~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,ondStandaeds for the MetalFinishin8 Point Source Category, June,1983.The Agency's economic analysis.is found in 

### Economic Analysis ofEffluent Standards and 

### limitations for the Metal Finishing Industz T, June 1983,Further supporting materials are filed in the reccrd supportin8 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 filin8

a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals witl3.in90 days after these regulations are considered issued for the purposes ofjudicial 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 PublicInformation 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,
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Organization ofThis 

### Notice
I. LegalAuthority' I1. Background A. The Clean Water Act B. PriorEPAReg,dations C. Overview ofthe Industry Ill. Scope ofthis Rulemaking IV. Data Gathering Efforts V. Sampling and AnalyticalProgram VI. Industry Subcategorization 'lb VIi. Available Wastewater Control and Treatment Technology A. Status ofIn-PlaceTechnology B, ControlTreatment Options VIII. General Criteria for Limitations

A. BPTEffluentLimitations B. BATEffluentLimitations C. BCTEffluentLimitations C. BCTEffluentLimitations D. New Source Performance Standards E, Pretreatment Standards for Existing

Sources F. P~retreatment Standards for New Sources IX. SummeryofFinal Regulations

A. Part433 B. Part 413 7,. Derivation ofthe Limitations XI. Changes from the Proposed Limits Xll. Pollutants and Subcategories Not Regulated A. ExclusionofToxic Pollutants B. Exclusion ofSubcategories XIII. Costs, EffluentReduction Benefits,and EconomicImpacts A. Costs and Economic Impacts B. Executive Order 12291 C. RegulatoryFlexibility ,~nalysis D. SBALoans XIV. Non-Water-QualityEnvironmental 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. Relationto NPDESPermits B. Indirect Dischargers C, Applicability and Compliance Dates D. Enforcement KIX.SummaryofPublicParticipation KX. Availability ofTechnical Information XXI. OMBReview XXII. 

### List of Subjects XXIII. Appendices A. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other

Terms Used in This Notice B. Pollutants RxcludedFromRegulation C Unit Operations in the Metal Pinishin8

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 DefenseCouncil, 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). modifiedby 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 ofJuly 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 ofJuly 1,1983; for thos'., dischargers to achieve "effluentlimitations z~qt~iring the application of the best available technologyeconomicallyachievable... which willresult 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~rscomply 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 promulgatedby the Administrator of EPA.

- Section 304(b)required regulations that establish effluent limitations reflectingthe ability of BIT and BAT to reduce effluentdischa~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 308gave the Administrator

. tinciudingblochemlcaloxygen~ .+ authority to collectinformation suspended solids, fecal coliformand-

- 

### 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 ofBAT-to be achievedbyJuly carry out his functions" under+theAct. 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 effluentsand the 1976, ErA Was sued by several effluentreductionbenefits attained, aud environmentalgroups. In settlin~ this a comparison ofthe cost and levelof lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed reduction of such pollutants by

a "Settlemf:at Agreement" which was publically owned treatment works and approvedby the CourLThis agreement industrial sources. For non-toxic, 

### requiredEPAto develop a program and nonconventional pollutants, Sections meets schedulefor controlling85 3ol 

## ro)12)lA) and 

### Ib)|P,)IP) require "priori~" pollutants and classes of achievementofBAT 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 whicheveris rater, but not later than standards, and new source performance July 1,1987. standards for 21 major "industries.See The+ purpose ofthis regulationis to NotumlResources De[ease Council, Inc. 

### establishB-FI',BAT,+NSPS, PSHS,and
v. 

### 7~in, 

### 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 

### 1976), + PSNS for the Part 433Metal Fmichin8 modified, 12 ERC 1833{D.D.C.i979}, modified by Order dated October 26, 

### Point Source Category, and tO amend the Part 413Electroplati~.PSHS. 1982.

Several ofth~ .~asicelements of the 

### B. Prior

### F.PAPaegut,~t/ons SettlementAgreementprogram were On March Z&1974,EPApromulgat~ed 

### incorporated into 

### the Clean Water 

### Act -BPT limitations for the electmplatin 8 of 1977.This law also makes several industrybut suspended them on otherimportant changes inthe Federal Decembm +

3,.1926.In~terim final • water pollution control program. pretreahnbnt 8tanda~Isforthe

, Sections 301(b)(2)[A) and electibidatinaindustrlvwereismsedms 30~(b)(2)(C) of the Actnow set JulyI,' 

### 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~atedthePart 413PS1~ hNr the application ofBAT for "toxic" pollutants. "Toxic" pollutants here electroplatingindustry. Amendedl~mS
includes the 65 "priority" pollutants and 'werepromulgated on ]anum7 28,19~t
classes ~f polbdants which Congress 

### (4oFR94e~).

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 dischurgingfadliflesmust

source performance standards and complywith those standards by Aped pretreatment standards are now aimed ~, ISS4.See 47FR 4Z698,Septmnbara, principally at controlling toxic 1982.A non.integratedfacilltyis mm pollutants. whichdoes not dischm~etdp~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~orpnq~sed prescribe certain "best management treatment system). practices" ("BMPs").These BMPs are to Integratedindianadlscha~q prevent the release oftoxic and ' • 

### futilities are also cummtlyGovenH! by hazardous pollutants from: (1}Plant site the electropletlngPS]~. These.~dlitieL runoff, (2) spillage or.leaks" (8) sludge or whichprior 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 associatedwith, or ancillary coheredby the Electroplatin8 Catesoq, to, the manufacturing or treatment must comply with it8 pmvildonsby 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 non

### toxic pollutants. There ere 13,500plants in the

• For "conventional"pollutants electroplstinglmetalfinishing indw~. identifiedunder Section 804(8)(4) Many discharge wastewatereboat~.~:: ::..~-.

. .


### 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. togetherand gre:atlyreduces the need to The followingregulations will take :-///,-:.

....... :. ..,..

~..-.:=-..

. . . ~[ele~o~atlnS) 

### currently ,,..:.;".' 

### appllos onlyto flow8 fromthe six

~-~~,.. 

### ~. ~'~let~procones,

:..'::.i

.....- 

### regulatiom) ~ apply,to those ~'~*~,---

. e]ectropla.~. streams.~d:also to ~-:-.', wnstutreams 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 Willoften cover :i~. 

