subchapter n-effluent limitations, (1) guidelines and ... · 3/9/1976 · systems, decanting...

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of Environment- CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS,

GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS/ : [FL 500-1]

PART 457-EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTUR-ING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Notice of Interim Final Rule MakingNotice is hereby given that effluent

limitations and guidelines for existingsources to be achieved by the applicationof best practicable control technologycurrently available as set forth in in-terim final form below are promulgatedby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The explosives manufacturingpoint source category covers both themilitary and commercial manufacturingoperations. The regulation set forth be-low establishes Part 457-explosivesmanufacturing point source category andwill be applicable to existing sources forthe manufacture of expldslves subcate-gory (Subpart A) and the explosivesload, assemble jnd pack plants subcate-gory (Subpart C) of the explosives man-ufacturing point source category pur-suant to sections 301, 304 (b) and (c), ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act,as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1311, 1314(b) and (c), 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L.92-500) (the Act). Simultaneously, theAgency is publishing in proposed formeffluent limitations and guidelines for ex-isting sources to be achieved by the ap-plication of best available technologyeconomically achievable, standards ofperformance for new point sources andpretreatment standards for existingsources and for new sources for the man-ufacture of explosives subcategory (Sub-part A) and the explosives load, assembleand pack plants subcategory (SubpartC).

(a) Legal authority.(1) Existing point sources.Section 301(b) of the Act requires the

achievement by not later than July 1,1977, of effluent limitations for pointsources, other than publicly owned treat-ment works, which require the applica-tion of the best practicable control tech-nology currently available as defined bythe Administrator pursuant to section304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b) alsorequires the achievement by not laterthan July 1, 1983, of effluent limitationsfor point sources, other than publiclyowned treatment works, which riquirethe application of best available tech-nology economically achievable whichwill result in reasonable further prog-ress toward the national goal of elimi-nating the discharge of all pollutants, asdetermined in accordance with regula-tions issued by the Administrator pur-suant to sebtion 304(b) of the Act.

Section 304(b) of the Act requires theAdministrator to publish regluationsproviding guidelines for effluent limita-tions setting forth the degree of effluentreduction attainable through the appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently available and thedegree of effluent reduction attainable

through the application of the best con-trol measures and practices achievableincluding treatment techniques, process-and procedural innovations, operatingmethods and other alternatives. The reg-ulation herein sets forth effluent limita-tions and guidelines, pursuant to sec-tions 301 and 304(b) of the Act, for themanufacture of explosive subcategory(Subpart A) and the explosives load, as-semble and pack plants subcategory(Subpart C) of the explosives manufac-turing point source category.

Section 304(c).of the Act requires theAdministrator to issue to the States andappropriate water pollution control agen-cies information on the processes, pro-cedures or operating methods which re-suit i i the elimination or reduction of thedischarge of 'pollutants to Implementstandards of performance under section306 of the Act. The report or "Develop-ment Document" referred to below pro-vides, pursuant to section 304(c) of theAct, information on such processes, pro-cedures or operating methods.

(2) New sources.Section 306 of the Act requires the

achievement by new sources of a Fed-eral standard of performance providingfor the control of the discharge of pol-lutants which reflects the greatest degreeof effluent reduction which the Admin-istrator determines to be achievablethrough application of the best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-esses, operating methods, or other alter-natives, including, where practlcqble, astandard permitting no discharge ofpollutants.

Section 306 also requires the Adminis-trator to propose regulations establishingFederal standards of performance forcategories of new sources included in alist published pursuant to section 306of the Act. The -regulations proposedherein set forth the standards of per-formance applicable to new sources forthe manufacture of explosives subcate-gory (SubpartA) and the explosives load,assemble and pack, plants subcategory(Subpart C) of the explosives manufac-turing point source category.

Section 307(b) of the Act requires theestablishment of pretreatment standardsfor pollutants introduced into publiclyowned treatment works and 40 CFR, 128-establishes that the Agency will proposespecific pretreatment standards at thetime effluent limitations are establishedfor point source discharges.

Section 307(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to promulgate pretreat-ment standards for new sources at thesame time that standards of perform-ance for new sources are promulgatedpursuantto section -306. In another sec-tion of the FEDERAL REGisTER regula-tions are proposed in fulfillment of theserequirements.

(b) Summary and basis of interimfinal -effluent limitations and guidelinesfor existing sources, proposed effluentlimitations and guidelines for existingsources to be achieved by the applicationof the best available technology eco-nomically achievable, proposed stand-

ards of performance for new sources, andproposed pretreatment standards forboth new and existing sources.

