Opinion ID: 327524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the pretreatment standards for new sources.

Text: 145 Section 307(c) of the Act 43 provides that the Administrator shall promulgate pretreatment standards for new plants which introduce their pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. The pretreatment standards promulgated for new plants in the corn wet milling industry, 40 C.F.R. § 406.16, incorporate by reference a general set of pretreatment standards earlier promulgated in Part 128 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. See 38 Fed.Reg. 30982-84 (1973). Those standards split pollutants into two categories: compatible and incompatible. Compatible pollutants include BOD, TSS and pH. See 40 C.F.R. § 128.121. Under the general pretreatment standards incorporated by the new source pretreatment standards, a plant is not required to pretreat its effluent for removal of compatible pollutants, except as required by 40 C.F.R. § 128.131 or by a state or municipality. See id. § 128.132. Since the corn wet milling effluent is a compatible one within the meaning of the regulations, 44 new plants in the industry need worry only about the applicability of § 128.131. That section provides: 146 No waste introduced into a publicly owned treatment works shall interfere with the operation or performance of the works. Specifically, the following wastes shall not be introduced into the publicly owned treatment works:(a) Wastes which create a fire or explosion hazard in the publicly owned treatment works. 147 (b) Wastes which will cause corrosive structural damage to treatment works, but in no case wastes with a pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is designed to accommodate such wastes. 148 (c) Solid or viscous wastes in amounts which would cause obstruction to the flow in sewers, or other interference with the proper operation of the publicly owned treatment works. 149 (d) Wastes at a flow rate and/or pollutant discharge rate which is excessive over relatively short time periods so that there is a treatment process upset and subsequent loss of treatment efficacy. 150 The petitioners complain that this standard is not really a standard, because it is too vague and uncertain. While their attack on § 128.131 is in the form of a general broadside, their only real complaint concerns subparagraph (d). 45 We conclude that the petitioners' objection to that subparagraph is well taken. The record clearly indicates that corn wet milling effluent is subject to shockloads. 46 A new plant operator whose shockload is determined to be excessive over (a) relatively short time period    (causing) loss of treatment efficacy, would be subject under subparagraph (d) to substantial civil or criminal penalties. See § 309. This standard is too vague to warn the industry of the scope of prohibited conduct. On remand, therefore, the EPA shall review subparagraph (d) of § 128.131, as it applies to the corn wet milling industry, and shall amend the regulation so as to define in a reasonably specific manner what it considers to be an excessive discharge to a municipal plant over relatively short periods of time. We do not require, as the petitioners would have us do, that the regulations must be amended to provide that a new corn wet milling plant may discharge all compatible wastes into municipal treatment works without limitation. 151 We recognize that the Administrator's task in defining those shockloads which will upset municipal treatment works is a difficult one. Obviously such a definition is dependent on the size and capabilities of the particular works which is receiving the waste. Nevertheless, this is a difficulty with which the Administrator must grapple. 152 The pretreatment standards for new plants are remanded for reconsideration and amendment of the incorporated § 128.131(d), as it relates to new sources in the corn wet milling industry. The Administrator shall complete his action in that regard within the time limits and procedural requirements set forth in Part II of this opinion. This Court retains jurisdiction in the matter, and will hear objections to the Administrator's action on remand in accordance with the provisions of Part II of this opinion. 153