### additional:wastewaterwithinthe same 

### plants. Th0s the Pert433 limits on discha~ Of toxicmetals, toxic ~rganics. and eyan'nd" e willapply 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 calendaryear0wn morethan SO%[area 

### basis) of the materials undergoiagmetal fini

_ ~ .sbtng]~ or shops"[those which inacalendaryeardo not own more than S0~ (area basis) ofmaterial undergoing
metst finisT~lng).

Captives can be further dividedby two definitions: "integrated" plants are those which.priorto treatment, combine eleetmplatin8waste 

### meemswith sisniflcantprocess waste streams not covered bythe 

### eleetroplating category: 

### "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 usuallyperform fewer operations. In theoryjob shops

can be dividedlike 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 NPDESpermits incorporatingBPT,BAT,and BCT

•limitations or NSPS. "lndirects"

discharge to POTWs and are subject to 

### PSESor PENS.

As discussed above, the electroplating/metalfmishing indust]~,is, currently coveredby Part 418 PSES for the.FJectrop!ati~g Category promu.tsated

on SeptemberL 1979, 

### and emendedon January 28; i981. The effect of today's amendments is tocreate 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 CombinedWaste Stream Formula for integratedmetal finishing facilities. Dii~ct dischaz~er'andnew
source requirements are also beiag issued as part ofthe metal finishing 

### resulatious.

indirect discharging job shop electroplatere and independentprinted circuitboard mannfacbn'ere, however,

•wot~ld be left under the existing Part 413 PSES forElectroplaUng and are exemptedfro~ Part 433.This is consistentwith a 1980Settlement Asruementin whichthe National Association ofMetal Finishers 

### [NA~-AF1, and• the Institute forInterconnectingand Packnging ElectrenicCircuits ng~ed not tochallengethe Part 413 PSESin return for th~ 1~1 amendments and EPA's commitmentthat the Asen¢~ didnotintend to develop significantly

more stringent standards forthose plants for the next severalyears.

TAmeL---Bnexm0ow~ oFTHe

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 4oelobs 

### (q

................ (.). dJlclU~ iPca~ mS(2.909). direetL



### •The M, :alFinishing Category covers plants whichperform one or more of the following six operations: electroplatins, electrolessplaUag, anodiziag, coatin 8 (phospba~:oo,c]',romating,and coloring), chemical .~tchin 8 andmilling, or printed circuitboard manufacture. If a plant performs any of those six operations then discharges from the 46 operations

• listed in Appendix C are coveredby these standards.

In some cases another industrial categorymay cover wnstewater dischat3es from a metal finishin8 operatio~n..Insuch ~ses the more specific standards of the other Part(s] will apply to those wastewater streams which appear to be coveredby both resulatioue. Fo.-example, if a plant performs coating operations in preparation for painting and also performs eleetroienplatlag as part of a porcelain enamelingprocess, 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 CFRPart 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} PlaSticmoldingand formin 8 (40 CFR Part 463)
In addition, EPA is excludingfrom the metal finishing (Part433) regulation: [1) Metallicplatemaking and 8revere cylinderpreparation conductedwithin printing and publishingfacilities;, and [2] existing sourcejob shops and independentprintedCircuit 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, orprinted 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 .togethoras total toxic organics): and]4)conventional pollutants (TSS and oii and ~Fease|. These and other chemicalconstituents degrade water quality, endangeraquatic 

### 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 constructedprimarily 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 includeboth captives andjob 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 employeestolaqe,facilities employing thousands ofproduction 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 

## / Vol.

,i i 1 I I I



### use ofnearly all,of the 46 unit operations mefionedabove; a simpleproduct may require only one. • '

Many differentraw materials are used by these plants. Basis materials (or ".workpieces") are mostly metals; from

commoncopper and steel to extremely expensive high-grade alloys and precious metals. They can also include plastics. Solutionsused in unit operations can contain acids, bases, cyanide, metals, complexin8agents, organic additives, oils, and detergents, All these materials may enter waste streams duringproduction.

Water use within the metal fmishin8 industry is discussed fully in Section V of the developmentdocument [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 involvingextensive 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 FinishingPointSource Category and amends Part 413 PSES for the Electroplatin8Point Source Category. The BAT goal is to achieve, by july 1, 1984,thebest available technologyeconomicallyachievable that will result in reasonable further progress toward the national 8~al of eliminatingthe discharge ofall pollutants. This regulation does not alter the existing metal and cyanide standards forjob shopeleclroplaters and printed Circuit board manufacturers discharging to POTWs.

EPA first studied the electroplatina/ metal finishingindustry 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 ofpollutants and wastewaier in the plant and (b) the constituents ofwastewaters, i~dudin8 toxic pollutants. This 

### analysis enabled the Agency to determinethe presence and concentrations of toxicpollutants

on the major wastewater discharges. . . .-. ~.-.....-?:



### 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 15, lgf~ / Rules andR~.tfmm 

# m,i

.. I I I ,'~.," I I I I llllI I L "p

, . .. •

.. ,. , , , =, ,7,:,, : • 

### EPA also identified several distinct We contacted d FederalI~PA~ conh'oIand treatmenttechnologies (both several State envimnmen~qande~, in-plant and end-of-pipe}, including and numeroussupplie~:and those with potential use in the manufuct'.merefor the metalfmishin8

• electmplafinalmetalfinishingindustry• industry to coHeGtinfmmatinnon:{1)

The Agency analyzed both historical Permits and monitoringdata, {2}the use and newlygenerated data onthe and properties ofmnteriais,~(3)pnJceas performance of~these technolog/es, chemical constituents, (e~waste includingtheir non-water quality treatment equipment, (5, waste environmentalimpacts on air quality, transport. (6) and various process solid waste ,generation, water scarcity, modificationsto minimizepollutant 

### and energy requirements.

- generation.