(1) General methodology.The effluent limitations and guidelines

set forth herein were developed in thefollowing manner. The point source cate-gory was first studied for the purpose ofdetermining whether separate limita-tions are appropriate for different seg-ments within the category. This analysisincluded a determination of whether dif-ferences in raw material used, productproduced, manufacturing process em-ployed, age, size, waste water constit-uents and other factors require develop-ment of separate limitations for differentsegments of the point source category.The raw waste characteristics for eachsuch segment were then identified. ThisIncluded an analysis of the source, flowand volume of water used in the processemployed, the sources of waste and wastewaters in the'operation and the constit-uents of all waste water. The constit-uents of the waste waters which shouldbe subject to effluent limitations wereidentified.

The control and treatment technol-ogies existing within each segment wereidentified. This Included an Identifica-tion of each distinct control and treat-ment technology, including both in-plantand end-of-process technologies, whichis existent or capable of being designedfor each segment. It also Included anidentification of, in terms of the amountof constituents and the chemical, physi-cal, and biological characteristics of pol-lutants, the effluent level resulting fromthe application of each of the technol-ogies. The problems, limitations andreliability of each treatment and controltechnology were also Identified. In addi-tion, the nonwater quality environmentalimpact, such as the effects of the ap-plication of such technologies upon otherpollution, problems, including air, solidwaste, and noise. The energy require-ments of each control and treatmenttechnology were determined as well as

,the cost of the application of suchtechnologies.

The information, as outlined above,was then evaluated In order'to determinewhat levels of technology constitute the"best practicable control technology cur-rently available." In identifying suchtechnologies, various factors were con-sidered. These included the total cost ofapplication of technoloy In relation tothe effluent reduction benefits to 'beachieved from such application, the agoof equipment and facilities involved, theprocess 'employed, the engineering as-pects of the application of various typesof control techniques, process changes,nonwater quality environmental impact(including energy requirements) andother factors.

The data upon which the above anal-ysis was performed included EPA per-mit applications, EPA sampling and In-spections, consultant reports and in-dustry submissions.

(2) Summary of conclusions with re-spect to the manufacture of expolsivessubcategory (Subpart A) and the ex-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 47-TUESDAY,-MARCH 9, 1976

10180


plosives load, assemble. and pack plants russion-doenot preclude the selection ofsubcategory (Subpart C) .of the ex- .other wastewater treatment alternativesplosives manufacturing point source whichprovide equivalent or better levelscategory. of treatment.(i) Categorization. : Wasterwater impoundments, if notFor thepurpose of establishing effluent properly designed, maintained and

limitations. guidelines andstandards, the - operated, may be subject to runoff frommanufacture -of explosives was -divided their drainage ,area. New sources can beinto fur subcategories which facilitated properly located and designed to avoidthe study of explosives manufacturing. tis problem. Furthermore, existing Im-Only two subcategories, the manufac- poundments -can be modified by con-ture -of 'explosives (Subpart A) and the struction of diversion ditches or by In-explosive load, assemble auid pack plants -creasing the amount of surge capacity(Subpart C),- are being promulgated at of the impoundment with either a higherthis time. dam or a lower operating water level.

Factors such as type of product, raw Through use of these technicues, a rain-waste loads, ,water requirements, type fall up to the 25 year-24 hour event canof manufacturlng processing, .treat- be prevented from causing the dischargeability of -wastewaters and other means of process waste water pollutants.were'used to establish effluent' limita- • The application and performance oftions guidelines and standards of per- various control and -treatment tech-formance -for each -of the specific sub- .nologles to reduce the quantities of pol-categoxies- In geneia, the largest con- lutants .dlscharged to navigable waterstributing factors are- processing and as a result of the production or procem-treatability based on production volume Ing operations in the explosives manu-and specific water recuirements. facturing are specific to the product

Hence, .this broad bate subategorza-" manufactured or processed. However,tion scheme simiplifies the application of many in-process control measures, aseffluent Jimitations and guidelines -for a well as end-of-plpe treatment systems,complex mix of production activity and may be generally applied to several prod-a large number of selected explosives uct subcategories.groupings. This scheme xeflects differ- Good. In-process control s a signif-ences in the 4ciaracter, the volume and - leant pollution abatement technique forhe treatability -of wastewater streams all products produced In the manufac-due to m3iufacuring process variables ture of -explosives. Practices such asuniqua t each grouping of -explosiVe minimization and containment of spillsproducts. and leaks, segregation of waste streams,

(ii) Waste characteristics. mnonitoring process waste -water, water- The known significant wastewater conservation and redse, waste -waterpollutants and -pollutant properties xe- equalization and good housekeeping.sulting from the-explosives, manufacture process operation and equipment main-includepHTSS, BOD3, COD, TOC, O&G tenance are necessary to eliminate orand ,metals. BOD5, COD, and TOC, reduce the-volume of process waste waterwhich are primary measurements for requiring treatment.organic pollution, a re evident in waste- All subcategories generate processwaters from explosives manufacturing, waste water streams which must be con-

