 Pretreatment 

Standards, but in fact these Standards 

exempte~ plants from compliance 

whose flow were less than 10,000 pod 

Therefore. they will incur costs and 
III 

Federal Reglster / Vol. 48, No. J,37 / Friday, ]ul.v 15, Z983 / Rules and Regulations amSl I I I -r I 

economic impacts to compiy with Metro 

Finishing Guidelines. 

Response: The ~ommenters are 

correct. The agency has si-'ce analyzed 

the impact on indirect discharging 

captives with metal finishing process 

flows of less than 10,000 LTpd. The 

analysis concluded that a total of 912 

plants will incur compliance costs. The 

tots! capital cost of compliance for this 

universe is estimated at $3= ¢ million with 

annual costs of $12 mfiJion. No closures 

or employment effects are projected for 

this industry segmenL 

18. Comment: Commenters questioned 

the assumption that the metal finishing 

demand curve is inelastic. 

Response: Metal finished products 

face a wide range of deri, and 

elasticities. However, ther., are no good 

substitutes for metal finishing due to the 

quality it imparts on rmterials. As a 

result, an increase in the cost of metal 

finishing will not bring a more than 

proportional decrease in the use of 

metal finishing. The analysis assuraed 

that demand for metal finishing is in the 

inelastic range but did not assume that 

all c~ ~t increases could bepassed 

through. In fact, the captive closure 

analysis assumes that a plant's captive 

operations will not be able to pass 

through a pollution control cost increase 

if it amounts to more than 5 percent of 

their tota! revenue. If the ratio of annual 

costs to total revenue was larger than 5 

percent, the plant war projected to 

close. 

19. Comment: Commenters stated that 

theythought capt;ve facitities will be at 

a competitive disadvantage because job 

shops are exempted from metal finishing 

standards 

Response: Captives are very rarely in 

direct competition with job shops, vying 

for the same customers. Captive platers. 

by definition, service their own f;rm's 

needs. A captive firm will maintai;t -

platipg process for its cost advantages. 

scheduling control• and specialty 

processes. In the Agency's survey of 

captive facilities, over 64 percent 

indicated they performed metal finishing 

in-house because it was either less 

expensive to do so or the work flow 

didn't allow interruption of work. It is 

true that job shops will often receive a 

-:~ptive's overflow work, but this does 

not make them price competitors. Also. 

almost three-fourths of the indirect 

discharging captive facilities and all 

direct discharging captives and job 

shops already have treatment in place. 

To the extent theremay be changes in 

the competitive position of captives 

versus job shops, most of these changes 

would have occurred already. Finally. 

indirect dlschm'glng job shops were 

exempted from the metal finishing 

regulation specifically because of their 

economic vulnerability. Job shops tend 

to I~ much smaller than captives: they 

average 26 employees and $1.3 million in 

sales versus over 100 employees and $14 

million in sales for captives. 

20. Comment: A comment was made 

that the definition of a job shop may 

force some "job shops" to be c!assified 

as captives. 

Response: EPA proposed a definition 

of job shops based on 50% ownership of 

treated material. This is in accord with 

existing practice by an overwhelming 

portion of "he affected industry. An 

examination of the survey of job shops 

revealed that 95% of the facilities stated 

that their work was either 100% job 

ordered or 100% captive. Only 0.26% of 

the facilities reported that more than 

25% but less than 50%, of their 

production was done on materials 

owned by others. 

The final definition of a job shop has 

been modified slightly, making the 

measurement of"not more than.50% 

ownershi?" on a yearly basis. This 

responds to a commenters' fear of 

repeated recla, ~;fication as a re.sult of 

business trans ..:'dons. Now facilities 

will not be reclassified on a day-to-day 

basis. 

The definition is also appropriate 

because, the fact that a facility is 

purchasing .materials to be processed 

indicates some availability of cap.:-3l, if 

~n the less stringent Part 413 

require.r;:ents are less appropriate for 

~conomic reasons. 

The agency considered various job 

shop definitions from commentors and 

trade association by-taws, including: 

• "' .s its major operation the 

application of a surface treatment to the 

products of others." 

• "A shop which has purchased 

orders from more than 50 percent of the 

materials in process." 

• "Parts to be finished are transported 

from the customer's plant to the 

finishers and then back." 

• "As its major operation the 

applicution of a surface treatment to t.e 

products of others." 

• "A metal finisher who works to 

other's specifications, making his 

services, available to the public at all 

limes." 

While some of these, notably the first, 

are close to the proposed and final 

definitions, all suggestions included 

substantial ambiguity. In light of the 

relaxed standards for job shops it is 

important that the definition be precise 

and that captive shops not evade Part 

433 merc'y by taking on nominal outside 

orders. EPA therefore chose a bright-line 

lest that cleady expressed the 

overwhelmingly prevailing practice 

the industry. 

EPA's definition is con;hstent wzth our 

1978 survey of the industry, which asked 

for the "percent of electroplating done 

on materials owned by oth~'s [basis 

area plated}" and further defmed a job 

slop as "a manufacturing operation " 

performing work on materials owned by 

others." 

XX. Avaflab'dlty of Tedmical 

Information 

The basis for this regulation is 

detailed in four major documenLr. 

Analytical methods are discussed ix, 

Samplin 8 and Analysis Procedures ]or 

Screening of Industrial E~luents lot 

Priority Pullutants. EPA'a technical 

conclusions are detailed in Development 

Documentfor Effluent Guidelines. New 

Source Performance Stands "', and 

Pretreatment Standards for L'.~ Metal 

Finishing Point Source Cat~. ~ry. The 

Agency's economic analysis ~s 

presented T~I Economic lmpoct Anolysis of Effluent Limitations and Standards 

for the Meto] Finishing IndustJy. A 

summary of the public comments 

received on the propos'-~ regulation.is 

presented in a report "Responses to 

PObi;~'. Comments, Proposed Metal 

Finishing Ffffluent Emidelines and 

Standards." which is part of the public 

record for this regulation. 