Cost curves were used to estimate the Underthe authority of Section 308 of
cost of eachcontrol and treatment the Clean Water Act, the Agency sent technology.Tbees cost curves were three differentdata collectionpoHfoli~ developedby applying standard (DOPe)to.various industries withinthe engineeringanalyses to metal finishing Metal FinishingPoint Sore.ca Ca~.
wastewater characteristics. Unit px, ocess The first DCP obtained data from ~ of
costs were than derived by applying 1,422plants originallycontacted from modelplant characieristics {production the machineryand mechanimdproducts and flow) to the unit uostcurve ofeach industry.The data includedgeneral
treatment process. These unit process plant informationon raw materials
costs were addedtogetherto yield the consumed,specificprocessesused, total cost at each ~eatmant level, compositionof effluentstreams, and Byconsideringthese factors, EPA was wastewater treatment.The semmdDCP able to characterize the various control obtained data hom~ ofilia900 plants and treatment technologiesused as the oriainal!yr.ontante~iathemedmnical bases for effluentlimitations, new and ele~ prodnCtsindustries. These

source and pretreetmentstandards, data coveredSanet~lplant 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) whichreflect the waste mmsport.We 1matthe third DCP proper Operation ofthese technologies to 1.883Compt~dusinvolvedin

or equivalent tedumloa/es. Some electroplatin& Approxima~]r 1190 facilities are already successfullyusir~ plants sentback ~© analysi~ data technologiesother than thoserelied on and informationon~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~atmenta)sts. EPA and its oonlrammmalso via/led To dev"lop the regulation, EPA began 210manufacturingfacilities to collect with a review of previous work on the wastswater.samqdesaadpmlinent electroplatin8/metallinislfin8 industry, technicalinformationonlammfactm~ The major source of informationon this processes and various treatmeut

- is 

### theDroftDevelopmentDocument[or techniques. 

### EffluentLimitations andStandards for the MetalFinishir~f PointSource V. SampEr~andAnalylle2dPnqluum Coteaory Oune 1980}.Several studies EPA focusedits samptin8and ahab.s

• completedbefore this development on the toxic pollutantsdesiamted in the

documentwas published also Clean Water Act, However,we also contributed technical informationto the sampled and analyaeC cmmmtimmland metal finishing~ata base for the nonconventionalpollutants.Priorto following segments ofthe industry: Undertaking sampli~ prolpmnsin

• Machinerymid Mechanical support ofndemld~. ' actions, EPA had Products Manufacturing. to identify specific toxic pdllutants that

• Electroplatin& wouldbe appropriate eubJe,.-tsfor

• Electrolese Plating and Printed Investigation.The list ofN pollutants Circuit Board Manufacturi~ (Segments and classes ofpdbtante potmtblly "~ 

### of the BleciroplatingCategory), includ~,,~thousandsof speQMo

,

• Mechanical andFJectrical Products. compounds,the analyses ofwhk.hcould We ale0 gathered data on the metal overwhelmprivate and 8ovemment finishing/ndestryfrom literoture laboratory resources. To make the task
surveys, Inquiries to professional moremanaseable, thetefol~ 

### RPA contacts, seminars and meetings, and selected ~ specifictoxtcpollutantsfor the survey and evaluation of study in 

### this rulemakingand other manufacturln8facilities, industry rulemaklNla. Toe criteria for

### ~i.~::

~ ~ ~

. ~ ,

•

. dmosin8 these pollutants included the ~i fnkpmncyof ~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 (ofwhich three are now

• ~considered nonconventionalpollutants}, 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"ofthe ~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 samplin8 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 discharsin8 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, Otisis 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 IfEPA 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. StotusofIn-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, .Whencyanide or hexava]ent chromium wastes are present, these wastewaters are generally segregated and treated upstream. B, Control TreatmentOptions

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 haulin8.

Option 2: Option I plus filtration. Option 3: Option I plus in-plant control for c4dmium.

VIII. General Criteria for Effluent Limitations

A. BPTEffluent 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 existin8 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 onL " J +, '+ ~+?~



### Federal Register / 

### Vol. 48, No. 

### 137"~/.Friday, 

### Ju~; .I..5, 

### 1983 / Rules and Regulations

I 

### end-of-pipetreatment rather than process changes or internal controls, except 

### whenthese technologies 

### are

commonindpstry practice.

,eL j-. • ~ ~ - 

### Th,~ ,,os,/be~,e,.d 

### inquiry for BPT is a 

### limitedbalan¢in8of costs versus benefits, committedto EPA's discretion, which does not require the Agency to quantify benefitsin moneta.wterms. Sez e.g.,American Iron o~d StcelInstitute 

### v. EPA, 526 

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

### balancing costs against the benefits of effluentreduction, EPA considers the volume and natur~ ofexisting discharges.+thevolume and vature of discharges expected after application of BPT, the general environmentaleffects of the pollutants,and the cost and economicimpacts of the required level ofpollution controLThe Act does not require or permit consideration of water quality l~roblem~attrJ3utuble to particular point sources, or water quality improvementsin particular bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not consideredthese factors. See 

### WeyerhaeuserCompanyv. Castle,590 

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

8. BA T E[/TuentLimitutions



### The factors c0nsideredindefining best available technologyeconomically achievable [BAT)h~clude the nge of the equipmentand facilities involved, the processes used, engineeringaspects of the control teclmology,process changes. non-water-quality environmentkl impacts (including 

### energyrequirements}, and the costs oLapplyin8 such technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B)).The BAT level represents the best economicallyachievable performance of plants of various ages. sizes, processes,

or other shared characteristics. As with BPT, uniformlyinadequate performance within a catego~ or subcategory may require transfer ofBAT froma different subcategory or category. Unlike BPT, however, BAT may includeprocess changes or internal controls, even when these technologiesare not common industry,practice.

The 

### statutory assessment ofBAT "considers" costs, but does notrequire a 

### balancing of costs against effluent reductionbenefits (see 

### Weyerhoeuser v. 

### Coati& supra), In developingBAT, however, EPA has given substantial weight to the reasonableness of costs. TheAgency has consideredthe volume and nature of discharges, the volume and nature ofdischarges expected after application ofBAT, the senerel environmentaleffects of tbe~pollutants, and the costs aud economic4mpactsof the required pollutioncontrel ieypis.

Despite this expanded consideration of costs, the pHmm~factorfor determiningBAT 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 controllingtoxic water pollution from direct d!schargingplants.

C. BCTEffluentLimitations



### The 1977amendmentsadded Section 301(b){2){E)to the Act, establishing "best conventionalpollutantcontrol technolngy"(BCT) for diseharges of conventionalpollutants from existing industrialpoint sources. Section 304(B)(4) s~'.,~cified the followingas conventionalpollutants:BOD,'TSS, fecal coliform, and pH.The Administrator desigziated oiland grease as "conventional" on July 30,1079, 44 FR 44501.

BCTis not an additionallimitationbut replaces BATfor the control of conventionalpollutants. In addition to otherfactors specifiedin section + 

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

### BCT limitationsbe assessed in light of a two part:"cast-reasonableness" test. Amer4can PaperInstitute v. EPA. 660 F. 

### 2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981).The first test compares the ~. ,.t for private industry to reduce its conventionalpollutants with the costs to publicly ownedh'eatment works for similar levals ofreduction in their discharge ofthesepollutants. The second test examines the costeffectivenessof additional industrial
treatmentbeyondBPT, EPA must find that limitations+are"reasonable" .under both tests before establishingthem as BCT.~Inno ease may BCT be less stringent +thanBFr.

