regulations final pretreatment y),...1975/01/30 · 1314 (b) and (c) 86 stat. 816 et seq.; p1....

4582

Title 40-Protection of the EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER N-EFFLUENT GUIDELINES

AND STANDARDS[FEL 328-4]

PART 408-CANNED AND PRESERVEDSEAFOOD PROCESSING POINT SOURCECATEGORY

Interim Final Rule MakingNotice is hereby given that effluent

limitations and guidelines for existingsources set forth in interim final formbelow are promulgated by the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA). OnJune 26, 1974, EPA promulgated a regu-lation adding Part 408 to Title 40 of theCode of Federal Regulations (39 FR23134). That regulation established efflu-ent limitations and guidelines for exist-ing sources and standards of performanceand pretreatment standards for newsources for the canned and preserved sea-food processing point source category.The regulation set forth below willamend 40 CFR, Part 408-canned andpreserved seafood processing point sourcecategory by revising § 408.10 of the farm-raised catfish processing subcategory(Subpart A), § 408.20 of the conventionalblue crab processing subcategory (Sub-part B), § 408.30 of the mechanized bluecrab processing subcategory (SubpartC), § 408.40 of the non-remote Alaskancrab meat processing subcategory (Sub-part D), § 408.50 of the remote Alaskancrab meat processing subcategory (Sub-part E, § 408.60 of the non-remoteAlaskan whole crab and crab sectionprocessing pubcategory (Subpart F),§ 408.70 of the remote Alaskan wholecrab and crab section processing sub-category (Subpart G), § 408.80 of thedungeness and tanner crab processing inthe contiguous States subcategory (Sub-part H), § 408.90 of the non-remoteAlaskan shrimp processing subcategory(Subpart I), § 408.100 of the remoteAlaskan shrimp processing subcategory(Subpart J), § 408.110 of the northernshrimp processing in the contiguousStates subcategory (Subpart K), § 408.120of the southern non-breaded shrimpprocessing in the contiguous States sub-category (Subpart L), § 408.130 of thebreaded shrimp processing subcategory(Subpart M),,and § 408.140 of the tunaprocessing subcategory (Subpart N) toexpand the applicability thereof; and byadding thereto effluent limitations andguidelines for existing sources for thefish meal processing subcategory (Sub-part 0), Alaskan hand-butchered sal-mon processing subcategory (Subpart P),Alaskan mechanized salmon processingsubcategory (Subpart Q), West Coasthand-butchered salmon processing sub-category (Subpart R), West Coastmechanized salmon processing subcate-gory (Subpart S), Alaskan bottom fishprocessing subcategory (Subpart T),non-Alaskan conventional bottom fishprocessing subcategory (Subpart U) non-Alaskan mechanized bottom fish process-Ing subcategory (Subpart y), hand-shucked clam processing subcategory

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(Subpart W), mechanized clam process-ing subcategory (Subpart X), PacificCoast hand-shucked oyster processingsubeategory (Subpart Y), Atlantic andGulf Coast hand-sh-acked oyster process-ing subcategory 'Subpart Z), steamed/canned oyster processing subcategory(Subpart AA), sardine processing sub-category (Subpart AB), Alaskan scallopprocessing subeategory (Subpart AC),non-Alaskan scallop processing subcate-gory (Subpart AD), Alaskan herring fil-let processing subcategory (Subpart AE),non-Alaskan herrind fillet processingsubcategory (Subpart AF), and abaloneprocessing subcategory (Subpart AG)pursuant to sections 301, 304 (b) and (c)of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct as amended (33 -U.S.C. 1251, 1311,1314 (b) and (c) 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; P1.92-500) (the Act). Simultaneously, theAgency is publishing in proposed formstandards of performance for new pointsources and pretreatment standards forexisting sources and for new sources.

(a) LEGAL AUTHORTY

Section 301(b) of the Act requires theachievenient by not later than July 1,1977, of effluent limitations for pointsources, other than publicly owned treat-ment works, which require the applica-tion of the best practicable control tech-nology currently available as defined bythe Administrator pursuant to section304(b) of the Act. Section 301(b) alsorequires the achievement by not laterthan July 1, 1983, of effluent limitationsfor point sources, other than publiclyowned treatment works, which requirethe application of best available tech-nology economically achievable whichwill result in reasonable further progresstoward the national goal of eliminatingthe discharge of all pollutants, as de-termined in accordance with regulationsissued by the Administrator pursuant to-section 304(b) to the Act.

Section 304(b) of the Actirequires theAdministrator to publish regulationsproviding guidelines for effluent limita-tions setting forth the degree of effluentreduction attainable through the appli-cation of the best practicable controltechnology currently available and thedegree of effluent reduction attainablethrough the application of the best con-trol measures and practices achievableincluding treatment techniques, process

'and procedure innovations, operatingmethods and other alternatives. The reg-ulation proposed herein sets forth efflu-ent limitations and guidelines, pursuantto sections 301 and 304(b) of the Act,for the fish meal processing subcategory(Subpart 0), Alaskan hand-butcheredsalmon processing subcategory (SubpartP), Alaskan mechanized salmon process-ing subcategory (Subpart Q), WestCoast hand-butchered salmon process-ing subcategory (Subpart R), West Coastmechanized salmon processing subcate-gary (Subpart S), Alaskan bottom fishprocessing subcategory (Subpart T),non-Alaskan conventional bottom fishprocessing subeategory (Subpart U),non-Alaskan mechanized bottom fishprocessing subcategory (Subpart V),

hand-shucked clam processing subcatc-gory (Subpart W), mechanized clamprocessing subcategory (Subpart X),Pacific Coast hand-shucked oyster proc-essing subcategory (Subpart Y), At'lantic and Gulf Coast hand-shuckedoyster processing subcategory (SubpartZ), steam/canned oyster processing sub-category (Subpart AA), sardine process-ing subcategory (Subpart AB), Alaskanscallop processing subcategory (SubpartAC), non-Alaskan scallop procesing sub-category (Subpart AD), Alaskan herringfillet processing subcategory (SubpartAE), non-Alaskan herring fillet process-ing subcategory (Subpart AF), andabalone processing subcategory (SubpartAG) of the canned and preserved seafoodprocessing point source category.

Section 304(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to Issue to the States andappropriate water pollution controlagencies information on the processes,procedures or operating methods whichresult in the elimination or reduction ofthe discharge of pollutants to implementstandards of performance under section306 of the Act. The report or "Develop-ment Document" referred to below pro-vides, pursuant to section 304(c) of theAct, information on such processes, pro-cedures or operating methods.

Section 306 of the Act requires theachievement by new sources of tr Federalstandard of performance providing forthe control of the discharge of pollutantswhich reflects the greatest degree ofeffluent reduction which the Administra-tor determines to be achievable throughapplication of the best available demon-strated control technology, processes,operating methods, or other alternatives,including, where practicable, a standardpermitting no discharge of pollutants.Section 307(c) of the Act requires theAdministrator to promulgate pretreat-ment standards for new sources at thesame time that standards of perform-ance for new sources are promulgatedpursuant to section 306. Section 307(b)of the Act requires the establishment ofpretreatment standards for pollutantsintroduced into publicly owned treat-ment works and 40 CFR 128 establishesthat the Agency will propose specificpretreatment standards at the time efflu-ent limitations are established for pointsource discharges. In another section ofthe FEDERAL REGISTER regulations areproposed in fulfillment of these require-ments.(b) SUMMUARY AND BASIS OF INTEaM FINAL

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES FOREXISTING SOURCES AND PnOPOSED STAND-ARDS or PERFORMXANCE AND PSETRAT-M ENT STANDARDS FOR NENV SOURCES ANDPRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTINGSOURCES(1) General methodology.The effluent limitations, guidelines and

standards of performance set forth here-in were developed in the following man-ner. The point source category was firststudied for the purpose of determiningwhether separate limitations and stand-ards are appropriate for different seg-ments within the category. This analysis

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 21-THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975


included adetermination of whether dif-ferences in raw anaterial used, productproduced, manufacturing process en-ployed, age, size,'waste -water neonstitu-ants and other factors -require develop-anent of separate limitations and stand-ards :or different segments of the pointsource category. - The raw waste charac-teristics foreach-suchsegment were then-identified. This included an analysis ofthesource, flow and volume of-water used-in -the process employed, the sources of-waste 'and waste waters in the operationand'the constituents of all waste water.The constituents -of the -waste waters'which should be subject to effluent limita-tions were identified.

The control and treatment technolo-gies existing within each segment wereidentified. This included an identifica-tion of each distinct control and treat-ment technology,-including both in-plantand end-of-process technologies, whichare existent or capable of being designedfor each segment. it -also included an-identification of, in terms of the amount,of -constituents and the chemical, physi-cal, and biological characteristics of pol-lutants, the effluent level resulting fromthe application of each of the technolo-ogies. The problems, limitations and reli-ability of each treatment and controllechnology'were-also identified. In addi-tion, the non-water quality environ-mental impact, such as the effects of theapplication -f -such technologies upon-other pollution problems, including air,solid waste, and noise were identified.The energy Tequirements of each con-trol and treatment technology were de-termined -as -well -as the cost of the ap--plication of such: technologies.

The information, as outlined above,was then evaluated in order to determine-what -levels of technology constitute the"best practicable control technology cur--Tently available," "best available tech-notogy economically -achievable" and the"best available -demonstrated controltechnology, processes, operating methods,-or other -alternatives." -In identifyingsuch technologies, various factors wereconsidered. These included the total cost

-of application -of technology in relationto the effluent reduction benefits to beachieved from such application, the ageof equipment and facilities Involved, theprocess -employed, the engineering as--pects .of the application of various typesof control techniques, process changes,non-water -quality environmental im-

_pact (including -energy xequirements)and other factors.

Me-data -upon which the above analy-.sis was performed included EPA permit.applications, PA -sampling and Inspec-tions, consultant xeports, and industrysubmissions.

.(2) Summary -of -conclusions with re-spect to the fish meal 'processing sub-zategory (Subpart 0), -Alaskan hand-"butderet salmon processing bcategory(Sibpart _ J, Alaskan -mechanized sal-_monprocesuimg subcategory (Subpart Q),West Coas&tand-butchered salmon proc-vssing ubategory '(Subpart R), 'West-Coast "mechanized salmon -processingsubeategory-(Supar S),Alaskan'bottom

.A sflh-processingsubcategory ISubpart T),

non-Alaskan conventional bottom fishprocessing subeategory (Subpart U),non-Alaskan mechanized bottom f&shprocessing subeategory -(Subpart V),hand-shucked clam proceising cubcate-gory w(Subpart W), mechanizcd clamprocessing subcate.-ory (Subpart X),Pacific Coast hand-shucked oyster proc-essing-subcategory (Subpart Y), Atlanticand Gulf Coast hand-zhucked oysterprocessing subcategory (Subpart Z),steamed/canned oyster procesing sub-category (Subpart AA), rardine process--Ing subcategory (Subpart AB), Alaskanscallop processing subcategory (SubpartAC) ,non-Alaskanscallop proersing sub-!ategory (Subpart AD), Alaskan herringfillet processing subcategory (SubpartAE), non-Alaskan herring fillet process-Ing subcategory (Subpart AF), and-abalone processing subcategory (SubpartAG) of the canned and preserved seafoodprocessing point source category:(1) Categorizalton. For the purpose of

:tudying waste treatment and proposing-effluent limitations, the fish meal, sal-anon, bottom fish, clam, oyster, sardine,scallop, herring and abalone segments-of the canned and preserved seafood-processing category were divided into 19-discrete subcategorles which were based-oh thetorm and quality of finished prod-uct; manufacturing processes and sub--processes utilized: waste water charac--teristics '(particularly water consump-tion, total suspended solids, BOD5, and-grease and oil); geographical location;and production capacity of plants asoutlined In the report entitled, 'MDvelop-ment Document for Proposed EfuentLimitations Guidelines and New SourcePerformance Standards for the FishWeal, Salmon, 'Bottom Flsh, Clam,-Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring andAbalone Segments of the Canned andPreserved Seafood Processing Industry."Several other factors, such as variabilityin raw product supply and production,condition -of raw product on- delivery to

-the processing plant, variety of speciesbeing processed, harvesting method, de-gree df pre-processing, age of plant,water availability, and amenability ofvwaste to treatment were also considered.It was determined that these factora-were highly correlated with one or moreof the foregoing factors. Considerationof the economic impact of the proposedeffluent limitations required provisionsto be made In -several subcategories toaccount -for the size of the processingfacfilty."ProvIslons have been established

'to account for differences due to process-ing plant locations in Alaska. The iso--lated location of some Alaskan seafoodprocessing -plants eliminates almost allwaste water treatment alternatives be-cause of undependable access to ocean,land, or commercial transportation dur-ing extended severe sea or weather con-ditions, and-thehigh costs of eliminating-the engineering obstacles due to adverse-climatic and geologic conditions.

(1) 'ubpart 0-Fish Weal Processing'Sbbcategory: This subpart is limited tothe major portion of the fish meal pro-'cessing industry which -encompasses thezeduction of menhaden 'and anchovy to

meal, oil and solubles. The menhadenprocesing industry is located predomi-nat2ly on the Gulf and Atlsntic Coasts,whereas the ancholy processing industryIs lozated on the West-oat.

(2) Subpart P-Alaskan Hand-Butchered 'Salmon Processing Subcate-gory: This subpart is limited to hand-butchered fresh/frozen and canned sal-mon procesing In Alaska. Because ofshort seasons (one to two months) andthe large volume of fish to be processed,the Alaska salmon plants .are typicallylarger and operate longer hours thansalmon plants in the contiguous states-Mor~eover, geographical differences basedon considerations of climate, topography,relative isolation of the processing plantsin Alaska, land and water aviabilityand soil conditions further justify a dis-tinction betreen Alaskan operations andthose in the contiguous states.

Hand-butchered salmon processing re-sults in significantly different wastecharacteristics and volumes when com-pared to mechanized salmon processing.For example, the water use per kilogram-of salmon processed msing mechanizedbutchering is 6 times the water use of thehand-butchered process; the total sus-pended solids ratio is about 15 times-greater; and the 5-day biochemical oxy-gen demand (BOD5) approaches 25 timesthat of the hand-butchered salmon proc-ess. A provision has been established toaccount for differences due topocessing-plant locations in Alaska. The isolatedlocation of some Alaskan seafood proc-essing plants, compared to those inproc--essing or population centers, eliminates'almost all waste water treatment alter-'natives because of undependable accessto ocean, land, or commercial transpor-tation disposal alternatives during Vx-tended severe sea or weather conditions,and the high costs of eliminating the en-gineering obstacles due to adverse cli-matic and geologlconditions. However,those 'plants located in population or,processing centers have access to morereliable, cost-effective alternatives suchas solids recovery techniques or otherforms of solids disposal such as barging.

(3) Subpart Q-Alaskan 'MechanizedSalmon Processing Subcategory: Mlech-anized butchering of salmon, as discussedabove, causes significant differences inwaste water characteristics and volumeswhen compared to the hand-butcheredsalmon operation.

Geographical differences such as thosediscussed in the previous section justifya distinction between Alaskan operationsand those in the contiguous states.

Again, a provision of the effluent limi-tations accounts for differences in Vplantlocations for Isolated Alaskan plants asopposedto plants In a population orproc-erring center.

(4) -Subpart -- West Coast Hand-'Butchered Salmon Processing Subcate-gory: The West Coast hand-butcheredsalmon processing industry is simila toThe Alaskan industry -in terms of proc-tessing technology and waste-water char-acteristics. However, geographical dif-ferences such as those listed reviousLyJustify a distinction between Alaskan


4- -ar"


processing and processing in the contigu-ous states.

(5) Subpart S-West Coast Mecha-nized Salmon Processing Subcategory:The West Coast mechanized salmonprocessing industry is similar to theAlaskan industry in terms of processingtechnology and waste water characteris-tics, However, geographical differencessuch as those listed previously justify adistinction between Alaskan processingand processing in the contiguous states.

(6) Subpart T-Alaskan Bottom FishProcessing Subcategory: This subpart islimited to conventional processing, inAlaska, of bottom fish such as halibut. Aconventional process is defined as one inwhich the unit operations are carried outessentially by hand and with a relativelylow water volume. Geographical differ-ences such as those listed previously jus-tify a distinction between Alaskan proc-essing and processing in the contiguousstates.

Again, a provision of the effluentlimitations accounts for differences inplant locations for isolated Alaskanplants as opposed to plants in a popu-lation or processing center.

(7) Subpart U-Non-Alaskan Con-ventional Bottom Fish Processing Sub-category: This subpart is limited to con-ventional bottom fish processing in thecontiguous states. A conventional proc-ess is defined as one in which the unitoperations are carried out essentially byhand and with a relatively low watervolume. Significant differences in wastewater characteristics exist between thissubcategory and the non-Alaskan mech-anized bottom fish processing subcate-gory. For example, the mechanized bot-tom fish process BOD5 is nearly 4 timesthat of the conventional bottom fish, themechanized bottom fish total suspendedsolids is about 7 times as high as theconventional bottom fish, and the watdruse is approximately 2.5 times as highas the conventional bottom fish process.

(8) Subpart V-Non-Alaskan Mech-anized Bottom Fish Subeategory: TheMechanized non-Alaskan bottom fishprocessing industry utilizes machines formany of the unit operations such as rins-ing, descaling, skinning and butchering.As noted previously, significant differ-ences in waste water characteristics exist-between mechanized and conventionalbottom fish processing.

(9) Subpart W-Hand-Shucked ClamProcessing Subcategory: The majorityof the clam harvest, approximately 90percent, occurs in the mid-AtlanticStates with the New England States ac-counting for the major portion of theremainder. The hand-shucked clamprocessing plants tend to be small opera-tions in comparison to mechanized proc-essing plants. The hand-shucked clamoperation is characterized by signifi-cantly lower flow and BOD5 ratios. Thewater use for the hand-shucked opera-tions is approximately 25 percent of thewater use for the mechanized clam op-eration; the BOD5 is about 40 percent ofthe mechanized clam processing BOD5.