Technical information may be 

obtaia~.d by writing to Richard Kinch, 

Effluex~t Guidelines Division {~VH-~2) 

EPA, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, 

D.C. 20460 or by call~,'Ng{202} 38Z--7159. 

Additional information concerning h~te 

economic impact analysis may be 

obtained from Ms. Kathleen 

F_.hrensberger. ~mics Bram:h 0Aq-D 

586}, EPA, 401 M Street. S.W.. 

Washington. D.C. 20460 or by calling 

(202) 382-5397. 

Copies of the technical and economic 

documents will be available from the 

National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 2Z161, (703) 487-

4650. 

XXI. OMB Pa~vtew 

This regulation was submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget for 

rev'ew, as required by Executive Order 

127.ql. No written comments were 

recaive.d. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980 {Pub, L 96-511}, 

the reporting and recmdkeepin8 

provisions ~:,'t 40 UPR 41&08 and 4,~.12 

that are tnduded k this resubtfion will 

be s~Smitted for approval to OMB. They 

are not effective until OMit appmvnl has 

been obtained and the ",'tblic is notified 
II 

~ASZ Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations I I Ill[ 

to that effect through a technic~l 

amendment to this regulation. 

~LXII.Ust of subjects 

40 CFR Port 413 

Electroplating, Metals. Water 

pollution control, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

40 C" : "t 433 

Elec,roplating, Metals, Water 

pollution control, Waste treatment and 

disposal. 

Dated: July 5. i983. 

William D. Ruckelshaus, 

Administrator. 

Authority: Sees. 301. 304. 306. 307. 308. and 

501 of the Clean Water Act {the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 eL seq., as amended by 

the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217). 

[Note.~These appendices will not appear 

in the CIR.] 

XXlll. 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 

economicaP, y achievable under Section 

304{b)(2)(B) of the Act. 

BCT--The best conventional pollutant 

control technology, under Sectio~ 

304(bj{4) of the Act. 

BMPS---Best management practices 

under Section 30~{e) of the Act. • 

BPT--The best practicable control 

tech."'flogy' currently available u.lder 

SectzLa 304{b)(II of the Act. 

Captive--A facility which owns more 

than 50% {annual area basis} of the 

materials undergoing ,u~ --^tni r~ in'st hi!ng.

Clean Water Act {alga ,,~ Act '}- 

The Fede, al Water Pollution C~ntrol. Act 

Amendments of 1972 {33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.), as amended by the Clean Water 

Act of 1977 [Pub. L. 95L217}. 

Development Document-- 

Development Document .for Effluent 

L/mitotions, Guidelines, and Standards 

for the Meto; "inishing Point Source 

Category, EPA 440-I-80-091-A, June 

1980. 

Direct discharger--A facility that 

discharges or may discharge pollutants 

into waters of the United States. 

Indirect discharger--A facility that 

discharges' or may discharge pollutants 

into a publicly owned treatment works. 

Job Shop--A facility which owns not 

more than 50% {anp'tal area basis) of the 

materials undergmng metal finishing. 

Integrated facility--One that performs 

electroplating operations (including 

electroplatingb, electroless plating, 

che'~ical etching and milling, anodizing, 

~oating, and printed circuit board 

manufacturing} as ovly one of st v~rai 

operations necessary for manufacture of 

a product at a single physical location, 

and has significant quantities of process 

wastewater from non-electroplating 

operations. In addition, to qualify ae 

"integrated," a facility must combine 

one or more plant electroplating process 

wastewater lines before or at the point 

of treatment (or proposed z:-eatment) 

with one or more plant sewers carryint" 

process wastewater from nc ,.- 

electroplating manufacturing operator., 

NPDES Permit--A National Polluta.d 

Discharge Elimination System permit 

issued under Section 402 of the Act. 

NSuS---New Source performance 

stan, ~'ds promulgated under Section 

306 of (he Act. 

POTW--Publicly owned treatment 

work:. 

PSES.--pretreatment standards for 

existing .sources of indirect discharges 

promulgated under Section 307(b} of the 

Act. 

PSNS---Pretreatment standards for 

new sources of direct discharges, 

promulgated under Section 307 (b) and 

[c) of the Act. 

RCRA~Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (Pu~ ' 94-J89} of 1976, 

Amendments to Sand Waste Disposal 

Act, as amended. 

TrO---Total Toxic Organics is the 

summation of all values greater than .01 

milligrams per l~ter for each of the 

specified toxic organics. 

Appendix ~-,=Pollutants Excluded From 

Regulation. 

(1) Toxic Pollutants---found in only a 

small number of sources and effectively 

controlled by the technologies on which 

the limits, 'e based: 

Antimony

Arsenic 

Asbestos 

Beryllium 

Mercury 

Selenium 

Thallium 

(2) Conventional Pollutants: 

BOB 

Fecal Coliform 

Appendix C---Unit Operations in the 

Metal Finishing Industry 

1, @Electroplating 

2. Electroiess Plating 

3. Anodizing 

4. Coating [Chromating, Phosphating, 

and Coloring] 

5. Chemical Etching and Milling 

6. Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing 

7. Cleaning 

8. Machining 

9. Grindin~ 

10. Polishing 

11. Tumbling 

12. Burnishing 

13. Impact Deformation 

14. Pressure Deformation 

15. Shearing 

16. Heat Treating 

17 TI', ,rma! Cutting 

18. Welding 

19. Brazing 

20. Soldering 

21. Flame Spraying 

22. Sane Blasting 

23. Other Abrasive Jet Machining 

24. Ele ~tric Discharge Machining 

25. Electrochemical Machining 

26. Elet;tron Beam Machining 

27. Laser Beam Machining 

28. Plasma Arc Machining 

29. Ultrasonic Machining 

30. Sintering 

31. Laminating 

32. Hot Dip Coating 

33. Sputtering 

34. Vapor Plating 

35. Thermal Infusion 

36. Salt Bath Descaling 

37. Solvent Degreasing 

38. Paint Stripping 

39. Painting 

40. Electrostatic Painting 

41. Electropainting 

42. Vaco,,m Metalizinf 

43. Assembly 

44. Calibration 

45. Testing 

46. Mechanical Plating 

PART 413.-ELECTROPLATING PO,'.N~r 

SOURCE CATEGORY 

For the reasons stated above, EPA is 

amending P~:rt 413 of 40_ CFR. Chapter 1 

as follows: 

1. Section 413.01 is amended by 

revising paragraph {a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 413.01 Applicability and ¢~Jmptiance 

dates. 

