[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81964-82083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31185]
[[Page 81963]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 420
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65 , No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 81964]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 420
[FRL-6897-8]
RIN 2040-AC90
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action presents the Agency's proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges from
iron and steel facilities. The proposed regulation revises technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater
discharges associated with the operation of new and existing iron and
steel facilities. This action covers sites that generate wastewater
while performing the following industrial activities: Metallurgical
cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, non-integrated
steelmaking, hot forming, steel finishing including electroplating, and
other operations including direct iron reduction, briquetting, and
forging.
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation as proposed
would reduce the discharge of priority and non-conventional pollutants
by at least 210 million pounds per year and would cost an estimated
$56.5 million to $61.4 million (1999 $, pre-tax) on an annual basis,
with the range reflecting two options proposed for comment. In
addition, EPA expects that discharges of conventional pollutants would
be reduced, by at least 31.3 million pounds per year. EPA has estimated
that the annual quantifiable benefits of the proposal would range from
$1.1 million to $2.7 million.
DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by midnight of
February 26, 2001. EPA will conduct a public hearing on February 20,
2001 at 9:00 a.m. For information on the location of the public
hearing, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at the EPA auditorium in
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC.
Submit written comments to Mr. George M. Jett, Office of Water,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. For hand-deliveries or federal
express, please send comments to Room 607a West Tower, 401 M Street SW,
Washington 20460. For additional information on how to submit comments,
see ``Supplementary Information, How to Submit to submit comments''.
The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established
under docket number W-00-25 and is located in the Water Docket East
Tower Basement, Room EB57, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The
record is available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 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 proposed rule, contact Mr. George M. Jett at (202) 260-7151 or
Mr. Kevin Tingley at (202) 260-9843. For economic information contact
Mr. William Anderson at (202) 260-5131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities Primary SIC and NAICS codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ Facilities engaged in SIC
metallurgical cokemaking, 3312
ironmaking, integrated 3316
steelmaking, non-integrated NAICS
steelmaking, hot forming, steel 3311
finishing including 3312
electroplating, and other
operations including direct
iron reduction, briquetting,
and forging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding 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 now
aware could potentially be regulated by promulgation of this proposed
rule. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by
promulgation of this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 420.1 of today's proposed rule and in
the applicability subsection of each proposed subpart. You should also
examine the description of the proposed scope of each subpart elsewhere
in this document. If you still have questions regarding the
applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult
one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
How To Submit Comments
EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Please submit
any references cited in your comments.
Comments may also be sent via e-mail to [email protected].
Electronic comments must specify docket number W-00-55 and must be
submitted as an ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments on
this notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
No confidential business information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)
EPA notes that certain information and data in the record
supporting the proposed rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore,
are not included in the record that is available to the public in the
Water Docket. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some
data not claimed as CBI because release of this information could
indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential. To support
the proposed rulemaking, EPA is presenting in the public record certain
information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is masking facility
identities or employing other strategies in order to preserve
confidentiality claims. This approach assures that the
[[Page 81965]]
information in the public record both explains the basis for today's
proposal and allows for a meaningful opportunity for public comment,
without compromising CBI claims.
Some tabulations and analyses of facility-specific data claimed as
CBI are available to the company that submitted the information. To
ensure that all data or information claimed as CBI is protected in
accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for release of such
company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead
and signed by a responsible official authorized to receive such data.
The request must list the specific data requested and include the
following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer
confidential business information submitted by my company, and that I
am authorized to receive it.''
Overview
The preamble describes the background documents that support this
proposed regulation; the legal authority for the proposal; a summary of
the proposal; background information; the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these proposed regulations
and, in an appendix, the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations used
in this notice. This preamble also solicits comment and data on
specific areas of interest.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation
A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 420
B. Interface with Metal Products and Machinery Rule
C. Centralized Treatment Provision
IV. Rulemaking Background
A. Iron and Steel Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History
B. Preliminary Study
C. Industry Profile
D. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
1. Industry Surveys
a. Descriptions
b. Development of Survey Mailing List
c. Sample Selection
d. Survey Response
2. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
3. Analytical Methods
4. Database Sources
5. Summary of Public Participation
E. Subcategorization
1. Methodology and Factors Considered in Developing Proposed
Subcategorization
2. General Description of Manufacturing Processes
3. Proposed Subcategories
F. Wastewater Characterization
1. Cokemaking
a. Wastewater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wastewater Flow Rates
2. Ironmaking
a. Wastewater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wastewater Flow Rates
3. Integrated Steelmaking
a. Wastewater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wastewater Flow Rates
4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
a. Wastewater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wastewater Flow Rates
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
a. Wastewater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wastewater Flow Rates
6. Steel Finishing
a. Wastewater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wastewater Flow Rates
7. Other Operations
a. Wasterwater Sources
b. Pollutants of Concern
c. Wasterwater Flow Rates
V. Technology Options, Costs, and Pollutant Reductions
A. Introduction
1. Focused Rulemaking Approach
2. Available Technologies
B. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions
Achieved by Model Treatment Technologies
C. Technology Options, Regulatory Costs, and Pollutant
Reductions
1. Cokemaking
2. Ironmaking
3. Integrated Steelmaking
4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
6. Steel Finishing
7. Other Operations
VI. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction and Overview
B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry and
Baseline Conditions
C. Economic Impact Methodology
D. Economic Costs of Impact of Technology Options by Subcategory
E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of Regulatory Options
F. Firm Level Impacts
G. Community Impacts
H. Foreign Trade Impacts
I. Small Business Analysis
J. Cost-Benefit Analysis
K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
L. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis
VII. Water Quality Analysis 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. Effect an POTW Operations
F. Other Benefits not Quantified
G. Summary of Benefits
VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
IX. Options Selected for Proposal
A. Introduction
1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
2. Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment Standards
3. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW
Performance
4. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
5. BPT
6. BCT
7. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BAT, PSES, NSPS, and
PSNS Technology Options Selection
B. Cokemaking
1. By-Product Cokemaking
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
C. Ironmaking
1. Blast Furnace
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
2. Sintering
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
b. Technologies Selected
i. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
D. Integrated Steelmaking
1. Regulated Pollutants
a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
2. Technology Selected
a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
1. Carbon and Alloy
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES/PSNS
iii. NSPS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
2. Stainless
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES/PSNS
iii. NSPS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES/PSNS
[[Page 81966]]
iii. NSPS
F. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
1. Carbon and Alloy
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS/PSNS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS/PSNS
G. Finishing
1. Carbon and Alloy
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS
iv. PSNS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS/PSNS
2. Stainless
a. Regulated Pollutants
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS/PSNS
b. Technology Selected
i. BAT
ii. PSES
iii. NSPS/PSNS
H. Other
1. Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)
a. Regulated Pollutants
b. Technology Selected
i. BPT/BCT/NSPS
ii. PSES/PSNS
2. Forging
a. Regulated Pollutants and Limits
i. (Direct Pollutants and Limits) BPT/BCT/NSPS
ii. Indirect Discharges PSES/PSNS
b. Technology Selected
i. BPT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
3. Briquetting
a. Technology Selected
X. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of Part 420 through the NPDES Permit and
National Pretreatment Programs
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Removal Credits
D. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
1. Background
2. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations
E. Water Bubble
XI. Other Coinciding Agency Activities
A. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L--National Air Emission Standard for
Coke Oven Batteries
B. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Proposed
Rule
C. Steel Pickling--HCL Process
D. Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing NESHAP
XII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Process
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
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. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. Plain Language Directive
XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are proposed 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. Legislative 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 from facilities that discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere
with or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally,
pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from
direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar
levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local
treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to
satisfy any local requirements. See 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. Effluent
limitations in NPDES permits are derived from effluent limitations
guidelines and new source performance standards promulgated by EPA.
These effluent limitations guidelines 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)--Sec.
304(b)(1) of the CWA
EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limits for conventional, priority,
and non-conventional pollutants. (Priority pollutants consist of a
specified list of toxic pollutants. For more information, see section
IV.D.3 below.) 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, engineering
aspects of the control technologies, application of various types of
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. See CWA 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT
effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of
facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes,
processes, or other common characteristics. Where, however, existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may establish limitations
based on higher levels of control than currently in place in an
industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology is
available in another category or subcategory, and can be practically
applied.
2. Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)--Sec.
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify additional
levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated
with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point
sources. In addition to other factors specified in Section
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires
[[Page 81967]]
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)--Sec.
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 CWA establishes BAT as a principal
national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. 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, and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor
considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA
determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the
industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall
industry and subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect 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)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
New Source Performance Standards 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 (that is, conventional,
nonconventional, 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.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources 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). Pretreatment standards are technology-based and are
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR part 403. These regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establishes pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, 1987).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(c) of the
CWA
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources at the same time it promulgates new source
performance standards. Such pretreatment standards must prevent the
discharge of any pollutant into a POTW that may interfere with, pass
through, or may otherwise be incompatible with the POTW. EPA
promulgates categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources
based principally on BAT technology for existing sources. EPA
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources based on best
available demonstrated technology for new sources. 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) Consent Decree
Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every two years that
consists of three elements. First, under section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is
required to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of
existing effluent guidelines in accordance with section 304(b). Section
304(b) applies to effluent limitations guidelines for direct
dischargers and requires EPA to revise such regulations as appropriate.
Second, under section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must identify categories of
sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA
has not published BAT effluent limitations guidelines under 304(b)(2)
or new source performance standards under section 306. Finally, under
304(m)(1)(C), EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation of BAT
and NSPS for the categories identified under subparagraph (B) not later
than three years after being identified in the 304(m) plan. Section
304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers, which EPA promulgates pursuant to sections 307(b) and
307(c) of the Clean Water Act.