(id Origin of waste water pollutants. trolled and treated. The constluentsSources of. wastewater pollutants In contained in the process waste water

aqueous wastes from reactors, filtration -vary with -the nihemical or explosivesystems, decanting systems, distillation product Troduced. Suspended solids revacuum exhaust scrubbers, caustic -present as a result of most productionscrubbers, process equipment cleanouts, -processes. These may generally b'e re-production arei, washdowns, refining moved by sedimentation basins, clarn-area wasbdowns, formulation equipment fiers, filters, centrifuges and evaporation.cleanup -and spM wasbdowns. These treatment technologies can be

Pollutant parameters for explosives used-when combined with disposal ofres-manufacturing pertain to waste waters idue.from process operations. -Process waste - Numerous metal Ions and metal com-water pollutants are proportional to the pounds are generated 'by the processeslevel of production and it was therefore used to manufacture many explosives.possible to establish limitations and .Treatment of these wastes generallystandards on the basis of production consists of various precipitation proc-Other pollutant sources vithinexplosives esses and subsequent solids removal.manufacturing plants from monprocess Solid waste control must be con-sources such as utilities, labs, terminals sidered. Pollution control technologiesand others are generally not related to generate many different amounts andproduction unless otherwise noted. types of solid wastes and liquid concen-

Civ) Treatment and control tech- trates through the removal of pollutants.n logy. These zubstances 'vary greatly In their

Wastewater treatment and control chemical and physical composition andtechnologies have been studied for each may be either hazardous or non-hazard-subcategory to determine what is the ous. A variety of techniques may be enm-best practicable -control technology cur- ployed to dispose of these substances de-rently available. J pending on the degree ofhazard,

The following discussion of treatment If thermal processing (incineration) Istechnology provides the basis for the the choice for disposal, provisions 7nusteffluent limitations guidelines. This dis- be made to ensure against entry of

1oi8ihazardous pollutants into the atmos-phere. Consideration should also begiven to recovery- of materials of valuein the wastes.'-

For thnse waste materials consideredto be nonhazardous where lan-disposalis the choice for disposal, practicessimilar to proper sanitary landfill tech-nolory may be followed. The principlesset forth In the EPA's Land Disposal ofSolid Wastes Guidelines 40 CF Part 241may be used as guidance for acceptableland disposal techniques.

Best practicable control technology asknown today requires disposal of thepollutants removed fronm waste waters inthis pointr ource category in the form ofsolid wastes and liquid concentrates. In

-'most cases these are nonhazardous sub-ztances 1equiring only tnimal custodialcare. However, some constituents may behazardous und may require special con-sideration. In order -to ensure long-termprotection of the environment fromthese hazardous or harmful constituents,special consideration of disposal sitesmust be made. All landfill sites wheresuch hnardous wastes are disposedshould be selected so as to prevent hori-zontal and vertical migration of thesecontaminants to ground or surfacewaters. In cases -where geologic condi-tions may not reasonably ensure this,adequate legal and mechanical precau-tions (e.g, Impervious liners) should betaken to ensure long-term protection tothe environment from hazardous mate-rials. Where appropriate, the location ofsolid hazardous materials disposal sitesshould be permanently recorded In theappropriate office of legal jurisdiction.

(v) .Cost estimates-for control of wastewater pollutants.

Capital and annual costs were com-puted for each product type/processwithin a subcategory on the basis of the.cost per 1,000 pounds. Due to the com-plexity and degree of integration in thispoint source category, it was necessaryto make some simplifying assumptionsin order to determine costs ona productby product bass. These assumptions are:

(1) that each product type process isa discrete plant whose process wastewa-ter is treated in a single end-of-processwaste treatmentsystem.

(2) that allwastewaters are treated bythe model end-of-process system-regard-less of alternate disposal techniques andin-process changes.

temoval of dissolved solids is expen-sive at this time. The disposal of solublesolids once they have been removed fromthe w, aste water Is another difficult prob-lem. New plants have more options insolving these problems economicallythan do existing plants. New 'source fa-cilities with heavy dissolved solids efflu-ents and/or heavy solid waste loads mayavoid costly waste water treatments bygeographical location. A favorable bal-:ance of climatic evaporation to rainfalleases these problems. Land storage orladfill space should be available for sol-ids disposaL

Methods -which may be employed toavold major pollution problems Include

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 47-TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976

10182

use of: (1) dikes, emergency holdingponds, catch basins and other contain-ment facilities, for leaks, spills and washdowns, In those cases where It Is not pos-sible to minimize these by modificationsto in-plant operations, (2) piping,trenches, sewers, sumps, and other isola-tion facilities to keep leaks, spills andprocess water separate from cooling and(3) non-contact condensers for coolingwater, (4) efficient reuse, recycling andrecovery of all possible raw materialsand by-products and (5) closed cyclewater utilization whenever possible.Closed cycle operation eliminates allwaterborne wastes to surface water.