[a) This part shall apply to 

electroplating operations in which metal 

is electroplated on any basis materi~l 

and to related metal finishing operations 

as set forth in the various su..parts, 

whether such operations are conducted 

in conjunction with electroplating, 

independently, or as part of some other 

operation. The compliance deadline for 

metals ~nd cyanide at integrated 

facilities shall be June 30, 1984. The 

compliance dat for metals and cyanide 

at non-integrated facilities shall be April 

27, 1984. Complis.~ce with TTO for all 

facilities ~hali be July 15, 19867 These 

' The Copsent Dem ,~e in NRDC v, T~in, 12 ERC 

1833(D.D,C, 1979} specific* • compliance date for 

PSF.$ of no later than ]une 80, I~II, EPA has moved 

for e modification of that provision of the Dec.tee 

Sh,.',d.I the Coati deny that motion, EPA will he 

reqvimd to modify this compliance dale 

accurdln813 . 
Federal Register / Vol. II II I I 

Part 413 standards s;~all not apply to a 

factory which must comply with all the 

pollutant limitations listed in § 433.15 

[metal finishing PSES). 

• • * *t t 

2. Sectio- ;13.02 is amended by 

adding a new paragrapl~ (i). as follows: 

§ 4t3.02 General definitions. 

• • • 41 • 

[i} the term "TTO" shall mean total 

toxic organics, which is the summation 

of all quantifiable values greater than 

0.ol milligrams per liter for the following 

toxic organics: Acenaphthene 

Aerolein 

Acwlonitrile 

Benzene 

Benzidine 

Carbon tetrachlodde 

{tetrachloromethane}

Chiorobcnzene 

1.2A-trichlorobenzene 

Hexachlorobenzene 

1.2-dichloroethan~ 

t.ltl-tdchloroethane 

I {exachloroethane 

l.l-dichloroethane 

1;,'.~-trichloroethane 

1.1.2.2-tetrachloroethane 

Chloroethane 

Bis {2-c.h~oroethyl) ether 

2-chloroethyl vinyl ether 

(mixed]

2-chloronaphthalene

2.4.6-trichlorophenol 

P~rachlorometa cresol 

Chloroform [trichloromethane} 

2-chlorophenol

1,2-dichiorobenzene

t .3-dichlorobenzene 

1.4-dichlorobenzene 

3.3-dichlorobenzidine 

1,1-dichloroethylene 

1.2-trans-dichloroethytene 

2.4-dichlorophenol 

1.2-dich[oropropane 

|l.3-dichloropropene| 

2A-dimethy[pheno[ 

2.~,-dinitroto[uene

2,6-dinitrotoluene 

1,2-diphenylhydr~zine

Ethylbenzene 

Fluoranthene 

4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 

4-br.~mmphenyl phenyl ether 

Bis (2-ch[oroisopropyl) ether 

Bis {2-ch[oroethoxy~ methane 

Methylene chloride 

(dichh~romelhane] 

• Methyl chloride 

{ch[oromethanel 

Mothy" 3romlde [bromomelhane) 

Bromoform {tribromomethane) 

Dichlombromomethane 

Chlorodibromomethane 

Hexach]orobutad|ene

Ilexachlorocyciopentadlene 

lsophorone

N.phtiJelene

Niirobenzene 

48, No. 137 / Friday, july 15, 1983 / • III I 

2-nitmpheno|

4-nitrophenoi

2,4-dinitrophenol

4.fl-dinttro-o-cresoi 

N-hitrosedin~ethylamine 

N-nitrosodiphenylamine 

N-nitrosodi-n-propy|amine 

Pentachlorophelnol

Phenol 

Bis [2-ethylhexyl) phthal-~te 

Butyl benzyl phthaiate Di-n-buty] phthalate 

Di-n-octyl phthalate Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate 

1.2-benzanthracene 

(benzo(alantt :acenel 

Benzo(alpyrene (3,4-benzoPyrene} 3A-Benzofluoranthene 

(benzo{b)fluo.an(henet

11.12-benzofluoranthene 

Coenzo{k}fluoranthene} 

Chrysene 

Acenaphthylene 

Anthracene 

1.12-bvnzoperylene 

{benzo[ghilpery. [ene) 

Fluorene 

Phenanthrene 

1,2.5.6-dibenzanthracene 

(dibenzola~lanthracene]

Indeno (1.7~3-.cd)pyrene) 

{2,3-o-phenylene F "'~.ne} 

Pyrene

Tetrachiomethylene 

Toluene 

Trichloroethylene 

Vinyl chloride [chloroethylene} 

Aldrin 

Dieldrin 

Chlordane {technical mixture and 

metabolites} 

4.4-DDT 

4.4-DDK(p,p-DOX)

4.4-DDD (p.w'rDE) 

Alpha-endosulfan

Beta-endosulfan 

Endosul" n sulfate 

E-ldrin 

Endrin aldehyde Heptac' -- ! [eptacblor epoxide (BHC-hexschlorocyclohexune} 

AIph~-gHC

Beta-BHC 

Gamma-BHC 

Delta-BHC 

[PCB-polychlorinated biphenyls) PL"B-12"~. ;Arochlor 1242) 

PCB-1254 {Aroc.hlor 12&l)

PCB-1221(Arochlor 1221) 

PCB-1232(Arochior1232}

PCB-1248 [Atochlor 1248) 

PCB-12OO'(Arochlor 1260} 

PCW1016[Arochlor 10161 

Toxapher~ 

2.3.7.8-t etrachlorodibenzop.dioxin (TCDD) 

3. Section 413.03 is amended by 

adding the following: 

§ 413,0S liloldtodn 0 Illqldrl~tlk 

(a) In lieu of monitoring for TTO, the 

control authority may allow industrial 

uses of POTWs to make th.~ following 

t:ertifioation as a comment to the 

Rules and Regulations PI III I IlL 

periodic reports required by J 403.12[e~ 

"Based on my inquiry of the person or 

persons directly responsible for 

managing compliance with thf 

pretreatment standard for total toxic 

organics ~'['O}, Pcertify that, to the beet 

of roy knowledge and belief, no damping 

of concentrated toxic organics into the 

wastewaters has occurred since filh~ 

the laJ( discharge monitoring report, i 

further certify that this facility is 

implementing the solvent management 

plan submitted to the control authority." 

