Federal Register, Volume 65 Issue 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81242-81313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24565]

[[Page 81241]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IX

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 136 and 437

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source
Category; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 81242]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 136 and 437

[FRL-6863-8]
RIN 2040-AB78

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's
effort to develop Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for wastewater discharges from the centralized waste
treatment industry. This final regulation generally applies to
wastewater discharges associated with the operation of new and existing
centralized waste treatment facilities which accept hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial wastes, wastewater, and/or used material from off-
site for treatment of the wastes and/or recovery of materials from the
wastes.
EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge
of conventional pollutants by at least 9.7 million pounds per year and
toxic and non-conventional pollutants by at least 9.3 million pounds
per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $35.1
million (pre-tax $1997). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the
rule will range from $2.56 million to $8.09 million ($1997).
This final rule also amends EPA's Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants (40 CFR Part 136) to add 10
semivolatile organic pollutants to Method 625 and 6 semivolatile
organic pollutants to Method 1625.

DATES: This regulation shall become effective January 22, 2001. In
accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this action is considered promulgated for
purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm Eastern Daylight Time on January
5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking has been established
under docket number W-98-21 and is located in the Water Docket, East
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, call
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a
reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's final rule, contact Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 260-9126 or Mr.
Timothy Connor at (202) 260-3164. For economic information contact Dr.
William Wheeler at (202) 260-7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of
the following types that discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S.:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................. Discharges from stand-alone waste
treatment and recovery facilities receiving
materials from off-site. These facilities
may treat hazardous or non-hazardous waste,
hazardous or non-hazardous wastewater, and/
or used material from off-site, for
disposal, recycling, or recovery.
Certain discharges from waste
treatment systems at facilities primarily
engaged in other industrial operations.
Thus, industrial facilities which process
their own, on-site generated, process
wastewater with hazardous or non-hazardous
wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material
received from off-site, in certain
circumstances, may be subject to this rule
with respect to a portion of their
discharge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria listed in Section 437.1 and the definitions in
Section 437.2 of the rule and detailed further in Section V of this
preamble. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity (after consulting Section V),
consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Compliance Dates

Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on
the best practicable technology currently available, the best
conventional pollutant control technology, and the best available
technology economically achievable as soon as their National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permits includes such limitations.
Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's regulations must
comply with the pretreatment standards for existing sources no later
than December 22, 2003. New direct and indirect discharging sources
must comply with applicable guidelines and standards on the date the
new sources begin discharging.

Supporting Documentation

The final regulations are supported by several major documents:
1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (EPA-821-
R-00-020) referred to in the preamble as the final technical
development document (TDD). This TDD presents the technical information
that formed the basis for EPA's decisions concerning the final rule. In
it, EPA describes, among other things, the data collection activities,
the wastewater treatment technology options considered, the pollutants
found in CWT wastewaters, and the estimation of costs to the industry
to comply with final limitations and standards.
2. ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (EPA-821-R-00-
024) referred to in this preamble as the Final EA. The EA estimates the
economic and financial costs of compliance with the final regulation on
individual process lines, facilities and companies.
3. ``Detailed Costing Document for the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry''
(EPA-821-R-00-021) referred to in this preamble as the Final Costing
Document. This document presents the methodology used to estimate
compliance costs for this final rule.
4. ``Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste

[[Page 81243]]

Treatment Industry'' (EPA-821-R-00-023) referred to in this preamble as
the Cost Effectiveness Report.
5. ``Environmental Assessment for the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry''
(EPA-821-R-00-022) referred to as the Final Environmental Assessment in
this preamble.

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

All of the supporting documents are available from the Office of
Water Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for publication requests.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT)--Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the
CWA
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) --Section
307(b) of the CWA
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry Effluent Guidelines
III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History
A. January 27, 1995 Proposal
B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability
C. January 13, 1999 Supplemental Proposal
IV. Re-consideration of Significant Proposal Issues and Summary of
Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Oils Subcategory--Consideration of Regulatory Options on the
Basis of the RCRA Classification of the Waste Receipts
B. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Revenue
C. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Flow
D. Consideration of Indicator Parameters for the Oils
Subcategory
E. Consideration of Reduced Monitoring for Small Businesses
F. Multiple Wastestream Subcategory Consideration
G. Analytical Methods
H. Statistical Methodology Changes
1. Metals Option 4 Long-Term Average and Limitations
Calculations
2. Variability Factors
I. Significant Changes in Treatment Technology Cost Estimates
1. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
2. Altered DAF Costs for Oils Subcategory Includes Increased
Holding Tank Capacity
3. Nutrient Addition, Heating, and Sludge Disposal Costs
Included in the Organic Subcategory Compliance Cost Estimates
J. Significant Changes in the Oils Subcategory Loadings
Estimates
K. Changes in POTW Percent Removal Estimates
V. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation
A. Overview
B. Manufacturing Facilities
C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)
D. Product Stewardship
E. Federally Owned Facilities
F. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
G. Marine Generated Wastes
H. Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids
I. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners
J. Landfill Wastewaters
K. Incineration Activities
L. Solids, Soils, and Sludges
M. Scrap Metal Recyclers or Auto Salvage Operations
N. Transfer Stations
O. Stabilization/Solidification
P. Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Re-use
Q. Recovery and Recycling Operations
R. Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic and X-Ray
Materials
S. High Temperature Metals Recovery
T. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending
U. Re-refining
V. Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent Recycling
W. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes
X. Food Processing Wastes
Y. Sanitary Waste and/or Chemical Toilet Wastes
Z. Treatability, Research and Development, and Analytical
Studies
VI. Subcategorization
VII. Industry Description
VIII. The Final Regulation
A. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
1. Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory
2. Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory
3. Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory
4. Subcategory D--Multiple Wastestream Subcategory
B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
C. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
D. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
F. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
IX. Compliance Cost and Pollutant Reduction Estimates
A. Regulatory Costs
1. BPT Costs
2. BCT/BAT Costs
3. PSES Costs
B. Pollutant Reductions
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
a. Direct Facility Discharges
b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs
X. Economic Analyses
A. Introduction
B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimate
C. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline
Conditions
D. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology
1. Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
2. Comments on Economic Methodology
E. Costs and Impacts of BPT
F. Results of BCT Cost Test
G. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options
H. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options
I. Economic Impacts for New Sources
J. Firm Level Impacts
K. Community Impacts
L. Foreign Trade Impacts
M. Small Business Analysis
N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XI. Water Quality Analyses and Environmental Benefits
A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
B. Reduced Lead Health Risk
C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
E. Improved POTW Operations
F. Other Benefits Not Quantified
G. Summary of Benefits
XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XIII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
1. Introduction
2. Compliance Dates
3. Applicability
4. Subcategorization Determination
5. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple CWT Subcategories
a. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory A, B,
and/or C
b. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory D
6. Implementation for Metals Subcategory Facilities with Cyanide
Subset
7. Implementation for CWT Facilities Subject to Multiple
Effluent Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
8. Internal Monitoring Requirements
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
2. Water Quality Variances
3. Permit Modifications
XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders and Agency
Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.

[[Page 81244]]

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Appendix 1: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

I. Legal Authority

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these
regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,
1318, 1342, and 1361.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local pretreatment limits applicable to
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements
(40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for
conventional, priority,\1\ and non-conventional pollutants. In
specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers
the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment
and facilities, the processes employed and any required process
changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)).
Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the
average of the best performances of facilities within the industry of
various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristic. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher
levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if
the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However, nothing on
the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT limitations to
such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977
with its requirement for point sources to achieve best available
technology limitations to control discharges of toxic pollutants,
EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority pollutants
under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to include
limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids
(TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and
grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR
44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may
be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may require a higher level of
performance than is currently being achieved based on technology
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based
upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies
are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants
(i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.

[[Page 81245]]

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards for existing sources are
technology-based and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of national effluent guidelines and standards,
are found at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of
pass-through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic discharges.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere-with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements

Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for
which the Agency established a schedule was the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Industry.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of
effluent guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)).
Under the terms of the consent decree in that case, as amended, EPA
agreed, among other things, to propose effluent guidelines for the
``Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' category by April 31, 1994 and
take final action by August 2000.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984,
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute
provides only two options for legal land disposal: Meet the treatment
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste
in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory
no-migration-test. A no-migration-unit is one from which there will be
no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains
hazardous (RCRA Sections 3004(d),(e),(g)(5)).
Under section 3004, the treatment standards that EPA develops may
be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as specific
methods of treatment. The criteria for these standards is that they
must substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the
waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1)). For purposes of
the restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any
placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation,
salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave. Land disposal
restrictions are published in 40 CFR Part 268.
EPA has used hazardous waste treatability data as the basis for
land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA has identified Best
Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each listed
hazardous waste. BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA finds to be
the most effective for a waste, which is also readily available to
generators and treaters. In some cases, EPA has designated, for a
particular wastestream, a treatment technology which has been shown to
successfully treat a similar, but more difficult to treat, wastestream.
This ensured that the land disposal restrictions standards for a listed
wastestream were achievable since they always reflected the actual
treatability of the waste itself or of a more refractory waste.
As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase
two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of concentrations
for wastewaters and non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment
standard for each constituent. Previously, the LDR regulated
constituents according to the identity of the original waste; thus,
several numerical treatment standards might exist for each constituent.
The UTS simplified the standards by having only one treatment standard
for each constituent in any waste residue.
The LDR treatment standards established under RCRA may differ from
the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines published here today both in
their format and in the numerical values set for each constituent. The
differences result from the use of different legal criteria for
developing the limits and resulting differences in the technical and
economic criteria and data sets used for establishing the respective
limits.
The difference in format between the LDR and effluent guidelines is
that LDR establishes a single daily limit for each pollutant parameter
whereas the effluent guidelines generally establish monthly and daily
limits. Additionally, the effluent guidelines provide for several types
of discharge, including new vs. existing sources, and indirect vs.
direct discharge.
The differences in numerical limits established under the Clean
Water Act may differ, not only from LDR and UTS, but also from point-
source category to point-source category (for example, Electroplating,
40 CFR Part 413; and Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part 433). The effluent
guidelines and standards are industry-specific, subcategory-specific,
and technology-based. The numerical limits are typically based on
different data sets that reflect the performance of specific wastewater
management and treatment practices. Differences in the limits reflect
consideration of the CWA statutory factors that the Administrator is
required to evaluate in developing technically and economically
achievable limitations and standards. A consequence of these differing
approaches is that similar wastestreams can be regulated at different
levels.

[[Page 81246]]

2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry Effluent Guidelines
EPA's survey for this guideline identified no facilities
discharging wastewater effluent to land disposal units. There is,
consequently, no overlap between this regulation for the CWT Industry
and the Universal Treatment Standards. Any CWT facility, however,
discharging effluent to a land disposal unit that meets these
limitations and standards would meet the Universal Treatment Standards.

III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

On January 27, 1995, EPA proposed regulations (60 FR 5464) to
reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and non-
conventional pollutants in wastewater from facilities defined in the
proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' As proposed,
these effluent limitations guidelines and standards would have applied
to ``any facility that treats any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial
waste received from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins,
drums, barge or other forms of shipment.'' The proposal did not extend
to facilities that received waste from off-site solely via pipeline.
Facilities proposed for regulation included both stand-alone waste
treatment and recovery facilities that treat waste received from off-
site, as well as those facilities that treat on-site generated process
wastewater with wastes received from off-site.
The Agency proposed limitations and standards for an estimated 85
facilities in three subcategories. EPA proposed limitations and
standards for three subcategories for the centralized waste treatment
(CWT) industry: metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery, oily waste
treatment and recovery, and organic waste treatment and recovery. EPA
based the BPT effluent limitations proposed in 1995 on the technologies
listed in Table III.A-1 below. EPA based BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
on the same technologies as BPT.

Table III.A-1.--Technology Basis for 1995 Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................... Metal-Bearing Waste Selective Metals
Treatment and Recovery. Precipitation,
Pressure Filtration,
Secondary
Precipitation, Solid-
Liquid Separation,
and Tertiary
Precipitation.
For Metal-Bearing
Waste Which Includes
Concentrated Cyanide
Streams: Pretreatment
by Alkaline
Chlorination at
Elevated Operating
Conditions.
B...................... Oily Waste Treatment Emulsion Breaking/
and Recovery. Gravity Separation
and Ultrafiltration;
or Emulsion Breaking/
Gravity Separation,
Ultrafiltration,
Carbon Adsorption,
and Reverse Osmosis.
C...................... Organic Waste Treatment Equalization, Air
and Recovery. Stripping, Biological
Treatment, and
Multimedia
Filtration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability

Based on comments received on the 1995 proposal and new
information, EPA reexamined its conclusions about the Oily Waste
Treatment and Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory.'' (The 1995
proposal had defined facilities in this subcategory as ``facilities
that treat, and/or recover oil from oily waste received from off-
site.'') Subsequently, in September 1996 EPA announced the availability
of the new data on this subcategory (61 FR 48800). EPA explained that
it had underestimated the size of the oils subcategory, and that the
data used to develop the original proposal may have mischaracterized
this portion of the CWT industry. EPA had based its original estimates
on the size of this segment of the industry on information obtained
from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The basis year
for the questionnaire was 1989. However, many of the new oils
facilities discussed in this notice began operation after 1989. EPA
concluded that many of these facilities may have started up or modified
their existing operations in response to requirements in EPA
regulations, specifically, the provisions of 40 CFR 279, promulgated on
September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used Oil). These
regulations govern the handling of used oils under the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA's 1996 notice discussed
the additional facilities, provided a revised description of the
subcategory, and described how the 1995 proposal limitations and
standards, if promulgated, would have affected such facilities. The
notice, among other items, also solicited comments on the use of
dissolved air flotation as a treatment technology for this subcategory.

C. January 13, 1999 Supplemental Proposal

On January 13, 1999 (64 FR 2280), EPA published a supplemental
proposal that represented the Agency's second look at Clean Water Act
national effluent guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges
from centralized waste treatment facilities. The supplemental proposal
presented revised limitations and standards based on the new
information obtained from comments to the 1996 Notice of Data
Availability and additional field sampling data. It also included
changes to the scope of the rule.
In the supplemental proposal, the Agency proposed limitations and
standards that EPA estimated would apply to 206 facilities in three
subcategories. These subcategories were the same as those proposed in
1995: metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery, used/waste oil
treatment and recovery, and organic waste treatment. EPA based the BPT
effluent limitations proposed in 1999 on different technologies than
those selected at the time of the 1995 proposal. The technology bases
for the supplemental proposal are listed in Table III.C-1 below.

[[Page 81247]]

Table III.C-1.--Technology Basis for 1999 Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................... Metal-Bearing Waste Batch Precipitation,
Treatment and Recovery. Liquid-Solid
Separation, Secondary
Precipitation,
Clarification, and
Sand Filtration.
For Metal-Bearing
Waste Which Includes
Concentrated Cyanide
Streams: Alkaline
Chlorination in a two
step process.

B...................... Used/Waste Oil Emulsion Breaking/
Treatment and Recovery. Gravity Separation,
Secondary Gravity
Separation and
Dissolved Air
Flotation.
C...................... Organic Waste Treatment Equalization and
Biological Treatment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the metals subcategory, EPA proposed limitations and standards
for BCT, BAT, and PSES based on the same technologies as BPT, but based
NSPS and PSNS on a different technology: selective metals
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary precipitation,
liquid-solid separation, tertiary precipitation, and clarification.
For the oils subcategory, EPA proposed to base BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
PSNS on the same technologies as BPT, but based PSES on a different
technology: emulsion breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air
flotation.
For the organics subcategory, EPA proposed to base BCT, BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS on the same technologies as BPT.

IV. Re-Consideration of Significant Proposal Issues and Summary of
Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Oils Subcategory--Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis
of the RCRA Classification of the Waste Receipts

As explained in the 1999 proposal, among other alternatives, EPA
was considering whether it should develop limitations and standards for
two categories (rather than a single category) of oils treatment
facilities. The Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel for this
rule, convened by EPA in November 1997, discussed this option. For a
detailed summary of the panel's findings and discussion, see the 1999
proposal and ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry''
(DCN 21.5.1). Under this approach EPA would establish different
limitations and standards for oils subcategory facilities depending on
whether they treat RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes (either exclusively
or in combination with non-hazardous wastes) or treat only non-
hazardous wastes.
At the time of the SBAR Panel, EPA had collected certain
information on facilities that treat a mixture of hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes as well as facilities that treat non-hazardous wastes
only. The bulk of the data was from RCRA facilities treating RCRA
subtitle C hazardous waste together with non-hazardous waste. The data
on wastestreams did not show a significant difference in the types of
pollutants for the streams being treated at RCRA and at non-RCRA
permitted facilities or the treatability of those pollutants. Although
the data did suggest that pollutant concentrations tended to be
somewhat higher in raw waste going to RCRA permitted facilities, which
in turn suggested that treatment would be more cost-effective at such
facilities, the information EPA had collected from non-RCRA permitted
facilities was insufficient to support the conclusion that EPA should
differentiate between oils facilities on the basis of RCRA
classification of the wastes treated at the facility. Consequently, EPA
did not propose different regulatory requirements for facilities based
on distinctions between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
EPA, following the SBAR panel, collected wastewater samples at
twelve other facilities that treat only non-hazardous materials. EPA
collected the samples in order to broaden the database with additional
information on the pollutant profiles of the wastes that are treated at
these facilities. While EPA included the analytical results of the
sampling efforts in the Appendix of the technical development document
for the proposal, EPA had not, at the time of the proposal, reviewed
the data in detail or compared the data to the earlier data it had
collected. As the proposal also explained, EPA planned to review the
data in detail and present a preliminary assessment of its findings at
a public hearing during the comment period for the proposal.
At a public hearing on February 18, 1999, EPA described the
relevant sampling data, the constraints of evaluating this data, and a
comparison of data from hazardous and non-hazardous wastestreams. This
data showed that, while the mean and median values of influent
concentration of hazardous wastestream data are greater than for non-
hazardous wastestreams for most pollutants examined, the ranges of
concentration for the hazardous and non-hazardous wastestreams overlap
for most pollutants. In its presentation, EPA indicated that it planned
to re-examine the oils subcategory in terms of pollutant loadings,
removals, limitations and standards, costs, impacts, and benefits. EPA
requested comment on this issue, and extended the comment period for
this issue to 30 days after the public hearing. EPA's presentation is
included in the public record for this rulemaking as DCN 28.1.1. [Other
supporting information is in Section 28.]
Five commenters provided specific input on basing regulatory
options for the oils subcategory on the RCRA classification of the
waste receipts. Two commenters supported differentiation on this basis.
They asserted that there are significant differences between facilities
that accept non-hazardous wastes and those that accept a combination of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste in terms of pollutant loadings and
the number and type of pollutants, the types of treatment methods
employed, and price structures. Three commenters opposed
differentiation based on RCRA classification. These commenters do not
believe that RCRA classification is a critical distinction, but rather
believe that RCRA classification often has no impact on the
treatability of the waste or final effluent quality. They commented
that non-hazardous waste receipts have approximately the same
constituents as hazardous waste receipts. From an environmental
perspective, they believe that it is irrelevant whether the source of
the pollutants of concern is a hazardous or non-hazardous facility.
EPA has reexamined this data using the same standards it applied
earlier in this rulemaking for determining pollutants of concern for
this industry (see Chapter 6 of the Final Technical

[[Page 81248]]

Development Document). Based on this review, EPA determined that the
pollutants of concern for non-hazardous facilities are largely the same
as those previously identified for the oils subcategory (EPA had based
its earlier conclusion on data from facilities processing a mix of
hazardous and non-hazardous waste receipts).
EPA also looked to see if the treatment technologies at strictly
non-hazardous facilities differ from those at facilities that accept
both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA's database shows that the
range of treatment technologies employed at both types of facilities is
similar.
Essentially, the only operational difference EPA has observed
between hazardous and non-hazardous oils treatment facilities is that
hazardous oils waste facilities treat wastes with higher influent
concentrations. EPA's data show that the average pollutant
concentrations in non-hazardous wastes are lower than in hazardous
wastes. Consequently, pollutant loadings, removals and treatment cost
estimates will differ to some extent depending on the RCRA
classification of the wastes that are treated. As explained above,
however, both types of facilities treat for the same pollutants and the
concentration ranges of these pollutants overlap at hazardous and non-
hazardous operations. In these circumstances, the characteristics of
wastes treated at hazardous operations do not require a different
treatment technology from that used at non-hazardous operations. The
choice of treatment technology for a particular facility is a function
primarily of the effluent concentration required, not of any inherent
differences in the wastes being treated. As a result, EPA concluded
that there is no basis in the chemistry of the wastewaters being
treated which supported development of different limitations and
standards for hazardous and non-hazardous oils facilities. Furthermore,
after evaluating treatment technology costs, EPA found that the costs
for RCRA permitted facilities were equivalent to those for non-RCRA
facilities, although, as noted above, loadings reductions at the non-
RCRA permitted facilities will generally be lower. Given these factors,
EPA decided that it should not develop different limitations and
standards for RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous oils facilities. DCN
33.1.1 discusses the determination in more detail. EPA notes, however,
that its estimates of loadings, removals, and revenue generated from
treating the different types of wastes take account of differences in
the type of wastes treated.

B. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Revenue

As detailed in the 1999 proposal, among other alternatives, EPA
looked at whether it should develop alternative regulatory requirements
for the oils subcategory facilities based on revenue because of
potential adverse economic consequences to small businesses. The SBAR
Panel, convened by EPA, discussed this option. Among the regulatory
alternatives discussed by the panel and detailed in the 1999 proposal
was limiting the scope of the rule to minimize impacts. Under this
approach, EPA would not establish national pretreatment standards for
indirect dischargers owned by small companies with less than $6 million
in annual revenue. EPA did not propose to limit the scope of the rule
based on this approach but did request comment on the issue.
Concerning the recommendation that EPA establish alternative
limitations and standards on the basis of revenue, commenters largely
supported EPA's conclusion that this approach should not be adopted.
Commenters stated that small businesses should be subject to the same
standards and requirements as other industrial users in this category
because:
The limitations and standards are economically achievable
for small CWT facilities;
The perception that small CWT facilities do not have the
potential to cause significant impacts to the environment is not true;
The quantity of pollutants present and the toxicity of the
pollutants are the only relevant factors for determining impacts to
receiving streams and POTWs from CWT discharges;
The business size is irrelevant to the impact of a
facility's discharges;
A small facility can have as great an impact on the
environment as a large facility;
There would be no incentive to ensure wastes are
adequately treated at all CWT facilities;
Small facilities could operate at a fraction of the cost
(since they would not have to meet the limitations and standards) and
capture more market share leading to more wastes going to the POTW
untreated; and
Large facilities could easily manipulate their corporate
structure to take advantage of small business exemptions.
None of the commenters supported a small business exclusion, but a
few noted that EPA should look at reducing monitoring requirements for
small businesses in order to reduce their costs of compliance without
compromising effective treatment. None of the commenters provided EPA
with any other suggestions on ways to mitigate small business concerns
that EPA had not already considered. After careful consideration of the
comments and its database, EPA has decided that it should not limit the
scope of today's rule based on revenue . EPA did reassess the costs for
all of the alternatives discussed in the proposal for the final rule.
Chapter 8 of the Final EA includes a full presentation of the costs of
the alternatives.

C. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Flow

[[Page 81249]]

The quantity of pollutants present and the toxicity of the
pollutants are the only relevant factors for determining impacts to
receiving streams and POTWs from CWT discharges;
A small facility can have as great an impact on the
environment as a large facility;
There would be no incentive to ensure wastes are
adequately treated at all CWT facilities; and
Small facilities could operate at a fraction of the cost
(since they would not have to meet the limitations and standards) and
capture more market share leading to more wastes going to the POTW
untreated.
None of the commenters supported an exclusion based on flow, but a
few noted that EPA should look at reducing monitoring requirements for
small businesses in order to reduce their costs of compliance without
compromising effective treatment. None of the commenters provided EPA
with any other suggestions on ways to mitigate small business concerns
that EPA had not already considered. After careful consideration of the
comments and its database, EPA has decided that it should not limit the
scope of today's rule based on flow. EPA did reassess the costs for all
of the alternatives discussed in the proposal for the final rule.
Chapter 8 of the Final EA includes a full presentation of the costs of
the alternatives.

D. Consideration of Indicator Parameters for the Oils Subcategory

As detailed in the proposal, EPA looked at various ways to reduce
the costs of this rule (particularly the costs to small businesses)
while ensuring proper treatment of off-site wastes. One of the options
considered by EPA and discussed in the proposal was providing an
alternative compliance-monitoring regime for indirect discharging
facilities. Under this alternative monitoring approach, facilities
could choose to (1) monitor for all regulated pollutants, or (2)
monitor for the conventional parameters, metal parameters, and monitor
for the regulated organic pollutants in this subcategory using an
indicator parameter such as hexane extractable material (HEM) or silica
gel treated-hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM). The proposal further
noted that EPA was conducting a study to determine which organic
pollutants are measured by SGT-HEM and HEM and solicited comment on the
use of indicator parameters.
Many commenters responded to EPA's request with essentially an
equivalent number opposing and favoring the use of indicator
parameters. The commenters that supported its use cited the decreased
analytical costs and the wide range of organic compounds that can be
measured with these analyses. Commenters that did not support the use
of SGT-HEM or HEM as indicator pollutants raised a number of concerns
including the following:
These measurements are non-specific and highly subject to
interferences;
No direct and quantified correlation has ever been
developed between HEM (or SGT-HEM) and specific organic pollutants;
There is no evidence that regulating HEM or SGT-HEM would
result in adequate regulation of toxics;
The determination has not been made that the organic
pollutants of interest are measured by either HEM or SGT-HEM; and
SGT-HEM does not measure all of the regulated pollutants,
particularly polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
None of the commenters suggested possible alternative indicator
parameters.
During its development of proposed effluent limitations guidelines
and pretreatment standards for the industrial laundries point source
category, EPA evaluated the suitability of SGT-HEM and HEM as indicator
parameters for that rulemaking. EPA presented the results of its study
in a Notice of Data Availability on December 23, 1998 (63 FR 71054). In
the study, EPA attempted to identify compounds present in HEM/SGT-HEM
extracts from industrial laundry wastewaters using gas chromatography/
mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) in order to determine which pollutants of
concern might be components of, and therefore measured by, HEM or SGT-
HEM. However, EPA was only able to identify approximately two percent
of the constituents present in the wastestream. Most of these
constituents identified were alkanes. In general, the data from this
study also do not support the use of SGT-HEM as an appropriate
indicator parameter for the organic pollutants present in CWT
wastewaters since few of these pollutants were identified in the HEM/
SGT-HEM extract.
As part of its consideration of the use of an indicator parameter
for this rule, EPA again reviewed the data from the industrial
laundries study as well as the data collected here. EPA statistically
analyzed the relationship between seven organic pollutants and SGT-HEM
or HEM. EPA's data show general trends of increasing concentrations of
HEM and SGT-HEM with increasing concentrations of organic pollutants.
However, the data demonstrate substantial variability and, despite this
general trend, EPA noted that the non-detected values for organics were
associated with just about every level of HEM and SGT-HEM and
conversely, that high levels of some organic pollutants were associated
with low levels of HEM/SGT-HEM. As a result, EPA cannot demonstrate
that establishing a numerical limit for SGT-HEM or HEM would provide
consistent control of the organic pollutants by the model treatment
technologies.
Therefore, while EPA is cognizant of the cost savings that can be
achieved in some instances by using indicator parameters, EPA has
rejected this alternative monitoring approach for CWT wastewaters.

E. Consideration of Reduced Monitoring for Small Businesses

Another alternative discussed in the proposal which could reduce
costs to small businesses was to develop different limitations and
pretreatment standards for small businesses based on an assumption of
less frequent monitoring for facilities owned and operated by small
businesses. The proposal explained that there were three major issues
presented by this approach. First, EPA NDPES and pretreatment
regulations (applicable to State-authorized program as well) do not
require facilities to indicate whether they are small or large
businesses in obtaining NPDES or POTW local pretreatment program
discharge permits. EPA was concerned about the manner in which the
small business determination could be made. Second, EPA does not
generally establish nationally applicable monitoring frequency
requirements. EPA expressed concern that permitting authorities would
be reluctant to reduce monitoring frequencies on EPA's recommendation
alone. Third, while the technology basis and the long-term averages for
the limitations would be the same, the monthly average limitations
based upon reduced monitoring assumptions would be higher. EPA
expressed concern that higher monthly average limitations for
facilities with less frequent required monitoring might allow these
facilities to target a less stringent level of treatment than that
reflected by the long-term average. EPA solicited comment on all these
issues as well as ways to ensure that any monitoring relief the Agency
might provide would not jeopardize treatment performance or the
environment.
EPA only received direct comments on this issue from state and
local control authorities. These commenters did not support reduced
monitoring frequencies

[[Page 81250]]

for small businesses. They believe that the control authority should
continue to establish monitoring frequencies on a case by case basis
taking into account the probable impact of the discharge to the surface
water or POTW, compliance history of the facility, and other relevant
factors. Further they expressed concern over the burden of verifying
and maintaining the confidentiality of the economic information
provided by facilities claiming the small business status.
Therefore, after careful consideration of comments and its
database, EPA has rejected adopting alternative limitations and
standards based on reduced monitoring requirements for small
businesses.

F. Multiple Wastestream Subcategory Consideration

In the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed to establish limitations and
standards for three subcategories of CWT facilities: facilities
treating either metal, oily, or organic wastes and wastewater. Section
VII of the proposal detailed this subcategorization scheme. See 64 FR
2300 (1999). While EPA did not propose limitations and standards for a
multiple wastestream subcategory, the proposal did discuss EPA's
consideration of a multiple wastestream subcategory. The proposal
explained that multiple wastestream subcategory limitations, if
adopted, would apply to facilities that treat wastes in more than one
subcategory. EPA would establish limitations and standards for the
multiple wastestream subcategory by combining pollutant limitations
from the three subcategories, where relevant, and selecting the most
stringent value where they overlap.
EPA's consideration of this option responded to comments to the
1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability. The primary
reason some members of the waste treatment industry favored development
of a multiple wastestream subcategory was to simplify implementation
for facilities treating wastes covered by multiple subcategories. As
detailed in the proposal, EPA's primary reason for not proposing (and
adopting) this option was its concern that facilities that accept
wastes in multiple subcategories need to provide effective treatment of
all waste receipts. This concern was based on EPA's data that showed
such facilities did not currently have adequate treatment-in-place.
While these facilities meet their permit limitations, EPA concluded
that compliance was likely achieved through co-dilution of dissimilar
wastes rather than treatment. As a result, EPA determined that adoption
of ``multiple wastestream subcategory'' limitations as described above
could arguably encourage ineffective treatment.
EPA solicited comments on ways to develop a ``multiple wastestream
subcategory'' which ensures treatment rather than dilution. The vast
majority of comments on the 1999 proposal supported the establishment
of a multiple wastestream subcategory for this rule, and re-iterated
their concerns about implementing the three-subcategory scheme at
multiple-subcategory facilities. One commenter suggested a way to
implement a fourth subcategory while ensuring treatment. This commenter
suggested that EPA follow the approach taken for the Pesticide
Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging (PFPR) Point Source category (40
CFR Part 455). Under this approach, multiple wastestream subcategory
facilities would have the option of (1) monitoring for compliance with
the appropriate subcategory limitations after each treatment step or
(2) monitoring for compliance with the multiple wastestream subcategory
limitations at a combined discharge point and certifying that
equivalent treatment to that which would be required for each
subcategory waste separately is installed and properly designed,
maintained, and operated. This option would eliminate the use of the
combined wastestream formula or building block approach in calculating
limits or standards for multiple wastestream subcategory CWT facilities
(The combined wastestream formula and the building block approach are
discussed in more detail in Chapter 14 of the Final Technical
Development Document). Commenters suggested that an equivalent
treatment system could be defined as a wastewater treatment system that
is demonstrated to achieve comparable removals to the treatment system
on which EPA based the limitations and standards. Ways of demonstrating
equivalence might include data from recognized sources of information
on pollution control, treatability tests, or self-monitoring data
showing comparable removals to the applicable pollution control
technology.
EPA has now concluded that the approaches adopted in the PFPR rule
address the concerns identified earlier. EPA agrees with commenters
that developing appropriate limitations on a site-specific basis for
multiple wastestream facilities presents many challenges and that the
use of a multiple wastestream subcategory would simplify implementation
of the rule. Moreover, the limits applied to multiple wastestream
treaters would be a compilation of the most stringent limits from each
applicable subcategory and would generally be similar to or stricter
than the limits calculated via the application of the combined
wastestream formula or building block approach. Most significantly, the
equivalent treatment certification requirement would address EPA's
concerns that the wastes receive adequate treatment.
Therefore, for today's final rule, EPA has established a fourth
subcategory: the multiple wastestream subcategory. Section XIII.A.5.b
details the manner in which EPA envisions the multiple wastestream
subcategory will be implemented. Further, EPA is preparing a guidance
manual to aid permit writers/control authorities and CWT facilities in
implementing the certification process.

G. Analytical Methods

Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate
guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants.
These test procedures (methods) are used to determine the presence and
concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and are used for compliance
monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program under 40
CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the implementation of
the pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. EPA
publishes test procedures for the wastewater program at 40 CFR 136.3.
Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide are included in the
table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I-B.
Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for measurement of
non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D lists approved methods
for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other pesticide pollutants.
Dischargers must use the test methods promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136.3
or incorporated by reference in the tables to monitor pollutant
discharges from the centralized waste treatment (CWT) industry, unless
specified otherwise in part 437 or by the permitting authority.
Today's final rule amends 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, to specify
the applicability of certain methods for specific wastestreams. The
amendments accomplish several objectives, which are outlined in the
following paragraphs. Briefly, the amendments clarify EPA's intent
regarding the applicability of Methods 625 and 1625 for some of the
pollutant parameters in today's rule for Centralized Waste Treatment
facilities and also for some of

[[Page 81251]]

the pollutant parameters in 40 CFR 445 (Landfills Point Source
Category).
The 1999 CWT proposal (at 64 FR 2297) stated that 11 CWT
semivolatile organic pollutants and two CWT volatile organic pollutants
(2-butanone and 2-propanone) were not listed in Table I-C at 40 CFR
136.3. Even though these 13 analytes were not shown in Table I-C, there
were already approved test methods for six of these 13, as follows: EPA
Method 1624 lists 2-butanone and 2-propanone, provides performance data
for these two analytes, and is an approved method for these two
analytes. EPA Method 1625 lists four of the 11 CWT semivolatile organic
pollutants with relevant performance data and is an approved method for
these four analytes (alpha-terpineol, carbazole, n-decane, and n-
octadecane).
In the 1999 CWT proposal, EPA proposed to expand the analyte list
for the already-approved methods and also to allow modified versions of
Methods 625 and 1625. The Docket for the proposed rulemaking included
the proposed modifications to Methods 625 and 1625 regarding expansion
of the analyte list. The expanded list covered 17 pollutants in total,
including all of the proposed CWT semivolatile organic pollutants. For
7 of those analytes, performance data were not available for either
method and these data were not included in the Docket at proposal. EPA
also noted its plans for further validation of the method
modifications.
Since proposal, EPA has gathered performance data on the additional
seven CWT analytes and additional analytes of interest for other
industry categories. In January 2000, EPA amended Methods 625 and 1625
by adding the performance data for the additional analytes. The
amendments consist of text, performance data, and quality control (QC)
acceptance criteria for the additional analytes. This information will
allow a laboratory to practice the methods with the additional analytes
as an integral part. The QC acceptance criteria for the additional
analytes were validated in single-laboratory studies. The January 2000
amendments were part of the rulemaking notice for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the Landfills Point Source
Category (65 FR 3008, January 19, 2000). EPA's intent was to promulgate
amendments to Methods 625 and 1625 that would allow the use of those
methods for specific pollutants regulated in 40 CFR Part 445 (i.e.,
Landfills) for purposes of that rule only. Some of the pollutants had
also been included in the CWT proposal. Subsequent to the Landfills
promulgation, EPA received inquiries about the scope and applicability
of the amendments to the test methods. In response to those inquiries,
EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) and request for
comment on the data collected for the additional analytes (see 65 FR
41391, July 5, 2000).
The NODA clarified EPA's intent regarding the method amendments by
explaining that the amendments published on January 19, 2000 ``* * *
are applicable only to the five regulated pollutants in the Landfills
rule when found in the wastestreams regulated under that rule.'' (65 FR
41392) The NODA also announced EPA's plans to further amend the methods
in the final CWT rulemaking (i.e., today's rulemaking) to specify that
the revisions to Methods 625 and 1625 apply to the pollutants
promulgated in today's rule and only for the wastestreams regulated in
today's rule. In today's amendments to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, EPA
thus clarifies its intent regarding the scope of method amendments.
Specifically, the amendments include additional text to the
Introduction section of the attachment at the end of Methods 625 and
1625 and footnotes to Tables in the attachment. The amendments
delineate the scope of Methods 625 and 1625 regarding compliance with
monitoring requirements for the wastestreams covered by 40 CFR Parts
437 and 445. In addition, EPA deleted from the attachment to the
methods those analytes not covered by the Landfills and CWT final
rules.