Alternate disposal methods such as in-cineration or like processes are also com-,monly used for disposal of highly con-centrated and difficult wastes. In anyspecific case, the manufacturer can bestdetermine the most attractive economicalternatives for in-process controls andend-of-process treatment which willmeet the limitations required.

Cost information was obtained directlyfrom manufacturers, from engineeringfirms, equipment suppliers, governmentsources and available literature when-ever possible. Costs are based on actualindustrial installations or engineeringestimates for projected facilities as sup-plied by contributing companies. In theabsence of such information, costs esti-mates have been developed from eitherplant-supplied costs for similar wastetreatment installation at plants makingsimilar chemicals or general cost esti-mates for treatment technology.

(vI) Energy requirements and non-wa-ter quality environmental impacts.

The major nonwater quality consid-eration which may be associated with in-process control measures is the use ofalternative means of ultimate disposal.As the process raw waste load (RWL) isreduced in volume, alternate disposaltechniques may become feasible. Recentregulations are tending to limit the useof ocean discharge and deep-well injec-tion because of the potential long-termdetrimental effects associated with thesedisposal procedures. Incineration is aviable alternative for concentrated wastestreams. Associated air pollution and theneed for auxiliary fuel, depending on theheating value of the waste, are consid-erations which must be evaluated on anindividual basis for each use.

Other nonwater quality aspects, suchas noise levels, will not be perceptiblyaffected. Most chemical plants generatefairly high noise levels 1(85-95) dB]within the battery limits because ofequipment such as pumps, compressors,-steam jets, flare stacks, etc. Equipmentassociated with in-process or end-of-pipecontrol systems would not add signifi-cantly to these levels.

Energy requirements associated withtreatment and control technologies areestimatdd to be less than 2% of totalplant energy requirements and are notsignificant when compared to the totalenergy requirements for this industry.

(vii) Economic impact analysis.Executive Order 11821 (November 27,

1974) requires that major proposals for


legislation and promulgation of regula-tions and riles by Agencies of the exec-utive branch be accompanied by a state-ment certifying that the inflationary im-pact of the proposal has been 6valuated,and OMB Circular A-107 (January 28,1975) prescribes guidelines for the identi-fication and evaluation of major propos-als requiring preparation of Inflationaryimpact certifications. The approved EPAcriteria proVide that all regulatory ac-tions which are, likely to result in capitalinvestment exceeding $100 million or an-nualized costs in exess of $50 millionwill require certification. The Agency'sanalysis indicates a $3.9 million annualcost and a $13.0 million investment for.the manufacture of explosives and load,assemble andpack subcategories to meetboth the 1977 and 1983 effluent limita-tions and guidelines, which do not exceedthe specified amounts. However, the fol-lowing economic and inflationary impactstatement has been performed and meetsall the necessary requirements.

The Agency has considered the eco--nomic impact of the internal and exter-nal costs of the effluent limitations guide-lines. Internal costs given in 1975 dollarsare defined as investment and annualcost, where annual cost is composed ofoperating costs, maintenance cost, thecost of capital and depreciation. Exter-nal cost deals with the assessment of theeconomic impact of the internal costs interms of price increases, production cur-tailments, plant closures, resultant un-employment, community and regionalimpacts, internitional trade, and Indus-try growth.

The total investment required by bothsubcategories to comply with these regu-lations is $6.3 million for 1977 effluentlimitations and an additional $6.7 millionfor 1983 effluent limitations. The annualcosts are $2.1 million for 1977 effluentlimitations and an additional $1.8 mil-lion for 1983 effluent limitations. Themanufacture of explosives subcategoryand the load, assemble, and pack sub-category both have relatively small in-ternal cost, causing the external cost tobe minimal.

The manufacture of explosives sub-category needs an investment of $3.5million to meet the 1977 effluent limita-tions and an additional $2 million invest-ment is necessary to meet the 1983 efflu-ent limitations. The annual costs for thissubcategory are $0.8 million for meetingthe 1977 effluent limitations and an addi-tional $0.7 -million for meeting the 1983effluent limitations. The unit treatmentcost is only 0.9 to 1.9 percent of sellingprice for the 1977 effluent limitations and1.7 to 3.4 percent of selling price for the1983 effluent limitations. Most of thetreatment cost for 1983 would not be re-quired, since there is currently a strongtrend towards producing ammonium ni-trate based explosives rather than themore polluting nitroglycerin based explo-sives. Due to this industry trend and thefairly small magnitude of the costs due to1977 standards, it is estimated that theeconomic impact on this subcategory Isminimal.