(b} In requesting that no monitoring be 

required industrial users of POTWs 

shall submit a solvent management plan 

that specifies to the control authority's 

satisfaction the toxic organic 

compounds used: the method of disposal 

used instead of damping, such as 

reclamation, contract hauling, or 

incineration: and procedures for 

assuring that toxic organics do not 

routinely spill or leak into the 

wastewater. 

(c) if monitoring is necessary to 

measure compliance with the 'no 

standard the industrial user need 

analyze only for those pollutants which 

would reasonably ~? expected to be 

present. 

4.~tiun 413.14 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (f}, (8}, and (h], as 

follows: 

§ 413.14 Pmtreatnuffd standards f,e~; 

existing sources. t qk I et vk 

(f} In addition to paragraphs (a) and 

(b} the following limitation shall apply 

for plants discharging less than ~B,O031 

(10,000 gal) per calendar day of 

electroplatin 8 process wastewater. 

Maidmum for Pollutant or ~eilutmnt pm~m~/ amp1

cl~ 

T~O ............................................................. 

(g) In addition to parngraphs [a). (c). 

[d). and [e) the following limitation ahal~ 

apply for plants dischaq~in8 38000 1- 

(10,000 8al} or more per calendar day of 

electrop!ating process wastewatev 

I Ma~. ~lutan!o,~ ~ nmm tot 

TTO................................................................... ~ I+tS

(hi !~ ad.J,lon to paragraphs re). [b). 

{c). [d), Is). if). and [e) the following shall apply: An existing source 
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. i37 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations I ! Ill I ~ L I I 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

monitoring pursuant m § 4,13.03 of this 

r~ulation must implement the toxic 

organic management plan approved by 

the:control authority. 

5; Secton 413.24 is amended by adding 

paragraph (f), (g} and (h}, as follows: 

§ 413.24 IWetmatnmnt standards for 

e~ ~mmrces, • • ~l • • 

{f} In addition to paragraphs {a) and 

[b) the following limitation shall apply 

frr plants discharging less than 38,000 1 

[10,000 8al) per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater: 

Max~-

mum fo~ Point or pollutant proI~W a~yl 

TTO .................................................................................. 4.57 

(g) ,n addition to paragraphs (a), [c], 

(d}, and (el the following limitation shall 

apply for plants discharging 38,000 1 

{I0,000 gal) or more per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater: 

Ma~ 

or polt~ant ~olm~ mum for 

am/1 

day 

1"fO .............................................................................. 2.13 

(h) In addition to paragraphs {a), {b}, 

(c), [d), {e), {f), and (g) the following 

shall apply: An existing source 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this 

regulation must imple: ent the toxic 

organi c management l-,an approved by the control authority. 

6. Section 413.44 is amended by 

addino "~aragraph If}, (g), and (h}. as 

follo~,s: 

§ 413.44 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources. • t • t • 

(~ In addition to paragraphs (a) and 

{b) the following limitation shall apply 

for plants discharging less than 38,000 1 

{10,000 gel) per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater: 

{g) In addition to paragraphs {a}, (c), 

{d), and (el the following limitation shall 

apply for plants discharging 38,000 1 

[10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater: 

F~lutan! or pollu~nt property 

Maidmum ~or any 1 

clay 

frO ................................................................................. 2.13 

(h) In addition to paragraphs (a), {bL (c}, (d}, (e}, (f), and {g} the following 

shall apply: An existing source 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

monitoring puts ~ant to § 413.03 of this 

regulation must implement the toxic 

organic management plan approved by 

the control authority. 

7. Section 413.54 is amended by 

adding *mragraph {f}, (g}, and (h}, as 

follows: 

§413.54 Pretreatment standards for 

axisUag sources. 

" (f} In addition to paragraphs fa) and 

(b} the following limitation shall apply 

for plants discharging less than 38,000 1 

{10,000 gel} per calendar day of 

electroplating procc , wastewater:. 

MaxiPoflutsnl or pollutant property mum for any ! 

clay 

TTO .................................................................................. 4.57 

(g} In addition to paragraphs (a), (c}, 

(d}, and (e} the following limitation shall 

apply for plants discharging 38,000. 

{10,000 gal} or more per calendar day of 

electroplat! .g process waterwater: 

! 

1 Ma~iPoll~1 or pollutant property I mau~ ~or 

.o .............................. :............................................... I

(h) In addition to paragraphs {a), (b}, 

{c}, (d), {e}, {f}, and {g} the following shall apply: An existing source 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

monitoring pursuant to § 413,03 of this 

regulation must implement the toxic 

organic management plan approved by 

the control authority. 

8, Section 413,84 is amended by 

adoring paragraphs (f), (g), and (h}, as 

follows: 

§ 413.64 Pretreltn~nt standmrdl for 

existing eourceL t it II # t 

(f} In addition to paragraphs {a) and 

{b) the following limitation shall apply 

for plants discho_-ging less than 38,0001 

00,030 gall per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater. 

L ..... 

(g} In addition to paragraphs (a), (c). 