(10) Subpart X-Mechanized ClamProcessing Subcategory: The mechanized

clam processing plants tend to be largeoperations in comparison to the hand-shucked clam processing facilities. Thehand shucking operations generally usea hot water cooker before removing theclam from the shell.-The mechanical op-erations generally use a steam cooker ora shucking furnace prior to separatingthe meat in a brine flotation tank. Asdiscussed previously, significant differ-ences in waste water characteristics ex-ist between mechanized and hand-shucked clam processing.

(11) Subpart Y-Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster Processing Subcategory:This subpart is limited to hand-shuckedoyster processing facilities which utilizeoysters harvested off the Pacific Coast.As noted in the next section, significant-differences in waste water characteris-tics exist between Pacific Coast andAtlantic and Gulf Cbast hand-shuckedoyster processing.

(12) Subpart Z-Atantic and Gulf--Coast Hand-Shucked Oyster ProcessingSubcategory: Processing of the Atlanticand Gulf Coast oysters is accomplishedusing either manual or mechanical meth-ods, although plants utilizing manual op-erations are more prevalent. Manual orhand-shucked operations are relativelysmall in size in comparison to mecha-nized operations. This subpart is limitedto the Atlantic and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster operations because of thedifferences in waste characteristics incomparison to the Pacific Coast hand-shucked oyster operations. The higherwaste load of the Pacifict Coast Oyster isattributable to the fact that the PacificCoast species is larger and tends to breakup easier during handling. For example,the total suspended solids and oil andgrease loadings of the Pacific oyster areabout 2.5 times that of the Atlantic oys-ter, and the BOD5 loading is about 1.6times the Atlantic oyster.

(13) Subpart AA-Steamed/CannedOyster Processing Subcategory: Thesteam/canned oyster processor first me-chanically shucks the oysters to jar theshells far enough apart to allow steamto enter during cooking. After steamcooking, the meat is separated usingbrine flotation tanks, washed and can-ned. Unlike the effluent characteristics ofthe hand-shucked oyster processes, thereis no significant difference between thecharacteristics of Pacific Coast steamed/canned oyster process effluents whencompared to those of the East Coaststeamed/canned oyster process. There-fore, this subcategory covers both geo-graphic regions.

(14) Subpart AB-Sardine ProcessingSubcategory: This subpart is limited tothe canning of sardines or sea herringsubstituted for sardines. The sardinecanning process is essentially the samefrom plant to plant and is located in onegeographic region of New England.

(15) Subpart AC-Alaskan ScallopProcessing Subcategorij: This subpart islimited to the processing of scallops inAlaska. As noted previously, geograph-ical differences based on consideration ofclimate; topography, relative isolation ofthe processing plants in Alaska, land andwater availability and soil conditions

justify a distinction between Alaskanprocessing and processing In the con-tiguous states.

Moreover, a provision of the efliuentlimitations accounts for differences inplant locations for isolated Alaskanplants as opposed to plants in a popu-lation or processing center.

(16) Subpart AD-Non-Alaskan Scal-lop Processing Subeategory: The non-Alaskan bay and sea scallop processingindustry In the contiguous states Is sim-lar to the Alaskan scallop procesingindustry in terms of processing tech-nology. However, the geographical dif-ferences such as those listed In SubpartAC, above, justify a distinction betweenAlaskan processing and processing inthe contiguous states.

(17) Subpart AE-Alaskan HerringFillet Processing Subcategory: Seaherring fillets are produced on both theEast and West Coasts, with the process-ing centers located In SoutheasternAlaska and In New England. The seaherring filleting operation is a relativelyrecent development which utilizes fillet-ing machines. Geographical differencesbased on considerations of climate, to-pography, relative Isolation of the proc-essing plants in Alaska, land and wateravailability and soil conditions justifya distinction between the Alaskan op-erations and those in the contiguousstates.

Moreover, a provision of the elluentlimitations accounts for differences Inplant locations for Isolated Alaskanplants as opposed to plants In a popu-lation or processing center.

(18) Subpart AF-Non-Alaskan Her-ring Fillet Processing Subcategory: Thesea herring filleting process in the con-tiguous states is similar to the Alaskanoperation in terms of processing tech-nology and waste characteristics. How-,ver, the geographical differences listedpreviously justify a distinction betweenAlaskan processing and processing Inthe contiguous states.

(19) Subpart AG-Abalone ProcessingSubcategory: Abalone are found off theWest'Coast of the United States, rang-ing from Sitka, Alaska to BaJa Califor-nia. However, this subpart is limited tothe commercially important specieswhich are processed in the Californiaarea from Monterey to San Diego.

(i) Waste Characteristics. Pollutantscontained in waste waters resulting fromseafood processing are measured by bio-chemical oxygen demand, chemical oxy-gen demand, settleable solids, total sus-pended solids, oil and grease, totalKjeldahl nitrogen (organic nitrogen andammonia), nitrate, phosphorus, coliform'bacteria, pH and temperature. Of theforegoing pollution parameters, bio.chemical oxygen demand, total Sus-pended solids, and oil and grease havebeen selected as significant parametersfor the establishment of effluent limita-tions. The pH parameter Is Included alsoas an effluent limitation which must fallwithin an acceptable range of values,The remaining parameters are so closely.,related to those selected as to be effec- ,tively controlled due to the specified i


4584


-limitations, or are present at levels thatare not significant.

(iii) -Origin of waste water pollutants.Zenerally, -waste water .flows within theseafood processing industry -originate at;thereceiving, pre-processing, -eviscera-.tion, pre-cooling, picking and cleaning,-shucking, preserving, ,canning, freezing,plant-cleanupzand by-product-operationsof the manufacturing process.-(iv) Treatment and Control Technol-

-ngy- Waste -water treatment and -control-technologies have -been studied for -eachsubcategoryof theindustry to determinewhat is (a) the best practicable controltechnulogy -currently available, (b) the.best available technology peconomicallyachievable, and (c) the best available-demonstrated -control -technology, proc-esses, -Dperating methods -or other.alternatives.

.Present -control and treatment .prac--tices-aregenerally inadequate withirythe-fsh -meal, salmon, -bottom fish, clam,-oyster, sardine, scallop, herring, and.abalone proce9singsegments of the can-ned and preserved seafood .processing in-dustry. Processors employ few, if- any,.waste water treatment facilities at the-ull scale -plant toperational level. Con-sequently, -with the -exception of screen-ing and solids recovegy, the majority of-the-waste water treatmentalternatives.are-based on pilot Plant studies, full scaledemonstration treatment systems, -trans-

j.erable technology from the meat proc--essing industry, munic~pal waste treat-ment systems, as well as other segments-of the seafood and the food processingindustry.

The available alternatives include in-plant controlssuci-as waterconservationand dry-captureof-solids-tominimizeraw

- Fasteloads from processing.che end-of-process physical-and-chemical treatment,technologies -include screen, sedimenta-

- tion, air-otation,and-concentration. Theend-of-process biological -treatment al-ternatives include activated .sludge, ex-itended aeration, rotating -biological -con-,tactors, high-zatetrickling filters, stabill-szation ponds, and aerated lagoons.

The following discussion of treatmenttechnology provides the -basis for theteconomicimpact-analysis and-the effluentlimitations guidelines. This discussion.does mot preclude 7the selection ,of otherwaste-water treatment alternatives whichprovide equivalent -or better -levels .of-treatment.

(1-) Treatment for thL fish meal proc-essing subcategory:

Fish meal processingplants which uti-lizeasolubles recovery units provide agoodexample -of -exemplary plant -operation inthe seafood processing -industry. Their

- 'total resource" or raw material utiliza-tion eliminates almost -all contact waste-water and -pollutant dislcharge except fora small-amountof carry-over in the non--contact -barometric condenser (waters.

Yor lants-withsolubles recovery units,the best practicdble control technology-mmrentlyavailablle involves "goodhouse-'keeping" -practices-wich are considered,-norm-a ractice-within the seafood proc-Essng iustry -such as turning off fau--ets -and hoses -when mot in -se or using

spring-loaded hose nozzles, -and by con-trolling leaks in the evaporator bodiesand boll-overnto condensate water. Forplants without Eolubles recovery units,the -best practicable control technologycurrently available consists of bargingstick ater and recycled ball water to sea-or to other facilities with solublesrecovery units.

The best available technology econom-•Ically achievable and the best available,demonstrated control tcchnology, prcc-esses, operating methods or other al-ternatives for new sources consist ofappropriate process design, including In--stollatlon of -solubles recovery units, topurovide forby-product recoveryand more-eMclent nplant water use.

(2) Treatment for the AlaskanHand-butchered saliion processing -subcate-gory:

The best practicable control technologyrcurrently available for the non-remote,processors, Involves "good housekeeping".practices which are considered normalpractice -within the seafood procesingindustry such as turning off faucets and.hoses when not In use or using spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery,or ltimate disposal of soids, and screen-ing of the waste water elIuent. The samelevel -of technology for the remote proc-essors consists of physical treatment-of the pollutants to reduce particle sizesthrough the use of ,comminutors orgrinders.

Thetbest available technology-econom-Ically tachtevable consists of appropriateprocess design to provide more efficientin-plant water use which reduces leach-ing-of solubles and entrainment of solidsin the contact process water, by-productrecovery or ultimate disposal of solids,and screening of the waste water effluent.

For the non-remoteproce-cors, the best-available demonstrated control technol-ogy, -processes, :operating methods orother alternatives for new sources con-.slsts -of ,alpropriato process design toprovlde mnore efflclent in-plantr water use-which reduces leaching of solubles and.entrainment ;of solids in .the contactprocess water, by-product recovery orultimate disposal of solids, and screen-ing of the waste water effluent. The-same,level of technology for the remote proc--essors cnsl.ts of physical -treatment ofthe pollutants to reduce particle sizesthrough the use of comminutors orgrinders.

-3) Treatment for the Alaskan mech-anized salmon proce-sing subcategory:

-The best practicable control teclmolomycurrently available (BPCTCA) for themon-remote processors, Involves "goodhousekeeping" practices -which -are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turning:off faucets =nd hoses when not inuse orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-:productx-ecovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and -screening -of the waste water_efluent. MPCTCA for theTemote-proces-

mors -consists of physical treatment -of-the pollutants -through -the use of com-minutors -or -grinders to reduce particlesizes..

-For the non-remote Alaskan proces-sors the best -available technology eco-

nomically achievable consists of appro-priate -procms rdesign to .provide moreefficient in-plant water use which re-duces leaching of solubles and entrain-ment of solids -in the jontact -processwater, by-product recovery or ultimatedisposal of solids, and screening of the.waste water efiluent prior to -dissolvedair flotation. For the remote Alaskanprocesors, the best available technologyeconomically achievable consists -of ap-.propriate process design to provide more,eMclent in-plant water use which re-,duces leaching of solubles and entrain-,ment of solids in the ,contact processwater, by-product xecovery or ultimate,disposal of solids. and screening of thewaste water-efluent.

For the non-remote Alaskan proces-sors the best available demonstrated con---trol technolom, -processes, operating-methods or other alternatives for newsources consists of appropriate processdesign to provide more efficientin-plant,w ater use which reduces leaching ofsolubles and entrainment of solids in the.contact process water, by-product -re--covery or ultimate dispoal-of solids, -andrcreening -of the waste water -effluent.For the remote Alaskan processors thebest available demonstrated controltachnology. processes, operating methodstor other alternatives for new sourcesconsist. of -physical treatment -of thepollutants through the 'se of .com-minutors or grinders to reduce particlesizes.

(4) Treatment for the West -Coasthand-butchered salmon processingTub-,catezory.

The best practicable controltechnolo-ycurrently availableinvolves-"gocihoue-keeping" practices vhich -are-considerednormal practice ithin. the zeafoodp rocessing industry such as turning mfffaucets and hoses 'when mot in se Vorusing spring-loaded ham zzles, by-product recovery or-ultimate fispowsal ofsolids, and screening mf the waste miter,effluent.

The best available technolozy wz-nomIcally achievable and the best:avazl--able demonstrated control technollogy.-processe3, operating metho-s or utheralternativEs for new sources consist of-appropriate roces -design to provideanore efficlent In-plant water use -whIchreduces leaching of solubles and.-etrain-ment of solids in 'the contact pocesswater, by-product reovery -or -ultimatedisposal of solids, and treatment.bydis-solved air flotation in addition toscreening.

(5) Tre-atment for the -West Coastmechanized salmon processinz sub-category:

The beat practicable control tech-nology currently available involves"good bousekeeping" Practices .v-dchare considered normal practice -vthinthe seafood -processin. industry such asturning off faucets and -hoses -when -notin use or using spring-loaded -hosenozzles, by-product recovery-or ultimate,disposal of solids, and treatment -f -thewaste water effluent by dissolved airflotation In addition 0to zcree

The bast available teclnolo-y eco-nomIcally achievable andte -est avail-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, -NO. 21--THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975

45S5


able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or other al-ternatives for new sources consist of, inaddition to the aforementioned treat-ment, appropriate process design to pro-vide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contactprocess water.

(6) Treatment for the Alaskan bottomfish processing subcategory:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currently available (BPCTCA) forthe non-remote processors, involves"good housekeeping" practices which areconsidered normal practice within theseafood processing industry such asturning off faucets and: hoses when notin use or using spring-loaded hose noz-zles, by-product recovery or ultimate dis-posal .of solids, and screening of thewaste water effluent. BPCTCA for the re-mote processors consists of physicaltreatment of the pollutants to reduceparticle sizes through the use of commi-nutors or grinders.

The best available technology economi-cally achievable consists of appropriateprocess design to provide more efficientin-plant water use which reduces leach-Ing of solubles and entrainment of solidsin the contact process water, by-productrecovery or ultimate disposal of solids,and screening of the waste water effluent.

For the non-remote processors, the bestavailable demonstiated control technol-ogy, processes, operating methods orother alternatives for new sources con-sists of appropriate process design to pro-vide more efflcient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contact proc-ess water, by-product recovery or ulti-mate disposal of solids, and screening ofthe waste water effluent. The same levelof technology for the remote processorsconsists of physical treatment of the pol-lutants to reduce particle sizes throughthe use of comminutors or grinlers.

(7) Treatment for the non-Alaskanconventional bottom fish processingsubcategory:

The best practicable control technologycurrently available involves "good house-keeping" practices which are considerednormal practice within the seafood proc-essing industry such as turning off fau-cets and hoses when not in use or usingspring-loaded hose nozzles, by-productrecovery or ultimate disposal of solids,and screening of the waste water effluent.

The best available technology economi-cally achievable and the best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-esses, operating methods or other alter-natives for new sources consist of theaforementioned treatment technologyin addition to aerated lagoon systems andappropriate process design to providemore efcient inplant water use whichreduces leaching of solubles and entrain-ment of solids in the contact processwater.

(8) Treatment for the non-Alaskanmechanized bottom fish processing sub-category:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currently available involves "goodhousekeeping" practices which are con-

sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turningoff faucets and hoses when not in use orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and screening of the waste watereffluent.

The best available technolocoy eco-nomically achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or otheralternatives for new sources consist ofthe aforementioned treatment technol-ogy in addition to dissolved air flotationsystems and appropriate process designto provide more efficient in-plant wateruse which reduces leaching of solublesand entrainment of solids in the contactprocess water.

(9) Treatment for the hand-shuckedclam processing subcategory:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currently available involves "goodhousekeeping" practices which are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turningoff faucets and hoses when not in use orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and screening of the waste'watereffluent.

The best available technology eco-nomically achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operatingmethods or other al-ternatives for new sources consist of theaforementioned treatment technologyand appropriate process design to pro-vide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contactprocess water.

(10) Treatment for the mechanizedclam processing subcategory:

The best practicable control technologycurrently available involves "good house-keeping" practices which are considerednormal practice within the seafood proc-essing industry such as turning off fau-cets and hoses when not in use or usingspring-loaded hose nozzles, by-productrecovery or ultimate disposal of solids,and treatment of the waste water effluentby screening.

The best available technology eco-nomically achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or otheralternatives for new sources consists ofthe aforementioned treatment technol-ogy and appropriate process design toprovide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contactprocess water, and aerated lagoon sys-tems in addition to the aforementionedtreatment technology.

(11) Treatment for the Pacific Coasthand-shucked oyster processing sub-category:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currently available involves "goodhousekeeping" practices which are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turn-ing off faucets and hoses when not in useor using spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal of

solids, and treatment of the waste watereffluent by screening.

The best available technology eco-nomicalty achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or other al-ternatives for new sources consist of theaforementioned treatment technologyand appropriate process design to providemore efficient in-plant water use whichreduces leaching of solubles and entrain-ment of solids in the contact processwater, and extended aeration systems inaddition to the aforementioned treat-ment technology.

(12) Treatment for the Atlantic dndGulf Coast hand-shucked oyster process-ing subcategory:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currently available involves "goodhousekeeping" practices which are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turningoff faucets and hoses when not in use orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and treatment of the waste waterefflubnt by screening.

The best available technology econom-ically achievable and the best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-esses, operating methods or other alter-natives for new sources consist of theaforementioned treatment technologyand appropriate process design to pro-vide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contactprocess water, and extended aerationsystems in addition to the aforemen-tioned treatment technology.

(13) Treatment for the steamed/can-ned oyster processing subeategory:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currently available involves "goodhousekeeping" practices- which are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing Industry such as turn-ing off faucets and hoses when not in useor using spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and treatment of the waste watereffluent by screening.

The best available technology econom-ically achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or other al-ternatives for new sources consist of theaforementioned treatment technologyand appropriate process design to pro-vide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contactprocess water, and aerated lagoon sys-tems in addition to the aforementioned

'treatment technology.(14) Treatment for the sardine proc-

essing subcategory:The best practicable control technology

currently available involves "good house-keeping" practices which are considerednormal practice within the seafood proc-essing industry such as turning offfaucets and hoses when not in use orusing sprng-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, treatment of the pre-cook waterthrough oil skimming and screening, and


4586


treatment of all' other process wastewater-by screening.

The best available technology eco-nomicaly achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or otheralternatives for new sources consist ofthe aforementioned treatment technologywith additional treatment of the pre-cook water and can wash water by dis-solved air flotation, and appropriate proc-ess design to provide more efficient in-plant water use which reduces leachingof solubles and entrainment of solids inthe contact process water.

