# Appendix — EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Train > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2168%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 430 U.S. 112 ## Text ¢. Supreme Court, U. & 2 FILED r JUL 16 1976 iu the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1976 No. 75-978 E. I. pu Pont pE Nemours AND CoMPANny, et al., Petitioners Vv. Russe. E. Train, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit Petition for Certiorari Filed January 12, 1976 Certiorari Granted April 19, 1976 - —>- —_ in the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1976 No. 75-978 E. I. pu Pont p—E Nemours anp CoMPAny, et al., Petitioners Russexu E. Train, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit ii INDEX Docket Entries and Chronological Listings of Proceedings Below In the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, Civ. A. No. 74-57 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir- cuit, No. 74-2237 (Civil) In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir- cuit, Nos. 74-1261, 74-1290, 74-1296-1304, 74-1357, 74-1406-07, 74-1588-90, 74-1670-1, 74-1741 ( Civil) Administrative Proceedings in the Environmental Protection Agency Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guide- lines and Standards of Performance: Inorganic Chemi- cals, Alkali and Chlorine Industries ( Draft) [1-6]* Effluent Limitation Guidance for the Refuse Act Permit Program: Inorganic Chemicals Industry [2550-67] Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Perform- ance for New Sources: Advance Notice of Public Re- view Procedures [4330-34 Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines (Draft) [4335-40] Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Major Inorganic Products [4455-58, 4473-78] Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Perform- ance and Pretreatment for Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category: Proposed Rules {4861-4882} Comments on Proposed Rules—N.L. Industries, Inc. [4918- 27] Vv vi 60 151 *Bracketed page numbers refer to the Administrative Record as paginated by EPA. Comments on Proposed Rules—Olin Chemicals [5151-55] Comments on Proposed Rules—E. 1. du Pont de Nemours and Company [5156-64] Comments on Proposed Rules—Manufacturing Chemists Association [5264-66] Effluent Standards and Water Quality Information Com- mittee Evaluation of Current Methods for Establishing Effluent Limitations for Industrial Point Source Cate- gories [6472-80] Letter from the Manufacturing Chemists Association to the Environmental Protection Agency, November 12, 1973 (6495-99 ] Letter from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Manufacturing Cliemists Association, January 15, 1974 (6500-6504 } Judicial Proceedings Petition for Review—E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Com- pany, et al., v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, En- vironmental Protection Agency (EPA), United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 74-1261 Petition for Review—Dow Chemical Co.. et al.. v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, EPA, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 74-1301 Petition for Review—FMC Corporation v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, EPA, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 74-1296 Complaint—E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, EPA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Civ. No, 74-57 Opinion and Order—E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Com- pany, et al., v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, EPA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Civ. No. 74-37 162 168 178 181 188 192 199 200 202 204 219 iv Opinion and Order—E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Com- pany, et al., v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, EPA, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 74-2237 240 Opinion and Order—E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Com- pany, et al., v. Russell E. Train, as Administrator, EPA, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Nos. 74-1261, 74-1290, 74-1296-1304, 74-1357, 74- 1406-7, 74-1588-90, 74-1670-1, and 74-1741 253 Order Granting Certiorari—E. I. du Pont de Nemeurs and Company, et al., v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, EPA, et al., United States Supreme Court, No. 75-978 290 Order Granting Certiorari—E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., et al., v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, EPA, United States Supreme Court, No. 75-1473 291 Order Granting Certiorari—Russell E. Train, Administrator, EPA, v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., United States Supreme Court, No. 75-1705 292 Ps SE = ee - ° Vv DOCKET ENTRIES AND CHRONOLOGICAL LISTINGS OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Civ. A. No. 74-57 4/1/74 Complaint filed. 5/13/74 Plaintiffs’ motion for separation of and expeditious determination of basic issues of statutory con- struction and for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, declaratory judgment on such issues. 5/28/74 Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings. 9/27/74 Opinion and order. 10/8/74 Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 74-2237 (Civil) 11/8/74 Appeal docketed. 11/12/74 Joint stipulation and motion for consolidation with Nos. 74-1261, etc. 11/19/74 Order consolidating this case with Nos. 74-1261, etc. 12/10/74 Joint motion for consolidated oral argument in No. 74-2237 and Nos. 74-1261, etc. 2/4/75 Joint motion for expedited oral argument. 4/22/75 Argument. 5/5/75 Motion of Appalachian Power Co., et al., to defer decision on the merits. 5/20/75 Order denying motion. 6/11/7 6/17/75 6/17/75 12/30/75 vi Appellees’ motion to file supplemental memoran- dum. Motion granted. Appellants’ motion to file appellants’ supplemental brief in response to appellees’ supplemental memorandum. Opinion and order. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Nos. 74-1261, 74-1290, 74-1296-1304, 74-1357, 74-1406-07, 74-1588-90, 74-1670-1, 74-1741 ( Civil) 3/5/74 6/7/74 6/27/74 7/12/74 7/17/74 7/31/74 8/6/74 8/12/74 8/16/74 8/27/74 8/27/74 First petition for review. Order establishing schedule for briefs. Order consolidating cases into two groups, one per- taining to efluent guidelines and one pertaining to standards of performance for new sources. Petitioner's motion for remand of effluent guidelines for the hydrofluoric acid subcategory. Petitioner's motion for remand of standards of per- formance of new sources for the hydrofluoric acid subcategory. Stipulation by parties. Order denying petitioner’s motion to remand ef- fluent guidelines. Order denying petitioner's motion to remand stand- ards of performance. Order withdrawing order denying remand. Motion of National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to file a brief amicus curiae. Motion granted. 9/9/74 9/9/74 9/13/74 9/30/74 9/30/74 10/7/74 10/29/74 11/15/74 12/19/74 1/29/7 2/4/75 2/4/75 3/28/75 4/4/75 4/10/75 4/11/75 4/11/75 4/14/75 4/14/75 vii Motion of Chamber of Commerce of the United States to file a brief amicus curiae. Motion granted. Motion of Allegheny Power System, Inc., to file a brief amicus curiae. Motion granted. Motion of N. J. Zinc Co. to file a reply brief amicus curiae. Motion granted. Motion of RMI Co. to file a brief amicus curiae and to participate in oral argument. Motion of RMI Co. granted as to brief amicus curiae and denied as to participation in oral argument. Joint motion for consolidated oral argument. Motion of American Petroleum Institute and Eleven Member Companies to file a brief amicus curiae. Motion of American Petroleum Institute, et al., granted. Joint motion for expedited oral argument. Motion of amicus curiae Allegheny Power Systems, Inc., to file a supplemental brief. Motion of Allegheny Power Systems, Inc., granted. Motion of amicus curiae American Petroleum In- stitute, et al., to file a supplemental memorandum. Motion granted. Respondent's motion to file supplemental memo- randum. Motion granted. Motion of American Petroleum Institute, et all. to participate in oral argument. Viii l 4/22/75 Argument. | iu the Supreme Court of the United States 5/5/75 — Motion of Appalachian Power Co., et al., to defer | decision on the merits. | October Term, 1976 11/10/75 Motion of petitioner N. L. Industries, Inc., to stay challenged effent guidelines pending decision. No. 75-978 11/21/75 Motion by amicus curiae American Petroleum In- stitute to file supplemental memorandum. Oe te Nene oe eee ae aero + 12/22/75 Motion of American Petroleum Institute denied. E. I. pu Pont bE Nemours anv Company, et al., Petitioners, 3/10/76 Opinion and Order. v. Russet E. Train, as Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents. in the | Administrative Proceedings } Environmental Protection Agency (1) DRAFT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES i ; | DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE INORGANIC CHEMICALS, ALKALI AND CHLORINE INDUSTRIES Prepared by General Technologies Corporation for United States Environmental Protection Agency : Under Contract Number 68-01-1513 JUNE 1973 2 [2] NOTICE The attached document is a DRAFT CONTRACTOR'S REPORT. It includes technical information and recommenda- tions submitted by the Contractor to the United States Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regarding the subject industry. It is being distributed for review and comment only. The report is not an official EPA publication and it has not been reviewed by the Agency. The report, including the recommendations, will be under- going extensive review by EPA, Federal and State agencies, public interest organizations and other interested groups and persons during the coming weeks. The report and in particular the contractor's recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance is subject to change in any and all respects. The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, will be based to a large extent on the report and the comments received on it. However, pursuant to Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act, EPA will also consider additional pertinent technical and economic information which is devel- oped in the course of review of this report by the public and within EPA. EPA is currently performing an economic impact analysis regarding the subject industry, which will be taken into account as part of the review of the report. Upon com- pletion of the review process, and prior to final promulgation of vegulations, an EPA report will be issued setting forth EPA’s conclusions concerning the subject industry, effluent limita- tions guidelines and standards of performance applicable to such industry. Judgements necessary to promulgation of regu- lations under Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act, of course, remain the responsibility of EPA. Subject to these limitations, EPA is making this draft contractor's report available in order to encourage the widest possible participation of interested persons in the decision making process at the earliest possible time. 3 The report shall have stauding in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding only to the extent that it represents the views of the Contractor who studied the subject industry and pre- pared the information and recommendations. It cannot be cited, referenced, or represented in any respect in any such proceedings as a statement of EPA’s views regarding the subject industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Water Programs Effluent Guidelines Division | Washington, D. C. 20460 4 [4] ABSTRACT This document presents the findings of an eatensive study of the inorganic chemicals, chlor-alkali industry by the General Technologies Corporation for the Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of developing effluent limitations guidelines, Federal standards of performance, and pretreat- ment standards for the industry, to implement Sections 304, 306 and 307 of the “Act”. Effluent limitations guidelines contained herein set forth the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best practicable control technology currently available and the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best available technology economically achievable which must be achieved by existing point sources by July 1, 1977 and July 1, 1983 respectively. The Standards of Performance for new sources and pretreatment standards contained herein set forth the degree of effluent reduction which is achievable through the application of the best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operai- ing methods, or other alternatives. Based on the use of Level I (BPCTCA) technology, the best practicable currently available treatment, 14 of the 25 chemi- cals under study can be manufactured with zero discharge of process waste water. With the use of Level II (BACTEA) technology, the best economically achievable, all of the 25 chemicals can be manufactured with zero discharge of proc- ess waste water. Zero discharge of process waste water is also achievable as a new source performance standard. Supportive data and rationale for development of the pro- posed effluent limitations guidelines and standards of per- formance are contained in this report. NOTICE: THESE ARE TENTATIVE RECOMMENDA- TIONS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON COM- MENTS RECEIVED AN DFURTHER INTERNAL REVIEW BY EPA. tk RRO eee ne i a a Re we ee wee et Otten gr ne ee he OIE Me oe Ill IV VI CONTENTS Ree ie eT eRe RECOMMENDATIONS _.__—_—stt—t—t—ssSCC INTRODUCTION _..__—sts—CSsSsS—SSS Purpose and Authority 00 Summary of Methods used for Develop- ment of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards of Performance _.._____. General Description of the Industry ___. INDUSTRY CATEGORIZATION Introduction ....___.______ andesiaiaan — Categorization Criteria Industry Categories __.. sciatica Specific Industry Description by iii WartTER UsE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION _. Introduction Specific Water Uses . Process Waste Characterization . Verification Sampling and Analytical I ibstencisidbeiseltiticaiinlanii SELECTION OF POLLUTION PARAMETERS ___. Primary Waste Water Pollution Parameters of Significance ._____ Secondary Waste Watcr Pollution Parameters of Significance —_____ oe IV-5 3 Section Page Significance of Pollution Parameters... VI-2 Rationale for Selection of Pollution NN 8 oe 088. eS Gee VII ConrTrROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY....._—— VII -1 ETE OI SINNER Let MORO General Methods for Control and Treatment Practices Within the Specific Control and Treatment Practices ee [6] VIII Cost, ENercy, AnD Non-WaATER QUALITY ASPECTS - cuimetaaaean. Cost and Reduction Benefits of Treatments and Control Technology .....