F.PApublishedttsmethodologyfor curryir-; 

### out the BCT 

### analysis on August 29, 19"/d.(44 FR 

### 50732).In the 

### case mentionedabove, the Court ofAppeals 0rdere. dSPA to correct data errors underlyingEPA's Calculation of the 

### first test, and toapply the second cost test. (EPA had argued thata second cost test

was not required).

BCT limitationsfor this industry were proposed on October29.19~. (47 FR 49176).They .were accompaniedby a proposedmethodologyfor the genera] developmentofBCT limitations.+BCT limits for this industrywill be promulgatedwith,or soon after, the

• promulgationof the final methodology

for BCT development,At that time BPA will respond to relevant commentsfiled in either that rulemakingor in this one, 

### D. New Source pe~ormanceStmzdaPds

The basis for new so~e performance standaeds (NSI~) undor Section 806 of theAct is thebest ewtileble demonstratedtschnolo~,.New plants have the opportunityto design the best and most efficientmetal finlching processes and wastewater treatment

. 

### techt/01ogies. Therefore, Congress

directed EPA to considerthe best demonstratedprocess changes, in-plant ~ontrols, and end-of~pipe treatment technologiesthat reduce pollutionto the maximumextentfeasible.


### E. PPetPeotment Standaats [or Existin 8 SouFces



### Section 307(b]of the Act requires EPA
to promulgatepretreahnent standards for existing+sources(PSES), which industry must acldeve withinthree,years ofpromulgation.PSES mdesisned 

### to prevent the discharge ofpollutants which pass through,interfere wi~b.or

are otherwise 

### incompafib|ewith the operation of POTW's.

The legislativehistory ofthe 1977Act indicatesthat'pretreatment standards

are to be technology-based,analogons
to the best available technol~ for removal+of tuxicpollu~mts, The 

### General PretrealmentRegulationswhich serve as 

### the frameworkfor the find metal fmishing pretreatment standards are in 40 CFR Part 403,46FR 9404 Oanuary 28, zm,}.

EPA has 8enerallydeterminedthat j thereis pass through ofpollutants ifthe percent ofpollutants removedby a welloperatedPOTW achiev~ secondary treatment.is lesa:~ 

### :thepemont ' removalby+theBATmodeltreatment • system. A.study of40well-operate~ POTW's with.biologicall~N~tmentand meetin8sec0ndarytrentment+criteria showed that regulated metals are typically removed'at rates varyingfrom 2o to 7o~. POTWs with onlyprimmy
treatment have even lowerrates of removal In contrast. BATlevel
treatment by metal Rn|~hln~_ industrial facilities can achieve removals of 

### approximately07% or more. Thus it is evident that metals from this industrydo pass through POTW'o. As for toxic 

### organics, data from the samePOTWa lllus(rate a wideran~ ofreatoval, from. 0 to greater than99~. Overall POTW'e have removalrates oftoxic aqpmJ~ which are lau effectivethan the metal finishingTTO technologyImds of'no dumpingof toxic o~enlc wastes. The POTW'8 effluentdlschm~ ofspacific toxicpollutants nmsed h~m o to 4.3 milllgrams/liter,Many ofthe pollutants present in metal finishingweetse, at sufficientlyhigh concentratkm,can inhibitbiode~jrsdstionin operations, in ~tddition, !'high concentrationoftoxic pollut~ts in the 81udp-can limitPOYW u. ordudp menqemnt altamativet In~tdinB the beneficialuse ofeluc~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 ofremovul 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 Stondardsfor 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. "~.,echanges 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 Finishln8 Category, limitations are based on technology equivalent to BAT and BPT, The pollutants regulated under this PSES are the same as the toxic 

# ~l

ollutants 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~,dnot 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 oftoxic organics is being added to therequirements for facilities under'the ElectroplatingPSES. Examination of the technology req,.d~ements, costs, economicimpact, and timingindicates that requiring control of-toxic organics is consistent with the SettlementAgreement.

First. it will not increase the economic vulnerability ofjob shops or independentprinted circuit board manufacturers. Compliancewith the toxic organic~qtandards can be achieved
~y good managementpractices (i.e., not dumpingwaste solvents into the wastewaters). No additional end-of-pipe technology(beyond that already required by Part 413] is necessary. Economicanalyses 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~jwith 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
~"EPAbegandevelopmentof these standards bybuilding on the informationobtained in developingthe ElectroplatingPretreatment Standards. For Metal Finishing, 2783companies.

were contacted as part of two surveys (one of 1190 plants and the other of 365 plants) and 1555useable questionaire responses were obtained. The Agency also selected 322 plants for visits and/or obtained long term 8elf-monitoringdata

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 discoveredthat a basic and "classic" pollutioncontrol technologywas widely practiced in the industry. The system is designedto remoye toxic metals from raw wastestreams and it has twoprincipal components-precipitationand clarification. Of 1190 surveyedplants, 689 reportedtreatment,present, of these, 426 facilities practicedthe precipitation of metals through pH adjustment of
wastewater.

EPA then snalyzed the data to discover what those classic and commonlyused treatment device~ could .achieve. For each regulatedpollutant EPA looked fro'two key figures: The .,/",verageconcentrationthat properly operated technologywouldachieve over time. end the variability from that
average that would be ineVitable even at w'ell-opetatedplants.

, To find long-termconcentration
averages. EPAexamined its file of 322 plants whichhad been visited ond/ar had sen~long-term self-monitoringdata
to EPA. Of these plants EPA had sampled 72 withprecipitation and clarificalio.n. After deletions for impropertreatment, dilution, and low

raw waste concentr~lUons, 30 

### plants (sampledby EPA from I to 6 days) were used for devel~,ping the long.term concentration ~verages. For these plants, EPA had obtained detailed informationon treated and untreated (raw) wastewater characteristics.

For most pollutantsthe average of this data was used for the long term average. EPA sampled data for cadmiumand lead appeared too low to represent the
range ofraw wastes in the industry. For these parameters EPA used available self-monitorh~data to calculate the long-termaverage. AlthoughLheAgency h,~sless informationon which tojudge the adequacy of trr'tment in the selfmonitoringdata, t~..se h'.~her values

were used by the Agency to compensate for the re4atively low raw Waste cadmiumand lead at .EPAsampled plants. The average of the selfmonitorin 8 data for lead and cadmium

was used for the long-termaverage.