(15) Treatment for the Alaskan scallopprocessing subcategory: •

,The best practicablecontrol tech-nology currently available (BPCTCA) for'the non-remote processors, involves"good housekeeping" practices which areconsidered normal practice within theseafood processing industry such as turn-ing off faucets and hoses when not in useor using spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery" or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and screening of the waste watereffluent.,BPCTCA for the remote proces-sois consists of physical treatment of thepollutants to reduce particle sizes throughthe use of comminutors or grinders.

The best available technology eco-nomically achievable consists of appro-priate process design to provide more ef-ficient in-plant water use which reducesleaching of solubles and entrainment'ofsolids in the contact process water, by-

-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and screening of the waste watereffluent.

For the non-remote processors, the bestavailable demonstrated control tech-nology, processes, operating methods orother alternatives for new sources con-sists of appropriate process design to pro-vide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contact proc-ess -water, by-product recovery or ulti-mate disposal of solids, and screening ofthe waste water effluent. The same levelof technology for the remote processorsconsists of physical treatment of the pol-lutants to reduce particle sizes throughthe use of comminutors or grinders.

(16) Treatment for the non-Alaskanscallop processing subcategory:, The best practica]le control technologycurrently available involves "good house-keeping"'practices which are consideredmormal practice within the seafood proc-essing industry such as turning off-faucets and hoses when not in use' orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and screening of the waste watereffluent.

The best available technology econom-ically achievable and the best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-esses, operating methods or other alter-natives for new sources consist of theaforementioned treatment technologyand appropriate process design to providemore efficient in-plant water use whichreduces leaching of solubles and entrain-ment of solids in the contact processwater.

(17) Treatment for the Alaskan her-ring fillet processing subcategory:

The best practicable control technologycurrently available (BPCTCA) for thenon-remote processors, involves "goodhousekeeping" practices which are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turningoff faucets and hoses when not in use orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and screening of the waste watereffluent. BPCTCA for the remote proces-sors consists of physlcal treatment of thepollutants to reduce particles sizesthrough the use of commInutors orgrinders.

For the remote processors, thebest available technology economicallyachievable consists of appropriate proc-ess design to provide more efficlent in-plant water use which reduces leachingof solubles arid entrainment of solids inthe contact process water, by-productrecovery or ultimate disposal of solids,and screening of the waste water efflu-

-ent; for the non-remote processors, theeffluent limitations are based on dissolvedair flotation in addition to the aforemen-tioned technology.

For the non-remote Alaskan processorsthe best available demonstrated controltechnology, processes, operating methodsor other alternatives for new sources con-sists of appropriate process design to pro-vide more efficient in-plant water usewhich reduces leaching of solubles andentrainment of solids in the contact proc-ess water, by-product recovery or ulti-mate disposal of solids, and screening ofthe waste water effluent. For the remoteAlaskan processors, the *best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-esses, operating methods or other alter-natives for new sources consists of phys-ical treatment of the pollutants throughthe use of comminutors or grinders toreduce particle sizes.

(18) Treatment for the non-Alaskanherring fillet processing subcategory:

The best practicable control technologycurrently available involves "good house-keeping" practices which are considerednormal practice within the seafood proc-esing industry such as turning off fau-cets and hoses when not in use or usingspring-loaded hose nozzles, by-productrecovery or ultimate disposal of solids,and treatment of the waste water elltl-ent by screening.

The best available technology econom-"Ically achievable and the best availabledemonstrated control technology, proc-essses, operating methods or other alter-natiVes for new, sources consists of dis-solved air flotation in addition to theaforementioned treatment technologyand appropriate process degign to providemore efficient in-plant water use whichreduces leaching of solubles and entrain-ment of solids in the contact processwater.

(19) Treatment for the abalone proc-essing subcategory:

The best practicable control technol-ogy currentl' available involves "goodhousekeeping" practices which are con-sidered normal practice within the sea-food processing industry such as turning

off faucets and hoses when not in use orusing spring-loaded hose nozzles, by-product recovery or ultimate disposal ofsolids, and treatment of the waste watereffluent by screening.

The best available technology eco-nomically achievable and the best avail-able demonstrated control technology,processes, operating methods or otheralternatives for new sources consist ofthe aforementioned treatment technol-ogy and appropriate process design toprovide more efficient in-plant wateruse which reduces leaching of solublesand entrainment of solids in the con-tact process water.

Solid Waste Control: Solids currentlybeing wasted In many plants can oftenbe reclaimed in the form of proteinfoods, supplementary additives, andnon-edible products, depending on theparticular raw material. Solids from thefollowing sources- can be economicallyprocessed to yield protein foods, supple-mentary additives, or non-edibleproducts.

a. Carcasses, frames and trimmingsfrom filleting operations.

b. Ground fish too small to economi-cally fillet.

c. Trimmings portions from butcher-ing operation normally not included inthe primary end product.

d. Whole or portions of industrilI fishnot suitable for human consumption.

e. Trimmings and waste portions fromfrozen fish, fish blocks, or other formsof seafood that are being trimmed orprocessed In the frozen state.

f. Frozen sawdust from sawing frozenfish into steaks or other products.

g. Fresh or frozen shrimp too smallfor peeling.

h. Fresh or frozen waste portions fromshrimp cleaning and peeling operations.

1. Dark meat fish that cannot be soldfor fillets but that can be added to ex-truded products in some predeterminedpercentage.

J. Waste from butchering after pre-cooling.k. Shrip, crab and other shell con-

taining meat after the primary extrac-tion process.

1. Combined solids reclaimed from ef-fluent streams after screening.

m. Solids, reclaimed from effluentstreams by flocculation, precipitation orother techniques.

n. Crab and shrimp shell residues fromprocessing operations.

A very high degree of product recoveryis practiced by industries In locationswhere solubles and meal plants are avail-able. The pet food, animal food and baitindustries also use a considerableamount of solids from some industries.Where such facilities do not exist, al-ternative methods of solids disposalmusttbe considered, such as incineration, sani-tary landfill and ocean disposal-

Incineration of seafood solids wasteshas notbeentried in most fish industries.However, incineration wastes beneficialnutrients while leaving an ash which re-quires ultimate disposal. Fuel costs arealso high and air pollution controlequipment must be installed to mini-mize emissions.


4587

4588

Sanitary landfills re most suitable forstabilized (digested) sludges and ash. Insome regions, disposal of seafood -wastesolids in a public landfill is unlawful.Where allowed and where land is avail-able, private landfill may be a practicalmethod of ultimate disposal. Land ap-plication of unstabilized putresciblesolids as a nutrient source may be Im-practical because of the nuisance odorconditions which may result. The appli-cation of stabilized sludges as soil con-ditioners should be feasible in manylocations.

The practicality of landfill or surfaceland disposal is dependent upon boththe absence of a solids reduction facil-ity, and the presence of a suitable dis-posal site. The nutritive value of thesolids indicates that such methods areamong the least cost-efficient currentlyavailable.

Neveretheless, best practicable con-trol technology and best available con-trol technology as they are known todaymay require disposal of the pollutantsremoved from waste waters in this in-dustry in the form of solid wastes andliquid concentrates if they are not re-covered as by-products. In most casesthese are non-hazardous substances re-quiring only Wlnimal custodial care.However, some constituents may be haz-ardous and may require special consid-eration. In order to ensure long termprotection of the -environment fromthese hazardous or harmful constitu-ents, special consideration of disposalsites must be made. All landfill siteswhere such hazardous wastes are dis-posed should be selected so as to preventhorizontal and vertical migration ofthese contaminants to ground or sur-face waters. In cases where geologic con-ditions may not reasonably ensure this,adequate legal and mechanical precau-tions (e.g. impervious liners) should betaken to ensure long term protection tothe environment from hazardous mate-rials. Where appropriate; the location ofsolid hazardous materials disposal sitesshould be permanently recorded in theappropriate office of legal jurisdiction.

In addition to placement in or on theland and dispersal in the atmosphere(after Incineration), the third (and onlyremaining) ultimate disposal alternativeIs dispersion in the waters. Ocean dis-posal of fish wastes does not subject themarine environment to the potentialhazards of toxicity and pathogens asso-ciated with the dumping of human sew-age sludges, municipal refuse and manyIndustrial wastes. The disposal of sea-food wastes in deep water can be a prac-tical and possibly beneficial method ofultimate disposal.

v) Cost estimates for cozutrol of wastewater pollutants.

The cost associated with the controland treatment technologies have beenconSidered in an economic impact anal-ysis discussed in (vii) below. The costsfor in-plant controls are largely thoseassociated with capital investment forprocess and equipment modificationsdiscussed in detail in Section vii andVII of the Development Document. Pc-


tential realization of profits obtainedfrom product loss reduction, by-productrecovery, and reduced treatment costsmay well result In a net gain to theprocessor.

The costs associated with end-of-pipetreatment include amortization of capi-tal expenditures over a ten-year period,debt servicing, and operation and main-tenance.

Self-monitoring costs are not includedbecause historically the seafood industryhas not been required to collect frequentself-monitoring samples.

<vi) Energy requirements and non-water quality environmental impacts.

The energy requirements associatedwith the control and treatment tech-nologies have been considered. The esti-mated energy consumption of the rec-om mended technologies is discussed andlisted in Section VIII of the Develop-ment Document. The added energy re-quirements associated with the operationof the treatment facilities are expectedto constitute only a small fraction oftotal plant energy consumption.

The maintenance of air quality, interms of particulates, will be unaffectedby the recommended waste water treat-ment technologies. Odor from landfills'can be a problem, and from lagoons andoxidation ponds when not operated ormaintained properly. However, covers orenclosures can be used in some cases ifa localized problem exists.

Principal noise sources at treatmentfacilities are mechanical aerators, aircompressors, and pumps. By running aircompressors for diffused air systems be-low their rated' critical speed and byproviding Inlet and exhaust silencers,noise effects can be combated effectively.In no proposed installation would noiselevels exceed the guidelines establishedin the Occupational Safety and HealthStandards of 1972.

(vii) Economic impact analysis.The economic impact of the internal

and external costs of the effluent limita-tions guidelines contained herein for thecanned and preserved seafood process-ing industry is considered to be at an ac-ceptable level. The internal costs are de-fined as investment and annual cost (op--erating costs plus the cost of capital anddepreciation) for a typical plant. Thetotal internal costs are the total invest-ment and total annual cost for all plantsin the industry. The total internal cost ofthe 2977 guidelines is $6.1 million invest-ment with $1.3 milion annual cost. The1983 standards will require an additional$8.2 million investment and in additional$1.7 million annually. The required'in-vestment and annual costs for the 1977,1983, and NewSource standards appearto post no significant industry-wideproblems. -

External cost deals basically with theassessment of the economic impact of theinternal costs discussed above in termsof price increases, production curtail-ments or plant closures, resultant unem-ployment, community and regional im-pacts,,international trade, and future in-dustry growth. The proposed effluent lim-Itations -ill not significantly affect the

economic viability of the Industry. Theproposed limitations for 1977 will have aminor effect on prices as price Increasesgenerally in the range of 0,3 to 0,5 per-cent are projected. Although Price In-creases in this industry will, of course,be affected by foreign competition, thegenerally small magnitude of the pro-Jected price Increases is not expected tocause any important International tradeeffects. A number of small plants areprojected to be adverely affected bythese guidelines, but the domestic induts-try capacity Is not expected to be affectedby the potential closure of these particu-lar small plants.

Only the Alasl:an hand-butchered(fresh-frozen) salmon processing seg-ment is of concern with twelve out of 31exclusive plants possibly threatened eco-nomically by the 1977 nterim-finalguidelines. There are strong Indictiona,that this projected Impact is overstatedbecause of three factors: a) overestima-tion of actual treatment cost- for smallprocessors, b) overestimation of the ac-tual number of small plants, and ) un-derestimation of the number of plantswith (or soon to have) best practicablecontrol technology in place. The Agencyis reevaluating the economic Impact an-alysis projections before Issuing finalregulations.

The 1983 standards are projected toresult in price increases typically in therange 0.5 to 1.5 percent (including the1977 increase). An additional number ofgenerally small plants are projected tobe adversely affected by these 1983 guide-lines, but, again, the domestic industrycapacity is not anticipated to be affectedby the potential closure of these smallplants. No significant international tradoeffects of the 1983 guidelines are pro-jected.

The report entitled "Development Doc-ument for Interim Final Effluent Lim-itations Guidelines and Proposed IewSource Performance Standards for theFish Meal, Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam,Oyster, Sardine, Scallop, Herring, andAbalone Segment of the canned andPreserved Seafood Processing PointSource Category" details the analysisundertaken in support of the interlmfinal regulation set forth herein and isavailable for inspection in the EPA Free-dom of Information Center, Room 204,West Tower, Waterside 'Mfall, 1.Vashing-ton, D.C., at all EPA regional offlces, andat State water pollution control offlces.A supplementary analysis prepared forEPA of the possible economic effects ofthe regulation Is also available for in-spection at these locations. Copies of bothof these documents are being sent to per-sons or Institutions affected by the reg-ulation, or who have placed themselveson a mailing list for this purpose (seeEPA's Advance Notice of Public ReviewProcedures, 38 FR. 21202, August 6,1973). An additional limited number ofcopies of both reports are available. Per-sons wishing to obtain a copy may writethe EPA Office of Public Affairs, Vavi-ronmental Protection Agency Washing-ton, D.C. 20460, Attention: MS. RuthBrown, A-107.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL '40, NO. 21-THURSD AY, JANUARY 30, 1975


-When this regulation is promulgatedin final rather than interim form, re-vised copies of the Development Docu-ment will be available from the Super-intendent- of Documents, GovernmentPrinting Office, WashingtOn, D.C. 20402.Copies of the Economic Analysis will beavailable through the National TechnicalInformation Service, Springfield, Vir-ginia, 2151.(C) SUMMARY Or PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Prior to this publication, the agenciesand groups listed below were consultedand given an opportunity to participatein the development of effluent limitations,guidelines and standards for the cannedand preserved seafood processing cate-gory All participating agencies have beeninformed of project developments. Aninitial draft of the Development Docu-ment was sent to all participants andcomments were solicited On that report.The following are the principal agenciesand groups consulted: (1) EffluentStandards and Water Quality -Informa-tion Advisory Committee (establishedunder section 515 of the Act); (2) allState and U.S. Territory Pollution Con-trol Agencies; (3) the National MarineFisheries Service, U.S. Department ofCommerce; (4) U.S. Department of theInterior; (5) U.S. Depdrtment of Health,Education, and Welfare; (6) the WaterResources Council; (7) the AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers; (8) theAmerican Frozen Food Institute; (9) theNational Canners Association; (10) theNational Fisheries Association; (11)Chesapeake Bay .Seafood Industries, As-sociation, Inc.; (12) The ConservationFoundation; (13) Environmental De-fense Fund, Inc.; (14) Natural ResourcesDefense Council; (15) The Anieilcan-Society of Civil Engineers; (16) Water'Pollution Control Federation; (17) Na-tional Wildlife Federation; (18) U.S. De-partment of Agriculture; (19) VirginiaSeafood Council; (20) The National FishMeal and Oil Association; (21) MaineSardine Council; (22) Shellfish Instituteof North America; (23) University.ofMaryland; Natural Resources Institute,Seafood Processing Laboratory; (24)Kodiak Seafood Processors Association;and (25 Massachusetts SeafoodCouncil.

The following responded with com-ments: (1) Virginia Seafood Council;(2) Maine Department of Environmen-tal Protection; (3) Hawaii Departmentof Health; (4) United States Water Re-sources Council; (5) Government ofAmerican Samoa; (6) The National FishMeal and Oil Association; (7) Call-foria State Water Resources ControlBoard; (8) Maine Sardine Council; (9)Shellfish Institute, of North America;(10) State of Washington, Departmentof Ecology; (11) National Canners As-sociation; (12) American Institute ofChemical Engineers, Puget Sound Sec--tion; (13) Virginia State Water ControlBoard; (14) National Marine FisheriesService;- (15) U.S. :Food and Drug Ad-.ministration; and-(16) U.S. Departmentof the-interior.

Numerous comments were in manyrespects virtually Identical to those re-ceived in response to the proposed regu-lations for the catfish, crab, shrimp, andtuna segment of the canned and pre-served seafood processing industry (39FR 4708). The Agency's response tothem appeared in the subsequent pro-mulgated regulations for the catfish,crab, shrimp and tuna processing seg-ment (39 FR 23134). However, for easeof reference these comments and re-sponses are included below.

The primary Issues raised in the de-velopment of the interim final effluentlimitations and guidelines and the treat-ment of these Issues herein areas

'follows:(1) A number of commenters feel that

EPA has failed to adequately justifytreatment of all seafood process wastesprior to their return to the ocean envi-ronment because fish waste provides'nutrients to the receiving water ecosys-tem.

The disposal of seafood processingwaste waters in limited areas, frequentlyestuaries or coastal areas, does affect theecosystem of the receiving waters. More-over, under the Act, It Is not necessarythat a showing be made regarding theeffect of the pollutlonal discharge uponthe quality of the receiving water on acase;-by-case basis. Under sections 301,304(b) and (c), 306(b) and (c), and307 (c), the principal means of controlis through the adoption of effluent limi-tations directly applicable to the dis-charge Itself. The effluent limitationsguidelines are to be based upon definedlevels of technology which are specifiedin the Act Itself. Nevertheless, effluentlimitations derived from water qualitystandards are retained as a secondarymeans of control and will have theirprincipal applicability in those instanceswhere technology-based effluent limita-tions are not stringent enough to pro-vide for the achievement of water qual-ity standards.

Contrary to the assumption of manycommenters, Water Quality Criteria arenot established on an industry-by-n-dustry basis, but rather on a pollutantparameter basis. Notice of publication forthe "Proposed Criteria for Water Qual-Ity. Volume I" was contained in the Oc-tober 26, 1973 FEDERAL REGISTER and the"Proposed Water Quality Information,Volume II," in the October 29, 1973 FED-ERAL REGISTER. Information may be ob-tained from the Director, Water QualityCriteria Staff; Environmental ProtectionAgency; Waterside Mall East, Room 737,401 . Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.20460.

(2) A comment was made that the reg-ulations and Development Document donot provide the means to determine sub-category classification for multi-productplants with respect to establishing efflu-ent limitations.