On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and
Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA in which they
alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to comply with CWA
section 304(m). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement of that
action in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent
decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule
by which EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point
source categories identified by name in the decree and for eight other
point source categories identified only as new or revised rules,
numbered 5 through 12. After completing a preliminary study as required
by the decree, EPA selected the iron and steel industry as the subject
for New or Revised Rule #5. Under the decree, as modified, the
Administrator was required to sign a proposed rule for the iron and
steel industry no later than October 31, 2000, and must take final
action on that proposal no later than April 30, 2002.
III. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation
EPA solicits comments on various issues specifically identified in
the preamble as well as any other applicability issues that are not
specifically addressed in today's notice.
A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 420
EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
seven subcategories of Iron and Steel facilities. Generally speaking,
the universe of facilities that would be potentially subject to EPA's
proposed guideline include facilities engaged in iron and steel making,
whether through the use of blast furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces
(BOFs), or through electric arc
[[Page 81968]]
furnaces (EAFs); metallurgical cokemaking facilities; stand-alone
facilities engaged in hot forming and/or finishing of steel, including
electroplating; and facilities engaged in other related operations such
as direct iron reduction, forging, and iron briquetting.
A detailed discussion of Iron and Steel wastewaters is provided in
Section IV.F. In summary, all wastewater discharges to a receiving
stream or the introduction of wastewater to a publicly owned treatment
works from a facility that falls within the scope of one of the
proposed subparts would be subject to the provisions of this proposed
rule unless specifically excluded as discussed in the following
sections.
The following proposed technology options serve as the basis for
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards being proposed today
for the iron and steel industry. For descriptions of the subcategories,
see Section IV.E. For descriptions of the technologies, see Section
V.A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory (segment) Regulatory level Option chosen Technical components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A. Cokemaking:
(By-Product Recovery)........ BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS.. BAT-3(PSES-3)...... tar removal, equalization, ammonia
stripping, temperature control,
equalization, single-stage
biological treatment with
nitrification, alkaline
chlorination, and sludge
dewatering.
co-proposed......... PSES-1............. tar removal, equalization, ammonia
PSES................ stripping.
(Non-Recovery)............... BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS.. zero discharge..... no wastewater generated.
Subpart B. Ironmaking: (Blast BAT/NSPS............ BAT-1.............. solids removal with high-rate
Furnaces) and (Sintering). recycle and metals precipitation,
alkaline chlorination, mixed-
media filtration of the blowdown
wastewater, and sludge
dewatering.
PSES/PSNS........... PSES-1............. solids removal with high-rate
recycle and metals precipitation,
and sludge dewatering.
Subpart C. Integrated Steelmaking BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS.. BAT-1.............. solids removal and high-rate
recycle, with metals
precipitation for blowdown
wastewater, cooling towers for
process wastewaters from vacuum
degassing or continuous casting
operations, and sludge
dewatering.
Subpart D. Integrated and Stand
Alone Hot Forming:.
(Carbon & Alloy Steel)....... BAT/NSPS............ BAT-1.............. scale pit with oil skimming,
roughing clarifier, cooling tower
with high rate recycle, mixed-
media filtration of blowdown, and
sludge dewatering.
PSES/PSNS........... N/A................ no proposed modification from
existing PSES/PSNS.
(Stainless Steel)............ BAT/NSPS............ BAT-1.............. scale pit with oil skimming,
roughing clarifier, cooling tower
with high rate recycle, mixed-
media filtration of blowdown, and
sludge dewatering.
PSES/PSNS........... N/A................ no proposed modification from
existing PSES/PSNS.
Subpart E. Non-Integrated
Steelmaking and Hot Forming:
(Carbon & Alloy Steel)....... BAT................. BAT-1.............. solids removal, cooling tower,
high rate recycle, mixed-media
filtration of recycled flow or of
low volume blowdown flow, and
sludge dewatering.
PSES................ N/A................ no proposed modification from
existing PSES.
NSPS/PSNS........... zero discharge..... water re-use, evaportion, or
contract hauling.
(Stainless Steel)............ BAT/PSES............ BAT-1.............. solids removal, cooling tower,
high-rate recycle, mixed-media
filtration of recycled flow or of
low volume blowdown flow, and
sludge dewatering.
NSPS/PSNS........... zero discharge..... water re-use, evaportion, or
contract hauling.
Subpart F. Steel Finishing:
(Carbon & Alloy Steel)....... BAT/NSPS/PSNS....... BAT-1.............. recycle of fume scrubber water,
diversion tank, oil removal,
hexavalent chrome reduction
(where applicable), equalization,
metals precipitation,
sedimentation, sludge dewatering,
and counter-current rinses.
PSES................ N/A................ no proposed modification from
existing PSES.
(Stainless Steel)............ BAT/NSPS/PSNS....... BAT-1.............. recycle of fume scrubber water,
diversion tank, oil removal,
hexavalent chrome reduction
(where applicable), equalization,
metals precipitation,
sedimentation, sludge dewatering,
counter-current rinses, and acid
purification.
PSES................ ................... no proposed modification from
existing PSES
Subpart G. Other Operations:
(Direct Reduced Ironmaking).. BPT/BCT/NSPS........ BPT-1.............. solids removal, clarifier, high
rate recycle, with filtration of
blow-down, and sludge dewatering.
BAT/PSES/PSNS....... ................... reserved.
(Forging).................... BPT/BCT/NSPS........ BPT-1.............. high rate recycle, with oil/water
separator for blowdown.
BAT/PSES/PSNS....... ................... reserved.
[[Page 81969]]
(Briquetting)................ BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS/ zero discharge..... no wastewater generated
PSES/PSNS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Interface With Metal Products and Machinery Rule
In preparation for this rulemaking, the Agency determined that
certain facilities currently covered by the current Iron and Steel rule
have manufacturing processes that more closely resemble those in
facilities to be covered by the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M)
rule than those found in what are normally considered to be steel
facilities. So that these facilities might be addressed under a
regulation that fits them better, EPA proposes to move these types of
facilities into the MP&M category, which will be regulated under part
438. The notice proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the MP&M category was also required to be signed by the
Administrator by October 31, 2000. EPA is required to take final action
on that rule by December 31, 2002 (eight months later than the date for
final action on the iron and steel rule). In developing the MP&M rule,
EPA will consider survey data and sampling data collected for these
types of facilities under Iron and Steel auspices.
For operations that are currently subject to part 420, EPA proposes
to retain certain operations in part 420 but move others to part 438,
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained in Part 420 (Iron and Steel) Moved to Part 438 (MP&M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold forming for steel sheet and strip. Cold forming for steel bar,
rod, wire, pipe or tube.
Pipe and tube mills with hot forming... Batch steel electroplating.
Finishing with continuous Continuous electroplating or
electroplating of flat products (e.g. hot dip coating of long steel
plate, sheet, strip). products (e.g. wire, rod,
bar).
Continuous hot dip coating of flat Batch hot dip coating of steel.
steel products (e.g. plate, sheet,
strip).
Hot forming............................ Wire drawing and coating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For facilities with both iron and steel operations and MP&M or
other operations discharging process wastewaters to the same wastewater
treatment system, NPDES permit writers would need to use a building
block approach to develop the technology-based effluent limitations.
Similarly, pretreatment permit writers would need to use a building
block approach or the combined wastestream formula to develop
appropriate pretreatment requirements for facilities with process
operations in more than one category. Permit writers and pretreatment
control authorities should refer to the applicability of the proposed
MP&M rule for further clarification.
EPA solicits comment on the proposed applicability of the Iron and
Steel (Part 420) rule and on the proposed building block approach in
regulating facilities with both iron and steel and MP&M or other
operations.
C. Centralized Treatment Provision
Under the applicability section of the current regulation, 40 CFR
420.01(b), EPA identified 21 plants that were temporarily excluded from
the provisions of Part 420 because of economic considerations, provided
that the owner or operator of the facility requested the Agency to
consider establishing alternative effluent limitations and provided the
Agency with certain information consistent with 40 CFR 420.01(b)(2) on
or before July 26, 1982. See 47 FR 23285 (May 27, 1982).
Today, each of the facilities identified in that section has a
permit that includes effluent limitations derived from part 420.
Today's proposed rule would establish new BAT limitations that EPA
believes are economically achievable for each subcategory as a whole.
Therefore, EPA believes that the alternate effluent limitations
provisions of Sec. 420.01(b) are no longer necessary for these
facilities, and proposes to withdraw this exclusion from part 420.
IV. Rulemaking Background
A. Iron and Steel Industry Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History
EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS for the iron and steel
category in June 1974 for basic steelmaking operations (Phase I). See
39 FR 24114 (June 28, 1974), codified at CFR part 420, subparts A-L.
EPA promulgated iron and steel effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (Phase II) in March 1976 that established BPT, BAT, NSPS, and
PSNS for forming and finishing operations. See 41 FR 12990 (March 29,
1976), codified at 40 CFR part 420, subparts M-Z.
In response to petitions for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit remanded portions of the Phase I regulation in
November 1975. See American Iron and Steel Institute, et. al., v. EPA,
526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975). The Court rejected all technical
challenges to BPT, but ruled that BAT and NSPS for certain
subcategories in Phase I were not demonstrated. The Court also ruled
that EPA had not adequately considered the impact of plant age on the
cost or feasibility of retrofitting pollution control equipment, did
not assess the impact of the regulation on water scarcity in arid and
semi-arid regions, and failed to make adequate ``net/gross'' provisions
for pollutants found in intake waters.