The regulations specify daily and monthlyaverage maximums.Thus, the limits are developedfrom the Agency
assessment of long term concentration
averages multipliedby variability factors. If a plant intends to consistently complyw~ :.~

### the regulatory limit it 

### should Use the long term concentration averagn as the basra for design and operat/on. The followinglong-term concentration averages were found to be attainable by the technologyEPA assessed, and were costed in this rulemaldng.They are prese:~ted here as guidance to dischargers and control authorities:
LongTermConcentrationAverages

tm,on Polkdant of 10¢dtutanlprojxt~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 lookingat variations that have occurred in thepnst. This requires multipleobservations at single
treatment systems. The self-monit0ring data collectedby EPA provided approximately12,000self-reporting observations which were used to derive variability factors. The variability factors were derivedby estimating99th percentilesbased on a lngnormal. distribution, and then dividingthose numbers by the averng~ ThesePart 433 metal,finishingstandards are based on the variabilityexpectedfor one.dayand one-monthtimeperiods. The monthly variahili~ fact0rs.were derived. assuming the monthlyaveragn was comprisedof tandaily observations.

Finally, i~e Agencymalliplied the resultingvariability~factor by the expected long:termconcentration
averages. The results were ef~uent concentration limits based On actual observations ofwell-operatedplants which allowed for the van'abillty observed atall types ofreporlin 8 facilities. EPA has ass~.ssed the cost of this regulaUonon the assumptionthat plants design and operateto meet these long term concentration averages. The final limits represent limitswhicha well-designedandoperated plant should
meet approximately99~ 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 shouldhave very little expectation ofexceeding1he promulaatedlimit for each samplin8of the discharge. 

### Xl.Changes FromthePmpomdLimits

As previously stated the limitations hre derived using Ion~tenu averages andvariability factors. Both of these items undmsventsome 

### 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 cadmiumwere eXCIUd~ due to complexln8probkme.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. TkederivalioUof theproposed Tro limit did not ~tin~sb diff~.nce~

•

... 

### plnnt mments mest
~tat plants with certain processes shouldbe ,dloweda higher fimit, ~,A 

### mspoMe, exumined Sreupingofplantsby souncesofTTO: e.~. those that 

### pe~erm solvent deareasln~ and/or i)ainthsa. Plants whichperform~ both solvent degrensingondpainting had ~daherraw waste'FrO than any other ~Smup; The 9nal Tro 

### limit is based on that pro~,essMrouping,whichis

a 

### conservative assumption since It had .the~ beck4ponnd concentration. ]~rthermore,.-l~PA is 

### now promulgating two ~rOlim4ts for 

### plants coveredby Pazt 438.The first is based solelyon back8round levelsfoundrsior to end-ofpipetreatment. It mustbe met by June 30. 19~..txcept that plants coveredby Part 41) (froa.snd steel) need not meet it 

### untilI -10;. es..The second Tro limit isbased 0neffluent data and takes into 

### accost the additioul ~emm~ls achievedby 

### and-of-pipe.l~ealmentThis secmidlb~ 

### must:be met by Februa~ 

### 15.1080;Most facil/tles,should be able
to meet:thiSlimitaftee installing end-ofpipe tmMment to'zNet 

### the electroplating 

### PSES of Pert413. HoweverPart 433 ."~ allows the ~i until February 

### ~s, z0ee 

### in casoaddittonal process 

### streams preseatapecitl 

### complianceproblems.



### ForP$]~,-Job ~ audindependent printed circuit.board 

### manufacturers m h rel~atad only ~a~l~r

### Part 413.They will until July 15,1986 

### to complywith TTO. 

### Thus "several years" will have the Sett!ementAareement of

in colculatms 

### variability factors, dmna~ wm madeto both the daily 

### maximumvedabllit and thirtyday vsriabilfly. First, the daily maximum variability was calculatedin the prepol~dby using 

### logoormedstatistics 

### forplants with less-than 10Osampling days and a nonparametricprocedure for plants reporting 100 or more observations. For the finedregulationthe A~en~.found that the largerdata 8eta bad a good fit to the-lognozmed 

### distribution.Thus the AgencyIs using • 

### thelognormaiprocedure for all data

se~. F~md. 30 

### day limits 

### based on the avera8e 

### of 30 samples have bosn replaced with a monti~lyaverage based

on 10 samples per reportingperiod.This is consistent with 

### other recentEffluent Guidelines for similar industrial cateaG;~as.

, in addition, the ASency.respoadedto comments that the statistical

. 

### methodolaayuaedIn proposed did not predict percent exosedencesof the 30 i I rv. I i t t Slit ill 

### -day Umitscnn, tentiy with the subeategorlos from toxic pollutant" oriterionused to derive,the limiis. The resnlation. However, as discussed main reasou for this Was that day to day above,job shops and ~ which are dependencein the data was not existing indirectdischaq|ereremain

•accountedfor in derivingthe proposed subject toth~ less stringentPart 413 limits, bl derlvi~ the 10 saniple monthly requirements. limits, the Agencyexamineddata x~n. Costs. EmuentReduction 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. CostandEconomicImpacts 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. 

### ImpactAnalysis ofEffluent Stondar~s The fimdmonthlylimits were andLimitotions for the MetalFim'shin8 determinedby 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 willincur aea result of this provided the most satisfactory fit to the regulation. The report assesses the data. The gonerai effect ofthese impact of effluentcontrol costs in terms statistical changes was to 

### raise some ofplant closures,unemploymenteffects, 

### limits. and increases in the costs of prod:.- ~tio~ Another chanse is that an alternative 

### Since proposal, the economicimpact amenable cyanide limit is made 

### analysis has been revised to 

### reflect available to facilitieswith sigoificant changes warranted on the basis of forumofcyanide (i.e.,iron cyanides) not commentsreceived and as a result of controllableby the technologybasis. continuedEPAreview.Monitoringand

XILPollutants and Subcategories not compliancecOStsassociated with the 

### .Regulated control Of the regulatedpollutants have been estimated for each industry sector Pare~aph 8 of toe Settlement and are presented below. Also, the Agreementcontains provisions economicanalysis ha8 been revised to 

### authorizingEPA to exclude toxic reflect a current nominalcost ofcapital

- 

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

### certain cireumst,~nces, EconomicAnalysis was revised to more 

### A. Exclusion

### ofToxic Pollutants clearlypresent, supporting data from elsewherein the record. Finally, the Paragraph 8 (a) (iii) of the 

### Settlement indirect discharMingcaptive facilities P~reementauthorizes the Administrator with flows less than 10,000gollonsper to excludefrom regulation toxic day have bean includedin theaz~lysis. 