H. Statistical Methodology Changes

Chapter 10 of the Final Technical Development Document provides a
detailed description of the data and methodology used to develop long-
term averages, variability factors and limitations and standards for
today's final rule. Today's final rule encompasses the following
changes in the statistical methodology since the 1999 proposal.
1. Metals Option 4 Long-Term Average and Limitations Calculations
EPA used two different data sets collected at a single facility in
developing long-term averages and limitations for Option 4 in the
Metals Subcategory. At the time of the proposal, EPA analyzed these
data sets separately. That is, even though these data were collected
from the same facility, EPA averaged each data set separately and then
used the medians of the two sets of averages, just as if the data were
from two different facilities. In other effluent guidelines, EPA has
often taken this approach when the data were collected by two different
data sources. Following comment on this issue, EPA reviewed the data
and determined that the data were collected in overlapping time
periods. As such, for the final rule, EPA has combined this data
together into a single data set and calculated averages accordingly.
This has the effect of giving more weight than in the original analysis
to the data set with more observations and the result, in most
instances, is that the final metals subcategory limitations are less
stringent than those proposed in January 1999.
2. Variability Factors
The proposal discussed two different approaches to calculating
variability factors--one based on pollutant variability factors and one
based on group variability factors. The pollutant variability factor is
the average of the variability factors from facilities with the model
technologies for the option, and the group variability factor is the
median of the pollutant variability factors from pollutants with
similar chemical structures. At the time of the proposal, EPA generally
used the product of the group variability factor and the pollutant
long-term average in calculating each pollutant limitation and
solicited comment on this approach. After receiving comments that
supported using the pollutant variability factors, EPA assessed the
range of values for the pollutant variability factors within each
group. Contrary to EPA's expectations for chemically similar pollutants
to be treated similarly by each treatment technology, EPA noted a wide
range of values for the pollutant variability factors within each
group. EPA determined that it is more likely that such ranges resulted
from unique features in the data rather than differences in treatment
between chemically similar pollutants. But, because of the range in
values, EPA concluded that pollutant limitations would be best
calculated using the pollutant variability factors. Because it
determined that pollutant variability factors were the most appropriate
choice for calculating limitations, EPA relaxed its dataset
requirements slightly to allow calculation of a few additional
pollutant variability factors beyond those in the proposal. For the few
pollutants where pollutant variability factors still could not be
calculated because the datasets contained too few detected values
(which are used to establish variance estimates for the variability
factors), EPA concluded that its use of group variability factors
provides reasonable estimates of pollutant specific

[[Page 81252]]

variability factors. After a final review and evaluation of the data
and resulting limitations, EPA determined that the final limitations
appropriately incorporate the variability of the pollutant
concentrations discharged by the CWT industry.

I. Significant Changes in Treatment Technology Cost Estimates

Chapter 11 of the Final Technical Development Document provides a
detailed description of the data and methodology used to develop
compliance cost estimates for the final CWT regulation. This section
provides a summary of major changes in the costing methodology since
the 1999 proposal.
1. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
In estimating compliance costs for the proposed regulation, EPA
included RCRA permit modification capital costs as one component of the
total capital costs. This was an error. The wastewater treatment unit
exemption at 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10), and 40 CFR
270.1(c)(2)(v) exempts, from RCRA permit modification requirements,
wastewater treatment units at facilities that are subject to NPDES or
pretreatment requirements under the Clean Water Act. Thus, CWT
facilities would not need to modify their RCRA permits as a result of
this rule and would not incur these RCRA permit modification costs. The
final rule does not include these RCRA permit modification costs.
2. Altered DAF Costs for Oils Subcategory Includes Increased Holding
Tank Capacity
At the time of the proposal, for facilities with flow rates less
than 20 gallons per minute (gpm), EPA included cost estimates for a
holding tank. EPA included the holding tank because it assumed that
facilities with flow rates less than 20 gpm would not operate their DAF
systems every day.
Regardless of the flow rate, EPA's design assumption for the
holding tank was one day of storage. EPA received comment that many
oils subcategory facilities may require more than 24 hours of storage
and thus, EPA did not allow adequate holding capacity for all
facilities. In response to this comment, EPA has altered the DAF
capital costs to include holding tanks capable of retaining enough flow
volume to operate the minimum size DAF system for one 24-hour period,
in addition to the holding tank capacity costed at proposal.
3. Nutrient Addition, Heating, and Sludge Disposal Costs Included in
the Organic Subcategory Compliance Cost Estimates
At the time of the proposal, EPA estimated operational costs for
the technology option selected as the basis for the organics
subcategory limitations on the actual practices used at the facility
sampled during EPA's sampling episode. This did not include chemical
addition or heating of wastes. In response to public comment concerning
the need, on occasion, for chemical addition (nutrient addition, pH
control, etc.) and heating of the waste during cold temperature months,
EPA modified its capital and O&M cost estimates for sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) treatment to include costs for nutrient addition and
adjustments for cold operating conditions. These adjustments are
detailed in Section 3.1 of the ``Final Costing Document.''
Additionally, at the time of the proposal, EPA included capital
costs and O&M costs for sludge processing equipment associated with the
organics subcategory, but failed to include costs for sludge disposal.
EPA has corrected this oversight, and added a separate cost estimate
for SBR system sludge disposal.

J. Significant Changes in Oils Subcategory Loadings Estimates

At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA did not distinguish between
facilities with RCRA permits and facilities without RCRA permits when
it estimated current pollutant loadings for the oils subcategory.
Rather, EPA had seven sets of data representing effluent from emulsion
breaking/gravity separation that were collected at various types of
oils subcategory facilities. For each pollutant of concern, and for
each data set, EPA calculated the mean concentration of the data
collected over the sampling episode. Then, for the remaining facilities
in the oils subcategory (i.e., those facilities for which EPA did not
have facility-specific information), EPA randomly assigned one of the
seven data sets. For facilities that had additional treatment-in-place,
EPA then reduced these current loadings estimates as detailed in
Chapter 12 of the Final Technical Development Document.
For the final CWT rule, EPA has altered this approach. In
estimating loadings and removals for the oils subcategory, EPA used
data specific to either RCRA or non-RCRA permitted facilities. EPA no
longer estimates current performance by randomly assigning a data set
as described above. Rather, for each pollutant of concern, EPA has
calculated a single concentration value for RCRA permitted facilities
and a single concentration value for non-RCRA permitted facilities;
both values represent effluent from emulsion breaking/gravity
separation. (This is assumed to be the minimum treatment in-place at
all oils facilities; only removals beyond this and any other in-place
treatment are projected to result from this rule.) The specific
methodology used to calculate these values and EPA's final methodology
used to estimate pollutant loadings and removals for the entire CWT
industry are detailed in Chapter 12 of the Final Technical Development
Document.

K. Changes in POTW Percent Removal Estimates

EPA establishes pretreatment standards for those BAT pollutants
that pass through POTWs. Therefore, for indirect dischargers, before
establishing pretreatment standards, EPA examines whether the
pollutants discharged by the industry ``pass through'' POTWs to waters
of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations or sludge disposal
practices. Generally, to determine if pollutants pass through POTWs,
EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated
POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the
pollutant removed by facilities meeting BAT effluent limitations.
The primary source of the POTW percent removal data is the ``Fate
of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-
82/303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study.''
The 50-POTW Study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated
POTWs that employ secondary biological treatment in removing
pollutants.
At the time of the 50-POTW sampling program, which spanned
approximately 2\1/2\ years (July 1978 to November 1980), EPA collected
samples at selected POTWs across the U.S. The samples were subsequently
analyzed by either EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using test
procedures (analytical methods) specified by the Agency or in use at
the laboratories. Laboratories typically reported the analytical method
used along with the test results. However, for those cases in which the
laboratory specified no analytical method, EPA was able to identify the
method based on the nature of the results and knowledge of the methods
available at the time.
Each laboratory reported results for the pollutants for which it
tested. If the

[[Page 81253]]

laboratory found a pollutant to be present, the laboratory reported a
result. If the laboratory found the pollutant not to be present, the
laboratory reported either that the pollutant was ``not detected'' or a
value with a ``less than'' sign () indicating that the pollutant was
below that value. The value reported along with the ``less than'' sign
was the lowest level to which the laboratory believed it could reliably
measure. EPA subsequently established these lowest levels as the
``minimum levels'' of quantitation (MLs). In some instances, different
laboratories reported different MLs for the same pollutant using the
same analytical method.
Because of the variety of reporting protocols among the 50-POTW
Study laboratories (pages 27 to 30, 50-POTW Study), EPA reviewed the
percent removal calculations used in the pass-through analysis for
previous industry studies, including those performed when developing
the CWT proposal and effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing, Landfills, and Commercial
Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for 12 parameters,
different analytical MLs were reported for different rulemaking studies
(10 of the 25 metals, cyanide, and one of the 41 organics).
To provide consistency for data analysis and establishment of
removal efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50-POTW Study, standardized the
reported MLs for use in the CWT final rules and other rulemaking
efforts. (This review of the 50-POTW Study analytical laboratory
reporting practices and standardization of ML values is described
further in DCN 33.3.1).
In using the 50-POTW Study data to estimate percent removals, EPA
has established data editing criteria for determining pollutant percent
removals. Some of the editing criteria are based on differences between
POTW and industry BAT treatment system influent concentrations. For
many toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower
than those of BAT treatment systems. For many pollutants, particularly
organic pollutants, the effluent concentrations from both POTW and BAT
treatment systems, were below the level that could be found or
measured. As noted in the 50-POTW Study, analytical laboratories
reported pollutant concentrations below the analytical ML,
qualitatively, as ``not detected'' or ``trace,'' and reported a
measured value above this level. Subsequent rulemaking studies such as
the 1987 OCPSF study used the analytical method ML established in 40
CFR Part 136 for laboratory data reported below the analytical ML. Use
of the nominal ML may overestimate the effluent concentration and
underestimate the percent removal. Because the data collected for
evaluating POTW percent removals included both effluent and influent
levels that were close to the analytical MLs, EPA devised hierarchal
data editing criteria to exclude data with low influent concentration
levels, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW removals might
simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of being a true
measure of treatment effectiveness.
EPA has generally used hierarchic data editing criteria for the
pollutants in the 50-POTW Study. For the final CWT rule, the editing
criteria include
(1) Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical ML
for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,'' ``less than
[followed by a number],'' or a number less than the standardized
analytical ML,
(2) Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent values if
the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal to 10
times the pollutant ML (10xML), and
(3) If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations are at
least 10 times the ML, then retain average influent values greater than
or equal to two times the ML (2xML) along with the corresponding
average effluent values. (EPA used 2xML for the final rule, instead of
the 20 g/l criterion used at proposal, because it more
accurately reflects the pollutant-specific data than using a fixed
numerical cut-off. For 67 percent of the of pollutants, 2xML is 20
g/l.)
EPA then calculates each POTW percent removal for each pollutant
based on its average influent and its average effluent values. The
national POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-
through test is the median value of all the POTW pollutant specific
percent removals.
The 50-POTW study provided performance data for 48 pollutants of
concern for both the 1999 proposal and today's final rule (15 metals,
31 organics, cyanide, and ammonia). These corrections resulted in lower
national POTW performance (median percent removal) for 5 metals and
ammonia; in higher performance for 5 metals; and no change for the
remaining 5 metals, 31 organics, and cyanide.

V. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

Many of the commenters had questions about what waste treatment
facilities were subject to the guideline and in what circumstances. The
sections which follow address these issues.

A. Overview

A broad spectrum of facilities engage in waste treatment and waste
recovery operations. For some, waste treatment and recovery is their
only business. Many of these facilities treat wastes generated in a
variety of industries. In addition, there are also a significant number
of facilities that are dedicated exclusively to the recovery of a
single metal. For other facilities, waste treatment is merely an
ancillary component of the industrial operation at the facility. There
are still others engaged in industrial activities that the acceptance
and treatment of waste (not generated in their own production
operations) represents a substantial and integral aspect of the
business.
EPA has always intended that these guidelines would regulate the
first category of waste treaters. It has struggled, however, with how
to draw the line, for purposes of applying this rule between the other
types of operations. For example, as noted above, there are certain
industries that recover a single metal. EPA has already developed
guidelines specifically addressing their particular industrial
processes and pollutants. In those circumstances it would make little
sense to subject them to regulations developed for waste treatment
operations treating a mixture of different wastes.\2\ The data
collected for this effort, however, clearly show that there are other
industrial operations whose waste treatment operations treat a variety
of wastes from on-site and off-site sources. The wastes treated at
these industries do not look substantially different from those being
treated at facilities engaged exclusively in waste treatment. The
discussion below explains how EPA has decided to strike the balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ EPA has already established national effluent guidelines and
standards for certain metals recovery operations. See, for example,
subpart C of 40 CFR part 421--Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point
Source Category that establishes limitations and standards
applicable to discharges resulting from the recovery, processing and
remelting of aluminum scraps to produce metallic aluminum alloys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The universe of facilities which are potentially subject to this
guideline generally includes the following. First, except where noted
otherwise, EPA is establishing limitations and standards for stand-
alone waste treatment and recovery facilities receiving materials from
off-site--classic ``centralized waste treaters.'' These facilities may
treat either for disposal or for recovery or recycle hazardous or non-
hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous

[[Page 81254]]

wastewater, or used material received from off-site. Second, while EPA
is generally not subjecting discharges from waste treatment systems at
facilities primarily engaged in other industrial operations to the
scope of this rule, the rule will regulate at least a portion of their
wastewater in certain circumstances. Thus, industrial facilities which
process their own, on-site generated, process wastewater along with
hazardous or non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material
received from off-site may be subject to this rule with respect to a
portion of their discharge unless certain conditions are met.
The wastewater flows covered by this rule include some or all flows
related to off-site waste receipts and on-site CWT wastewater generated
as a result of CWT operations. The kinds of on-site CWT wastewater
generated at these facilities include, for example, the following:
solubilization wastewater, emulsion breaking/gravity separation
wastewater, used oil processing wastewater, treatment equipment washes,
transport washes (tanker truck, drum, and roll-off boxes), laboratory-
derived wastewater, air pollution control wastewater, landfill
wastewater from on-site landfills, and contaminated storm water.
Chapter 14 of the technical development document provides detailed
discussion of CWT wastewaters.
The way EPA has expressed the applicability provisions of the final
rule is to apply the provisions of this rule to all wastewater
discharges to a receiving stream or the introduction of wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment works from a facility that this regulation
defines as a centralized waste treatment facility unless specifically
excluded. The following sections discuss the applicability of the CWT
rule to various wastewater discharges associated with centralized waste
treatment operations.
EPA received numerous comments on the 1995 proposal and 1996 Notice
of Data Availability concerning the applicability of this rule to
various operations. Consequently, EPA devoted significant discussion in
the 1999 supplemental proposal to applicability issues. Again, in
response, EPA received numerous comments on applicability issues. Many
commenters were simply seeking clarification of the coverage of this
rule to a specific operation. Table V.A-1 below provides a general
summary of regulated and non-regulated CWT operations. EPA presents a
detailed discussion of these operations in V.B through V.Z.

Table V.A-1.--Examples of Regulated and Non-Regulated CWT Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centralized waste treatment Not regulated by this For further information
activity Regulated by this rule rule see
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those performed at federally owned All federally owned CWT None................... V.E
facilities. operations.
POTWs............................... None................... All.................... V.F
Thermal drying of POTW biosolids.... None................... All.................... V.H
Sanitary wastes or toilet wastes.... None................... All.................... V.Y
Food processing wastes.............. None................... All.................... V.X
Manufacturing facilities............ Those that accept off- All others............. V.B
site wastes for
treatment and/or
recovery that are not
generated in a
manufacturing process
subject to the same
limitations/standards
as on-site generated
waste and that the
permit writer
determines are not
similar to, and
compatible with
treatment of, the on-
site waste.
Product stewardship................. Those that accept waste Those that accept back V.D
materials from use of their unused products,
their products that shipping and storage
are not similar to, containers with
and compatible with, product residues, and
treatment of waste off-specification
generated on-site. products.
Petroleum refineries (SIC Code 2911) For off-site materials Those that receive and V.B
and petroleum distribution other than those manage off-site
terminals (SIC Code 4612, 4613, listed in the next petroleum-containing
5171, 5172). column, see discussion materials generated by
for manufacturing petroleum exploration,
facilities. production,
transportation,
refining and marketing
activities.
Pulp and paper off-site landfill Those that accept off- All others............. V.B
leachates. site landfill
leachates for
treatment and/or
recovery that are not
generated in a
manufacturing process
subject to the same
limitations/standards
as on-site generated
waste and that the
permit writer
determines are not
similar to, and
compatible with, the
on-site waste.
Pipeline materials.................. Materials received via All other piped V.C
pipeline from waste materials and POTWs.
consolidators or
commingled with other
covered CWT
wastewaters.
Recycle/recovery activities......... All unless specifically ....................... V.Q
excluded elsewhere.
Traditional solvent recovery........ None................... All.................... V.T
Fuel blenders....................... Those that generate a ``Dry'' operations..... V.T
wastewater.
Scrap metals recyclers.............. None................... All.................... V.M
Silver recovery..................... Only included where All others............. V.R
wastewater generated
from these activities
is commingled with
other covered wastes.
Used oil filters & only absorbent Those that generate a ``Dry'' operations..... V.V
recycling. wastewater.
High Temperature Metals Recovery Those that generate a ``Dry'' operations..... V.S
(HTMR). wastewater.

[[Page 81255]]

Used glycol recovery................ All.................... None................... V.Q
Re-refining......................... All.................... None................... V.U
Solids, soils, and sludges.......... Those activities which ``Dry'' operations..... V.L
generate a wastewater
unless specifically
excluded.
Stabilization/Solidification........ Those that generate a ``Dry'' operations..... V.O
wastewater.
Transfer stations and recycling None................... All.................... V.N
centers.
Incineration activities............. Only included when the All others............. V.K
wastewater generated
from these activities
is received from off-
site and commingled
with other covered
wastewater.
Transportation and/or transportation Only included where All others............. V.I
equipment cleaning. wastewater generated
from these activities
is commingled with
other covered waters.
Landfills........................... Only included where All others............. V.J
wastewater generated
from these activities
is commingled with
other covered waters.
Grease trap/interceptor wastes...... Those which contain Those which contain V.W
petroleum based oils. animal or vegetable
fats/oils.
Marine generated wastes............. Off-loaded and All others............. V.G
subsequently sent to a
CWT facility at a
separate location and
commingled with other
covered wastewater.
Waste, wastewater or used material Those activities not Not covered if the V.P
re-use. listed in the next wastewater is accepted
column or excluded for use in place of
elsewhere. potable water or if
materials are accepted
in place of virgin
treatment chemicals.
Treatability, research and Only included where All others............. V.Z
development, or analytical wastewater generated
activities. from these activities
is commingled with
other covered waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Manufacturing Facilities

Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has contemplated that
the rule would apply to wastewater discharges from facilities that,
while primarily engaged in other industrial operations, also may treat
and/or treat for recovery or recycle off-site wastes or used materials.
These facilities primarily treat wastes generated as a result of their
own on-site manufacturing operations. Their wastewater discharges are,
by and large, already subject to effluent guidelines and standards.
(Some treatment operations, however, may be located at manufacturing
facilities which are not subject to effluent guidelines and standards).
All of these facilities also accept off-site generated wastes for
treatment. In some instances, a facility under the same corporate
ownership generates these off-site wastes. The facility treats these
intra-company transfers on a non-commercial basis. In other instances,
the off-site wastestreams originate from a company under a different
ownership-- an inter-company transfer. In some instances, the off-site
wastes received at these industrial facilities are generated by a
facility performing the same manufacturing operations, while in other
instances, the off-site wastestreams are generated by facilities
engaged in entirely unrelated manufacturing operations. Some receive a
constant wastestream from only a handful of customers and some receive
a wide variety of wastestreams from hundreds of customers.
EPA received extensive comment concerning how the CWT rule should
apply to facilities that provide waste treatment and/or recovery
operations for off-site generated wastes, but whose primary business is
something other than waste treatment or recovery. In general,
commenters urged EPA to limit the scope of the regulation in one of
several ways. Commenters suggested restricting the scope either to:
Facilities whose sole purpose is the treatment of off-site
wastes and wastewaters; or
Facilities which only accept off-site wastes on a
commercial basis; or
Facilities which accept off-site wastes which are not
produced as a result of industrial operations subject to the same
effluent guidelines and standards as the on-site generated wastes or
off-site wastes which are not compatible with the on-site generated
wastes and the on-site wastewater treatment system; or
Manufacturing facilities which accept off-site wastes in
excess of a de minimis level.
In the supplemental proposal, EPA proposed subjecting centralized
waste treatment operations at manufacturing facilities to the
provisions of the rule unless one of the following conditions was met:
In the case of manufacturing facilities subject to
national effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources,
standards of performance for new sources, or pretreatment standards for
new and existing sources (national effluent guidelines and standards),
if the process or operation generating the wastes received from off-
site for treatment is subject to the same national effluent guidelines
and standards as the process or operation generating the on-site
wastes; or
In the case of manufacturing facilities not subject to
existing national effluent guidelines and standards, if the process or
operation generating the waste received from off-site is from the same
industry (other than the waste treatment industry) and of a similar
nature to the waste generated on-site.
After careful consideration of comments and further review of its
database, EPA continues to regard this approach as appropriate, with
some modifications. EPA has concluded that many manufacturing
facilities, even though they are engaged primarily in another business,
are also engaged in traditional CWT activities and, therefore, should
be subject to this rule.

[[Page 81256]]

EPA has been unable to establish any direct correlation between the
source of the off-site waste (intra-company or inter-company) and the
similarity (or compatibility with) of the off-site waste to the on-site
generated wastes that would support a blanket exclusion from this rule
for intra-company waste treatment. EPA further concludes that all off-
site wastewaters should be treated effectively irrespective of their
volume, or their volume in relation to the volume of on-site generated
waste and, thus, has rejected any exception for small volumes. As
explained in the 1999 proposal, EPA's primary concern is that the
effluent guidelines and standards currently in place for one industry
may not ensure adequate treatment for wastes generated at another
industry.
EPA has, however, concluded that there are circumstances where an
off-site waste will receive adequate treatment at the treating facility
even though the off-site waste may be generated by a manufacturing
process that (if treated at the generating location) would be subject
to a different set of effluent guidelines and standards than the
effluent guidelines and standards applicable to the treating site. The
record for this rule provides information and data on such facilities
that support EPA's conclusion. An example is a pesticide formulating
and packaging facility (PFPR), subject to 40 CFR 455 Subpart C, which
sends its wastewaters off-site for treatment to a facility which
manufactures the pesticide active ingredients. (The manufacturing
facility is subject to a separate set of effluent guidelines and
standards specific to pesticide manufacturers, 40 CFR 455 Subpart A and
B). In this case, the same pollutants are likely to be present in the
off-site and on-site generated wastewaters, even though the wastewaters
are subject to different regulations. Therefore, the treating facility
will need to use treatment appropriate for efficient removal of these
pollutants. This situation would not be covered by this rule.
As a second example, consider a petroleum refinery that accepts
off-site wastewaters. If the petroleum refinery (SIC Code 2911) accepts
wastes generated off-site at petroleum distribution terminals (SIC Code
4612, 4613, 5171, and 5172), then the former is subject to effluent
guidelines and standards for petroleum refineries (40 CFR 419), but the
latter is not currently subject to any national effluent guidelines.
However, the wastewaters generated at petroleum marketing terminals are
based on materials manufactured at the refineries, and therefore would
likely reflect the same pollutant profile. This situation would not be
covered by this rule.
A third example involves clean-up activities at manufacturing
sites. As part of clean-up operations at its facility, one commenter
(called facility A) noted that it accepts contaminated groundwater from
a different manufacturing facility located next door (facility B). The
contaminated groundwater site (while not located on facility A, the
treating facility) was contaminated by the manufacturing process at the
treating site (facility A) and not at the site where located (facility
B). As such, the contaminated wastewater would be similar and
compatible with the on-site generated wastewater at facility A. In this
case, the CWT rule would not apply.
EPA received information on each of the examples provided in
comment on the rule. The comments detail instances in which the off-
site wastewaters, while not subject to the same national effluent
guidelines and standards as the wastewater generated on-site, are
similar to the on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and
compatible with the on-site treatment system. In these cases, EPA
concluded that the application of the CWT rule may not result in
increased environmental protection, but simply add an additional layer
of complexity for the treating facility and the permit writer or
control authority.
Furthermore, EPA determined there are other instances of off-site
waste acceptance at manufacturing facilities in which the off-site
wastes, while not from the same industrial category, are similar to the
on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and compatible with the
manufacturing wastewater treatment system. Consequently, for purposes
of this rule, EPA has decided that, where the dischargers establishes
that the wastes being treated are of similar nature and compatible with
treatment of the on-site wastes, the CWT limitations and standards will
not apply to the resulting discharge. EPA concluded that, in those
circumstances, the permit writer or control authority should instead
apply the limitations or standards applicable to the treatment of on-
site wastewater to wastewaters generated through treatment of the off-
site waste. Under the approach adopted for the final rule, the permit
writer or control authority will determine whether the off-site
generated waste accepted for treatment and/or recovery at a
manufacturing facility (whether subject to national effluent guidelines
and standards or not) and commingled for treatment in the on-site
treatment system is similar to the on-site generated wastes and
compatible with the on-site treatment system. If it is, then the
discharge of the treated effluent should be subject to the applicable
on-site limitations (or standards) even if the off-site wastes would be
subject to a different set of national effluent guidelines and
standards as the on-site generated wastes (or no national effluent
guidelines and standards) if treated where generated. In the event that
the permit writer or control authority makes this determination, the
treating facility would be subject to the on-site limits only and not
subject to the CWT guideline.
For this final rule, EPA has not rigidly defined when a waste is of
similar character and the treatment of it is compatible with the
treatment of the on-site wastes, believing that permit writers and
control authorities are in the best position to determine this term.
Permit writers and control authorities should compare the wastewaters
at the manufacturing facility to the off-site generated wastewaters
(constituents and concentrations) and the appropriateness of the
treatment system to the off-site generated wastewaters on a case by
case basis. The final guideline commits the decision that an off-site
wastewater is similar and compatible (and thus whether CWT limitations
or standards would apply) to the permit writer or control authority. A
treating facility must submit information demonstrating to the permit
writer or control authority that the off-site waste is similar and
compatible. EPA cautions permit writers and control authorities that
the judgment of ``similar and compatible'' should be made based only on
the development of a full record on this issue. If the treating
facility has not clearly established that the off-site wastewaters are
similar to the on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and
compatible with the treatment system in the permit writer's or control
authority's best judgment, the permit writer or control authority must
apply the CWT limitations (or standards) to the treating facility.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that centralized waste treatment
operations at manufacturing facilities will be subject to provisions of
the rule unless one of the following conditions is met:
In the case of a facility subject to national effluent
limitation guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance
for new sources, or pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources, if the facility demonstrates that the wastes received

[[Page 81257]]

from off-site for treatment and/or recovery are generated in a process
or operation that would be subject to the same national effluent
guidelines and standards as the process or operation generating the on-
site wastes; or
In the case of a facility subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards if the facility demonstrates that the waste
received from off-site is similar in nature to the waste generated on-
site and compatible with the on-site treatment system; or
In the case of a facility not subject to national effluent
limitations and standards, if the facility demonstrates that the waste
received from off-site is similar in nature to the waste generated on-
site and compatible with the on-site treatment system.
EPA contemplates that this approach would be implemented in the
following manner. A facility that is currently subject to national
effluent limitation guidelines or pretreatment standards receives
wastewater from off-site for treatment. The wastewater is commingled
for treatment with manufacturing wastewater generated on-site. If the
off-site wastewater is subject to the same limitations or standards as
the onsite wastewater (or would be if treated where generated) or if
the off-site wastewater is similar to the onsite wastewater and
compatible with the treatment system, the CWT limitations or standards
would not apply to the discharge associated with the off-site
wastewater flows. In that case, another guideline or standard applies.
If, however, the off-site wastewater is not subject to the same
national limitation guidelines or standards (or if none exist) and if
the off-site wastewater is not similar to the onsite wastewater and
compatible with the treatment system, that portion of the discharge
associated with the off-site flow would be subject to CWT requirements.
(Of course, the portion of the wastewater generated on-site remains
subject to applicable limitations and standards for the facility. If
the off-site and on-site wastewaters are commingled prior to discharge,
the permit writer or control authority would use the ``combined
wastestream formula'' or ``building block approach'' to determine
limitations for the commingled wastestream).
Certain facilities that are subject to the CWT regulations because
they accept wastes whose treatment is not compatible with the treatment
of wastes generated on-site may nevertheless be subject to limitations
and standards based on the otherwise applicable provisions of 40 CFR
Subchapter N. Thus, the final regulations provide for the permit writer
or pretreatment control authority to develop ``alternative limitations
and standards'' for certain facilities in a narrow set of
circumstances. See e.g., 40 CFR 437.10(b). Under this approach, which
EPA discussed in the 1999 proposal, permit writers or control
authorities could require manufacturing facilities that treat off-site
wastes to meet all otherwise-applicable categorical limitations and
standards for the industries from which the waste was generated. This
approach would also determine limitations or standards for any
commingled on-site and off-site wastewater using the ``combined
wastestream formula'' or ``building block approach.'' The permit writer
or control authority would apply the categorical limitations or
standards from the industries generating the wastewater, rather than
the CWT limitations or standards, to the off-site portion of the
commingled wastestream. The use of the combined wastestream formula and
building block approaches for CWT wastes is discussed further in
Section XIV.F of the 1999 proposal (64 FR 2342-2343). The permit writer
(or pretreatment control authority) may establish alternative
limitations and standards only when a facility receives continuous
flows of process wastewaters with relatively consistent pollutant
profiles from no more than five customers. EPA's information shows
that, in practice, permit writers are currently following this approach
for facilities that treat off-site waste for no more than five
facilities. This approach is not appropriate for facilities that
receive variable off-site wastewaters or that service more than a
handful of customers.
After further consideration of the above described alternative and
careful consideration of comments received on this alternative, EPA
determined that the permit writer (or local pretreatment authority)
should have the option in a limited set of circumstances of applying
the applicable categorical limitations or standards to the off-site
wastestreams. This is the approach described above. Thus, the final
rule authorizes permit writers or control authorities (at their
discretion) to subject the wastewater associated with the treatment of
the off-site wastes to limitations or standards based on the
categorical limitations or standards from the industries generating the
wastewater, rather than applying the CWT limitations or standards to
the off-site portion of the commingled wastestream. Consequently, the
applicability provisions of Subparts A, B, C and D provide for such
authority. See 40 CFR 437.10(b), 437.20(b), 437.30(b) & 437.40(b).

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)

EPA did not propose to apply CWT limitations and standards to
facilities that receive off-site wastes for treatment solely via an
open or enclosed conduit (for example, pipeline, channels, ditches,
trenches, etc.). EPA did not propose to include pipeline facilities
because, based on information obtained by the Agency, facilities that
receive all their wastes through a pipeline or trench (fixed delivery
systems) from the original source of waste generation receive
continuous flows of process wastewater with relatively consistent
pollutant profiles. These wastewaters are traditional wastewaters from
the applicable industrial category that generally remain constant from
day to day in terms of the concentration and type of pollutant
parameters. Unlike traditional CWT facilities, their customers and
wastewater sources do not change and are limited by the physical and
monetary constraints associated with pipelines. The preamble to the
1999 proposal provides additional detail on the characteristics of CWT
facilities that accept waste for treatment through pipelines only (64
FR 2286-2287). The preamble also explained that permit writers were
applying the ``building block approach,'' in writing current discharge
permits for pipeline facilities and that in all cases examined, the
treating facility was required to comply with otherwise applicable
effluent guidelines and standards.
EPA did not receive any information in response to the 1999
proposed rule that has convinced the Agency to change its treatment of
pipeline facilities for purposes of this rule. Consequently, the scope
of this final rule excludes wastes that are piped to waste treatment
facilities. See 40 CFR 437.1(b)(3). These wastes will continue to be
subject to otherwise applicable effluent guidelines and standards. In
EPA's view, it is more appropriate for permit writers and control
authorities to develop restrictions for treatment facilities that
receive wastewater by pipeline on an individual basis by applying the
``combined wastestream formula'' or ``building block'' approach.
There are two exceptions to this approach. The first is for
facilities that receive waste via conduit (that is, pipeline, trenches,
ditches, etc.) from facilities that are acting merely as waste
collection or consolidation centers that are not the original source of
the waste. These wastewaters are subject to the CWT rule. The basis for
EPA's exclusion

[[Page 81258]]

of waste treatment facilities receiving wastes by pipeline from the
scope of the rule was that such facilities did not receive the same
types of varying wastes as CWT facilities receiving wastes by truck or
tanker. Pipeline facilities receive flows of wastes with consistent
pollutant profiles. Waste consolidators, on the other hand, which send
their flows to a treatment facility via pipeline are delivering wastes
like those typically received by CWT facilities in tanks or trucks. See
40 CFR 437.1(b)(3). The second is for facilities that serve as both CWT
facilities and pipeline facilities (i.e., receive waste from off-site
via pipeline as well as some other mode of transportation such as
trucks). If this type of facility commingles the trucked and piped
waste prior to discharge, then both the trucked and piped wastewaters
at these facilities are subject to the CWT rule. The basis for the
pipeline exclusion no longer applies because the addition of hauled
waste introduces variability in pollutant concentrations and
characteristics that are not true for the piped wastes. See 40 CFR
437.1(b)(3). However, if such a facility discharges these wastewaters
separately, then only the trucked off-site wastewater is subject to
provisions of the CWT rule and the piped waste subject to limitations
and standards based on the applicable 40 CFR Subchapter N limitations
and standards. POTWs are not considered CWTs and are not subject to the
limitations and standards of this rule. However, as discussed more
fully in Section V.F, POTWs should not be receiving wastes from
industrial users subject to national effluent guidelines and standards
(either by pipeline or otherwise) that do not comply with applicable
pretreament standards.