In response to petitions for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit also remanded portions of the Phase II regulation in
September 1977. See American Iron and Steel Institute, et. al., v EPA,
568 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1977). The Court again rejected all technical
challenges to BPT; however, it ruled that EPA had not adequately
considered age/retrofit and water scarcity issues for BAT. The Court
also invalidated the regulation as it applied to the specialty steel
industry for lack of proper notice. The Court directed EPA to
reevaluate its estimates of compliance costs with regard to certain
``site-specific'' factors and to reexamine its economic impact analysis
for BAT. The Court also ruled that EPA had no authority to exempt
certain steel facilities located in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio from
the regulation.
The current iron and steel rule, 40 CFR part 420, was promulgated
in May 1982, see 47 FR 23258 (May 27, 1982), and was amended in May
1984 as part of a Settlement Agreement among EPA, the iron and steel
industry, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. See
[[Page 81970]]
49 FR 21024 (May 17, 1984). In promulgating part 420 in 1982, aside
from the temporary central treatment exclusion for 21 specified steel
facilities at 40 CFR 420.01(b), EPA provided no exclusions for
facilities on the basis of age, size, complexity, or geographic
location as a result of the remand issues. EPA also revised the
subcategorization from that specified in the 1974 and 1976 regulations
to more accurately reflect major types of production operations and to
attempt to simplify implementation of the regulation by permit writers
and the industry. The factors EPA considered in establishing the 1982
subcategories were: Manufacturing processes and equipment; raw
materials; final products; wastewater characteristics; wastewater
treatment methods; size and age of facilities; geographic location;
process water usage and discharge rates; and costs and economic
impacts. Of these, EPA found that the type of manufacturing process was
the most significant factor and employed this factor as the basis for
dividing the industry into the twelve process subcategories currently
in part 420.
The 1984 amendment to part 420 affected three portions of the rule:
The water bubble (see Section X.E), effluent limitations guideline
modifications for BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS, and modifications to the
pretreatment standards for PSES and PSNS for the Sintering, Ironmaking,
Acid Pickling, Cold Forming, and Hot Coating Subcategories.
B. Preliminary Study
EPA was required by the terms of the consent decree described in
section II.B to initiate preliminary reviews of a number of categorical
effluent limitations guidelines and standards on a set schedule. The
``Preliminary Study of the Iron and Steel Category'' (EPA 821-R-95-037)
was completed in 1995.
In the preliminary study, EPA assessed the status of the industry
with respect to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984;
identified better performing facilities that use conventional and
innovative in-process pollution prevention and end-of-pipe
technologies; estimated possible effluent reduction benefits if the
industry were upgraded to the level of better performing facilities;
discussed regulatory and implementation issues associated with the
current regulation; and identified possible solutions to those issues.
Comparisons of long-term average effluent quality data for a number
of better performing facilities (data represent time periods ranging
from six months to more than one year) with the long-term average
performance data underlying the current effluent limitations in part
420 revealed that, in all subcategories, some facilities are achieving
substantially greater reductions than is required by the current
regulation. In a limited number of cases, zero discharge of pollutants
is being approached through pollution prevention practices. This
performance reflects increased high-rate process water recycle,
advances in application of treatment technologies, and advances in
treatment system operations. At the same time, however, the study
showed that a number of facilities fail to achieve the effluent
limitations currently required by part 420.
The study also found that, because most process wastewaters from
basic steelmaking operations are generated as a result of air emission
control and gas cleaning, there are substantial pollutant transfers
from the air media to the water and solid waste media. Also, there
appear to be many pollution prevention opportunities in the areas of
increased process water recycle and reuse, the cascade of process
wastewaters from one operation to another, residuals management, and
nondischarge disposal methods.
The Preliminary Study can be found on-line at www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel.
C. Industry Profile
The Agency estimates that in 1997, the iron and steel industry
consisted of 252 facilities owned by at least 109 companies. This
estimate is based upon responses to EPA's data gathering efforts, as
described in Section IV.D. Many of these companies are joint ventures
with both domestic and foreign owners, including partners located in
Japan, Great Britain, Germany, and India.
Although there are several iron and steel manufacturing processes
(described in Section IV.E.3), the Agency has identified nine general
types of sites in the Iron and Steel Category based on the operations
present at each site. Table IV.C.1 shows the estimated number of
facilities for each of the nine types of sites. Each facility is likely
to engage in more than one manufacturing process. For instance,
integrated facilities engaged in iron and steel making using blast
furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces may also have one or more of the
manufacturing operations, such as vacuum degassing or continuous
casting, on site. Non-integrated sites engaged in steelmaking with the
use of electric arc furnaces may also have vacuum degassing, ladle
metallurgy, casting, hot forming, and finishing processes on site. On
the other hand, stand-alone finishers that produce cold-rolled and/or
coated products from hot rolled steel produced elsewhere tend to have
only finishing operations on site. Finally, there are stand-alone pipe
and tube facilities producing pipe and/or tube from materials
manufactured off site. It is worth noting that only those pipe and tube
facilities that produce hot formed pipe and tube are to be included in
the Iron and Steel Category. These sites have hot forming operations
and may also have finishing processes.
Table IV.C.1.--General Types of Iron and Steel Sites in the United
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Number of
Type of site sites
operating
in 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated with Cokemaking................................... 9
Integrated without Cokemaking................................ 11
Stand-alone Cokemaking \1\................................... 15
Stand-alone Sintering \2\.................................... 2
Stand-alone Direct-Reduced Ironmaking \3\.................... 1
Non-integrated............................................... 94
Stand-alone Hot Forming...................................... 39
Stand-alone Finishing........................................ 70
Stand-alone Pipe and Tube.................................... 11
----------
Total.................................................... 252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One of the stand-alone cokemaking plants is a nonrecovery cokemaking
plant. One additional nonrecovery cokemaking plant started operations
after 1997 and is not reflected in this table.
\2\ One of these stand-alone sinter plants has been shut down
indefinitely since 1997.
\3\ One additional stand-alone direct-reduced ironmaking plant started
operations after 1997.
As shown Table IV.C.1, non-integrated facilities outnumber
integrated facilities by more than four to one, and stand-alone
finishing facilities form the second largest group. This reflects a
trend that has affected the industry for the past 25 years--a shift of
steel production from generally larger, older integrated facilities to
newer, smaller non-integrated facilities, and the emergence of
specialized, stand-alone finishing facilities that process semi-
finished sheet, strip, bars, and rods obtained from integrated or non-
integrated facilities.
Integrated steel facilities are primarily located east of the
Mississippi River in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Alabama; one integrated steel
facility operates in Utah. Coke plants, either stand-alone or co-
located at integrated steel facilities, are located in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
[[Page 81971]]
New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, and Utah. Non-
integrated steel facilities are located throughout the continental
U.S., and smaller stand-alone forming and finishing facilities are
generally located near steel manufacturing sites. Process wastewater
discharges in 1997 ranged from less than 200 gallons per day for a
stand-alone finisher to more than 50 million gallons per day for an
integrated facility.
D. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
1. Industry Surveys
EPA developed an Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled
``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Collection of 1997 Iron and
Steel Industry Data'' that explains the regulatory basis and usefulness
of the industry surveys. The ICR was approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in August 1998. The Agency published three
Federal Register Notices announcing (1) the intent to distribute the
surveys, see 62 FR 54453 (October 20, 1997), (2) the submission of the
ICR to the OMB, see 63 FR 16500 (April 3, 1998), and (3) OMB's approval
of the survey instrument, see 63 FR 47023 (August 3, 1998). The Agency
consulted with the major industry trade associations to develop a
useful survey instrument and to ensure an accurate mailing list.
a. Descriptions. EPA obtained approval to distribute four industry
surveys. The first two surveys were similar in content and purpose;
both were designed to collect detailed technical and financial
information from iron and steel sites, but they differed in size and
were mailed to different facilities. In October 1998, EPA mailed the
first survey, entitled ``U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel
Industry Data'' (detailed survey) to 176 iron and steel sites and the
second survey, entitled ``U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel
Industry Data (Short Form),'' to 223 iron and steel sites. The short
form is an abbreviated version of the detailed survey and was designed
for those iron and steel sites known not to produce or process liquid
steel (e.g., stand alone hot forming or steel finishing mills). EPA
mailed the third and fourth surveys to subsets of facilities to obtain
more detailed information on wastewater treatment system costs,
analytical data, and facility production. EPA mailed the third survey,
entitled ``U.S. EPA Collection of Iron and Steel Industry Wastewater
Treatment Capital Cost Data'' (cost survey), to 90 iron and steel
sites. EPA mailed the fourth survey, entitled ``U.S. EPA Analytical and
Production Data Follow-Up to the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel
Industry Data'' (analytical daily data and production survey), to 38
iron and steel sites.
The detailed survey and short form were divided into two parts:
Part A: Technical Information and Part B: Financial and Economic
Information. The technical questions in the detailed survey were
divided into four sections, with Sections 3 and 4 being combined in the
short form:
Section 1: General site information
Section 2: Manufacturing process information
Section 3: In-process and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
and pollution prevention information
Section 4: Wastewater outfall information
The financial and economic information in the detailed survey was
divided into four sections:
Section 1: Site identification
Section 2: Site financial information
Section 3: Business entity financial information
Section 4: Corporate parent financial information
The financial and economic information part of the short form
contained a single section for site identification and financial
information.
The general information questions asked the site to identify
itself, characterize itself by certain parameters (including
manufacturing operations, age, and location), and confirm that it was
engaged in iron and steel activities. The Agency used this information
to develop the subcategorization of the industry proposed today.