(d}, and (e} the following limitation shall 

apply for plants discharging 30,000 1 

(I0,030 gall or more per calendar day of 

electroplating p.ocess wastewater: 

I Max~-

Po,ulant or Polar4 ~r 

(lay 

~O ................................................................................. ~ 2A3

{h) In addition to paragraphs {a}, {b), (c}, (d}, (e}, (f}, and {g} the following 

shall apply: An existing source 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this 

regulation must implem*'.It the toxic 

organic management plan approved by 

the control authority. 

9.Section 413.74 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (~, {g} and {h), as 

follows: 

§ 413.74 Pretreatment standards for 

existing sources. ,t # t t ,t 

(f) In addition to paragraphs [a} and 

(b) the following limitation shall apply 

for plants discharging less than 38,000 l 

(lo,ooo gall per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater. 

(g} In addition to paragraphs {al, {c|. 

{d), and {el the following limitation shall 

apply for plants discharging 38,000 1 

{10,000 gal) or more per calendar day of 

electroplating process wastewater. 

p~.m o, ~t.m rummy l=~: 

{h) In adCition to paragraphs la), Ib). 

{c}, (d), re), [f}, and {~1| thin followin8 

shall apply: An existing source 
! 

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / R'.des and Regulations I . I 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

mouitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this 

regulation must implement the toxic 

organic management plan approved by 

the control authority. 

I0. Section 413.84 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (f}. (g} and (h). as 

follows:. 

§ 413.84 Pretreatment sta~tdarde for 

mdsUng sources. ,f • • t • 

If) In addition to paragraphs (a) and 

(b) the following limitation shall apply 

for plants discharging less than 38.000 1 

{10.000gal) per calendar day at 

electroplating process wastewater: 

(g) l.n addition to paragraphs (a). (c). 

{d}. and (e} the :allowing limitation shall 

ap~ly for plants discharging 38.000 1 

{I0.o00 gall or more per calendar day of 

eiectroplating process wastewater. 

............................................... 

Maxi. 

Potfut~t or pollutant ptope~ mum %, for 

TTO .......................................................................... 2.13 

{hi In addition to paragraphs {a), {hi, 

(c), (d}, [e), {f), and (g} the following 

shall apply: An existing source 

submitting a certification in lieu of 

monitoring pursuant to § 413.03 of this 

regulation must implement the toxic 

organic management plan approved by 

the control authority. 

In addition, for the reasods stated 

above, EPA is establishing a new Part 

433 to Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regdlations to read as follows: 

PART 433--METAL FINISHING POINT 

SOURCE CATEGORY 

Subpart A--Metal Finl~ing :Subcategory 

Soc. 

433.10 Applicability; description of the metal 

fin'~,hing point s~.arce category. 

433.11 Specialized definitions. 

4:~3.12 Monitoring requirements. ' 

433.13 Effluent limitations representing the 

degree of effluent reduction attainable by 

applying the best practicable control 

technology ~urrently available [BPT).

433,14 Effluent limitations rep~esr ding the 

degree of effluent redueti6n attainable by applying the best available technology 

economically achievable (BAT). 

433.1B Pretreatment standards for existing 

sources (PSES}, 

433.16 New source performPnce standards 

{NSPS}. 

433.17 Pretreatment standards for new 

sources (PSNSI. 

433.18 [Reserved] 

Authority: Sac. 301, 304(bJ Y~!, (el, and (g], 

308(b} and {c), 307{b} end {c}, L )8 and 501 of 

the Clean Water Act |the Federal Water 

PrPution Conti'ol Act Amendments of 1971. 

as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977) 

(the "'Act"); 33 U.S.C. 1311.1314(b) (cJ. (e).

and (8). 1316(b) and (c}. 1317(b} and (c~. 1318 

and 1361:86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-.600: gl Stat, 

1567, Pub. L. 95-217. 

Subpart A--Metal Finishing 

Subcategor! 

§ 433.10 ApplteabiiRy; deecdption of the 

metal finishing Imint eource category 

(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) 

and (c). of this section, the provisions of 

this subpart apply to plants which 

perform any of the following six metal 

finishing operations on any basis 

material: Electroplating, Electroless 

Plating. Anodizing, Coating (chromating. 

phosphating, and coloring). Chemical 

Etching and Milling. and Printed Circuit 

Board Manufacture. If any of those six 

operations are p-esent, then this part 

applies to disch ¢,es from those 

operations and also to discharges from 

any of the following 40 procesz 

operations: Cleaning. Machining. 

Grinding, Polishing. Tumbling, 

B,mishing. Impact Deformation. 

Pressure Deformation. Shearing, Heat 

Treatin 8, Thermal Cutting, Welding. 

Brazing. Soldering, Flame Spraying, 

Sand Blasting. Other Abrasive Jet 

Machining, Electric Discharge 

Machining, Electrochemical Machining. 

Electron Beam Machining. Laser Beam 

Machin" ~, Plasma Arc Machining, 

Ultrasonic Machining. Sintering, 

Laminating, Hot Dip Coating. Sputtering. 

Vapor Plating. Thermal Infusion. Salt 

Bath Descaling, Solvent Degreasing. 

Paint Stripping. Painting, Electrostatic 

Painting, Electropaintir, g. Vacuum 

Metalizing, Assembly. Calibration. 

Testing. and Mechan~c'fl Plating. 

{b) In some cases eftJurnt limitations 

and standards for the following 

industrial categories may be effective 

and applicable'to wastewater 

discharges from the metal finishing 

operations listed above. In such cases 

these Part 433 limits shall not apply r:,d 

the following regulations shall apply: 

Nonferrous metal smeltin 8 and refining (40 

CFR Part 421} 

Coil coating (40 CFR Part 465} 

Porcelain enameling (40 CFR Part 4~) 

Battery manufacturinR (40 CFR Part 461) 

Iron and steel (40 CFRPart 420) Metal casting foundries {40 CFR Part 464) 

Aluminum forming (40 CFB Part 497) 

Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468) 

Flastic molding at,, forming (,10 CFR Part 403) 

(c} This Part does not apply to:. |1} 

Metallic platemaking and gravure 

cylinder preparation conducted within 

printing and publishing facilities; and [Z} 

existing indirect dis~,hargin8 job shops 

and independent printed circuit board 

manufacturers which are covered by 40 

CFR Part 413,} 

§ 433.': ~qallzed ~ 

The definitions set forth in 40 CFR and 

the chemical analysib methods set forth 

in 40 CFR 136 are both incotmorated here 

by reference. In addition, the following 

definitions apply to this part: 

(a) The term 'W", as in "Cyanide. T". 

shall mean total. 