The load, assemble and pack plant sub-category requires an investment of $2.8million to meet the 1977 effluent limita-tions and an additional $4.7 million in-vestment is necessary to meet the 1983effluent limitations. The annual costsfor this subcategory are $1.3 million formeeting the 1977 effluent limitations andan additional $1.1 million for meetingthe 1983 effluent limitations. The unittreatment cost is 0.9 percent of sellingprice for the 1977 effluent limitations and1.7 percent of selling price for 1983 efflu-ent limitations. These percentages arebased on the least expensive product, andwould be even lower for the higher pricedproducts. Additionally, recent historicaldata indicates that the demand elasticityfor these products Is fairly high. There-fore, it Is expected that most ol thesecosts will be passed on to the consumersof the products. For these reasons, com-bined with the relatively low treatmentcosts, the potential economic Impact isexpected to be insignificant,

The report entitled "Development Doc-ument for Interim Final Effluent Limi-tations, Guidelines and Proposed NewSource Performance Standards gor tleExplosives Manufacturing Point SourceCategory" details the analysis under-taken in support of the interim final reg-ulation set forth herein and is availablefor inspection in the EPA Public Infor-mation Reference Unit, Room 2922 (EPALibrary), Watersickle Mall, 401 M St,,SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, at all EPAregional offices, and at State water pol-lution control offices. A supplementaryanalysis prepared for EPA of the possibleeconomic effects of the regulation Is alsoavailable for Inspection at these loca-tions. Copies of both of these documentsare being sent to persons or Institutionsaffected by the proposed regulation orwho have placed themselves on a mailinglist for this purpose (see EPA's AdvanceNotice of Public Review Procedures, 38FR 21202, August 6, 1973). An additionallimited number of copies of both reportsare available. Persons wishing to obtaina copy may write the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Effluent GuidelinesDivision, Washington, D.C. 20460, Atten-tIon: Distribution Officer, WH-552.

When this regulation Is promulgatedin final rather than Interim form, re-vised copies of the Development Docu-ment will be available from the Superin-tendent of Documents, GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.Copies of the economic analysis docu-ment will be available through the Na-tional Technical Information Service,Springfield, VA 22151.

(c) Summary of public participation,Prior to this publication, the agencies

and groups listed below were consultedand given an opportunity to participatein the development of effluent limitations,guidelines and standards proposed forthe explosives manufacturing category,An initial draft of the Development Doc-ument was sent to most participants andcomments were solicited on that report,The following are the principal agenciesand groups consulted: Effluent Standardsand Water Quality Information Advisory

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 47-TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976


Committee (established under section 515of the Act) ; all State-and U.S. TerritoryPollution Control Agencies; Naval Fa-'cilites Engineering Command; Olin Cor-poration; Hercules, Inc.; E. I. DuPont deNemours andCompany; Tennessee East-man Company; Environmental DefenseFund, Inc.; -Natural Resources DefenseCouncil; American Society of Civil Engi-neers; Water Pollution-Control Federa-tion; U.S. Army -Corps of Engineers; In-stitute of Makers of Explosives; Bureauof Explosives, Association of AmericanRailroads; US. Army Environmental-HygieneAgency; AmericanfDefense Pre-paredness Association; The Fertilizer In-stitute; Manufacturing Chemists Asso-ciation; U.S. Department of Defense;U.S. Department of Interior; Atlas Pow-der Company; and"UX.. Department ofthe Army.

The- following responded with com-ments: Manufactiring Chemists Associ-ation; -US. Water Resources Council;U.S.-Department of Defense; US. De-partment of Interior; State of DelawareDepartment -of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Control; North CarolinaDepartment af Natural- and EconomicResources; Michigan Department of Nat-ural Resources; Effluent Standards andWater Quality Information AdvisoryCommittee; National Ecological Re-search Center; Atlas Powder Company;Bureau of Explosives, Association ofAmerican Railroads; E.Lf.DuPont deNe-mours-and Company; Department of theArmy; and Picatinny Arsenal.

The primary issues raised in the de-velopment of the interim final effluentlimitations and guidelines and the treat-

-ment of these issues heiein are as fol-lows:'

(1) A commenter stated thatwater gelmanufacturing did not belong in the load,assemble and pack plant subcategory. -

Water gels are manufactured fromsimilar -raw materials, generate- onlyclean-up -wastewater, and have similar-raw waste loads as ANFO and other load,assemble and -pack plant products, 'and

-therefore have been included, In Sub-- category C.

(2) It-was-commented that the nitro-glycerin NG) preparation described Inthe draft document is not currently usedby the military. The Army currently usesthe Blazzi process for continuous manu-facture of.NG.

The intent of the draft document is tocover both commercial and military ex-plosives manufacturing operations. Com-mercial NG production is by the batchmethod and is therefore considered ap-propriate. 'The Agency is continuing tocollect data on the military sector wherecontinuous processes havr.been Installedfor nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, and tri-nltrotoluene and may In the future Issuedifferent regulations for these processes.

(3) Several commenters questionedthe BATEA treatment technology which -is defined-as iltramtion and activated car-bon added on to the BPCTCA treatmentsystem. Concern was expressed -over the

- safety of the carbon regdnerafionstep.- A number of -full size activated carboncolumns -areo currently In operation at

several military manufacturing sites. Toour knowledge, these operations havebeen executed safely. The Agency is con-tinuing to develop a reliable data baseand is charged Tith the responsibilityto review regulations as new data be-comes available.'