The manufacturing process section included questions about
products, types of steel produced, production levels, unit operations,
chemicals and coatings used, wastewater discharge from unit operations,
miscellaneous wastewater sources, pollution prevention activities, and
air pollution control. The Agency used data received in response to
these questions to evaluate manufacturing processes, wastewater
generation, and to develop regulatory options. EPA also used these data
to develop the subcategorization proposed today and to estimate
compliance costs and pollutant removals associated with proposed
regulatory options.
EPA requested detailed information (including diagrams) on the
wastewater treatment systems and discharge flow rates; monitoring
analytical data; and operating and maintenance cost data (including
treatment chemical usage). The Agency used data received in response to
these questions to identify treatment technologies in place, to
determine the feasibility of regulatory options, and to estimate
compliance costs, pollutant removals, and potential environmental
impacts associated with the regulatory options EPA considered for this
proposal.
The outfall information questions covered permit information,
discharge location, wastewater sources to the outfall, flow rates,
regulated parameters and limits, and permit monitoring data. The Agency
used this information to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards and pollutant loadings associated with the regulatory
options that EPA considered for this proposal.
The financial and economic questions requested general information,
such as location and employment, information on the sites's finances,
and corporate structure. EPA used data received in response to these
questions to estimate economic impacts on sites and companies from the
regulatory options EPA considered for this proposal.
EPA used the cost survey to request detailed capital cost data on
selected wastewater treatment systems installed since 1993, including
equipment, engineering design, and installation costs. EPA incorporated
these data into a cost model and used them to calculate compliance
costs associated with the regulatory options EPA considered for this
proposal.
The analytical and production survey requested detailed daily
analytical and flow rate data for selected sampling points and monthly
production data and operating hours for selected manufacturing
operations. The Agency used the analytical data to estimate baseline
pollutant loadings and pollutant removals from facilities with
treatment in place resembling projected regulatory options and to
evaluate the variability associated with iron and steel industry
discharges. The Agency used the production data collected to evaluate
the production basis for applying today's proposed rule in NPDES
permits and pretreatment control mechanisms.
b. Development of Survey Mailing List. EPA has collected industry
supplied data from the iron and steel industry through survey
questionnaires. The iron and steel industry survey questionnaires were
sent by mail to a random sample of facilities that were identified from
the following sources:
Association of Iron and Steel Engineers 1997 Directory: Iron and
Steel Plants Volume 1, Plants and Facilities;
[[Page 81972]]
Iron and Steel Works of the World (12th edition) directory;
Iron and Steel Society's Steel Industry of Canada, Mexico, and the
United States: Plant Locations map;
Member lists from the following trade associations:
--American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
--American Galvanizers Association
--American Iron and Steel Institute
--American Wire Producers Association
--Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute
--Specialty Steel Industry of North America
--Steel Manufacturers Association
--Steel Tube Industry of North America
--Wire Association International;
Dun and Bradstreet Facility Index database; EPA Permit Compliance
System (PCS) database;
EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database;
Iron and Steelmaker Journal ``Roundup'' editions;
33 Metalproducing Journal ``Roundup'' editions;
33 Metalproducing Journal ``Census of the North American Steel
Industry''.
These sources were cross-referenced with one another to obtain site
level information and to ensure the accuracy and applicability of each
site's information before inclusion in the questionnaire mailing list.
Based on these sources, EPA estimated there were 822 facilities
generating iron and steel wastewater. These facilities include the ones
that EPA proposes to include in the MP&M category regulated under part
438.
c. Sample Selection. To minimize the burden on the respondents to
the survey questionnaire, EPA grouped the facilities into 12 strata by
the type of manufacturing processes that took place in each facility,
or if the facility presented a unique feature (strata 5 & 8). EPA
intends that each stratum encompasses facilities with similar
operations. This grouping of similar facilities is known as
stratification. The stratification of the iron and steel industry is
described in Table IV.D.1-1.
Table IV.D.1--Iron And Steel Industry Strata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of sites
Stratum No. Stratum name in stratum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Integrated steel sites with cokemaking...... 9
2 Integrated steel sites without cokemaking... 12
3 Stand-alone cokemaking sites................ 16
4 Stand-alone direct-reduced ironmaking and 5
sintering sites............................
5 Detailed survey certainty stratum \1\....... 60
6 Non-integrated steel sites.................. 69
7 Stand-alone finishing sites and stand-alone 54
hot forming sites..........................
8 Short survey certainty stratum \2\.......... 13
9 Stand-alone cold forming sites.............. 62
10 Stand-alone pipe and tubes sites............ 164
11 Stand-alone hot coating sites............... 106
12 Stand-alone wire sites...................... 252
-------------
Total .......................................... 822
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This straturm encompasses facilities that otherwise would have
included within stratum 6 and stratum 7.
\2\This stratum encompasses facilities that otherwise would have been
included within strata 9 to 12.
Depending on the amount/type of information EPA determined it
needed for this rulemaking and the number of facilities in a stratum,
EPA either solicited information from all facilities within a stratum
(i.e., performed a census) or selected a random sample of facilities
within each stratum. EPA sent a survey to all the facilities in strata
5 and 8 because of the size, complexity, or uniqueness of the steel
operations present at these sites. EPA also sent surveys to all the
facilities in strata 1 though 4 because of their manageable numbers and
because of the size, complexity, and uniqueness of steel operation
present. The remaining sites in strata 6, 7, and 9 through 12 were
statistically sampled. If the stratum was censused, those facilities
based on the facility's probability of selection represent themselves
only. For statistically sampled strata, the selected facility is given
a survey weight that allows it to represent itself and other
facilities, within that stratum, that were not selected to receive a
survey questionnaire. See the Statistical Support Document for the
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Iron and Steel
Industry.
d. Survey Response. Of the 822 facilities generating iron and steel
wastewater, 399 facilities were mailed either a detailed survey or a
short survey questionnaire.
Eleven sites receiving a survey did not return a completed survey
and thus are considered non-respondents. Ten sites receiving surveys
were not considered for further review: seven of these sites were
closed, two sites were considered part of another site owned by the
same company, and one site received two surveys under two mailing
addresses. EPA received 378 completed surveys, including 33 sites that
certified that they were not engaged in iron and steel activities.
One hundred fifty-four of the completed surveys were from sites
that EPA later determined to be within the scope of the MP&M Category;
EPA did not consider those responses for this proposal. Similarly, two
recipients of MP&M surveys were determined to be within the scope of
the Iron and Steel Category. See Section III.B for a discussion of the
applicability interface between these two rules. Therefore, 191
completed iron and steel surveys and the two MP&M surveys were used in
the development of today's proposed rule.
In addition to the Detailed and Short Form surveys, follow-up
surveys regarding treatment system capital costs and analytical and
production data were also mailed. Of the 90 Cost Surveys mailed, 88
were completed. All of the 38 Analytical and Production Surveys were
completed. EPA has included in the public record all information
collected for which the site has not asserted a claim of Confidential
Business Information.
2. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
EPA visited 70 iron and steel sites in 19 states and Canada between
1997 and 1999 to collect information about each site's operations,
process wastewater management practices, and wastewater treatment
systems, and to evaluate each facility for potential inclusion in the
[[Page 81973]]
sampling program. Site visit selection was based on the type of site
(as described in Section IV.C), the manufacturing operations at each
facility, the type of steel produced (carbon, alloy, stainless), and
the wastewater treatment operations.
EPA collected detailed information from the sites visited such as
the operations associated with each manufacturing process, wastewater
generation, in-process treatment and recycling systems, end-of-pipe
treatment technologies, and, if the facility was a candidate for
sampling, the logistics of collecting samples. EPA has included in the
public record all information collected during site visits for which
the site has not asserted a claim of Confidential Business Information.
Based on the information obtained during site visits, EPA selected
16 facilities to perform wastewater sampling. EPA selected sites for
sampling using the following criteria:
The site performed iron and steel operations
representative of iron and steel industry facilities;
The site performed high-rate recycling, in-process
treatment, or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA was
considering for technology option development; and
The site's compliance monitoring data indicated that it
was operating among the better performing treatment systems in the
industry or that it contained wastewater treatment process for which
EPA sought data for option development.
During each sampling episode, EPA collected samples of untreated
process wastewater, treatment system effluents, and other samples that
would demonstrate the performance of individual treatment units.
Samples were analyzed for approximately 300 analytes spanning the
following pollutant classes: conventional and nonconventional
pollutants, metals, volatile organics, semivolatile organics, and
dioxins and furans. Analytical results from untreated samples
contributed to EPA's characterization of the industry, development of
the list of pollutants of concern, and development of raw wastewater
characteristics. EPA used all collected data to evaluate treatment
system performance and to develop discharge concentrations, pollutant
loadings, and the treatment technology options for the iron and steel
industry (see Section V). EPA used data collected from the effluent
points to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and limitations for
each of the proposed regulatory options (see Section IX.A.3); EPA also
used industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey
to complement the sampling data for these calculations. During each
sampling episode, EPA also collected flow rate data corresponding to
each sample collected and production information from each associated
manufacturing operation for use in calculating pollutant loadings and
production-normalized flow rates. EPA has included in the public record
all information collected for which the site has not asserted a claim
of Confidential Business Information.
3. Analytical Methods
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate
guidelines establishing test procedures (methods) for the analysis of
pollutants. These methods allow the analyst 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. To date, EPA has promulgated methods for all conventional and
toxic pollutants and for several nonconventional pollutants. Table I-B
at 40 CFR part 136 lists the analytical methods approved for the five
conventional pollutants. Part 136 also sets forth the analytical
methods for toxic pollutants. EPA has listed, pursuant to section
307(a)(1) of the Act, 65 metals and organic pollutants and classes of
pollutants as ``toxic pollutants'' at 40 CFR 401.15. From the list of
65 classes of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list of 126 ``Priority
Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is shown at 40 CFR part
423, appendix A. The list includes non-pesticide organic pollutants,
metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, and pesticide pollutants.