(b) The term "A". as in "Cyani'de A". 

shall mean amenable to alkaline 

Chlorination. 

(el The term "job shop" shall mean a 

facility which owns not more than 509t 

{annual area basis} (." the mate~.als 

undergoin 8 metal finishing. 

(d) The term "independent" printed 

circuit board manufacturer ehan mean a 

facility which manufacturers printed 

circuit boards principally for sale to 

other companies. 

{e}The term '"I'rO" shall mean total 

toxic organics, which is the summation 

of all quantifiable values greater than 

.01 milligrams per liter for the following 

toxic organics: 

Acenaphthene 

Acrolein 

Acrylonitrile 

Benzene 

Benzidine 

Carbon tetrachloride [tetrachloromethane| 

Chlorobenzene 

1.2A-trichlorobenzene 

Hexachlombenzene 

1.2.-dichloroethane 

1.1.1-trichloroethane 

Hexachloroethane 

1,1-dichlomethane 

1.1,2-trichioroe~" -ne 

1.1.2,Z-tetrachl~z~ethane 

Chloroethane 

Bin(2-¢hlomethyl) ether 

2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed) 

2-chioronaphthnlene 

2,4,6-trichioropheno| 

Parachlorometa cresol 

Chloroform {trichloromethane) 

2-ehlorophenol 

1,2.dtchiorobenzene 

1.3-diehlorobenzene 

1.4-dichlorobenzene 

N-nitroeodi-n-propylamine 

Penteohlorophenoi 

Phenol 

Bis (2-ethylhex,vl) phthalate 

Butyl benzyl phthalete Di.n-butyl phthslate 

Di-n-ootyl phthalate Dtethyl phthalate 

Dlmetl,yl phthelate 

~,Z-benznnthracene 

{benzo(e)anthracenel 
i 

F~a] ]t~Si~ / VoL 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15. 1983 / Rules and Re.,~lations ]1 |] I I ] I III 

Ben,Y.o{a}pymne [3,4-benzopyrene} 

S.@Peng~.fluerar.~ene {benzo[b}fluoranthene) 11.12-berrgo~uoranthene. {t~k)fl~ranthene) .C'b~ne 

Acenapi~y}ene 

~tlu'acene 

1.12-benzoperylene (benzo{ghilperylene} Fluorsne 

Phenand~rene 

1.Z.5.6-dibenzanthracene 

(dibeJ0~.o(a.hlanthracene

Indeno(1,2,3-cd) p~'ene (Z.3-o-phenlene pymne} 

Tetrachloroe~ylene 

Toluene 

Trichleroethylene

Vinyl chloride {chloroethylene)

3,3-dichlorobenzi~line 

Z.l-dichloroethylene 

1 .Z-tra n~lichlo~etl~jiene 

2,4-dichlorophenoi 

1.2-dioh~ropropane ~l.3-dichloropropene} 2A-dimethy]pheao] 

2,4-dinitrotoluene 

2.6-dinitrotoluene 

1,2-dipheny|hydrazine 

Ethy]bermene 

Flmm~thene 

4-chioropheny]phemd ether 

~bromnplP_.nyl phenyl ether 

Bis {2-chloroisopropyl} ether 

BIs{2-cldoroethoxy)methane 

Methylene c,..~ride {dichloromethane) Methyl chloride {chloromethane}

Methyl tmomide (bromomethane} 

Bromo[o~ {tribromome~ ariel 

Dichlorobromomethane 

Chlorsdibromomethane 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

Hexachlorocyclopent adiene 

Isophorone 

Naphthalene

Nitrobenzene 

2-nitropheno] 

4-nitrophenol

2.4-dinitrophenol 

4.6-dinitro~o-cresol 

N-nitrosodimethy|amine

N-nitrosodimethylamine 

Aldrin 

Dieldrin 

Chlordane {technical mixture and 

metabolites} 

~,A-DL"T 

4.4..DOE(p.p-DOX) 4.~DDD [p.p-TDE) 

Alpha-endosulfan 

Bsta-endosulfan 

Endosulfan sulfate 

Endrin 

Endrin aldehyde 

Heptachlor 

•,eptach!.~r epoxide (BHChexachlorocyclohexane) Alpha.BHC 

Be~-BHC 

Gamma-BHC 

DeIIa-BHC 

[PCB-polychlorinated bipheny]s} PCB-12A2 (Arochlor 1242} PCB-1254 {Arochlor 1254) PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1229) PCB-1232(Arochlor 9232} PCB-1246 {Arochlor 1248) 

PC, B-z2~o (Amchlor 12~0} PC~1o16(Arochlor I016} 

Toxaphene 

2,3.7.8-tetra chlorodibenzo-p-dioxm ('ICDD} 

§ 433.12 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) In lieu of requiring monitoring for 

TI'O, the permitting authority (or. in the 

case of ind~:~Ctrdischargers, the control 

authority) may allow dischargers to 

mak~ the followin 8 certification 

statement: "Based on my inquiry of the 

person or persons directly responsible 

for manag;ng compliance with the 

permit limitation [or pretreatment 

standard] for total toxic organics {'I'rO). 