A primary reason for establishing efflu-ent limitations guidelines on the basis ofproduction of raw material or finalirod-uct, is to provide the means to considerthe single product as well as the multi-product seafood processor without set-

ting separate guideline numbers for everypossible combination of species and proc-esslng rates.

When a plant is subject to effluent lim-itations covering more than one sub-category, the plant's effluent limitationshall be the aggregate of the limitationsapplicable to the total production cov-ered by each subcategory. For example,if a plant processes several species con-currently, then the plant's effluent limi-tation may be the sum of the multipleof the volume of each species (or finalproduct) processed and the respectiveeffluent limitation. If a plant processesseveral species in series, then the efflu-ent limitation may be based on the sub-category classification of the individualspecies while it is being processed. Inother words, the aggregate effluent limi-tation guideline number may vary as afunction of the commodity mix at anyparticular pointin time.

Section VII of the Development Docu-ment discusses a "conservation of mass"approach to evaluating the waste char-acteristis of the multi-product process-ing plant as It affects the selection of in-plant and end-of-pipe pollution controltechnology.

As forecast In the preamble of the pro-mulgated regulations contained in theJune 26, 1974, FmEDAL REGISTR. (39 FR23134), the Agency now expands the ap-plicability of the effluent limitations tomulti-product plants which were exclud-ed from coverage.

The promulgated effluent limitationslimited the guidelines to those plantsprocessing any combination of catfish,crab, shrimp, or tuna providing that thetotal throughput of these commoditiesamounts to eighty percent or more of theplants's seasonal or yearly production. Atthe time of promulgation the Agency hadnot been able to determine satisfactorilythe possible economal impact of extend-ing the 'guldelines to cover all plantswhich process some percentage of thesespecies but also process significant quan-tities of other species. However, the cur-.rent economic Impact analysli indicatesthat the promulgated regulations (39FR 23134) and the interim final regula-tions contained herein may apply to anyfacility processing a commodity encom-passed by the regulations without theneed for a product-mix or percentagethroughput constraint.

(3) Some commenters criticized as in-adequate the data base upon which therai7 waste loads and effluent reductionswere calculated.

The Agency is well aware that theamount of Information available on rawwaste loadings and treatment efficienciesIs less than that which would exist inIdeal circumstances. However the his-torical data on expected raw waste load:is of diminished utility because of thevariability due to sampling methods pre-viously employed and the even smalleramount of data on treatment plant effi-clencles Is due to the generally inade-quate level of treatment which has pre-vailed historically in the Industry.

The time constraints imposed by thestatutory deadlines precluded the Agency

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 21-THUPSDAY, JAIUALRY 30, 1975

4589


from conducting an exhaustive samplingprogram. Nevertheless in the time avail-able, the contractor (a recognized au-thority on waste management in theseafood processing Industry) carried outthe flrst national scale empirical study ofthe industry's waste characteristics andtreatment. All samples were flow-pro-portioned, composite samples in orderto reflect as accurately as possible theactual pollutant characteristics of theindustry's effluent. The existing scientificliterature was also reviewed but becauseof the variability referred to above, theresults were less useful than EPA's ownsampling program.

As far as the effluent limitations guide-lines themselves are concerned, the efflu-ent reductions expected are based pre-dominantly ripon: (1) the performanceof systems now in operation In the In-dustry; (2 the xesults of research dem-onstration projects; (3) -Agency studieson seafood waste and on the results ofother federal agency programs (such asthe National Mlarine Fisheries Servicepilot plant studies of air flotation) ; -and(4) the informed advice of consultantson 'treatment of seafood processingwastes. The effluent reductions obtainedby specific treatment technologies as ap-plied to waste water with similar pol-lutant characteristlcs in other food proc-essing industries were also considered indeveloping the effluent limitation guide-lines.(4) A number of commenters sug-

gested that the technology specified asbest available technology economicallyachievable had not been adequatelydemonstrated for this industrial cate-gory.

' he Agency recognizes that the tech-nology specified herein as best availabletechnology economically achievable hasnot been demonstrated for every sub-category in day-to-day operations in thisindustrial category. In making the judg-ment us to -whether or not the technologyis "available," the Agency examined awide range of information, Including theuse of the technology to treat similarwastes In other industrial categories,pilot plant and demonstration projects,and laboratory and other experimentaldata on various waste treatment proc-esses. Based on such data and Informa-tion, and the application of the Agency'sbest judgment, the technology specifiedherein was determined to constitute thebest available technology economicallyachievable.

It is recognized that in some cases theindustry must perform some of the pilotplant and other developmental workwhlch ~vill be necessary to bring the tech-nology into full utilization. This doesnot, however, alter the Agency's judg-ment that the technology is "available,"is "economically achievable" and can bebrought on line in time to achieve fuUcompliance by 1983, as required by theAct.

The technology which forms the basisfor the effluent limitations guidelines isused only as a point of reference for6vallable treatment systems. The in-dustry may select alternative methods

as discussed in the Development Docu-ment to meet the effluent limitations.• (5) Some correspondents endorsed the

proposal .made to the Administrator bythe _ffluent Standards and Water QualityInformation Advisory-Committee that -asignificantly different approach be takenin the development of effluent guidelinesgenerally.

The committees proposal is underevaluation as a contribution towardfuture refinements of guidelines for someindustries. The committee has indicatedthat their proposed methcdology couldnot be developed in sufficient time to beavailable for the current phase of guide-line promulgation, which is proceedingaccording to a court-ordered schedule.Its present state of developnfent does notprovide- sufficient evidence to warrantthe Agency's delaying issuance of anystandardin hopes that an alternative ap-proach might be preferable.s

(6) One commenter suggests that,contrary to the provisions of the Act, in-plant process changes form the basis forboth the 1977 and 1983 effluent limita-tions guidelines.

The 1977 effluent limitations guidelinesare based on end-of-pipe treatment and"good housekeeping" practices which areconsidered normal practice within theseafood processing industry such asturning off faucets and hoses when notin use or using spring-loaded hose noz-zles. The limitations do not reflect anysignificant in-plant equipment or proc-ess changes. The large variation in waterusage for the same process configurationamong different plants- indicates thatthere is ample opportunity for the re-duction of water usage without adverselyaffecting the quality of the product.

The emphasis In the DevelopmentDocument on adequate in-plant controland process 6hanges which substantiallyreduce the end-of-pipe waste load andflow as well as the associated wastetreatment cost, Is intended for thoseprocessors who recognize the possiblecost trade-offs betweeM end-of-pipetreatment .and in-plant. changes or re-covery techniques.

The 1983 ,guidelines and new sourcestandards include, consideration of In-plant process changes to effect water usereductions, as provided by the Act.

(7) A number of commenters suggestthat neither the efltuent limitationsguidelines nor the economic justificationfor mandatory installation of pollutioncontrol technology should be based onthe recovery of by-products, because offluctuating market potentials.

:The technical and economic analyseswere not based on by-product recoverytechniques. The purpose of the by-prod-uct recovery discussion in the Develop-ment Document is to outline several ofthe major developments that are cur-rentiy In use, ready for use, or will beavailable within the next few years.

(8) The suggestion was made thatEPA should use the COD test instead ofthe BOD5 test because It is faster, easierand less expensive to ruh, and more re-producible than the BOD5 test

The BOD5 test Is widely.used to deter-mine the pollutional strength of domes-tic and industrial wastes In terms of thooxygen these wastes will require if dis-charged Into natural watercourses inwhich aerobic conditions exist. Further-more, curent engineering practiceutilizes BOD5 as a principal designparameter, especially for biological wastetreatment systems.

The possibility of substituting the CODparameter for the BOD5 parameter wasinvestigated during this study. The BOD5and corresponding COD data from In-dustrial fish, finfIsh, and shellfish wastewaters were analyzed to determine IfCOD is an adequate predictor of BOD5for 'any or all of these groups of sea-food. The analysis presented in SectionVI of the Development Document In-dicates that the COD parameter is nota reliable predictor of BODE.

The relationship between COD andBOD5 before treatment is not neceesarilythe same after treatment. Therefore, thoeffluent limitations guidelines will In-clude the BOD5 parameter, rince Insuffi-cient information is available on theCOD. effluent levels after treatment.

(9) One commenter suggested thatthe efluent limitations should be modi-fied to include a range of numbers forthe BOD5, total suspended solids, and oiland grease parameters. The range shouldinclude that attainable by screening atone extreme and air flotation or itsequivalent at the other.

The available data do not indicate sig-nificant differences attributable to agoand size of plant and other factors thatwould justify further subcategorizationof the industry or establishment ofranges of limitations.

The present guidelines take differenceswithin the seafood processing Industryinto account through subcategorization,rather than by use of ranges of numbersto be varied at the discretion of the per-mit issuing authority.

Section 306 of the Act separates sev-eral broad industrial groups into 27 rub-groups. For example, the food processingindustry has been divided into the meatproducts and rendering, dairy products,canned and preserved fruits and vege-tables, grain mills, canned and preservedseafood, and sugar processing categories.The canned and preserved seafood proc-essing category has been further ub-divided as given in the regulation pro-mulgated on June 26, 1974 (39 F R 23134)into four segments (catfish, crab, shrhnpand tuna) within which 14 subcategorieshave been established on the basis ofsuch factors as size and location ofplants, and types of products processed.The proposed ' limitations presentedherein further subdivides the categoryinto an additional 20 subcategories enu-merated above.

(10) The comment was made that thepractice of screening the raw wastewaters with a 20-mesh Tyler sieve priorto laboratory analysis does not measurethe real organic waste load of the un-treated effluent. Therefore, EPA Is Inerror by using this data for establishingfurther reductions through employment



of subsequent waste water treatmentunder commercial plant operating con-ditions. The samples should have beenground prior to analysis in order tomeasure the total BOD demand by theeffluent in the environment even if itdoes require a long time for such bio-logical degradation.

As discussed in the Development Docu-ment, the sampling effort was designedto identify the constitutents of the wastewaters which should be subject to effluentlimitations and to minimize the com-plexity of reducing the effluent pollutionto acceptable levels. -

The practice of utilizing a 20-meshTyler sieve has been used in previous.waste water characterization research inboth the seafood and the fruits and vege-table fields. It serves to remove the largersolid particles (such as crab legs, someshrimp shell, fish parts, etc.) and thereby-greatly reduce the resultant "scatter" ofthe data points. The method is especiallyvaluable in developing a precise base-linevalue for each parameter from a limitednumber of samples.

The problem of collecting representa-tive samples when large solid particlesare contained in the effluent becomesrather complex without knowing the un-derlying frequency distribution of thenumber and size of the particles. Ex-tremely large volumes of waste waterwould be necessary for a representative

aw waste effluent sample. Because thebasis for the minimum treatment effortincluded screening for most processors,data based on ground effluent sampleswould have no relationship to commonlyaccepted engineering design parameters.- (11) It was suggested that the Alaskansubcategories should have been furthersubdivided to account for the isolatedplants which do not have dependable ac-cess to landfill or ocean barging in or-der to dispose of screened wastes by bio-logically degradable techniques or by dis-persion over large areas- through oceandisposal because of adverse climatic andgeologic conditions. -

After assessing the available infornia-tion provisions have been established toaccount -for differences due to seafoodprocessing plant locations in Alaska.

There is substantial evidence thatprocessors in isolated and remote areasof Alaska are at a comparative economicdisadvantage to the processors located inpopulation or processing centers regard-ing attempts to meet the proposed effluentlimitations guidelines. The isolated loca-tion of some Alaskan seafood processingplants eliminates almost all waste watertreatment alternatives because of unde-pendable access to ocean, land, or com-mercial transportation disposal methodsduring extended severe sea or weatherconditions, and the high costs of elimi-nating the engineering obstacles due toadverse climatic and geologic conditions.However, those plants located in popula-tion or processing centers have access tomore reliable, cost-effective alternativessuch as solids recovery techniques orother forms of solids disposal such aslandfill or barging.

(12) The comment was made that thetecmology of dissolved air flotation can-not be transferred from one type of foodprocessing or even fishery species to an-other. Moreover. EPA has not identifiedthe degree of effluent reduction by bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable from adequate plant anddemonstration studies for the seafoodsubcategories.

A determination of the effluent limlta-tions guidelines study was that the exist-ing level of waste treatment throughoutseafood processing industry was gen-erally Inadequate. With the exception ofoperatiens engaged in fish meal proces-lng, the prevalent form of plant wastewater trzatment technology for the flsh;nd seafood processing industry isscreening or direct discharge.

EPA has reassessed the available dataand consulted recog"nized seafood wastewater treatment experts. TheAgency hasconcluded that air flotation technology iscurrently avatlablq for the fish and sea-food processing industry because of Itsuse in other *related Industries withsimiliar wastes and because of its cur-rent use in several segnents of theseafood processing industry. Dissolvedair flotation is an established technologyfor the seafood industry though not asyet in common practice. The FisheriesResearch Board of Canada and theFisheries Association of British Columbiadesigned and erected a full scale demon-stration dissolved air flotation wastewater treatment plant which accommo-dates salmon canning, herring roe recov-ery, and ground fish filleting eifluents.Full scale dissolved air flotation systemshave also been Installed within the men-haden, sardine, and tuna processing in-dustries. Pilot plant studies have beenconducted on shrimp processing effluentsin Alaska and Louisiana, and on crabprocessing effluents in Alaska. SectionVII of the Development Document in-eludes a discussion of dissolved air flota-tion technology and tables listing byspecies the degree of removal of variousparameters attained by pilot plant andfull scale air flotation systems. Appen-dices to the Development Document in-elude a bibliography of air flotationstudies for the seafood industry, a list-ing of sources on the application of airflotation technology to other related in-dustries such as meat packing and poul-try processing, and a list of waste watertreatment equipment manufacturersthat produce air flotation units.

(13) The criticism was made thatthere are no data which support thestatement that dissolved air flotationoperated as a physical system willachieve the reductions assumed In thedraft Development Document.

EPA recognizes that almost all pilotplant and full-scale air flotation systemsoperating In the seafood industry rely onchemical addition and optimizatlon toachieve the highest levels of pollutionabatement or by-product recovery. TheAgency expects the dissolved air flota-tion systems to include chemical addl-tion. The capital cost estimates andoperation and maintenance costs used in

the economic Impact analysis for air flo-tation equipment include the costs forchemical addition for both the 1977 and1983 estimates. However, optimzaftion ofdissolved air flotation performance isnot required until 1983 because the tech-nology is relatively new for most of theseafood processing industry and requirescareful selection of chemicals and dos-ages, as well as skilled operation for opti-mum Pollution abatement. Those 1977guidelines which are based on dissolvedair flotation reflect the Agency's bestengineering assessment of the effluent; re-duction attainable by this technologywithout chemical optimization. -

(14) One commenter suggested thatadequate attention had not been givento the sludge disposal or recovery prob-lems of the dissolved air flotation system.

Conventional methods of sludge han-dling and disposal are avalableand dem-onstrated to be effective. For example, thesludge from the Canadian dissolved airflotation system Is presently being de-watered by centrifuging and recovered asa supplement to poultry feed- A con-clusion of the "Draft Shrimp CanningWaste Treatment Study" (EPA Project8800 904) states that dewatering of dis-solved air flotation sludge will be neces-sary for economical disposal- Centrifu-gation of'the sludge was demonstratedto decrease the volume by 4:1 and in-crease the total solids dry weight by 2:1.

(15) A number of comments reflectedconcern that the effluent limitationsguidelines should be applied on a netrather than a gross basis to allow for pol-lutants which may be present in theplant intake-water.

The effluent linitations guidelines havegenerally been developed on a gross orabsolute basis. However, the Agency rec-ognize that in certain instances pollut-ants* will be present in navigable waterswhich provide a plant's intake water sup-ply in sIgnificant concentrations whichmay not be removed to the levels specifiedin the guidelines by the application oftreatment technology contemplated bybest practicable control currently avail-able.

Accordingly, the Agency has developedamendments to its NPDES permit regu-lations (40 CFRPart 125) which specifiesthe situations in which the RegionalAdministrator may allow a credit forsuch pollutants. The proposed amend-ment appeared in the October 18, 1974,FErznAx RmsTn (39 ER 37215).

(16) Many commenters stated that thesummary "raw waste" data presented inthe draft development document were toovariable to be used as a basis for pro-posed effluent standards.

An examination of the method of cal-culation of the smnuLry "raw waste"averages revealed that the logarithmic-normal frequency distribution providesa better fit of the data than the arith-metic-normal frequency distribution.

The observation that many of thearlthmetic-normal, summary standarddeviations exceeded fifty percent of themean value, supports the notion that thedata does not fit the arithmetic-normaldistribution. The logarithmic-normal


4591


distribution fits data which tends toskew toward the right, away from zero,which is the case with the plant sum-mary data presented in the DevelopmentDocument.

To further equalize the summarystatistics, individual plant averages wereweighted by the number of samples 'col-lected per plant and the individual planttemporal variances.

The effect of the logarithmic-normalstatistical analysis raises some summarymeans, lowers others, and leaves othersummary means relatively unchangedfrom the draft development document.

(17) One commenter feels it would bemore equitable to base the oyster effluentlimitations on the tonnage of raw prod-uct processed rather than the shuckedweight of the oyster.

The effluent limitations guidelines areexpressed in terms of the shucked weightof the oysters rather than the weightof the raw material as received at theplant because the relation of input shellweight to final product weight was toovariable for accurate measurements.This is partially due to empty or looseshell in the raw material at the 14 plantssampled and the fact that accurate rec-ords were available for the shuckedweights of the oysters rather than rawmaterial weights because the shuckersare usually paid for the amount ofshucked oyster produced.

The Agency believes this 'to be anequitable approach. For example, sup-pose that a plant produces two tons ofshucked oysters from 25 tons of rawmaterial with a total waste load of 100pounds of BOD5 for the day's produc-tion. Then the waste load expressed interms of raw material is 4 lbs. of BOD5per ton of raw material; the identicalwaste' load expressed in terms of finalproduct is 50 lbs of BOD5 per ton ofproduct.

The Agency realizes that the oysterguidelines* derived from raw waste loadratios based on product weight instead ofraw material weight is inconsistent withother subcategories and therefore, dur-ing the comment period, requests datawhich could be used to establish a moreaccurate basis for shucked oyster pro-duction and effluent limitations.