### pollutants: Costs and impacts for this 8roup are
• Not (..tectable by Section 30~h) 

### presentedaeparatelybelow.This analytical methods or other state-of-the- 

### industry group was inadvertently
art ~ethod~ 

### or omitted from the earliereconomic

• Present in amounts too 

### sh~aHto be impactanuiysi e. effectivelyreduced by available In order to measure the 

### potential technologies: 

### or economicimpact, EPA reviewedits

• Present 

### only in trace amounts and incremental effect on each ofthe sectors neither causingnor likely to cause toxic of theindustrY(described above in the effects; or "Overviewof the Industry," and Table

• Detected in the effluent from 

### only e 1). These impacts are presented ~mallnmnber of sources 

### within a separatelybelow f~ direct and indirect subcetegory and mdquelyrelated to discharging facilitiesby Job shop, those sources: or independentpdntad ~q:uit board shop

• That willbe effectively controlled and captive shop facilities, The by technologies on which other effluent incrementalcombinedinvestment and limitations and standards are based. annual costs, whichincludeinterest and

Appendix B to this notice indicates 

### depredation, ~ all metal flnishin8 the reason for the exclusion of each 

### facilities/ncundngooots are ~ million toxic pollutant excluded ~om regulation 

### and S118millionrosp~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. Exclusion

### ofSubcote$ories employmenteffects am projected.

• In selecting effluent limitations for the 

### Incrsasos !u the Oostofproduction MetaI.Fln[shiz~ ~tego~ as a whole, 

### aveeap O.0Z peront, trail 10.400 EPAhas 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 employmentseffects -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 engineeringjudgments. 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 withCompliance with theBAT iimitationc. PSES

• incli~t dischargingjob shopand independent printed.circuitboard 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 regulationbecause compliance will significantly reduce toxic.organic pollution and will cause negligible economicimpacts on these industry
sectors. EPA is not imposingmetals 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 dischurgingjob 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 employmenteffects 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 $'167.600of 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 '10,0008allot.., 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 ofproduction is approximately one percent. No closure or employment impacts are projected.

Of the 3,750 facilities in the 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

. ._ metalfinishing operations in.addition to electroplatingprocesses. Thus, they are affected by theexisting eleciroplating stand.'de as wen as by today's regulation. EPA anticipates ~at the intesrated facilities Will complywith the metal finishing standards by treati~ their total process discharge through a single treatment system that wouldbe

more costly than the one required solely to treat electroptatin8 wastewatere.

The costa indicated above reflect the additional costs of compl)dngwith 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 determiningthe impacts of the metal finishingregulation. 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

~:: divestitureswhich could result in 850

.~. job losses and 84job transfers. ~,.// In eet~Jtin8 the economicimpact of il;:: today's 

### metalfinishingregulation.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 1.100pla~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 ofproduction to comply with ~:' the metal ffnishin8 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 $351 million, while annual costs are projected to be approximately $'118million, 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 wouldlead to nGplant closures

or process line divestitures, and that no

: employmentdisruption wouldresult.

. The Tro portion of these total annual
costs shown above is approximately

~. $705,000.3"1"O costs apply to 243 of the intesrated indirect discharsing captive facilities. " lrmally, EPA assessed the combined ' impact of today's re~ulationand 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 developmentofthe limitations. Some plants may receiveremoval 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.Thirtyplants (out of 3,750) miaht divest.their electroplating lines or dose, and 980jobs (out of450.000J could be lost or displaced. These impacts are the same as those due to the electroplating prefreatment standards alone. No"additional closures, divestitures, or unemploymenteffects

are expected from the more stringent standards promulgated today.

NSPSand 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 platin8 occurs at OniFabout 1596ofthe 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 certificationprocedm:ewill make these
costs unnecessaryin almost all cases.

The Agencyis offering the certffica"onprocedure as an alternative 

### to self-monitoring because frequent mnnitorin 8 for toxicoraanics could be expensive. Underthe 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 Agencyexpe6ts 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 ofplants 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~ forjob 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. Approximately73~ 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 exceedancerate of the "FrO limit darts8 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 currentlydumpin8 solvent~ The economic impact analysis also performedtwo seasftiVRyanalyses. The first was with a greater number of plants monitoring forTTO. 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~yconcludus that the final tabulation ts economicallyachievable, and the impacts are Justified in liRhtof the effluentmductiom achieved. 

### Tha motel finlahlq Iq~_a~on will remove

an additional 3l) mllltonpoundl per year .ofmetals 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 ExecutiveOrder 12291 the Agencymust determine whether a regulation is "'Major" and therefore subject to the requirements of a Regulatory 

### ImpactAnalysis. 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, ruskin8 it a majorregulation.

ExecutiveOrder 122.91 does not require a Regulatory Impam Analysis where its consideration would conflict with the developmenlofregulations pursuant to a court order, as with this metal finishingregulation. EPA has prepared, however, an analysis that contains many of the e]emonts of• RegulatoryImpact 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 FtexibilityAm~lysis

Pub. L. 96.354requiresthat a Regulatory Flexibility Anatysis be

• prepared for regulations 

### thathave a siRuif'w, ant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. The amdysis
may be done in oonjanc~n with, or ae part of. any other 

### a~a]ysis (xmductedby 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 segmentof the industry, large m:small Thereforea formal RegulatoryFlexibilityAnalysis

was not required.

D. SBA Loans

The agencyis coutinuin8 to encotwese small plants--includingcircuitboard manufoctdrers--touse Small Business Administration ~SBA}fmanci~ as needed for pollution control equipment. 

### The thre~,basic programs are: 

### |1) The G;mranteedPoTlutionControl 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-backeddebentures ~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 commercialbanks and are goaranteed by .theSBA.This program has interest
rates equivalent to market rates.

For addi~onal informationon 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 ofpollution may aggravate other enviromnenta|prcb~'ns. Sections 30~b] and 306 of 

### the Am require EPA 

### to considerthe ~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 balancin8 pollution problems aguins~ each other and against enm~ use is difficult,EPA believes that the final regulationbest serves overallrtafi6na] goals.