I cert:.fy that, tJ ~he best of my 

knowledge and belief, no dumping of 

concentrated toxic organics into the 

wastewaters has occurred since filing of 

the last discharge moaitorin 8 report. I 

further certify that this facility is 

implementing the solvent management 

plan submitted to the peJ'mittin 8 [or 

controlJ authority.' For direct 

dischargers, this statement is to be 

included as a "comment" on the 

Discharge Monitoring Report required 

by 40 CFR lZZ.~{i}, formed'j 40 CFR 

122.62{i). For indirect dischargers, the ~ 

statement is to be "-,eluded as a 

comment to the pt .odic reports 

required by 40 CFR 403.12{e}. ir 

monitorin 8 is necessary to measure 

comp!:.ance with the l"ro standard, the 

industrial discheLrger need analyse for 

only those pollutants which woutd 

reasonably be expected to be present. 

[b) In requesting the car .tification "

ahernative, a discharger shall submit a 

solvent management plan that specifies 

to the satisfaction of l~e permittin 8 

authority (or, in the case of indirect 

dischargez,s, the control authority} the 

toxic orBS Jc compounds used; the 

method of disposal used instead of 

dumpin 8, such as ~reclamation, contract 

"haulin& or incineration; and procedures 

for ensud~ that toxic organics do not 

routinely spin or leak into the 

wastewater. For direct dischargers, the 

permittin 8 authority shad] inoorporate 

the plan as a provision of the permit. 

{c}Self-monitoring for cyanide must 

he conducted after cyanide treatment 

and be~'or dilution with other streams. 

Alternatively, samples may be taken of 

the finai effluent, if the plant limitations 

are adjusted based on the dilution ratio 

of the cyanide waste stream flow to the 

effluent flow. 

!t 433.13 Effluent limitations mpm~ntln9 

the degree of effluent mdtcUon liilIM=blll 

by applyl Itm it im~lkmble mmtml 

technology ¢,mwknd~ livdlibil 

{a} Except as provided In 40 CFR 

125.30-32, any existing point source 

subject to this subpart must achieve the 

following effluent limitations 

representing the degree of effluent 

reduction attainable by applying the 

best practicable control technology 

currently available (BPT}: 

BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS " 

' IV;axlmum lot i, lwelage Pollutant or pollutant property i any f day i sl~all~t 

i f exceed 

Mlllilfltli'l~ ~ lilel (i~l/l) 

! 

Ca~mlum (T) ............................... i 0.69 I 0.26 

CllromeJm (T) ................................ I 2.77 I 1.71 

Copper (T) .................................. • 338 . 2.07 

Lead if) ........................................ ! 0.69 ! 043 

Nickel IT) ..................................... i 3.98 [ 2.3B 

S,Iver {I") ....................................... 0.43 ! 0.24 

Zinc (T) .......................................... 2.61 i 1.48 

Cyar~le (T) .................................. I 1.20 ; 0.65 

T~O ................................................ i 2.13 L ................ 

Oil & Grease ................................ i 52 i 26 

TSS ............................................... ( 60 I 31 

pH .................................................. 2 It) I I') - - , I 

Within 6.0 to 9.0. 

{b) Alternatively, for industrial 

facilities with cyanide treatment, a~'d 

upon agreement between a source 

subject to those limits and the pollution 

control authority, the following 

amenable cyanide limit may apply in 

place of the total cyanide limiI specified 

in paragraph {a) of this section: 

j MonttCy 

I~llutant or pollutant proper~ Maximum fOr average any 1 day lilmll not .__. ! e,cee~ 

Milligrams l~If lilei (mglll 

Cyam0e (A) ........................ , .......... i 0.86! 0.32 

{c} No user subject to t;ie provisions of 

this subpart shah emsmeut the use of 

process wastewater or otherwise dilute 

the wastewaler as a partial or total 

substitute for adequate Irealment to 

achieve ~:ompliance with this limitation. 

§ 433.14 Effluent.limitations 4representing 

the degree of offluent reduction atinable 

by applyln9 thebeit avagaMe tectmology economtea~ ~evat)~ mAl~ 

{a}Except as. provided in 40 C]~ 

12530-82, any existin8 point source 

subject to this subpart must achieve the 

following effluent limitations 

representing the degree of effluent 

reduction attainable by applyin 8 the 

best available lechnolo~ economically 

achievable (BAT): 

BAT EFFLUENT LIMrrATtOWS 

l:~lutant Ot ¢O~utln~ proc¢~ I Iny 1 4ay 

~ mt tmgtl) 

Lead IT) ......................................... 0.~ ' 0 43 
Federal Re~gter / VoL 

BAT ER~.UENT LIMITATIONs--Continued 

Mone~v 

Max~num 

e~ .................. .?.. 

&98 238 

03 ...................... : ................ 0.43 0.24 Z/flC (7") ....................................... 2.61 1.48 Cyan~e 03 .................................. t.20 0.0.5 1"~0 ............................................... 2.13 ......... 

Cb} Alternatively, for industrial 

facilities with cyanide treatment, and 

upon agreement between a source 

subject to those limits and the polluti~n 

control authority, the following 

amenable cym~:._de limit may apply in 

place of the total cyanide limit specified 

in paragraph Ca} of this section: 

p ,,~axm~m or ave~'ege o~Aant or Dollulanl ~of~e~/I any 1 day I shall not 

MS,rams m~" ~or (mg/tl 

j,: ....._....._.:.::.:.._:I - o., o.32 : ...............I • _.. 

Cc) No user subject to the provisions of 

this subpart shall augment the use of 

process wastewater or otherwise dilute 

the wastewater as a partial or total 

substitute for adequate treatment to 

achi~.ve compliance with this limitation• 

§ 433.15 Pretreatment standards for 

existing souses (PSES). 

{a) Except as.provided in 40 CFR 403.7 

and 403.13. any existing source subject 

to this subpart that introduces pollutants 

into a publicly owned treatment works 

must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for existing sources (PSES): 

PSES ~OR ALL PLANTS EXCEPT J(m SHOPS 

AND INDEPENDENT PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD 

MANUFACTURERS 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[ . . . . . . . . . . .I .

o,,, o u ant o~ no~nt . ...... ~o~er~ .,,,,+,+,,..,,++, .,++ | any I clay | ~all nm 

.......... : ....... .[ .......... 