(4) Various commenters expressedconcern with the heavy reliance on bio-logical treatment of vastis from explo-sives and propellants.

Treatment systems studied In the fieldsurvey were biological. The exemplaryplant utilized an activated sludge system.As noted in the Development Document,the reliance on blological systems in es-tablishing the effluent limitations doesnot mean that this s the only method ofachieving the effluent limitations. Thewaste treatment models are used to fa-cilitate economic analysis.

(5) ITo commenters 'oted that thecontractors list of significant waste waterpollutant parameters is incomplete. Itwas suggested that pH, oil and grease,phenols, ammonia nitrogen, heavy me-tals, color, sulfate, nitrates and totalKjieldahl nitrogen be added.

The Agency has xevised the originallist of pollutant parameters printed inthe draft development document Thosewhich are to be controlled are shownIn this regulation for the subcategoriesbeing promulgated 'today. Some -wastewater pollutant parameters which verefound to be present in small quantitiesare not proposed to be controlled at thistime; however, additional studies aretcontinuing and these may -be controlledin the future.

(6) One commenter pointed out thatpH -variations in Industry wastewatereffluents are a result of the manufacture,of acids and their recovery in additionto the explosives manufacturing opera-tions. Because there is such-a wide varia-tion of pH levels and because treatmenttechnology Is available, effluent limilta-'tions s-hould be established for this pa-xameter.

nThe use of a biological treatment tech-nology requires a pH range of-6 to 9 withthe appropriate neutralization and equal-ization facilities to avoid shock loadsto the microorganisms. The PH ibnita-tion for these explosives subcategorieswill be set for that range.

(7) It was suggested that additional-emphasis be placed on alternative physi-cal-chemical treatment -methods which'would convert the nitroglycerin, in situ,toless hazardous components rather thandepend wholly on biological treatment.

The Agency agrees that the sbovemethod Is a viable procedure and is anappropriate technique. The Agency hasrepeatedly advised that the proposedtreatment model technology is only onemethod of meeting the limitation andthat other teclmology can be used where-ever appropriate to meet the limitations.

(8) A romm'cnter stated that ultimatedisposal methods, such as spray Irriga-tion and deep wells, have apparently notbeen considered, but -sbould be consid-ered If only to document their relevanceIn terms of treatment.

Deep well disposal of explosive wasteIs a potential hazard to the aquifier.Therefore, this technology is not prac-ticed by the -industry and Is not recom-mended. Spray irrigation appears to bean acceptable system where adequateland Is available.

(9) Two commenters stated that theychallenged the selection of biologicaltreatment for BPCTCA based on onecommercial plant.

Pollution treatment in this indiastryis almost uniformly Inadequate. There-fore. the best Information available fromthe Industry and transfer technology be-tween subcategories within the same In-dustry was used In developing the lim-Itations based on the use of . biologicalwaste treatment system or its equivalent.

(10) One commenter pointed out thatthe draft document does not Illustrate aprillng process.

PrM towers for ammonium nitrate arecovered under existing limitations forfertilizers. The regulation for the load,assemble and pack plants subcategoryapplies to the production of ammoniumnitrate fuel oil (ANFO) for blastingpurposes.

(11) It was claimed that downilowfixed-bed carbon columns are not therecommended current treatment forTNT. One commenter stated that theArmy concluded that the up flow seriesof fixed beds was most effective, opera-ble and economic.

The Agency has available to It a num-ber of sources of information on applica-tion of activated carbon including tradeliterature from companies who both sellactivated carbon and who will be im-pacted by this regulation. In addition,texts on carbon adsorption are available.to the public, including Agency publica-tions. These publications do not consti-tute endorsement or recommendation bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy. Itis expected that plant managementand Its engineers will use the best avail-able information from all sources indesigning and operating the needed car-bon columns.

(12) In regards to thellimitdtions pre-sentedin SectionitforaPCTCA, BATEAand BADCT in the draft document, acommenter questioned the fact that thedaily maximum is increased over thedaily average (maximum thirty day lim-iation) by a factor less than two. Hisexperience showed that a twofold in-cranse is Insufficient to cover the sta-tistically significant variations encoun-tered in the biological treatment facili-ties operated by his company.

Because treatment is almost non-ex-istent for this point source category andonly one plant has been considered ex-emplary a very limited data base exists.The daly maximum and daily averagefor BOD and COD have been developedfrom this data. Our numbers show ap-proximately a two-fold ratio of maxi-mum values to average values; the Agen-cy has used a factor of three to establishthe maximum day limitation on the basisof information gained by the use of tech-nology transfer. When a more rellabledata base is developed the Agency is

FEDERAl. REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 47-TUESDAY, MIARCH 9, 1976

10183

10184

charged with the responsibility to reViewthe regulations. At that time the varia-bility factors will be reevaluated.