### .

The following are the non-waterquality environmentalimpacts (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 forcyanide destructionand chromiumreduction train8 suh~r dioxide mayproduce 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, controlof 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-effectthese regulations would have on the : accumulationof hazardous waste, as defined under 

### Section3001of 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 

### becauseit will necessarilycontain additional quantities fund

• concentrations)oftoxicmetal

pollutants. Disposal of these wastes wa~ costed as though they were hazardous.

EPA's 

### 01Ticeof SolidWaste.has analyzed the solid waste,nmnagement and dispose] costs requiredby flue industrfs complinnoewit~ RCILA requirements.Son~ x~.mslte were published in 45 Fit 33088fMay 19,1930}. In addition, RCRA oe~ havel~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 qoddist wastes ~onz umlal 

### finishing facilities.Seven~amm~trove been granted. 1e4 ~me pondiq and 15 have b~m mkctod. 11amit sppcm~ th~ the decisionto cost all sdid waste disposal as hamdom Wo~aMy overstated~ crate. ~ the 

### A~n~ lm mJte~.ned eta sevhp likety to o~m"bemmeeof~ contaminatkmd POI'W dodges. Tlm~ 

### sevinss ~ lnu~ m be mmidml~

E. Energy~ts

E~A estimates dust achieving the BPT and BAT effluentlb~itatimm will aot increase e]ectrk.al enm~omumption.

The Agencyestimates tbgtPJ~S will 

### increaseelec~ce] enez~ consumption by 

### approximem~y142mflliun ~lowatthours per year. For a qMpical

### exisUn~ indirectdischarser, ~ will increese
enersy conmnptina tess thaa one percent ofthe total ener~ ~ for production.

The ener~ ~ts ~orNSPS and PSNS me estimated tobe simibr to 

### enersyt~quimmeMfe~BAT. 

### However, 

### this~m ~I~ be ~ In~hm~ afterpmi~ctinm ere made fen-sewplant 

### construction. 

### XV, nest~~(mm,,)

SectionaiM(el

### of timClamsWaterAct authodm~ the ~ 

### {"BMW'I,lw~tm, Tc~mmm~ thew. apply to all ~ 1firm~ to • " deslgnal~ Indmtr~ 

### ate~llr, aad m~ offerguidance 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 manasementpractices 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 whetherindustry l|mitations and standards should include provisions that authorize noncompliance durin8 "upset" or "bypasses." An upset, sometimes called an "excursion." is unintentional ~mncompliancebeyond 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 technologycan 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 Weyerhaeuserv. 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, ~1oF. ~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,uHngan 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,;~nedin the general pretreaiment regulation, XVII. Ve~rlancesand Modifi,'atius
Federal and State NPDES permits to direct dischargers must enforcethese effluentstandards. The pretreatment limitations apply directlytoindirect dischargers.

The only exception to the BPT effteent limitations is EPA's "fundamentally different factors" variance. See E. I. duPont de NemouPsand Co:v. Train. supra: WeyerJ~oeuserCo. 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|ydifferentfactors" variance, BAT limitations for nonconventionalpollutants may be modified under Sections 301[c) and 301(g) of the Act. These statutory modifications do n~t apply to toxic or conventionalpoilu ..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 ".ischaPgerssubject 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 "fundamentallydifferent 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~ bindln8 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 coveredby 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 implementedunder 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 knowingjust 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, developmentof the celevant catesurical pretreatment standard and that the existence of those factorsjustifies 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 CPR408.1S.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~eortime 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 CompfionceDotes fall within the applicability of bo'.h

In the electroplating/metal finishing Parts. althou~, for each pollutant, onJy industry some facilities ace'subject 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, s,, Ps.s: I

.............. l 

# i* Met= Fi~s ,~j

...................................................................... x

........ i

.................. =

.....t =

................ -_,_,_ 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. °~ee47 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=+reamscould, 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,

TABLE4.--CoM~:ClANCEDATES

Regulation ~COmldiance date
E~ectroOtat~ ps~sfor

........... 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,aspos..~)m

,130). MofalRnishi~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¢thesefaciMiesthe first l-tO Ira,atts I~Lsedon management wscW, 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 

### (C3iermClub 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 IndustriesInc. The AluminumAssociation Incorporated American Airlines American Foundrymen's Society American Hot Dip Galvanizers American Metal'Stamping Association Anerock Corporation Anaconda AluminumCompany Ansul Fire Protection Apollo Metals. inc. Americm Telephone and Telegraph

Company Atwood Babcock and Wilcox Bausch and Lomb California Metal Enameling Co. Caterpillar Tra~:torCompany 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 ofthe Air Force Eaton Corporation E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. Eltech Systems Corp, EMPLaboratories, Incorpor, ted EPA RegionV ERC--Laney Federal-MogulCorporation Ferro Corporation Ford Motor Co. General Electric Company General Motors Corporation Goodyear AerospaceCorporation GoodyearTire and RubberCo. 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 PCKTechnology 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 ..ndSons 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 YorkMetal FinishingCo.

The major issues raised by
commenters are addressed in this section. A summary of all comments received and of o,,~rresponses 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 commenterpointed 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 differencebetween this regnla~ion and § 1~.22 to justify substantially different language. Thus,

we have adapted the proposed

• settlement language with minor differencesreflecting 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.icorganic 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 managementplan 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 managementplan.

Finally, for direct dischargers, the solvent managementplan 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 reinforcethe discharger's responsibility
to implement hit certification statement.

Addition of c, ,fication language is intended to reduce monitoringburdens. 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 Agencyrecognizes 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 Agencyrecognizes that frequent monitoring for TTO can be expensive. The Agencyhas 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 Ofa plant. The Agency believes that almost all facilities will be able to cortify in lieu of monitoring. However, in response to commentson the Costof compliance monitoring, the Agencyhas re-assessed its cost estimate
to consider quarterly monitoring for 1"I'O. This frequencyis reflective of a

common monitoring frequencyrequired by control authorities. For the reasons explained in section FA, above,EPA believes that ~s economicanasyses of :he impacts ol the TTO limit arc conservative and fully state or overstate the likely actual economiciznpects.

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 performancecapabilities ofnew source technology.

Reaper,as: New ~kmrcestandards for cadmium arc based on control technologywhich ~:~ designed to reduce cadmium in westewater discharge from cadmium sources, e,g. cadmium plating, chromating of cadmiumplated 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 ofII 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 averasin8 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

. .~otprovide 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 "]WOcompliance 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"Olimit 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 BATanalog standards will be based on treatment te~h~logy compatible with the model technolqg uponwhich theem standardswere based

.... In developtn8 BATanalog standards for the industry, EPA wql take into account the cumulative impact ot these' cPr" .'..$ulationsIn determining what is "economicallyacl,.levable."" " "As

m this segment of the metal [inlehin 8 tndust Wf
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 137 / Friday, July 1% 1983 / Rules and Regulations

-%

that is economicallyvulnerable, 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 finishin8 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 ":hosespecifier] 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.