D. Product Stewardship

As detailed in the proposed rule (64 FR 2287), many members of the
manufacturing community have adopted ``product stewardship'' programs
as an additional service for their customers to promote recycling and
reuse of products and to reduce the potential for adverse environmental
impacts from chemical products. Commenters defined ``product
stewardship'' in this way: ``Taking back spent, used, or unused
products, shipping and storage containers with product residues, off-
specification products and waste materials from use of products.''
Generally, whenever possible, these manufacturing plants recover and
reuse materials from these products in chemical processes at their
facilities. Manufacturing companies that cannot reuse the spent, used,
or unused materials treat these materials/wastewaters in their
wastewater treatment plants. EPA's review of the comments suggests
that, with few exceptions, the materials treated in the on-site
wastewater treatment systems were produced at facilities subject to the
same effluent limitations guidelines as the materials being
manufactured on-site. In industry's view, such materials are inherently
compatible with the treatment system.
In the proposal, EPA explained that it had decided it would treat
wastewater generated from materials that are taken back for recycle or
re-use under a product stewardship program in the same way it proposed
to treat wastewater generated in treating any other off-site waste. If
the materials received from off-site under the product stewardship
program are produced at an industrial operation subject to the same
limitations and standards in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the on-site
generated manufacturing wastes, the treating facility would not be
subject to CWT requirements with respect to the resulting wastewaters.
Because EPA remained concerned that circumstances exist in which used
materials or waste products may not be compatible with the otherwise
existing treatment system, EPA did not propose a blanket exemption for
product stewardship activities from the scope of this rulemaking. Under
the proposal, wastewater from the treatment of used products or waste
materials would be subject to the CWT rule if it were not produced at
facilities subject to the same provisions of Subchapter N as wastewater
from the treatment of the other on-site generated wastes.
EPA received numerous comments on this approach. Many commenters
claimed that the proposed rule would deter product stewardship
activities, and that EPA should not extend the rule to cover wastewater
from certain product stewardship activities. Some commented that these
materials are generally not ``treated,'' but re-used or recovered, and
for that reason they were fundamentally different from other wastes in
the CWT industry. Others commented that while EPA's intent seemed to be
appropriate, the language was much too restrictive. For example,
commenters noted that when a product goes off-site to another
manufacturing facility that is subject to different effluent limitation
guidelines and standards, the product (while it remains unchanged)
would then be subject to a different set of effluent limitations or
standards. If the manufacturing facilities which originally produced
the product took back the off-spec product from its customer, the
proposal as written, would require that the treating facility be
subject to CWT even though the off-spec waste would clearly be the same
as those generated on-site.
EPA applauds the efforts of manufacturing facilities to reduce
pollution and the environmental impacts of their products and does not
want to discourage these practices. Consequently, the final rule does
not cover product stewardship activities in certain circumstances.
Product stewardship activities at a manufacturing facility which
involve taking back their unused products, shipping and storage
containers with product residues, and off-spec products will not be
subject to provisions of the CWT rule.
Certain other recovery activities may, however, remain subject to
this rule. EPA is concerned about the treatment of spent, used or waste
materials returned to the original manufacturer when it is treated with
on-site wastewater. In some cases, wastewater from these recovery
processes may not be compatible with the existing treatment system. The
mere fact that these materials may be accepted for re-use or recycling
rather than ``treatment'' does not ensure that resulting wastewaters
would be inherently compatible with the treatment system. EPA is unable
to see how such activities differ from waste recovery operations that
the Agency has concluded should be subject to these guidelines. Here is
an illustrative example. An inorganic chemical manufacturer produces
industrial chemicals that one of its customers uses in the manufacture
of printed circuit boards. The chemical manufacturer accepts spent
etchants (waste materials from use of product) from its customer for
recovery and re-use of certain metals in its inorganic chemical
manufacturing process. (Note that CWT facilities not located at
manufacturing sites also accept spent etchants). The recovery process
generates a wastewater. Recovery may have introduced into the
wastewater many pollutants that were not present in the wastewater
generated in producing the inorganic chemical. These pollutants may not
be compatible with, or effectively treated, in the treatment process at
the inorganic chemical manufacturing facility. The same may be true if
the accepting facility determined that spent etchant could not be
effectively reused and recovered and directed the material to their
wastewater treatment system.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that product stewardship activities
that involve taking back spent, used or waste materials from use of
products should,

[[Page 81259]]

as a general matter, be subject to provisions of this rule unless any
of the exclusions established for manufacturing facilities as explained
in V.B. would apply. See 40 CFR Sec. 437.1(b)(2) & (4). Thus, those
activities that involve used products or waste materials that are not
subject to effluent guidelines or standards from the same category as
the on-site generated wastes or that are not similar to the on-site
generated manufacturing wastes and compatible with the treatment
systems (as determined by the permit writer or control authority) are
subject to today's rulemaking under 40 CFR Sec. 437.1(b)(2). EPA
concluded that this approach will not curtail product stewardship
activities, in general, but will ensure that all wastes are treated
effectively.

E. Federally Owned Facilities

Throughout development of this rule, EPA's database has included
information on CWT facilities owned by the federal government. It has
always been EPA's intention that federal facilities which accept
wastes, wastewater, or used material from off-site for treatment and/or
recovery of materials would be subject to provisions of this rule
unless they meet the conditions under which the rule would not apply,
e.g. treated off-site wastes subject to the same 40 CFR Subchapter N
provisions as the federal facility.
EPA's database contains information on 23 federally owned
facilities that operate treatment systems. EPA has determined that 15
of these facilities are not subject to provisions of the CWT rule
because they do not accept off-site wastes. Of the remaining
facilities, 6 are not subject to provisions of the CWT rule because
they perform CWT activities to which the rule would not apply.
Therefore, EPA has identified 1 federally owned CWT facility that is
subject to this rule. EPA has included this facility in all of its
analyses.

F. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

Comments to the 1995 and 1999 CWT proposals establish that large
and small POTWs accept a large volume of hauled wastes. A special
discharge survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of POTW respondents accept
hauled industrial wastes. More recent comments suggest that this may
underestimate the volume of hauled wastes POTWs receive.
A large quantity of the wastes trucked to POTWs is septage and
chemical toilet wastes. EPA did not evaluate these wastes for
regulation and they are not subject to this rule. EPA would expect that
POTWs would adequately treat these sanitary waste flows because EPA
would expect septage and chemical toilet wastes to closely resemble
sewage with respect to organic content.
POTWs also receive significant volumes of trucked industrial and
commercial wastes. Examples of these include wastes subject to
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR subchapter N, as well as wastes not
subject to national effluent guidelines and standards. These wastes may
include oil-water emulsions or mixtures, coolants, tank cleaning water,
bilge water, restaurant grease trap wastes, groundwater remediation
water, contaminated storm water run-off, interceptor wastewaters, and
used glycols. CWT facilities also treat many of these wastes and
discharges from these operations may be subject to the final CWT
limits.
EPA received numerous comments on how the CWT rule should apply to
POTWs. Commenters were largely divided on the applicability of the CWT
rule to POTWs. All of the POTWs that commented on the proposal agreed
that the CWT rule should not apply to POTWs. They stated that under the
CWA, effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards do not apply to
POTWs. Rather, as established by the CWA, POTWs are subject to
secondary treatment and water quality standards. These commenters
further stated that POTWs generally accept trucked wastes as a service
to their community to insure that these wastes receive proper
treatment. Commenting POTWs further cited that trucked wastes comprise
a de minimis portion of the total volume of wastewater treated at their
facilities.
Non-POTW commenters were, on the other hand, unanimously of the
view that the CWT rule should apply to POTWs. These commenters asserted
that POTWs and CWT facilities are competing for many of the same
wastestreams, and therefore POTWs should be subject to the same
standards as CWT facilities. These commenters stated that POTWs are
actively competing for wastestreams not subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards, and cautioned that EPA should be concerned
that this hauled waste is being accepted with little or no
documentation regarding the source, little or no monitoring of the
shipments when they arrive, and no pretreatment before mixing with the
normal POTW influent. They also expressed concern that POTWs often do
not have equivalent treatment compared to CWT facilities and that
pollutant reductions are often due to dilution rather than treatment.
Finally, many CWT facilities commented that by not including POTWs in
the scope of the CWT rule, EPA might actually increase the discharge of
pollutants to the nation's waters since waste generators will have an
incentive to ship directly to POTWs thus skipping what would have been
effective pretreatment at the CWT facility.
It is clear from reviewing the comments that many commenters may
misunderstand the interaction between effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards, and they are consequently confused about how
this guideline will affect POTW operations. The following discussion is
intended as clarification. Under the CWA, all direct dischargers must
comply with technology-based effluent guidelines and any more stringent
limitations necessary to meet State water quality standards. In the
case of certain pollutants and for certain categories and classes of
direct dischargers, EPA promulgates guidelines that establish these
technology-based limitations. In the case of POTWs, the CWA
specifically identifies the technology--secondary treatment that is the
basis for POTW effluent limitations.
In addition, the CWA also requires EPA to establish pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers--those introducing wastewater to a
POTW either by pipe or sewer or by transporting the waste by truck or
rail to the POTW. These standards are designed to prevent the
discharges of pollutants that pass-through, interfere or are otherwise
incompatible with POTW operations. The standards are technology-based
and analogous to technology-based effluent limitations applicable to
direct dischargers. Once EPA has established pretreatment standards, no
indirect discharger may introduce wastewater to a POTW for which there
are pretreatment standards except in compliance with the standard. The
CWA specifically prohibits the owner or operator of any source from
violating a pretreatment standard. See section 307(d) of the CWA. This
prohibition applies whether the wastewater is discharged through a
sewer system or sent to a POTW by truck or rail.
The CWA does authorize a POTW, in limited circumstances, to revise
pretreatment standards for a discharger to take account of the POTW's
actual removal of a particular pollutant. ``Removal credits'' may be
available to a discharger generally under the following conditions.
First, the granting of the removal credit by the POTW must not cause a
violation of the POTW's permit limitations or conditions.

[[Page 81260]]

Second, the POTW's treatment of the pollutant must not result in a
sewage sludge that cannot be use of disposed of in accordance with
sewage sludge regulations promulgated pursuant to section 405 of the
CWA. See section 307(b) of the CWA.
EPA has promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 (General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution)
that establish pretreatment standards and requirements that apply to
any source introducing pollutants from a non-domestic source into a
POTW. These standards include a general prohibition on the introduction
of any pollutant that might pass through or interfere as well as
prohibitions on specific pollutants such as those that may create a
fire or explosion hazard or corrosive structural damage. EPA has also
promulgated national effluent pretreatment standards (like the
pretreatment standards promulgated here today) for specific industry
categories as separate regulations at 40 CFR subchapter N.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 also require all POTWs with a
design flow greater than 5 MGD per day to develop a pretreatment
program. Moreover, EPA or a State may require a POTW with a design flow
that is less than or equal to 5 MGD to develop a pretreatment program
if warranted by circumstances in order to prevent pass through or
interference. See 40 CFR 403.8(a). These pretreatment programs must
require compliance with all applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements by industrial users of the POTW. See 40 CFR 403.8(f)(ii).
Furthermore, each POTW developing a pretreatment program must develop
and enforce specific local limits to implement the general and specific
prohibition against pass-through and interference. See 40 CFR 403.5(c).
Thus, any POTW subject to the requirement to develop a pretreatment
program that accepts waste that does not comply with a general or
specific prohibition or with national effluent pretreatment standards
is in violation of the regulations.
Consequently, following promulgation of today's rule, POTWs with
pretreatment programs that receive wastestreams both subject to and not
regulated by national effluent standards and limitations must ensure
the wastestreams do not violate these requirements. In practice, with
respect to the wastestreams discussed by commenters, this means that a
POTW may not accept untreated wastestreams subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards. These would include wastestreams subject to
pretreatment standards in 40 CFR subchapter N (e.g., electroplating
wastes). Moreover, a POTW may not accept certain other streams not
subject to national guidelines and standards such as oil-water
emulsions or mixtures if those streams contain pollutants that would
pass through or interfere with POTW operation. Note that 40 CFR
403.5(b)(5) specifically prohibits the introduction into a POTW of
petroleum oil that will cause pass-through or interference. Given EPA's
conclusion here that oily wastewaters contain pollutants that will pass
through POTWs, it is likely that many POTWs are accepting wastes for
treatment that contain pollutants that will pass through.
EPA is concerned that wastestreams accepted at POTWs, both those
subject to and those not regulated by national effluent guidelines and
standards, receive proper treatment. In 1999, EPA's Office of
Wastewater Management published the ``Guidance Manual for the Control
of Wastes Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 833-B-98-003,
September 1999). This document again stresses that national effluent
pretreatment standards apply to waste generated by national effluent
guidelines and standards (40 CFR parts 401 to 471), whether the waste
is introduced to the POTW through the sewer system or hauled to the
POTW. Moreover, EPA regulations require that POTWs must ensure
pretreatment of wastes subject to national effluent standards received
at the POTW regardless of the mode of transportation.
Similarly, because a POTW must ensure that no user is introducing
pollutants into the POTW that would pass-through the POTW into the
receiving waters or interfere with the POTW operation, EPA strongly
recommends that each POTW should document and monitor all hauled
wastestreams to ensure that necessary pretreatment steps have been
performed. The guidance establishes a waste acceptance procedure that
clearly resembles that generally performed at CWT facilities. Further,
in the case of wastestreams not subject to national guidelines and
standards, the POTW should also monitor the hauled wastestreams to
ensure that pollutant reductions at the POTW will be achieved through
treatment and not dilution.
Based on the types of hauled wastewater that commenters have
indicated POTWs accept, EPA shares the concern of many commenters that
pollutant reductions in these hauled wastewaters at POTWs are largely
due to dilution. EPA reminds POTWs that wastewaters that contain
significant quantities of metal pollutants, significant quantities of
petroleum-based oil and grease, or significant quantities of non-
biodegradable organic constituents should be pretreated by the
generating facility or an appropriate treatment facility prior to
acceptance at the POTW. EPA further reminds POTWs that this remains
true regardless of whether or not these wastewaters comprise a de
minimis portion of the total volume of the wastewaters treated at their
facility. EPA concluded that if POTWs monitor hauled wastes
appropriately and additionally ensure that all hauled wastes not
subject to national effluent guidelines and standards can be
effectively treated with their biological treatment systems then many
of the issues raised by non-POTW commenters will be alleviated.
EPA is aware of a POTW that plans to open a wastewater treatment
system to operate in conjunction with its POTW operations. This
facility would accept wastewaters subject to national guidelines and
standards, treat them, and then discharge them to the POTW's treatment
plant. The acceptance by a POTW of wastes subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards that do not comply with pretreatment standards
would seem to violate the requirements noted above unless the POTW has
revised the applicable standards to take account of its removal of
certain pollutants. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Sec. 403.7 describe the
process for obtaining removal credits and identifying the pollutants
for which removal credits may be available. Under the current
regulations, removal credits are only available for a limited number of
pollutants. The 1999 notice described the removal credits program and
when and for what pollutants such credits might be available at 64 FR
2339-10. EPA would note that the new wastewater treatment system would
itself be a POTW (or part of the POTW) and, thus, any wastewater
introduced to it must meet all applicable pretreatment standards.
However, because POTWs are already covered by the technology
requirements (i.e., secondary treatment) specified in the CWA (40 CFR
133), they are not considered CWT facilities and are not within the
scope of today's rule.

G. Marine Generated Wastes

In the proposed rule (64 FR 2291), EPA defined marine waste as
waste generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a
ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal or open waters. Such
wastes may include ballast water, bilge water, and other wastes
generated as part of routine ship operations. The proposal further
explained that EPA considered

[[Page 81261]]

wastewater off-loaded from a ship as being generated on-site at the
point where it is off-loaded provided that the waste is generated as
part of the routine maintenance and operation of the ship on which it
originated while at sea. The waste is not considered an off-site
generated waste (and thus subject to CWT requirements) as long as it is
treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility where it is off-
loaded. Therefore, EPA proposed not to include these facilities as CWT
facilities. The proposal further clarified that if marine generated
wastes are off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility at a
separate location and commingled with other covered wastewater, these
facilities and their wastestreams would be subject to provisions of
this rule.
After careful consideration of comments, EPA has not modified its
approach for marine generated waste with one exception. For today's
rule, EPA defines marine waste as waste generated as part of the normal
maintenance and operation of a ship, boat, or barge operating on
inland, coastal or open waters, or while berthed. See 40 CFR
Sec. 437.1(c)(2). In response to commenters' requests for
clarification, EPA has changed the definition to clarify that wastes
generated while ships are berthed are part of normal maintenance and
operational activities and are thus ``on-site.'' As a further point of
clarification, waste generated while a ship is berthed is not an off-
site generated waste so long as it is treated and discharged at the
ship servicing facility where it is off-loaded. If, however, marine
generated wastes are off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility
at a separate location and commingled with other covered wastewater,
these facilities and their wastestreams are subject to provisions of
this rule.

H. Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids

The thermal drying of POTW biosolids was not a focus of EPA's
initial regulatory effort to develop this guideline. Consequently, EPA
did not target thermal dryers during its data collection activities.
However, commenters to the 1999 proposal provided information on
thermal drying activities and requested EPA's views as to whether such
operations would be subject to this rule. Thermal dryers accept off-
site generated POTW biosolids (sludges that remain after wastewater
treatment at a POTW) and treat these biosolids with a variety of
technologies (e.g. rotary drum dryers) to form pellets. These biosolids
can then be land applied. The thermal drying process generates two
primary wastewater streams: facility water wash down and blowdown from
wet scrubbers. These wastewaters are discharged back to the POTW that
produced the biosolids.
Commenters to the 1999 proposal requested that EPA not include
these activities within the scope of this rule for the following
reasons:
The POTW and the thermal dryer form a closed loop system.
POTWs are the sole source of off-site waste received by thermal dryers.
All wastewaters generated from the treatment of these biosolids are
returned to the generator (the POTW).
All storage and processing areas at these facilities are
enclosed. Therefore, this material poses very little or no threat to
storm water.
Thermal drying activities bear little resemblance to the
other regulated activities. Mandated testing parameters and other
requirements under the CWT rule have little applicability to biosolids
processing.
EPA agrees with commenters that thermal drying of biosolids should
not be subject to provisions of the CWT rule. Because the only source
of off-site wastes received at these drying facilities is biosolids
produced at the POTW, the wastewater being generated from thermal
drying of these biosolids should contain the same pollutants being
treated at the POTW. As a result, the wastewater should be completely
compatible with the treatment system at the POTW and should not cause
any pass-through or interference. Consequently, thermal drying of POTW
biosolids is not subject to provisions of the CWT rule. See 40 CFR
437.1(b)(4).

I. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners

Facilities that treat wastewater that results from cleaning tanker
trucks, rail tank cars, or barges may be subject to the provisions of
this rule if not subject to the Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC)
Point Source Category guidelines (40 CFR Part 442). Thus, for example,
the CWT rule does not apply to discharges from wastewater treatment at
facilities engaged exclusively in cleaning the interiors of
transportation equipment covered by the TEC regulation. EPA promulgated
these guidelines on August 14, 2000 at 65 FR 49666. The TEC regulation
applies to facilities that solely accept tanks which have been
previously emptied or that contain a small amount of product, called a
``heel,'' typically accounting for less than one percent of the volume
of the tank. A facility that accepts for cleaning a tank truck, rail
tank car, or barge not ``empty'' for purposes of TEC may be subject to
the provisions established for the CWT rule.
There are some facilities that are engaged in traditional CWT
activities and also engaged in traditional TEC activities. If the
wastewaters from the two operations are commingled, under the approach
adopted for TEC, the commingled wastewater flow from the transportation
equipment cleaning activities would be subject to CWT limits.
Therefore, a facility performing transportation equipment cleaning as
well as other CWT services that commingles these wastes is a CWT
facility and all of the wastewater discharges are subject to provisions
of this rule. If, however, a facility is performing both operations and
the wastestreams are not commingled (that is, transportation equipment
cleaning process wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are
treated in a second, separate system), both the TEC rule and CWT rule
apply to the respective wastewaters. See 40 CFR 437.1(b)(10).
As a further point of clarification, the CWT rule does apply to
transportation equipment cleaning wastewater received from off-site.
Transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-site that
are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site wastes are
subject to provisions of this rule.

J. Landfill Wastewaters

EPA published effluent limitations guidelines for Landfills, (40
CFR Part 445) at 65 FR 3007, (January 19, 2000). There, EPA established
limits for facilities which operate landfills subject to the provisions
established in 40 CFR Parts 257, 258, 264, and 265. The final Landfills
rule limitations do not apply to wastewater associated with landfills
operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations
in most circumstances.
In the CWT industry, there are some facilities that are engaged
both in CWT activities and in operating landfills. For the CWT final
rule, EPA's approach to facilities which treat mixtures of CWT
wastewater and landfill wastewater is consistent with that established
for the landfill guideline. Therefore, a facility performing landfill
activities as well as other CWT services that commingles the wastewater
is a CWT facility only, and all of the wastewater discharges are
subject to the provisions of this rule. If a facility is performing
both operations and the wastestreams are not commingled (that is,
landfill wastewater is treated in one treatment system and CWT
wastewater is treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the
provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT

[[Page 81262]]

rule apply to their respective wastewater.
Additionally, under the approach established in the Landfills
rulemaking, CWT facilities which are dedicated to landfill wastewater
only, whether they are located at a landfill site or not, are subject
to the effluent limitations for Landfills. These dedicated landfill CWT
facilities are not subject to provisions of the CWT rulemaking.
As a further point of clarification, landfill wastewater is not
specifically excluded from provisions of this rule. Landfill wastewater
that is treated at CWT facilities along with other covered off-site
wastestreams are subject to provisions of this rule. Furthermore, a
landfill that commingles for treatment its own landfill wastewater with
other landfill wastewater only is subject to the Landfill limits in the
circumstances described in V.B above.

K. Incineration Activities

In January of this year, EPA promulgated effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from a limited segment
of the waste combustion industry. 65 FR 4360 (January 27, 2000). This
regulation, codified at 40 CFR Part 444, applies to the discharge from
a ``commercial hazardous waste combustor'' (CHWC). CHWCs are commercial
incinerators that treat or recover energy from hazardous industrial
waste.
There may be certain industrial facilities (for whom EPA has
established guidelines limitations or standards in 40 CFR subpart N)
which are subject to the CWT regulation that also operate incinerators
or CHWCs. For the CWT final rule, EPA has adopted the same approach it
has followed for other industrial facilities subject to national
limitations and standards. Where a facility treats CHWC (or other
incinerator wastewater) with CWT wastewater, the permit writer (or
local control authority) would establish discharge limitations (or
pretreatment standards) by using a flow-weighted combination of the
CHWC limitations/standards (or BPJ incinerator wastewater limitations/
standards) and the CWT limitations/standards. Thus, an organic chemical
facility with an on-site CHWC (or other incinerator) that is also a CWT
would be subject to combined wastestream formula pretreatment standards
or building block limitations based on all three 40 CFR subpart N
regulations.
Additionally, a facility which only treats CHWC wastewater (or
other incinerator wastewaters or waste that is similar in nature as
determined by the permitting authority, see Section V.B), whether
located at a CHWC site or not, would be subject not to the CWT
regulations but to the otherwise applicable limitations or standards
(either CHWC or, in the case of non-CHWC incinerator wastewater,
limitations or standards developed by the permit writer or local
control authority). EPA notes, however, that it has not identified any
CWT facilities that are dedicated to CHWC (or other incineration)
wastewaters only.
Further, incineration wastewaters are not specifically excluded
from provisions of this rule. Incineration wastewaters received from
off-site that are treated at CWT facilities along with other covered
off-site wastestreams are subject to CWT limitations and provisions of
this rule.

L. Solids, Soils and Sludges

EPA did not distinguish in its information gathering efforts
between those waste treatment and recovery facilities treating aqueous
waste and those treating non-aqueous wastes or a combination of both.
Thus, EPA's 308 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and related CWT
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) asked for information on CWT
operations without regard to the type of waste treated. EPA's sampling
program also included facilities that accepted both aqueous and solid
wastes for treatment and/or recovery. In fact, the facility that forms
the technology basis for the metals subcategory limitations treats both
liquid and solid wastes. A facility that accepts wastes from off-site
for treatment and/or recovery that generates a wastewater is subject to
the CWT rule regardless of whether the wastes are aqueous or non-
aqueous. Therefore, wastewater generated in the treatment of solids
received from off-site is subject to the CWT rule.
As a further point of clarification, the main concern in the
treatment or recycling of off-site ``solid wastes'' is that pollutants
contained in the solid waste may be transferred to a process or contact
water resulting in a wastewater that may require treatment. Examples of
such wastewaters include, but are not limited to:
Entrained water directly removed through dewatering
operations (for example, sludge dewatering);
Contact water added to wash or leach contaminants from the
waste material; and
Storm water that comes in direct contact with waste
material which contain liquids.
The treatment or recovery of solids that remain in solid form when
contacted with water and which do not leach any chemicals into the
water are not subject to this rule. Examples of excluded solids
recovery operations are the recycling of aluminum cans, glass and
plastic bottles. As a further point of clarification, any wastewater
generated at a municipal recycling center is not subject to provisions
of this rule.

M. Scrap Metal Processors and Auto Salvage Operations

During development of this regulation, EPA did not examine
facilities engaged in scrap metal processing or auto salvage operations
as part of its study. EPA did not attempt to collect information on
these types of operations. However, commenters to the 1999 proposal
provided some information on these activities. Commenters noted that
these operations often generate contaminated wastewaters as a secondary
part of their operations. As described by commenters, wastewater is
often produced when rainwater comes in contact with the scrap metal
and/or automobiles during collection and storage. This rainwater then
becomes contaminated with oily residue from the scrap metal and/or
automobiles. Contaminated storm water is the only wastewater resulting
from these operations.
Because contaminated storm water generated from centralized scrap
metal processing or auto salvage operations would, as the regulatory
language is specified, be subject to regulation, EPA considered whether
it had a basis for regulating wastewaters from these operations. Other
than the limited information supplied by commenters, EPA has very
little data concerning these activities and the facilities that conduct
these activities. As a result, EPA concluded that it should not include
within the scope of the guideline wastewaters generated from
centralized scrap metal processing or auto salvage at this time. EPA
would expect that permit writers and control authorities would develop
limitations or local limits to establish site-specific permit
requirements for any centralized scrap metal processing or auto salvage
operations generating and discharging a contaminated stormwater.

N. Transfer Stations

During the initial stages of development of this rule, EPA did not
envision transfer stations as part of the centralized waste treatment
industry. As such, EPA did not attempt to collect information on the
operation of transfer stations. However, EPA received comment to the
1999 proposal asking

[[Page 81263]]

that EPA clarify its coverage of these facilities by this rule.
EPA has very little information on the operation of transfer
stations. Based on comments, while transfer stations could fall within
the definition of a CWT since they accept off-site industrial wastes,
they do not perform any treatment or recovery of the off-site wastes.
Transfer stations simply facilitate the distribution of wastes for
disposal. Consequently, EPA has concluded that transfer stations should
not be subject to provisions of the CWT rule.

O. Stabilization/Solidification

As explained in the 1999 proposal, EPA concluded that, by
definition, stabilization/solidification operations are ``dry'' and do
not produce any wastewater. As such, EPA did not propose to include
stabilization/solidification processes in the CWT rule. At that time,
EPA also explained that it was considering a subcategory for
stabilization operations with a zero discharge requirement, and
requested comment on this approach.
EPA received very little comment on stabilization/solidification
and no new data from industry following the 1999 proposal. One
commenter suggested EPA require stabilization/solidification operations
to be zero discharge. Another suggested EPA use the same approach
proposed for facilities handling used oil filters. A third commented
that EPA should not promulgate a zero discharge requirement because, in
the event that a wastewater is produced by stabilization/solidification
operations, the facility would not have the option to treat the
wastewater on-site.
EPA re-examined its database and concluded that while
``solidification/stabilization'' processes do not themselves produce
any wastewater, there are often wastewaters associated with these
processes. The major wastewater reported by questionnaire respondents
associated with stabilization/solidification operations is equipment
wash down. Further, the database shows that many of the wastes accepted
from off-site for stabilization/solidification are the same or similar
to wastes accepted for other covered CWT operations.
Consequently, EPA is not promulgating a subcategory for
stabilization/solidification with a zero discharge requirement. EPA
agrees with commenters that, in the event that there are wastewaters
produced by or associated with these operations, facilities should have
the option of choosing whether to treat the wastes on-site or through
other means. If these operations produce a wastewater, then the
discharge of wastewater from these facilities should be subject to
provisions of this rule. Therefore, ``dry'' stabilization/
solidification operations themselves are not subject to provisions of
the CWT rule. However, wastewater discharges from stabilization/
solidification operations that are performed on waste received from off
site are subject to provisions of this rule. This approach is
consistent with EPA's approach to fuel blending operations and used oil
filter management.

P. Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Re-Use

EPA recognizes that some facilities accept wastewater from off-site
for re-use rather than treatment or recovery. The intent in accepting
these off-site ``treated'' wastewaters is to replace potable water or
more expensive pure water obtained from wells, surface waters, etc.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
The acceptance of wastewater from off-site for use in
place of potable water in industrial processes;
The use of secondary POTW effluents as non-contact cooling
water; and
The use of storm water in place of potable water at shared
industrial facilities located in industrial parks.
Likewise, EPA is also aware that some facilities accept used
materials such as spent pickle liquor for re-use as a treatment
chemical in place of virgin treatment chemicals.
EPA applauds all pollution prevention activities, especially those
that allow treated wastewater or spent chemicals to be re-used rather
than discharged. EPA does not define this type of activity as treatment
or recovery. Therefore, the acceptance of off-site wastewater or spent
chemicals for re-use in the treatment system or other industrial
process is not a CWT activity and is not subject to provisions of this
rule.

Q. Recovery and Recycling Operations

Many CWT facilities perform recovery activities that lead to
recycling of materials either at the recovering site or at another
location. The purpose of these activities is to recycle product back
into a use for which it was originally intended, not the treatment and
disposal of wastewater streams. Examples of such activities include but
are not limited to: used oil processing, used glycol recovery, fuel
blending, metals recovery, and re-refining. Many commenters to both the
1995 proposal and the 1999 proposal noted that these activities should
not be included under the scope of this rule because they are not
``treatment,'' but ``recovery'' activities.
EPA applauds efforts to reduce pollution and the ancillary adverse
consequences to the environment associated with product disposal and
does not want to discourage these practices. However, EPA also
recognizes that while the intent of these activities is not treatment
of a ``wastewater,'' but rather recovery of a used or waste material,
wastewater is usually generated from these recovery processes.
Generally, the facility performing the recovery activity also performs
on-site treatment of the resulting wastewater. EPA wants to ensure that
these wastewaters receive appropriate treatment.
From the beginning of its data gathering activities associated with
the development of this rule, EPA has included recycling and recovery
activities along with wastewater treatment activities. In fact, EPA
developed sections of the 308 Questionnaire to specifically target the
collection of information on metals, solids, oils, and organics
recovery activities. Many of the facilities visited and sampled by EPA
perform recovery operations. Some of these facilities refer to
themselves as ``recyclers'' and not ``wastewater treatment
facilities.'' EPA's sampling data show that in many instances the
pollutants and concentrations of pollutants in wastewaters generated
from recycling/recovery activities are very similar or more
concentrated than wastewaters accepted for ``treatment'' only. In fact,
many facilities that perform recovery operations combine the wastewater
generated from the recovery operations with other off-site wastewater
received for treatment. Consequently, EPA has concluded that recovery
operations are included in the scope of this rule. Therefore, unless
specifically stated elsewhere, facilities that recycle and recover off-
site waste, wastewaters and/or used materials are considered
``centralized waste treatment facilities'' and are subject to
provisions of this rule. However, if metals recovery operations are
subject to the secondary metals provisions of 40 CFR 421, the
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, then the
provisions of this part do not apply. These secondary metals
subcategories are Subpart C (Secondary Aluminum Smelting Subcategory),
Subpart F (Secondary Copper Subcategory), Subpart L (Secondary Silver
Subcategory), Subpart M (Secondary Lead Subcategory), Subpart P
(Primary and Secondary Germanium and Gallium Subcategory), Subpart Q
(Secondary Indium

[[Page 81264]]

Subcategory), Subpart R (Secondary Mercury Subcategory), Subpart T
(Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium Subcategory), Subpart V (Secondary
Nickel Subcategory), Subpart X (Secondary Precious Metals Subcategory),
Subpart Z (Secondary Tantalum Subcategory), Subpart AA (Secondary Tin
Subcategory), Subpart AB (Primary and Secondary Titanium Subcategory),
Subpart AC (Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory), and Subpart AD
(Secondary Uranium Subcategory).

R. Silver Recovery Operations From Used Photographic and X-Ray
Materials

At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed not to include
electrolytic plating/metallic replacement silver recovery operations of
used photographic and x-ray materials within the scope of this rule.
The Agency based its conclusion on the fundamental difference in
technology used to recover silver at facilities devoted exclusively to
treatment of photographic and x-ray wastes. However, for off-site
wastes that are treated/recovered at these facilities through any other
process and/or waste generated at these facilities as a result of any
other centralized treatment/recovery process, the Agency proposed that
these wastewaters would be subject to provisions of this rule.
The Agency received many comments to the 1999 proposal that
supported EPA's decision to not include electrolytic plating/metallic
replacement silver recovery operation of used photographic and x-ray
materials within the scope of this rule. However, commenters
additionally noted that while many of these facilities primarily use
electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement in silver
recovery operations, there are other processes that are also utilized.
Commenters further noted that new silver recovery technologies are
emerging and being studied and developed on a regular basis. As such,
commenters asked EPA to not include silver recovery operations from
used photographic and x-ray materials regardless of the method used to
recover the silver.
EPA agrees with commenters that facilities that are devoted
exclusively to the centralized recovery of silver from photographic and
x-ray wastes should not be covered by this rule, regardless of the type
of process used to recover the silver. As such, facilities that
exclusively perform centralized silver recovery from used photographic
and x-ray wastes are not subject to provisions of this rule. EPA would
expect that, as is the case now with wastewater discharges associated
with this operation, the control authority or permit writer would
determine whether to apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 421, Subpart L
(the Secondary Silver Subcategory of the Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing Regulation) or establish BPJ, site-specific permit
requirements.
There are some facilities, however, which are engaged in
traditional CWT activities and also engaged in centralized silver
recovery from photographic and x-ray materials. If the wastewaters from
the two operations are commingled, the commingled silver recovery
wastewater flow would be subject to CWT limitations or standards.
Therefore, a facility performing centralized silver recovery from used
photographic and x-ray materials as well as some other covered CWT
services that commingles these wastes are subject to provision of the
CWT rule. All of the wastewater discharges are subject to provisions of
this rule. If, however, a facility is performing both operations and
the wastestreams are not commingled (that is, silver recovery
wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are treated in a
second, separate system), the permit writer or control authority should
apply the provision of 40 CFR part 421, if applicable, or continue to
establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements for the discharge
associated with the silver recovery operations and apply the CWT rule
to the wastewaters associated with the other covered CWT activities.
As a further point of clarification, wastewater generated as a
result of centralized silver recovery operations are not specifically
excluded from provisions of this rule. Silver recovery wastewaters that
are treated at CWT facilities with other covered off-site wastestreams
are subject to provisions of this rule.

S. High Temperature Metals Recovery

EPA is aware of three facilities in the U.S. that recover metal
using a ``high temperature metals recovery'' process (HTMR). HTMR
facilities recycle metal-bearing materials in a pyrometallurgical
process that employs very high temperature furnaces. These facilities
do not use the water-based precipitation/filtration technologies to
recover metals from wastewater observed at metals subcategory
facilities throughout the CWT industry. At the time of the proposal,
EPA believed that all HTMR processes were ``dry'' (i.e., did not
produce a wastewater). Consequently, in the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed
not to include facilities that perform high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR) within the coverage of this rule. EPA further requested comment
on whether EPA should promulgate a zero discharge requirement for
facilities that utilize the HTMR process.
Based on comment to the proposal, EPA has concluded that while most
HTMR processes are dry, one of the three known HTMR facilities produces
a wastewater (scrubber blowdown). As such, EPA has concluded that a
zero discharge requirement for HTMR facilities is inappropriate and has
not included it in the final CWT rule. However, upon further
examination of the comments and its database, EPA has concluded that
HTMR facilities that generate a wastewater should be included within
the scope of the CWT rule. While the HTMR process is different from
other recycling technologies studied by EPA for this rulemaking, EPA
has concluded that the wastewater produced from HTMR operations
contains many of the CWT metals subcategory pollutants of concern and
that the concentration of these pollutants falls solidly within the
range of wastewaters in the CWT metals subcategory. As such, while the
HTMR process may be different from water-based precipitation
technologies, the resulting wastewaters are similar (see DCN 33.2.1).
Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA to establish limits for HTMR
wastewaters using the metals subcategory technology basis and these
limits will be achievable. EPA has revised all of its analysis to
reflect the inclusion of these ``non-dry'' HTMR facilities within the
scope of the CWT rule. However, if high temperature metals recovery
operations are subject to any of the secondary metals provisions of 40
CFR 421, the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category,
then the provisions of this part do not apply. See Section V.Q for a
list of the secondary metals subcategories.

T. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

EPA studied the solvent recycling industry in the 1980s. EPA
published its findings in the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the
Solvent Recycling Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) in September 1989 that
describes this industry and its recycling processes. There, EPA has
explained solvent recovery as ``the recycling of spent solvents that
are not the byproduct or waste product of a manufacturing process or
cleaning operation located on the same site.'' Facilities generally
recycle spent solvents in two main operations. Traditional solvent
recovery involves pretreatment of the wastestream (in some cases) and
separation of the solvent mixtures by specially constructed
distillation columns. In most cases, traditional

[[Page 81265]]

solvent recovery is performed at organic chemical manufacturing
facilities. As a result, wastewater discharges resulting from this
process are subject to effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the organic chemicals industry (often abbreviated as OCPSF) (40 CFR
part 414).
EPA is aware that there are a few facilities that accept solvents
from other facilities for commercial solvent recovery operations. Some
perform solvent recovery of spent or contaminated chemicals received
from pharmaceutical and other chemical manufacturing companies. Some
recycle spent solvents generated by parts washers and other cleaning
devices operated by automotive shops, dry cleaners, and other small
businesses. Because these commercial solvent recovery facilities are
not located at an organic manufacturing facility, the provisions of 40
CFR 414, as written, do not apply to them.
Based on comments to the 1999 CWT proposal, EPA considered whether
it should regulate commercial solvent recovery facilities under the
provisions of this rule. EPA has determined, however, not to include
these commercial solvent recovery operations within the scope of this
rule at this time. Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has
clearly stated that traditional solvent recovery operations would not
be included within the scope of this rule. In developing its database
to support this rule, while EPA did collect limited information on
these activities, EPA intentionally excluded known solvent recoverers
from its data collection activities. As such, EPA has only limited data
on solvent recovery activities that are not already subject to OCPSF.
It did not obtain information to characterize the wastewaters generated
at such operations. Thus, EPA has no basis for determining whether or
not such operations are sufficiently similar to the organic waste
subcategory so that they may properly be regulated as organic
wastestreams. Therefore, wastewaters resulting from traditional solvent
recovery activities as defined above are not subject to these effluent
guidelines.
For wastewaters associated with traditional solvent recovery
activities located at organic chemical manufacturing facilities, permit
writers (and local control authorities) will, of course, use the
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) guideline to
establish discharge requirements. For commercial traditional solvent
recovery activities (not located at an organic chemical manufacturing
site), permit writers (and local control authorities) should carefully
examine the wastewater to see if it also contains pollutants regulated
by the OCPSF guidelines when the permit writer establishes case-by-case
limitations under NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.3 or the control
authority establishes local limits under the General Pretreatment
Regulations at 40 CFR 403.5. Permit writers or local control
authorities must include technology-based limits for any toxic
pollutant which is or may be discharged at a level greater than the
level which can be achieved by treatment requirements appropriate to
the permittee, or any pollutant which may pass through or interfere
with POTW operations. (See 40 CFR 122.44(e), 125.3. See also 40 CFR
403.5).
Fuel blending is a type of solvent recovery. Fuel blending is the
process of mixing wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for
reuse. At the time of the 1995 proposal, EPA did not include fuel-
blending operations within the scope of the CWT rule because EPA
believed the fuel blending process was ``dry'' (that is, no wastewaters
were produced). Based on comments to the original proposal and the
Notice of Data Availability and its review of data it has obtained, EPA
has reconfirmed its conclusion that true fuel blenders do not generate
any process wastewaters and are, therefore, zero dischargers. EPA is
concerned, however, that the term ``fuel blending'' may be loosely
applied to any process where recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a
fuel product. Such operations occur at nearly all used oil and fuel
recovery facilities.
EPA has, therefore, not included ``dry'' fuel blending operations
within the scope of the CWT rule. In the event that wastewater is
generated at a CWT fuel blending facility, the discharge of wastewaters
associated with these operations is subject to this rule.

U. Re-Refining

When EPA initially proposed guidelines and standards for CWT
facilities, the regulations would have limited discharges from used oil
reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not specifically include or exclude
discharges from used oil re-refiners. During review of information
received on the 1995 proposal and assessment of the information
collected, the Agency, at one point, considered limiting the scope of
this regulation to reprocessors/reclaimers only because it was not
clear whether re-refiners actually generated wastewater. However,
further data gathering efforts have revealed that re-refiners may
generate wastewater and that the principal sources of re-refining
wastewaters are essentially the same as for reprocessors/reclaimers.
Consequently, the final guidelines will apply to re-refining
wastewater.
EPA studied the used oil reclamation and re-refining industry in
the 1980s. In September 1989, EPA published the ``Preliminary Data
Summary for the Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining Industry'' (EPA
440/1-89/014) that describes this industry and the processes utilized.
This document generally characterizes the industry in terms of the
types of equipment used to process the used oil. Minor processors
(reclaimers) generally separate water and solids from the used oil
using simple settling technology, primarily in-line filtering, and
gravity settling with or without heat addition. Major processors
(reclaimers) generally use various combinations of more sophisticated
technology including screen filtration, heated settling,
centrifugation, and light fraction distillation primarily to remove
water. Re-refiners generally use the most sophisticated systems that
include, in addition to the previous technologies, a vacuum
distillation step to separate the oil into different components.
Today's final rule applies to the process wastewater discharges
from used oil re-refining operations. The principal sources of
wastewater include oil-water gravity separation (often accompanied by
chemical/thermal emulsion breaking) and dehydration unit operations
(including light distillation and the first stage of vacuum
distillation). EPA has, to date, identified two re-refining facilities.

V. Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent Recycling

EPA did not obtain information on used oil filter or oily-absorbent
(oil soaked or contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads) recycling
through the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. However, in
response to the September 1996 Notice of Data Availability and the 1999
proposal, EPA received comments from facilities which recycle used oil
filters and oily absorbents. In addition, EPA also visited several used
oil reprocessors that recycle used oil filters or oily absorbents as
part of their operations.
Used oil filter and oily absorbent recycling processes range from
simple crushing and draining of entrained oil to more involved
processes where filters or absorbent materials are shredded and the
metal and filter material are separated. Generally, the resulting used
oil is recycled, the separated metal product is sold to a smelter, and
the

[[Page 81266]]

separated filter material is sold as a solid fuel. Based on information
collected during EPA's site visits and comments on the 1999 proposal,
wastewater may be generated during all phases of the recycling activity
including collection activities, plant maintenance, and air pollution
control. EPA notes, however, that based on its observations, many of
these activities are ``dry'' and do not produce associated wastewaters.
In fact, at the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA believed these
activities were largely ``dry'' and requested comment on whether EPA
should promulgate a zero discharge requirement for facilities
performing used oil filter recovery.
As detailed above, based on comment on the proposal, EPA has
learned that not all used oil filter and absorbent recycling activities
are dry. Consequently, EPA has decided that it should not adopt a zero
discharge requirement for these activities. Upon further examination of
the comments and its database, EPA has concluded that it should include
used oil filter and absorbent recovery facilities that generate a
wastewater within the scope of the CWT rule. While EPA does not have
data specific to used oil filter recovery on the characteristics of
these wastewaters, these wastewaters are often combined with other
covered CWT wastewaters for treatment. Further, since the material
being recovered is primarily used oil, EPA has concluded that any
resulting wastewaters will be similar (in terms of constituents and
concentration) to wastewaters generated from used oil recovery. As a
result, EPA has concluded that these operations should be regulated as
are other centralized used oil recovery activities. Where information
is available to EPA on these operations, EPA has revised its analysis
to reflect the inclusion of these ``non-dry'' used oil filter and
absorbent facilities within the scope of the CWT rule.

W. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

EPA received comments suggesting that the scope of the CWT rule
should not include grease, sand, and oil interceptor wastes. Some of
these wastes are from non-industrial sources and some are from
industrial sources. Some are treated at central locations designed to
treat grease trap/interceptor wastes exclusively and some of these
wastes are treated at traditional CWT facilities with traditional CWT
wastes. Examples of the types of customers which generate these grease
trap/interceptor wastes include, but are not limited to auto and truck
maintenance and repair shops; auto body and parts shops; car washes;
gas stations; commercial bottling facilities; food and produce
distribution shops; restaurants; and tire shops.
Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has directed its
efforts to CWT operations that treat and/or recover off-site industrial
wastes and not to food-related wastes. Grease trap/interceptor wastes
are defined as animal or vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or
interceptors generated by facilities engaged in food service
activities. Such facilities include, but are not limited to
restaurants, cafeterias, caterers, commercial bottling facilities, and
food and distribution shops. EPA has concluded that these wastes are
fundamentally different from the types of wastes examined for this rule
and are outside the scope of this rule. Grease trap/interceptor wastes
should not contain any hazardous chemicals or materials that would
prevent the fats/oils from being recovered and recycled.
Wastewater discharges from the centralized treatment of wastes
produced from oil interceptors, however, which are designed to collect
petroleum-based oils, sand, etc. from industrial type processes, are a
different case and EPA has determined that this wastewater is properly
subject to this rule. Examples of facilities that produce oil
interceptor waste include, but are not limited to, auto and truck
maintenance and repair shops; auto body and parts shops; car washes;
and gas stations. EPA collected data on the types and concentrations of
pollutants in oil interceptor wastes through comments and EPA sampling.
The data show, that like other CWT wastes, the concentration of
pollutants can vary greatly from one wastestream to another. EPA's
sampling data show that these materials can be very similar in nature
and concentration to other wastes covered by this rule. Consequently,
EPA has determined these wastes should be included within the scope of
this rule.

X. Food Processing Wastes

During development of this rule, EPA did not collect information
from facilities engaged in centralized waste treatment of food
processing wastes. As detailed in V.W, EPA envisioned that this rule
would be limited to the treatment and/or recovery of off-site
industrial wastes. While food processing may be an ``industrial''
activity, these wastes do not contain heavy metals, concentrated
organics, or petroleum based oils. In terms of contaminants of concern,
these wastes are similar to those generated by cafeterias, restaurants,
etc. Consequently, the final guidelines will not apply to animal and
vegetable fats/oils wastewaters at CWT facilities, specifically those
generated by food processors/manufacturers.

Y. Sanitary Wastes and/or Chemical Toilet Wastes

The provisions of the CWT rule, as previously explained, will not
cover sanitary wastes (such as septage), nor will they cover chemical
toilet wastes. EPA expects that permit writers and control authorities
would develop BPJ limitations or local limits to establish site-
specific permit requirements for any commercial sanitary waste
treatment facility.
Similarly, sanitary wastes or chemical toilet wastes received from
off-site and treated at an industrial facility or a CWT facility are
not subject to the provisions of the CWT rule. If these wastes are
mixed with industrial wastes, EPA would expect that, as is the case now
with ancillary sanitary waste flows mixed for treatment at facilities
subject to national effluent guidelines and standards, the permit
writer would establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.

Z. Treatability, Research and Development, and Analytical Studies

During the initial stages of development of this rule, EPA did not
envision regulation of facilities which accept off-site wastes for
treatability studies, research and development, or chemical or physical
analysis. As such, EPA did not attempt to collect information on these
activities. However, EPA received comment to its proposals asking that
EPA clarify its coverage of these activities by this rule.
EPA has very little information on these activities. Based on
comments, these activities, arguably, would fall within the definition
of Centralized Waste Treatment since they accept off-site wastes. The
purpose of these activities is not treatment or recovery, but rather
the evaluation of different treatment techniques. Consequently, EPA has
concluded that treatability, research and development or analytical
activities should not be subject to provisions of the CWT rule.
Permit writers and local authorities should use their Best
Professional Judgment (BPJ) and local limits authority to establish
limitations and standards for these wastestreams. Under EPA's
regulations, permit writers or local control authorities must include
technology-based limits either for any toxic pollutant which is or may
be discharged at a level greater than the level which can be achieved
by treatment requirements appropriate to

[[Page 81267]]

the permittee or for any pollutant which may pass through or interfere
with POTW operations. (See 40 CFR 122.44(e), 125.3.) See also 40 CFR
403.5. EPA would expect that, in some cases, wastewater associated with
these activities might look very much like the wastestreams regulated
under this rule. In those circumstances, permit writers (and local
control authorities) may want to consider the technical development
document developed for the CWT guideline when the permit writer
establishes case-by-case limitations under NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
125.3 or the control authority establishes local limits under the
General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.5.
EPA notes that if a CWT facility accepts off-site wastes for
treatability, research and development, or analytical activities, and
commingles any resulting wastewaters with other covered wastewaters
prior to discharge, these wastewaters would be subject to provisions of
this rule.

VI. Subcategorization

EPA developed different limitations and standards for the CWT
operations depending on the type of waste received for treatment or
recovery. EPA remains convinced this is the most appropriate basis for
subcategorizing the CWT industry. EPA has determined that there are
four subcategories appropriate for the CWT industry:
Subcategory A: Facilities that treat or recover metal from
metal-bearing waste, wastewater, or used material received from off-
site (``metals subcategory'');
Subcategory B: Facilities that treat or recover oil from
oily waste, wastewater, or used material received from off-site (``oils
subcategory'');
Subcategory C: Facilities that treat or recover organics
from organic waste, wastewater, or used material received from off-site
(``organics subcategory''); and
Subcategory D: Facilities that treat or recover some
combination of metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste, wastewater, or
used material received from off-site (''multiple wastestream
subcategory'').
For a detailed explanation of EPA's subcategorization methodology
and factors considered as the basis for today's subcategorization, see
the 1999 proposal (64 FR 2300-2301) and Chapter 5 of the Final
Technical Development Document.

VII. Industry Description

As detailed in Section V above, the universe of CWT facilities in
the United States is broad. The development of this industry is largely
a result of the adoption of the increased pollution control measures
required by the CWA and RCRA. The 1999 proposal (64 FR 2293-2294) and
Chapter 4 of the technical development document provide a detailed
description of the development of this industry and its operation.
EPA's 1999 proposal (64 FR 2301-2302) and Chapter 5 of the Final
Technical Development Document also provide detailed descriptions of
operations at facilities by subcategory.
EPA now estimates that there are 223 CWT facilities. Changes in the
estimate of the total number of CWT facilities since the proposal
reflect facilities that were included or excluded because of scope
changes/clarifications. EPA is aware that CWT facilities have entered
or left the centralized waste treatment market. This is expected in a
service industry. Even so, EPA is comfortable that its estimate of
facilities is reasonable and has not adjusted it, other than to account
for scope changes/clarifications. Of these 223 CWT facilities,
approximately 14 discharge directly to surface waters of the U.S., 151
discharge indirectly to POTWs, and 58 are zero or alternative
dischargers. The zero or alternative discharge methods include (1)
wastewater is disposed of by alternate means such as deep well
injection or incineration; (2) wastewater is sent off-site for
treatment, generally to another CWT; (3) wastewater is evaporated; and
(4) no wastewater is generated. There are 62, 178, and 32 facilities in
the metals, oils, and organics subcategories, respectively. Thirty-
seven facilities accept wastes from multiple subcategories and could be
subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory.

VIII. The Final Regulation

For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in
the development of today's final rule, see the proposal (64 FR 2305-
2315) and Chapter 9 of the technical development document.

A. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)

1. Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory
EPA is establishing BPT limitations for the metals subcategory for
19 pollutants, including cyanide. The technology basis for these BPT
limitations is metals option 4: primary precipitation, liquid-solid
separation, secondary precipitation, clarification, and sand
filtration. This is the same technology that was the basis for the 1999
proposed limitations. Under option 4, the treater varies pH levels and
treatment chemicals in order to promote optimal removal of the wide
range of metal pollutants found in CWT metals wastewaters. Different
metals are preferentially removed with different treatment chemicals
and different pH levels. Generally, BPT limitations based on option 4
will require some facilities to more carefully control their treatment
systems, increase the quantities of treatment chemicals they use,
perform an additional precipitation step, and add a clarification and
sand filtration step. In the case of complex cyanide, metal-bearing
streams, EPA's limitations require cyanide removal prior to metals
treatment. EPA based the cyanide limitations on cyanide option 2
treatment, which is alkaline chlorination in a two-step process.
The Agency concluded that this treatment system represented the
best practicable technology currently available and should be the basis
for the BPT metals limitations for the following reasons. First, the
option 4 technology is one that is readily applicable to all facilities
that are treating metal-bearing wastestreams. It is based on a
technology including two-stage chemical precipitation that is currently
used at approximately 25 percent of the facilities in this subcategory.
Second, the adoption of this level of control would represent a
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. Option 4 would annually remove
approximately 4.1 million pounds of TSS and metals now discharged to
the Nation's waters. Third, the Agency assessed the total cost of water
pollution controls likely to be incurred for option 4 in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were
reasonable--$0.40 per pound ($1997). In the 1999 proposal, EPA
explained why it rejected the other options it considered for BPT. See
64 FR 2280 at 2306.
Although EPA is not changing the technology basis from that
proposed, EPA is revising all of the BPT metals subcategory
limitations. This is due to changes in the statistical methodology used
to calculate pollutant long-term averages and limitations as detailed
in Section IV.H above.
The Agency used chemical precipitation treatment technology
performance data from the Metal Finishing regulation (40 CFR Part 433)
to establish direct discharge limitations for TSS because the facility
from which the option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect
discharger and the treatment system is not necessarily designed for

[[Page 81268]]

optimum removal of conventional parameters, due to the lack of
stringent local limits for these parameters. EPA has concluded that the
transfer of this data is appropriate given the absence of adequate
treatment technology for this pollutant at the only otherwise well-
operated BPT CWT facility examined by EPA. Based on a review of the
data, EPA concluded that similar wastes (in terms of TSS
concentrations) are being treated at both metal finishing and
centralized waste treatment facilities, and that the use of the metal
finishing data to derive TSS limits for this subcategory is warranted.
Because the technology basis for the transferred limitations includes
clarification rather than sand filtration, the Agency also included a
clarification step prior to sand filtration (which the option 4
facility does not have) in the technology basis for option 4 for
facilities subject to BPT. Therefore, because the technology basis for
CWT is based on primary chemical precipitation, primary clarification,
secondary chemical precipitation, secondary clarification, and sand
filtration and the technology basis for Metal Finishing is based on
primary precipitation and clarification only, EPA concluded that CWT
facilities will perform similarly (or better) when treating TSS in
wastes in this subcategory.
BPT limitations established by option 4 (except TSS) are based on
data from a single, well-operated system. Generally, for purposes of
defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks at the performance of the
best treatment technology and calculates limitations from some level of
average performance measured at facilities that employ this ``best''
treatment technology. In reviewing technologies currently in use in
this subcategory, however, EPA found that facilities generally utilize
a single stage chemical precipitation step--a technology which does not
achieve adequate metals removals for the wastestreams observed at these
operations. EPA did identify facilities that utilize additional metals
wastewater treatment, generally secondary chemical precipitation, but
without the final multimedia filtration step. Also, EPA found that only
the BPT model facility accepts a full spectrum of waste, often with
extremely high metals concentrations and provides, therefore, a
suitable basis to determine the performance that a well-designed and
operated system can achieve for a wide range of raw waste
concentrations. Consequently, EPA is adopting BPT limitations based on
performance data from this facility. For further discussion, see the
1999 proposal at 64 FR 2280-2357.
Cyanide Subset. EPA is adopting BPT limitations for the metals
subcategory for cyanide bearing streams. The presence of high cyanide
concentrations detrimentally affects the performance of metal
precipitation processes due to the formation of metal-cyanide
complexes. Effective treatment of such wastes typically requires a
cyanide destruction step prior to any metal precipitation steps.
Consequently, in the case of metal streams which contain concentrated
cyanide complexes, EPA based BPT limitations on an additional treatment
step to destroy cyanide before metals precipitation: alkaline
chlorination in a two-step process (cyanide option 2). This is the same
technology that was the basis for the 1999 proposed limitations. In the
first step, cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in a pH range of 9 to 11.
The second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a
controlled pH of 8.5.
There are several reasons supporting the selection of limitations
based on cyanide option 2, as explained in detail in the 1999 proposal
at 64 FR 2309. First, the facility achieving cyanide option 2 removals
accepts a full spectrum of cyanide waste. Consequently, the treatment
used by the cyanide option 2 facility can be readily applied to all
facilities in the subset of this subcategory. Second, adoption of this
level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants
discharged into the environment by facilities in this subset. Finally,
the Agency assessed the total cost for cyanide option 2 in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were
economically reasonable.
2. Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory
The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the oils
subcategory for 22 pollutants. The technology basis for the BPT
limitations is oils option 9: emulsion breaking/gravity separation,
secondary gravity separation and dissolved air flotation. This is the
same technology that was the basis for the 1999 proposed limitations.
EPA's data indicate that all oils treatment facilities currently
utilize some form of emulsion breaking and/or gravity separation
system. Secondary gravity separation involves using a series of tanks
to separate the oil and water and then skimming the oily component off.
The resulting water moves to the next step. The gravity separation
steps are then followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF). DAF separates
solid or liquid particles from a liquid phase by introducing air
bubbles into the liquid phase. The bubbles attach to the particles and
rise to the top of the mixture. Often, chemicals are added to increase
the removal of metal constituents. BPT limitations based on this option
will likely require some facilities to more carefully control their
treatment systems, perform additional gravity separation steps, or
install and operate a DAF system. For oils streams with relatively high
concentrations of metals, these limitations will also require some
facilities to use increased quantities of treatment chemicals to
enhance the removal of metals.
EPA developed the final limitations for this option using sampling
data from facilities both with and without the secondary gravity
separation step. EPA's data show that the secondary gravity separation
step may not always be necessary to meet the final limitations,
depending on the level of treatment in the initial gravity-separation/
emulsion-breaking step. EPA's data show there is a wide range of
pollutants being discharged from this initial treatment step. EPA
concluded that if many of the facilities optimize treatment at this
level, the secondary gravity separation step may not be required.
However, EPA estimated the costs to comply with the limitations with
the secondary gravity separation step included to ensure this
technology option's economic achievability.
The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the oils
subcategory based on Option 9, emulsion breaking/gravity separation,
secondary gravity separation and dissolved air flotation for two
reasons. First, the adoption of this level of control would represent a
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. Second, the Agency assessed the total
costs of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for this option
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these
costs were reasonable at $0.63/lb ($1997). In the 1999 proposal, EPA
explained why it rejected the other options it considered for BPT for
this subcategory. See 64 FR 2280 at 2309-11.
EPA believes it is important to note that BPT limitations for
conventional parameters established by Option 9 are based on data from
a single, well-operated, indirect-discharging system. Generally, for
purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks at the
performance of the best treatment technology and calculates limitations
from some level of average performance measured at facilities that
employ this ``best'' treatment technology. The

[[Page 81269]]

facilities sampled as the technology basis for this subcategory,
however, were not required to optimize their oil and grease or TSS
removals because they discharge to POTWs. Current POTW/local permit
limitations for oil and grease in this subcategory range from 100 mg/L
to 2,000 mg/L and for TSS from 250 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L. Many have no
oil and grease or TSS limits at all. EPA concluded that only one of the
systems in this subcategory for which EPA has data was designed to
remove oil and grease and TSS effectively. EPA concluded that the oil
and grease and TSS removals are uniformly inadequate at the other
facilities included in the BPT limitations calculations for other
parameters. Consequently, EPA based the oil and grease and TSS
limitations on data from a single facility.
3. Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory
The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the organics
subcategory for 17 pollutants. The technology basis for the BPT
limitations is organics option 4: equalization and biological
treatment. Biological treatment for this option is in the form of a
sequential batch reactor. This is the same technology that was the
basis for the 1999 proposed limitations. The preamble to the proposal
provided further explanation of EPA's decision (64 FR 2311-12).
The Agency concluded that this treatment system represented the
best practicable technology currently available and should be the basis
for the BPT organics limitations for several reasons. The technology is
already used at the four direct discharging facilities that treat
organic wastes and results in the removal of 28,700 lbs annually of
conventional pollutants (at baseline). Moreover, because the treatment
is in place, the cost of compliance with the limitations will obviously
be reasonable.
Unlike the other BPT limitations adopted today, the adoption of
limitations based on option 4 will not, in all probability, result in
any significant change in the quantity of pollutants discharged into
the environment by facilities in this subcategory. As noted, EPA's data
suggests that all direct discharging facilities in this subcategory
currently employ equalization and biological treatment systems, and EPA
assumed that all those facilities will be able to meet the BPT
limitations without additional capital or operating costs. If any
facilities were to incur increased operating costs associated with the
limits, EPA concluded these increases are negligible and has not
quantified them. Many of these facilities are not currently required to
monitor for organic parameters or are only required to monitor a couple
of times a year. Thus, the estimated costs for complying with BPT
limitations for this subcategory are associated with additional
monitoring only. The Agency determined the additional monitoring is
warranted, and will promote more effective and consistent treatment at
these facilities. In the 1999 proposal, EPA explained why it rejected
the other options it considered for BPT for this subcategory. See 64 FR
2280 at 2311-12.
The selected BPT option is based on the performance of a single
indirect discharging facility. While EPA identified four direct
discharging organics subcategory facilities that utilize biological
treatment, EPA did not use data from these facilities to establish
limitations because they commingle organics subcategory wastewaters
with other CWT subcategory wastewaters or wastewaters subject to other
national effluent guidelines and standards. Many facilities that are
treating wastes that will be subject to effluent limitations for the
organics subcategory also operate other industrial processes that
generate much larger amounts of wastewater than the quantity of off-
site generated organic waste receipts. The off-site generated organic
waste receipts are directly mixed with the wastewater from the other
industrial processes for treatment. Therefore, identifying facilities
to sample for limitations development was difficult because the waste
received for treatment and treatment unit effectiveness could not be
properly characterized for off-site generated waste. The treatment
system on which EPA based option 4 was one of the few facilities
identified which treated organic waste receipts separately from other
on-site industrial wastewater.
The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the
Thermosetting Resin Subcategory of the OCPSF regulation to establish
direct discharge limitations for BOD5 and TSS because the
facility from which Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect
discharger and the treatment system is not operated to effectively
remove conventional pollutants. EPA has concluded that the transfer of
this data is appropriate given the absence of adequate treatment
technology for these pollutants at the only otherwise well-operated BPT
CWT facility in this subcategory that the Agency was able to evaluate.
Moreover, EPA concluded that the biological treatment systems at CWT
facilities will perform similarly to those at OCPSF facilities. EPA
based this conclusion on its review of the NPDES permits for the four
direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. Two of these
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities that commingle their
wastewater for treatment and are already subject to OCPSF. The other
two facilities have conventional pollutant limits which are lower than
those adopted today. EPA has concluded that all of these facilities
should be able to comply with the transferred limitations without
incurring additional costs. Likewise, EPA has not estimated any
additional pollutant removals associated with this data transfer.
4. Subcategory D--Multiple Wastestream Subcategory
The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the multiple
wastestream subcategory for up to 38 pollutants. EPA developed four
sets of limitations for each of the possible combinations of the three
subcategories of wastestreams: oils and metals, oils and organics,
metals and organics, and oils, metals and organics. The multiple
wastestream subcategory limitations were derived by combining BPT
pollutant limitations from up to all three subcategories selecting the
most stringent values where they overlap.\3\ Therefore, the technology
basis for the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations reflects the
technology basis for the applicable subcategories as detailed in
VIII.A.1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ EPA selected the most stringent maximum monthly average
limitations and its corresponding maximum daily limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As detailed in IV.F, multiple wastestream subcategory limitations
are only available to CWT facilities which accept waste in multiple
subcategories. These facilities must certify as well as demonstrate
that their treatment system obtains equivalent removals to those which
are the basis for the separate subcategory limits. The multiple
wastestream subcategory allows the facility to monitor for compliance
just prior to discharge rather than directly following treatment of a
each subcategory's wastestream. For multiple subcategory facilities,
this option simplifies implementation and reduces monitoring costs. EPA
has, however, estimated additional burden associated with the
certification process in ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR
(No.1427.05) for direct dischargers and ``National Pretreatment Program
(40 CFR part 403)'' ICR (No. 0002.08) for indirect dischargers.
EPA has determined these limitations are also best practicable
technology

[[Page 81270]]

limitations for facilities that operate in one or more CWT categories
for the following reasons. EPA has concluded that, for multiple
subcategory facilities, the limitations adopted in this subcategory in
combination with the certification process will provide pollutant
removals equal to or greater than those projected if the facility
elects to comply with the individual subcategory limitations. Further,
analysis shows that the costs for multi-subcategory facilities to
comply with the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations are
generally equal to or less than the costs associated with complying
with each applicable subcategory's limitations individually. Because
EPA determined that costs of complying with the individual subcategory
limits are achievable and costs of complying with the multiple
subcategory limits are no greater, EPA concluded that the multiple
subcategory wastestream limits are economically achievable.

B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

In today's rule, EPA adopts BCT limitations equivalent to BPT for
all subcategories. In deciding whether to adopt different BCT limits,
EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether
those technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established
by the CWA, and implemented through regulation. EPA generally refers to
the decision criteria as the ``BCT Cost Test.'' For all four
subcategories, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for
BPT that are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test. Accordingly,
EPA is adopting BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent
limitations. For additional information on the results of the BCT Cost
Test, refer to Section X.F.

C. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

EPA today is adopting BAT effluent limitations for all
subcategories of the CWT industry based on the same technologies
selected as the basis for BPT for each subcategory. The BAT limitations
are the same as the BPT limitations for priority and non-conventional
pollutants. As described in the BPT discussion, in general, the
adoption of this level of control will represent a significant
reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities
in this industry. Additionally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts
associated with compliance and found the technologies to be
economically achievable. The economic analysis is discussed in Section
X.G.
With the exception of the metals subcategory, EPA has not
identified any more stringent treatment technology option different
from those evaluated for BPT that might represent best available
technology economically achievable for this industry.
For the metals subcategory, EPA did consider as BAT technology a
treatment technology that it had evaluated for the 1999 proposal,
option 3, based on the use of selective metals precipitation. However,
as detailed in the proposal (64 FR 2307-2308, 2312), there is little
additional toxic removal associated with option 3 while the costs to
the industry for are four times greater than the cost of the BPT
option, option.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ EPA's data show that option 3 would remove approximately 6%
more additional toxic pound-equivalents than option 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA has concluded that it should not adopt BAT limitations based on
Option 3 for several reasons. First, the option 3 technology may not be
the best ``available'' technology for existing metals subcategory
facilities because physical constraints may prevent its use at certain
facilities. Currently, only one facility in the metals subcategory is
employing selective metals precipitation, which requires the separation
and holding of wastestreams in numerous treatment tanks. EPA is aware
that some facilities do not have, and may not be able to obtain,
sufficient space to install the additional treatment tanks that would
be needed for selective metals precipitation. Second, while the
removals associated with option 4 are not as great as those calculated
for option 3, achievement of limitations based on the option 4
technology will still represent a significant advance in removals for
the industry over those obtained from conventional precipitation
technology. Given these factors, EPA has concluded it should adopt BAT
limitations based on the option 4 technology.
For the oils and organics subcategories, as detailed in the
proposal (64 FR 2312-2313), EPA has evaluated treatment technologies
for BAT limitations, which theoretically should provide greater removal
of pollutants of concern. For example, EPA identified an add-on
treatment technology to technologies considered for BPT--carbon
adsorption--that should have further increased removals of pollutants
of concern. However, EPA's data show increases rather than decreases in
concentrations of specific pollutants of concern. EPA has found that
the treatment performance of activated carbon is sometimes unreliable
due to the competitive adsorption and desorption of pollutants that
have different affinities for adsorption on activated carbon. Also, pH
changes of the wastewater going through the carbon adsorption system
may cause stable metal complexes to dissolve and thus cause an increase
in some metal concentrations through the adsorption system.
Consequently, EPA is not adopting BAT limitations based on this
technology.

D. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, EPA must propose
and promulgate Federal standards of performance of for categories of
new sources. Section 306(e) provides that, after the effective date of
the standards of performance, the owner or operator of a new source may
not operate the source in violation of any applicable standard of
performance. The statute defines ``standard of performance'' as a
standard for the control of the discharge of pollutants which reflects
the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies,
processes, operating methods or other alternatives, including, where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. See
Section 306(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1316(a)(1). Congress envisioned
that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than existing
sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient
processes and treatment systems into plant design. See general
discussion of legislative history in American Iron and Steel Institute
v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1057-59 (3rd Cir. 1975). In establishing these
standards, Congress directed EPA to consider the cost of achieving the
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and
energy requirements. As the legislative history of the CWA makes clear,
consideration of cost in establishing new source standards is given
less weight than in establishing BAT limitations because pollution
control alternatives are available to new sources that would not be
available to existing sources. See Legis. Hist. (Sen. Muskie statement
of House-Senate Conference Report on 1972 Act).
For the oils and the organics subcategory, EPA is promulgating NSPS
that would control the same

[[Page 81271]]

conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants as the BPT
effluent limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants at
existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities. Therefore,
EPA is promulgating NSPS oils and organics subcategory limitations that
are identical to BPT/BCT/BAT.
For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is promulgating NSPS
effluent limitations based on a technology which is different from that
used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT limitations. EPA is promulgating NSPS for
the metals subcategory based on the NSPS technology proposed in 1999--
selective metals precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, and tertiary precipitation and
clarification. This technology (option 3) provides the most stringent
controls attainable through the application of demonstrated technology.
EPA has concluded that this technology is the best demonstrated
controlled technology for removing metals from the metal wastestreams
typically treated in the CWT industry. Additionally, EPA has concluded
that there is no barrier to entry for new sources to install, operate,
and maintain treatment systems that will achieve discharge levels
associated with these option 3 technologies. See X.I for a more
detailed discussion of EPA's barrier to entry analysis.
An additional critical factor in EPA's decision is that new
facilities will not face the same constraints on using selective metals
precipitation that existing facilities may. Thus, new facilities in
configuring their operation will have the opportunity to provide
sufficient space to operate the multiple tanks associated with the
option 3 technology.
EPA's determination to establish new source limitations based on
option 3 is also tied to its conclusion that facilities using this
technology have the technical capability to recover and reuse metals,
whereas facilities employing technologies to comply with option 4
limitations do not generally have the capability to reuse the metals
and will dispose of metal-bearing sludges in landfills. EPA's analysis
shows that in the event that a new facility elects to recover and re-
use metals rather than simply treating the wastes, the start-up costs
for the option 3 technology may actually be less than the start-up
costs for the option 4 technology. This is because of the significant
reduction in RCRA permitting costs associated with recycling activities
versus wastewater treatment activities. Furthermore, EPA has examined
the market for re-use of metals and has concluded that these markets
exist. Consequently, EPA has concluded that metals re-use with option 3
is viable. As such, this technology selection promotes the objectives
of both the Clean Water Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. While EPA
has concluded there is no barrier to entry associated with the option 3
technology, EPA recognizes that a CWT metals recycling facility will be
required to be somewhat more selective about the waste receipts it
accepts than a CWT treatment facility. However, EPA's data show that
the vast majority of metal-bearing wastewaters accepted at CWT
facilities are not dilute. In EPA's view, this is because generating
facilities elect to treat dilute metal-bearing wastestreams on-site
because of the ease in treating these wastes and the costs associated
with the transport and treatment of these dilute wastes off-site. Also,
there is a large amount of capacity available at existing CWT metals
subcategory facilities. Consequently, EPA has concluded that existing
CWT metals subcategory facilities already provide adequate capacity for
dilute metal-bearing wastestreams in the event that the frequency of
dilute wastes being transferred off-site for treatment increases.
Finally, EPA notes that new CWT metals subcategory facilities are not
required to install the option 3 technology or to recover metals.
However, EPA's economic analyses show that new sources should carefully
consider recycling as an alternative to wastewater treatment.
The Agency used performance data from the CWT metals subcategory
BAT limitations data set to promulgate NSPS limitations for oil and
grease because the facility from which the NSPS limitations were
derived did not have oil and grease in its influent at treatable levels
during EPA's sampling episodes. EPA has concluded that transfer of this
data is appropriate given that the technology basis for NSPS includes
selective metals precipitation and an additional precipitation step. As
such, EPA has every reason to conclude that facilities employing the
NSPS technology could achieve the limitations, given the fact that the
oil and grease limitations are based on performance at a facility
employing fewer treatment steps.
As was the case for BPT/BAT, the technology basis for the multiple
wastestream subcategory new source limitations reflects the technology
basis for the applicable subcategories.