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. Direct and indirect dischargers must use the test methods
approved under 40 CFR 136.3, where available, to monitor pollutant
discharges from the Iron and Steel industry, unless specified otherwise
in part 420 or by the permitting authority. See 40 CFR 122.44
(i)(1)(iv) and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). Sometimes, methods in part 136 apply
only to waste streams from specified point source categories. For
pollutants with no methods approved under 40 CFR part 136, the
discharger must use the test procedure specified in the permit or, in
the case of indirect dischargers, other validated methods or applicable
procedures. See 40 CFR 122.44 (i)(1)(iv) and 403.12(b)(5)(vi).
4. Data Sources
EPA evaluated existing data sources to gather technical and
financial information and to identify potential survey recipients and
facilities for site visits.
The Agency gathered technical information from iron and steel
industry trade journals published from 1985 through 1997 as well as
information from Iron and Steel Society Conference Proceedings. Trade
journals included Iron and Steel Engineer, published by the Association
of Iron and Steel Engineers (AISE); Iron and Steelmaker, published by
the Iron and Steel Society (ISS); and New Steel (formerly Iron Age),
published by Chilton Publications. These sources provided background
information on industry storm water and wastewater issues; new and
existing wastewater treatment technologies; wastewater treatment and
manufacturing equipment upgrades and installations; company mergers,
acquisitions, and joint ventures; and identified potential survey
recipients and facilities for site visits.
EPA consulted the U.S. Bureau of Census publications, Census
Manufacturers--Industry Series and Current Industrial Reports; the
Paine Webber publication, World Steel Dynamics; and the American Iron
and Steel Institute (AISI) publication, The Annual Statistical Report.
These sources provided a variety of financial information, ranging from
aggregate data on employment and payroll to steel shipments by product,
grade, and market.
The Agency performed searches on the following on-line databases:
Pollution Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Engineering Index,
Materials Business File, National Technical Information Service (NTIS),
Enviroline, Compendex, and Metadex. The Agency also searched EPA's
Toxic Release Inventory and Permit Compliance System. In addition, the
Agency conducted a review of secondary sources, which include data,
reports, and analyses published by government agencies; reports and
analyses published by the iron and steel industry and its associated
organizations; and publicly available financial information compiled by
both government and private organizations.
[[Page 81974]]
5. Summary of Public Participation
EPA has strived to encourage the participation of all interested
parties throughout the development of the proposed iron and steel
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA has conducted
outreach with the following trade associations (which represent the
vast majority of the facilities that will be affected by this
guideline): American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), Steel
Manufacturers Association (SMA), Specialty Steel Industry of North
America (SSINA), Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute (CFSBI), the Wire
Association International, Incorporated (WAI), the American Wire
Producers Association (AWPA), the Steel Tube Institute of North America
(STINA), the American Galvanizers Association, Incorporated (AGA), and
the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Association (ACCCI). EPA has met
on several occasions with various industry representatives, including
the AISI, SMA, AWPA, and STINA, to discuss aspects of the regulation
development. EPA has also participated in industry meetings, giving
presentations on the status of the regulation development on numerous
occasions.
Because some facilities affected by this proposal are indirect
dischargers, the Agency also conducted outreach to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). EPA also made a concerted effort to consult
with pretreatment coordinators and state and local entities that will
be responsible for implementing this regulation.
EPA sponsored five stakeholders' meetings between December 1998 and
January 2000. Four were in Washington, DC, and the fifth was in
Chicago, IL. The primary objectives of the meetings were to present the
Agency's current thinking regarding the technology bases for today's
proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 420 and to solicit comments, issues,
and new ideas from interested stakeholders, including members of
environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Environmental Defense Fund (now Environmental Defense), Atlantic States
Legal Foundation, Friends of the Earth, and Save the Dunes.
During the meetings, EPA presented process flow diagrams showing
preliminary technology options and potential best management practices
(BMPs) that may be incorporated into a revised part 420 and/or included
in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and
pretreatment guidance. The presentations were organized by type of
manufacturing process. A discussion period followed each presentation.
In addition to soliciting comments on the preliminary options, EPA
requested ideas from the stakeholders to identify useful incentives for
greater pollution control.
At the meeting, EPA encouraged participants to supplement their
oral statements with written comments and supporting data. In that
regard, EPA provided a set of data-quality protocols for use when
submitting data for this rulemaking effort. This handout, along with
all other handouts and meeting summaries, are posted on the EPA Iron
and Steel web site at http://www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel/. All of the
materials presented at the stakeholders' meetings, as well as meeting
summaries and any written comments from participants, also may be found
in the public record for today's proposal.
E. Subcategorization
1. Methodology and Factors Considered in Developing Proposed
Subcategorization
The CWA requires EPA, when developing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards, to consider a number of different factors.
For example, when developing limitations that represent the best
available technology economically achievable for a particular industry
category, EPA must consider, among other factors, the age of the
equipment and facilities in the category, location, manufacturing
processes employed, types of treatment technology to reduce effluent
discharges, the cost of effluent reductions and non-water quality
environmental impacts. See section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account
other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate and requires BAT
model technology chosen by EPA to be economically achievable, which
generally involves consideration of both compliance costs and the
overall financial condition of the industry.
EPA took these factors into account in considering whether
different effluent limitations guidelines and standards were
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. For example, EPA
broke down categories of industries into separate classes with similar
characteristics. This classification recognized the major differences
among companies within an industry that may reflect, for example,
different manufacturing processes, economies of scale, or other
factors. Subdividing an industry by subcategories results in developing
more tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing regulatory
practicability and diminishing the need to address variations among
facilities through a variance process. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
For this iron and steel rulemaking, EPA used industry survey data
and EPA sampling data for the subcategorization analysis. Various
subcategorization criteria were analyzed for trends in discharge flow
rates, pollutant concentrations, and treatability to determine where
subcategorization was warranted. Equipment and facility age were not
found to impact wastewater generation or wastewater characteristics;
therefore, age was not used as a basis for subcategorization. Location
impacts iron and steel facilities only in that facilities located in
arid regions tend to experience greater water loss through evaporation,
resulting in reduced discharge in some cases. EPA addressed this
difference by selecting flow allowances for today's proposed regulation
that are achievable in all regions of the country irrespective of
climate. Therefore, the Agency deemed location to be insufficient
grounds for subcategorization. Size (e.g., acreage, number of
employees) was not used as a subcategorization criterion because it did
not have an influence on production-normalized wastewater flow rates or
pollutant loadings. Economic impacts are discussed in Section VI and
with one exception did not show a need for subcategorization on this
basis. The exception is subpart E (the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot
Forming subcategory) for which EPA is proposing alternative BAT
approaches to account for possible economic issues. See Section IX.E.1.
While non-water quality environmental characteristics (solid waste and
air emission effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did
not constitute a basis for subcategorization. Environmental impacts
from solid waste disposal and from the transport of potentially
hazardous wastewater are dependant on individual facility practices;
EPA could not identify any common characteristics particular to a given
segment of the industry. Air emissions also provided EPA with no basis
for different treatment than those suggested by the prevailing factors.
EPA identified manufacturing processes as the determinative factor
for subcategorization. In addition, EPA used manufacturing processes,
type of product, and wastewater characteristics (i.e., production-
normalized flow rates, pollutants present) to establish segments within
each subcategory where
[[Page 81975]]
appropriate. The following section describes the iron and steel
manufacturing processes.
2. General Description of Manufacturing Processes
The Iron and Steel Category covers sites that generate wastewater
while performing one or more of the following industrial activities:
Cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, vacuum degassing, ladle
metallurgy, casting, hot forming, finishing processes (which include
salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold rolling, annealing, alkaline
cleaning, hot coating, and electroplating), direct-reduced ironmaking,
briquetting, and forging. The following is a brief description of each
of these manufacturing processes.
Cokemaking: Carbon in the form of metallurgical coke is used to
reduce beneficiated iron ores and other forms of iron oxides to
metallic iron in blast furnaces. In by-product coke plants, coal is
distilled in refractory-lined, slot-type ovens at high temperatures in
the absence of air. The moisture and volatile components of the coal
are collected and processed to recover by-products, including crude
coal tars, crude light oil (aromatics, paraffins, cycloparaffins and
naphthenes, sulfur compounds, nitrogen and oxygen compounds), anhydrous
ammonia or ammonium sulfate, naphthalene, and sodium phenolate.
Wastewater is generated from moisture contained in the coal charge to
the coke ovens (waste ammonia liquor) and from some of the by-product
recovery operations.
Two cokemaking operations in the U.S. use nonrecovery technology.
Both plants use Sun Coke Company's proprietary non-recovery technology.
These plants use negative pressure coke ovens to prevent leakage of
air/smoke to the atmosphere, and higher temperatures to destroy
volatile organics. The organic compounds are destroyed within the oven
during the cokemaking process. The nonrecovery cokemaking process does
not generate any process wastewater.
Sintering: Sinter plants are used to beneficiate (upgrade the iron
content of) iron ores and to recover iron values from wastewater
treatment sludges and mill scale generated at integrated steel mills. A
mixture of coke breeze (fine coke particles), iron ores, sludges, mill
scales, and limestone are charged to a traveling grate furnace. The
mixture is ignited and air is drawn through the bed as it travels
toward the exit end. Sinter of suitable size and weight is formed for
charging to the blast furnace. Wastewaters are generated from wet air
pollution control devices on the wind box and discharge ends of the
sinter machine.