(18) One commenter felt that the GulfCoast oyster processors should be exemptfrom effluent limitations because theGulf Coast oyster processing facilitieswere not among those specificallysampled.

As discussed in the development docu-ment, the Agency believes that the Gulf,Coast oyster processors can be groupedwith the East Coast oyster processorsbecause the same species of oysters areprocessed and the same processingmethods are utilized in both areas.

(19) Several commenters feel that in-dustry expansion will be inhibited in re-mote areas of Alaska if the new sourceperformance standards are based onscreening instead of comminutors orgrinders which provides the basis forthe July 1, 1977, standards.

After reassessing the available infor-mation and comments submitted by In-

terested parties, the technology basis fornew source performance standards waschanged from screening to comminutorsor grinders because it can be argued thatthe adverse climatic and geologic con-ditions of many isolated areas of Alaskaeliminates almost all waste water treat-ment alternatives.

In addition, the agency proposesamendments to §§ 408.55, 408.75, and408.105 of the promulgated effluent limi-tations and guidelines for existingsources and standards of performanceand pretreatment standards for newsources for the canned and preservedseafood processing point source category(39 FR 23134) to reflect this change.

(20) Several commenters suggest thatthe cost of collecting self-monitoringsamples should be an integral part of theeconomic analysis since it may have asignificant impact on the small process-ing facilities.

Self-monitoring costs are not includedbecause historically the small-to-medi-umii sized plants in the seafood processingindustry have not been required to col-lect frequent self-monitoring samples.In general, the sampling frequency hasfallen within once every three to sixmonths with no less than one sampleper year. Assuming that such monitor-ing requirements will continue, the costof monitoring for a typical plant is con-sidered to be negligible for the economicimpact analysis. However, the self-monitoring sampling frequency may in-crease for (a) large plants, (b) facilitiesaffected by water quality criteria, or (c)plants with unique waste loads.

(21) Several commenters requested al-lowances within the hand-shucked oys-ter subcategories to accommodate possi-ble processing changes which may benecessary to meet forthcoming Food andDrug Administration regulations.

Even though the Agency appreciatesthe fact that the raw waste loads maychange as a result of future process al-terations, the effluent limitations con-tained herein are based on waste loadsresulting fromcurrent industry process-ing configurations. 'When the Food andDrug Administration promulgates regu-lations affecting the hand-shuckedoyster processing subcategory, the Agen-cy will reevaluate the effluent limitations.However, an individual processor maypetition the permit issuing authority foran allowance in the waste load to ac-count for such processing changes. -

(22) Even though the regulationscontained -herein do not apply to non-traditional fishery resources or to newor experimental processes, one com-menter is concerned that the new sourceperformance standards will be extrap-olated to new pilot or demonstrationplants before adequate economic datamaterializes.

The Agency's intrepretation of section306(a) (2) of the Act does not considera new seafood processing facility a "newsource" if the processing facility is notcovered by the regulations set forth inPart 408 of Title 40 of the Code of Fed-eral Regulations. In developing effluentlimitations for sources not covered by

guidelines the permit issuing authoritywould be expected to consider all avail-able Information Of a technical and eco-nomic nature pertaining to the proposedfacilities and not Just simply extrapolatenew source performance standards fromcategories covered by guidelines.

The Agency is subject to an orderof the United States District Court forthe District of Columbia entered inNatural Resources Defense Council vTrain et. al. (Civ. No. 1609-73) whichrequires the promulgation of regulationsfor this industry category no later thanJanuary 3, 1975. This order also requiresthan such regulations become effectiveimmediately upon publication. In addi-tion, It is necessary to promulgate regu-lations establishing limitations on thedischarge of pollutants from pointsources in this category so that the proc-ess of issuing permits to individual dis-chargers under section 402 of the ActIs not delayed.

It has not been practicable to developand publish regulations for this categoryin proposed form, to 15rovide a 30 daycomment period, and to make any neces-sary revisions In light of the commentsreceived within the time constraints Im-posed by the court order referred toabove. Accordingly, the Agency has de-termined pursuant to 5 USC 553(b) thatnotice and comment on the interim finalregulations would be Impracticable andcontrary to the public interest. Goodcause is also found for these regulationsto become effective on January 30, 1975.

Interested persons are encouraged tosubmit written comments. Commentsshould be submitted in triplicate to theEPA Office of Public Affairs, Environ-mental Protection Agency, Washlngion,D.C. 20460, Attention: Ms. Ruth Brown,A-107. Comments on all aspects of theregulation are solicited. In the eventcomments are in the nature of criticismsas to the adequacy of data which areavailable, or which may be relied upon bythe Agency, comments should identifyand, if possible, provide any additionaldata which may be available and shouldindicate why such data are essential tothe amendment or modification of theregulation. In the event comments ad-dress the approach taken by the Agencyin establishing an effiuent.limitation orguideline EPA solicits suggestions as towhat alternative approach should betaken and why and how this alternativebetter satisfies the detailed require-ments of sections 301 and 304(b) of theAct.

A copy of all public comments will beavailable for inspection and copying atthe EPA Freedom of Information Cen-ter, Room 204, West Tower, WatersideMall, 401 M Street SW., Washington,D.C. A copy of preliminary draft con-tractor reports, the Development Docu-ment and economic study referred toabove, and certain supplementary mate-rials supporting the study of the indus-try concerned will also be maintainedat this location for public review andcopying. The EPA Information regula-tion, 40 CPR Part 2, provides that a

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 21-THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975

4592


reasonable fee may be charged for copy- processing, in non-remote Alaska, ofing. dungeness, tanner, and king crab meat.

All comments received on or before The effluent limitations contained inMfarch 3, 1975 will be considered. Steps 'Subpart D are applicable to facilities lo-previously taken by the Environmental -cated in population or processing centersProtection Agency to facilitate public including but not limited to Anchorage,response within this time period are out- Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak,lined in the advance notice concerning andPetersburg.public review procedures published on Subpart E-rthe remote Alaskan crab

- August 6, 1973 (38 FR 21202). In the meat processing subcategory Is amendedevent that the final regulation differs by revising § 408.50 to read as follows:~,h~ana1nfr-,+__ Fh i,,*nimr,"Qnl va,..

ilation set forth herein the Agency willconsider petitions for reconsideration ofaiy permits issued in accordance withthese interim final regulation.

In consideration of the foregoing, 40CFR_ Part 408 is hereby amended asset forth below.

Dated: January 17, 1975.Effective date: January 30, 1975.

RUSELL E. TRAM,Administrator.

Subpart A-the farm raised catfishprocessing subcategory is amended byrevising-§ 40810 to read as follows:§ 4Q8.10- Applicability; description of

the farm raised catfish processingsubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of farm-raised catfish byexisting facilities which .proebs morethan 1362 kg (3000 lbs) of raw materialper day on any day during a calendaryear and all new sources.

Subpart B--the conventional blue crabprocessing subcategory is amended by

"revising § 408.20 to read as follows:

§403.20 Applicability: description ofthe conventional blue crab processingsutliategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of blue crab in which manualpicking or separation of crab meat fromthe shell is utilized. The effluent limita-tions contained in Subpart B are appli-cable to. existing facilities processingmore than 1362 kg (3000 lbs) of rawmaterial per day on any day during acalendar year and all new sources.

Subpart C--the mechanized blue crabprocessing subeategory is amended byrevising § 408.30 to read as follows:

§ 403.30 Applicability; description ofthe mechanized blue crab processingsubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from thprocessing of blue crab in whichmechanical picking or separation of crabmeat from the shell is utilized.

Subpart D-:-the non-remote Alaskancrab meat processing subcategory Isamended by revising § 408A0 to read asfoliows:

408.44) Applicability; description ofthe non-remote Alaskan crab meatprocessing subcategory.

§ 408.50 Applicability; description ofthe remote AIaskan crab meat proc-essing suhcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing, in remote Alaska, of dunge-ness, tanner, and king crab meat. Theeffluent limitations contained n SubpartE are applicable to fatllies not coveredunder Subpart D.

Subpart F-the non-remote Alaskanwhole crab and crab section processingsubcategory is amended by revising§ 408.60 to read as follows:§ 40)8.60 Applicability; description of

the non-remote Alaskan -whole craband crab section processing subcate-gory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing, in non-remote Alaska, ofdungeness, tanner and king whole craband crab sections. The eflluent limitations.contained in Subpart F are applicable tofacilities located in population or proc-essing centers Including but not limitedto Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketch-ikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg.

Subpart G-the remote Alaskan wholecrab and crab section processing subcate-gory is amended by revising §408.70 toread as follows:§ 403.70 Applicability; description of

the remote Alaskan whole crab andcrab section proccs-sig subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing, in remote Alaska, of dunge-ness, tanner, and king whole crab andcrab sections. The effluent limitationscontained n Subpart G are applicableto facilities not covered under Subpart F.

Subpart H--the dungeness and tannercrab processing in the contiguous Statessubcategory is amended by revising§ 408.80 to read as follows:

§ 408.80 Applicability; description ofthe dungeness and tanner crab proc-essing in the contiguous States sub-category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of dungeness and tanner crabin the contiguous States.

Subpart I-the zkon-remote Alaskanshrimp processing subcategory isamended by revising § 408.90 to read asfollows:§ 408.90 Applicability; description of

the non-remote Alaskan shrimp proc-essing subeategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap- The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from the plicable to discharges resulting from the

proce-.hg of shrimp in non-remoteAlaska. The effluent limitations containedin Subpart I are applicable to faclitieslocated In population or processing cen-ters Including but not limited to Anchor-age, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan, Ko-diak, and Petersburg.

SubpartJ-the remote Alaskan shrimpprocessing subategory Is amended byrevising § 408.100 to read as follows:§ 403.100 Applicability; description of

the remote Alashan shrimp process-ing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of shrimp in remote Alaska.The effluent limitations contained inSubpart J are applicable to facilities notcovered under Subpart L

Subpart KX-the northern shrimpprocessing in the contiguous States sub-category is amended by revising § 408.110to read as follows:

§ 403.110 Applicability; description ofthe Northern shrimp processing inthe contiguous States subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart axe ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of shrimp in' the Northerncontiguous States, including Washing-ton, Oregon, California, Maine, NewHampshire, and Massachusetts. The efflu-ent limitations contained in Subpart Kare applicable to existing facilities proc--essing more than 908 kg (2000 Ibs) ofraw material per day on any day duringa calendar year and all new sources.

Subpart L--the southern non-breadedshrimp processing in the contiguousStates subcategory is amended by revis-;ng§ 408.120 to read as follovs:

§ 400.120 Applicability; description ofthe Southern, non-breaded shrimpprocessing in the contiguous Statessubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessina of non-breaded shrimp in theSouthern contiguous States, includingNorth and South Carollna, Georgia,Florida, Alabama, Missippi, Louisiana,and Texas. The eMuent limitations con-tained in Subpart L are applicable toexisting facilities processing more than908 kg (2000 ]bs) of raw material per dayon any day during a calendar year andall new sources.

Subpart M -the breaded shrimp proc-essing in the contiguous States subate-gory is amended by revising § 408.130 toread as follows:

§ 408.130 Applicability; description oftit breaded shrimp processing inthe contiguous States subeategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of breaded shrimp in the con-tiguous States by ekisting facilities proc-essing more than 903 kg (2000 ]bs) ofraw material per day on any day duringa calendar year and all new sources.

Subpart N-the tuna processing sub-category Is amended by revising § 408.140to read as follows:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 21-HURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975

4593

4594

§ 408.140 Applicability; description ofthe tuna processing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of tuna.

The following new subparts are addedto 40 CFR Part 408:

Subpart O-Fish Meal Processing Subcategory

Sec.408.160 Applicability; description of the fish

meal processing subcategory.408.151 Specialized definitions.408.152 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently avail-able.

408.153 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

Subpart P--Alaskan Hand-Butchered SalmonProcessing Subcategory

408.160 Applicability; description of theAlaskan hand-butchered salmonprocessing subcategory.

408.161 Specialized definitions.408.162 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-


408.163 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting tha degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

Subpart 0-Alaskan Mechanized SalmonP'rocessing Subcategory

408.170 Applicability, description of theAlaskan mechanized salm6nprocessing subcategory.


resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available.


Subpart R-West Coast Hand-Butchered SalmonProcessing Subcategory

408.180 Applicability;, descriptin of- theWest Coast hand-butchered sal-mon processing subcategory.




Subpart S-West Coast Mechanized SalmonProcessing Subcategory

408.190 - Applicability; description of theWest Coast mechanized salmonprocessing subcategory.

408.191 Specialized definitions.


408.192 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently avail-able.


Subpart T-Alaskan Batten Fish ProcessingSubcategory

408.200 Applicability; description of theAlaskan bottom fish processingsubcategory.

408201 Specialized definitions.408.202 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting" the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol' technology currentlyavailable.

408.203 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainablo by the ap-plication of. the best availabletechnology econonilcally achlev-able.

Subpart U-Non-Alaskan Conventional BottomFish Processing Subcategory

408.210 Applicability; description of thenon-Alaskan conventional bot-tom fish processing subcategory.


resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the beet practicablecontrol technology currently avail-able,

408.213 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achiev-able.

Subpart V-Non-Alaskan Mechanized BottomFish Processing Subcategory

408.220 Applicability; description of thenon-Alaskan mechanized bottomfish processing subcategory.


resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

408.223 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of, effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achiev-able.

Subpart W-Hand-Shucked Clam ProcessingSubcategory

408.230 Applicability; description of thehand-shucked clam processingsubcategory.

408.231 Specialized definitions.408.232 Ffuent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication: of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

408.233 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically achiev-able.

Subpart X-Mechanized Clam ProcessingSubcategorySec.

408.240 Applicability; description of themechanized clam processing sub.category.


resenting the degree of clfluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the beat practicable con-trol technology currently avail-able.

408243 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainablo by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically aohiOV-able.

Subpart Y-Pacific Coast Hand-Shucked OysterProcessing Subcategory

408.250 Applicablity; description of thePacific Coast hand-shucked oysterprocessing subcategory.


resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainablo by the ap-plication of the best practicablecontrol technology currentlyavailable.

408.253 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap-plication of the best availabletechnology economically nchiov-able.

Subpart Z-Atlantc and Gulf Coast Hand.Shucked Oyster Processing Subcategory

408.260 Applicability; description of tho At-lantlo and Gulf Coast hand-shucked oyster processing subcato-gory.


resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best praotoablo controltechnology currently available.

408.263 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technol-

ogy economically achievable,Subpart AA-Stoamed/Cenned Oyster

Processing Subcategory

408.270 Applicability; description of thesteamed/canned oyster processingsubcategory.

408.271 Specialized definitions.408.272 Effluent limitations guidelines rop-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation of the best practicable con-trol technology currently available.

408.273 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technol-ogy economically achievable.

Subpart AB-Sardino Processing Subcategory

408.280 Applicability; description of thesardine processing subcategory.


resenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the applica-tion of the best praetlcablo controltechnology currently available.

408.283 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-presenting the degree of effluent re-duction attainable by the npplica-tion of the best available technol-ogy economically achievable.


Subpart AC-Alaskan Scallop ProcessingSubcategory

Sec.408.290 Applicability; description of the

Alaskan scallop processing sub-category.

408291 Specialized definitions.408.292 Effluent- limitations guidelines rep-

'resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appli-cation-of the best practicable con-

- trol technology currently available.408.293 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainabl6 by.the appli-cation of the best available tech-nology economically achievable.

Subpart AD-Non-Alaskan Scallop ProcessingSubcategory

408.300 Applicability; description of the non-Alaskan scallop processing subcate-gory.


resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appll-


Subpart 0---FishMeal ProcessingSubcategory

§ 408.150 Applicability; description ofthe fislh meal processing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of menhaden on the Gulf andAtlantic Coasts and the processing ofanchovy on the West Coast into fishmeal, oil and solubles.

§ 408.151 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR Pait401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall mean,the raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shellfish, to beprocessed, in the form in which It Is re-ceived at the processing plant.

cation of tne best practicable con-trol technology currently available. § 408.152 Effluent limitations guidelines

408.303 Effluent limitations guidelines rep- representing the degree of effluentresenting the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the applica-reduction attainable by the appli- tion of the best practicable controlcation of the best available tech- technology currently available.nology economically achievable. (a) In establishing the limitaflons set.

SubparLAE-Alaskan Herring Fillet Processing forth in this section, EA took into ac-Subcategory

408.310" Applicability;, descripti-on of the count all information It was able to col-Alaskan herring fillet processing lect, develop and solicit with respect tosubcategory. . factors (such as age and size of plant,

408211 Specializeddefinitions. raw materials, manufacturing processes,408.312 Effluent limitations guidelines rep- products produced, treatment technology

resenting the-degree of effluent available, energy requirements andreduction attainable by the ap- costs) which can affect the Ipidustry sub-plication of the best practicable categorization and effluent levels estab-

available. c lished. It is, however, possible that data408.313 Effluent limitations guidelines rep- which would affect these limitations have

resenting, the degree of effluent not been available and, as a result, thesereduction attainable by the appll- limitations should be adjusted for cer-cation of .the best available tech- tain plants in this industry. An ndivid-nology economically achievable. ual discharger or other interested per-

Subpart AF--Non-Alaskan Herring Fillet son may submit evidence to the RegionalProcessing Subcategory Administrator (or to the State, if the

408.320 Applicablity;, description of the State has the authority to Issue 14PDESnon-Alaskan herring fillet proc- permits) that factors relating to the

Ieang subcategory. equipment or facilities involved, the408.321 Specialized definitions, process applied, or other such factors re-408.322 Effluent limitations guidelines rep- lated to such discharger are fundamen-

resenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the ap- taly different from the factors con-plication control technology cur- sidered in the establishment of therently avallable. guidelines. On the basis of such evi-

408.323 Effluent limitations guidelines rep- dence or other available information, theresenting the degree of effluent re- Regional Administrator (or the State)duction attainable by the appll- wll make a written finding that suchcation of the best available tech- factors are or are not fundamentally dif-nology economically achievable. ferent for that facility compared to those

Subpart AG-Abalone Processing Subcategory specified in the DeVelopment Document.408.330 Applicability; description of the If such fundamentally different factors

abalone processing subcategory. are found to exist, the Regional Admin-408.331 Specialized definitions. istrator or the State shall establish for408.332 Effluent limitations guidelines rep- the discharger effluent limitations in the

resenting the degree of effluent NPDF.S permit either more or lessreduction attainable by the ap- stringent than the limitations establishedplication of the best practicable herein, to the extent dictated by suchcontrol technology currenty fundamentally different factors. *Suchavailable, limitations must be approved by the Ad-

408.333 ffluent limitations guidelines rep- ministrator of the Environmental Pro-resenting -the degree of eunresentinthdegree of efafuent tection Agency. The Administrator mayreduction -attainable by the ap-plication of the best available approve or disapprove such limitations,technology economically achiev- specify other limitations, or initiate pro-able. ceedings to revise these regulations.