E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to
treatment by POTWs or which would interfere with the operation of
POTWs. EPA looks at a number of factors in deciding whether a pollutant
is not susceptible to treatment at a POTW or would interfere with POTW
operations--the predicate to establishment of pretreatment standards.
First, EPA assesses the pollutant removals achieved by directly
discharging CWT facilities using BAT treatment. Second, for CWT
facilities that are indirect dischargers, EPA estimates the quantity of
pollutants likely to be discharged to receiving waters after POTW
removals. Third, EPA studies whether any of the pollutants introduced
to POTWs by CWT facilities interfere with or are otherwise incompatible
with POTW operations. In some cases, EPA also looks at the costs, other
economic impacts, likely effluent reduction benefits, and treatment
systems currently in-place at CWT facilities.
As noted above, among the factors EPA considers before establishing
pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants discharged by an
industry pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or
sludge disposal practices. One of the tools traditionally used by EPA
in evaluating whether pollutants pass through a POTW, is a comparison
of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage
of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. In
most cases, EPA has concluded that a pollutant passes through the POTW
when the median percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs
(those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the
median percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for that pollutant. For a full explanation of
how EPA performs its removal analysis, see Chapter 7 of the Technical
Development Document. Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through
potential, 16 of the 19 BAT pollutants regulated by the metals
subcategory, 14 of the 22 BAT pollutants regulated by the oils
subcategory, 5 of the 17 BAT pollutants regulated by the organics
subcategory, and up to 27 of the 38 potential BAT pollutants regulated
by the multiple wastestream subcategory would pass through. EPA has
accordingly adopted PSES for these pollutants. The BAT pollutants in
each subcategory that were determined to pass-through are listed in
Tables 7-6 through 7-8 in the TDD.
For the metal and organics subcategories, the Agency today is
promulgating pretreatment standards for

[[Page 81272]]

existing sources (PSES) based on the same technologies as adopted for
BPT and BAT.\5\ EPA has determined that the technology that forms the
basis for PSES for this final rule is economically achievable for both
subcategories. These standards will apply to existing facilities in the
metals and organics subcategories of the CWT industry that introduce
wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). These standards
will prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs into receiving
streams and also help control contamination of POTW sludge. Today's
pretreatment standards represent a national baseline for treatment of
CWT wastewaters. Local authorities may establish stricter limitations
(based on site-specific water quality concerns or other local factors)
where necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ For the metals subcategory, the technology basis for PSES
does not include the second clarification step since this step was
only included to meet the transferred TSS limitations that apply to
direct dischargers only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the oils subcategory, EPA proposed to base PSES on option 8
even though option 9 (the BAT technology) achieved greater removals.
Option 8 is the same technology as option 9, but does not include the
secondary gravity separation step. At that time, the economic analysis
showed that the additional costs associated with option 9 resulted in
higher economic impacts for the subcategory. In particular, EPA
expressed concerns about the economic impacts of the more expensive
technology for small businesses in the oils subcategory. Furthermore,
EPA estimated that pollutant removals (in pound-equivalents) for option
9 were only one percent higher than the removals for option 8.
Following proposal, EPA finalized its estimates of costs, loadings
reductions, and economic impacts, and then re-examined its technology
selection for PSES in the oils subcategory. As part of this
examination, EPA carefully considered the impacts of both option 8 and
option 9 and the differences between them. EPA also looked at subsets
of the oils facilities, including the set of small businesses. Based on
an evaluation of all factors, EPA has not changed the technology basis
from the 1999 proposal and today sets PSES standards for the oils
subcategory based on option 8.
The Agency's economic analysis is discussed in detail in Section X
of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the final EA. Briefly, in evaluating
economic impacts, EPA looks at a variety of impacts to facilities and
firms (in particular, small businesses). For this industry, EPA
determined that the most relevant economic impacts are on CWT processes
and facilities. Waste industries such as the CWT industry are difficult
to model economically; EPA's first attempts to model CWT operations as
part of a larger facility greatly overestimated closures (see Section
7.2 of the 1995 EA and 64 FR 2326). EPA therefore decided to examine
the impacts on the CWT operations and, in particular, the profitability
of individual CWT processes and facilities (note that a CWT
``facility'' is all of the CWT processes at a given facility and does
not include the non-CWT operations at a given facility).
EPA estimates that option 8 will cost $8.2 million per year while
option 9 would cost $11.9 million per year. As discussed in Section
X.H, based on these costs EPA projects 10 process closures (4.7 percent
of indirect oils processes) and 12 facility closures (9.4 percent of
indirect oils facilities) associated with option 8. EPA projects 15
process closures (7.0 percent of indirect oils processes) and 12
facility closures associated with option 9. The incremental economic
impact of option 9 relative to option 8 for oils indirect dischargers
is thus five process closures. For small businesses, however, EPA
projects two process closures (2.1 percent of indirect oils processes
owned by small businesses) and eight facility closures (14.0 percent of
indirect oils facilities owned by small businesses) for option 8. EPA
projects seven process closures (7.4 percent of indirect oils processes
owned by small businesses) and eight facility closures for option 9.
Thus, small businesses represent a significant share of facility
closures and all of the additional process closures associated with
moving from option 8 to option 9. However, EPA estimates lower
additional pollutant removals between option 8 and option 9 than
estimated in 1999. Today, EPA estimates an incremental pollutant
reduction of only 2,644 pound-equivalents between option 8 and option
9, compared to 3,658 pound equivalents estimated at the 1999 proposal
(see Section IV.J for a discussion of changes in estimated pollutant
reductions). EPA has determined that achieving these slight additional
pound-equivalent removals does not warrant imposition of the additional
cost and impacts of option 9. All of these reasons support the
selection of option 8 as the PSES technology basis. Therefore, EPA is
promulgating PSES standards for the oils subcategory technology based
on option 8.
In determining economic achievability for indirect dischargers in
the oils subcategory, EPA acknowledges that its estimates of the
impacts are not trivial (e.g., an almost 10% facility closure rate).
However, EPA has determined that the standards are economically
achievable for the oils subcategory as a whole. EPA has concluded that,
in the circumstances of this industry, the costs reflect appropriate
levels for PSES control for a number of reasons. First, costs are high
because a significant number of facilities in the oils subcategory will
require major upgrades to their in-place treatment. The information
collected for this rulemaking shows that many of the facilities with
the larger impacts have little effective treatment in place. Second,
this rule represents the first time EPA has established limitations and
standards for this industry, so some economic impact may be expected.
(American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,1052 (3rd Cir.
1975)).
As was the case for BPT/BAT, the technology basis for pretreatment
standards for the multiple wastestream subcategory reflect the
technology bases for the applicable subcategories.

F. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

EPA is today establishing pretreatment standards for new sources
that are equal to NSPS for priority and non-conventional pollutants for
the oils and organics subcategories. Since the pass-through analysis
remains unchanged, for these subcategories, the Agency is establishing
PSNS for the same priority and non-conventional pollutants as are being
established for PSES. EPA considered the cost of the PSNS technology
for new oils and organics facilities. EPA concluded that such costs are
not so great as to present a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the
fact that currently operating facilities are using these technologies.
The Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards
than the selected PSNS.
For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is establishing PSNS based
on a different technology than that proposed in 1999. At that time, EPA
proposed to base PSNS on the option 3 technology. For the final rule,
however, EPA based the pretreatment standards for new sources on the
option 4 technology. EPA concluded the additional removals projected
with the option 3 technology for indirect dischargers do not justify
the selection of option 3. This is because, unlike in the case of
direct dischargers, a significant share of the additional pollutant
removals associated

[[Page 81273]]

with option 3 for indirect dischargers will occur at the POTW anyway.
As was the case for PSES, the technology basis for the multiple
wastestream subcategory new source limitations reflects the technology
basis for the applicable subcategories.

IX. Compliance Cost and Pollutant Reduction Estimates

A. Regulatory Costs

The Agency estimated the cost for CWT facilities to achieve each of
the effluent limitations and standards promulgated today. Chapter 11 of
the Final Technical Development Document provides information on the
methodologies used to estimate these costs. More detailed information,
including the cost curves for all treatment technologies considered as
the basis for today's rule, are located in the ``Detailed Costing
Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.'' This section summarizes
these estimated costs. All cost estimates in this section are expressed
in terms of 1997 dollars. The cost components reported in this section
represent estimates of the investment cost of purchasing and installing
equipment, the annual operating and maintenance costs associated with
that equipment, land costs associated with equipment, and additional
costs for discharge monitoring.
1. BPT Costs
Table IX.B-1 summarizes, by subcategory, the total capital
expenditures, and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT (on a pre-tax,
annualized basis). The total capital expenditures for BPT are estimated
to be $5.32 million with annual O&M costs of $3.75 million.

Table IX.B-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations
[In 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
Subcategory Number of Total capital Annual O&M annualized
facilities \1\ and land costs costs costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery.................. 9 4,069,600 3,103,200 3,544,900
Oils Treatment and Recovery.................... 5 1,168,100 432,100 542,400
Organics Treatment............................. 4 80,000 215,800 221,900
Multiple wastestream Subcategory \2\........... 3 1,836,200 3,618,300 4,357,000
Total for All Subcategories \3\............ 14 5,317,700 3,751,100 4,309,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 14 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one
subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
facilities.
\2\ This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with
the single Subcategory limitations.
\3\ This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each
set of limitations separately.

2. BCT/BAT Costs
The costs of compliance for implementing BCT/BAT are identical to
the cost of compliance with BPT because the technology used to develop
BCT/BAT limitations is identical to BPT.
3. PSES Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES applying the
same assumptions and methodology used to estimate the cost of
implementing BPT. Table IX.B-2 summarizes, by subcategory, the capital
expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. The total
capital expenditures for PSES are estimated to be $52.6 million with
annual O&M costs of $25.5 million.

Table IX.B-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations
[In 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total capital Annual O&M Pre-tax
Subcategory facilities \1\ and land costs costs annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery.................. 44 11,111,100 10,242,100 11,449,600
Oils Treatment and Recovery.................... 127 23,834,000 12,484,400 14,797,600
Organics Treatment............................. 16 17,709,200 2,766,200 4,592,800
Multiple wastestream Subcategory \2\........... 24 44,576,100 20,392,700 24,875,900
Total for All Subcategories \3\............ 151 52,654,300 25,792,700 30,840,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 151 indirect dischargers. Because some indirect dischargers include operations in more than one
subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
facilities.
\2\ This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with
the single waste subcategory limitations.
\3\ This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each
set of limitations separately.

B. Pollutant Reductions

The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for CWT activities
achieving each of the effluent limitations and standards promulgated
today. This section summarizes these estimated reductions and Chapter
12 of the technical development document discusses the methodology in
detail. For multiple subcategory facilities, EPA estimated pollutant
reductions assuming facilities will elect to comply with each
subcategory's limitations separately. Table IX.C-1 summarizes, by
subcategory, the reduction in discharge of pollutants for implementing
BPT/BAT. For multiple subcategory facilities which elect to comply with
the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations, EPA estimates
pollutant removals will be equal to or greater than those presented
here.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimates that this regulation will reduce
BOD5 discharges by approximately 5.0 million pounds per
year, TSS discharges by approximately 4.4 million pounds per year, and
oil and grease discharges by

[[Page 81274]]

approximately 0.3 million pounds per year.
2. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions
Today's rule will reduce discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants. Because EPA has promulgated BAT limitations
equivalent to BPT, EPA estimates pollutant reductions associated with
BPT and BAT will be equal.
a. Direct Discharge Facilities (BPT/BAT). The estimated reductions
in priority and non-conventional pollutants directly discharged in
treated final effluent resulting from implementation of BPT/BAT are
listed in Table IX.C-1. The Agency estimates that promulgated BPT/BAT
regulations will reduce direct discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants by approximately 2.7 million pounds per year.

Table IX.C-1--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation of
BPT/BAT Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-priority
Priority metal metal and Total metal Total lbs-
Subcategory and organics organic and organic equivalent/
compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/ year
year year year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery................... 981,200 1,708,600 2,689,800 377,800
Oils Treatment and Recovery..................... 2,100 23,100 25,200 1,800
Organics Treatment ¹............................ 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Removals for all Subcategories............ 983,300 1,731,700 2,715,000 379,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ EPA estimates there will be no additional removal of organic compounds for the organics subcategory, because
all facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.

b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. Table IX.C-2 lists the
estimated reductions in priority and non-conventional pollutants
indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES.
The Agency estimates that promulgated PSES regulations will reduce
indirect facility discharge to POTWs by 1.9 million pounds per year.
These figures are not adjusted for pollutant removals expected from
POTWs, and thus do not reflect reductions in discharges to waters of
the U.S. Estimated reductions in pollutants discharged indirectly to
surface waters are provided on a subcategory basis in Tables 12-10
through 12-13 of the technical development document.

Table IX.C-2--Reduction in Discharges to POTWs of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation
of PSES Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-priority
Priority metal metal and Total metal Total lbs-
Subcategory and organics organic and organic equivalent/
compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/ compounds lbs/ year
year year year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery................... 61,897 419,667 481,564 37,539
Oils Treatment and Recovery..................... 82,359 752,429 834,788 50,803
Organics Treatment.............................. 163,664 447,620 611,283 19,876
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Removals for All Subcategories............ 307,920 1,619,716 1,925,543 108,218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction

EPA's economic analysis for this regulation assesses the costs and
a variety of impacts. The record for the final rule contains the
detailed results of this analysis. This section reviews that analysis.
A report titled ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry''
(hereinafter ``final EA'') summarizes the results of that assessment.
The EA estimates the economic and financial costs of compliance with
the final regulation on individual process lines, facilities and
companies. The EA also considers impacts on new sources. Community
impacts, foreign trade impacts, market impacts, and an ``environmental
justice'' analysis are also presented there. The EA also includes a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing the effects on small CWT
businesses. The results of a cost-effectiveness analysis are in a
report titled ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry.'' EPA has
used the same methodology for estimating compliance costs and impacts
of the final rule as it used for the 1999 proposal except for
adjustments to costs discussed under section IV.I above.

B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimate

As discussed previously, EPA identified 223 CWT facilities,
including 14 direct dischargers, 151 indirect dischargers, and 58 zero
discharge facilities. EPA calculated the economic impact on each of the
facilities based on the cost of compliance using the selected
technology basis for the final limitations and standards. For direct
dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for compliance with the selected
BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for
compliance with PSES. As detailed previously in Section VIII, EPA based
the final limitations on metals option 4, oils option 9, and organics
option 4 and the final standards on metals option 4, oils

[[Page 81275]]

option 8, and organics option 4. EPA conservatively assigned costs to a
facility with processes in multiple subcategories for meeting the
limits or standards in each subcategory although an alternative costing
scheme was also applied.
The technologies that are the basis for today's final rule are
estimated to have a total pre-tax annualized cost of $35.1 million
(unlike the costs presented in Section IX.B, these costs are annualized
to represent the yearly cost of compliance). Table X.B-1 presents the
total annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES in 1997 dollars for the
entire CWT industry. This table differentiates between pre-tax
annualized costs and post-tax annualized costs. The pre-tax annualized
costs are the engineering estimates of annualized control costs, but
the post-tax costs more accurately reflect the costs businesses will
incur. For that reason, post-tax costs are used in the economic impact
analysis. Pre-tax costs, however, more accurately reflect the total
cost to society of the rule and are used in the cost-effectiveness
analysis and elsewhere.

Table X.B-1--Total Annualized Costs
($1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Post-tax
costs ($ costs ($
million) million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT Costs (Direct Dischargers).......... 4.31 2.68
PSES Costs (Indirect Dischargers)............... 30.8 17.1
-----------------------
Total Costs..................................... 35.1 19.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline Conditions

The 1999 proposal and Chapter 2 of the Final EA detail the current
economic conditions in the industry and the data sources used in
determining these conditions. This section updates the information
presented at the time of the 1999 proposal.
EPA now estimates that there are 223 CWT facilities. EPA includes
211 CWT facilities in its economic baseline,\6\ 207 facilities are
commercial, accepting waste generated by other facilities and/or
generators for treatment and/or recovery for a fee. Three facilities
are non-commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for
treatment and/or recovery exclusively from facilities under the same
ownership, and one is owned by the Federal government and is treated as
noncommercial. Some facilities perform both commercial and non-
commercial operations. For the purposes of this analysis, a facility's
commercial status refers only to the operations subject to today's
final rule and not other operations at that facility. That is, a
facility that performs non-commercial CWT operations along with other
non-CWT commercial operations would still be considered a non-
commercial facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Twelve zero dischargers were identified after proposal for
which EPA does not have adequate data to perform modeling. They are
therefore not included in the economic baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 167 companies owning CWT facilities range from large, multi-
facility companies to small companies that operate only a single
facility. Company-level sales information is available or estimated for
208 facilities. Company level profit information is available for 144
facilities. One hundred and nine companies own these 144 facilities.
EPA currently estimates that 82 companies owning CWT facilities
(including zero discharge facilities) are small businesses (for the
purposes of this analysis, EPA has defined small businesses as
companies with less than $6 million in annual revenues--see Section
X.M). Sixty-three small companies own two direct discharging facilities
and 61 indirect discharging facilities.

D. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology

1. Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
There are no differences between the economic methodology used for
the 1999 proposal and the current methodology. Standard economic and
financial analysis methods are used to assess the economic effects of
the proposed regulation. These methods incorporate an integrated view
of CWT facilities, the companies that own these facilities, the markets
the facilities serve, and the communities where they are located.
CWT facilities are divided into two groups: commercial (those that
charge a fee for their services) and noncommercial (those that handle
intra-company waste). Impacts on commercial CWT facilities are
estimated based on the results of a market model that allows facilities
to adjust operations in response to changes in operating costs. The
market model predicts adjustments in market prices and quantities and
facility-level changes in revenues and employment. (EPA also performed
sensitivity analysis in which prices do not adjust.) After the markets
and facilities have responded to the regulation, facilities are assumed
to close CWT treatment operations (or processes) for which operating
costs (including compliance costs) exceed operating revenues. Because
non-commercial CWT facilities do not operate in the markets defined by
the model, impacts on these facilities are estimated at the company
level, assuming that the firm must absorb the full cost of compliance.
For a detailed description of the economic methodology see the 1999
proposal (64 FR 2324) and Chapter 5 of the Final EA.
In the economic analysis, EPA examines impacts on commercial CWT
facilities in terms of closures, but focuses on potential closures of
CWT processes by examining the costs and revenues of each waste
treatment or recovery operation with the regulation in effect. (This
isolates the analysis to examine only CWT operations and not overall
facility operations). If with-regulation costs of the operation exceed
revenues, then the model predicts (assumes) that the operation shuts
down. This is called a ``process closure.'' If all the CWT treatment
processes at a facility are estimated to shut down, this is called a
``facility closure.'' This does not mean that if a CWT facility with
other non-CWT operations experiences a facility closure that the entire
facility shuts down; other operations at a facility are not included in
the economic modeling, only CWT operations. Employment losses are
calculated from process closures, facility closures, and from
reductions in waste treated by process lines that do not close. In all
cases, the reduction in employment is calculated as a percentage
decrease of the facility's total CWT employment proportionate to the
percentage reduction in waste treated (this does not account for any
possible increases in employment due to the regulations).
EPA notes that its model for the 1999 proposal and the final rule,
unlike the market model used for the 1995 proposal, does not assume
that wastewater from processes or facilities that close will be
transferred to another facility in the market. Although the model
assumes the price increase caused by increased compliance costs forces
the total quantity of waste treated in the market to decline (the
amount of this decline is governed by the elasticity of demand for a
market), some of the waste previously treated at a facility that closes
will be treated at other facilities. By assuming that all changes in
quantity occur at the highest-priced facilities and that waste is not
sent to other facilities, EPA is assuming an all-or-nothing impact. The
model may overstate impacts at those facilities that could

[[Page 81276]]

accept waste from another facility that closes. Conversely, the model
may understate impacts at those facilities that cannot raise their
price as much as projected. (EPA solicited comments on this issue and
on appropriate ways to model this transfer but received none, so no
changes were made to the methodology.)
Changes in facility revenues and costs result in changes in the
revenues and costs of the companies owning the facilities, and thus
changes in company profits. Increased borrowing and changes in the
assets owned by the companies, together with changes in profits, result
in changes in overall company financial health. EPA evaluates company-
level impacts by examining changes in company profit margins and
returns-to-assets test. These results are presented separately for
small businesses. For small businesses, EPA also evaluates the economic
impacts using a cost-to-sales test, comparing company compliance costs
to baseline sales (unadjusted for cost pass-through).
Finally, the communities where the CWT facilities are located may
be affected. Obviously, if facilities cut back operations, employment
and income may fall, sending ripple effects throughout the local
community. On the other hand, there may be increased employment
associated with operating the pollution controls associated with the
regulation, resulting in increased community employment and income.
Facility-level changes in employment are used to calculate total
employment changes. At the same time, for the communities in which CWT
facilities are located, water quality may be expected to improve.

2. Comments on Economic Methodology

During the SBAR Panel consideration of the 1999 proposal, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) expressed concern that EPA's economic
methodology understates impacts. In particular, SBA questioned the
elasticity of demand assumption used by the Agency, which affects the
extent to which facilities will be able to pass on cost increases to
their customers. As discussed in the final EA and this notice, the
elasticity of demand (which varies depending on the number of
facilities in each market) is based on economic reasoning that the
Agency determines to be sound and reflects the limited empirical
evidence available in the literature. In response to SBA's comment (but
prior to the 1999 proposal), EPA reexamined the literature and
attempted to contact waste generators to obtain further information on
their responsiveness to the price of CWT services. EPA identified
several additional empirical studies that support the elasticity
parameters used in the EA. The Agency has not been successful, however,
in eliciting information from waste generators. In the 1999 proposal,
EPA solicited comment on the elasticity parameter and requested data
that EPA could use to calculate the parameter, but received neither.
EPA is therefore not altering its choice of parameters. For a complete
discussion of the elasticity parameters used in this analysis, see
Appendix E of the proposal EA.
In Appendix E to the proposal EA, EPA presents a sensitivity
analysis that assumes that CWT facilities are unable to pass costs to
their customers. In this analysis, impacts on direct dischargers are
unchanged, but impacts on indirect dischargers increase from 13 to 16
facility closures and from 16 to 29 process closures.

E. Costs and Economic Impacts of BPT

For BPT, EPA evaluates treatment options first by calculating pre-
tax total annualized costs and total pollutant removals in pounds. The
ratios of the costs to the removals for each option considered for the
final rule are presented in Table X.E-1. (EPA is no longer considering
two options considered in the 1999 proposal: metals option 2 and
organics option 3. See 64 FR 2308 and 64 FR 2312.) In all cases
throughout section X, estimated costs and impacts for facilities with
operations in multiple operations are presented assuming that the
facilities comply with the limits for each subcategory separately,
rather than with the limits for the multiple wastestream subcategory.
See section VIII.A.4)
EPA based the selected BPT options for the metals, oils, and
organics subcategories on option 4, option 9, and option 4,
respectively. As detailed in Section VIII.A.3, all direct dischargers
in the organics subcategory employ the BPT technology basis. As such,
other than monitoring costs, EPA assigned no compliance costs to these
facilities nor did it estimate incremental pollutant removals.

Table X.E-1.--BPT Cost Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Conventional
annualized pollutant Average cost
Option costs ($1997 removals reasonableness
million) (million lbs) (1997 $/lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................................... $3.54 8.77 $0.40
3............................................................... 14.8 9.33 1.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 \1\........................................................... 0.542 0.865 0.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................................... 0.222 0 n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
separation, EPA did not consider the Option 8 technology.

Table X.E-2 presents the economic impact results for the selected
BPT options. Options in the Metals and Organics subcategories more
stringent than promulgated BPT are evaluated in Sections X.F and X.G.
Impacts are presented for process closures, facility closures, and
employment losses. Process closures are a direct output of the market
model. EPA concludes that a facility will close if all of the processes
at a facility close.

[[Page 81277]]

Table X.E-2.--Economic Impacts of BPT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
annualized Process Facility Total
Option costs ($1997 closures closures employment
M) losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... $2.19 1 1 39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 \1\........................................... 0.348 2 0 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... 0.138 2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
separation, EPA did not consider the Option 8 technology.

EPA projects that the selected BPT regulations will result in only
one process closure and one facility closure in the metals subcategory;
two process closures, but no facility closures, in the oils
subcategory; and only 2 process closures, but no facility closures, in
the organics subcategory. The summed job losses for the BPT options are
47. (There are no job losses associated with the organics subcategory
even though there are two process closures because job losses are
proportional to flow. The organics flow at the facilities with the
process closures is so low compared to the facility flow that there are
no proportional job losses.)
Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than
one subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated the impacts of a combined BPT
option on all direct dischargers. The combined impacts of this option
are presented in Table X.E-3.

Table X.E-3.--Economic Impacts of Combined BPT Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
annualized Process Facility Total
Option costs ($1997 closures closures employment
M) losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Direct Dischargers--14 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined........................................ $2.68 3 2 47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA projects that the final BPT regulations will result in three
process closures, two facility closures, and a total employment loss of
47 jobs. The totals for the individual subcategories shown in Table
X.E-2 do not add to the totals shown in Table X.E-3 because a facility
may have operations in more that one subcategory. For example, a
closure is counted when all of the processes at a given facility close,
and a process closure is counted when one, but not all, of the
processes close. Therefore, for facilities with process closures in
more than one subcategory, the analysis of the combined option can show
a lower number of process closures and a higher number of facility
closures.

F. Results of BCT Cost Test

In July 1986, EPA explained how it developed its methodology for
setting effluent limitations based on BCT (51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates
the reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies--those that remove
more conventional pollutants than BPT--by applying a two-part cost
test: a POTW test and an industry cost-effectiveness test.
EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the cost per pound
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs to advanced
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the
POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars) (i.e. ``the POTW
test''). In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry
must be less than 1.29 (that is, the cost increase must be less than 29
percent).
Table X.F-1 presents the calculations for the BCT cost test for the
metals subcategory. For option 3 (the only more stringent option
considered for the metals subcategory in the final rule), the table
presents costs and conventional pollutant removals and compares them to
the BPT baseline, option 4. For a candidate BCT option to pass the POTW
test, the ratio of costs to removals for that option must be less than
$0.71 ($1997) per pound. Option 3's ratio is $20.11, well above the
benchmark of $0.71, so it fails the POTW test. This option therefore
does not pass the BCT cost test and it is not necessary to perform the
industry cost-effectiveness test. Thus, BCT is set equal to BPT.
For the final CWT rule, EPA did not consider any technologies for
the oils and organics subcategories that are more stringent than the
selected BPT technology basis. As such, EPA did not perform a BCT cost
test for these subcategories and set BCT equal to BPT.

[[Page 81278]]

Table X.F-1.--BCT Cost Test Calculations
[Metals Subcategory]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of costs
Pre-tax total Conventional to removals Does the BCT
Option annualized pollutant for BCT candidate pass
costs ($1997 removals (M candidate ($/ POTW test?
M) lbs) lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 (BPT)......................................... $3.54 8.77 n/a n/a
3 (BCT Candidate)............................... 14.8 9.33 $20.11 no
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options

EPA also evaluated options more stringent than BPT in the metals
subcategory for BAT (in the oils and organics subcategories, EPA set
BPT equal to the most stringent option that it considered for the final
rule). This is metals option 3. For a given technology to be the basis
for BAT limitations it must be economically achievable. EPA is today
adopting BAT limitations equivalent to BPT for all subcategories;
economic impacts are, therefore, equivalent to those presented in
Section X.E for the final BPT limits. Table X.G-1 presents the economic
impact results for the options considered for BAT.

Table X.G-1.--Economic Impacts of BAT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
annualized Process Facility Total
Option costs ($1997 closures closures employment
M) losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--8 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... $2.19 1 1 39
3............................................... 9.01 1 1 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 ¹............................................. 0.348 2 0 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................................... 0.263 2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
separation, EPA did not consider the option 8 technology.

EPA projects (see Table X.E-3) that the selected BAT regulations
will result in three process closures, two facility closures and 47 job
losses. The projected closure impacts for the rejected metals option
are equivalent to the impacts for the selected option, although there
are slightly more employment losses for the rejected metals options.
However, as discussed in Section VIII.C, EPA did not select this option
for BAT.

H. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options

In addition to evaluating impacts to direct dischargers for BPT/
BCT/BAT, EPA evaluated the impacts to indirect dischargers for
complying with PSES. For the metals and organics subcategory, EPA is
selecting the same options for PSES that were selected for BPT/BAT:
metals option 4 and organics option 4. For the oils subcategory, EPA
selected oils option 8 for PSES. The impacts of the PSES options are
presented in Table X.H-1. Impacts are presented for process closures,
facility closures, and employment losses. Process closures are a direct
output of the market model; facility closures are designated if all of
the processes at a facility close. Employment losses are calculated
from process closures, facility closures, and from reductions in waste
treated by process lines that do not close. In all cases, the reduction
in employment is calculated as a decrease of the facility's total CWT
employment proportionate to the reduction in waste treated.

Table X.H-1.--Impacts of PSES Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
annualized Process Facility Total
Option costs ($1997 closures closures employment
M) losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--47 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... $6.25 6 0 152
3............................................... 26.8 9 1 289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--127 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................................... 8.23 10 12 224

[[Page 81279]]

9............................................... 11.9 15 12 233
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory--16 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... 2.67 7 0 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the metals subcategory, EPA projects that Option 4, the selected
PSES technology basis, will result in six process closures, no facility
closures, and 152 job losses. For the oils subcategory, EPA projects
that option 8, the selected PSES technology basis, results in 10
process closures, 12 facility closures, and 224 job losses. For the
organics subcategory, EPA projects that Option 4 results in seven
process closures and no facility closures, with 30 job losses.
Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than
one subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated the impacts of a combined PSES
option on all indirect dischargers. This option consists of metals
option 4, oils option 8, and organics option 4. The projected impacts
of the combined option are presented in Table X.H-2. The impacts of the
selected PSES options shown in Table X.H-1 do not add to the impacts
shown in Table X.H-2 because a facility closure is counted if all of
the processes at a given facility close while a process closure is
counted if one, but not all, processes close. Therefore, in the
combined options, the number of process closures can go down while
facility closures go up if processes in different subcategories close.
The employment losses also do not add up because of rounding.

Table X.H-2.--Economic Impacts of Combined PSES Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
annualized Process Facility Total
Option costs ($1997 closures closures employment
M) losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Indirect Discharges--151 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined........................................ $17.1 15 15 414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Economic Impacts for New Sources

EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for both the organics and oils
subcategories. These limitations are economically achievable because,
in general, EPA concludes that new sources will be able to comply at
costs that are similar to, or less than, the costs for existing
sources. They may be able to comply at lower cost since new sources can
apply control technologies more efficiently than sources that need to
retrofit for those technologies. Therefore, NSPS limitations will not
present a barrier to entry for new facilities in these subcategories.
For the metals subcategory, EPA is establishing NSPS limitations
based on the option 3 technology. EPA's analysis shows that the start-
up costs for the option 3 technology for new sources may be less than
the start-up costs for the option 4 technology. Consequently, EPA has
concluded that compliance with limitations based on this option would
not constitute a barrier to entry for new direct discharging metals
subcategory sources. EPA also investigated the extent of the market for
recycling or reuse of the metals-rich sludge generated by option 3 to
determine if a market exists for these materials (since promoting
recycling was part of the justification for option 3). EPA has
determined that there is a wide market for a number of metals that
could be recycled through this process, though as discussed previously,
EPA recognizes that there are some metal bearing wastestreams that may
not be suitable for recycling because of the low concentrations of
metals. Also, for some metals, such as aluminum, there are no current
markets for recycling.
EPA is setting PSNS equal to PSES limitations for existing sources
for the metals and organics subcategories. Given EPA's finding of
economic achievability for PSES in those two subcategories, EPA also
finds that the PSNS regulation will be economically achievable and will
not constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
For the oils subcategory, EPA is establishing pretreatment
standards for new sources that are equal to NSPS for priority and non-
conventional pollutants. EPA concluded there is no barrier to entry for
new indirect discharging facilities in the oils subcategory because
existing oils indirect dischargers are using the technology.

J. Firm Level Impacts

Complying with the selected effluent limitations guidelines and
standards affects the revenues and profitability of firms owning CWT
facilities. In Section 6.1.4 of the Final EA, the Agency examines two
financial ratios to assess the magnitude of these impacts: firm profit
margin (profit/revenues) and return on assets or ROA (profit/total
assets). Baseline values are compared to post-regulation values that
are determined by calculating changes in profits based on output from
the market model. EPA does not have complete data for all firms, but
the two measures decline for more than half of the firms for which EPA
has data. EPA also examined these measures by size categories,
including a category for small businesses. For most size categories,
median profit margin and median ROA decline or stay approximately the
same (although for some size categories the medians may increase). EPA
has profit data on 56 small firms and asset data for 26 small

[[Page 81280]]

firms; profit margin declines for 33 of the 56 firms and ROA declines
for 15 of the 26 firms. As discussed more fully in the EA, these
results are dependent on the assumptions used in the market model and
the market in which EPA placed the facilities.

K. Community Impacts

EPA estimated impacts on communities in which CWT facilities were
located by estimating the overall change in employment in the community
as a result of the CWT rule. EPA estimated the change in employment at
each CWT facility associated with reductions in the quantity of waste
treated at facilities incurring economic impacts. Then, EPA applied
state-specific direct-effect employment multipliers to estimate the
total change in employment. Most of the change in employment will occur
in the community where the CWT facility is located. Thus, EPA estimated
the change in community employment as a result of the rule by assigning
all of the change in employment to the community. Table X.K-1 shows a
distribution of the estimated changes in community employment resulting
from the economic impacts of the regulation. Community employment
losses range from zero to 213 full time equivalents. Even the largest
reduction in employment represents only 0.7 percent of the baseline
employment in that community. Thus, the Agency expects the negative
employment impacts of the regulation to be extremely small. In fact,
EPA estimates that most facilities that do not close or scale back
their CWT operations will have to hire from one to three additional
workers to comply with the regulation (although this is not taken into
account in Table X.K-1). Taking these impacts into effect, almost all
of these facilities will experience increases in employment due to the
regulation. The overall impact of the regulation on community
employment may, therefore, be either positive or negative.

Table X.K-1.--Estimated Community Employment Impacts of the CWT
Regulation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions in community employment as a result of Number of
process and facility closures communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 50 full time equivalents.................. 5
20 to 50............................................... 11
1 to 20................................................ 14
0 to 1................................................. 12
Zero................................................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not account for employment gains associated with compliance.

The Agency also examined the distribution of benefits across
communities with different socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA must, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission. Environmental justice concerns arise when
disadvantaged or minority communities experience disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts. CWT facilities
are frequently located in industrial areas; as such, the communities
frequently have higher minority populations and greater poverty than
the rest of their state or the nation as a whole. Reductions in
pollutant exposures to these populations would, benefit such
communities, but they may bear a disproportionate share of the costs of
attaining these reductions. Table X.K-2 characterizes the communities
in which CWT facilities are located.

Table X.K-2.--Socioeconomic Profile of Communities in Which CWT
Facilities Are Located
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Percentage communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of the Population that are Non-Caucasian (National
Percentage=16.8%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 10........................................... 32
10 to 20............................................... 17
20 to 30............................................... 35
30 to 50............................................... 39
over 50................................................ 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of the Population With Incomes Below Poverty Level (National
Percentage=13.5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 7............................................ 19
7 to 13................................................ 33
13 to 20............................................... 56
20 to 30............................................... 31
over 30................................................ 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the most recent census data, in 1990, the nation as a whole
had a population that was 16.8 percent non-Caucasian. Of the
communities in which CWT facilities were located, on the other hand, 38
percent had populations that were at least 30 percent minority, and 54
percent of communities had populations whose minority percentage
exceeded that of the state in which they were located by more than five
percentage points. In 1990, 13.5 percent of the U.S. population had
incomes below the poverty level, 22 percent of communities with CWT
facilities had at least 20 percent of their residents in poverty, and
33 percent had percentages of the population in poverty that exceeded
by at least 5 percentage points the percentage of the population in
poverty for the states in which they were located. Thus, environmental
justice is a concern for these communities. The costs of the rule fall
disproportionately on facilities in minority and low-income
communities. Benefits may also accrue to these communities as a result
of this rule, but a large share of benefits are likely to accrue to
communities downstream from the CWT or POTW, which may not be the same
community.

L. Foreign Trade Impacts

The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Many of the affected
CWT facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under RCRA and
international trade in CWT services for treatment of hazardous wastes
is virtually nonexistent. Furthermore, there is very little, if any,
international trade in treatment of non-hazardous CWT wastes.

M. Small Business Analysis

The Agency prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis to
assess the impacts on small businesses owning CWT facilities. No small
governmental jurisdictions or small organizations own and/or operate
CWT facilities. For purposes of this analysis, EPA defines small CWT
businesses as those having sales less than $6 million--the Small
Business Administration definition of a small business for SIC code
4953, Refuse Systems. This is the SIC code that most CWT facilities
listed in their questionnaire responses (see final EA Chapter 3). Two
small companies own facilities that discharge directly. There are 61
small companies that own facilities that discharge indirectly. (The
total number of small companies includes applying weights to some of
the facilities). EPA evaluated the impact on small CWT companies using
a cost-to-sales test, which compares baseline sales to compliance costs
(adjusted for inflation so that the costs and sales are expressed in
the same year's dollars). This assessment does not account for any
ability of the companies to pass any increase in operating costs
through to their customers. EPA recognizes that for many industries,
costs-to-sales ratios in excess of one percent may correspond to much
higher ratios of cost to pre-compliance profits, and, thus, serve as a
signal for additional analysis. EPA sought to identify those small
business that would experience costs in excess of one percent of sales
and those experiencing costs exceeding three

[[Page 81281]]

percent of sales. However, EPA does not believe that the cost-to-sales
ratio is a particularly precise measure of economic impact for this
industry.
The two small companies that own direct discharging facilities,
both in the oils subcategory, have cost-to-sales ratios of over three
percent. Results of the cost-to-sales test for the PSES options are
presented in Table X.M-1 for the number of facilities with estimated
costs exceeding one percent and three percent of sales.