IWlhgram8 pet liter (rag/I) 

C~lm~urn (TI .............. ' ............ .........0.69 0.26 

C, NoP~um (Tt .......................... , 2.77 1.71 

Coupe, T) ................................. 3.38 2 07 

Lead IT} .................................. 0.69 0.43 

~cke~ (rl ............................. 3.98 2.38 

S~ve~IT) ..................... :........... 0.43 0.24 

zinc iT) .............................. 2.al 1.48 

Cyan,.de IT~ .......................... 1.20 C.65 

"~T 0 ................................. 2.13 

(b} Alternatively. for industrial 

facilities with cyanide treatment, upon 

agreement between a source subject to 

those limits ane. tho pollution control 

authority. The following amenable 

cyanide limit may apply In place of the 

total cyanide limit specified in 

48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / 

paragraph Ca} of this section: 

Mm~ams ~ I, te~ (moJ~ F- c~am~ (~) ............................. --+..~ o.~ 0.32 .. I 

(c) No user introducing wastewater 

pollutants into a publicly owned 

treatment works under the provisions of 

this subpart shall augment the use of 

process w~qtew~ter as a partial or total 

s+ stitute tor adequate treatment to 

achieve compliance with this standard. 

(d} An existing source submitting a 

certification in lieu of monitoring 

pursuant to § 433A2 (a) and Cb) of this 

regulation must implement the solvent 

management plan approved by the 

control authority. 

(el An existing source subject to this 

subpart shall comply with a daily 

maximum pretreatment standard for 

"I'I'O of 4.57 mg/l. 

(f} Compliance with the provisions d 

paragraph Co}. [d). and Ca) of this section 

shall be achiev "as soon, as possible. 

but not later th-n June 30, ,984. however 

metal fi~shing facilities which are also 

covered by Part 420 {iron and steel} 

need not comply before July 10,1985. 

Compliance with the provisions of 

paragraphs Ca}. Cb}. Cc} and Cd} of this 

section shall be achieved as soon as 

possible, but not later than Feburary 15. 

19867 

§ 433.16 New source performa~ 

Mandards iNS. 

(a) Any new ~_ --'ce subject to this 

subpa, must achieve the following 

performance standards: 

NSPS 

...... l 

M~ 

Po~u~n! or 0oltutant l~oP~ Maximum foe anyl clay ] average ~nO! 

M,~ams per ~ tmg/l~ 

Caclm~m (TI .................. 0.11 I 0.07 

ctwommm (T~ ......................... 2.77 I 1.7+ 

fr) .................................... 2.07 

Lead (T) .................................. o.43 

Nickel IT) ........................... 2.38 ~Iver IT) ............................. 0•2, 

~) ..................................... 2.61 i !.48 

Cyem0e IT) ............................ 120 | 0.6s 

"I'TO ....................................... 2.13 I ............ Od snO G, mase ......................... 

TSS...................................... ~11 

+" .......................................... _!? _.t <" s Witlvm 8 0 tO 9.0. 

' The Consent Decree in NRDC v. T ."n, 12 ERC 

!¢13 {D,D,C, 1979) specifies u compliance date for 

PSF, S of no later than June 30. 1964, EPA hue movod 

for u modification of that provision of the Dmezee. 

Should the Court deny that motion, EPA will hP 

.mqultod to modify this eompl,anrn dat,, 

dccordittgly. 

Rules and Resulations I 

Cb} Alternatively, for industrial 

facilities with cyanide treatm~L and 

upoa agreement between a smmme 

subject to those limits and the pollution 

control authority, the followin$ 

amenable cyanide limit may apply in 

place of the total cyanide limit specified 

in paragraph {a) of th'-s section: 

Pollutant or po~,utam wovor~ 

m 

Mimffams pe~ li~ (e~ 

Cyamde (A) ......................... l o~! o.32 

Cc} No user subject to the provisions of 

this subpart shall augment the use of 

process wastewater or otherwise dilute 

the wastwater as a partial ot total 

substitute for adequate treatment to 

achieve compliance with this limitation. 

§ 43a.17 Pretreatmem l~mndardl for imw 

sourcu (PSNS). 

(a} Except as provided in 40 CTR 

403.7, any new souzce subject to this 

•subpart that intro(i,|ces pollutants into a 

publicly owned treatment works must 

comply with 40 LTR Part 403 and 

achieve the following pretreatment 

standards for new sources {PSNS}: 

PSNS 

Portutant or lx~Jam Foi>~ 1 for any t 

............ J 

Ma~,a~s ¢~ rmr tmgn) 

~') ....................... 0.1! 0.07 

C~rOm~m ff) ............................... 2.77 ! .71 

3.38 ~oT 

Lem ('13 ..................................... 0+6~ 0.43 

l'¢~el (T) .................................... 3.96 2.3s 

~fl[~ .................................. 0+43 024 

2.61 1.48 

1.20 0.65 

2.13 ............. 

(b) Alternatively. for industrial 

facilities with cyanide treatment, and 

upon agreement between a source 

subject to these limits and the pollution 

control authority, the following 

amenable cyanide limit may apply in 

place of the total cyanide limit specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section: 

[ b~ I omJ nol 

.............. _ 

................... _[ ......... .J..__ ....... 
m Federal itt,3ister i Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations II J i Ji i i • Illi ill I 

{c}No user subject to the provisions of 

this subpart shall augment the use of 

process vvastewater or o~er~vise dilute 

the wastewater as a partial or total 

substitute for adequate treatment to 

achieve compliance with this limitation. 

{d) An existin 8 source submitting a 

certification in lieu of monitoring 

pursuant to § 433.12 (a} and [b} of this 

regulation must implement the solvent 

management plan approved by the 

control authority. 

~j 433.1o IBeserve¢ll 

IFR Doc.'8:~-.-3-~.~,~ ! iiefl ;-~4--8.1:8:-15 ~m I 

WLL~ ~ ~.SO-M 

\ 

,4 

\