4595

Mb) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or qualityof pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

(1) Any menhaden or anchovy fishmeal reduction facility which utilizes asolubles plant to process stick water orbail water shall meet the following limi-tations.

Effunt lrmiations

Efflurnt Average of dalycbaracteistl Maximna for values fr thirty

any one day Casceudves

(Me -la urit) kglkkg of seafood

BOD$ ...... 4.7 ... ____ 3.5TS8--, - 2.3 .... L3Ol and gr .... 0.80____..... 0.63p .......... Withinthe

range 6.0 to9 .

(Enallsh units) IbA000 lb ofseafood

OD5......... 7-..&. .

Oil and grxo ..... 0A0...... 0. C3p ............. Withla the

r a o 0.0 to9.0.

(2) Any menhaden or anchovy fishmeal reduction facility not covered un-der § 408.152(b) (1) shall meet the fol-lowing limitations:

Effl ent limitations

Effluent Average of dailycharaterdst Mnxinn for valuessfarthirty

any ou day tvo daysshal not exceed-

(Mtro unib) kgikkg of seafood

BODS ....... 75. 0.8 .Z0..... .2..... 1.1'Oil and grn:e.._ 32-..... L4pl ........... Within the

raf e 0.0 to

(Eaglih units) rb OCO lb of reac4

BOD ........ 5. .. 2.011 ad graze ... 3 .-- . L.4.pH. ..... . Within tho

rnu 6.0 to90 .

§ 408.153 Effluent limltations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish the -quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged bya pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:


4596

Effluent limitations

Effluent - Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutiveshall not xc-

(Motric units) kgfkkg of seafood

BOD5 ---------- 4 .0 ---------- 2.9T83 -----.- ._ .__ _2.3 ---. ......... L 3Oil and grease- -0.8......... 0.63pH --------------- Within the --------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/1000 lb of seafood

BeD ...--------- -4.0 -------- z ----- 2.9TS ------------ 2.3 -------- 1.3Oil and grease ----- 0.90 ------- 0.63pH --------------- Within the ------------------

rangoo.0 to9.0.

Salmon Processing Subcategory§ 408.160 Applicability; description of

the Alaskan hand-butchered salonprocessing subcategory.

The provisions of-this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from thehand-butchering of salmon in Alaska.§ 408.161 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.

-(b) The term "seafood" shall mean the,raw material, including freshwater andsaltwater fish and shell fish, to be proc-essed, in the form in which it Is re-ceived at the processing plant.§ 403.162 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took -into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors, such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) 'which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluefit levelsestablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants in this industry.An individual discharger or other n-terested person may submit evidence tothe Regional Administrator (or to theState, if the State has the authority toissue NPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment or facilities in-volved, the process applied, or other suchfactors related to such discharger arefundamentally different from the fac-tors considered in the establishment ofthe guidelines. On the basis of such evi-dence or other available information,the Regional Administrator (or the


State) will make a written finding thatsuch factors are or are not fundamen-tally different for that facility comparedto those specified in the DevelopmentDocument. If such fundamentally dif-ferent factors, are found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify otherlimitations, or initiate proceedings torevise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the provi-sions of this subpart after application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available:

(1) Any hand-butchered salmonprocessing facility located in populationor processing centers including but notlimited to Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau;Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg shallmeet the following lmitations"


Effluent 'Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutive daysshall not exceed-

(Metric units) kg~kkg of reafood

TSS -------------- 1.7 ............ 1.4Oil and grease - 0.20 ------------- 0.17pH....... . Within the ------------....

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lblO00 lb of s nfoed

TSS .. .. ------------ 17 --.. . ......- .4On and grcazsos..... 0.20 -------...... a 17pH ....... Within the ---------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

(2) Any hand-butchered salmon proc-essing facility not covered under § 408.162(b) (1) shall meet the following limita-tions: No pollutants may be dischargedwhich exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in anydimension.§ 408.163 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion,. which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of thebest available technology e2onomicallyachievable:

Effluent. liratations

Efllumt Av6rr-" of dA'characterlstio Maxltntun for vuri f~r thirty

any ono day cotruutvo davthall not occd-

(Metric units) kgfkhg of sedood

TSS --------. -. 1.5 ......... ----- 12Oil and gree .1- --.... 0.18 .. 0 0pH .............. Within the .................

range 0.0 to9.0.

(EnglLsh unlt,) lb100 lb of sunfid

TS8 ................ 1.6 .............. 1.2011 and grea . 0.18 ............. 0. 15PH ...............-Within the ..............

MnZo 0.0 to9.0.

Subpart Q-Alastian Mechanized SalmonProcessing Subcategory

§408.170 Applicability; dezcription ofthe Alaskan mechanizcd salmon proc-essing subcategory.

The provJpions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from themechanized butchering of salmon inAlaska.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis get forth in 40 CFER Part401 shall apply to this subpart.(b) The termn"seafood" shall mean theraw material, including freshwater andsaltwater fish and shellfish, to be proc-essed, In the form in which it is receivedat the processing plant.§ 403.172 Effluent limitations guidelines

reprczenting the degree of effluent-reduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltcchnolog;y currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took Into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailablt, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levelsestablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-Justed for certain plants in this Industry.An individual discharger or other In-terested person may submit evidence tothe Regional Administrator (or to theState, if the State has the authority toissue NIPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment or facilities in-volved, the process applied, or other suchfactors related to such discharger arefundamentally different from the fac-tors considered In the establishment ofthe guidelines. On the basis of such evi-dence or other available information,



the Regional Administrator (or the Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg shallState) will make a written finding that meet the following limitations:such factors are or are not fundamen-tally different for that facility comparedtto those specified in the DevelgpmentDocument. If such fundamentally dif- Efuet Averege of daily

ebnrtlo Iltun for valus for thirtyferent factors are found to exist, the any oneody d onrcuajsd.Regional Administrator or the State nbilinotshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit either (Metriounits) k1kkgofrc3Twomore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extent BOD05........ 1 .... 13dictated by such fundamentally different TSS ..........- 2.0 . 2Oil and gree o.2.0 ............ L 0factors. Such limitations must be ap- p- ................ Withi tjo ................proved by the Administrator of the range00toEnvironmental Protection Agency. The o..

Administrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify other (Eis Units) IblOCOI% of rafoodlimitations, or initiate proceedings torevise these regulations. BOD5 ....----. - 10 13

(b) The following limitations estab- Ol andg ...... 2.0 ------..- 1.0lish the quantity or quality of pollutants pH.----------- Within the ................or pollutant properties,' controlled by .. othis section, which may be discharged 1__ _ _ 9_ _ _.0_to

by'a point source subject to the provi-sions of this subpart after application (2) Any mechanied salmonprocesslngof the best practicable control tech- facility not covered under §408.173(a)nology currently available: (1) shall meet the following limitations:

(1) Any mechanized salmon process--ing facility located in population or Emuflturlimltatlonsprocessing centers including but not Emuent Average of dailylimited to Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau, characterisUe maximum for values for thirtyKetchikan, Kodiak, and Petersburg shall any one doy =cUto d=meetthe following limitations:

Effluent limitationsEffluent Average of daily

characteristlo Maximum for values for thirty

any one day coosecutive daysshall not exceed-

(Metric units) kgflkg ofieood

T2s7.=_----. 27 22Oil and-grease - 27- . 10pH ............... Within the ------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lblO00 lb of seafood

TSS_.= 27 - 22Oil and grease .... 27 ------ 10pH ---------------- Within the .................

range 6.0 to9.0.

(2) Any mechanized salmon processingfacility not covered.under § 408.172 (b)(1) shall meet the following limitations:No-pollutants may b, discharged whichexceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimen-sion.

§ 408.173 Effluent limitations guidelisiesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction- attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

(a) The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection,- which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provislons ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

(1) Any mechanized salmon process-ing faciliht located in population orprocessing centers including but notlimited to Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau,

(Mletzt units) kg/lkg of efood

TBS-------------~ 21Oil and grease -- 20 ............ 10pH. ---------- -.. W. tln the

;rano 0.0 to9.0.

(English uIts) l Obh0lb of rWod

TBS -..--..... _ .... . 21Oil and greas . . ...... 10pL..------------- Withinith ...... .........

rare 0.0 to

Subpart R-West Coast Hand-B tcheredSalmon Processing Subcategory

§ 408.180 Applicability; description ofthe- West Coast hand-butchered sal-mon prpcessing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from thehand-butchering of salmon on the WestCoast.§ 408.181 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "Seafood" shall meanthe raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shellfish, to beprocessed, in the form in which It Isreceived at the. processing plant.§ 408.182 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainablo by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information It was able to col-

lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata whichwould affect these limita-tions have not been available and, asa result, these limitations should be ad-Justed for certain plants In this industry.An individual discharger or other inter-ested peison may submit evidence to theRegional Administrator (or to the State,if the State has the authority to issueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those speci-fied in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Adminis-trator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in-theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different, factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology curreritlyavailable:

E-llontllnmtations

Ealuent Averae of dailycharcctcrd5 Maximum for values for thirty

any on day cosectve daysshal no exced-

V4Ltrinunits) krgjkkiofeafood

TS... - L7.._.- LOl and grew _ 0.... 0.20 . 0.17

0.0 to 9.0.

(English units) Ib/ICCOIb of seafood

TBS -..-.----.- L7 . . ... LIOil and greaoe ..... 00.. 0.17

0.0 to 9.0.

§ 408.183 Effiluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-'tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by this

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 21-THURDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975

4597

pJCacau.5 W u InunaS-rges eauig Lb0"u wUebmechanized butchering of salmon on theWest Coast.§ 408.191 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis set forth In 40 C Part*401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall mean theraw material, including freshwater andsaltwater fish and shellfish, to be proc-essed, in the forni in which it is receivedat the processing plant.

§ 408.192 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop, and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing, processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It Is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for certainplants In this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities Involved, the process applied, orother such factors related to such dis-charger are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered In the establish-ment of the guidelines. On the basis of

Effluent limitatlons

Effluent Lverago of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutiveshall not cxce

(Metric units) kgjkkg of seafood

B5OD5_."._". 4___ . 34TSS ,, 8.2 6.7Of and grease - 4.0 L .6p -------------. WthinWthe -------

range 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/lOIG lb of seafood

BOD5..... 41-- 04Tss ------- -- -8...... ... __ -7Oil and grease .... 4.0 ............. 1.0p ---.- .------- Within the ------------------

range 0.0 to9.0.

(2) Any mechanized salmon process-Ing facility not covered under § 408.192(b) (1) shall meet the following limita-tions:

Effluent lmitations

Effluent Average of dailycharactcristic Maximtum for values for thirty


(Metrie units) kgfkkg of sca fd

TSS ------- ---- .. 22Oil and gr-s .... 27 .... -- -.. 10pH --------------- Within the . ..............

rango 6.0 tor.0.

(English units) lb]10 0 lb of seafood

TSS ------------- 27. ------ - 22Oi and grease__ 271..........-10pH ------------- Within th6 ---.--... --

range 6.0 to9.0.

section, which may be discharged by a such evidence or other available informa-point source subject to the provisions of tion, the Regional Administrator (or thethis subpart after application of the State) will make a written finding thatbest available technology economically such factors are or are not fundamental-achievable: ly different for that facility compared to

those specified in the Development Docu-Effluent limitations ment. If such fundamentally different

. factors are found to exist, the RegionalEffluent Average of daiy -Administrator or the State shall estab-

charterisui Maximum for values for thirtyany one day consecutive days lish for the discharger effluent limita-

shall not exceed- tionsin the NPDES permit either more orless stringent than the limitations estab-

(Metrli units) kgjkkg of seafood lished herein, to the extent dictated bysuch fundamentally different factors.

DOD... .-- 1.2 -- - LO Such limitations must be approved by theTss .....----------. . .... 0 2 Administrator of the Envirofimental Pro-Oil tnd gre o.... 0. 02 ------ -- - 0.=p --nd .--..... ... = Witbnthorang . tection Agency. The Administrator may

S .0oto0.0. approve or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-

(Eng&lh uaitz5 Ib/1000 Tb of seafood ceedings to revise these regulations.(b) The following limitations establish

OS.- L2 .... .0 the quantity or quality of-pollutants orT5O...S............~ 0.15_ 0.12on and grce.... 0.02 -------------- 002 pollutant properties, controlled by thispL. Within thorange.. ....... ---- section, which may be discharged by a

00to 9.0. point source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the best

Subpart S-West Coast Mechanized practicable control technology currentlySalmon Processing Subcategory available:

§ 408.190 Applicubility; description of (1) Any mechanized salmon processingthe West Coast mechanized salmon facility which processes more than 1816processing subcategory. kg (4000 lbs) of raw material per day on

The provisions of this sub~part are am any day during a calendar year shall.............. " a a meet the following limitations:


RULES AND REGULATIONS4598

§ 408.193 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the appllca-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thobest available technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent limltationa

Effluent Aver o of dailychoraeterlsti Maximum for value3 for thirty

any one day conzcntivo da~ychall not cxcccd -

(Metric units) kgfUG of ,cafood

BEDS.56 13Til -n-----2....................... 2.20o1 and grczo-.0.. 1...=:.: .0

-. . Within the ................range 0.0 to0.0.

(English units) Ib/1o lb of scafuld

BOD -------- . ............. 13T .......... 2.6 .....- .- 2.2Oil and grca=o.-.. .- .... .. LOpH .....---------- Within the ............... J

rano 0.0 to0.0.

Subpart T-Alasan Bottom FishProcessing Subcategory

§ 408.200 Applicability; description ofthe Alaskan bottom fish proccssingsubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of bottom fish such as hall-but In Alaska.§ 408.201 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations and moth-ods of analysis set forth in 40 CMl Part401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall mean theraw material, including freshwater andsaltwater fish and shellfish, to be proc-essed, in the form in which It Is receivedat the processing plant.§408.20}2 Effluent limitation guidelinci


(a) In establishing the limitations rotforth in this section, EPA tool: into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing proce<zise,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requiremento andcosts) which can affect the Industry'subcategorization and effluent lovelsestablished. It Is, howevr, possible thatdata which would affcct thcze limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants In this Industry.An individual discharger or other In-terested person may submit evidence to


the Regional Administrator (or -to- theState, if the State has the authority toissue NPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment or facilities In-volved, the-process applied, or other suchfactom related. to such discharger arefundamentay different from the fac-tors considered in the establishment ofthe guidelines. On the basis of such evi-dence or other available-information,-theRegional Administrator (or the State)will'make .a written finding that suchfactors are or -are not- fundamentallydifferent, for that facility compared. tothose specified -in the DevelopmentDocument. If such 'fundamentally dif-ferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the-NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions- established herein, to the.extentdictated by such fundamentafly differentfactors. Such limitations- must be ap-proved by the -Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitAtions, specify otherlimitations; or initiate proceedings torevisethese regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutants

- or pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, -which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the provi-sions of this subpart after application ofthe best practicable control technologycurrently available- ,

D() Any Alaskan bottom fish process-ing facMty located in population orj rocessing centers including but notlimited to Anchorage, Cordova, Juneau,Ketdhikan, Kodiak, and Petersburgshallmeet the following limitations:

Effuent litations

MEfluent Averageoidallyeharcteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecuive deys-hl not exced-

(Metric units) kgJkkgof seafood

TSS5 .Z 9 1. 7011 and grease...O&l.........01 0. 09

WithinWtherange 6.0 to9.0.

(English unitY 1huiOC0 lb of seaood

TSS- - - - 1.9. 1.7OlIaun grease._ 0:Io. 093PH .. ... withi the

range 6.0 to9.0.

(2) lAn Alaskan bottom-fish process-Ing facility not covered under § 408.202(b) (1) shall meet the following limita-tions: No pollutants may be dischargedw1fich exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in anydimension.§ 408.203 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the best available teclmologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-

I

hiUbut, and roactdisn "he1e pruvkionsapply to existing facilities processingmore than 1816 kg (4000 lhs) of rawmaterial per day on any day during acalendar year and all new sources.§ 4-08.211 SpecializeI definitions.



(b) The term "seafood" shall meanthe raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater Jsh and shellfish, to beprocessed, in the form In which It Isreceived at the processing plant.§ 408212 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion. of the best practicable cqntroltechnology currently available.

In.establishing the limitations set forth,In this section.-EPA took Into account allinformation It was able to collect, de-velop- and solicit with respect to factors(such as age and size of plant, raw ma-terials, manufacturing processes, prod-ucts produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and eflluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that data

can- day cmctv a-

eL-WauribsPL oAis '-fCd

Oil and r QZ... 0.40PHL_ Within ther 9a a

.Ot~o

CE=;i-h unlta) lbllCClcfeano

TES 2. L5pU ........ WhtritoOilangoM to

§ 408.213 Effluent limiiations guidelitesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of theJest available tedmologyeconomically ancicvaMbl.