Table X.M--1.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for PSES Options for Small
Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of small # of small
companies with companies with
Option cost/sales > cost/sales >
1% 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--4 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................... 4 2
3....................................... 4 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--57 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8....................................... 47 25
9....................................... 53 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory--2 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................... 2 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As can be seen from Table X.M-1, the bulk of the small businesses
are in the oils subcategory. Oils option 8 has 47 firms (82 percent of
the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent
and 25 firms (44 percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales
ratios in excess of 3 percent (without adjustment for pass-through of
costs). On the other hand, oils option 9 has 53 firms (93 percent of
the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent
and 36 firms (63 percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales
ratios in excess of 3 percent (without adjustment for pass-through of
costs).
Many of the facilities owned by small businesses operate processes
in more than one subcategory so, as with the economic impact analyses
presented earlier in this section, cost-to-sales test results are
presented for combined PSES options. In order to be consistent with the
1999 proposal, there are two combined options: one based on oils option
8 and one based on oils option 9. These results are presented in Table
X.M-2.

Table X.M-2.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Combined PSES Options
for Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of small # of small
companies with companies with
Combined option cost/sales > cost/sales >
1% 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
w/Oils Option 8......................... 51 28
w/Oils Option 9......................... 57 38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PSES combined option with Oils Option 8 has 51 firms (84
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1
percent and 28 firms (46 percent of small businesses) with cost-to-
sales ratios in excess of 3 percent. On the other hand, the combined
option with Oils Option 9 has 57 firms (93 percent of small businesses)
with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent and 38 firms (62
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3
percent.
EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel during
the development of this rule and also considered several regulatory
alternatives to provide relief for small businesses. These alternatives
are summarized below, and are discussed in other sections of the
preamble along with EPA's conclusions (See Sections IV.A-IV.E).
EPA examined several criteria for establishing an exclusion for
small businesses such as the volume of wastewater flow, employment, or
annual revenues. The objective was to minimize the impacts on small
businesses, still achieve the environmental benefits, and stay
responsive to the Clean Water Act. EPA is defining small CWT businesses
according to the SBA size definition of $6 million in annual revenue,
but considered other criteria that would be easier to implement in
practice, such as wastewater flow. To target relief to small
businesses, EPA examined the correlation between these criteria and the
size definition.
Because most CWT facilities have similar numbers of employees
regardless of their size (i.e., revenue), EPA first eliminated
employment as a basis for establishing a small business exclusion.
While EPA also found no correlation between annual volume of wastewater
and the size of a facility, EPA retained this criterion in the 1999
proposal due to the anticipated ease in implementing an exclusion based
on this criterion. However, if an exclusion based on volume of
wastewater had ultimately been selected, the regulation would have
excluded both small and large businesses.
EPA evaluated three alternatives based on wastewater flow and size
as

[[Page 81282]]

potential bases for limiting the scope of the regulation to: (i)
Indirect dischargers with flows greater than 3.5 million gallons per
year (MGY), or (ii and iii) indirect dischargers that manage non-
hazardous wastes only with flows greater than either 3.5 MGY or 7.5
MGY. EPA also considered limiting the applicability of the proposed
regulation to indirect dischargers not owned by small businesses
without any specific reference to flow (referred to as ``no smalls'',
below). The justification for EPA's consideration of these particular
exclusion alternatives is included in the record in materials submitted
to the SBAR Panel.
For each alternative, EPA estimated the projected economic impacts,
both in absolute terms and in relative terms (that is, whether the
impacts were higher, proportionately, for small businesses). The
economic impacts that EPA considered for small companies include
process closures, facility closures, employment losses, and the cost-
to-sales test. Table X.M-3 shows the results of the facility-level
analyses (if current facility receipts do not change) and the results
of the analyses for the selected options for comparison purposes for
all indirect dischargers. Table X.M-4 shows the results of the cost-to-
sales test, which are company-level impacts for small companies that
own indirect dischargers. Preliminary versions of these results were
provided to the small entity representatives (SERs) who provided advice
to the SBAR Panel.

Table X.M.-3.--Impacts of PSES Options With Limited Scope
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
annualized Process Facility Total
Option costs ($1997 closures closures employment
M) (small/large) (small/large) losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Indirect Dischargers--151 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Option w/ Oils 8....................... $20.83 4/11 8/7 414
reduced monitoring.............................. 17.87 4/11 7/7 420
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous......................... 17.14 7/10 2/5 221
>3.5 MGY........................................ 14.89 5/9 0/1 80
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous......................... 15.49 7/10 2/5 213
``No smalls''................................... 13.21 0/10 0/8 256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table X.M-4.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Small Businesses for
PSES Options With Limited Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost/sales > Cost/sales >
Option 1% 3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Option w/Oils Option 8......... 57 38
Reduced monitoring...................... 35 14
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous................. 30 19
>3.5 MGY................................ 24 14
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous................. 23 17
``No smalls''........................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These results are roughly consistent with the magnitude of impacts
presented for the same options in the 1999 proposal (see 64 FR 2332)
with the exception of the reduced monitoring option. At the time of the
1999 proposal, EPA estimated that the reduced monitoring option
resulted in 5 small and 11 large process closures, 4 small and 7 large
facility closures, and 286 job losses. Now, EPA estimates that the
reduced monitoring option would result in 4 small and 11 large process
closures, 7 small and 7 large facility closures, and 420 job losses.
Some SBAR Panel members and SERs argued that these results
supported excluding small businesses from the regulation. As described
in the Panel's final report, these Panel members and SERs believed that
the ``lost'' pollutant reductions associated with excluding small
businesses would not be environmentally significant. Based on analysis
available at the time of the Panel, limiting the applicability to
exclude all oils facilities owned by small businesses would have
reduced removals by 12 percent. Excluding indirect dischargers with
flows under 3.5 MGY would have reduced removals by 6 percent. They also
suggested that these facilities provide an important ``safety valve''
for an affordable and effective treatment alternative for industrial
facilities that would otherwise find it prohibitively expensive to
comply with industry-specific national effluent guidelines and
standards.
Other SERs opposed this approach. These SERs argued that excluding
small businesses from the scope of this rule would adversely impact the
image of the industry. One of these SERs preferred reduced monitoring
and also suggested that small businesses might be granted additional
time to comply with the new standards, rather than excluding those
businesses within the scope of the rule. EPA expressed concern that the
absence of national effluent guidelines and standards for CWT
facilities has been a major ``loophole'' in a national program to
control industrial pollution, allowing wastes to be treated off-site
less effectively than would be required of the same wastes if treated
on-site. One of EPA's primary concerns with any of the alternatives
that limit the scope of the rule is that the limited scope encourages
such a loophole. If a segment of the industry is not subject to
national regulation, these companies might quickly expand, leading to
much greater discharges within a few years. This tendency would be
limited by the flow or size cut-off itself unless more concentrated
wastes are funneled through plants below the cut-off. In addition, as
demonstrated by the survey responses and public comments, almost all
CWT facilities have substantial amounts of unused capacity. Because

[[Page 81283]]

this industry is extremely competitive, by limiting the scope of the
CWT rule, EPA could actually be encouraging ineffective treatment while
discouraging effective treatment.

N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the
alternative treatment technology options that were considered. The
report, ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry'' (hereinafter, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Report''), describes the methodology, data, and results;
the report is included in the record of this rulemaking. The results of
this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of the costs
(in 1981 dollars) per pound-equivalent removed, where pounds-equivalent
removed for a particular pollutant is determined by multiplying the
number of pounds of a pollutant removed by each option by a toxic
weighting factor. The toxic weighting factors account for the
differences in toxicity among pollutants and are derived using ambient
water quality criteria. Cost effectiveness results are presented in
1981 dollars as a reporting convention. Cost-effectiveness is
calculated as the ratio of pre-tax annualized costs of an option to the
annual pounds-equivalent removed by that option, and can be expressed
as the average or incremental cost-effectiveness for an option.
Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of as the ``increment''
between no regulation and the selected option for any given rule. For
direct dischargers, the technologies used as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT
in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $6.77/
lb-equivalent. For indirect dischargers, the technologies used as the
basis for PSES in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness
ratio of $175/lb-equivalent. These results incorporate all
subcategories with their selected options.
Incremental cost-effectiveness is the appropriate measure for
comparing one regulatory option to another regulatory option for the
same subcategory. Cost-effectiveness results by subcategory and option
are presented for direct dischargers in Table X.N-1 and indirect
dischargers in Table X.N-2. The options are listed in order of
increasing removals.

Table X.N-1.--BPT/BCT/BAT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Incremental
annualized Removals (lbs- Average cost cost
Option costs ($1981 eq) effectiveness effectiveness
M) (1981 $/lb-eq) (1981 $/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... $2.15 384,416 $6.00 ..............
3............................................... 9.00 401,426 22.00 $403
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 ^a............................................. 0.329 1,771 186 n/a
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... 0.135 0 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^a Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
separation, EPA did not consider the option 8 technology.

Table X.N-2.--PSES Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Incremental
annualized Removals (lbs- Average cost cost
Option costs ($1981 eq) effectiveness effectiveness
M) (1981 $/lb-eq) (1981 $/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--42 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... $6.95 39,211 $176 ..............
3............................................... 26.9 48,008 561 $2,323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils Subcategory--123 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................................... 8.98 48,148 187 ..............
9............................................... 12.8 50,792 252 1,442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organics Subcategory--15 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................... 2.79 19,814 141 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the
discharges of 104 \7\ priority and non-conventional pollutants from
centralized waste treatment facilities to surface waters and POTWs in
national analyses of direct and indirect discharges. Discharges of
these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter
aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact
human health through the consumption of

[[Page 81284]]

contaminated fish and drinking water. Furthermore, these pollutants may
also interfere with POTW operations in terms of inhibition of activated
sludge or biological treatment and contamination of sewage sludges,
thereby limiting the method of disposal and thereby raising its costs.
All of these pollutants have at least one toxic effect (human health
carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition,
many of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist
in the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ EPA accounted for a total of 161 pollutant of concern
analytes. However, ambient water quality criteria or toxicity
profiles are established for only 104 analytes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA has updated its analysis to reflect changes to the National
Ambient Water Quality Criteria made after the 1999 CWT proposal was
issued. National Ambient Water Quality Criteria have been updated for
63 of the analytes modeled in the water quality benefits analysis. In
some cases, water criteria for aquatic organisms were completely
removed, while for others, criteria for human health were made more
stringent.
The Agency did not evaluate the effects of conventional pollutants
since the analysis focused on priority and non-conventional pollutants.
However, the discharge of a conventional pollutant such as total
suspended solids (TSS) can have adverse effects on the environment. For
example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended
particulate matter that reduces light penetration, and thus primary
productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that alter
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats.
Of a total of 223 CWT facilities, for the purposes of the water
quality and benefits analysis, EPA evaluated 12 direct dischargers and
101 indirect dischargers. Facilities not evaluated include zero
dischargers (58) and those with insufficient data (2 direct and 50
indirect facilities) to conduct the water quality analysis. To estimate
benefits from the improvements in water quality, in-stream
concentration estimates are modeled and then compared to both aquatic
life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or toxic
effect levels. The analyses were first performed on a subcategory-
specific basis. The subcategory-specific analyses, however, consider
only impacts of discharges from individual subcategories, and
therefore, underestimate overall water quality impacts for facilities
that treat wastes in more than one subcategory. At least 15 percent of
facilities in the CWT industry accept wastes in multiple subcategories.
In order to evaluate overall benefits of the final technologies, EPA
also analyzed water quality and POTW impacts for multiple subcategory
combinations.
EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic
benefits to result from these projected reductions in effluent loadings
(see ``Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Guidelines for
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' (Environmental
Assessment)). In particular, the assessment addresses the following
benefit categories: (a) Human health benefits due to reductions in
excess cancer risk; (b) human health benefits due to reductions in lead
exposure; (c) human health benefits due to reductions in non-
carcinogenic hazard (systemic); (d) ecological and recreational
benefits due to improved water quality with respect to toxic
pollutants; and (e) benefits to POTWs from reductions in interference,
pass through, and biosolid contamination, and elimination of some of
the efforts associated with establishing local pretreatment limits.

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters associated with
the final rule will reduce cancer incidences by approximately 0.03 per
year with estimated monetized benefits of $0.076 to $0.412 million
($1997) per year. These estimated benefits are attributable to reducing
the cancer risks associated with consuming contaminated fish tissue.
EPA developed these benefit estimates by applying an existing estimate
of the value of a statistical life to the estimated number of excess
cancer cases avoided. The estimated range of the value of a statistical
life used in this analysis is $2.3 million to 12.4 million ($1997).

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

EPA solicited comment on, and updated its methodology used to
estimate lead health risks due to ingestion of lead-contaminated fish
tissues by recreational and subsistence anglers. For the proposed rule
EPA used the 7Q10 flow (lowest seven day flow which reoccurs every ten
years), although the harmonic mean flow would have been more
appropriate to estimate the human health effects due to consumption of
lead contaminated fish tissues. As a result, EPA's calculated benefit
at the time of proposal for the reduction of lead discharges into the
environment was overestimated.
For the final rule, EPA used the harmonic-mean flow to estimate
human health effects due to consumption of lead contaminated fish
tissue. Under the final treatment levels, the ingestion of lead-
contaminated fish tissues by recreational and subsistence anglers would
be reduced at 10 water bodies. Because elevated blood lead levels can
cause intellectual impairment in exposed children 0 to 6 years of age,
benefits to the at-risk child populations are quantified by estimating
the reduced potential IQ point loss. Benefits to adults are quantified
by estimating the reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases including
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and strokes (the benefits of
reduced heart disease and strokes include both fatal and non-fatal
cases). The benefits are quantified and monetized using methodologies
developed in the Retrospective Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Final
Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to
1990; EPA 410-R-97-002). EPA estimates that this final regulation will
reduce cases of these adverse health effects; the total benefit for
these reductions would range from approximately $0.488 million to $1.59
million.

C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard

Exposure to toxic substances poses risk of systemic and other
effects to humans, including effects on the circulatory, respiratory or
digestive systems, and neurological and developmental effects. This
final rule is expected to generate human health benefits by reducing
exposure to these substances, thus reducing the hazards of these
associated effects. EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters
would reduce the number of persons potentially exposed to non-cancer
effects due to consumption of contaminated fish tissue by 1880 people.
Presently EPA does not have methodology for monetizing these benefits.

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

EPA expects this final rule to generate environmental benefits by
improving water quality. There are a wide range of benefits associated
with the maintenance and improvement of water quality. These benefits
include use values (e.g., recreational fishing), ecological values
(e.g., preservation of habitat), and passive use values. For example,
water pollution might affect the quality of the fish and wildlife
habitat provided by water resources, thus affecting the species using
these resources. This in turn might affect the quality and value of
recreational experiences of users, such as anglers fishing in the
effected streams. EPA has estimated the value of the recreational

[[Page 81285]]

fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this final rule.
EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range
from $1.23 million to $3.49 million ($1997). EPA evaluates these
recreational benefits, applying a model that considers the increase in
value of a ``contaminant-free fishery'' to recreational anglers
resulting from the elimination of all pollutant concentrations in
excess of AWQC at 5 of the 43 receiving water locations. EPA's modeling
projects that discharges from CWT facilities are responsible for 252
AWQC violations at 43 receiving water locations and that the rule would
eliminate all violations at 5 of these locations. Note these results
are derived from computer modeling only. The monetized value of
impaired recreational fishing opportunity is estimated by first
calculating the baseline value of the receiving stream using a value
per-person-day of recreational fishing, and the number of person-days
fished on the receiving stream. The value of improving water quality in
this fishery, based on the increase in value to anglers of achieving
contaminant-free fishing, is then calculated. However, adding these
benefits to the cancer and lead toxicity reduction benefits calculated
above may result in double counting. Presumably reduced incidence of
adverse health effects is one of the factors anglers considered when
valuing a ``contaminant free fishery.''
In addition, EPA estimates that the annual monetized intrinsic
benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in
water quality, range from at least $0.62 million to $1.75 million
($1997). These intrinsic benefits are estimated as half of the
recreational benefits and may be either underestimated or
overestimated.

E. Improved POTW Operations

EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this
final regulation: (1) Reductions in the likelihood of interference,
pass through, and biosolid contamination problems; and (2) reductions
in costs potentially incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic pollutants
and determining whether to, and the appropriate level at which to, set
local limits. Although the benefits from reducing these effects at
POTWs might be substantial, EPA is unable to quantify them.
First, regarding potential interference, pass through and biosolid
contamination, this final rule is expected to help reduce these
problems by reducing pollutant loadings in the industry's effluent and
reducing shock releases. Anecdotal evidence from POTW operators and
sampling results indicate that such effects can occur. EPA also expects
the final rule to improve the biosolid quality of 3900 metric tons,
permitting the use of less expensive disposal mechanisms. The estimated
monetized benefits for improving biosolid quality range from $0.14
million to $0.85.
Finally, reducing the pollutant load to local POTWs may eliminate
some of the efforts associated with establishing local pollutant
limits. Local limits are sometimes required to protect against pass
through and interference, and to protect worker health and safety.
Several POTWs indicated that establishment of more effective national
pretreatment standards will reduce the time and effort required to
establish local limits.

F. Other Benefits Not Quantified

The above benefit analyses focus mainly on identified compounds
with quantifiable toxic or carcinogenic effects. This potentially leads
to an underestimation of benefits, since some pollutant
characterizations are not explicitly considered. While the analysis
does include a general estimate for non-use benefits, it is possible
that some potential effects of reductions in certain pollutants were
not fully captured in the monetized estimates. For example, the
analyses do not include the benefits associated with reducing the
particulate load (measured as TSS), or the oxygen demand (measured as
BOD5 and COD) of the effluents. TSS loads can degrade
ecological habitat by reducing light penetration and primary
productivity, and from accumulation of solid particles that alter
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. BOD5 and COD
loads can deplete oxygen levels, which can produce mortality or other
adverse effects in fish, as well as reduce biological diversity.

G. Summary of Benefits

EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from
this final rule are in the range from $2.56 million to $8.09 million
($1997). Table XI.G-1 summarizes these benefits, by category. The range
reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this final rule
and in placing a dollar value on these effects. As indicated in Table
XI.G-1, these monetized benefits ranges do not explicitly reflect some
potential benefit categories, including aspects of improved ecological
conditions from improvements in water quality; and improved POTW
operations.
At the same time, there may be a certain amount of double counting
in the benefits categories that have been monetized, for example,
between the health and recreational benefits. Therefore the reported
benefits may understate or overestimate the total benefits of this
final rule.

Table XI.G-1.--Potential Economic Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of 1997 dollars per
Benefit category year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk...................... 0.076-0.412
Reduced Lead Health Risk................. 0.49-1.59
Reduced Non-Carcinogenic Hazard.......... Unquantified
Improved Recreation Value................ 1.23-3.49
Improved Intrinsic Value (including 0.62-1.75*
ecological conditions).
Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW... 0.14-0.85
Potentially Improved POTW Operation Unquantified
(inhibition).
Total Monetized Benefits................. 2.56-8.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* May not fully capture all ecological effects.

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and
306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly,
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution,
waste treatment residual generation, and energy consumption.

A. Air Pollution

CWT facilities generate wastewater that contain significant
concentrations of organic compounds, some of which are also on the list
of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These wastewaters often pass through a
series of collection and treatment units that are open to the
atmosphere and allow wastewater containing organic compounds to contact
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-containing wastewater
may result in significant volatilization of both volatile organic
compounds (VOC), which contribute to the formation of ambient ozone,
and HAP from the wastewater.
As discussed in 1999 proposal, EPA considered including air
stripping in the technology basis for today's limitations and
standards, but rejected it because it

[[Page 81286]]

would not have resulted in significantly different limitations. Because
this rule would not allow any less stringent control of VOCs than is
currently in place at most CWT facilities, EPA does not project any net
increase in air emissions from volatilization of organic pollutants due
to today's final action. As such, no adverse air impacts are expected
to occur as a result of today's regulations.
Although this rule does not require the use of air stripping with
emissions control to control the emission of volatile pollutants, EPA
encourages all facilities which accept waste containing volatile
pollutants to incorporate air stripping with overhead recovery or
destruction into their wastewater treatment systems. Additionally, EPA
also notes that CWT sources of hazardous air pollutants are subject to
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-
site waste and recovery operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) at 40
CFR Part 63.
Finally, EPA notes that the increased energy requirements discussed
below may result in increased emissions of combustion byproducts
associated with energy production. Given the relatively small projected
increases in energy use, however, EPA does not anticipate that this
effect would be signficant.

B. Solid Waste

Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the treatment
technologies selected as the basis for today's rule. These wastes
include sludge from biological treatment systems, chemical
precipitation and clarification systems, and gravity separation and
dissolved air flotation systems. EPA estimated costs for off-site
disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills of the solid wastes generated
due to the implementation of the technologies discussed above. These
costs were included in the economic evaluation of the selected
technologies.
The precipitation and subsequent separation selected as the
technology basis for the metals subcategory will produce a metal-rich
filter cake which requires disposal. EPA estimates that metals
subcategory facilities will generate annually 3.7 million gallons of
filter cake. Dissolved air flotation and additional gravity separation
steps selected as the technology basis \8\ for the oils subcategory
will also produce a metal-rich filter press cake that requires
disposal. EPA estimates that oils subcategory facilities will generate
approximately 23 million gallons of filter press cake annually.
Finally, the biological treatment system selected as the technology
basis for the organics subcategory will also produce a sludge that
requires disposal. EPA estimates that 4.3 million gallons of sludge
will be generated annually by the organics subcategory facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The technology basis for indirect discharges in the oils
subcategory does not include additional gravity separation steps.
See Section VIII.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA has concluded that the disposal of these filter cakes and/or
sludges will not have an adverse effect on the environment or result in
the release of pollutants in the filter cake to other media. EPA made
this conclusion for two reasons. First, EPA estimates that the
additional solid wastes disposed in landfills as a result of this
regulation will be less than 0.19% of the annual tonnage of waste
currently disposed in landfills. Second, the disposal of these wastes
into controlled Subtitle C and D landfills is strictly regulated by the
RCRA program.

C. Energy Requirements

EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES will
increase energy consumption by a small increment over present industry
use. With the exception of the oils subcategory, the projected increase
in energy consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of
components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, and controls. For the
metals subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy usage of 3.5
million kilowatt hours per year and, for the organics subcategory, an
increased energy usage of 0.5 million-kilowatt hours per year. For the
oils subcategory, however, the main energy requirement in today's rule
is for the operation of dissolved air flotation units. Dissolved air
flotation units require air sparging to help separate the wastestream.
For the oils subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy usage of 3.4
million kilowatt hours per year. Overall, an increase of 7.5 million
kilowatt-hours per year would be required for today's regulation which
equates to 4210 barrels of oil per day. In 1996, the United States
consumed 18.3 million barrels of oil per day.

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

The purpose of this section is to provide assistance and direction
to permit writers, control authorities, and CWT facilities to aid in
their implementation of this regulation. This section also discusses
the relationship of upset and bypass provisions and variances and
modifications to the final limitations and standards.

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards

1. Introduction
Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards act as a primary
mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. These limitations and standards are applied to
individual facilities through NPDES permits and local limits developed
for POTWs issued by the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of
the Act and local pretreatment programs under Section 307 of the Act.
In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority or local POTW may
elect to establish technology-based permit limits or local limits for
pollutants not covered by this regulation. In addition, if State water
quality standards or other provisions of State or Federal law require
limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more
stringent limits or standards on covered pollutants to achieve
compliance), the permitting authority must apply those limitations or
standards.
2. Compliance Dates
New and reissued Federal and State NPDES permits to direct
dischargers must include the effluent limitations promulgated today.
Existing indirect dischargers must comply with today's pretreatment
standards no later than December 22, 2003. New direct and indirect
discharging sources must comply with applicable limitations and
standards on the date the new sources begin operations. As a further
point of clarification, new direct and indirect sources are those that
began construction of CWT operations after August 28, 2000.
3. Applicability
EPA provided detailed information on the applicability of this rule
to various operations in Section V. EPA also provided examples of
regulated and non-regulated CWT operations in Table V.A-1. Also see 40
CFR 437.1. Permit writers and pretreatment authorities should closely
examine all CWT operations to determine if they should be subject to
provisions of this rule.
4. Subcategorization Determination
Each CWT facility subject to this rule will need to make an initial
determination of which subcategories are applicable. Multiple
subcategory facilities will need to choose to comply with each of the
applicable subcategory limitations or standards separately (directly
following treatment of each subcategory's waste) or to certify

[[Page 81287]]

equivalent treatment and comply with one of the four sets of
limitations or standards in the multiple wastestream subcategory. The
following sections provide guidance on a facility's subcategorization
determination as well as implementation of the rule for multiple
subcategory facilities. In addition, this section provides a procedure
that should assist CWT facilities in determining into which category
particular waste receipts might fall.
EPA determined that the paperwork and analyses currently performed
at CWT facilities, as part of their waste acceptance procedures,
provide CWT facilities with sufficient information for them to
determine into which of the subcategories their treated waste would
fall. EPA based its recommended subcategorization determination
procedure on information generally obtained during these waste
acceptance and confirmation procedures. In EPA's view, permit writers
and local pretreatment authorities should not (because they need not)
require additional monitoring or paperwork solely for the purpose of
subcategory determinations, unless the CWT facility's waste acceptance
procedures are inadequate. EPA concluded that if CWT facilities follow
EPA's recommendations, they should easily classify their wastes. Permit
writers and local authorities, in these circumstances, would only need
to satisfy themselves that the facility made a good-faith effort to
determine the category of wastes treated. In most cases, as detailed
below, EPA determined that the subcategory determination can be made on
the type of waste receipt, e.g., metal-bearing sludge, used oil, or
landfill leachate. Certainly, in EPA's estimation, all CWT facilities
should, at a minimum, collect adequate information from the generator
on the type of waste received at the CWT facility because this is the
minimum information required by CWT facilities to treat off-site wastes
effectively.
To determine an existing facility's subcategory classification(s),
the facility should review data for a period of one year on its
incoming wastes (that is, at the point where the shipment is received
at the facility). The facility should first use Table XIII.A-1 below to
classify each of its waste receipts into a subcategory for that one-
year period.

TABLE XIII.A-1--Waste Receipt Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory:
Spent electroplating baths and/or sludges
Metal finishing rinse water and sludges
Chromate wastes
Air pollution control blow down water and sludges
Spent anodizing solutions
Incineration wastewaters
Waste liquid mercury
Cyanide-containing wastes
Waste acids and bases with or without metals
Cleaning, rinsing, and surface preparation solutions from
electroplating or phosphating operations
Vibratory deburring wastewater
Alkaline and acid solutions used to clean metal parts or equipment
Oils Subcategory:
Used oils
Oil-water emulsions or mixtures
Lubricants
Coolants
Contaminated groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources
Used petroleum products
Oil spill clean-up
Bilge water
Rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources
Interceptor wastes
Off-specification fuels
Underground storage remediation waste
Tank clean-out from petroleum or oily sources
Non-contact used glycols
Aqueous and oil mixtures from parts cleaning operations
Wastewater from oil bearing paint washes
Organics Subcategory:
Landfill leachate
Contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum sources
Solvent-bearing wastes
Off-specification organic product
Still bottoms
Byproduct waste glycol
Wastewater from paint washes
Wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation
Wastewater from organic chemical product operations
Tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the CWT facility receives the wastes listed above, the
subcategory determination may be made solely from this information. If,
however, the wastes are unknown or not listed above, EPA recommends
that the facility use the following hierarchy to determine how to
characterize the wastes it is treating, so as to identify the
appropriate regulatory subcategory.
(1) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease at or in excess of
100 mg/L, the waste receipt should be classified in the oils
subcategory;
(2) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease 100 mg/L, and has
any of the pollutants listed below in concentrations in excess of the
values listed below, the waste receipt should be classified in the
metals subcategory.

Cadmium: 0.2 mg/L
Chromium: 8.9 mg/L
Copper: 4.9 mg/L
Nickel: 37.5 mg/L

(3) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease 100 mg/L, and
does not have concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, or nickel
above any of the values listed above, the waste receipt should be
classified in the organics subcategory.
Once a facility's subcategory determination has been made, in EPA's
view, the facility would not need to repeat this annual determination
process unnecessarily. However, if a CWT facility alters its operation
to accept wastes from another subcategory (or to no longer accept waste
from a subcategory), the facility should notify the appropriate permit
writer or pretreatment authority and the subcategory determination
should be re-visited. EPA notes that current permit regulations require
notification to the permitting authority when significant changes
occur. EPA also recommends that the subcategory determination be
reevaluated whenever the permit is reissued, though this would not
necessarily require complete characterization of a subsequent year's
waste receipts if there were no indication that the make-up of the
facility's receipts had significantly changed.
For new CWT facilities, the facility should estimate the percentage
of waste receipts expected in each subcategory. Alternatively, the
facility could compare the treatment technologies being installed to
the selected treatment technologies for each subcategory. After the
initial year of operation, the permit writer or pretreatment authority
should reassess the facility's subcategory determination and follow the
procedure outlined for existing facilities.
5. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple CWT Subcategories
EPA estimates that many facilities in the CWT industry accept
wastes in two or more of the individual subcategories adopted for
regulation here. In other words, the facilities actively accept a
variety of waste types. This situation is different from the case in
which metal-bearing wastestreams may include low-level organic
pollutants or that oily wastes may include low-level metal pollutants
due to the origin of the wastestream accepted for treatment.
As promulgated today, multiple subcategory facilities may comply
with this rule in one of two ways: (1)

[[Page 81288]]

Facilities may elect to comply with the limitations or standards for
each applicable subcategory directly following treatment (before
commingling with different subcategory wastes); or (2) facilities may
certify equivalent treatment and comply with one of the four sets of
limitations or standards for the multiple wastestream subcategory. Each
of these options is discussed further below.
a. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory A, B, and/
or C. In implementing this rule for multiple subcategory facilities in
this manner, the permit writer or pretreatment control authority needs
to ensure that the CWT facility has an optimal waste management
program. First, the permit writer or control authority should verify
that the CWT facility is identifying and segregating wastestreams
appropriately since segregation of similar wastestreams is the first
step in obtaining optimal mass removals of pollutants from industrial
wastes. Next, the permit writer or control authority should verify that
the CWT facility is employing treatment technologies designed to treat
all off-site waste receipts effectively. Finally, the permit writer or
control authority should establish compliance monitoring for each
applicable subcategory directly following treatment of the each
subcategory's waste stream. As a further point of clarification, the
permit writer or control authority should not allow CWT facilities to
commingle wastestreams from different subcategories prior to monitoring
for compliance with each subcategory's limitations or standards.
b. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory D. First,
facilities which desire this option would submit an initial request to
their permit writer or local control authority certifying that their
treatment train includes all applicable equivalent treatment systems.
This initial certification would include, at a minimum, the applicable
subcategories (i.e., metals, oils, organics), a listing of and
descriptions of the treatment technologies and operating conditions
used to treat wastes in each subcategory, and the justification for
making an equivalent treatment determination (see Sec. 437.40 of the
final rule). For example, a direct discharging facility which accepts
metals subcategory and oils subcategory wastewaters could show that
their treatment train includes two-stage oil/water separation, two-
stage chemical precipitation, and dissolved air flotation operated in a
similar manner to that costed by EPA. Since these are the treatment
technologies selected as the basis for this rule, the equivalent
treatment determination could be established. However, EPA is not
defining ``equivalent treatment'' as specific treatment technologies or
the technology bases, but rather as a ``wastewater treatment system
that is demonstrated in literature, treatability tests, or self-
monitoring data to remove a similar level of the appropriate pollutants
as the applicable treatment technology selected as the basis for the
applicable regulations''.\9\ EPA is leaving the decision as to whether
a particular treatment train is ``equivalent treatment'' to the permit
writer's or local control authority's best professional judgment.
However, the requesting facility is responsible for providing the
permit writer or local control authority with enough information and/or
data to make the equivalent treatment determination. This initial
certification statement must be signed by the responsible corporate
officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(1) or 40 CFR 122.22. If the permit
writer or local control authority determines that equivalent treatment
is demonstrated, then the permit writers of local control authority
will issue discharge requirements based on one of the four subsets of
limitations or standards promulgated for the multiple wastestream
subcategory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The pollutant removals for each treatment technology
selected as the basis are listed in Tables 7.6 through 7.9 in the
TDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, the facility shall submit an annual certification statement
which indicates that the treatment technologies are being utilized in
the manner set forth in their original certification or a justification
to allow modification of the practices listed in its initial
certification (see Sec. 437.41 of the final rule). If the information
contained in the initial certification statement is still applicable, a
facility shall simply state that in a letter to the permitting
authority or local control authority, and the letter shall constitute
the periodic statement. However, if the facility has modified its
treatment system in any way, it shall submit the revised information in
a manner similar to the initial certification. Once again, the permit
writer or local control authority would be expected to use BEJ/BPJ in
reviewing any modifications.
Finally, the facility shall be required to maintain on-site
compliance paperwork. The on-site compliance paperwork should include
information from the initial and periodic certifications, but must also
include: (1) The supporting documentation for any modifications that
have been made to the treatment system; (2) a method for demonstrating
that the treatment system is well operated and maintained; and (3) a
discussion of the rationale for choosing the method of demonstration.
Proper operation and maintenance of a system includes a qualified
person to operate the system, use of correct treatment chemicals in
appropriate quantities, and operation of the system within the stated
design parameters. For example, a facility may operate dissolved air
flotation. The method for demonstrating the dissolved air flotation
system is well operated can be as simple as maintaining records on the
temperature and pH, the chemicals added (including quantity), the
duration of treatment, recycle ratio, and physical characteristics of
the wastewater before and after dissolved air flotation. Alternatively,
the facility could monitor for selected parameters for the purpose of
demonstrating effective treatment. This could include any pollutant or
a combination of pollutants.
Control authorities, at any time after entering into an individual
control mechanism, or permitting authorities, or any time after
issuing, reissuing, or modifying the NPDES permit, could inspect the
CWT facility to confirm that the listed practices are being employed,
that the treatment system is well operated and maintained, and that the
necessary paperwork provides sufficient justification for any
modifications.
6. Implementation for Metals Subcategory Facilities With Cyanide Subset
Whenever a CWT facility accepts a waste receipt that contains more
than 136 mg/L of total cyanide, the CWT facility must monitor for
cyanide when the wastewater exits the cyanide destruction process
rather than after mixing with other process wastewater. Alternatively,
the facility may monitor for compliance after mixing if the cyanide
limitations are adjusted using the ``building block approach'' or
``combined wastestream formula,'' assuming the cyanide limitations do
not fall below the minimum analytical detection limit.
7. Implementation for CWT Facilities Subject to Multiple Effluent
Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple
categories, the effluent guidelines are applied using a flow-weighted
combination of the appropriate guideline for each category (i.e., ``the
building block approach''). Where a facility treats a CWT wastestream
and process wastewater from other non-CWT industrial operations, the
effluent guidelines

[[Page 81289]]

would be applied by using a flow-weighted combination of the BPT/BAT
limitations for the CWT and the other non-CWT industrial operation to
derive the appropriate limitations. Similarly, for indirect
dischargers, under these circumstances, the pretreatment standards
would be applied using the ``combined wastestream formula'' as defined
in 40 CFR 403.6(e). The only exceptions to this are for facilities also
subject to effluent guidelines for Landfills (40 CFR 445) and effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for Transportation
Equipment Cleaning (40 CFR 442). The interaction between these
categories and the CWT rule are detailed in Section V. J and V.I,
respectively.
8. Internal Monitoring Requirements
Working in conjunction with the effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards are the monitoring conditions set out in the
NPDES or POTW discharge permit. An integral part of monitoring
conditions is the point at which a facility must demonstrate
compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can have a
dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. Therefore,
as detailed elsewhere in the implementation section, it may be
necessary to require internal monitoring points in order to assure
compliance. Authority to address internal wastestreams is provided in
40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 40 CFR 403.6(e)(2) and (4).
Permit writers or local control authorities may establish additional
internal monitoring points to the extent consistent with EPA's
regulations.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of wastestreams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and 403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the CWT
Industry must include the effluent limitations. In addition, the
indirect dischargers must comply with the pretreatment standards within
three years of issuance.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority,
conventional, and non-conventional pollutants.
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants, and BCT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA
provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment standards for existing
facilities. FDF variances for priority pollutants were challenged
judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical
Manufacturers Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or national effluent
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standards.
Section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an
application for approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1)
information submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that
are fundamentally different, or (2) information the applicant did not
have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard
must be no less stringent than justified by the difference, and not
result in markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts
than the national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 125 Subpart D, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative limitations and standards,
further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance
requests for existing direct dischargers.
Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) identifies six factors (for example, volume
of process wastewater, age, and size of a discharger's facility) that
may be considered in determining if a facility is fundamentally
different. The Agency must determine whether, on the basis of one or
more of these factors, the facility in question is fundamentally
different from the facilities and factors considered by the EPA in
developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The
regulation also lists four other factors (for example, infeasibility of
installation within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay)
that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40
CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less stringent than the
national limitation may be approved only if compliance with the
national limitations would result in either (a) a removal cost wholly
out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of
the national limitations, or (b) a non-water quality environmental
impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than
the impact considered during development of the national limits. EPA
regulations provide for an FDF variance for existing indirect
dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for approval of a request
to modify applicable pretreatment standards and factors considered are
the same as those for direct dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.