(13) -It was stated by one commenterthat the contractor draft documentshould have indicated restrictions on theallowable discharge of specific pollutants(such as TNT, RDX, etc.).

The time constraints imposed upon theAgency precluded an exhaustive testingand sampling program for trace quanti-ties of explosives by~peciflc compound(s)at this time. The data base available ontrace quantities of specific explosives isvery limited and judged to be insuffi-cient to develop regulations at this time.Therefore, gross parameters such asBOD5, COD, TOC and TSS have been re-lied upon for these effluent limitations.

(14) Various commenters made state-ments that performance factors from thepharmaceutical industry should not havebeen used to establish TSS (total sus-pended solids) effluent limitations guide-lines In explosives manufacturing.

Due to the similarity of the wastesgenerated and treatment systems avail-able for use in both the pharmaceuticaland explosives point- source categories,the technology has been transferred.Bgth are generally batch type operationsusing non-dedicated equipment and gen-erating a wide pH range of effluents. Inaddition, the treatment technology fromthe inorganic chemicals manufacturingpoint source category, the fertilizermanufacturing point source category andthe petroleum refining point source cate-gory have been transferred to appli-cable subcategories in this point sourcecategory. The wastes from the fertilizerand petroleum manufacturing processesand their treatability areL quite similar totreatment In this point source categoryand the model technologies are there-fore used.- (15) Current economic impact dataindicates that the original treatmentmodel (filtration and activated carbonadded on to BPCTCA) used for BAT insubcategory C may be excessive.

In order to compensate for this po-tential problem, more appropriate limi-tations' and technology have been set

- forth in Section XI (New Source Per-formance Standards) of the developmentdocument and § 457.35 of the regulationsshall be applied as BATEA for subcate-gory C. The Agency is developing addi-tional data in this respect and It is pos-sible that at a future date the activatedcarbon step may again be considered inthe waste treatment system. *

A number of other comments were re-ceived and were considered not to be'applicable to the subcategories beingpromulgated today and have been omit-ted from the preceding discussion. Ap-propriate consideration and responseswill be made at the time of publicationof the regulations applicable to thosesubcategories.

The Aiency is subject to an order ofthe United States District Court for theDistrict of Columbia entered in NaturalResources Defense Council v Train et al.(Cv. No. 1609-73) motion for modifica-tion which requires the promulgation 'ofregulations for this point source category


no later than March 1, 1976. This orderalso requires that such regulations be-come effective immediately upon pub-lication. In addition, it is necessary topromulgate regulations establishinglimitations on the discharge of pollutantsfrom point sources in this category sothat the process of issuing permits to in-dividual dischargers under section 402of the .Act is not delayed.

It has not been practicable to developand publish regulations for this categoryin proposed form, to provide a 30 daycomment period, and to make any nec-essary revisions in light of the com-ments received within the time con-straints imposed by the court order re-ferred to above. Accordingly, the Agencyhas determined pursuant to 5 USC § 553(b) that notice and comment-on the in-terim final regulations would be imprac-ticable and contrary to the public in-terest. Good cause is also found for theseregulations t6 become effective immedi-ately upon publication.

Interested persons are encouraged tosubmit written comments. Commentsshould be submitted in triplicate to theEnvironmental Protection Agency, 401M St. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, At-tention: Distribution Officer, WH-552.Comments on'all aspects of the regula-tion are solicited. In the event com-ments are in the nature of criticisms asto the adequacy of data which are avail-able, or which may be relied upon bythe Agency, comments should Identifyand, if possible, provide any additionaldata which may be available and shouldindicate why such data are essential tothe amendment or modification of theregulation. In the event comments ad-dress the approach taken by the Agencyin establishing an effluent limitation orguideline EPA solicits suggestions as towhat alternative approach should betaken and why and how this alternativebetter satisfies the detailed requirementsof sections 301 and 304(b) of theAct.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Public Information ReferenceUnit, Room 2922 (EPA Library), Water-side Mall, 401 M St. SW., Washington,D.C. 20460. A copy of preliminary draftcontractor reports, the DevelopmentDocument and economic study referredto-above, and certain supplementary ma-terials supporting the study of the in-dustry concerned will also be maintainedat this location for public review andcopying. The EPA information regula-tion, 40 CPR Part 2, provides that areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.

All comments received on or beforeApril 8, 1976 will be considered. Stepspreviously taken by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency to facilitate publicresponse within this time period axe out-lined in the advance notice concerningpublic review procedures published onAugust 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202). In theevent that the final regulation differssubstantially from the interim final reg-ulation set forth herein the Agency willconsider petitions for reconsideration ofany permits issued in accordance withthese interim final regulations.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40CFR Part 457 is hereby established as sobforth below.