Ironmaking: Blast furnaces are used to produce molten iron, which
makes up about two-thirds of the charge to basic oxygen steelmaking
furnaces. The raw materials charged to the top of the blast furnace
include coke, limestone, beneficiated iron ores, and sinter. Hot blast
(preheated air) is blown into the bottom of the furnace. Molten iron is
tapped into refractory-lined cars for transport to the steelmaking
furnaces. Molten slag, which floats on top of the molten iron, is also
tapped and processed for sale as a by-product.
The hot blast exits the furnace top as blast furnace gas in
enclosed piping and is cleaned and cooled in a combination of dry dust
catchers and high-energy venturi scrubbers. Direct contact water used
in the gas coolers and high-energy scrubbers comprises nearly all of
the wastewater from blast furnace operations.
Steelmaking: Steelmaking in the U.S. is conducted either in basic
oxygen furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs). BOFs are
typically used for high tonnage production of carbon steels at
integrated mills; EAFs are used to produce carbon steels and low
tonnage alloy and specialty steels at non-integrated mills.
Integrated steel mills use BOFs to refine a metallic charge
consisting of approximately two-thirds molten iron and one-third steel
scrap by oxidizing silicon, carbon, manganese, phosphorus and a portion
of the iron. Oxygen is injected into the molten bath. Off-gases from
BOFs in the U.S. are controlled by one of three methods:
Semi-wet: Furnace off-gases are conditioned with moisture prior
to processing in electrostatic precipitators;
Wet-open combustion: Excess air is admitted to the off-gas
collection system allowing carbon monoxide to combust prior to high-
energy wet scrubbing for air pollution control; and
Wet-suppressed combustion: Excess air is not admitted to the
off-gas collection system prior to high-energy wet scrubbing for air
pollution control.
Non-integrated mills use EAFs to melt and refine a metallic charge
of scrap steel. Most EAFs are operated with dry air cleaning systems
with no process wastewater discharges. There are a small number of wet
and semi-wet systems.
Vacuum degassing: In this batch process, molten steel is subjected
to a vacuum for composition control, temperature control, deoxidation,
degassing, decarburization, and to otherwise remove impurities from the
steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the principal gases removed from the
steel. In most degassing systems, vacuum is provided by barometric
condensers; thus, direct contact between the gases and the barometric
water occurs.
Ladle metallurgy: In this batch process, molten steel is refined in
addition to, or in place of, vacuum degassing. These operations include
argon bubbling, argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD), electroslag
remelting (ESR), and lance injection. These additional refining
operations do not use process water.
Casting: Molten steel is tapped from the BOF or EAF into ladles for
transport. From the ladles, the molten steel is either processed in
ladle metallurgy stations and/or vacuum degassers prior to casting into
semi-finished shapes in continuous casters. Less than ten per cent of
the steel produced in the United States is cast into ingots. Steel cast
into ingot molds must undergo cooling, mold stripping, reheating, and
primary hot rolling to produce the same semi-finished shape that can be
produced with continuous casting. The continuous casting machine
includes a tundish (receiving vessel for molten steel), water-cooled
molds, secondary cooling water sprays, containment rolls, oxygen-
acetylene torches for cutoff, and a runout table. Molten steel is
transferred from the ladle to the tundish and then to the water-cooled
molds at controlled rates. The steel solidifies as it passes through
the molds and is cut to length on the runout table. Wastewater is
generated by a direct contact water system used for spray cooling and
for flume flushing to transport scale from below the caster runout
table.
Hot forming: Ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, or rounds are heated
to rolling temperatures in gas-fired or oil-fired reheat furnaces, and
formed under mechanical pressure with work rolls to produce semi-
finished shapes for further hot or cold rolling, or finished shapes for
shipment. Process water is used for scale breaking, flume flushing, and
direct contact cooling.
Finishing processes: These processes include salt bath and
electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling, acid pickling, cold forming,
annealing, cleaning, and hot coating and electroplating:
Salt bath descaling--Oxidizing and reducing molten salt baths are
used to remove heavy scale from specialty and high-alloy steels.
Process wastewaters originate from quenching and rinsing operations
conducted after processing in the molten salt baths.
Electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling is performed on stainless
steels for
[[Page 81976]]
essentially the same purposes as salt bath descaling.
Acid pickling--Solutions of hydrochloric, sulfuric, hydrofluoric/
nitric and nitric acids are used to remove oxide scale from the
surfaces of semi-finished products prior to further processing by cold
rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent cleaning and coating operations.
Process wastewaters include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and
pickling line fume scrubbers.
Cold rolling--Cold rolling is conducted on hot rolled and pickled
steels at ambient temperatures to impart desired mechanical and surface
properties in the steel. Process wastewater results from using
synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions, many of which are
proprietary.
Annealing--Annealing is a heat treatment process performed to
relieve stresses, increase softness, ductility, and toughness, and/or
to produce a specific microstructure to the steel. It is performed in a
batch or continuous process. Batch processes do not use process water.
Wastewaters from continuous processes result principally from
associated alkaline cleaning operations and quenching.
Hot coating--Immersion of precleaned steel into baths of molten
metal. Common metal types include: Tin, zinc (galvanizing),
combinations of lead and tin (terne coating), and combinations of
aluminum and zinc. Hot coating is typically used to improve resistance
to corrosion, and for some products, to improve appearance and
paintability. Wastewaters result principally from cleaning operations
prior to the molten bath.
Electroplating--Immersion of precleaned steel into baths for the
purpose of electrodepositing a metal onto the steel surface. Common
metal types include: tin, chromium, zinc, and nickel. Process
wastewaters include spent plating baths, rinse waters, and blowdowns
from fume scrubbers.
Direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI): This process produces relatively
pure iron by reducing iron ore in a furnace below the melting point of
the iron produced. DRI is used as a substitute for scrap steel in EAFs
to minimize contaminant levels in the melted steel and to allow
economic steel production when market prices for scrap are high.
Process wastewaters are generated from air pollution control devices.
Briquetting: The process of agglomerating or forming materials into
discrete shapes of sufficient size, strength, and weight for charging
to a subsequent process (e.g., briquetting wastewater sludges for
charging to a blast furnace). Briquetting does not generate process
wastewaters.
Forging: A hot forming operation in which a metal piece is shaped
by hammering. Process wastewaters are generated in the form of direct
contact cooling water.
3. Proposed Subcategories
In today's notice, EPA proposes to discard the current
subcategorization scheme and to establish seven new subcategories for
the iron and steel industry. The proposed revised subcategorization not
only reflects the modern state of the industry, in terms of both
process and wastewater management, but it also incorporates the
experience that the Agency and other regulatory entities have gained
from implementing the current iron and steel effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. Additionally, the proposed revised
subcategorization simplifies the regulatory structure by reflecting co-
treatment of compatible wastewaters, which is currently practiced by
the industry. This practice also provides economic advantage because
compatible pollutants from different manufacturing processes can be
treated in a single treatment unit. The seven revised subcategories
proposed for the iron and steel rulemaking are as follows:
Cokemaking
Ironmaking
Integrated Steelmaking
Integrated Hot Forming--Stand Alone Hot Forming Mills
Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Operations
Steel Finishing Operations
Other Operations
The following table presents a comparison of the current
subcategorization scheme and the one being proposed today:
Table IV.E.1.--Subcategory Comparison of Current And Proposed Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current regulation Proposed regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Cokemaking A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering B. Ironmaking
C. Ironmaking ........................................
D. Steelmaking C. Integrated Steelmaking E. Non-Integrated
Steelmaking and Hot
Forming
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming D. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot
Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling F. Steel Finishing
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
G. Other Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each subcategory is described in more detail immediately below in
terms of its manufacturing processes and wastewater characteristics.
Some subcategories are further segmented to reflect differences in
manufacturing operations, wastewater characteristics, or required
treatment technologies.
Cokemaking--Subpart A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Cokemaking Operations.................. By-Product
Other (Non-recovery, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking is proposed as a subcategory because of the uniqueness
of the manufacturing processes within the iron and steel industry and
the characteristics of wastewaters generated by by-product cokemaking
operations. EPA proposes to drop the current segmentation on the basis
of ``iron and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke plants because differences
in wastewater flow rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking
[[Page 81977]]
are no longer apparent within the current population of by-product coke
plants.
Cokemaking operations are segmented into by-product and other
operations, which comprise currently non-recovery and heat-recovery
coke plants. Any new cokemaking technologies would fall in this
segment. This segmentation reflects the fundamental differences in the
respective manufacturing processes. The by-product cokemaking
technology provides for extensive processing of materials derived from
the coal charged to the coke ovens, including coke oven gas and coal
tars, as well as light oils and ammonia or ammonia compounds. The
cokemaking process itself generates a waste ammonia liquor made up of
the moisture from the coal and volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds. Other wastewaters are generated from the by-product recovery
operations. Non-recovery and heat-recovery coke plants, on the other
hand, do not generate process wastewaters. Only limited amounts of non-
process wastewaters in the form of boiler blowdown result from these
operations.
Ironmaking--Subpart B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B: Ironmaking Operations.................. Blast Furnace
Sintering
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed ironmaking subcategory comprises sintering and blast
furnace operations. Wastewaters result from wet air pollution control
systems at sinter plants and wet gas cleaning systems for blast
furnaces. The wastewaters are similar in character in terms of the
pollutants present (ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds and metals)
and are universally co-treated where wet sinter plants are co-located
with blast furnaces. The subcategory is segmented to take into account
differences in the model treatment system flow rates used to develop
the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Integrated Steelmaking--Subpart C
The proposed integrated steelmaking subcategory comprises four
manufacturing processes: Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) steelmaking, ladle
metallurgy, vacuum degassing, and continuous casting. Section IV.E.2
describes these processes in more details. The wastewater generated
from the integrated steelmaking operations originates from wet
scrubbing for air pollution control of the BOF process, direct contact
water with gases from the vacuum degassing process, and direct contact
water used for spray cooling and for flume flushing to transport scale
from the casting process. Although these processes differ in wastewater
flow rates per ton of production, their wastewaters can be and are
commonly co-treated. The proposed limitations for this subcategory are
based on a single treatment technology but reflect different production
normalized flow rates for each process.