-__._... VIII-1 NN sc ictesscsescsssmsasbccaniasdieicihsinnthincsiindelisniican:. TE Cost References and Rationales ___ —. -VITl-5 Definitions of Levels of Control and ne eee Cost of Control and Treatment Systems _.. VIII-6 Cost Effectiveness Information by SEE sciccirsarsasinnmncincnenensinttenianiaisiied VIII-52 IX EFrrLveEnt REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEsT PRACTICA- BLé CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, Levet I (BPCTCA) EFriv- ENT GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS ee, SEE CONGR eR, Effluent Reduction Attainable Using Level I (BPCTCA) Treatment Technology.._— IX-2 et a ee ek A Section X EFFivent Repucrion AVAILABLE THROUGH XI XII XIII XIV THE APPLICATION OF THE BEsT AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE, Lever II (BACTEA) Errivent Gume- LINES AND LIMITATIONS X-1 Introduction. X-1 Effluent Reduction Attainable Using Level II (BACTEA) Treatment Technology. —_ X-2 New Source PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS, LEVEL III (BADT) Gume.ines anp Lmaurations.._—_—“ X/I--1 ER TN SEAT eT XI-1 Effluent Reduction Attainable Using Level III (BADT) Treatment Technology .. _ XI-2 Pretreatment Standards _.. = XI-3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........ tt ti«XSTTZTI- REFERENCES TT SEARLS REA ane ae XIV-1 oe e ° o [2550] October 30, 1972 EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDANCE FOR THE REFUSE ACT PERMIT PROGRAM INORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY Copied by MCA [2551 | GENERAL This guidance for the establishment of effluent limitations for discharges in the Inorganic Chemicals Industry category sets forth numerical limitations based on the application of best practicable control technology currently available. Sched- ule A values reflect the Agency's best technical judgment of the effluent levels which can be achieved by the application of the highest level of control technology which is now con- sidered ‘practicable’ and ‘currently available’ for the industry. Schedule A values are based on experience with the technology, including demonstration projects, pilot plants, and actual use, which demonstrates that it is reliably achievable. In every case of (i) new plants installing pollution abate- ment equipment and (ii) existing plants now beginning a’)ate- ment programs, you should apply Schedule A values. In some cases, economic and social factors may affect the practicability of applying control techniques to achieve these values, and may require some modification of Schedule A values as to particular plants. These instances should be kept to an absolute minimum. Guidance on the economic and social factors which may require that you consider such modifications, as well as more detailed explanation of the engineering assumptions underlying the 9 Schedule A values, will be provided at technical seminars to be conducted concerning each industrial category. [2552] Schedule B values represent the most lenient accept- able effluent levels. No plant should achieve less pollution reduction than Schedule B values. Schedule B values may be applied where a discharge has, at the tiie the permit is issued, commenced and made substantial progress on an abatement program that will be completed within 24 months or less from the time the discharge permit is issued. If the plant also has extensive ongoing pollution abatement programs in other areas such as air pollution the Regional Administrator may modify this 24-month period. If effluent limits based on ‘best practicable control tech- nology’ fail to meet water quality standards, then such limits will be upgraded to comply with water quality standards and EPA policy. INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY DESCRIPTION Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalies and Chlorine are covered in the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2812, 2816, and 2819. Inorganic compounds such as anhydrous ammonia, su- perphosphates and urea are not covered in this category since they are included in the Fertilizers Industry category. The following products were selected for Guidelines based on in- formation and data available. Aluminum Chloride Aluminum Sulfate Chlorine-Sodium Hydroxide Hydrochloric Acid [2553] Hydrofluoric Acid Hydrogen Peroxide Lime Nitric Acid Elemental Phosphorus Sulfuric Acid 10 RATIONALE General The effluent guidelines for the inorganic chemical industry were developed from information in the Industrial Waste Study of Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalics and Chlorine by General Technologies Corporation; from information resulting from a survey of 76 inorganic chemicals plants by the Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA); from Corps of Engineers permit data and from use of engineering judgment. The industries in these categories manufacture products from raw materials that are inorganic in nature, thereby result- ing in wastewater containing a low biochemical oxygen de- mand, inert solids, large amounts of dissolved solids, and effluents with a wide range of pH values. The major pollutant common to nearly all of the industry is inorganic suspended solids, a parameter that can be controlled with sedimentation basins designed for minimal short circuiting and sufficient detention time. [2554] Total dissolved solids, chiefly chlorides and sulfates, constitute the second major class of pollutants for the inor- ganic industry. However, it should be noted that guidelines are not presently placed on dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfates. When the discharge of any of these parameters may be in violation of Federal or State or local water quality stand- ards, limits will be established. When such is the case a substantial amount of dissolved solids reduction can be effected through in-plant controls some of which are: (1) Chlorine-caustic (a) non-contact vapor condensers. (b) use of indirect chlorine coolers in the chlorine compression process (c) collection and reuse of drying acid. (d) recycling of sodium chloride from the evapora- tors concentrating caustic soda (e) use of indirect vapor condensers in the brine dechlorination process 11 (f) recycle of brine filter backwashwater (g) collection and reuse of effluent from waste chlorine gas disposal system (h) maximum removal of brine solution from slur- ries resulting in precipitation of impurities from raw brine solutions [2555] (i) containment and recycling of spills and leaks back to the process. (2) Nitric Acid (a) replacement of barometric quench condensers with non-contact condensers (b) the use of single and double mechanical pump seals (c) curbing the proces area with recycling of spills. (3) Hydrochloric Acid (a) curbing and floor sumps to collect and recycle strong acid spills and leaks (b) maximize the efficiency of the cooler and ab- sorber to minimize the chloride wasteload from the scrubber. (4) Hydrogen Peroxide (organic method )—separation of organic solvents from the aqueous media with de- canters or API separators for recycle or recovery. (5) Hydrofluoric Acid—maximize for efficiency of the acid absorbers to minimize the fluoride wasteload from ejector scrubber systems. (6) Sulfuric Acid—curbing and floor sumps to collect and recycle spills ard leaks. TREATMENT MODELS Treatment models representing “Best Practicable Treatment” are described for each of the product industries. They are not intended to specify procedures [2556] or processes, but to il- lustrate and demonstrate the means by which “A” levels may — 12 be achieved. Alternative abatement techniques which will achieve the same end are encouraged. Aluminum Chloride— sedimentation and coagulation. Aluminum Sulfate— sedimentation and recycling of clari- fied effluent. Chlorine-caustic— sedimentation, chemical precipita- tion—coagulation—sedimentation, fil- tration, carbon adsorption, neutrali- zation, water recycling, and water conservation practices. Hydrochloric Acid— segregation of cooling water, col- lection of spills and leaks for recycle or land disposal. Hydrofluoric Acid— lime precipitation, coagulation floc- culation, sedimentation and neutrali- zation. Hydrogen peroxide (organic method )—Biological oxida- tion of organic solvents, sedimenta- tion. Lime— dry collection of dust. Nitric Acid— segregation of cooling water, collec- tion of spills and leaks for recycle or land disposal. Phosphorus— sedimentation and recycle. Sulfuric Acid— segregation of cooling water, collec- tion of spills and leaks for recycle or land disposal. [2557] SPECIFIC FOR PRODUCT Aluminum Chloride—Level B is based upon reducing sus- pended solids in the scrubber wastewaters which do not use alkaline solutions to a level of 25 mg/I. Level A is based upon reducing suspended solids levels in alkaline scrubber solutions to 15 mg/I since this type of wastewater would produce an 13 aluminum hydroxide precipitate that will readily flocculate and settle to produce a clarified effluent. Those concentrations are used to calculate the achievable wasteload from water usage and production data in the General Technologies Report. Aluminum Sulfate—Level B is based on lime neutralization followed by sedimentation and recycle of a portion of the effluent. Level A is based on total recycle from the treatment pond which is practiced in 10 of 12 plants in the MCA waste- water survey data. Plants producing iron-free Aluminum Sul- fate may require special consideration. Chlorine-Caustic—Effuent levels for suspended solids are based on 25 mg/1 from settling ponds for the B level and 15 mg/I! for the A level. Waste loads for suspended solids limits in pounds per ton of chlorine production are based on flow data from the General Technologies Report, the MCA survey and data supplied by the Chlorine Institute. Flow basis numbers are for process water only. Much of the data available includes cooling water or is from plants where cooling water and process water are not separated. To meet both A & B levels, it is expected that process water and cooling water separation and water recvcle will be required. [2558] The mercury effluent limitation of 0.1 pounds per day for the entire chlor-alkali . . . is to be measured at the outlet from the mercury treatment unit. Should there be another process at the location that has an effluent containing mercury, that stream must be treated in the mercury treatment unit and thus be included in the 0.1 pound per day limitation. Mercury residuals (i.e., mercury picked up between the treatment unit outlet and the discharge to the stream) are frequently a problem. Where residuals are a demonstratable problem, iden- tify the quantity of mercury involved and develop a program with schedules for correction. Lead generally separates out in settling ponds but may re- quire soda ash or caustic treatment. Projects, for installation of metal anodes provide benefits that will pay for the installa- 14 tion and climinate lead in the effiuent. Estimates of their pres- ent use indicate that one third of the plants use metal anodes now and an additional third have them under active con- sideration. Hydrochloric Acid (chlorine burning process )—Level B is based on caustic neutralization of acid leaks and wastewater from the scrubber. Hydrochloric acid processes are quite commonly located at the same site as caustic chlorine plants and as such, the acid wastewaters can be used to neutralize alkaline wastewaters. Level A is achieved by returning leaks to the process or by neutralization and land disposal. [2559] Hydrofluoric Acid—Level B can be achieved by treat- ing effluents with lime to a pH of 10-11. This neutralizes the sulfuric acid, reduces the fluoride content to 5 ppm and suspended solids to 25 ppm. Acidification of the effluent reduces pH to 9 or less. Level A is based on a large reduction of process water flow achieved by recycle and 15 ppm suspended solids. This is documented by data from one plant. Hydrogen Peroxide (organic process)—The B level is based on the disposal of the biodegradable solvent waste, either by discharge to a municipal biological treatment system or a solvent collection and recycling system. The A level is based on achieving 15 ppm suspended solids removal in the final effluent by coagulation. Lime—Level B is based upon the discharge of wet scrubber waste to a settling pond with effluent containing 20 ppm sus- pended solids. Level A has no waterborne discharge since wet scrubber waste can be eliminated using dry collection methods. Nitric Acid—Effluent from the process is due to leaks. Level B is based on neutralization of leakage with caustic. Level A is based on return of the leakage to the process or by land disposal of leaks. Phosphorus—B levels are achieved by phosphorous burial, lime and settling pond treatment for solvable phosphates and fluorides and dry collection of solid phosphates. A small part 15 of the flow to the settling [2560] pond is discharged. The remainder is recycled. Recycle of water from the settling ponds provides the basis for Level A. Sulfuric Acid—Wastes from this process are leaks. Level B is achieved by lime and settling pond treatment of the leaks to 25 ppm suspended solids. Level A is achieved by returning the leakage to the process. It may be necessary to give special con- sideration to operations producing high quality product. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS The pH level of any discharge stream from any process in these industries must be within a range of 6.0 to 9.0. The adjustment of pH presents no difficulty in the treatment of waste. Total neutralization may be undesirable in some cases due to TDS loads or natural buffering capacities. Concentration limits for heavy metals will be established by the Regional Administrator. A guidance document on this subject is being prepared. Limits are needed on each metal present but the limit will vary depending on what other metals are present that cause a synergistic effect. Heavy metals in- clude, but are not limited to, copper, zinc, cadmium, tin, selenium, nickel, lead, and chromium. All solid waste materials generated within the industrial complex or collected from the waste treatment facilities, includ- ing such items as [2561] chemical sludges and filter cakes are to be disposed of in a well managed and well designed chemical land fill to prevent leachades and overflows from entering navigable waters or their tributaries. Heat is a potential pollution problem in the inorganic chemi- cal industry. Where settling basins and precipitation processes are used in the treatment of waste, there should be sufficient retention time to cool the stream down to acceptable tempera- ture levels. However, some of the processes may not include this type of treatment. Calculation methods to determine 16 thermal loadings are presently being derived by Office of Enforcement and General Counsel to assist EPA Regional per- sonnel in processing permit applications. However, thermal discharges must be in compliance with all applicable water quality standards (Federal and/or State). The process wastewater from a particular plant should be limited on total pounds of a particular pollutant per day. The total pounds per day is the product of the pounds per unit of production multiplied by the production capacity. In applving these limitations the source of water used in the plant must be taken into consideration. Where the source is the same as the receiving water the limitations applied are “net increases. Where the source is municipal, private water supply, well water, or water from another drainage basin, the limita- tions applied are “gross” load. [2562] The effluent guidelines are based on process waste- water, i.e., that coming in contact with process materials. This does not include noncontact cooling water, cooling tower blow- down or boiler blowdown. VIOLATIONS The effluent limitations shown in Attachments A and B are average values. It shall be considered a violation of the waste discharge permit if the average values based on daily 24-hour composite samples over any 20 consecutive working days exceeds the limitations placed on any parameter in Attach- ment A or B. tt shall be considered a violation of the waste discharge permit if any single composite sample exceeds the limitations shown in Attachments A or B more than 50 percent. Four violations in any one single year will require an action memorandum from the Regional Administrator containing rec- ommendations on what action is to be taken. Any single violation of the permit may be considered grounds for revocation. 17 SAMPLING AND MONITORING Sampling and monitoring is to be required to adequately characterize the effluent quality. Generally, only those parame- ters present in significant [2563] quantity need to be monitored. A review of data after an initial plan has been in effect for 6 months is in order to make adjustments as needed. Where there is potential for discharge of hazardous materials, spot checks will be needed at suitable intervals. Flow measurements may be other than continuous if continuous measurement is impractical and if the proposed alternate adequately charac- terizes the flow. Samples should be taken just prior to the dis- charge to the stream (except mercury—described elsewhere ). Analytical methods will be by Standard Methods, 13th edition, 1971. However, alternate methods may be approved upon submission of acceptable information and justification. [2564] Suggested Sampling and Analyses Requirements Parameter Sample Type Frequenci Flow Continuous Continuous Temperature Continuous Continuous pi Continuous Continuous Chemical Oxygen Demand 24-hr Composite — Twice Weekly Suspended Solids 24-hr Composite — Three Times Weekly Alkalinity Grab Twice Weekly Total Dissolved Solids 24-hr Composite — Three Times Weekly Grease and Oil Grab Once Weekly Chlorides 2A-hr Composite — Three Times Weekly Sulfates 24-hr Composite — Three Times Weekly Monitor for the following parameters if present: Chlorinated Hydrocarbons BOD Phenol 18 Sampling and Analyses for Specific Industries Industry Parameter Chloro-Alkali; Hyg Cell Mercury 24-hr Composite Daily Chloro-Alkali; Diaphragm Cell — Lead 24-hr Composite Twice Weekly Hydrofluoric Acid Fluorides 24-hr Composite Twice Weekly Silicates 24-hr Composite Twice Weekly Aluminum Chloride Aluminum 24-hr Composite Twice Weekly Phosphorus- Electrolytic Phosphate 24-hr Composite Twice Weekly Aluminum —24-hr Composite Once Weekly Fluoride 24-hr Composite Twice Weekly [2565 ] X. REFERENCES 1. Industrial Waste Study of Inorganic Chemicals, Alkalies bo and Chlorine, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency draft report by General Technologies Corporation, 1821 Michael Faraday Drive, Reston, Virginia 22070, (July 23, 1971) 19 [2566] ATTACHMENT A Inorganic Chemicals, Alkali and Chlorine Industry Effluent Guidelines Lb per Ton of Product Total Other Flow Basis® Suspended by Product Gal/Ton Solids Note ALUMINUM CHLORIDE 120 0.015 ALUMINUM SULFATE No waterborne process effluent 131 pages. Manufacturing Chemists Association Wastewater Survey of the Inorganic Chemicals Industry, (June 1972). Inorganic Chemicals Industry Profile (updated) by Data- graphics by Cyrus William Rice & Company, July 1971. Industrial Waste Study—Mercury—Using Industries by Litton Systems, Inc., July 1971. Caustic CHLORINE: °* Diaphragm Cell 8,000 1.0 1 Mercury Cell 5,000 0.6 2 Downs Cell 7,300 0.9 _ HypROCHLORIC AcID No waterborne process effluent (Chlorine burning ) ) Hypror.uoric Acip 4,672 0.6 3 HypDROGEN PEROXIDE ( Organic process ) 8,600 1.1 4 Lime/CALCINATION No waterborne process effluent Nitric Acip No waterborne process effluent PHOSPHORUS No waterborne process effluent Sutruric Acip No waterborne process effluent (Sulfur burning contact plants ) pH range is 6-9 for all products NOTES: 1. 0.04 #/ton lead 2. 0.1 #/day mercury for the entire operation without regard to capacity*** 3. 0.2 #/ton fluorides 4. 0.06 #/ton TOC *The flow basis numbers are to show how numbers were derived and are not intended as flow limitations. **Units are per ton of chlorine production. *°*The EPA goal of no mercury discharge may reduce this number as it becomes practical. 20 [2567 ] ATTACHMENT B Inorganic Chemicals, Alkali and Chlorine Industry Effluent Guidelines Lb per Ton of Product Total Other Flow Basis® Suspended _ by Product Gal/Ton Solids Note ALUMINUM CHLORIDE 120 0.025 _ ALUMINUM SULFATE 400 0.08 _ Caustic CHLorine® ® Diaphragm Cell 30,000 6.3 l Mercury Cell 20,000 4.3 2 Downs Cell 7,300 15 _ Hyprocuworic Acip (Chlorine burning ) 1,000 — = Hypror.uoric Acip 36,000 7.5 3 HypROGEN PEROXIDE ( Organic process ) 8,600 1.8 - Lime/CALCINATION 200 0.03 4 Nitric Acip 86 0.01 — PHOSPHORUS 8,000 1.7 5 SuLFuRIC ACID (Sulfur burning contact process ) 1,200 0.25 _ pH range is 6-9 for all products NOTES: 1. 0.2 #/ton, lead 2. 0.1 #/day of mercury for the entire operation without regard to capacity 3. 1.5 #/ton, fluorides 4. 0.03 #/ton, COD 5. 0.2 #/ton, phosphates; 0.2 # /ton, fluorides; 0.001 #/ton, elemental phosphorus *The flow basis numbers are to show how numbers were derived and are not intended as flow limitations. **Units are per ton of chlorine production. 21 (38 Fed. Reg. 21202 ( August 6, 1973) ] [4330] NOTICES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STAND- ARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW SOURCES Advance Notice of Public Review Procedures Advance notice is hereby given concerning notices of pro- posed rule making to be published by the Environmental Pro- tection Agency (“EPA”) with respect to effluent limitations guidelines, standards of performance, and pretreatment stand- ards for new sources pursuant to sections 304(b) 306 and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251, 1314, 1316 and 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub. L. 92-500) (“the Act”). The purpose of this notice is to facilitate public comment upon the regulations to be promul- gated under sections 304(b), 306 and 307(c), both before and after the publication of the notices of proposed rule making. In addition, this notice will explain EPA’s overall plans for development of effluent limitations guidelines anc standards of performance for new sources and the approach which is being taken by the Agency in discharging the duties placed upon the Administrator under sections 304(b), 306 and 307(c) of the Act. EPA believes that the exposure of the technical basis and reasoning underlying regulations to be established pursuant to sections 304(b), 306 and 307(c) is essential to the promulga- tion of sound effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance for new sources. At the same time, because of the deadlines for action imposed upon the Administrator under the Act, both EPA and the public will be pressed to analyze and resolve highly complex and important issues in a relatively short time. In order both to develop sound regulations and meet the time schedules set by the Act, EPA intends to identify as many issues and elicit points of criticism at the earliest possible time. To resolve such issues often will require further staff work and management decision-making within EPA and may necessitate substantial redrafting of regulations and sup- 22 port documents. Therefore, extensive external review cannot be postponed until internal EPA review of initial reeommenda- tions for effluent limitations guidelines and standards of per- formance has been completed, but must proceed concurrently with EPA’s own internal review and decision-making if the Act’s deadlines are to be met. EPA has already begun this process by seeking comments upon draft technical reports from persons and organizations known to be interested in particular source categories. These reports (which are discussed further below) contain tentative recommended effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance. This notice seeks to supplement this already initiated external review and facilitate further review and public comment in late August and early September, when notices of proposed rule making will be published in the Feperat Recister. The notice is divided into three parts. First, the basic legal authority for regulations concerning effluent lim- itations guidelines and standards of performance for new sources will be set forth. Second, EPA’s general methodology will be described. Third, the means by which EPA has to date, and will in the future, seek the widest possible public scrutiny of the technical and legal basis for the regulations to be estab- lished will be explained. 1. Legal authorities—(a) Existing point sources. Sec- tion 301(b) of the Act requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1977, of effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which require the appli- cation of the best practicable control technology currently available as defined by the Administrator pursuant to sec- tion 304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983, of effluent limita- tions for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which require the application of the best available technology economically achievable which will result in reason- able further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to sec- tion 304(b) of the Act. 23 Section 304(b) of the Act requires the Administrator to pub- lish regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best practicable control technology cur- rently available (the 1977 requirement) and the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods and other alternatives (the 1963 requirements). (b) New sources. Section 306 of the Act requires the achievement by new sources of a Federal standard of per- formance providing for the control of the discharge of pol- lutants which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to be achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control tech- nology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting no dis- charge of pollutants. Section 306(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Administrator to propese regulations establishing Federal standards of per- formance for categories of new sources included in a list published pursuant to section 306(b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Administrator published in the Feperat Recister of Janu- ary 16, 1973, (38 FR 1624) a list of source categories for which standards of performance for new sources will initially be established. Section 306(a)(2) defines “new source” as “any source, the construction of which is commenced after the pub- lication of proposed regulations prescribing a stand- [4331] ard of performance under this section which will be applicable to such source * * °.” Section 307(c) of the Act requires the Administrator to promulgate pretreatment standards for a category of new sources at the same time that standards of performance for that category are promulgated pursuant to section 306. EPA pres- ently plans to include in proposed and promulgated reguiations establishing standards of performance for new sources, provi- sions which will require application of pretreatment standards which are consistent with EPA’s proposed pretreatment stand- 24 ards for existing sources. The basis for the latter standards is set forth in the Feperat Recister of July 19, 1973 (38 FR 19236) under 40 CFR Part 128. The provisions and rationale of Part 128 are equally applicable to sources which would constitute “new sources”, under section 306 if they were to discharge pollutants directly to navigable waters, except for § 128.133. That section provides a pretreatment standard for “incompatible pollutants” which requires application of the “best practicable control technology currently available,” sub- ject to an adjustment for amounts of pollutants removed by the publicly owned treatment works. Since the pretreatment standards to be promulgated under section 307(c) apply to new sources, the regulations establishing standards of per- formance for new sources will amend § 128.133 to require application of the standard of performance for new sources rather than the “best practicable” standard applicable to exist- ing sources under sections 301 and 304(b) of the Act. 2. EPA’s methodology—(a) Overall approach. The tech- nical studies discussed below and the development of regula- tions for effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance are undertaken in the following manner. The point source category is first studied for the purpose of deter- mining whether separate limitations and standards are appro- priate for different segments within the category. This analysis includes a determination of whether differences in raw material used, product produced, manufacturing process employed, age and size of plants, waste water constituents and other factors require development of separate limitations and standards for different segments of the point source category. The raw waste characteristics for each such segment are then identified. This includes an analysis of (1) the source, flow and volume of water used in the process employed and the sources of waste and waste waters in the plant; and (2) the constituents of waste waters. The constituents of the waste waters which should be subject to effluent limitations guidelines and stand- ards of performance are then identified. Next, the contro] and treatment technologies existing within each segment are identified. This includes an identification of 25 each distinct control and treatment technology, including both in-plant and end-of-process technologies, which exists or is capable of being designed for each segment. It also includes an identification of the effluent level resulting from the application of each of the treatment and control technologies, in terms of the amount of constituents and the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants. The