Dated: February 27, 1976.RussLL E. TnAx',

Administrator.Subpart A-Manufacture of Explosives

See. Subcategory457.10 Applicability: description of the com-

mercial manufacturer of explogiVessubcategory.

457.11 Specialized definitions.457.12 Effluent limitations and guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the besat praoticablo con-trol technology currently available,

Subpart 8--Reserved]Subpart C-Explosives Load, Assemble, and Pack

Plants SubcategorySec.457.30 Applicability; description of the com-

mercial explosives load, assembleand pack plants subcategory.

.457.31 Specialized definitions.457.32 Effluent limitations and guidelines

representing the degree of lffittontreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available,

AuTnORaTr:*Secs. 301, 304(b) and (o), 300(b), 307(b) and (o), Federal Nater PollutionControl Acts, as amended (33 U.S.O. 1251,1311, 1314(b) and (o), 1310(b) and 1317(b)and (c),.86 Stat. 816 ot seq.; Pub. L. 2-500)(the Act).Subpart A-Manufacture of Exploslves

Subcategory§457.10 Applicability; description of

the commercial manufacture of ex-plosives subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theproduction of explosives.§ 457.11 Specialized defintilong.

For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "product" shall meandynamite, nitroglycerin, cyclotrlmeth-ylene trinitramine (RDX), cyclotetra-methylene tetranitramine (HMX), andtrinitrotoluene (TNT).§ 457.12 Effluent limitations and guide.

lines representing the degree of efllu.ent reduction attainable by the appli.cation of tie best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, FPA took Into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products, produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other Interested per-son may submit evidence to the Re-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 47-TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976

-gional Administrator (or to the State, ifthe Staeteas the -authority to Issue-IPDES permits) that factors relatingto the equipment or facilities involved,the process applied, or other such fac-tors-related to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor Dther-available infon:mation, the Re--gionalAdministrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are mot fundamentally different

-for that-facility compared to those speci-fied in the Development Document. Ifsuch-fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Adminis-trator or the State shall establish forthe discharger efltuent limitations in the'NPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than -the' limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different fadtors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, orinitlate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

(a) The followinglimitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thisparagraph, which may be discharged,from the manufacture.of explosives by apoint source-subject to the provisions ofthis -paragraph after application of thebest Practical control technology cur-rently available:

IMetric units, kglkkg of product- EuglisIrnlts, b,'1,000lb of product]

-. Xffluent linitations

Effluent Amner of dillyhaidcteristtc dmum for values far 50

any one day -consecutive daysshall ot exceed-

COD _ _ 7.77 2.59-D .. . 0.72 0.0m__-p:- Within the

range 6.0to9.0.


Subpart -- fReserved]Subpart C-Explosives Load, Assemble,

and Pack Plants Subcategory§457.30 Applicability description of

the commereial explosives load, ns-semlale and pack ptnts subcategory.

'The -provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from ex-plosives load, assemble and pack plants.

§457-31 Specializcd-deflnitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401shall apply to this subpart.

(b) 'The term "product' shall mean.products from plants-which blend explo-sives and market a final product and-plants that fill shells and blasting caps..Examples of such nstallations would be-plants manufacturing ammoniunnitrateand fuel oil (ANFO), nitrocarbonitrate(NCN), 4lurrles, water gels, and shells.§ -157.32 Effluent limitations and guidc-

lines representing the degree of efflu-ent reduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently aailable.,

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information it was able to col-lect, develop and :sollcit with respect to.factors (such. as age and size of plant,xaw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable. energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and eMuent levels established.It is, however, possible that data Which.would affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a- result, these-limitations should be adjusted for certainplants in thils industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-Istrator (or to the State, If the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors xelating to the equipment

10185

or faciliti- Involved, the process applied.or other such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered In the establish-ment of the guidelines. On the basis ofsuch evidence or other available infor-matlon, the Regional Administrator (orthe State) will make a written findingthat such factors are or are not funda-mentally difrerent for that facility com-parcd to these specified in the Develop-ment Document. If such fundamentallydifferent factors are found to exist, theReaonal Administrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger effluent lim-itations in the NIPDES permit either moreor le s stringent than the limitations es-tablIshed herein, to the extent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved by theAdministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro--ceedings to revise these regulations.

(a) The following limitations estab-lLh the quantity or quality of polIut-ants or pollutant propertles, controlledby this paragraph, which may be dis-charged from the explosives load, assem-ble and pack plants by a point sourcesubject to the provisions of this para-graph after application of the best prac-tical control technology currently avail-able:

w-ftrucnt lu t

Effluznt lmrltatf in

vlmzvcrf: Ymum fiar fir2Oany 1 day cuiIvo daythf o exceed-

0.25: am0.C 1-plL ... Withn thm -------.......

ranze&Oto 0.a ;

fIR Dcc.U7-di57 Filed 3-8-76;8:45 arml

FEDERAL REGISER VOL 41, NO. 47-TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1976