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pillutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:


4599

lutant properties, controlled by this sec- which would affect these linitationshavetion, which may be discharged by a not been available and, as a result, thesepoint source subject to the provisions of limitations should be adjusted for certainthis subpart after application of the plantsinthL-Industry.Anindividualdis-best, available technology economically charger or other interested person mayachievable: submit evidence to the Regional Admin-

istrator (or to the State, if the State hasEfflucat a "the authority to issue NPDES permits)

that factors relating to the equipment orcharactristUa Maxinamfar . frid facilities involved, the process applied,

anyone day n- tl=_rod - or other such factors related to suchr_.ll net ee- discharger are fundamentally different

from the factors considered in the estab-(Oeillc un1) WJg otsafood lIshment of the guidelines- On the basis

of such evidence or other available infor-SS. .... L....... ......... Lo matlon, the Regional Administrator (or

Oil nd reth ...... 0.07 ------- -- M the State) will make a written findingPH -.-.----- . . Within tto . .........

rawe LO to that such factors are or are not funda-9.0. mentally different for that facility com-

pared to those specified in the Develop-(Engllzti ults) IbI5C lb of f ment Document. If such fundamentally

different factors are found to exist, theTSS ...... 1.0 Regional Administrator or the State shallopl nreas- 0 .. ...... . establizh for the discharger effluent limi-

rno 0 to tatons in the MDES permit either more0. or less stringent than the limitations es-

tablished herein, to the extent dictatedSubpart U-Non-Alaskan Conventional by such fundamentally different factors.

Bottom Fish Processing Subcategory Such limitations must be approved by the§408.210 Applicability; description of Administrator of the Environmental

the non-Masa conventional hu:- Protection Agency. The Administratortom "isl procceing subategory. may approve or disapprove such limita-

tions, specify other limitations, or initi-The provisions of this subpart are ate proceedings to revise these regula-

applicable to discharges resulting from tions.the processing of bottom fish outside of The following limitations establish theAlaska in which the unit operations are quantity or- q ty of pollutants or p l-carried out predominantly through lutant properties, controlled by this sec-manual methods. The provisions of this tion.whichmaybe dischargedbyapointsubpart apply to the procescsin of cur- source subject to the provisions of thisrently, commercially processedspecles of subpart after application of the bestbottom fish such as flounder, ocean practicable control technoloz7 currentlyperch, haddock, cod, pea catfish, sole, available:



Effluent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty


(Metric units) kg/kkq of product

nODS ------------ 3.6 3.5TS -------------- 8.7 -------------- 8.3Oil and grease- ---- 0,78 ------------- 0.20p1 -------------- Within the ------------------

range 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb]1000b of product

BOD5 ------------- 3.0 -------------- 3.5TSS --------------- 8.7 - 8.3Oil and grease 0.78 ---.......... 0.26pH .................:Within the ------------------

range 6.0 to0 .0.

Subpart V-Non-Alaskan MechanizedBottom Fish Processing Subcategory

§ 408.220 Applicability; description ofthe non-Alaskan mechanized bottomfish processing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges resulting fromthe processing of bottom fish outside ofAlaska in which the unit operations arecarried out predominately throughmechanized methods. The provisions ofthis subpart apply to the processing ofbottom fish such as whiting and croaker.§ 408.221 Specialized definitiom.

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

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall meanthe raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shdlfish, to beprocessed, in the form in which it isreceived at the processing plant.§ 408.222 Effluent limitations guidelines


In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into accountall information It was able to collect,develop and solicit with respect to fac-tors (such as age and size of plant, rawmaterials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and effluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An indi-vidual discharger or other interestedperson may submit evidence to the Re-

gional Administrator (or to the State,if the State has the authority to issueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilities Involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are fundamen-tally different from the factors consid-ered in the establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the RegionalAdministrator (or the State) will make awritten finding that such factors are orare not fundamentally different for thatfacility compared to those specified inthe Development Document. If such fun-damentaly different factors are found toexist, the Regional Administrator or theState shall establish for the dischargereffluent limitations in the NPDES per-mit either more or less stringent than thelimitations established herein, to the ex-tent dictated by such fundamentally dif-ferent factors. Such limitations must beapproved by the Administrator of theEnvironmental Protection Agency. TheAdministrator may approve or disap-prove such limitations, specify other lim-itations, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations. The following limita-tions establish the quantity or quality ofpollutants or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this section, which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after applica-tion of the best practicable control tech-nology currently available:



any one day conseoutivo daysshall not oxceed-

(Metrio units) kg/kkg of seafood

TS --------------- 14 -0_.: ........ 10Oil and grease ---- 5.7 -------------- 3.3pH --------------- Within the

range 6.0 to0.0.

(English units) lb/10iO lb of seafood

TSS -------------- 14 --------------- 10Oil and greaso -- 5.7 ------------ 3.3pH --------------- Within the ------------------

range 6.0 to

§ 408.223 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties; controlled by thissection, which may be discharged bya point source subject to the provisionsof this subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:


Effluent Average of dailycharacteristlo Maximum for vnluea for thirty

any one day concecutlvo daysshall not exceed-

(Metric units) kglkkg of seafood

BODS ............ 6.5 .............. 6.3TSS ---------------- 1.1 .............. 0.2Oil and greaso ...... 0.40 ............. 0.20pH ............. Within the ..................

tango 0.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/lO00 lb of eafood

BOD_... 05 .............. 3TSS ----- - 1.1 .............. 011 and greaso ...... 0.40 ............. 0.20pH ------- _------ Within the ..................

ranga 0.0 to.0 .

Subpart W-Hand-Shucked ClamProcessing Subcategory

§ 408.230 Applicability; description ofthe hand-shucked clam proccsslngsubcategory.

Ine provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from ex-isting hand-shucked clam processing fa-cilities which process more than 1816 kg(4000 lbs) of raw material pe day on anyday during a calendar year and 4ll newsources.§ 408.231 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CPRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall mean theraw material, including freshwater andsaltwater fish and shellfish, to be proc-essed, in the form in which It Is receivedat the processing plant.§ 408.232 Effluent limitations guidelines


In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into accountall information It was able to collect, de-velop and solicit With respect to factors(such as age and size of plant, raw ma-terials, manufacturing Processes, prod-ucts produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the Industrysubcategorization and effluent levels es-tablished. It Is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limitationshave not been available and, as a result,these limitations should be adjusted forcertain plants in this industry. An indi-vidual discharger or other interested per-son may submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to Issue NPDES


4600


"permiti) that factors *relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are fundamen-tally different from the factors consid-ered in the establishment of the guide-lines. -On the basis of such evidence orother available information. the Re-gional Adinistrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those speci-fled in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exit, the Aegional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarger -effluent limitations in. theNIDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be appr0yed by_.the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. Thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tity or quality of.pollntants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which mai be discharged by ,& pointsource subject to the provisions of this,subpart -after application of, the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:


Effhuent Avege of da1ycharactefistie M uiminn for values for thirty

any one day censcutiga" halnot xod

"" (Maetrclmats) kkkg of seafood

T5s- - :.___ ___ ",= 1Oil sad gresee.0.. 0.....:-.. 0 . 19:

. ... Within therange 6.0 to9.0. qo t

(Eglish units) 1b0i0 lb of seafood

Tss_ _ . -Oil-and grease. 0.29.....- 0. 1-P __ Witbin the

range .0 to9.6.

§ 408.233 Effluent-limitations guidelines,representing the degree -of efflnentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievabe.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality'of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by a-polt, source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after appicationt of thebest -available technology economicallyachievable:-

Efflnt llmlaln

charactcAso Maximum for i=A Many Oe day = .. cat1=y

- (Mtro units) krJE:.kroecood

oil nd grcao__ 0... ... hiepH.... . WithIn the

t. go 6.0 to

(Eng lsh units) IbO00 Ib of cuool

ORS and.greas..--.... 2 ...... .18

r ane 0.0 to

SubpartX-Mechanized Cram ProcessingSubcategory

§ 408.240 Ajplicability; description ofthe mechanized clam processing sub-category.

The provlsons of this subpart are ap-plicable- to discharges resulting frommechanized clam processing.§ 408.241 Specialized definitions.

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

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth In 40 CFAPart 401 shall apply to this subparL

(b) The term "seafood" shall meanthe raw material, Including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shellfl, to beprocessed, in the form In which it Isreceived at the processing plant.

§ 408.242 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction, attainable by the applica-tion of tie best practicable controltechnology currently avallc.

In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took Into ac-count all information it was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processs,products produced. treatmenttechnologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the Industrysubategorization and effluexit levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been.avallable and. as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants In this industry.An individual discharger or other inter-ested persons may submit evidence tothe Regional Administrator (or to theState, if the State has the authority toissue NPDES permits) that factors relat-

Ing to the equipment or facilities in-volved, the proce-sapplled, or other suchfactors related to such discharger arefundamentally different from the factorsconsidered In the establishment of theguidelines. O1 the basis of such evidenceor other available Information, the Re-gional Adminishar (or the State) willmake a written findIg that such factors.are or are not fundamentaly differentfor that facility compared to those sped-fled In the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefolmd to exis-t, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for the -discharger effluent limitations In theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent thnan the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or Initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quallty of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology. currentlyavailable:

EfluntAv=ga of daffy

any na day coraecnavoda

td, duits) kekkg ofr ef.od

TFZL___.. 7.7-- ... kI

o0i and rc zo.__ IX5._---_ 0.43r ang MO to

(EcaU unitb) IT,.1CC0 t cl =-cl

plL............WithIn thamna 0.0 to9.0.

§ 408.243 Efruent limitations guidelinensrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion: of the best available technologyeconomically achice-ble.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this see-tion which may be discharged by a pointsounce subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicailachievable:


4601



Effluent Average of dailycharaetorstlo Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutiveshall not excecd-

(Metric units) kgjkkg of seafood

BOD5 ----------- 2.9 -. .. 2.7TSS -------------- 7.4 ............. 3.7Oil and grease 0.18 ------------ 0. 09pH ...... - Within the range ---------------

6.0 to 9.0.

(English units) lb/1000 lb of seafood

BOD5- ....... 2.9 -------------- 2.7TS ......... . 7.4 -------------- 3,7Oil and grease ---- 0.18 ------------- 0.09pH --------------- Within the range ..................

0.0 to 9.0.

Subpart Y-Pacific Coast Hand ShuckedOyster Processing Subcategory

§ 408.250 Applicability; description oftle Pacific Coast hand shucked oysterprocessing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from ex-isting Pacific Coast hand-shucked oysterprocessing facilities which process morethan 454 kg (1000 lbs) of product perday on any day during a calendar yearand all new sources.§ 408.251 Specialized definitions.



(b) The term "product" shall siieanthe weight of the oyster meat aftershucking.§ 408.252 Effluent limitations guidelines


In establishing the limitations setforth In this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able tocollect, develop and solicit with respectto factors (sUch as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants in this industry.An individual discharger or other in-terested person may submit evidence tothe Regional Administrator (or to theState, If the State has the authority toissue NPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment or facilities in-volved, the process applied, or other suchfactors related to such discharger arefundamentally differentfrom the factorsconsidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spe-

cifled in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arefound to exist, the Regional Administra-tor or the State shall establish for thedischarged effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or less strin-gent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally differentfactors. Suchlimitations must be approved by the Ad-ministrator of the Environmental Pro-tecfion Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations. Thefollowing limitations establish the quan-tity or quality of pollutants or pollutantproperties, controlled by this section,which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effluent Limitations

Effluent Average of dallycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutive daysshalt not exceed-

(Metric units) kg/llg of product

TSS ------------ 37 35O11 and grease --- :_ 1.7 -------------- 1.6.pH ------------- Within the ------------------

range 6.0to 0.0.

(English units) lb/1000 lb of product

TSS -------------- 87 .............. ; 35Oil and grease ---- 1.7 ---------- 1. 0pH --------------- Within the ------------------

range 6.0to 9.0.

§ 408.253 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attdinable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:


Effluent Average of dallycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one dak consecutive daysshall not exceed-

(Metric units) kgfkkg of product

BEODS ----------- 3.6 -------------- 3.5T S S --- - --- -- --- 8 .7 8 .3.. . . . . . . . . . &Oil and grease -0.78 .......... 0.26PH --------------- Within the ------------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) lb/1000 lb of product

BEOD3-5----------- 3.6 ----------. ;.= 3.5TSS. ------------ 8.7 ............. 8. 3011 and grease ---- 0.78 ------------- 0.26pH.=--------.. ---- Within the ------------------

range 6.0 to

Subpart Z-Atlantic and Gulf Coast Hand.Shucked Oyster Processing Subcategory

§ 408.260 Applicability; description ofthe Atlantic and Gulf Coast hand.shucked oyster processing subcate-gory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from ex-isting hand-shucked oyster processingfacilities on the Atlantic and Gulf Coastswhich process more than 454 kg (1000lbs) of product per day on any day duringa calendar year and all new sources.§ 408.261 Specialized definitions.



(b) The term "product" shall meanthe weight of the oyster meat aftershucking.

§ 408.262 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all Information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industrysubcategorizatlon and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, possible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain W~lants in this in-dustry. An individual discharger or otherinterested person may submit evidenceto the Regional Administrator (or to theState, if the State has the authority toissue NPDES permits) that factors re-lating to the equipment or facilities In-volved, the process applied, or othersuch factors related to such dischargerare fundamentally different from thefactors considered in the establishmentof the guidelines. On the basis of suchevidence or other available information,the Regional Administrator (or theState) will make a written finding thatsuch factors are or are not fundamen-tally different for that facility comparedto those specified in the DevelopmentDocument. If such fundamentally dif-ferent factors are found to exist, theRegional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations. The following limita-tions establish the quantity or qualityof pollutants or pollutant properties,controlled by this section, which may be



discharged by a point source subject to.the provisions of this subpart after ap-plication of the best practicable controltechnology currently available:


Effluent Averge of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day consecutvods7hUnot excee-

(Metric units) kgfkkg of product

Tss .. 19 ---------- 15oR and grease-... 0.77 0.70pH ......--------- Witithe -.... .....

tange 6.0 to9.0.

-o. (English units) Ib]10O lb of product

TSB ....--- . 19 ...........--- isOl and gese...__ 0.77 ----------- 0.70pH ............- -Within the ------------------

6.0rang 0to

§ 408.263 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting td degree' of effluentreduction attainable by the. applica-tion of the best available teclmologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after, application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

Effluent limltations

Effluent - - Average of daiycharacteristlc Maximum for values for thirty

- any oe day- consecutive dayshall not eeed-

(Metric units) kg/kkg of product

BOf.......... 2.5 ------ 2.3TSS ......--------- 4.5 -------------- 3.6OR and grease .....-- 0.45 ------------- 0.15pL - . . W----------witintherange ----------------

6.0 to 9.0.

(English units) lb/10O Ib of product

BOD5 .-.......... 2.5 ----------- Z.3TS ---------.-. 4.5 .... 3.6on and grease - 0.45-- . -- - 0.15P ---.-.-.-.-.-.-. W thn erange ..............-

- - 6.Oto 9.0.

Subpart AA-Steamed/Canned OysterProcessing Subcategory

§ 408.270 Applicability; description ofthe steamed/canned oyster process-ing subcategory.

- The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting fromoysters which are mechanically shucked.

§ 408.271 Specializeddefinitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as -provided below, the

general defilitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "product" shall meanthe weight of the oyster meat aftershucking.

§ 408.272 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attaLnanble by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforthin this section, EPA took into account allinformation It was able to collect, developand solicit with.respect- to factors (suchas age and size of plant, raw materials,manufacturing processes, products pro-duced, treatment, technology available,energy requirements and costs) whichcan affect the.industry subcategorizationand effluent levels established. It Is, how-ever, possible that data which would af-fect these limitations have not beenavailable and, as a result, these limlta-tions should be adjusted for certainplants in this industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit evidence to the Regional Admin-istrator (or to the State, if the State hasthe authority to issue NPDES permits)that factors relating to the equipment orfacilities involved, the process applied,or other such factors related to such ds-charger are fundamentally different fromthe factors considered In the establish-ment of the guidelines. On the basis ofsuch evidence or other available informa-tion, the Regional Administrator (or theState) will make a written finding thatsuch factors are or are not fundamen-tally different for that facility comparedto those specified in the DevelopmentDocument. If such fundamentally differ-ent factors are found to exist, the Re-glonal Administrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger eflluent lin-itations in the NPDES permit either moreor less stringent than the limitations es-tablished herein, to the extent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or Iil-tlate proceedinks to revise these regula-tions. The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be dischaiged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Etfuentlimitatlols

Effluent Avera-*e of danlycliarcteriaste Maximum for v alues r thirty

any one day eco n U daysShall not eXed-

(Metric units) kglkk6- of product

- 38

TSl an. G-- -L -----011 and greaa__..~ L0...1.

pE_.. Within tho

rang 0.0 to

0.0.(English unit) Th1l00)31b of product

O11 and grease..... L........13pH.L----------. Within the ec

rrg 0.0 to90.

§ 408.273 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint sourcesubJect to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable:

Efflauit lirtafons

Efuent, Avera of daiyeharectc "el Maximum for vales forthi-ty

any n day conecudtve daysshall not exceed-

(Metri imit,) kgikkS of product

BOD.5_.... 7.--. - &.2T'ISS. _ _ - 11011Wlgre . ...... .028

rngo 6.0 to9.0.

(MElish unit3) ib/CCO lb of product

MODS-_ TA4 -- L2

pI...................Within therno 6.0 to

Subp3rt AB---Sardine ProcessingSubcategory

§ 408.280 Applicability; description ofthe sardine processing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to discharges resulting fromthe canning of sardines or sea herringfor sardines.§,408.281 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall meanthe raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shellfish, to beprocessed, In the form in which it isreceived at the processing plant.