problems, limita- tions and reliability of each treatment and control technology are also identified. In addition, any non-water quality environ- mental impact, such as the effects of the application of such technologies upon other pollution problems, including air, solid waste, noise and radiation is examined. Finally, the energy requirements of each control and treatment technology are determined, as well as the cost of the application of such technologies. This information is then evaluated in order to determine what levels of technology constitute the “best practicable con- trol technology currently available”, “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives.” In identifying such technologies, various factors are considered including the total cost of the application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering as- pects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes and non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements). The data on which the above analysis was performed in- cluded EPA permit applications, EPA sampling and inspections, industry submissions and consultant reports, including the reports discussed below. (b) Technical studies. Studies of some thirty point source categories for which regulations will initially be promulgated were instituted by EPA as soon as possible after passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (October 18, 1972). These studies constitute in-depth analyses . of the technological feasibility and economic costs of reducing 26 or eliminating discharges of pollutants. The studies, along with other information obtained by EPA in the course of internal and external review of the resulting reports or other- wise available to EPA, will serve as a foundation for the regu- lations to be issued under section 304(b) and 306 of the Act. To have attempted to amass within the Agency in a very short period of time the large number of technical personnel with experience in the many diverse point source categories to be covered would have been impractical. Therefore, the overall data base and initial analysis has been obtained through contracts with qualified technical consultants. These con- sultants were instructed to perform in-depth studies of each point source category, under the supervision and with the assistance of EPA, in accordance with the methodology de- scribed above. The resulting draft reports include initial tenta- tive recommendations with respect to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance for the particular point source category concerned. The draft reports and rec- ommendations are then subjected to extensive internal and external review. The contractors are assisting in the initial collection and collation of the data base. The responsibility for establishing effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance for new sources, of course, remains with EPA. For each of the point source categories covered by the tech- nical studies, EPA is also conducting supplementary studies of the economic impact which could result from application of alternative control and treatment technologies. These studies add to the economic analyses already undertaken as part of the technical studies, which center upon the investment and operating costs associated with various alternative control and treatment technologies, by estimating the broader economic effects which might result from the required application of various technologies. The economic impact studies will investi- gate effects of alternative approaches in terms of product price increases, effects upon employment and the continued viability of affected plants, effects upon foreign trade and other com- 27 petitive effects. These reports may be obtained in the same manner as the EPA draft reports, as discussed in section 3(c) below. Contractors’ technical studies of the following point source categories have been completed: 1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Mills 2. Builders Paper and Board Mills 3. Meat Product and Rendering Processing 4. Dairy Product Processing 5. Grain Mills 6. Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Process- ing 7. Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing 8. Beet Sugar Processing 9. Cane Sugar Processing 10. Textile Mills 11. Cement Manufacturing 12. Feedlots 13. Electroplating 14. Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 15. Inorganic Cheinicals Manufacturing 16. Plastics and Synthetic Materials Manufacturing 17. Soap and Detergent Manufacturing 18. Fertilizer Manufacturing Petroleum Refining Iron and Steel Manufacturing Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Phosphate Manufacturing Steam Electric Powerplants Ferroalloy Manufacturing Leather Tanning and Finishing Glass Manufacturing Insulation Fiberglass Manufactviing Timber Products Processing Beet Sugar Processing Industry Insulation Fiberglass Industry 28 3. Public participation in the development of regulations— (a) Review of the draft contractors’ reports. The completed contractors’ reports are presently undergoing intensive analysis within [4332] EPA and are also receiving extensive external review and comment. This process of internal and external review is being carried on simultaneously in order to make the most of the time available under the Act. Once the contrac- tors’ draft reports are received by EPA, they are immediately distributed to a list of external reviewers for critical analysis. The persons or institutions listed below have been sent the draft reports. They have been asked to comment within 30 days so there will be time for their comments to be taken into account by EPA when preparing proposed rule making documents. States Alabama Water Improvement Commission State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36104 State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch O Juneau, Alaska 99801 Commission of Arizona State Department of Health 4019 N. 33rd Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 95017 Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 1100 Harrington Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 California State Water Resources Control Board Sacramento, California 95814 Water Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 E 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Division of Water Compliance and Hazardous Substances Department of Environmental Protection State Office Building Hartford, Connecticut 06115 29 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Capitol Complex Tatnall Building Dover, Delaware 19901 Department of Pollution Control 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Environmental Protection Divisiou Department of Natural Resources 47 Trinity Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Assistant Director for Environmental Health Hawaii State Department of Health P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801 Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board 1330 West Michigan Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 State of Idaho Department of Environmental and Community Services State House Boise, Idaho 83720 Water Quality Management Division Department of Environmental Quality Lucos State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Division of Environmental Health Kansas State Department of Health 535 Kansas Avenue Topeka, Kansas 66603 Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission 275 East Main Street Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Louisiana Stream Control Commission P.O. Drawer FC University Station Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 30 Environmental Health Division Louisiana State Board of Health New Orleans, Louisiana Department of Environmental Protection State House Augusta, Maine 04430 Water Resources Administration Tower State Office Building D2 Water Resources Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Division of Water Pollution Control State Office Building 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02202 Michigan Water Resources Commission Steven T. Mason Building Lansing, Michigan 45916 Minnesota Pollution Control Agenc State Board of Health Building 717 Delaware Street, SE Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission P.O. Box 827 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Missouri Clean Water Commission P.O. Box 154 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Division of Environmental Sanitation State Department of Health Cogswell Building Helena, Montana 59601 Department of Environmental Control 1420 P Street Lincoln, Nebraska 60509 Nevada Commission of Environmental Protection 201 South Fall Street Carson City, Nevada 89701 31 New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission Prescott Park 105 Loudon Road Concord, New Hampshire 03301 rtment of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 1390 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 New Mexico Environment Improvement Agency P.O. Box 2348 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Industrial Waste Bureau New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12201 Office of Air and Water Resources Department of Natural and Economic Resources P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Environmental Health and Engineering Services Department of Health State Capitol Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Columbus, Ohio 43216 ent of Pollution Control 2241 N.W. 40th Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1234 S.W. Morrison Portland, Oregon 97205 Bureau of Sanitary Engineering ent of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2351 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 32 Division of Water Pollution Control Rhode Island Department of Health State Office Building Providence, Rhode Island 02903 South Carolina Pollution Control Authority P.O. Box 11628 Columbia, South Carolina 29311 Division of Sanitary Engineers and Environmental Protection State Department of Health State Capitol Pierre, South Dakota 57501 Division of Water Quality Control Department of Public Health 621 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Texas Water Control Board P.O. Box 13246 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Bureau of Environmental Health Division of Health 44 Medical Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84113 Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Virginia State Water Control Board 1010 State Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Washington Department of Ecology P.O. Box 829 Olympia, Washington 98504 West Virginia Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1201 Greenbriar Street Charleston, West Virginia 25311 33 Division of Environmental Protection Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 450 Madison, Wisconsin 53701 Sanitary Engineering Services Division of Health and Medical Services rtment of Health and Social Services State Office Building Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 Territories Environmental Quality Commission Government of Samoa Pago-Pago, Tutuila American Samoa 96920 Water Pollution Control Program Government of Guam P.O. Box 2816 Agana, Guam 96910 Environmental Quality Board P.O. Box 11785 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00910 Office of High Commission Division of Environmental Health Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Saijsan Mariana Island 92950 River Basin Commissions Delaware River Basin Commission 25 State Police Drive West Trenton, New Jersey 08628 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission [4333] 607 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Ohio River Vailey Sanitation Commission 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 34 35 The reports have also been transmitted to the following American Iron and Steel Institute agencies or organizations: American Livestock Feeders Association American Meat Institute Agencies and Offices of/or Related to the American Mining Congress Federal Government American National Cattleman’s Association Department of Agriculture American Paper Institute Atomic Energy Commission American Petroleum Institute Department of Commerce American P lywood Association Department of Defense American Public Power Association Federal Power Commission American Shrimp Canners Association Department of Health, Education, and Welfare American Wood Preservers Association Department of Housing and Urban Development American Wood Preservers Institute Department of the Interior American Textile Manufacturers Institute Office of the Energy Advisor A.S.G. Industries, Inc. Department of the Treasury Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. National Industrial Pollution Control Council Beet Sugar Development Foundation U.S. Department of Commerce Carpet and Rug Institute Water Resources Council Catfish Farmers of America Tennessee Valley Authority Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries Association, Inc. Chlorine Institute Public Interest Groups Copper and Brass Fabricators Council The American Society of Civil Engineers Corn Refiners Association, Inc. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Dairy Industry Committee Businessmen for the Public Interest Dimmitt Agricultural Industry Conservation Division Edison Electric Institute National Wildlife Federation Environmental Pollution Control Program The Conservation Foundation Glass Container, Inc. ; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. The Ferroalloy Association Hudson River The Fertilizer Institute Sloop Restoration, Inc. Ford Motor Company Natural Resources Defense Council Glass Division Water Pollution Control Federation Glass Containers Manufacturers Institute Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association Hardwood Plywood Manufacturing Association Industry Trade Associati i ndustry Trade Associations or Companies Institute of American Poultry Industries The Aluminum Association International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers Aluminum Smelting and Recycling Institute Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. American Corn Millers Federation Manufacturing Chemists Association American Electroplaters’ Society Metal Finishers Suppliers Association American-Florida Sugar Cane League Miller’s National Federation American Frozen Food Institute National Association of Electric Companies American Hardboard Association National Association of Metal Finishers 36 National Broiler Council National Canners Association National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. National Independent Meat Packers Association National Fisheries Association National Forest Products Association National Milk Producers Federation National Pork Producers Association National Renders Association, Inc. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Northern Textile Association National Soft Wheat Millers Association Portland Cement Association P.P.G. Industries, Inc. Protein Cereal Products Institute Puerto Rico Land Administration Rice Millers Association Rubber Manufacturing Association Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry Soap and Detergent Association Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association Tanner’s Council of America, Inc. Tennessee Valley Public Power Association Tuna Research Foundation, Inc. Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry United States Beet Sugar Association United States Cane Sugar Refiner’s Association Western States Meat Packers Association Western Wood Preserver Association (b) Public availability of draft technical reports. The draft repo ts are voluminous and rapid reproduction in large quanti- ties is difficult to accomplish. In order to maximize the usefulness of early external review of the reports, the reports must be transmitted to interested persons immediately upon receipt by EPA. Printing of substantial quantities of the reports would consume two to three weeks and, under applicable federal regulations, no more than approximately 160 copies of the reports may be provided through outside printing contracts. The 160 copies of the report supplied by the contractors have already been largely exhausted in transmissions to the organiza- 37 tions listed above, and for internal review purposes within EPA. However, a copy of every report is available in each of EPA’s regional offices, which are listed in the Appendix to this notice, and a complete set of the reports is also available in EPA’s Washington offices (Office of Public Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Room W-227, Waterside Mall, Washington, D.C. 20460). The Washington Office will also maintain a complete set of comments received from the public upon draft reports and upon the notices of proposed rule making which will subsequently be published. The draft reports, revised EPA reports which are described below, and all public comments, will be available for inspection and copying during regular business hours. Under EPA’s information regulations (40 CFR, Part 2), a fee may be required for making copies. In addition to review of the EPA Copies of the reports, interested persons may in many instances obtain a copy of a draft report by contacting an organization listed above with which they have an affiliation or by seeking to review a copy in the possession of the appropriate State agency. (c) Public availability of EPA draft reports. Upon conclu- sion of internal and external review of the initial draft reports and their tentative recommendations, an EPA draft — be prepared in support of proposed regulations to be issued in che Pumunaa Rasta. The EPA draft report will be published simultaneously with the notice of proposed rule making. The EPA draft report may be different from the contractors’ reports, particularly as to the assessment of practicability or availability of technology, and the conclusions reached with respect to effuent limitations guidelines and standards of performance for new sources. However, EPA does not anticipate that the EPA report will be markedly different in terms of the fundamental data base for the regulations. In most cases, major issues or objections to the approach taken or the conclusicns reached in the EPA draft report will have already been raised by the contractors’ draft report. Criticisms of the adequacy of the data base and the analytical methods employed should therefore be i now rather than after the notice of proposed rule making. Nevertheless, EPA does not regard the contractors’ draft report as an official EPA document and additional comments will, of course, be solicited once the EPA draft report and the associated proposed regulations are published (A final EPA report will also be prepared and published in support of the final regulations promulgated under sections 301, 304(b), 306 and 307(c).) The EPA draft report will be sent to the list of reviewers set forth earlier in this notice. In addition, EPA is establishing a mailing list of other persons wishing to obtain a copy of the EPA draft report. Any person wishing to be included on the list should so request as soon as possible, but no later than August 20, 1973. The request should be addressed to the “EPA Information Center, Attention: Mr. Philip B. Wisman, Environmental Protection Agency, Room W-327, Waterside Mall, Washington, D.C. 20460”, and should indicate which specific reports the person or organization is interested in receiving. EPA will transmit a copy of the EPA draft report to those on the mailing list, as soon as the report is available. Copies of the EPA draft reports will otherwise be transmitted, upon request to EPA, at the address just quoted, as soon as possible. The economic studies referred to in section 2(b) above will be made available upon request in the same manner as the EPA draft reports. EPA desires to make copies of all reports available to inter- ested parties wishing to comment as soon as possible. EPA therefore requests the cooperation of the [4334] public who are interested in, but not directly affected by, the proposed regulations in awaiting the final EPA report to be published after the final regulation is printed in the Feperat RecisTERr, rather than requesting copies of the EPA draft reports. (d) Solicitation of public comments. By seeking comments upon the initial draft reports which have already been pre- pared, and the initial recommended guidelines and standards which those reports contain, much of the analysis and comment which would ordinarily occur after notices of proposed rule making are published is taking place now. In this way the resolution of many issues can be accomplished even befe: . notices of proposed rule making are published. These issues 39 will be identified and their resolution explained in the notices of proposed rule making. Issues which remain unresolved will he highlighted in the notices. In addition, EPA hopes to enable all interested parties to be sufficiently familiar with the complex technical details underlying the proposed effluent limitations and standards so that they can respond to notices of proposed rule making in a relatively short time. In order to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act, the present plan is that the notices of proposed rule making will request formal, public comments within 21 days of publication of the notices in the Feperat Recister. Those persons who have indicated their desire to be included on the mailing list described above will receive copies of EPA’s draft report supporting the proposed regulations in the Feperat Recisrer. As noted, these reports will reflect EPA’s judgment as to the proper regulations; how- ever, they will be based in large part upon the initial draft reports (which will have been available in most cases since early July 1973) and any comments received thereon. EPA will consider all comments received up to the time indicated in the notices of proposed rule making. In addition, to the extent time allows, early comments upon the initial draft reports will be considered when developing proposed rule making regulations. (e) Conclusion. In summary, EPA is, by this notice, seeking to encourage as wide ranging and thorough public review prior to proposal and promulgation of effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance as is possible within the time allowed. The following specific steps may be taken by inter- ested persons: 1. Submit comments upon initial draft reports and economic studies. To facilitate rapid transmission of comments to the persons concerned within EPA, and also have a copy which is immediately available for public review, EPA requests that comments be submitted in triplicate. All comments received before or after publication of the notice of proposed rule making, as well as all technical and economic reports, will be — available for inspection and copying at the Office of Public 40 4l Affairs, Room 227, West Tower, Waterside Mall, neg regular this fits with the detailed requirements of sections 304(b), 306 business hours (8:00 a.m.—4:30 p.m.). and 307(c) of the Act. : July 31, 1973. 2. Request inclusion on a mailing list for the EPA draft ae Rosert L. SANSOM, reports and economic studies which will be published about the | Assistant Administrator jor same time as notices of proposed rule making in the FepeRAL J Air and Water Programs. RecisTer. Requests to be included on the mailing list should be received by August 20, 1973 and should indicate which specific reports are requested. © 5. Comment upon the notices of proposed rule making and the associated draft EPA technical and economic reports. All comments received within 21 days after publication of the notices in the Feperat RecisTer will be considered. 4. All public comments, requests to be included on the mail- ing list for reports and other requests for reports may be addressed to “EPA Information Center, Attention; Mr. Philip B. Wisman, Environmental Protection Agency, Room W-327, Waterside Mall, Washington, D.C. 20460.” In conclusion, it should be emphasized that EPA seeks com- ments upon its overall approach and legal interpretation of its responsibilities under sections 304(b), 306 and 307(c) of the Act, as well as upon the technical aspects of the initial draft reports, and the EPA reports to be issued. However, it should be also emphasized that the early expressiun of comments is essential if EPA is to be able to make whatever adjustments and responses which may be necessary in time to satisfy its respon- sibilities under the Act. In the event comments are in the nature of criticisms as to the adequacy of data which is avail- able or which may be relied upon by the Agency, comments should identify any additional data which may be available and should indicate how such data is pertinent to the develop- ment of regulations under sections 301, 304(b), 306 and 307(c) of the Act. In the event comments address the approach taken to establishing an effluent limitation guideline or standard of performance, EPA solicits suggestions as to what alternative approach should be taken, or result reached, and why and how Appendix Director, Office of Public Affairs Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Director of Public Affairs Region I Environmental Protection Agency Room 2303 John F. —— Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Director of Public Affairs Region II Environmental Protection Agency Room 847 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Director of Public Affairs Region III Environmental Protection Agency Curtis Bldg., 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Director of Public Affairs Region IV Environmental Protection Agency Suite 300 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Director of Public Affairs Region V Environmental Protection Agency 1 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 42 Director of Public Affairs Region VI Environmental Protection Agency 1600 Patterson Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Director of Public Affairs Region VII Environmental Protection Agency 1735 Baltimore Street Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Director of Public Affairs Region VIII Environmental Protection Agency Lincoln Tower, Room 916 1860 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Director of Public Affairs Region IX Environmental Protection Agency 100 California Street San Francisco, California 94102 Director of Public Affairs Region X Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 [FR Doc.73-16133 Filed 8-3-73; 8:45 am] [4335] This document is available in limited quantities through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Informa- tion Center, Room W-327 Waterside Mall, Washington, D.C. 20460. The document will subsequently be available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151. [4436] EPA-230/1-73-015 AUGUST 1973 Economic Analyses of Proposed Effluent Guidelines INORGANIC CHEMICALS, ALKALI AND CHLORINE INDUSTRIES (Major Products) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Planning and Evaluation Washington, D.C. 20460 [4337] This report has been reviewed by the Office of Plan- ning and Evaluation, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products con- stitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 44 [4338] PREFACE The attached document is a contractors’ study prepared for the Office of Planning and Evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The purpose of the study is to analyze the economic impact which could result from the appli- cation of alternative effluent limitation guidelines and standards of performance to be established under sections 304(b) and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The study supplements the technical study (“EPA Develop- ment Document”) supporting the issuance of proposed regu- lations under sections 304(b) and 306. The Development Document surveys existing and potential waste treatment control methods and technology within particular industrial source categories and supports promulgation of certain effluent limitation guidelines and standards of performance based upon an analysis of the feasibility of these guidelines and standards in accordance with the requirements of sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act. Presented in the Development Document are the investment and operating costs associated with various alternative control and treatment technologies. The attached document supplements this analysis by estimating the broader economic effects which might result from the required applica- tion of various control methods and technologies. This study investigates the effect of alternative approaches in terms of produce price increases, effects pon employment and the continued viability of affected plants, effects upon foreign trade and other competitive effects. The study has been prepared with the supervision and review of the Office of Planning and Evalua ‘on of EPA. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Task Order NO. 8, Contract 68-01-1541 by Arthur D. Little, Inc. Work was completed as of August 1973. This report is being | ‘eased and circulated at approximately the same time as publica.ion in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rule making under sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act for the subject point source category. The study has not been reviewed by EPA and is not an official EPA publication. 45 The study will be considered along with the information con- tained in the development document and any comments re- ceived by EPA on either document before or during p rule making proceedings necessary to establish final regulations. Prior to final promulgation of regulations, the accompanying study shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding only to the extent that it represents the views of the contractor who studied the subject industry. It cannot be cited, referenced, or represented in any respect in any such proceeding as a statement of EPA’s views regarding the subject industry. 