This proposed subcategory would encompass steelmaking operations at
integrated mills and at non-integrated mills operating basic oxygen
furnaces. Currently, one BOF shop is operated at a non-integrated mill
and would be included in this proposed subcategory.
Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming Mills--Subpart D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D: Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming Carbon and Alloy
Mills. Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed subcategory would encompass hot forming operations at
integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills. The wastewater generated
from the proposed integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory
originates from process water used for scale braking, flume flushing,
and direct contact cooling. Although these processes differ in
wastewater flow rates per ton of production, their wastewaters can be
and are commonly co-treated. The proposed limitations for this
subcategory are based on a single treatment technology but reflect
different production normalized flow rates for each process.
EPA proposes to divide the integrated and stand-alone hot forming
mills subcategory into two segments--carbon and alloy steel and
stainless steel--in order to account for the different product types
and wastewater characteristics. Both segments produce steel in primary,
section, flat, pipe, or tube.
Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Operations---Subpart E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E: Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Carbon and Alloy
Forming Operations. Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed subcategory would encompass steelmaking and hot
forming operations at non-integrated mills. The wastewater generated
from this proposed subcategory originates from the air pollution
control process of EAFs, direct contact water with gases in the vacuum
degassing process; direct contact water used for spray cooling and for
flume flushing to transport scale in the casting process; and process
water used for scale braking, flume flushing, and direct contact
cooling in the hot forming process. EPA proposes to divide the non-
integrated steelmaking and hot forming operations subcategory into two
segments--carbon and alloy steel operations and stainless steel
operations--because of the difference in product types and in the
wastewater characteristics. Each segment encompasses the following
manufacturing processes: EAF steelmaking, ladle metallurgy, vacuum
degassing, continuous casting, and hot forming. Although these
processes differ in wastewater flow rates per ton of production, their
wastewaters can be and are commonly co-treated. The proposed
limitations for this subcategory are based on a single treatment
technology but reflect different production normalized flow rates for
each process.
Steel Finishing Operations--Subpart F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Steel Finishing Operations............. Carbon and Alloy
Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed subcategory would encompass all finishing operations
that take place at integrated, non-integrated, and stand-alone mills.
The wastewater generated from the proposed steel finishing subcategory
originates from cleaning, rinsing, and quenching operations, spent
solution from the acid pickling, alkaline cleaning, and electroplating
operations, fume scrubber wastewater, and process water resulting from
the use of synthetic or animal-fat based solutions. EPA proposes to
segment the steel finishing subcategory into carbon and alloy steel
operations and stainless steel operations because of the nature of the
steel finishing operations and the associated wastewater
characteristics. Each segment may include a combination of the
following processes: acid pickling and other descaling, cold forming,
alkaline cleaning, hot coating, and electroplating. Section IV.E.2
describes these manufacturing processes in more detail. Although these
processes differ in wastewater flow rates per ton of production, their
wastewaters can be and are commonly co-treated. The proposed
limitations for this subcategory are based on a single treatment
technology but reflect different production normalized flow rates for
each process.
[[Page 81978]]
Other Operations--Subpart G
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G: Other Operations....................... Direct-Reduced Ironmaking
Forging
Briquetting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to combine the three remaining iron and steel
operations in a single catch-all subcategory with segments for three
specific operations: direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI), forging, and
briquetting. Section IV.E.2 describes these manufacturing processes in
more detail. The three segments differ in manufacturing operations and
in waste generation and characteristics. DRI operations currently take
place at stand-alone facilities and non-integrated mills. Forging
operations take place at stand-alone and non-integrated mills.
Briquetting operations take place at integrated and non-integrated
mills. The wastewater generated from this proposed subcategory
originates from fume scrubbers from the DRI process and direct contact
cooling water from the forging process.
F. Wastewater Characterization
The following sections present wastewater sources, pollutants of
concern, and flow rates for each proposed subcategory. Estimates for
pollutant loadings are presented in Section V.C.
The principal purpose of identifying subcategory-specific
pollutants of concern (POCs) is to screen pollutants for possible
regulation. Such pollutants may be either conventional, priority, or
non-conventional pollutants as defined by the Clean Water Act, and may
be limited directly in part 420, or limited indirectly through control
of other pollutants. The Agency took the following approach to identify
POCs and, thereafter, to narrow that list to those pollutants that are
proposed for regulation.
As the first step, EPA conducted a sampling and analytical program
at 16 steel industry sites. EPA sampled and analyzed a broad list of
pollutants for purposes of identifying pollutants present in
wastewaters from each type of process operation and determining their
fate in industry wastewater treatment systems. As the next step, EPA
determined for each pollutant subject to the sampling and analytical
program whether it met the following detection criteria in wastewaters
from that subcategory:
The pollutant was detected at greater than or equal to ten
times the analytical minimum level (ML) concentration in at least 10
percent of all untreated process wastewater samples; and
The mean detected concentration in untreated process
wastewater samples was greater than the mean detected concentration in
the source water samples.
EPA identified as pollutants of concern all pollutants that met
these screening criteria. EPA's final step was to determine which of
these pollutants to regulate, either directly through promulgated
limitations and standards or indirectly through the control of another
pollutant (e.g., an indicator or surrogate). Of the POCs identified by
EPA, the Agency is proposing not to regulate those that were detected
at environmentally insignificant concentrations; those typically not
associated with process wastewaters from specific process operations;
and those that were detected at low concentrations, but determined to
be below treatability levels for those pollutants.
The Agency considered three pollutants as POCs for all
subcategories, independent of the above criteria: total suspended
solids (TSS), Oil and Grease measured as hexane extractable material
(HEM), and total petroleum hydrocarbons measured as silica gel treated-
hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM). These pollutants are present to
some degree in nearly all steel industry process wastewaters and are
important indicators of overall wastewater treatment system
performance. The pH level is also an important wastewater
characteristic and an important indicator of wastewater treatment
system performance in many applications in the steel industry.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to regulate pH in today's proposed rule.
However, EPA did not evaluate pH for the purposes of the Agency's
effluent reduction benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses, since pH is
not expressed in terms of quantity or concentration.
This section also discusses the Agency's methodology for selecting
the process wastewater flow rate for each manufacturing operation that
corresponds to the best available technology for the particular
subcategory or segment. These flow rates are expressed in terms of
gallons of water discharged per ton of production (gpt) for all
operations except with respect to certain wet air pollution control
devices for steel finishing operations where the flow rates are
expressed in gallons per minute (gpm).
For those manufacturing operations where high-rate recycle is a
principal component of the model BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS treatment
systems, the Agency has selected production-normalized flow rates
(PNFs) on the basis of best demonstrated flows achievable by the
subcategory or segment as a whole. (For some segments, the best
demonstrated flow for the subcategory as a whole is zero.) In these
systems, the owner or operator directly controls the volume of the
discharge by controlling the process water treatment and recycle
system. This is accomplished by managing the amounts of make-up water
and storm water entering the system; removing and/or minimizing the
potential for once-through non-process wastewaters entering the system;
and by controlling recirculating water chemistry to prevent fouling and
scaling, where necessary. In general, the PNFs for these subcategories/
segments have been significantly reduced for the proposed standards,
relative to those on which the original standards are based. This means
that the proposed mass-based standards are significantly tighter than
existing standards, even where the wastewater treatment technology on
which the standards are based has not changed. A detailed presentation
of the PNFs on which the existing standards are based can be found in
Section VII of the Technical Development Document.
For those manufacturing operations where high-rate recycle is not a
principal component of the model BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS treatment
systems, the Agency has chosen to use a PNF representing the PNFs
reported by the better performing facilities in those subcategories and
segments. In general, these also represent reductions in the PNFs used
to derive the existing standards, although not by as much as for the
subcategories/segments where high-rate recycle is part of the proposed
technology basis. EPA recognizes that in some cases, the PNFs selected
by the Agency may not be appropriate for all mills within a subcategory
or manufacturing process subdivision. Therefore, the Agency solicits
comments and supporting information and data regarding alternative PNFs
that may be appropriate for particular manufacturing operations.
1. Cokemaking
a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Cokemaking Subcategory
encompasses segments for by-product and non-recovery cokemaking. Non-
recovery cokemaking does not generate process wastewater. Wastewater
from by-product cokemaking operations is generated from a number of
sources. The greatest volume of wastewater
[[Page 81979]]
generated at every by-product site is excess ammonia liquor, which is
the condensed combination of coal moisture and volatile compounds
liberated from the coal during the coking process. Nearly all sites
reported other sources of wastewater, including: coke oven gas
desulfurization, crude light oil recovery, ammonia still operation,
final gas coolers, NESHAP controls for benzene, barometric condensers,
coke oven gas condensates, equipment cleaning, and wet air pollution
control devices used to control emissions from coal charging and coke
pushing. Excess water used for coke quenching is another wastewater
source. Water used for coke quenching is typically plant service water
or treated coke plant wastewater. EPA does not advocate the practice of
coke quenching with untreated wastewater because of potential air
pollution and ground water contamination associated with this practice.