§ 408.282 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluent-reduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations set forthin this section, EPA took into account;all information it was able to collect, de-velop and solicit with respect to factors(such as age and size of plant, raw mate-rials, manufacturing processes, productsproduced, treatment technology avail-able, energy requirements and costs)which can affect the industry subcate-gorization and efiluent levels established.It is, however, possible that data whichwould affect these limitations have notbeen available and, as a result, these lim-itations should be adjusted for certain.plants in this Industry. An individual dis-charger or other interested person maysubmit eviderice to the Regional Admin-

FEDERAL REGISTER,- VOL 40, NO, 21-THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975

4603

4604

istrator (or to the-State, if theState lasthe authority to issue I'NPDES .permits)that factors relating to the equipment-or facilities involved, the process ap-plied, or other -such factors related tosuch discharger are fundamentaly sif-ferent from the factors considered in theestablishment jof the -guidelines. On the-basis of such evidence or Dther avalableinformation, the :Regional Admirstra-tor -or the State) will make a writtenfinding that such factors areor are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified in the'Devel-opment Document. If such fundamen-tally different factors are found to exist,-the Regional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in 'the 1TPDES permit eithermore or less stringent .than -the limita-tions established herein, to the extentdictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations must be ap-proved by the Administrator of *the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate -proceedings to revisethese regulations. The following limita-tions establish the quantity or qualityo)f pollutants'or pollutant properties, con-trolled by this ,section, which may be dis-charged by a point source subject to theprovisions of this subpart after applica-tion of thebest practicable -control tech-nology currently available:

- Effluent limitatlons

Effluent Average of dailycharactorlstlo "Maxlmunsnr .valnes for thirty


(Afotrlo units) kg/pkg of sealood

Oil and greas0___. 2.9 ........... L. 6pH-------------- Within the -- --- -

Tango 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) Tb/10001b of efood

TS.:.;.. - 42 3.3Oil andgreaso..... 2. ......... 1.6pH ---------------- Wthin the _ . .

ango 6.0 to

§ 408.283 Effluent limitations guidelines-representing 4he degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applca-tion ,of the Lest available technologyeconomically aclievalile.

The following limitations establish thequantity,or quality of pollutants or po1-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-,tion, whichmay be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart .after application of the bestavailable technology :economicallyachievable:



Effluent Average of dailyebasacteristlc "Maximum Tor values for thirty

any one day consecutive daysshall not eced-

IMetrlc nuts) kgJtaq otseafood

BOD5 ....... 5.3 4. 6T SS - . ... . .-. ----------- 1 ,SOl and greae----- 1.7 ... 0.87

_ Within the ..............range 6.0 to- 0.0.

(English units)IbAlO00 lb of se3food

B O D 5 - ..---- . ..... . 4.6T SS --- .. ... .-. ----------- 1.8•Oil and grease ------ 1.7- - - - 0.87p~'Withln the

range 6.0 to9.0.

* Subpart AC-Alaskan Scallop Processing- Subcategory

§ 408.290 Applicability; -description -ofthe Alaskan scallop processing sub-,category.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-'plicable to -discharges resulting from theprocessing of scallops in Alaska.§ 408.291 Specialized definitions.

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

eral definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR-Part 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) 'The term "product" shall meanthe weight of the - scallop meat afterprocessing.§ 408.292 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing ihs degree of effluentreduction attainalle by he applica-tion of the Lest practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-,count all information it was able to col-lect, -develop and solicit With respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,iaw materials, manufacturing Processes,Products produced, treatment technologyavailable, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the ndustry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datewhich would affect theselimitatons havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted -for cer-tain plants in this industry. An individ-ual discharger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the RegionalAdministrator (o' to the State, if theState lhes the authority to issue IqPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment orfabilities involved, the proc-ess applied, or other such factors relatedto such discharger are fundamentally,different from the factors considered inthe establishment of the guidelines. Onthe bas of such evidence or other avail-able information, the Regional Adminis-trator (or the State) will make a written

finding that such factors are or are notfundamentally different for that facilitycompared to those specified In the Devel-opment Document. If such fundamen-tally different factors are found to exist,the Regional Administrator or the Stateshall establish for the discharger effluentlimitations in the NPDES permit eithermore or less stringent than the limita-tions established herein, to the extent-dictated by such fundamentally differentfactors. Such limitations mUt be ap-proved by the Administrator of the En-vironmental Protection Agency. The Ad-ministrator may approve or disapprovesuch limitations, specify other limita-tions, or initiate proceedings to revisethese regulations.

(b) The folowing limitations establishthe quantity -or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be disch.rged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

(1) Any Alaskan scallop processingfacility located in population or process-Ing centers including but mot limited toAnchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan,Kodiak, and Petersburg shall meet thefollowing limitations:

Effluent limitatlonoEffluent Avertzo of daily

characteristlo Maximum for valucs for thirtyany one day conecutlv0 dava

1h1 not oxccd-

Mctrio units) kg/kkg of product

TSS. .... 0. 82....... 0.02Ol and gr a -o- 0.63 ------------ , 032pH ------- _------ Withinthorango .............

6.01o 9.0.

(English units) 1151000 lb of product

T.S -------------- 0.82 ............. 0.Oil and grnas..... 0. 63 ------------- 0.32pH ------------- Withlntho rango .............

6.0 to 9.0.

(2) -any Alaskan scallop processing fa-cility not covered under § 408.292(b) (1)shall meet the following limitations: Nopollutants may be discharged which iex-ceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in any dimension,§ 408.293 Effluent limitations guldelines

representing -the degree of effluentreduction attainable by rite applica.tion of the best availnble tcelmiologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish the-quantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisionsof this subpart after application of thebest available technology ceconomicallynchievable:



EMuent limitations

Eifluent Average of dailycharacteristli Maimum for values for thirty

any one day con eut I=S-

(Metric units) kglkkg of product

TS-- ..... .. _ 0M0. . ... _- 0.60OR and grease__. 0.62 ............. 0.31pH -- _ Within the ----------------

(English units) Ib1000 lb of product

TSS___:_:.- 0.0 .. _. 0.60Oil and grease- 0.62 -...---- 0.31pH .-----------.-... Within tho ----------........

range 6.0 to9.0.

Subpart AD-:-Non-Alaskan ScallopProcessing Subcategory

§ 408.300 Applicability; deseriptin ofthe non-Alaskan scallop processingsubcategory.

With the exception of land-basedprocessing of calico scallops, the provi-sioni of this subpart are applicable todischarges resulting from the process-ing of scallops outside of Alaska.

§ 408.301 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the gen-


(b) The, term "product" shall meanthe weight of the scallop meat afterprocessing.§ 408.302 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree- of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable cohtroltechnology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforthin this section, EPA took into account allinformation it was able to collect, developand solicitwith respect tofactors (suchasage and size of plant, raw materials, man-ufacturing processes,'products produced,-treatment technology available, energyrequirements and costs) which can affectthe industry subcategorization and efflu-ent levels established. It is, however, pos-sible that data which would affect theselimitations have not been available and,as a result, these limitations should beadjusted for certain plants in this in-dustry. An individual discharger or otherinterested person may submit evidence tothe Regional Administrator (or to theState, if the State has the authority to is-sue NPDES permits)- that factors relat-ing to the equipment or facilities in--volved, the process applied, or other suchfactors related to such discharger arefundamentally different from the fac-tors considered in the establishment ofthe guidelines. On the basis of suchevidence or other available information,the Regional Administrator (or theStatZ) will. make a written finding thatsuch factors are or are not fundamen-tally different for that facility comparedto those specified in the Development

Document. If such fundamentally differ-ent factors are found to exist, the Re-gional Administrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger effluent limi-tations in the INPDES permit either moreor less stringent than the limitationsestablished herein, to the extent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved by theAdministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations.specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.The following limitatiOlis establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pollu-tant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest practicable control technology cur-rently available:

Eflucntllinltatflns

Effluent Averag of dllycharacteristi Maximum far values for thirtyany ono day coi iuvto days

chlnot csced-

(hjctrlo units) kg&bg of product

TSS --------------- 0S2. ..... 0. 62Oil and grease ...... .603 .. 0.32pH -.....---------- within the ...............

r. 0.0 to

(English units) lb1000 Ilb of product

TS ---------- ...... 0.62Oil and grease ...... 0 .32pIL -------------- Within tho ..................

range 6.0 to9.0.

§ 408.303 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology pconomicallyachievable:

Efflucnt lmitilonsEffluent Averego of daily

charactertstla Maximum for value3 ar thirtyany one day eia ,=Uvo day-

(hfetri units) kglkkg of product.

TSS.~-" . 0----- -0-.z60 COil and grcaso.... 0.62....... . : 0.31pH ---------- h.. in Wlthle ............... Z

ra 0.0 to0.0

(English units) ThfICK lb oproduct

TS .--..-- 0 .. M0.Oil and grc=se..... 0.31pE..........-. Within tho r...... ;a

rang 0.0 to

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 21-THUp.SDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975

4605

Subpart AE-Alaskan Herring FilletProcessing Subcategory

§ 408.310 Applicability; description orthe Alaskan herring fillet processingsubcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of herring fillets in Alaska.

§ 408.311 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpart:(a) Except as provided below, the

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CPRPart 401 sall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall meanthe raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shellfish, to beprocessed, in the form in which It is re-celved at the processing plant

§ 408.312 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction atzainable by the applica-tion of the best practicable controltechnology currently available.

(a) In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information It was able to col-lect, develop and solicit with respect tofactors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which can affect the industry sub-categorization and effluent levels estab-lished. It is, however, possible that datawhich would affect these limitations havenot been available and, as a result, theselimitations should be adjusted for cer-tain plants in this industry. An Individualdischarger or other interested personmay submit evidence to the Regional-Admini trator (or to the State, if theState has the authority to issue NIPDESpermits) that factors relating to theequipment or facilities involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered inthe establishment of the guide-lines. On the basis of such evidence orother available information, the Re-glonal Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such fac-tors are or are not fundamentally differ-ent for that facility compared to thosespecified n the Development Document.If such fundamentally different factorsare found to exist, the Regional Admin-istrator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or lessstringent than the limitations establishedherein, to the extent dictated by suchfundamentally different factors. Suchlimitations must be approved by theAdministrator of the Environmental Pro-tection Agency. The Administrator mayapprove or disapprove such limitations,specify other limitations, or initiate pro-ceedings to revise these regulations.

(b) The following limitations estab-1lsh the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, which may be dischargedby a point source subject to the provi-.slons of this subpart after application of

RULES AND IREGULATIONS

the best practicable control technologycurrently available:

(1) any herring fillet processing facil-ity located in population or processingcenters including but not limited to An-chorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan,Kodiak and Petersburg shall meet thefollowing limitations:




(Metric units) kg/kkg of seafood

TS ....----------- 25 ..... 24Oil and grce .... 8.4 ------------ 6.9pH ------------.. Within the -................

rango 6.0 to9.0.

(English units) bIMPO0 lb of seafood

TS-= ........ 24Oil and greaso ------ 8.4 -------------- 6.9PH ---------------- Within the

range 6.0 to9.0.

(2) any Alaskan herring filet process-ing facility not covered under § 408.312.(b) (1) shall meet the following limita-tions: No pollutants may be dischargedwhich exceed 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) in anydimension.§ 408.313 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica.lion of the best available technologyeconomically achievable.

(a) The following limitations ettablishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the -provisions ofthis subpart after application of thebest available technology economicallyachievable.

(1) any herring fillet processing facil-ity located in population or processingcenters including but not limited toAnchorage, Cordova, Juneau, Ketchikan,Kodiak and Petersburg shall meet thefollowing limitations:



any one day consecutive daysshall not exced-

(Aetric units) kg/kkg of seafood

BOD5 ----------- 6-.6-.......... 6.7TBS .------------- 1.9 ------------- 1.70il and grea-...... .l......... 1.2pH -------- - -Within the

lange 0.0 to0.0.

(English units) lb/0OOlb of seafod

BOD ------------ 8.6 -------------- 6.7SS -. -.........-- 1.7Oil and geo -..... 31 ---------.- 2IM1 ............... W ithin the ------------------

range 6.0 to0.0.

(2) Any Alaskan herring Milet proc-essing facility not covered -inder 1 408.-313(a)(1) shall meet the followinglimitations:


Effiuent Average of dailycharacteristic Maximum for values for thirty

any one day ,consecutive daysshall not exceed-

(Metric units) kg/kkg of seafood

TSS.1 -........ - ----........ - 17Oil and grease ---- 6.7 6--- 5.2

range 6.0 to0.0.

(English units) Ib/lO00 lb of seafood

TSS -------------- 19 --------------- 17Oil and grea _ __ _ 6.7 --.......... 5. 2pH -------------- W Within the ------------------

range 6.0 to9.0.

Subpart AF-Non-Alaskan Herring FilletProcessing Subcategory

§ 408.320 ApplicaBility; description ofthe non-Alaskan -herring fillet proc-essing subcategory.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of herring fillets outside ofAlaska.§ 408.321 Specialized definitions.


eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-ods of analysis get forth in 40 CFR Part401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall mean theraw material, including freshwater andsaltwater fish and shellfish, to be proc-essed, in the form in which it is Teceivedat the processing plant.§ 408.322 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the -degree of effluentreduction attainable by -the applica.tion of the best -practicable controltechmology currently available.

In establishing the limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able tocollect, develop and solicit with respectto factors (such as age and size of plant,raw materials, -manufacturing processes,products produced, treatment technol-ogy available, energy requirements andcosts) which -can -affect the industrysubcategorization and effluent levels es-tablished. It is, however, -ossible thatdata which would affect these limita-tions have not been available and, as aresult, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants in this industryAn individual discharger or other inter-ested person-may submit evidence to theRegional Administrator J(or to the State,if the State has the ,authority to issue

NPDES permits) that factors relatingto the equipment or facilities Involved,the process applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available information, the Re-gional Administrator (or the State) willmake a written finding that such factorsare or are not fundamentally differentfor that facility compared to those spec-ified in the Development Document. Ifsuch fundamentally different factors arofound to exist, the Regional Adminis-trator or the State shall establish forthe discharger effluent limitations in theNPDES permit either more or lessstringent than the limitations estab-lished herein, to the extent dictated bysuch fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or Ini-tiate proceedings to revise these regula-tions.

The following limitations establishthe quantity or quality of pollutants orpollutant properties, controlled by thissection, which may be discharged by apoint source subject to the provisions ofthls subpart after application of the bestpracticable control technology currentlyavailable:

Effluent mltationi

Effluent Average of dallycharacteristic Maximum for van'un for thirty

any one day consecutive dayehall not oxcced-

(Ietric units) kghkg of reaood

• SS . . ...... . 2Z ------ .. -- -Ol and grease- ----- 8.4 ............. 0.9pH.Wi........ Within the ..............

range 6.0 toP.0.

(English units) lb/lOOO lb of rcafood

TSB ..------------ 25 ------------ NOil and grease --- 8.4 .............. 0.0PH------------- Within the ..................

range 6.0 to9.0.

§ 408.323 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of 'effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best avilable technologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties, controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestavailable technology edonomicallyachievable:

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. .21-THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1975


'Efluent limitatonsEmuntAveae of doily

hateris.c VaMemum for values for thirtyany one day

(Metric units) kgkkg of seafood

BOD6 - - &.6 -- n -. 6.7

_TSS S 1 17Oil and greasea _ 3.1 ............. L2plL . .... Within the

range 6.0to 9.0.

( 'nglUs'h units) ib1000 of s food

BOD5 -= &-0, - 8.7

Oilsnd gres......- 3.......... L2p . . . Within the ..............

range 6l.0

Subpart AG:-Abalone ProcessingSubcategory

§ 408.330- Applicability; description ofthe abalone processing subcategory.

The provisions ofthis subpart are ap-

plicable to discharges resulting from theprocessing of abalone in the contiguousstates..

§ 408.331 Specialized definitions.For the purpose of this subpat:(a) Except as provided below, the

general definitions, abbreviations andmethods of analysis set forth in 40 CFRPart 401 shall apply to this subpart.

(b) The term "seafood" shall meanthe. raw material, including freshwaterand saltwater fish and shellfs, to beprocessed, in the. form in which it isreceived at the processing plant.§ 408.332 Effluent limitations guidelines

representing the degree of effluent_ reductioWattainaMe by the applica--tion-of -the best practicable controlte hnology currently available.

In. establishing th6 limitations setforth in this section, EPA took into ac-count all information it was able to

collect, develop and soliclt with respectto factors (such v5 age and size ofplant, raw materials, manufacturingprocesses, products produced, treatmenttechnology available, energy requre-ments and costs) which can affect theindustry subcategorizatlon and effluentlevels established. It Is, however, po=siblothat data which would affect these limi-tations have not been available and, asa result, these limitations should be ad-justed for certain plants in this Industry.An individual discharger or other inter-ested person may submit evidence to theRegional Administrator (or to the State,if the State has the authority to IssueNPDES permits) that factors relating tothe equipment or facilties -involved, theprocess applied, or other such factorsrelated to such discharger are funda-mentally different from the factors con-sidered in the establishment of theguidelines. On the basis of such evidenceor other available information, theRegional Administrator (or the State)will make a written finding that suchfactors are or are not fundamentallydifferent for that facility compared tothose specified In the DevelopmentDocument. If such fundamentally differ-ent factors are found to exist, the Re-gional Administrator or the State shallestablish for the discharger effluent limi-tations in the NPDES permit either moreor less stringent than the limitationsesablished herein, to the extent dictatedby such fundamentally different factors.Such limitations must be approved bythe Administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The Administratormay approve or disapprove such limita-tions, specify other limitations, or Int-tlate proceedings to revise these regula-tions. The following limitations estab-lish the quantity or quality of pollutantsor pollutant properties, controlled bythis section, which maybe discharged bya point source subject to the provisionsof this subpart after application of thebest practicable control technology cur-rently available:

Effluent ulafist! ens

Eftent Aver-go of dailyeharencrrtiez Maximum for valu= for thirty

nay o= da7 cosecutl doahaHl not=

~Mtrt urhta) kzD~kz of zafccd

T8S . 11. 9.2O lladgrz . 12-.--- . .. 3

(EcgLdh unit) IT ICOlb of r!.-cd

TO8S- 21...... 0.2Oil aead o. L2. __ (.sp U. .._ _ Wthfathamnago

6.0 to V.0

§ 408.333 Effluent limitations guidelinesrepresenting the degree of effluentreduction attainable by the applica-tion of the best available -echnologyeconomically achievable.

The following limitations establish thequantity or quality of pollutants or pol-lutant properties. controlled by this sec-tion, which may be discharged by a pointsource subject to the provisions of thissubpart after application of the bestavailable technology economicallyachievable:

EffuctlutatanEfflent vcrgactall

ay c day erocutlveday

C ~e tuitz) kzskkgl of zca-cd

Oil and Vresa-. IA_. - 6iT S U l O --. to -- _-6 0-". to ..

MrZLzgudnta) lb1fomwr crscafc4

TSL- 10 8.7Oil and gremn... 11 . 0.193PH .Wathma thse r -n --- n

8.0 to 9.0.

IPR Dmc75-2725 Filed 1-2--715.8.45 am]l


4607