46 [4339] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List oF TABLES. we .cnnaciliidisinaiamemnsinnbiniaaticameniins * a List or FicurEs. ____. sanpslieeaeeantiananecatipecsanatetiimnenaete., ae I, SUMMARY .. nocmencenanignenienttniminnsticiigeiineasen nietaniiiiniial 1 A. Introduction — 1 B. Conclusions 7 II. INpustry CHARACTERIZATION—ADDITIONAL Propucts.. 23 A. Calcium Carbide 23 B. Sodium Sulfate 36 C. Titanium Dioxide ~ 4 D. Sodium Bichromate _ 76 E. Potassium Richromate _ 90 III. Intpact ANAysits—Inrr1aL Stupy Propucts 93 A. Aluminum Chioride Lk. B. Aluminum Sulfate — _ 94 C. Chlorine and Caustic Soda — — 95 D. Hydrochloric Acid - a E. Hydrofluoric Acid ao-~iemniniblintnilinisiiinnindiiaia ae F. Hydrogen Peroxide 99 G. Lime _ . 100 H. Nitric Acid ‘icccudiatdadhinshienad tiie _ Sulfuric Acid - 8 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) [4340] Page . Impact ANALYsIS—ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS i I ce ticatilancirtsicntintiratqnen:- ai (3) Ib shall mean pound(s); (4) TSS shall mean total suspended nonfilterable solids. § 415.222° Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control tech- nology currently available. (a) The collowing limitations constitute the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties which may be discharged from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride process after application of the best practicable tech- currently available by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart: Effluent characteristic Effluent limitation __ Sapaeserapenal Maximum for any one day 4.4 kg/kkg prod- uct (4.4 Ib/1,000 Ib). Maximum average of daily valucs for Ay one day 0.1 kg/kkg product (as FezOs). (0.1 Ib/1,000 Ib Vanadium Maximum for an y reshaaas 3.2 kg/kkg product (as VOs). (3.2 Ib/1,000 ib pH. Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. Effluent Characteristic Effluent Limitation TSS._...... . Maximum for any one day 2.6 kg/kkg product (2.6 Ib/ 1,000 ib). Maximum average of daily values for any riod of thirty consecutive days 1.3 kg/ g of hme | (1.3 Ib/1,000 Ib). Total dis- i for any one day 0.072 kg/kkg prod- solved iron. uct (0.072 Ib/1,000 Ib). Maximum averages of daily values for any riod of thirty consecutive days 0.036 kg/ g of ww (0.036 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Total dis- Maximum for any one day 0.028 kg/kkg prod- solved lead. uct (0.028 Ib/1,000 Ib). Maximum average of daily values for any wage fade wt 4 of thirty consecutive days 0.014 kg/ g of product (0.014 Ib/ 1,000 ‘b). Total other Maximum for any one day 0.03 kg/kkg prod- dissolved uct (0.03 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). metals. Maximum average of daily values for any iod of thirty austin days 0.015 kg/ g of product (0.015 Ib/1,000 Ib). pH. Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. ( b) ° The » aioe limitations constitute the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties which may be dis- 148 charged trom the production of titanium dioxide by the sulfate process after appiication of the best available technology eco- nomically achievable by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart: Effluent | characteristic Effluent limitation TSS | Maximum for any one day 3.0 kg/kkg product (3.0 Ib/1,000 Ib ib). Maximum average of daily values for any Se of thirty consecutive days 1.5 kg/ kg of product a 5 Ib/1,000 Ib). Magnesium Maximum for an 14) one day 2.0 kg/kkg product 149 demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants by a new point source subject to the provisions of this subpart: Effluent characteristic Effluent limitation TSS Maximum for any one day 2.6 kg/kkg product (2.6 Ib/1,000 fb). Maximum average of daily values for any iod of thirty consecutive days 1.3 kg/ g of product (1.3 Ib/1,000 Ib). Total dis- Maximum for any one day 0.072 kg/kkg (as MgO). (2.0 Ib/ 1,000 Ib Cobalt (as Maximum for +4 one day 0.1 kg/kkg product CoO ) (0.1 Ib/ 1,000 Ib Silicon (as Maximum for an 14) one day 0.1 kg/kkg product | es (0.1 Ib/1,000 Ib Chromium Maximum for any one day 0.1 kg/kkg product (as CreOs) - (0.1 Ib/1,000 Ib). Aluminum Maximum for any one day 0.1 kg/kkg prod- (as AlsOs)_ uct (0.1 Ib/1,000 Ib). Iron (as Maximum for any one day 0.1 kg/kkg prod- Fe2Os ) uct (0.1 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Vanadium Maximum for any one day 3.2 kg/kkg ncn (as V2O;) : (3.2 Ib/1,000 Ib). pH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. § 415.224 Standards of performance for new sources. solved iron. product (0.072 Ib/1,000 Ib). Maximum average of daily values for any riod of thirty consecutive days 0.036 kg/ Lig of ma (0.036 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Total dis- Maximum for any one day 0.028 kg/kkg solved lead. product (0.028 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Maximum average of daily values for any riod of thirty consecutive davs 0.014 kg/ lkg of a (0.014 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Total other Maximum for any one day 0.03 kg/kkg dissolved product (0.03 Ib/1,000 Ib). — Maximum average of daily values for any — of thirty consecutive days 0.015 kg/ kg of product (0.015 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). pH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0. (b) The following limitations constitute the quantity or (a) The following limitations constitute the quantity or quality of pollutants or pollutant properties which may be dis- charged reflecting the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride process through application of the best available quality of pollutants or pollutant properties which may be dis- charged reflecting the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable from the production of titanium dioxide by the sulfate process through application of the best available demonstrated control technology processes, operating methods, [4882] or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a 150 standard permitting no discharge of pollutants by a new point source subject to the provisions of this subpart: Effluent characteristic Effluent limitations TSS Maximum for any one day 3.0 kg/kkg product (3.0 Ib/ 1,000 Ib ib). Maximum average of daily values for any veriod of thirty consecutive days 1.5 kg/ kkg of product a 5 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Magnesium Maximum for any one day 2.0 kg/kkg product (as MgO). (2.0 Ib/1,000 Ib). Cobalt Maximum for any one day 0.1 kg/kkg product (as CoO). (0.1 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Silicon Maximum for any one day 1.0 kg/kkg product (as SiOz). (0.1 Ib/1,000 fb). Chromium Maximum for any one day 1.0 kg/kkg product (as CreOs). (1.0 Ib/1,000 Ib). Aluminum Maximum for +4) one day 1.0 kg/kkg product (as AlsOs). (1.0 Ib/ 1,000 Ib Iron Maximum for any one day 1.0 kg/kkg product (as FezOs). (1.0 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). Vanadium Maximum for any one day 3.2 kg/kkg product (as V2Os). (3.2 Ib/ 1,000 Ib). § 415.225 Pretreatment standards for new sources. The pretreatment standards under section 307(c) of the Act, for a source within the titanium dioxide production subcate- gory, which is an industrial user of a publicly owned treatment works (and which would be a new source subject to section 306 of the Act, if it were to discharge pollutants to navigable waters ), shall be the standard set forth in Part 128 of this title except that for the purposes of this section, § 128.133 of this title shall be amended to read as follows: “In addition to the prohibitions set forth in § 128.131 of this title, the pretreatment standard for incompatible pollutants introduced into a publicly 151 owned treatment works by a major contributing industry shall be the standard of performance for new sources specified in § 415.224, provided that, if the publicly owned treatment works which receives the pollutants is committed, in its NPDES permit, to remove a specified percentage of any incom- patible pollutant, the pretreatment standard applicable to users of such treatment works shall be correspondingly reduced for that pollutant.” [FR Doc. 73-21230 Filed 10-10-73; 8:45 am] [COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES—NL INDUSTRIES. | [4918] TITANIUM PIGMENT OPERATIONS GLENN A. WILSON Group Vice President REGISTERED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 7, 1973 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Information Center Washington, D. C. 20460 Attention: Mr. Philip B. Wisman Gentlemen: Please accept our comments in response to the Proposed Rules, published in the Federal Register October 11, 1973, establishing Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and Standards of Performance and Pretreatment for Inorganic Chemicals, Manu- facturing Point Sources Category. The comments are madé with reference to those sections of the Guidelines and other 152 reference Documents pertaining to the production of titanium dioxide and are detailed in the attached Exhibit A. We believe that if the proposed Guidelines are promulgated in the present form they will have a profound adverse impact on the national economy, the titanium dioxide pigment indus- try, and N L Industries, Inc., Titanium Pigment Division. Our analysis of the Guidelines and supplementary Documents shows many seeming inaccuracies, false assumptions and erroneous conclusions. We respectfully urge a complete re-evaluation of these Guidelines before they are promulgated. In your re- evaluation we invite your consideration to the points set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Very truly yours, GLENN A. WILSON Group Vice President [4919] EXHIBIT A N L INDUSTRIES, INC. TITANIUM PIGMENT DIVISION Comments on Proposed Effluent Guidelines These comments present the response of N L Industries, Inc., Titanium Pigment Division on the Proposed Effluent Limita- tions Guidelines of Reference (2), using the Development Document of Reference (1) and the Economic Analysis of Reference (3), as those Guidelines relate to the production of titanium dioxide (TiO:z). Reference Documents (1) “Development Document for Proposed Effluent Guide- lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Major Inorganic Products Segment of the Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Au- gust 1973. (2) “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Per- formance and Pretreatment,” Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, October 11, 1973. 153 (3) “Economic Analyses of a Effluent Guidelines— Inorganic Chemicals, Alkali and Chlorine Industries (Major Products),” Contract No. 68-01-1541, August 1973, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. SUMMARY 1. The required technology to achieve the Proposed Guide- lines has not been demonstrated in the titanium dioxide pro- duction industry. 2. The total impact of the Proposed Guidelines on the environment, on land use policy, the national energy crisis, and the cost and cost benefits have been inadequately con- sidered and inaccurately assessed. 3. The treatment methods and costs have been understated for the degree of control specified in the Guidelines. [4920] 4. Promulgation of these Guidelines would produce severe inequities and would be the decisive competitive factor for the entire titanium dioxide industry. This is not the intent of the law (PL-92-500). 5. Administration of the Proposed Guidelines would be extremely difficult. DISCUSSION Land Use Policy In order to achieve the extremely low levels of materials in the titanium dioxide plant effluent streams as listed in the Proposed Guidelines, lime neutralization of process effluents would be required, followed by separation of the resulting calcium sulfate-metal hydroxide from effluent waste water, and disposal of the sludge and land filling. This is the major treat- ment technology advocated by the contractor in the develop- ment Document. It is believed this land filling is unfeasible, uneconomical, and violates an environmental axiom expounded in the Development Document (page 11) “. . . that exemplary sites are not those which are exchanging one form of pollution for another of the same or greater magnitude.” The technology 154 advocated by the contractor trades a reduction in liquid emis- sion for a solid waste disposal problem and a possible conflict with Local, State and Federal regulations. The availability of land for such land filling is a major problem. Land is not available at many plant locations, neces- sitating hauling to distaut fill sites. Al one N L plant use of neutralization technology would mear. transporting approxi- mately 25,000 tons per day of wet sludge to a site many miles away. This again assumes that a satisfactory site could be found. Furthermore, the contractor states there is a problem of solubility “. . . slightly soluble material such as calcium sulfate may be handled this way (although not necessarily with complete justification).” (Development Document, Page 342) This means waterproof containment must be used. Since the evaporation-rainfall balance is unfavorable at tita- nium dioxide plant locations, the gypsum cake would need to be containerized in some sort of plastic envelope. The cost for this will be discussed in a later section, but transport and disposal of 25,000 tons per day of waste solids by this means, using the example of the previously mentioned N L plant, involves a land-volume i. excess of 400 acre-feet per year. [4921] The Development Document lists the various factors considered for best practical technology and best available technology (Pages 353 and 369). Land availability or land use policy are not listed and appear not to have been con- sidered. Certainly these are major factors when considering either the best practical or best available technology for the reduction of liquid effluents from a titanium dioxide plant. Energy Consumption An important factor in considering the treatment technol- ogies advocated in the Development Document is their energy consumption. The contractor has assumed energy costs and availability which seem to disregard the predictions for the period covered by the Guidelines. Neutralization processes require energy for grinding and mixing of reactants, and for filtering and transport of sludges to a landfill site. Energy is required for the production of lime or other neutralizing 155 agents. Other processes discussed by the contractor, such as demineralization, multi-effect evaporation, and acid concentra- tion all have their own energy demands, some of them very high. We have estimated, for example, that one acid recovery process requires about one ton of