Indirectdischarging job s;mp and independent printed circuitboard facilities are expected to incur costs only to comply with the TTO limitation which is being added to the electroplatingpretreatment s.andards in
Part 413. This TrO limitationis included in the regulation because itwill substantially red||ce a significant toxic "~roblem, while compliance wtl~ cause negligible econon:.~cimpacts 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~thbefore 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 -,~sthat 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 pollutants will 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 totalFedm'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 monitorin8 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'smethod for distributin8 costs for indirect dischargers between the Part 413 electroplatin8 and the Part 433 metal finishing regulations is misleading p, -; unrealistic. Electroplatin8 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 10.000

### gallons
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~.'da 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 

### EconomicAnolysis ofProposedEffluent Stondords and Limitotions

### for the Metal Finishh:g 

### Industryprovides 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--5of 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 rangin8 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 Electroplatin8 Pretreatment Standards, but in fact these Standards exempte~ plants from compliance whose flow were less than 10,000pod Therefore. they will incur costs andIII 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 ofjob 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 ofjob 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 

### ~conomicreasons.

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 prevailingpractice 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 

### ScreeningofIndustrialE~luents 

### lot PriorityPullutants. EPA'a technical conclusions are detailed in 

### Development 

### Document

### forEffluent Guidelines. New Source Performance Stands "', and Pretreatment Standardsfor L'.~Metal 

### Finishing Point Source Cat~. ~ry. The Agency's economic analysis ~s presented T~I

### Economiclmpoct Anolysis ofEffluent Limitations andStandards for the Meto] FinishingIndustJy. 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~tGuidelines 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 notifiedII 

### ~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. 1251eL seq., as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977,Pub. L. 95-217).

[Note.~These appendiceswill 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 --^tni r~ t in's hi!ng. materials undergoing ,u~

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, ~'dspromulgated 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~:rt413 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

' TheCopsent Dem,~e in NRDCv, T~in, 12ERC 1833 (D.D,C,1979}specific*• compliance datefor PSF.$ ofno laterthan]une80, I~II, EPAhas moved fore modification ofthatprovision ofthe Dec.tee Sh,.',d.ItheCoatidenythatmotion,EPAwillhe reqvimdto modifythiscompliance 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 Generaldefinitions.

• • • 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-chlorophenylphenyl ether 4-br.~mmphenylphenyl 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 Butylbenzyl phthaiate Di-n-buty] phthalate Di-n-octylphthalate Diethyl phthalate Dimethylphthalate 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-phenyleneF "'~.ne} Pyrene Tetrachiomethylene Toluene Trichloroethylene Vinyl chloride [chloroethylene} Aldrin Dieldrin Chlordane {technicalmixture 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-polychlorinatedbiphenyls) PL"B-12 "~. ;Arochlor 1242) PCB-1254{Aroc.hlor12&l) PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221) PCB-1232(Arochior1232} PCB-1248[Atochlor 1248) PCB-12OO'(Arochlor1260} PCW1016 [Arochlor 10161 Toxapher~ 2.3.7.8-tetrachlorodibenzop.dioxin (TCDD)



### 3. Section 413.03 is amended by adding the following: § 413,0S liloldtodn0 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 electroplatin8 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 sourceFederal 

### 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 § 

### 4,13.03of 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 {I0,000gal) 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 organic management l-,an approved by the control authority.

6. Section 413.44 is amended by addino "~aragraphIf}, 

### (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 additionto paragraphs (a),{bL (c},(d},(e},(f), and {g} the following shallapply:An existingsource 

### 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 {10,000gel} 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. {10,000gal} 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 adoringparagraphs 

### (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_-gingless 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 followinglimitation shall apply forplantsdischarging30,0001 (I0,030gallor 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 shallapply:An existingsource submittinga certification in lieuof monitoring pursuant to § 413.03of this regulationmust implem*'.It the toxic organicmanagement plan approved by the controlauthority.

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 {10,000gal)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| thinfollowin8 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 {10.000 gal) 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~tor pollutant ptope~ mumfor 

## %,

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~.arcecategory. 433.11 Specialized definitions. 4:~3.12 Monitoringrequirements. ' 433.13 Effluentlimitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by applying the best practicable control technology ~urrently available [BPT). 433,14 Effluentlimitations rep~esr ding the degree ofeffluent 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'olAct Amendments of 1971.

as amended by the Clean Water Act of1977) (the "'Act"); 33 U.S.C. 1311. 1314(b) (cJ. (e). and (8). 1316(b) and (c}. 1317(b}and (c~.1318 and 1361:86Stat. 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 ¢,esfrom 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 Treatin8, 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:
Nonferrousmetal 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 CFR Part 420) Metal casting foundries {40CFRPart 464) Aluminum forming (40 CFB Part 497) Copper forming (40 CFR Part 468) Flastic molding at,, forming(,10CFR 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 undergoin8 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 Butylbenzyl phthalete Di.n-butylphthslate Di-n-ootylphthalate Dtethylphthalate Dlmetl,ylphthelate ~,Z-benznnthracene {benzo(e)anthraceneli 

### 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-tran~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_.nylphenyl ether Bis {2-chloroisopropyl}ether BIs {2-cldoroethoxy) methane Methylene c,..~ride {dichloromethane) Methyl chloride {chloromethane} Methyltmomide (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 {technicalmixture 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!.~repoxide (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 moaitorin8 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 monitorin8 is necessary to measure comp!:.ance with the l"ro standard, the industrial discheLrgerneed 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 permittin8 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 dumpin8, 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 permittin8 authority shad] inoorporate the plan as a provision of the permit. {c} Self-monitoring for cyanide must he conducted after cyanide treatment and be~'ordilution 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

.................................................. It) I') 2 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 lilmllnot

.__. ! 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 avagaMetectmology 

### 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 applyin8 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 43Federal Re~gter / VoL

BAT ER~.UENTLIMITATIONs--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 PLANTSEXCEPTJ(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

Mimffamspe~ 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¢~ rmrtmgn)

~')

....................... 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 existin8 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.
~j433.1o IBeserve¢ll

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

WLL~ ~ ~.SO-M

\

,4

\