[[Page 81290]]

2. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain non-conventional pollutants due to localized
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine,
color, iron, and total phenols.
3. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person
may request a permit modification. There are two classifications of
modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they
differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major
modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not.
Virtually any modification that results in less stringent conditions is
treated as a major modification, with provisions for public notice and
comment. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of a
permit are described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are
generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor
modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 Federal Register 51735, (October 4,
1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.''
Consequently, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made
in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

1. Background
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business with gross
revenue under $6 million (based on Small Business Administration size
standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice
and recommendations of representatives of affected small entities in
accordance with section 609(b) of the RFA. See 64 FR 2298-2300, 2332-33
(January 13, 1999). A detailed discussion of the SBAR Panel's advice
and recommendations can be found in the Panel Report which is available
in the docket for this rule (DCN 21.5.1). The 1999 proposal provides a
summary of the Panel's recommendation. See 64 FR 2298-2300.
2. Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by section 604 of the RFA, EPA also prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for today's rule. The FRFA
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA, which was
part of the proposal of this rule. The FRFA is available for review in
the docket (in Section 8 of the Final EA) and is summarized below.
a. Need for and Objectives of the Regulation. A detailed discussion
of the need for the regulation is presented in Section V of the 1999
preamble (64 FR 2293-2295). A summary may also be found in Section
9.1.2 of the Final EA. A detailed discussion of the objectives and
legal basis for the rule is presented in Sections I and II of this
preamble and Chapter 1 of the final development document. Very briefly,
the Clean Water Act requires EPA to establish effluent limitations
guidelines and standards to control pollutant discharges to the
nation's waters. The CWT industry is not currently subject to national
standards that provide for an adequate level of control.
b. Significant Comments on the IRFA. The significant comments on
the IRFA all addressed the following regulatory alternatives:
exemptions for small businesses, exemptions based on flow cutoffs,
reduced monitoring frequency for small businesses, and the use of an
indicator parameter for compliance monitoring. These alternatives are
discussed more fully in Section 8.3.6 of the EA and Section IV of this
preamble.
Most commenters who discussed the small business exemptions, the
flow cutoffs, and the reduced monitoring alternatives were opposed to
them. Many commenters argued that size and flow were not necessarily
related to the environmental impact of the facility. Others asserted
that company revenue was a difficult basis for implementing an
exemption. Other commenters noted that exempted facilities would have
lower operating costs; they could, therefore, capture more market share
which would lead to more untreated wastes going to a POTW. With respect
to reduced monitoring, commenters stated that permit writers and
control authorities should continue to establish monitoring frequencies
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the probable impact of the
discharge to surface waters or a POTW, compliance history of the
facility, and other relevant factors.
Many commenters responded on the subject of indicator parameters,
with essentially an equivalent number opposing and favoring the use of
an

[[Page 81291]]

indicator parameter for compliance monitoring for indirect discharging
oils subcategory facilities. Commenters that did not support the use of
oil and grease (either SGT-HEM or HEM) as indicator parameters raised a
number of technical concerns. Commenters that supported their use cited
the decreased analytical costs and the wide range of organic compounds
that can be measured with these analyses.
EPA shared the concerns of some of these commenters. In the final
rule, EPA is not adopting any of these alternatives, but is taking
steps to minimize the impacts on small businesses (see XIV.B.2.e). See
Section IV of this preamble for more information on the comments, EPA's
responses to those comments, and EPA's justification for final
decisions on these options. EPA's detailed responses to comments, and
the comments themselves, are contained in the Comment Response Document
in response categories SBREFA, Small Business, and Indicator
Parameters.
c. Description and Estimation of Number of Small Entities to Which
the Regulation Will Apply. The small entities subject to this rule are
small businesses. There are no nonprofit organizations or small
governmental operations that operate CWT facilities. For purposes of
assessing the impacts of today's rule on small businesses, EPA relied
on the SBA size standard for SIC code 4953, ``Refuse Systems,'' and
applied that standard to companies owning CWT facilities. For this SIC
code, SBA defines a small business as one receiving less than $6
million/year, averaged over the most recent three fiscal years.
The CWT industry is composed of an estimated 167 companies (as
discussed in Section 3, this number is scaled up to reflect the total
number of CWT companies). Small companies make up approximately half of
all companies in the CWT industry (an estimated 82 of 167). All of
these small companies, except for one, operate single CWT facilities.
One company in the analysis operates two facilities. Sixty-three small
companies own discharging facilities (61 own indirect dischargers and 2
own direct dischargers) that are subject to the requirements of this
rule. Fifty-nine of these small companies are in the oil treatment/
recovery business. The number of employees at each of these companies
ranges from 2 to 115, with a median of 18. Fifty-three out of the 63
companies have costs greater than one percent of sales; 30 out of the
63 companies have costs greater than three percent of sales. Section
X.M provides more detail on the impacts to small businesses.
d. Description of the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements. For almost all of the small businesses subject
to the final CWT rule, this regulation does not contain any specific
new requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting.
Regulations for the existing NPDES and national pretreatment programs
already contain minimum requirements; and permit writers and control
authorities establish the monitoring regime for individual facilities.
Consequently, for almost all of the CWT facilities owned by small
businesses, there are similarly no new professional skills required to
meet any new requirements.
However, for CWT facilities that accept waste in more than one CWT
subcategory that elect to comply with the multiple wastestream
subcategory limitations or standards, the final rule does include new
requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These
requirements and the multiple wastestream subcategory are described in
Sections IV.F and XIII.A.5 of the final preamble. See also Sec. 437.41.
EPA concluded that CWT facilities already have the professional skills
to meet these new requirements. Based on the information in EPA's
database, only two CWT facilities owned by small businesses may be
subject to these new requirements.
e. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impacts on Small Entities.
EPA went to some length to explore and analyze a variety of regulatory
alternatives to minimize impacts on small businesses. Today's notice
includes extensive discussions of the alternatives, EPA's analysis of
those alternatives, and the rationale for EPA's decisions. EPA selected
the least expensive option that was considered for the final rule as
the technology basis for the standards and limitations for existing
sources. Furthermore, EPA selected oils option 8 as the technology
basis for PSES in the oils subcategory (which contains most of the
small businesses affected by the final rule), in part, based on the
incremental economic impact to small businesses. For EPA's option
selection rationale, see Section VIII. Most of the other regulatory
alternatives incorporated exemptions for groups of facilities. EPA
rejected those options for multiple reasons, including implementation
difficulty and concerns about environmental impacts. For a detailed
discussion of EPA's rationale for rejection of these options, see
Sections IV.A-IV.E.
3. Compliance Guide
As required by section 212 of SBREFA, EPA is also preparing a small
entity compliance guide to help small businesses comply with this rule.
To request a copy, use any of the contacts shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, above. EPA expects that
the guide will be available in January 2001.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes the final rule with an explanation of why that
alternative was adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed,
under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of

[[Page 81292]]

the final rule as $35.1 million ($1997). Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. No small governments are subject to this rule. The final
rule, at most, imposes only minimal administrative requirements on
small local governments that are administering approved pretreament
programs. The final rule does not uniquely affect small governments
because small and large governments are affected in the same way. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., EPA must submit an information collection request
covering information collection requirements in proposed rules to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. There
are no new information collection reporting requirements for facilities
that comply with the limits for the metals-bearing, oily waste, and/or
organics waste subcategories separately. The information collection
reporting requirements and the burden estimates for these subcategories
are contained in the ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR (No.
1427.05; OMB Approval No. 2040-0110) and in the ``National Pretreatment
Program (40 CFR Part 403)'' ICR (No. 0002.081; OMB Approval No. 2040-
0009).
EPA established a fourth multiple wastestream subcategory to
simplify implementation and reduce burden for facilities treating
wastes covered by more than one subcategory. EPA notes that no facility
is required to use this subcategory and its requirements unless the
facility chooses to. The new information reporting requirements under
this subcategory, described at Sec. 437.41, include submission of an
initial certification statement and annual certification statements
thereafter, and maintenance of on-site compliance paperwork. These
requirements are the same as those previously approved by OMB for
facilities in the pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging
category that choose to comply with the pollution prevention
alternative. OMB is in the process of approving the extension of these
requirements to multiple wastestream facilities in the CWT category, as
part of the revisions to the ICRs listed above.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The OMB
control numbers for the information collection requirements in this
rule will be listed in an amendment(s) to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent
Federal Register document(s) after OMB approves the ICRs.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Pub L. 104-113,
section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA performed a
search of the technical literature to identify any applicable
analytical test methods from industry, academia, voluntary consensus
standard bodies and other parties that could be used to measure the
analytes in today's rulemaking. EPA's search revealed that there are
consensus test procedures for many of the analytes in today's rule
already specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. Even prior to
enactment of the NTTAA, EPA has traditionally included any applicable
consensus test methods in its regulations. Consistent with the
requirements of the CWA, those applicable consensus test methods are
incorporated by reference in the tables at 40 CFR Part 136.3. The
consensus test methods in these tables include American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) and ``Standard Methods.''
Today's rule requires dischargers to monitor for up to 17 metals,
16 organics, BOD5, total cyanide, Oil and Grease (HEM), and
TSS. Examples of pollutants with consensus methods already in place
include the metals, total cyanide, BOD5, TSS, and some
organic pollutants such as fluoranthene and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
In addition, EPA noted in the 1999 proposed rule that EPA was
developing additional data for certain additional pollutants not
included in the Tables at 40 CFR 136.3. EPA asked commenters to
identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards for
those pollutants. No commenters identified any such standards.
Therefore, EPA has amended existing EPA test procedures included in 40
CFR 136.3 to cover the additional pollutants in today's rule.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health risk or safety risk that the Agency has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Further, EPA does not believe this rule concerns an environmental or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. This rule sets technology based limits according to
the requirements of the Clean Water Act. However, EPA did evaluate
children's health effects (specifically, impaired IQ) in its analysis
of environmental benefits of this rule (see Section XI.B). EPA
estimates that this rule will reduce the number of children that might
otherwise experience reduced IQ.

G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act

The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, requires
most Federal agencies to differentiate between, and establish separate
classes for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine
mammal oils, and oils of vegetable origin, and (2) other greases and
oils, including petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any regulation or
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the
transportation,

[[Page 81293]]

storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a fat, oil, or
grease.
The Agency believes that vegetable oils and animal fats pose
similar types of threats to the environment as petroleum oils when
spilled to the environment (62 FR 54508 Oct. 20, 1997).
The deleterious environmental effects of spills of petroleum and
non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, are
produced through physical contact and destruction of food sources (via
smothering or coating) as well as toxic contamination (62 FR 54511).
However, the permitted discharge of CWT wastewater containing residual
and dilute quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is
significantly different from an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or
non-petroleum oil products.
CWT facilities that would be subject to the rule do not typically
accept wastes with appreciable amounts of animal fats and oils, etc.
The exception are grease trap wastes. Today's rule will not apply to
that portion of wastewater treated at CWT facilities that represents
grease trap wastes.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. EPA has not identified any
facilities covered by today's rule that are owned and/or operated by
Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule establishes effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards imposing requirements that apply
to CWT facilities when they discharge wastewater or introduce
wastewater to a POTW. EPA has determined that there are no CWT
facilities owned and operated by State or local governments that are
subject to today's rule so the rule will not impose any treatment
technology costs on State or local governments. Further, the rule will
only affect State and local governments incidentally in their capacity
as implementers of CWA permitting programs. Therefore, the final rule,
at most, imposes only minimal administrative costs on States that have
authorized NPDES programs and on local governments that are
administering approved pretreatment programs. (These States and
localities must incorporate the new limitations and standards in new
and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or permits).
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Even though section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule, EPA did consult with representatives of State and local
governments in developing this rule. The concerns raised during those
consultations and EPA's response to their concerns are reflected in the
Response to Comments section and elsewhere in the administrative
record.

J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective January 22, 2001.

Appendix 1 to the Preamble--Definitions, Acronyms, and
Abbreviations

ADMINISTRATOR--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
AGENCY--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGE LIMITATION--The highest allowable
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as
the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar
month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during
the month.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable,
applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by March 31, 1984,
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec.
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology,
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July
1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by
Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY--Any facility that treats
(for disposal, recycling, or recovery of materials) or recycles any
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste, hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or used material from off-site.
``CWT facility'' includes both a facility that treats waste received
from off-site exclusively, and a facility that treats wastes
generated on-site as well as waste received from off-site. For
example, an organic chemical manufacturing plant may, in certain
circumstances, be a CWT facility if it treats industrial wastes
received from offsite as well as industrial waste generated at the

[[Page 81294]]

organic chemical manufacturing plant. CWT facilities include re-
refiners and may be owned by the federal government.
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT WASTEWATER--Any wastewater generated
as a result of CWT activities. CWT wastewater sources may include,
but are not limited to: liquid waste receipts, solubilization water,
used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-off
box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-
down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site landfill wastewaters,
and contaminated storm water.
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended.
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE--A questionnaire
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA,
which requests information to be used in the development of national
effluent guidelines and standards.
COMMERCIAL FACILITY--A CWT facility that accepts off-site
generated wastes, wastewaters, or used material from other
facilities not under the same ownership as this facility. Commercial
operations are usually made available for a fee or other
remuneration.
CONTAMINATED STORM WATER--Storm water which comes in direct
contact with off-site waste, the waste handling and treatment areas,
or other centralized waste treatment wastewater.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Constituents of wastewater as
determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including, but not limited
to, pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
CWT--Centralized Waste Treatment
DAILY DISCHARGE--The discharge of a pollutant measured during
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a
calendar day.
DETAILED MONITORING QUESTIONNAIRE (DMQ)--Questionnaires sent to
collect daily monitoring data from 20 selected CWT facilities based
on responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
DIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
EXISTING SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced
before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
FACILITY--All contiguous property owned, operated, leased, or
under the control of the same person or entity
FUEL BLENDING--The process of combining waste, wastewater, or
used material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
HAZARDOUS WASTE--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as
hazardous under RCRA.
HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS RECOVERY (HTMR)--A metals recovery
process in which solid forms of metal containing materials are
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce
metal products.
INDIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
INTERCOMPANY--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover
waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-site
facilities not under the same corporate ownership. These facilities
are also referred to as ``commercial'' CWT facilities.
INTRACOMPANY TRANSFER--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/
recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-
site facilities under the same corporate ownership. These facilities
are also referred to as ``non-commercial'' CWT facilities.
LTA (Long-Term Average)--For purposes of the effluent
guidelines, average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time
by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the limitations and standards in today's proposed
regulation.
MARINE-GENERATED WASTE--Any waste, wastewater, and/or used
material generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation
of a ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open
waters, or while berthed.
METAL-BEARING WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial
operations that contain significant quantities of metal pollutants,
but not significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less
than 100 mg/L), from manufacturing or processing facilities or other
commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are as follows:
spent electroplating baths and sludges, metal finishing rinse water
and sludges, chromate wastes, air pollution control blow down water
and sludges, spent anodizing solutions, incineration air pollution
control wastewaters, waste liquid mercury, cyanide containing wastes
greater than 136 mg/L, and waste acids and bases with or without
metals.
MINIMUM LEVEL--the lowest level at which the entire analytical
system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration
point for the analyte.
MIXED COMMERCIAL/NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that treat
and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material
generated by off-site facilities both under the same corporate
ownership and different corporate ownership.
MULTIPLE WASTESTREAM CWT FACILITY--A CWT facility that accepts
waste in more than one CWT subcategory (metals, oils, or organics)
and combines any portion of these different subcategory wastes at
any point prior to the compliance discharge sampling location.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT--
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system,
authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
NEW SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced
after the promulgation of regulations prescribing a standard of
performance under section 306 of the Act and 403.3(k).
NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that accept waste from off-
site for treatment and/or recovery from generating facilities under
the same corporate ownership as the CWT facility.
NON-CONTAMINATED STORMWATER--Stormwater that does not come into
direct contact with the waste, the waste handling and treatment
areas, or other centralized waste treatment wastewater.
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
Section 401.
NON-DETECT VALUE--The analyte is below the level of detection
that can be reliably measured by the analytical method. This is also
known, in statistical terms, as left-censoring.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT--Deleterious aspects of
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NSPS--New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to
industrial facilities whose construction is begun after the
publication of the proposed regulations, as defined by Sec. 306 of
the CWA.
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category. (40 CFR Part 414).
OFF SITE--Outside the boundaries of a facility.
OILY ABSORBENT RECYCLING--The process of recycling oil soaked or
contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads for the purpose of
regenerating a fuel for reuse.
OILY WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain oil and
grease (generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or
processing facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of
these wastes are as follows: used oils, oil-water emulsions or
mixtures, lubricants, coolants, contaminated groundwater clean-up
from petroleum sources, used petroleum products, oil spill clean-up,
bilge water, rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources, interceptor
wastes, off-specification fuels, underground storage tank
remediation waste, and tank clean out from petroleum or oily
sources.
ON SITE--Within the boundaries of a facility. A facility may
encompass land areas that are bisected by public thoroughfares but
are under the control of a common owner.
ORGANIC WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain
organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil and grease
(generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing
facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of these wastes
are as follows: landfill leachate, contaminated groundwater clean-up
from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-
specification organic product, still bottoms, waste byproduct
glycols, wastewater from paint washes, wastewater

[[Page 81295]]

from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation, wastewater from chemical
product operations, and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum
sources.
OUTFALL--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
OUT-OF-SCOPE--Out-of-scope facilities are facilities that only
perform centralized waste treatment activities that EPA has not
determined to be subject to provisions of this guideline or
facilities that do not accept off-site waste for treatment.
PIPELINE--Pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the
conveyance of material. A conduit includes a channel, pipe, tube,
trench, ditch, or fixed delivery system.
PASS THROUGH--A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' a
POTW when the national average percentage removed by efficiently
operated POTWs is less than the average percentage removed by the
industry's direct dischargers that are using well-defined, well-
operated BAT technology.
POINT SOURCE--Any discernable, confined, and discrete
conveyances from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in
centralized waste treatment wastewaters. For the purposes of this
guideline, a POC is a pollutant that is detected at or above a
treatable level in influent wastewater samples from centralized
waste treatment facilities. Additionally, a CWT POC must be present
in at least ten percent of the influent wastewater samples.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT--One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined
in Section 307 of the CWA. The priority pollutants are specified in
the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et
al. v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833
[D.D.C. 1979]).
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP--For purposes of this final rule, product
stewardship means a manufacturer's treatment or recovery of its own
unused products, shipping and storage containers with product
residues, off-specification products, and does not include spent or
used materials from use of its products.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW)--Any device or system,
owned by a state or municipality, used in the treatment (including
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes
of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
RCRA--The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation,
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous
wastes.
RE-REFINING--Distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment
employing acid, caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals of used oil
in order to produce high quality base stock for lubricants or other
petroleum products.
RECOVERY--The recycling or processing of a waste, wastewater, or
used material such that the material, or a portion thereof, may be
reused or converted to a raw material, intermediate, or product.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)--A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged.
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary,
etc. economic activities.
SMALL BUSINESS--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than
$6 million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1,
Sec. 121.601) which is being used to characterize the CWT industry.
SOLIDIFICATION--The addition of sorbents to convert liquid or
semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of adsorption, absorption or
both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
SOLVENT RECOVERY--Fuel blending operations and the recycling of
spent solvents through separation of solvent mixtures in
distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional,
pretreatment step prior to distillation.
STABILIZATION--A waste process that decreases the mobility of
waste constituents by means of a chemical reaction. For the purpose
of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for
stabilization.
SUBCHAPTER N--Refers to Subchapter N of Chapter I of Title 40 of
the Federal Regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, the
industrial effluent limitation guidelines and standards included in
40 CFR Parts 405 through 471.
TREATMENT--Any method, technique, or process designed to change
the physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any
metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to neutralize such
wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge or to recover
energy or recover metal, oil, or organic content from the wastes.
USED OIL FILTER RECYCLING--The process of crushing and draining
of used oil filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and separation
of used oil filters.
VARIABILITY FACTOR--Used in calculating a limitation (or
standard) to allow for reasonable variation in pollutant
concentrations when processed through extensive and well-designed
treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term
averages.
WASTE--Includes aqueous, non-aqueous, and solid waste,
wastewater, and/or used material.
WASTE RECEIPT--Wastes, wastewater, or used material received for
treatment and/or recovery. Waste receipts can be liquids or solids.
ZERO OR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE--No discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also included in this
definition is disposal of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 136

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 437

Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.

Dated: August 28, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 136--TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS

1. The authority citation for Part 136 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and 501(a) Pub. L. 95-217, 91
Stat. 1566, et seq. (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.).

Appendix A--[Amended]

2. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended by revising Attachment 1 of
Method 625 to read as follows:

Appendix A To Part 136--Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

* * * * *

Method 625--Base/Neutrals and Acids

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 625

Introduction

To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 625.\1\ The
modifications listed in this attachment are approved only for
monitoring wastestreams from the Centralized Waste Treatment Point
Source Category (40 CFR Part 437) and the Landfills Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 445). EPA Method 625 (the Method) involves
sample extraction with methylene chloride followed by analysis of
the extract using either packed or capillary column gas

[[Page 81296]]

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment addresses
the addition of the semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and
2, to all applicable standard, stock, and spiking solutions utilized
for the determination of semivolatile organic compounds by EPA
Method 625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids, 40 CFR Part 136,
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0 EPA METHOD 625 MODIFICATION SUMMARY

The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other
solutions utilized in the determination of base/neutral and acid
compounds by EPA Method 625. The instrument is to be calibrated with
these compounds, using a capillary column, and all procedures and
quality control tests stated in the Method must be performed.

2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS

Note: All section and figure numbers in this Attachment
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 625 unless noted
otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.

Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone ¹............................................. 98-86-2
alpha-terpineol ³.......................................... 98-55-5
aniline ².................................................. 62-53-3
carbazole ¹................................................ 86-74-8
o-cresol ¹................................................. 95-48-7
n-decane ¹................................................. 124-18-5
2,3-dichloroaniline ¹...................................... 608-27-5
n-octadecane ¹............................................. 593-45-3
pyridine ²................................................. 110-86-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
¹ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment industry.
² Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment and Landfills industries.
³ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Landfills
industry.

Table 2.--Acid Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol ¹................................................. 106-44-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
¹ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 3.--Chromatographic Conditions,\1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Base/
Neutral Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic m/z's
Retention MDL (g/L) Electron impact
\2\ --------------------------------------
Primary Secondary Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pyridine \3\.................................. 4.93 4.6 79 52 51
N-Nitro sodimethylamine....................... 4.95 ............ 42 74 44
aniline \3\................................... 10.82 3.3 93 66 65
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether....................... 10.94 ............ 93 63 95
n-decane \4\.................................. 11.11 5.0 57 ........... ...........
1,3-Dichlorobenzene........................... 11.47 ............ 146 148 113
1,4-Dichlorobenzene........................... 11.62 ............ 146 148 113
1,2-Dichlorobenzene........................... 12.17 ............ 146 148 113
o-creso \1\................................... 12.48 4.7 108 107 79
Bis(2-chloro- isopropyl)ether................. 12.51 ............ 45 77 79
acetophenone \4\.............................. 12.88 3.4 105 77 51
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine..................... 12.97 ............ 130 42 101
Hexachloroethane.............................. 13.08 ............ 117 201 199
Nitrobenzene.................................. 13.40 ............ 77 123 65
Isophorone.................................... 14.11 ............ 82 95 138
Bis (2-chloro ethoxy)methane.................. 14.82 ............ 93 95 123
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene........................ 15.37 ............ 180 182 145
alpha-terpineol............................... 15.55 5.0 59 ........... ...........
Naphthalene................................... 15.56 ............ 128 129 127
Hexachlorobutadiene........................... 16.12 ............ 225 223 227
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..................... 18.47 ............ 237 235 272
2,3-dichloroaniline \4\....................... 18.82 2.5 161 163 90
2-Chloronaphthalene........................... 19.35 ............ 162 164 127
Dimethyl phthalate............................ 20.48 ............ 163 194 164
Acenaphthylene................................ 20.69 ............ 152 151 153
2,6-Dinitrotoluene............................ 20.73 ............ 165 89 121
Acenaphthene.................................. 21.30 ............ 154 153 152
2,4-Dinitrotoluene............................ 22.00 ............ 165 63 182
Diethylphthalate.............................. 22.74 ............ 149 177 150
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether................... 22.90 ............ 204 206 141
Fluorene...................................... 22.92 ............ 166 165 167
N-Nitro sodiphenylamine....................... 23.35 ............ 169 168 167
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.................... 24.44 ............ 248 250 141
Hexachlorobenzene............................. 24.93 ............ 284 142 249
n-octadecane \4\.............................. 25.39 2.0 57 ........... ...........

[[Page 81297]]

Phenanthrene.................................. 25.98 ............ 178 179 176
Anthracene.................................... 26.12 ............ 178 179 176
Carbazole \4\................................. 26.66 4.0 167 ........... ...........
Dibutyl phthalate............................. 27.84 ............ 149 150 104
Fluoranthene.................................. 29.82 ............ 202 101 100
Benzidine..................................... 30.26 ............ 184 92 185
Pyrene........................................ 30.56 ............ 202 101 100
Butyl benzyl phthalate........................ 32.63 ............ 149 91 206
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine........................ 34.28 ............ 252 254 126
Benzo(a)anthracene............................ 34.33 ............ 228 229 226
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate................... 34.36 ............ 149 167 279
Chrysene...................................... 34.44 ............ 228 226 229
Di-n-octyl-phthalate.......................... 36.17 ............ 149 ........... ...........
Benzo(b)fluoranthene.......................... 37.90 ............ 252 253 125
Benzo(k)fluoranthene.......................... 37.97 ............ 252 253 125
Benzo(a)pyrene................................ 39.17 ............ 252 253 125
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene....................... 44.91 ............ 278 139 279
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene....................... 45.01 ............ 276 138 277
Benzo(ghi)perylene............................ 46.56 ............ 276 138 277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:

Column--30 5 meters x 0.25 .02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl, bonded phase
fused silica capillary column (DB-5).
Temperature program--Five minutes at 30 deg.C; 30-280 deg.C at 8 deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280 deg.C
until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
Gas velocity--305 cm/sec at 30 deg.C.

\2\ Retention times are from Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
consistent for all analytes in Tables 4 and 5 of this attachment.
\3\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.
\4\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.

Table 4.--Chromatographic Conditions,\1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Acid
Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristic m/z's
Retention MDL (g/L) Electron impact
(min) --------------------------------------
Primary Secondary Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenol........................................ 10.76 ............ 94 65 66
2-Chlorophenol................................ 11.08 ............ 128 64 130
p-cresol \3\.................................. 12.92 7.8 108 107 77
2-Nitrophenol................................. 14.38 ............ 139 65 109
2,4-Dimethylphenol............................ 14.54 ............ 122 107 121
2,4-Dichlorophenol............................ 15.12 ............ 162 164 98
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol....................... 16.83 ............ 142 107 144
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol......................... 18.80 ............ 196 198 200
2,4-Dinitrophenol............................. 21.51 ............ 184 63 154
4-Nitrophenol................................. 21.77 ............ 65 139 109
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol.................... 22.83 ............ 198 182 77
Pentachlorophenol............................. 25.52 ............ 266 264 268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
Column--30 +/-5 meters x 0.25 +/-.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl silicone bonded phase fused
silica capillary column (DB-5).
Temperature program--Five minutes at 30 deg.C; 30-280 deg.C at 8 deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280 deg.C
until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
Gas velocity--30+/-5 cm/sec at 30 deg.C
\2\ Retention times are from EPA Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
consistent for all analytes in Tables 3 and 4 of this attachment.
\3\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 5.--QC Acceptance Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test
conclusion Limits for s Range for X Range for
Analyte (g/ (g/ (g/ P, Ps(%)
L) L) L)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone \1\....................................... 100 51 23-254 61-144
alpha-terpineol........................................ 100 47 46-163 58-156
aniline \2\............................................ 100 71 15-278 46-134

[[Page 81298]]

carbazole \1\.......................................... 100 17 79-111 73-131
o-cresol \1\........................................... 100 23 30-146 55-126
p-cresol \2\........................................... 100 22 11-617 76-107
n-decane \1\........................................... 100 70 D-651 D-ns
2,3-dichloroaniline \1\................................ 100 13 40-160 68-134
n-octadecane \1\....................................... 100 10 52-147 65-123
pyridine \2\........................................... 100 ns 7-392 33-158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s = Standard deviation for four recovery measurements, in g/L (Section 8.2)
X = Average recovery for four recovery measurements in g/L (Section 8.2)
P,Ps = Percent recovery measured (Section 8.3, Section 8.4)
D = Detected; result must be greater than zero.
ns = no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.
\1\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.
\2\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

3. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended by revising Attachment 1 of
Method 1625 to read as follows:
* * * * *

Method 1625--Revision B--Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope
Dilution GC/MS

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 1625

Introduction

To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 1625B.\1\ The
modifications listed in this attachment are approved only for
monitoring wastestreams from the Centralized Waste Treatment Point
Source Category (40 CFR Part 437) and the Landfills Point Source
Category (40 CFR Part 445). EPA Method 1625B (the Method) employs
sample extraction with methylene chloride followed by analysis of
the extract using capillary column gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment addresses the addition of the
semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2 to all applicable
standard, stock, and spiking solutions utilized for the
determination of semivolatile organic compounds by EPA Method 1625B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ EPA Method 1625 Revision B, Semivolatile Organic Compounds
by Isotope Dilution GC/MS, 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0 EPA METHOD 1625 REVISION B MODIFICATION SUMMARY

The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other
solutions utilized in the determination of semivolatile compounds by
EPA Method 1625. The instrument is to be calibrated with these
compounds, and all procedures and quality control tests described in
the Method must be performed.

2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS

Note: All section and figure numbers in this Attachment
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 1625 Revision B
unless noted otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions described in this section
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the
Method.
Section 6.8 The labeled compound spiking solution in this section
is modified to include the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and
6 of this attachment.
Section 6.9 The secondary standard is modified to include the
additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 6.12 The solutions for obtaining authentic mass spectra are
to include all additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this
attachment.
Section 6.13 The calibration solutions are modified to include the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.14 The precision and recovery standard is modified to
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled
compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.15 The solutions containing the additional analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment are to be analyzed for
stability.
Section 7.2.1 This section is modified to include the analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables
5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 7.4.5 This section is modified to include the analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables
5 and 6 in the calibration.
Section 8.2 The initial precision and recovery (IPR) requirements
are modified to include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and
the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Additional IPR performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of this
attachment.
Section 8.3 The labeled compounds listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this
attachment are to be included in the method performance tests.
Additional method performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of
this attachment.
Section 8.5.2 The acceptance criteria for blanks includes the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.2 The labeled compound solution must include the
labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.3 The precision and recovery standard must include the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 12.5 Additional QC requirements for calibration
verification are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.
Section 12.7 Additional QC requirements for ongoing precision and
recovery are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.

Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
-----------------------
Compound CAS
Registry EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone ¹.................................. 98-86-2 758

[[Page 81299]]

aniline ²....................................... 62-53-3 757
-2,3-dichloroaniline¹........................... 608-27-5 578
-o-cresol ¹..................................... 95-48-7 771
pyridine ²...................................... 110-86-1 1330
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
¹ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment industry.
² Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 2.--Acid Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
-------------------------
Compound CAS
Registry EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol ¹.................................... 106-44-5 1744
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
¹ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 3.--Gas Chromatography ¹ of Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention time ² Retention time ²
------------------------------------------------ Minimum level EGD ----------------------
EGD No. Compound ³ (g/ No. Compound Mean EGD
Mean (sec) EGD Ref Relative L) (sec) Ref Relative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
758..................... acetophenone ⁴......... 818 658 1.003-1.005 10
757..................... aniline ⁵.............. 694 657 0.994-1.023 10
578..................... 2,3-dichloroaniline ⁴.. 1160 164 1.003-1.007 10
771..................... o-cresol ⁴............. 814 671 1.005-1.009 10
1330.................... pyridine ⁵............. 378 1230 1.005-1.011 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
¹ The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
² Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in EPA Method 1625B.
³ See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
⁴ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.
⁵ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 4.--Gas Chromatography ¹ of Acid Extractable Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention time ² Minimum level
EGD No. Compound ------------------------------------------------ (/L)
Mean (sec) EGD Ref Relative ³
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1744.................... p-cresol ⁴............ 834 1644 1.004-1.008 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
¹ The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to
Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
² Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in
EPA Method 1625B.
³ See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
⁴ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 5.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary m/
Compound Labeled Analog z ¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone ²............................ d5 105/110
aniline ³................................. d7 93/100
o-cresol ²................................ d7 108/116
2,3-dichloroaniline ²..................... n/a 161
pyridine ³................................ d5 79/84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z = mass to charge ratio.
¹ Native/labeled.
² Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment industry.
³ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment and Landfills industries.

[[Page 81300]]

Table 6.--Acid Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary m/
Compound Labeled Analog z ¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol ²................................ d7 108/116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z = mass to charge ratio.
¹ Native/labeled.
² Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
Treatment and Landfills industries.

Table 7.--Acceptance Criteria for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance criteria
----------------------------------------
Initial precision and Calibration On-going
accuracy section 8.2 Labeled verification accuracy
EGD No. Compound (g/L) compound sec. 12.5 sec. 12.7 R
--------------------------- recovery g/ (g/
s (g/L) X and 14.2 P
(percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758................... acetophenone ¹...... 34 44-167 ........... 85-115 45-162
658................... acetophenone-d 5 ¹.. 51 23-254 45-162 85-115 22-264
757................... aniline ²........... 32 30-171 ........... 85-115 33-154
657................... aniline-d 7 ²....... 71 15-278 33-154 85-115 12-344
771................... o-cresol ¹.......... 40 31-226 ........... 85-115 35-196
671................... o-cresol-d 7 ¹...... 23 30-146 35-196 85-115 31-142
1744.................. p-cresol ².......... 59 54-140 ........... 85-115 37-203
1644.................. p-cresol-d7 ²....... 22 11-618 37-203 85-115 16-415
578................... 2,3-dichloroaniline 13 40-160 ........... 85-115 44-144
¹.
1330.................. pyridine ².......... 28 10-421 ........... 83-117 18-238
1230.................. pyridine-d 5 ²...... ns 7-392 19-238 85-115 4-621
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s = Standard deviation of four recovery measurements.
X = Average recovery for four recovery measurements.
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
ns = no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.
¹ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.
² Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.

4. Part 437 is added to read as follows:

PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
437.1 General applicability.
437.2 General definitions.
437.3 General pretreatment standards.
437.4 Monitoring requirements.
Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery
437.10 Applicability.
437.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery
437.20 Applicability.
437.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Organics Treatment and Recovery
437.30 Applicability.
437.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Multiple Wastestreams
437.40 Applicability.
437.41 Special Definitions.
437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.45 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.46 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Authority: Secs 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,
1342, and 1361.