fuel oil in order to recover one ton of sulfur contained in the concentrated acid. This consumption of an increasingly scarce resource, oil. to recover one ton of widely available and inexpensive sulfur is not in the national interest. Guideline Flexibility The Proposed Guidelines are blanket rules which fail to take into account unique features at individual existing plants. Some plants have no land available for landfilling; indeed, some may not have the land necessary for the construction of the treat- ment facilities that would be required. Other factors not taken into account are the age, location, water supply, and product mix of the plants. For example, one of the N L plants produces nonpigmentary TiO. This is a unique product, for the glass and ceramic industries. The process yields dilute effluents that [4922] would be uniquely expensive to treat. Further, the existing process equipment at this plant yields dilute effluents not suitable for acid recovery. The best practical technology is not the same for all plants because of limitations imposed by the unique and peculiar factors of each plant. The Guidelines should be dexible with consideration given to the numerous plant by plant exceptions to the “model plant” used by the contractor. Lack of Demonstrated Control Technology The technology required to achieve the low Guideline levels has not been demonstrated on TiO: plant effluent streams. The contractor has assumed the successful transfer of technology from other processes, an assumption that remains to be proven viable. The Development Document states ( Abstract, Page iii, 2nd paragraph ): “The standards of performance and pretreat- ment standards for new sources contained herein set forth the degree of effluent reduction which is achievable through the 156 application of the best available demonstrated control tech- nology, . . .. No control technology has been demonstrated that would enable TiO: manufacturing plants to meet the Pro- posed Limitations, Guidelines, and Standards of Performance published October 11, 1973. Costs and Cost Benefit Costs are one of the most important, and one of the most difficult factors to be evaluated, yet the technologies must be “economically achievable.” We believe the costs in the Devel- opment Document to be low by a factor of two to four. More specifically, the costs for neutralization at an N L sulfate plant were recently estimated by a consulting organization at $142/ ton of product as compared to the EPA contractor's estimate of $82/ton of product. Even at this cost, the treatment would not meet the Proposed Guideline limits. [4923] We feel the costs developed by the EPA contractor are low. In examining the Summary Cost Tables 68 and 69 (Pages 308, 309 of the Development Document), no separate cost for solids disposal is listed. Possibly, it is included in the “Operating and Mainteuance Costs” category. If so, it appears that a very low solids disposal cost was used. In Table 68, for example, under Category “C,” we find $2,000,000 for all of op- erating and maintenance. Maintenance alone on a $10,000,000 facility would cost about $500,000 per year. It appears that a solids disposal cost of about $1/ton was used, which would amount to about $730,000 per year. However, if no land is available at the plant sice, and considering the need for con- tainerization of the solids, as described earlier, the disposal cost would be much higher. The Development Document states (Page 344) that waterproof containment with plastic envelope sealing would cost $4/ton. Adding transportation and dump site acquisition and maintenance costs, the cost for solids disposal could easily be $5-$10/ton. For the case “C” of Table 68, the solids disposal cost would then be $3,000,000 to $6,500,000 per year higher than estimated by the contractor. These costs are $150 to $231 per ton of product as compared with the EPA contractor cost estimate of $82 per ton. 157 On the subject of economics the contractor states, in the Development Document (Page 238): “The sulfate process for producing titanium dioxide has the greatest raw waste load of all the processes of this study. This is not because control and treatment technology is lacking, but rather because it is more economical not to apply it.” The second sentence is a state- ment of opinion not supported by any data, and is an unwar- ranted conclusion. There are important factors other than economics that have a bearing on whether control and treat- ment technology is either available or feasible. As has been discussed, other factors of importance are availability of land for solids disposal, land use policy, energy consumption, whether or not present disposal practices are harmful, and whether the costs to be borne ultimately by the consumer are justified by the benefits obtained. By drawing this conclusion the contractor attempts to prove by rhetoric what was not proven regarding the technological feasibility or the cost bene- fit of the Proposed Guidelines. [4924] Fundamental questions that must be asked and an- swered are: “What harm is being done now?” and “What benefit is derived from the increased capital and manufacturing itures of millions of dollars?” The law requires that there be cost benefits. The contractor states in the Develop- ment Document in regard to the effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1977 (Page 353, 3rd paragraph): “Consideration was also given to: a. The total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.” We find no analysis or discussion of such “benefits” in the report. Pricing, Competition The Economic Analysis by a second EPA coniractor, using costs derived by the first contractor, studies the questions of pricing, plant shutdowns, and foreign competition. He indi- cates that the estimated required price increase to cover the 158 proposed treatment costs would force some, but not many, plant shutdowns, and foreign competition would not increase unduly. However, if, as we contend, the estimates of treat- ment costs are much too low, then the required price increases would have different consequences. It is believed widespread plant shutdowns would be forced, and imports of TiO: would increase drastically. This would aggravate the balance of pay- ment problems, and is tantamount to exporting jobs. This opinion is supported by the contractor who states in the Eco- nomic Analysis (Page 110): “. . . that if costs are in fact under- stated by a factor of four, the impact on the TiO: industry will be severe and substantial plant shutdowns could be expected especially among sulfate producers.” Based on the cost esti- mates of our consultant, the situation described in the above quote is a very real possibility if the Proposed Guidelines are promulgated. TiO: is regarded by the contractor as a unique material “having no satisfactory replacement” (Page 265). In some applications this is true, but not in all. In paper manufacturing, for example, TiO: must compete directly with other opacifiers such as clays. TiO: consumption in paper manufacturing is substantial, amounting to about 20% of TiO: production. Fur- thermore, if the price of TiO2 [4925] were to increase sharply, its consumption would surely decrease as a result of the conse- quent shift away from the end products in which it is used. Paint production would undoubtedly decrease as a result of shifts to alternate coating materials such as paper, plastic films, plasters and other alternative materials. We can agree with the conclusion on Page 111 of the Economic Analysis: “.. . a price higher than about $.40 per pound makes substitution by high brightness clays and other pigments economically at- tractive.” It is believed that at the least, enforcement of the Proposed Guidelines would produce severe inequities between pro- ducers, and be the decisive factor in establishing competition and in determining who could produce what, where, and at what cost. This is not the intent of the law. Nor is it the intent of the law to favor one process over another and yet it is con- 159 cluded on Pages 9 and 110 of the Economic Analysis in regard to treatment costs, “. . . that sulfate process TiO: is at a greater disadvantage with respect to chloride process TiO.” and “[t]he chloride producers will probably be less affected by water treatment costs and we do not anticipate any chloride facility closing as the direct result of these costs.” Technical Aspects The validity of the basis used to establish the Guideline limits is questioned. It is stated, “The above Guidelines are based on a modeled sulfate process titanium dioxide plant using 100,000 (units not stated) of process water per k kg of product and allowing 25 mg/! of suspended solids in the effluent. The dissolved metal limitations are based on solubility limits of the oxides in a neutral pH effluent. An average of the concentrations of metal impurities in Adirondack and Aus- tralian ilmenite ores was used to establish the levels.” ( Page 368 of the Development Document) We believe this basis to be unduly arbitrary, and wholly unrealistic in that it does not relate to conditions at any TiO: plant. Water consumption per unit of production varies among the various producers, so that the amount of a metal oxide calculated to be present at satura- ticn would be different in each case. The amount of water used per unit of production cannot be made the same for all pro- ducers because of varying processing (e.g., washing) opera- tions, which necessarily yield waste water flows other than those apparently assumed by the contractor. Further, the waste waters will contain varying amounts of anions such as chloride and sulfate ion, again varying among producers, be- cause of the use of different processes, which will have a major effect on the solubility of the various metal oxides. Were the “metal oxides” properly considered as hydroxides? [4926] Laboratory tests conducted for N L by a consultant showed, for example, that at one plant, neutralization to a pH of 7 still left an equivalent of 277 lbs. of soluble iron as FeO, per ton of product, far above the limit in the Proposed Guide- lines. The consultant's report states: “This remaining iron . . . is due to the solubility of the products in »eutralization.” This 160 was based on laboratory tests by the contractor, thus providing evidence that the Guideline limits cannot be attained by the technology proposed. The use of Adirondack and Australian ilmenites as “model ores’ is wholly unrealistic. Only one producer uses Adirondack ilmenite, and, to our knowledge, only one producer uses Aus- tralian ilmenite as part of his ore input. No TiO. producer uses a 50:50 blend of the two, on which the concentrations of metal impurities to be obtained was based. The Guidelines appear to refer to a plant’s net contribution to material discharge, which can be exceedingly difficult to determine. The water intake of several plants is located in a river affected by tides. Thus, extensive analysis and statistical treatment of data would be required to evaluate the intake of listed “pollutants” in just this one water source. The problem is compounded by surface runoff, equipment corrosion, process upsets, and the location within plant complexes of power plants, acid plants, etc. The contractor's own measurements (Pages 205-210 of the Development Document ) show large and erratic variations of levels of ions and of pH in actual plant effluent streams, in turn requiring statistical analysis by complex and possibly, debatable techniques. Considering those data, and the fact that we are to evaluate the net contribution of a plant to material discharged, the technical problem in this area is obviously extremely difficult, and raises questions about the administration of such Guidelines. It is questioned why silica, alumina, and magnesium oxide must be removed to the very low levels in the Proposed Guide- lines. They are widely distributed through natural waters and are not known to be harmful. We are unable to comment on the inclusion of cobalt oxide at this time, since it has not to our knowledge, previously been discussed or mentioned. Discrepancies between substances listed in the Development Document and those listed in the Guidelines Document are noted. The Development Document (Pages 215, 219, 225, 368) refers to manganese as a pollutant, which subsequently is not listed in the [4927] Guidelines Document. Similarly, nio- 161 bium is listed as a “harmful metal” in the chloride process cate- gory (Development Document, page 4, Table I), but is not listed in the Guidelines Document. Contrariwise, neodymium is listed in the Guidelines Document for the chloride process (top of page 28193), but not in the Development Document. The Guidelines Document also lists cobalt and MgO for the sulfate process, but these do not appear in the corresponding listing in the Development Document (Page 225). We ques- tion why, in the Guidelines Document, metals are listed for the chloride process, and metal oxides for the sulfate process. Higher Limits for New Plants It is noted, (page 28194) of the Guidelines Document, that the effluent limitations for a new sulfate TiOz plant for Cr2Os, Al,Os, and Fe2Os are higher by a factor of ten than the corre- sponding limits applicable to an existing sulfate plant. Further there is given no effluent pH range in that case. The reason for those differences is not known. Other Comments on Development Document 1. Page 4, Table 1: Alumina and silica are listed improperly as “harmful metals.” 2. Page 27, next to last sentence should be deleted since such pigments are no longer manufactured. 3. Page 184: The amounts of strong and weak acids available varies widely depending on the types of processes and equipment in use. 4. Page 188, Ist paragraph: Believe “the 166 plant” sl.ould read “the 122 plant.” 5. Page 190, Table 35: The table is insufficiently identified, confusing, impossible to understand. 6. Page 191: What are the units for the listed wastes. 7. Page 239, 3rd paragraph: Why are mining sites in N.Y., N.J., or Florida “more suited” (more able to absorb pollu- tants?) than most present TiO. plants? 