Sec. 437.1 General applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this
section, this part applies to that portion of wastewater discharges
from a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility that results from any
of the following activities:
(1) Treatment and recovery of hazardous or non-hazardous industrial

[[Page 81301]]

metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and organic-bearing wastes received
from off-site; and
(2) The treatment of CWT wastewater.
(b) This part does not apply to the following discharges of
wastewater from a CWT facility:
(1) Wastewater from the treatment of wastes that are generated on-
site when the wastes generated on-site are otherwise subject to another
part of subchapter N.
(2) Wastewater from the treatment of wastes that are generated off-
site if the discharger: a) demonstrates that the off-site wastes are
generated at a facility that is subject to the same provisions in 40
CFR subchapter N as non-CWT wastes generated at the CWT facility or b)
demonstrates that the off-site wastes are of similar nature and the
treatment of such wastes are compatible with the treatment of non-CWT
wastes generated and treated at the CWT.
(3) Wastewater from the treatment of wastes received from off-site
via conduit (e.g., pipelines, channels, ditches, trenches, etc.) from
the facility that generates the wastes unless the resulting wastewaters
are commingled with other wastewaters subject to this provision. A
facility that acts as a waste collection or consolidation center is not
a facility that generates wastes.
(4) Wastewater from product stewardship activities, the treatment
of sanitary wastes and wastes of domestic origin including chemical
toilet wastes, septage, and restaurant wastes or thermal drying of POTW
biosolids. Product stewardship activities for purposes of this
provision are limited to the following activities at a manufacturing
facility: acceptance for treatment or recovery of its unused products,
shipping and storage containers with product residues and off-spec
products.
(5) Wastewater from solids recovery operations so long as the
wastes recovered are from non-industrial sources, and recovery of the
wastes does not generate a wastewater or leach appreciable metal or
organic chemicals or petroleum-based oil and grease into the water.
Examples of solids recovery operations to which this subpart would not
apply include, but are not limited to, the recycling of aluminum cans,
glass and plastic bottles.
(6) Wastewater from scrap metal processing or auto salvage
operations.
(7) Wastewater from transfer stations or municipal recycling
centers.
(8) Wastewater from the treatment of, or recovery of material from,
animal or vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or interceptors
generated by facilities engaged in food service activities.
(9) Wastewater from the treatment of, or recovery of material from,
off-site wastes generated by facilities engaged only in food
processing.
(10) Wastewater from facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part
442. Wastewater resulting from the treatment of off-site wastewater
generated in cleaning transportation equipment (or on-site wastewater
generated in cleaning equipment) along with other off-site wastes
(subject to this part) not generated in cleaning transportation
equipment is, however, subject to this part.
(11) Wastewater resulting from solvent recovery operations if the
solvent recovery operations involve the separation of solvent mixtures
by distillation.
(12) Wastewater from facilities that are engaged exclusively in
centralized silver recovery from used photographic or x-ray materials
activities. The discharge resulting from centralized silver recovery
from used photographic or x-ray materials that is treated at a CWT
facility along with other off-site wastestreams (subject to this part)
is subject to this part.
(13) Wastewater from facilities that accept off-site wastes only
for treatability studies, research and development, or chemical or
physical analysis. The wastewater resulting from treatability studies,
research and development, or chemical or physical analysis that is
treated at a CWT facility along with other off-site wastestreams
(subject to this part) is subject to this part.
(c) This part also does not apply to the following activities:
(1) ``Dry'' fuel blending operations, ``dry'' waste solidification/
stabilization operations, ``dry'' used oil filter or oily absorbents
recycling operations, or ``dry'' high temperature metals recovery
operations. However, this part does apply to wastewater discharges from
a CWT resulting from any of these operations that do produce
wastewater.
(2) The discharge of marine generated wastes including wash water
from equipment and tank cleaning, ballast water, bilge water, and other
wastes generated (while operating on inland, coastal, or open waters or
while berthed) as part of routine ship maintenance and operation as
long as they are treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility
where it is off-loaded. The discharges resulting from the treatment of
marine generated wastes that are off-loaded and subsequently sent to a
centralized waste treatment facility at a separate location are,
however, subject to this part.
(3) Discharge of wastewater from land treatment units or land
application operations.
(4) Discharge of wastewater from facilities that are engaged
exclusively in landfilling activities and/or the treatment of landfill
wastewaters (whether generated on or off-site). The discharge resulting
from the treatment of landfill wastewater, whether generated on-site or
off-site, treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site waste is,
however, subject to this part.
(5) Discharge of wastewater from facilities that are engaged
exclusively in incineration activities. The discharge resulting from
the treatment of off-site wastewater generated in the incineration of
industrial waste that is treated at a CWT facility along with other
off-site wastestreams (subject to this part) is subject to this part.
(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the provisions
of this part are not applicable to any metals treatment and recovery
wastewater discharges which are subject to the secondary metals
provisions of 40 CFR part 421, the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Point Source Category. These secondary metals subcategories are Subpart
C (Secondary Aluminum Smelting Subcategory), Subpart F (Secondary
Copper Subcategory), Subpart L (Secondary Silver Subcategory), Subpart
M (Secondary Lead Subcategory), Subpart P (Primary and Secondary
Germanium and Gallium Subcategory), Subpart Q (Secondary Indium
Subcategory), Subpart R (Secondary Mercury Subcategory), Subpart T
(Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium Subcategory), Subpart V (Secondary
Nickel Subcategory), Subpart X (Secondary Precious Metals Subcategory),
Subpart Z (Secondary Tantalum Subcategory), Subpart AA (Secondary Tin
Subcategory), Subpart AB (Primary and Secondary Titanium Subcategory),
Subpart AC (Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory), and Subpart AD
(secondary Uranium Subcategory).

Sec. 437.2 General definitions.

As used in this part:
(a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401
apply to this part.
(b) Alternative effluent limitations or pretreatment standards mean
effluent limitations determined on a case-by-case basis under section
402(a)(1) of the CWA or pretreatment standards developed as local
limits by the control authority under 40 CFR Sec. 403.6(c) that apply
to the discharge of wastewater subject to this provision. The permit
writer (or control authority) will

[[Page 81302]]

calculate these limitations or standards using a ``building block''
approach or the ``combined wastestream formula.'' Under this approach,
the permit writer (or control authority) will develop flow-weighted
effluent limitations or standards for the treated combined wastestream
by applying the limitations or standards in 40 CFR subchapter N that
would otherwise apply to a particular wastestream received from off-
site if the wastestream were treated and discharged from the facility
at which it was generated.
(c) Centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility means any facility
that treats (for disposal, recycling or recovery of material) any
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or used material received from
off-site. ``CWT facility'' includes both a facility that treats waste
received exclusively from off-site and a facility that treats wastes
generated on-site as well as waste received from off-site. For example,
an organic chemical manufacturing plant may, in certain circumstances,
be a CWT facility if it treats industrial wastes received from offsite
as well as industrial waste generated at the organic chemical
manufacturing plant. CWT facilities may also include re-refiners and
may be owned by the federal government.
(d) Centralized waste treatment wastewater means any wastewater
generated as a result of CWT activities. CWT wastewater sources may
include, but are not limited to: liquid waste receipts, solubilization
water, used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-
off box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-
down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site landfill wastewaters, and
contaminated storm water.
(e) Contaminated storm water means storm water which comes in
direct contact with CWT wastes, the waste handling and treatment areas,
or other centralized waste treatment wastewater as defined in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(f) Discharger means a facility that discharges wastewater directly
to waters of the United States or introduces wastewater to a publicly-
owned treatment works.
(g) Dry means not producing a wastewater.
(h) Equivalent treatment means a wastewater treatment system that
achieves comparable pollutant removals to the applicable treatment
technology selected as the basis for the limitations and pretreatment
standards. Comparable removals may be demonstrated through literature,
treatability tests, or self-monitoring data.
(i) Fuel blending means the process of combining waste, wastewater,
or used material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
However, fuel blending may be loosely applied to any process where
recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product where some
pretreatment operations generate wastewater.
(j) High temperature metals recovery means a metals recovery
process in which solid forms of metal-containing materials are
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce a
metal product.
(k) Marine generated waste means any waste, wastewater, and/or used
material generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a
ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open waters, or
while berthed.
(l) Metal-bearing wastes means wastes and/or used materials from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations
that contain significant quantities of metal pollutants, but not
significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100 mg/
L). Examples of these wastes are spent electroplating baths and
sludges, metal-finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes,
blow-down water and sludges from air pollution control, spent anodizing
solutions, incineration air pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid
mercury, cyanide containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste
acids and bases with or without metals.
(m) Multiple wastestream CWT facility means a CWT facility which
accepts waste in more than one CWT subcategory (metals, oils, or
organics) and combines any portion of these different subcategory
wastes at any point prior to the compliance discharge sampling
location.
(n) Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
(o) Oily absorbent recycling means the process of recycling oil-
soaked or contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads for the purpose
of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
(p) Oily wastes means wastes and/or used materials that contain oil
and grease (generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from manufacturing
or processing facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of
these wastes are used oils, oil-water emulsions or mixtures,
lubricants, coolants, contaminated groundwater clean-up from petroleum
sources, used petroleum products, oil spill clean-up, bilge water,
rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources, interceptor wastes, off-
specification fuels, underground storage tank remediation waste, and
tank clean out from petroleum or oily sources.
(q) On-site means within the boundaries of a facility. A facility
may encompass land areas that are bisected by public thoroughfares but
are under the control of a common owner.
(r) Organic wastes means wastes and/or used materials that contain
organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil and grease
(generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing
facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are
landfill leachate, contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum
sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-specification organic product,
still bottoms, byproduct glycols, wastewater from paint washes,
wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies, wastewater from chemical
product operations, and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum
sources.
(s) The following regulated parameters are listed with approved
methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, and are defined as
follows:
(1) Antimony means total antimony.
(2) Arsenic means total arsenic.
(3) Barium means total barium.
(4) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
(5) Cadmium means total cadmium.
(6) Chromium means total chromium.
(7) Cobalt means total cobalt.
(8) Copper means total copper.
(9) Cyanide means total cyanide.
(10) Lead means total lead.
(11) Mercury means total mercury.
(12) Molybdenum means total molybdenum.
(13) Nickel means total nickel.
(14) O&G means total recoverable oil and grease (n-hexane
extractable material).
(15) Selenium means total selenium.
(16) Silver means total silver.
(17) Tin means total tin.
(18) Titanium means total titanium.
(19) TSS means total suspended solids.
(20) Vanadium means total vanadium.
(21) Zinc means total zinc.
(t) The following regulated parameters are listed with approved
methods of analysis in Table 1C at 40 CFR 136.3:
(1) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
(2) Butylbenzyl phthalate.
(3) Fluoranthene.
(4) Phenol.
(5) 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
(u) The following regulated parameters are listed with approved
methods of analysis (Methods 625 and 1625) at 40 CFR 136.3, Appendix A:
(1) Acetone.
(2) Acetophenone.

[[Page 81303]]

(3) Aniline.
(4) 2-Butanone.
(5) Carbazole.
(6) o-Cresol.
(7) p-Cresol.
(8) n-Decane.
(9) 2,3-dichloroaniline.
(10) n-Octadecane.
(11) Pyridine.
(v) Pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube,
trench, or ditch, or fixed delivery system.
(w) Product stewardship means a manufacturer's treatment or
recovery of its own unused products, shipping and storage containers
with product residues, off-specification products, and does not include
spent or used materials from use of its products.
(x) Re-refining means the processing of used oil using
distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment employing acid,
caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals in order to produce high
quality base stock for lubricants or other petroleum products.
(y) Recovery means the recycling or processing of a waste,
wastewater or used material such that the material, or a portion
thereof, may be reused or converted to a raw material, intermediate, or
product. Recovery does not include the re-use of treated or untreated
wastewater in place of potable or pure water in industrial processes
such as the use of secondary POTW effluents as non-contact cooling
water, storm water in place of process water, or the re-use of spent
chemicals in place of virgin treatment chemicals.
(z) Solidification means the addition of sorbents to convert liquid
or semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of adsorption, absorption or
both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
(aa) Solvent recovery includes fuel blending operations and the
recycling of spent solvents through separation of solvent mixtures in
distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional,
pretreatment step prior to distillation.
(bb) Stabilization means a waste process that decreases the
mobility of waste constituents by means of a chemical reaction. For the
purpose of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for
stabilization.
(cc) Treatment means any method, technique, or process designed to
change the physical, chemical or biological character or composition of
any metal-bearing, oily, or organic wastes to neutralize such wastes;
to render such wastes amenable to discharge; or to recover energy or
recover metal, oil, or organic content from the wastes. Treatment does
not include (a) the re-use of treated or untreated wastewater in place
of potable or pure water in industrial processes such as the use of
secondary POTW effluents as non-contact cooling water or storm water in
place of process water or (b) the re-use of treated or untreated spent
chemicals (such as pickle liquor) as treatment chemicals.
(dd) Non-contaminated storm water means storm water which does not
come in direct contact with CWT wastes, the waste handling and
treatment areas, or other CWT wastewater that is defined in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(ee) Used oil filter recycling means crushing and draining of used
oil filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and separation of used
oil filters.
(ff) Waste includes aqueous, non-aqueous, and solid waste,
wastewater, and/or used material.

Sec. 437.3 General pretreatment standards.

Any source subject to this part that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.

Sec. 437.4 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Permit compliance monitoring is required for each regulated
parameter.
(b) Any CWT facility that discharges wastewater resulting from the
treatment of metal-bearing waste, oily waste, or organic-bearing waste
must monitor as follows:
(1) Facilities subject to more than one subpart of this part must
monitor for compliance for each subpart after treatment and before
mixing of the waste with wastes of any other subpart. Alternatively, a
multiple wastestream subcategory facility may certify that it provides
equivalent treatment as defined in Sec. 437.2(h) for the applicable
waste and monitor for compliance with the applicable set of multiple
wastestream subcategory limitations after mixing.
(2) Facilities subject to one or more subpart of this part must
monitor for compliance with the applicable subpart after treatment and
before mixing of the waste with wastes of any other subpart,
uncontaminated storm water, or wastewater subject to another effluent
limitation or standard in Subchapter N. If, however, the facility can
demonstrate to the receiving POTW or permitting authority the
capability of achieving the effluent limitation or standard for each
subpart after treatment and before mixing with other wastestreams, the
facility may monitor for compliance after mixing. In the case of a
facility which elects to comply with the applicable set of multiple
wastestream subcategory limitations or standards, it is only subject to
one subpart.
(3) When a CWT facility treats any waste receipt that contains
cyanide at a concentration higher than 136 mg/L, the CWT facility must
monitor for cyanide after cyanide treatment and before dilution with
other wastestreams. If, however, the facility can demonstrate to the
receiving POTW or permitting authority the capability of achieving the
cyanide limitation or standard after cyanide treatment and before
mixing with other wastestreams, the facility may monitor for compliance
after mixing.

Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery

Sec. 437.10 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to that portion of
the discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that results from the
treatment of, or recovery of metals from, both metal-bearing wastes
received from off-site and other CWT wastewater associated with the
treatment of, or recovery of metal-bearing wastes.
(b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may
require a new source or an existing facility subject to this subpart to
achieve alternative effluent limitations and standards as defined in
Sec. 437.2(b) in the following circumstances:
(1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N
limitations and standards; and
(2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.

Sec. 437.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

[[Page 81304]]

BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G......................................... 205 50.2
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
TSS......................................... 60.0 31.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.249 0.206
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 15.5 3.07
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 4.14 1.06
Lead........................................ 1.32 0.283
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

(b) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 437.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 437.10(b),
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BCT:
Limitations for oil and grease, pH, and TSS are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.11(a).

Sec. 437.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or
437.10(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application
of BAT: Limitations for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, titanium,
vanadium, and zinc are the same as the corresponding limitation
specified in Sec. 437.11(a).
(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).

Sec. 437.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).

(a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.10(b), any new source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following performance standards:

Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.
daily ¹ ¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contentional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G......................................... 205 50.2
pH.......................................... (²) (²)
TSS......................................... 29.6 11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.111 0.0312
Arsenic..................................... 0.0993 0.0199
Cadmium..................................... 0.782 0.163
Chromium.................................... 0.167 0.0522
Cobalt...................................... 0.182 0.0703
Copper...................................... 0.659 0.216
Lead........................................ 1.32 0.283
Mercury..................................... 0.000641 0.000246
Nickel...................................... 0.794 0.309
Selenium.................................... 0.176 0.0698
Silver...................................... 0.0318 0.0122
Tin......................................... 0.0955 0.0367
Titanium.................................... 0.0159 0.00612
Vanadium.................................... 0.0628 0.0518
Zinc........................................ 0.657 0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).

Sec. 437.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or 437.10(b), and no
later than December 22, 2003, any existing source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards
for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in
Sec. 437.11(a).
(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).

Sec. 437.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or 437.10(b), any new source
subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment
standards: Standards for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, titanium,
vanadium, and zinc are the same as the corresponding limitation
specified in Sec. 437.11(a)
(b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).

Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery

Sec. 437.20 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to that portion of
the discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that results from the
treatment or recovery of oil from both oily wastes received from off-
site and other CWT wastewater associated with the treatment of, or
recovery of oily wastes.
(b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may
require a new source or an existing source subject to this subpart to
achieve alternative effluent limitations and standards, as defined in
Sec. 437.2(b), in the following circumstances:
(1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N
limitations and standards; and
(2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.

Sec. 437.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 437.20(b),
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

[[Page 81305]]

Mercury..................................... 0.0172 0.00647
Molybdenum.................................. 3.50 2.09
Tin......................................... 0.335 0.165
Titanium.................................... 0.0510 0.0299
Zinc........................................ 8.26 4.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
Butylbenzyl phthalate....................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 437.20(b),
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations attainable by the application of BCT:
Limitations for O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 437.21.

Sec. 437.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 437.20(b),
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations by the application of BAT: Limitations
for antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,
mercury, molybdenum, tin, titanium, zinc, butylbenzyl phthalate,
carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, fluoranthene, and n-
octadecane are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in
Sec. 437.21.

Sec. 437.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).

Except as provided in Sec. 437.20(b), any new source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following performance standards:
Standards for oil and grease, pH, TSS, antimony, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, tin,
titanium, zinc, butylbenzyl phthalate, carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, fluoranthene, and n-octadecane are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.21.

Sec. 437.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or Sec. 437.20(b), and
no later than December 22, 2003, any existing source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Chromium.................................... 0.947 0.487
Cobalt...................................... 56.4 18.8
Copper...................................... 0.405 0.301
Lead........................................ 0.222 0.172
Molybdenum.................................. 3.50 2.09
Tin......................................... 0.249 0.146
Zinc........................................ 6.95 4.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.267 0.158
Carbazole................................... 0.392 0.233
n-Decane.................................... 5.79 3.31
Fluoranthene................................ 0.787 0.393
n-Octadecane................................ 1.22 0.925
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 437.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or Sec. 437.20(b), any new
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment
standards: Standards for antimony, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, molybdenum, tin, zinc, carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, fluoranthene, and n-octadecane are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.21.

Subpart C--Organics Treatment and Recovery

Sec. 437.30 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to that portion of
the discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that results from the
treatment of, or recovery of organic material from, both organic wastes
received from off-site and other CWT wastewater associated with the
treatment of, or recovery of organic wastes.
(b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may
require a new source or an existing facility subject to Sec. 437.30 to
achieve alternative effluent limitations and standards as defined in
Sec. 437.2 (h) in the following circumstances:
(1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N
limitations and standards; and
(2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.

Sec. 437.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................ 163 53.0
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
TSS......................................... 216 61.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.928 0.679
Copper...................................... 0.865 0.757
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Zinc........................................ 0.497 0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone............................... 0.114 0.0562
Aniline.................................... 0.0333 0.0164
2-Butanone................................. 4.81 1.85
o-Cresol................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol................................... 0.698 0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline........................ 0.0731 0.0361
Phenol..................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine................................... 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or
Sec. 437.30(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application
of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, pH, and TSS are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.31.

[[Page 81306]]

Sec. 437.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or
Sec. 437.30(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must
achieve limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for antimony, copper, molybdenum, zinc, acetone, acetophenone, aniline,
2-butanone, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline, phenol, pyridine,
and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding limitation
specified in Sec. 437.31.

Sec. 437.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).

Except as provided in Sec. 437.30(b), any new source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following new source performance
standards: Standards for BOD5, pH, TSS, antimony, copper,
molybdenum, zinc, acetone, acetophenone, aniline, 2-butanone, o-cresol,
p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline, phenol, pyridine, and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding limitation specified
in Sec. 437.31.

Sec. 437.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or Sec. 437.30(b), and
no later than December 22, 2003, any existing source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards
for molybdenum, 2,3-dichloroaniline, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding limitation specified
in Sec. 437.31.

Sec. 437.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or Sec. 437.30(b), any new
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment
standards: Standards for molybdenum, 2,3-dichloroaniline, o-cresol, p-
cresol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 437.31.

Subpart D--Multiple Wastestreams

Sec. 437.40 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in
paragraph (b) of this section, facilities that treat wastes subject to
more than one of the previous Subparts must comply with either
provisions of this subpart or the applicable provisions of Subpart A,
B, or C. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion
of wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility
that results from mixing any combination of treated or untreated waste
otherwise subject to Subpart A, Subpart B, or Subpart C of this part
only if a facility requests the permit writer or control authority to
develop Subpart D limitations (or standards) and establishes that it
provides equivalent treatment as defined in Sec. 437.2(h).
(b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may
require a new or existing facility subject to paragraph (a) of this
section to achieve alternative effluent limitations or standards as
defined in Sec. 437.2 (b) in the following circumstances:
(1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N
limitations and standards; and
(2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.

Sec. 437.41 Special definitions.

(a) Initial Certification Statement for this subpart means a
written submission to the appropriate permitting authority (either the
local control authority (the POTW) or NPDES permit writer) that is
signed by the responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR
403.12(l) or 40 CFR 122.22. The statement must:
(1) List and describe the subcategories of wastes accepted for
treatment at the facility;
(2) List and describe the treatment systems in-place at the
facility and conditions under which the treatment systems are operated
for the subcategories of wastes accepted for treatment at the facility;
(3) Include information and supporting data establishing that these
treatment systems will achieve equivalent treatment.
(b) Periodic Certification Statement for this subpart means a
written submission to the appropriate permitting authority (the local
control authority (the POTW) or NPDES permit writer) which certifies
that the facility is operating its treatment systems to provide
equivalent treatment as set forth in the initial certification. In the
event that the facility has modified its treatment systems, the
facility should submit a description of the modified systems and
information and supporting data to establish that the modified system
will achieve equivalent treatment. The periodic certification statement
must be signed by the responsible corporate officer as defined in 40
CFR 403.12(l) or 40 CFR 122.22.
(c) On-site Compliance Paperwork for this subpart means data or
information retained in the offices of the facility which supports the
initial and periodic certification statements. This Paperwork must:
(1) List and describe the subcategory wastes being accepted for
treatment at the facility;
(2) List and describe the treatment systems in-place at the
facility, modifications to the treatment systems and the conditions
under which the systems are operated for the subcategories of wastes
accepted for treatment at the facility;
(3) Provide information and supporting data establishing that these
treatment systems will achieve equivalent treatment;
(4) Describe the procedures it follows to ensure that its treatment
systems are well-operated and maintained; and
(5) Explain why the procedures it has adopted will ensure its
treatment systems are well-operated and maintained.

Sec. 437.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or
Sec. 437.40(b), any existing facility subject to this subpart which
combines treated or untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this
part may be subject to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory effluent
limitations representing the application of BPT set forth in paragraphs
(b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section if the discharger agrees to the
following conditions in its NPDES permit:
(1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory limitations set forth in (b), (c), (d) or (e);
(2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time
of renewal or modification of its permit, of its desire to be subject
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit
writer an initial certification statement as described in
Sec. 437.41(a);
(3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a
year; and
(4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
(b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B, and C of this part.
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to
this paragraph must achieve the following effluent

[[Page 81307]]

limitations representing the application of BPT:

BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................ 163 53.0
O&G......................................... 127 38.0
pH.......................................... (²) (²)
TSS......................................... 74.1 30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.0172 0.0102
Chromium.................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0510 0.0299
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 0.497 0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone..................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone................................ 0.114 0.0562
Aniline..................................... 0.0333 0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
2-Butanone.................................. 4.81 1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate....................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
Phenol...................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine.................................... 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² OSC Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg. ¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).

(c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to
this paragraph must achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the application of BPT:

BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.
daily ¹ ¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G......................................... 127 38.0
pH.......................................... (²) (²)
TSS......................................... 74.1 30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.0172 0.0102
Chromium.................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 3.50 2.09
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0510 0.0299
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
Butylbenzyl phthalate....................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to
this paragraph must achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the application of BPT:

BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.
daily \1\ \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5....................................... 163 3.0
O&G......................................... 205 50.2
pH.......................................... (²) (²)
TSS......................................... 60.0 31.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.249 0.206
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 15.5 3.07
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.865 0.757
Lead........................................ 1.32 0.283
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 0.497 0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone..................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone................................ 0.114 0.0562
Aniline..................................... 0.0333 0.0164
2-Butanone.................................. 4.81 1.85
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Phenol...................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine.................................... 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L )ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As
provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to this
paragraph must achieve the following effluent limitations representing
the application of BPT:

[[Page 81308]]

BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.
daily \1\ \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................ 163 53.0
O&G........................................ 127 38.0
pH......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
TSS........................................ 74.1 30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic.................................... 2.95 1.33
Barium..................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium.................................... 0.0172 0.0102
Chromium................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt..................................... 56.4 18.8
Copper..................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead....................................... 0.350 0.160
Mercury.................................... 0.0172 0.00647
Molybdenum................................. 1.01 0.965
Tin........................................ 0.335 0.165
Titanium................................... 0.0510 0.0299
Zinc........................................ 0.497 0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone............................... 0.114 0.0562
Aniline.................................... 0.0333 0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................ 0.215 0.101
2-Butanone................................. 4.81 1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate...................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole.................................. 0.598 0.276
o-Cresol................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane................................... 0.948 0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline........................ 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene............................... 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane............................... 0.589 0.302
Phenol..................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine................................... 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol...................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or
437.40(b), any existing facility subject to this subpart which combines
treated or untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this part may
be subject to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory effluent limitations
representing the application of BCT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger agrees to the following
conditions in its NPDES permit:
(1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory limitations set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of
this section;
(2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time
of renewal or modification of its permit, of its desire to be subject
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit
writer an initial certification statement as described in
Sec. 437.41(a);
(3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a
year; and
(4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
(b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part:
Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(b).
(c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part:
Limitations for O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(c).
(d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part:
Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(d).
(e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part:
Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(e).

Sec. 437.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or
437.40(b), any existing facility subject to this subpart which combines
treated or untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this part may
be subject to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory effluent limitations
representing the application of BAT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c),
(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger agrees to the following
conditions in its NPDES permit:
(1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory limitations set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of
this section;
(2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time
of renewal or modification of its permit, of its desire to be subject
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit
writer an initial certification statement as described in
Sec. 437.41(a);
(3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a
year; and
(4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
(b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part.
(1) Limitations for the following parameters are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(b)(1):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic parameters Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................... Antimony.
Acetophenone.............................. Arsenic.
Aniline................................... Barium.
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.............. Cadmium.
2-Butanone................................ Chromium.
Butylbenzyl phthalate..................... Cobalt.
Carbazole................................. Copper.
o-Cresol.................................. Lead.
p-Cresol.................................. Mercury.
n-Decane.................................. Molybdenum.
2,3-dichloroaniline....................... Nickel.
Fluoranthene.............................. Selenium.
n-Octadecane.............................. Silver.
Phenol.................................... Tin.
Pyridine.................................. Titanium.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol..................... Vanadium.
Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The in-plant limitations that apply to metal-bearing wastewater
containing cyanide are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 437.42(b)(2).
(c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1)
Limitations for the following parameters are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(c)(1):

(2) The in-plant limitations that apply to metal-bearing wastewater
containing cyanide are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 437.42(c)(2).
(d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1)
Limitations for the following parameters

[[Page 81309]]

are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in
Sec. 437.42(d)(1):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic parameters Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................... Antimony.
Acetophenone.............................. Arsenic.
Aniline................................... Cadmium.
2-Butanone................................ Chromium.
o-Cresol.................................. Cobalt.
p-Cresol.................................. Copper.
Phenol.................................... Lead.
Pyridine.................................. Mercury.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol..................... Molybdenum.
Nickel.
Selenium.
Silver.
Tin.
Titanium.
Vanadium.
Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The in-plant limitations that apply to metal-bearing wastewater
containing cyanide are the same as the corresponding limitations
specified in Sec. 437.42(e)(2).
(e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part.
Limitations for the following parameters are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(e):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic parameters Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................... Antimony.
Acetophenone.............................. Arsenic.
Aniline................................... Barium.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate............... Cadmium.
2-Butanone................................ Chromium.
Butylbenzyl phthalate..................... Cobalt.
Carbazole................................. Copper.
o-Cresol.................................. Lead.
p-Cresol.................................. Mercury.
n-Decane.................................. Molybdenum.
2,3-dichloroaniline....................... Tin.
Fluoranthene.............................. Titanium.
n-Octadecane Zinc.
Phenol
Pyridine
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.45 New source performance standards (NSPS).

(a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.40(b), any new source subject to
this subpart which combines treated or untreated wastes from subparts
A, B, or C of this part may be subject to Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory effluent limitations representing the application of NSPS
set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section if the
discharger agrees to the following conditions in its NPDES permit:
(1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory limitations set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of
this section;
(2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time
of submitting its application for permit, of its desire to be subject
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit
writer an initial certification statement as described in
Sec. 437.41(a);
(3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a
year; and
(4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
(b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part.
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this
paragraph must achieve the following performance standards:

Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5....................................... 163 53.0
O&G......................................... 127 38.0
pH.......................................... (²) (²)
TSS......................................... 29.6 11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.111 0.0312
Arsenic..................................... 0.0993 0.0199
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.0172 0.0102
Chromium.................................... 0.167 0.0522
Cobalt...................................... 0.182 0.0703
Copper...................................... 0.659 0.216
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.000641 0.000246
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 0.794 0.309
Selenium.................................... 0.176 0.0698
Silver...................................... 0.0318 0.0122
Tin......................................... 0.0955 0.0367
Titanium.................................... 0.0159 0.00612
Vanadium.................................... 0.0628 0.0518
Zinc........................................ 0.657 0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone..................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone................................ 0.114 0.0562
Aniline..................................... 0.0333 0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
2-Butanone.................................. 4.81 1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate....................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
Phenol...................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine.................................... 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).

(c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this paragraph
must achieve the following standards:

Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G......................................... 127 38.0
pH.......................................... (²) (²)
TSS......................................... 29.6 11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.111 0.0312
Arsenic..................................... 0.0993 0.0199
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.0172 0.0102
Chromium.................................... 0.167 0.0522
Cobalt...................................... 0.182 0.0703
Copper...................................... 0.659 0.216
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.000641 0.000246
Molybdenum.................................. 3.50 2.09
Nickel...................................... 0.794 0.309
Selenium.................................... 0.176 0.0698
Silver...................................... 0.0318 0.0122
Tin......................................... 0.0955 0.0367
Titanium.................................... 0.0159 0.00612
Vanadium.................................... 0.0628 0.0518
Zinc........................................ 0.657 0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
Butylbenzyl phthalate....................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268

[[Page 81310]]

n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ 1 mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this paragraph
must achieve the following performance standards:

Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Regulated parameter daily ¹ monthly avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...................................... 163 53.0
O&G....................................... 205 50.2
pH........................................ (²) (²)
TSS....................................... 29.6 11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................. 0.111 0.0312
Arsenic................................... 0.0993 0.0199
Cadmium................................... 0.782 0.163
Chromium.................................. 0.167 0.0522
Cobalt.................................... 0.182 0.0703
Copper.................................... 0.659 0.216
Lead...................................... 1.32 0.283
Mercury................................... 0.000641 0.000246
Molybdenum................................ 1.01 0.965
Nickel.................................... 0.794 0.309
Selenium.................................. 0.176 0.0698
Silver.................................... 0.0318 0.0122
Tin....................................... 0.0955 0.0367
Titanium.................................. 0.0159 0.00612
Vanadium.................................. 0.0628 0.0518
Zinc...................................... 0.657 0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone.............................. 0.114 0.0562
Aniline................................... 0.0333 0.0164
2-Butanone................................ 4.81 1.85
o-Cresol.................................. 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................. 0.698 0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline....................... 0.0731 0.0361
Phenol.................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine.................................. 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol..................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily 1 avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As
provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this paragraph
must achieve the following performance standards:

Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.
daily 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................ 163 53.0
O&G......................................... 127 38.0
pH.......................................... (2) (2)
TSS......................................... 74.1 30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic..................................... 2.95 1.33
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.0172 0.0102
Chromium.................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt...................................... 56.4 18.8
Copper...................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.0172 0.00647
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Tin......................................... 0.335 0.165
Titanium.................................... 0.0510 0.0299
Zinc........................................ 0.497 0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone..................................... 30.2 7.97
Acetophenone................................ 0.114 0.0562
Aniline..................................... 0.0333 0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
2-Butanone.................................. 4.81 1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate....................... 0.188 0.0887
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
Phenol...................................... 3.65 1.08
Pyridine.................................... 0.370 0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).
² Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.46 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or 437.40(b), any
new source subject to this subpart which combines treated or untreated
wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this part may be subject to Multiple
Wastestream Subcategory pretreatment standards representing the
application of PSES set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of
this section if the discharger agrees to the following conditions in
its permit:
(1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory standards set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e)
of this section;
(2) The discharger will notify its local control authority of its
desire to be subject to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to
the local control authority an initial certification statement as
described in Sec. 437.41(a);
(3) The discharger will submit to its local control authority a
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a
year; and
(4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
(b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part.
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than [Insert date--
three years after publication], any existing source subject to this
paragraph must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

[[Page 81311]]

Chromium.................................... 0.947 0.487
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.405 0.301
Lead........................................ 0.222 0.172
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.267 0.158
Carbazole................................... 0.392 0.233
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 5.79 3.31
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.787 0.393
n-Octadecane................................ 1.22 0.925
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

(c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than December 22, 2003, any
existing source subject to this paragraph must achieve the following
pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 0.947 0.487
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.405 0.301
Lead........................................ 0.222 0.172
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 3.50 2.09
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.267 0.158
Carbazole................................... 0.392 0.233
n-Decane.................................... 5.79 3.31
Fluoranthene................................ 0.787 0.393
n-Octadecane................................ 1.22 0.925
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than December 22, 2003, any
existing source subject to this paragraph must achieve the following
pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.249 0.206
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 15.5 3.07
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 4.14 1.06
Lead........................................ 1.32 0.283
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

(e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As
provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than December 22, 2003, any
existing source subject to this paragraph must achieve the following
pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Chromium.................................... 0.947 0.487
Cobalt...................................... 56.4 18.8
Copper...................................... 0.405 0.301
Lead........................................ 0.222 0.172
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Tin......................................... 0.249 0.146
Zinc........................................ 6.95 4.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................ 0.267 0.158
Carbazole................................... 0.392 0.233
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 5.79 3.31
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.787 0.393
n-Octadecane................................ 1.22 0.925
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

[[Page 81312]]

Sec. 437.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or 437.40(b), any new source
subject to this subpart which combines treated or untreated wastes from
subparts A, B, or C of this part may be subject to Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory pretreatment standards representing the application of PSNS
set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section if the
discharger agrees to the following conditions in its permit:
(1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory standards set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of
this section;
(2) The discharger will notify its local control authority at the
time of submitting its application for an individual control mechanism
or pretreatment agreement of its desire to be subject to Multiple Waste
Subcategory by submitting to the local control authority an initial
certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(a);
(3) The discharger will submit to its local control authority a
periodic certification statements as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a
year; and
(4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
(b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part.
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this
paragraph must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

(c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this paragraph
must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Paratmeters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 3.50 2.09
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................ 0.215 0.101
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).

(d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1)
As provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this paragraph
must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.249 0.206
Arsenic..................................... 0.162 0.104
Cadmium..................................... 0.474 0.0962
Chromium.................................... 15.5 3.07
Cobalt...................................... 0.192 0.124
Copper...................................... 4.14 1.06
Lead........................................ 1.32 0.283
Mercury..................................... 0.00234 0.000739
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Nickel...................................... 3.95 1.45
Selenium.................................... 1.64 0.408
Silver...................................... 0.120 0.0351
Tin......................................... 0.409 0.120
Titanium.................................... 0.0947 0.0618
Vanadium.................................... 0.218 0.0662
Zinc........................................ 2.87 0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).

(2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing
wastewater containing cyanide:

In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide....................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
¹ mg/L (ppm).

(e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As
provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this paragraph
must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

[[Page 81313]]

Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily ¹ avg.¹
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.................................... 0.237 0.141
Barium...................................... 0.427 0.281
Chromium.................................... 0.746 0.323
Cobalt...................................... 56.4 18.8
Copper...................................... 0.500 0.242
Lead........................................ 0.350 0.160
Molybdenum.................................. 1.01 0.965
Tin......................................... 0.335 0.165
Zinc........................................ 8.26 4.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................. 0.215 0.101
Carbazole................................... 0.598 0.276
o-Cresol.................................... 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol.................................... 0.698 0.205
n-Decane.................................... 0.948 0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................... 0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene................................ 0.0537 0.0268
n-Octadecane................................ 0.589 0.302
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol....................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

[FR Doc. 00-24565 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U