162 [COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES— OLIN CHEMICALS.] [5151] OLIN CHEMICALS 120 Long Ridge Road, Stamford, Connecticut 06904 November 9, 1973 Mr. Philip B. Wisman EPA Information Center Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 Re: Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 415 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance and Pretreatment for Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category Dear Mr. Wisman: The following comments are submitted in connection with the proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines (40 CFR Part 415) which were published in the Federal Register, Volume 38, Number 196, on October 11, 1973, pages 28174 through 28202. General—Since Section 304 (b) of the Water Pollution Con- trol Act requires the Administrator to publish regulations pro- viding guidelines to be used as a tool for establishing effluent limitations, we recommend that the guidelines be established as a range for application in a flexible manner and not as strict standards applicable without exception throughout the industry. Olin accordingly endorses the Manufacturing Chemists Asso- ciation’s position relative to this matter as was stated in Mr. W. J. Driver's letter of October 17, 1973, addressed to Mr. Russell E. Train. Also, we have considerable concern re- garding the pretreatment standards which essentially prohibit future industrial participation in municipal treatment facilities in that industry must apply the “best available demonstrated 163 control technology, processes, operating technology . . .” prior to discharge to a municipal system. Subpart F—Chlorine and Sodium or Potassium Hydroxide Production Subcategory 1. Effluent limitations for 1977, Best Practicable Control Technology—The phrase “best practicable control technology currently available” was adopted by Congress as the Phase I (1977) standard. It appears fre the legislative history [5152] that “best practicable” was intended to be a more stringent and more comprehensive standard than the so called “industry equivalent to secondary treatment,” which connotes 85 to 90 percent BOD; removal. The requirement was to be estab- lished by reference to the average of the best performers in an industry category. Of the 28 currently operating mercury cell facilities in the United States, EPA cited two (EPA designa- tions—130 and 144) as exemplary, and one (EPA designation— 098, outside the U.S.) as provisionally exemplary in establishing the best practicable contro! technology. One of these (130) involves a singularly unique situation, employing potassium chloride brine (as contrasted to sodium chloride brine) as the process raw material. None of the three exemplary plants has a production capacity in excess of 300 tons per day of chlorine. However, about one-third of the existing mercury cell chlorine capacity comes from larger facilities. Moreover, EPA did not include consideration of those facilities which have older and still viable cells that are small in terms of individual cell pro- duction capacity but have the highest mercury inventory on a per ton of chlorine production basis. Contrary to Congressional intent, EPA has based its dissolved mercury effluent limitation of 0.00014 pounds per ton of chlorine produced on the performance of one exemplary plant rather than the average of the best performers in the industry. Although this level of disch»rge has been achieved by the exemplary plant, it should not be adopted as a general limitation since it does not provide for variations in plant size and age, raw material selection and availability, complexity and geo- graphic location. Therefore, Olin proposes that the dissolve 164 mercury effluent guideline limitation definition be set in the form of a range having its high end based on an achievable mercury discharge level of 0.1 pounds per day (monthly aver- age) and the low end representing the achievement of the above mentioned exemplary plant. This upper discharge level has been widely accepted within the EPA as representing best current technology as witnessed by issuance in 1973 of two NPDES permits at this level to Olin plants and at least two more permits to other manufacturers. Based on an average size mercury cell chlorine plant of 300 tons per day chlorine produc- tion, this equates to 0.0003 pounds of mercury per ton of chlo- rine produced. The recommended range would therefore be 0.00014 to 0.0003 pounds of mercury discharged per ton of chlorine produced. Further, based on EPA values of an average of 0.15 pounds of mercury being discharged per day from the 28 existing mercury- cell facilities (.0005 Ib. mercury per ton chlorine), a total of about 4 pounds per day of mercury is discharged in the United States from the chlor-alkali industry. Since these 28 facilities produce approximately 7600 tons per day of chlorine, applica- tion of the proposed EPA 1977 limitation of 0.00014 Ib. mercury per ton of chlorine would reduce the total mercury effluent to 1.1 pounds per day. The concept of spending large sums of money to reduce the mercury effluent of the entire chlor-alkali industry by only three pounds per day as required in the pro- posed limitations is not economically or environmentally justi- fiable. A regulation allowing judicious application of a range of values would be much to the national benefit. [5153] 2. Effluent Limitations Guidelines for 1983—The pro- posed limitation for chlor-alkali plants is “no discharge of process waste water pollutants”. In specifying zero discharge EPA ignores such important factors as spills and non-recyclable wastes, waste treatment plant failures or interruptions, and Acts of God. EPA simply states that the technology exists to reach “zero” discharge by 1983. Olin agrees that theoretically this is true, but we believe the Congress intended that the very best information be employed in examining the technology and economics of each product before establishing the regulations. 165 This has not been done. We object strongly to the economics EPA has used to justify “zero” discharge. The EPA-recom- mended procedure for chlor-alkali plants to achieve “zero discharge is sale of spent sulfuric acid, decomposition and evaporation of waste hypochlorite to reusable salt or manu- facture and sale of hydrochloric acid from hypochlorite and evaporation of all other process waste water streams after mer- cury removal to eliminate dissolved solids. For a 175 ton per day chlorine plant, EPA estimates the additional cost for achieving zero discharge, after spending an estimated $2.14 per ton of chlorine for best practicable treatment, to be $.86 per ton of chlorine. The figure is more realistically an additional $2.00 to $3.00 per ton of chlorine. EPA gave $50,000 as the cost of an evaporator system and $200,000 for hypochlorite disposal. More realistic figures are $300,000 for the evaporator (three effects required) and $400,000 for hypochlorite control. EPA gave electrical energy cost as $1,000 per year and steam cost of $5,000 per year to obtain zero discharge for a 175 ton per day chlorine plant. Olin estimates at present day power costs these figures would be $12,000 for electric energy cost and $48,000 for steam cost for this size plant. (Even these costs are expected to rise in the near future) These discrepancies point out the erroneous economics used to support achievement of “zero” discharge. Also, the setting of the zero discharge limita- tion at this time by-passes the legislative time table which pro- vides, in Section 315 of the Water Pollution Control Act, for a National Study Commission. This Commission is to study in detail all aspects of achieving or not achieving by July 1, 1983 the goals set in Section 301 (b) of the Act (best available tech- nology economically achievable ). Olin has estimated that it would require in excess of $2,000,000 additional capital expendituie and $625,000 addi- tional operating expenditure to achieve no discharge of process waste water pollutants at its chlor-alkali facilities. This expendi- ture of between $4.00 and $5.00 of capital per annual ton of chlorine would accomplish the elimination of waste streams which are innocuous to most receiving streams. Here again is a case of establishing an unrealistic limitation which cannot 166 be supported on an economic basis and which will have little, if any, beneficial effect on the environment. The outstanding effect of the “zero” discharge limitation will be an increase in the cost of chlorine by approximately 10%, which will be reflected in the cost of chlorine-consuming products such as plastics, paper products, textiles, etc. and in the cost of munic- ipal waste treatment. [5154] The cost estimates, economic impact and treatment costs to achieve the effluent reductions attainable by the application of the best practicable treatment currently available and by application of the best available treatment economically achiev- able have not been demonstrated. It is understandable that cost evaluations are off by a significant factor since in the EPA estimate it is acknowledged that installed costs did not include auxiliary equipment such as boilers or cooling towers, major buildings, land purchase or other costs specific to each applica- tion. Subpart H—Hydrofluoric Acid Production Subcategory In order to avoid generally recognized, serious air pollution problems resulting from the production of hydrofluoric acid the calcium sulfate is usually quenched by slurrying in water. The slurry system will contain some impurities originating in the raw material fluorspar, calcium sulfate and fluorides. The pro- posed “no discharge” conceivably calls for total reuse of all process water including the above-mentioned quench water. Where impoundment and recycle are practiced, rainfall in excess of evaporation loss may preclude the recycle of all water. Olin proposes that an allowance be made for the release of excess recycle water. Subpart U—Sulfuric Acid Production Subcategory We believe that double absorption sulfur-burning sulfuric- acid plants can meet the proposed rules for “no discharge” of process waste water pollutants. However, we strongly object to the rule that there should be no process waste water dis- charge from a single absorption sulfur-burning sulfuric acid 167 plant where the plant meets air quality standards through the use of a tail gas clean up system. On page 28177 of the Federal Register it is recognized that tail gases for these sulfuric acid plants can be scrubbed and treated. On page 222 of the “Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines” it is stated that SO. scrubber effluent should be minimized on existing installations and no waterborne wastes should be allowed from future SO: removal system. On page 230 of this document it states in the last paragraph that existing SO: control systems which discharge waterborne waste can be made wastefree by concentration and recovery of sodium sulfate which can be sold. Before Olin provided purge stream treatment of its Curtis Bay, Maryland sulfuric acid plant, the possibility of selling or even giving away the sodium sulfate was investigated. However, no customers or takers could be found. It would appear that those plants that have pioneered in the development of pollution control technology and have installed equipment thought to be acceptable to Federal [5155] and State authorities are being penalized for this effort. Past effort to reduce pollution should not go unrecognized when the water- borne waste products resulting from these efforts are modest and are compatible with the receiving waters. The rules should be amended to permit the discharge of treated waste water from air nciiution control facilities in a single absorption sulfur- purning sulfuric acid plant where pH has been adjusted and the sulfate discharge is compatible with the receiving waters. Olin offers these objections and recommendations for change of the proposed rules hoping to affect the development of effluent limitations that offer the optimum benefits to the country both environmentally and economically. Yours very truly, Olin Corporation C. L. Knowles, Jr. Director of Engineering and Environmental Affairs 168 [COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES— E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY. |] [5156] E. 1. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Legal Department November 9, 1973 Mr. Philip B. Wisman Information Center Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C. 20460 RE: COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REGULA- TIONS—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STAN- DARDS OF PERFORMANCE AND PRETREAT- MENT FOR INORGANIC CHEMICALS MANU- FACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY, AND COMMENTS ON (1) THE EPA DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT (EPA 440/1-73/007) AND ON (2) THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES, EPA-230/1-73-015. Dear Mr. Wisman: We, at Du Pont, seriously question the effluent limitations and the basis for them as set forth in the Inorganic Chemical Industry Guidelines. Not only are most of the effluent limita- tions for best practicable control technology and best available technology unachievable, but they are also not supported by the record as required by the Act. Many of the conclusions drawn did not take into account the factors specified in Section 304(b) in determining the control measures and practices applied to point sources. 169 We agree with the attached legal position paper of MCA on the guidelines and request that EPA state that the guide- line limits are not stanuards but are merely guidance to achiev- ing an effluent reduction which is technologically and economi- cally feasible. We find few areas in which we concur conceptually with EPA. One of them is item (6) on page 28180 where EPA states that, except for those considered harmful, dissolved solids should not be limited. We interpret this to mean that dis- solved solids do not fal] within the term “process waste water pollutants.” However, EPA did not clarify this point in the definitions for “process waste waters” in Subparts A through V. We suggest that it be so defined as to exclude dissolved solids. [5157] We also concur with the decision in paragraph (9) of page 28180 to deal with cooling water and boiler blowdown and water supply waste waters as a separate category. In the interest of clarity, we suggest that each subpart specify that these waters are not within the purview of these subparts. Or analysis of the Development Document shows that most of the erroneous conclusions and insufficient economic evalua- tions in the Draft Development Document ( General Technolo- gies, June, 1973) have been repeated. Du Pont commented extensively on the draft document, either directly to EPA or to the Effluent Standards and Water Quality Information Advisory Committee. We are concerned that the final Development Document differs littie from the draft version. No record has been pub- lished to justify or support EPA’s decision not to correct the erroneous conclusions drawn in the Development Documents as pointed out in the copious comments submitted by reviewers of that draft Document. EPA merely states that the data upon which these guidelines were established included EPA permit applications, EPA sam- pling and inspection, consultant reports, and industry submis- sion. However, the “Development Document for ‘Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance: Standards” which details the analysis undertake [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2168%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.