Most plants now collect and treat some process area storm water and at
least one facility collects and treats contaminated ground water from
its coke plant ground water remediation system.
b. Pollutants of Concern. From sampling data and industry-provided
data from the Analytical and Production Survey, EPA determined that by-
product cokemaking wastewaters contain oil & grease, ammonia-N,
cyanides, thiocyanates, phenolics, benzene, toluene, xylene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and numerous other volatile organic compounds and
polynuclear aromatic compounds. From these data, EPA identified 74 POCs
for the Cokemaking Subcategory: 4 conventionals, 1 non-conventional
metal, 30 non-conventional organics, 10 other non-conventionals, 22
priority organics, 3 priority metals, 1 other priority pollutant (total
cyanide), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), and nitrate/nitrite-N as POCs (the last three because of their
importance as indicators of biological treatment effectiveness).
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. The median volume of process wastewater
generated at well-operated by-product coke plants is approximately 100
to 110 gallons per ton (gpt) of coke and coke breeze produced.
Approximately 30 to 40 gpt is excess ammonia liquor; the remaining flow
comprises the other sources listed above. Operators of some direct
discharging facilities often add up to 50 gpt of control water to their
biological treatment systems to dilute wastewater toxicity and, to some
extent, control temperature. The Agency is using a PNF for the by-
product recovery cokemaking segment of 158 gpt. EPA is proposing that
supplemental allowances be available to sites operating wet coke oven
gas desulfurization systems (15 gpt) or NESHAP control systems (10
gpt). EPA believes that these PNFs can be achieved by all by-product
recovery coke plants with good water management practices.
The Agency is using a PNF of 0 gpt of process wastewater for the
non-recovery cokemaking segment.
2. Ironmaking
a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Ironmaking Subcategory
encompasses segments for sintering and blast furnace ironmaking. Wet
air pollution control systems are the primary source of process
wastewater at sinter plants. All of the sinter plants generating
process wastewater reported using scrubbers to control wind box
emissions and some sites also used scrubbers to control emissions at
the discharge end of the sinter strand.
Gas cleaning systems that utilize high-energy scrubbers and gas
coolers are the primary sources of process wastewater for blast furnace
operations. Other, relatively minor sources of process wastewater
include blast furnace gas seals, blast furnace drip legs. Some sites
reported excess water from slag quenching.
b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis sampling data and
industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey, EPA
determined that sintering wastewaters contain the following principal
pollutants: TSS, O&G, ammonia-N, cyanide, phenolic compounds, and
metals (principally lead and zinc), while the principal pollutants from
blast furnaces are TSS, ammonia-N, cyanides, phenolic compounds, and
metals (copper, lead, and zinc). EPA also found that sintering
wastewaters contain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurnas (PCDDs and PCDFs, or dioxins and furans).
EPA identified 28 POCs for the blast furnace segment of the
Ironmaking Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 7 non-conventional metals, 1
non-conventional organic, 10 other non-conventionals, 6 priority
metals, 1 other priority pollutant (total cyanide), and TKN because of
its direct relationship to ammonia-N, a principal pollutant in
ironmaking wastewaters.
EPA identified 66 POCs for the sintering segment of the Ironmaking
Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6 non-conventional metals, 24 non-
conventional organics, 11 other non-conventionals, 11 priority
organics, 10 priority metals, 1 other priority pollutant (total
cyanide), and TKN because of its direct relationship to ammonia-N, a
principal pollutant in ironmaking wastewaters.
EPA documented dioxins and furans in air emissions from two U.S.
sinter plants, one with dry and one with wet air pollution control.
These findings of PCDDs/PCDFs (dioxins) in air emissions from sintering
are consistent with the results of studies in Europe and Scandinavia
during the 1980s. On the basis of process considerations (e.g., feed
materials, combustion), EPA sampled for dioxins and furans in
wastewaters from the following primary steelmaking operations: by-
product coke plants, sinter plants, blast furnaces, and steelmaking
basic oxygen furnaces. EPA found several dioxin and furan congeners in
one of two sampled sinter plant treatment effluents. EPA did not find
2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is considered to be the most toxic of all dioxin
and furan congeners. However, EPA did detect a furan congener in the
form of 2,3,7,8-TCDF, as well as other congeners. In order to evaluate
the toxicity of all of these congeners, EPA converted the detected
quantities into values equivalent to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Taken together, these dioxin and furan congeners are equivalent in
toxicity to 0.09 nanograms/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. EPA thus considers these
dioxin and furan congeners to be Pollutants of Concern for sinter
plants with wet air pollution control technology under the ironmaking
subcategory.
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Nearly half of the operating sinter
plants use dry air pollution control systems and, therefore, do not
generate process wastewater. Discharge flow rates below 75 gpt are
demonstrated at two of the six sinter plants with wet air pollution
controls. Eight of the 24 blast furnaces achieve blowdown rates of 25
gpt and lower by operating high-rate (>95%) gas cleaning recycle
systems. Several sites report zero discharge by using blowdown from gas
cleaning systems for slag quenching. EPA does not advocate slag
quenching with blast furnace process wastewaters because of documented
ground water contamination associated with this practice. EPA is using
a 75 gpt PNF for the sintering segment, representing a flow achievable
by sites operating their process water systems at recycle rates equal
to or greater than 95%, and 25 gpt for the blast furnaces segment,
representing a flow achievable by sites operating their process water
systems at recycle rates equal to or greater than 98%. The Agency
believes that all sites can achieve these selected PNFs through good
water management practices in
[[Page 81980]]
blast furnace and sinter plant process water treatment and recycle
systems.
3. Integrated Steelmaking
a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Integrated Steelmaking
Subcategory encompasses the following operations: BOF steelmaking,
ladle metallurgy, vacuum degassing and continuous casting. Wet air
pollution control systems are the primary process wastewater source
from BOF steelmaking. Three types of wet air pollution control systems
are used to control BOF emissions: Semi-wet, wet-open combustion, and
wet-suppressed combustion. Some sites reported other BOF process
wastewater sources including excess slag quenching water, and equipment
cleaning water. Vacuum systems (e.g., barometric condensers, steam
ejectors) are the process wastewater source from vacuum degassing
systems. Spray contact water systems used for product cooling and flume
flushing are the largest process wastewater sources from continuous
casters. Some sites reported other continuous casting process
wastewater sources including torch table water and equipment cleaning
water. Other process wastewater sources include intermittent water
losses from closed caster mold and machine noncontact cooling water
systems.
b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis of sampling data
and industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey,
EPA determined that the principal pollutants from BOFs are TSS and
metals (lead and zinc). Vacuum degassing wastewaters contain low levels
of TSS and metals (lead and zinc) which volatilize from the steel.
Casting wastewaters typically contain TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and low
levels of particulate metals.
Using the POC selection criteria presented above, EPA identified
the following 28 POCs for the Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory: 2
conventionals, 9 non-conventional metals, 6 other non-conventionals, 1
priority organic, and 10 priority metals.
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Three types of wet air pollution control
systems (semi-wet, wet-suppressed combustion, wet-open combustion) are
commonly used in the BOF steelmaking operations, and each system has a
different wastewater flow rate. EPA is using a PNF of 10 gpt for BOFs
operating semi-wet systems. Half the operating BOFs operating semi-wet
systems are discharging less than this amount. Some operators report
achieving zero discharge by balancing the applied water for gas
conditioning with evaporative losses. Two of eight BOFs operating wet-
open combustion gas cleaning systems discharge less than 20 gpt, and
two of the seven BOFs operating wet-suppressed combustion gas cleaning
systems discharge less than 20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for recycle
system blowdown of 20 gpt at BOFs with wet-open combustion gas cleaning
systems, and 20 gpt for BOFs equipped with wet-suppressed combustion
gas cleaning systems. A small number of BOFs report achieving zero
discharge, or very low discharge, but not all sites are able to achieve
this because of safety considerations. Four of 12 sites operating
vacuum degassing systems report a flow rate less than 15 gpt, and six
of 29 continuous casters report a wastewater discharge rate less than
or equal to 20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF of 15 gpt for vacuum degassing
operations, and a PNF of 20 gpt for continuous casting operations.
4. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming
a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot
Forming subcategory consists of two segments: Carbon and alloy, and
stainless. The primary process wastewater source for facilities in both
segments is contact water systems used for scale removal, roll cooling,
product cooling, flume flushing, and other line operations. Some sites
reported other wastewater sources, including roll shops, basement
sumps, lubricating oil conditioning systems, strip coilers, scarfer
water, wet air pollution control systems, and equipment cleaning water.
b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis of sampling data
and industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey,
EPA determined that the principal pollutants from integrated and stand-
alone hot forming facilities are TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and low
levels of particulate metals.
EPA identified the following 12 POCs for the carbon and alloy
segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming Subcategory: 1
conventional metal, 4 non-conventional metals, 4 other non-
conventionals, and 3 priority metals. EPA identified the following 16
POCs for the stainless segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot
Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 4 non-conventional metals, 4
other non-conventionals, and 6 priority metals. Although EPA found lead
at relatively low concentrations in sampled hot forming wastewaters,
lead is considered as a POC for both segments of this subcategory
because extensive industry-supplied data indicates lead exists in
appreciable quantities in many hot forming wastewaters across the
industry.
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. High-rate recycle, with recycle rates in
excess of 95%, is a standard pollution prevention technique for all
types of hot forming operations. Twenty-one of 68 integrated and stand-
alone hot forming mills have reported flow rates less than or equal to
100 gpt. EPA is using a 100 gpt PNF at integrated and stand-alone hot
forming mills. EPA has determined that 100 gpt PNF represents the best
demonstrated flows at integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills that
operate at a 95% recycle rate.
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Non-Integrated Steelmaking and
Hot Forming Subcategory consists of two segments: carbon and alloy, and
stainless. These segments encompass the following operations: EAF
(electric arc furnace) steelmaking, ladle metallurgy, vacuum degassing,
continuous casting, and hot forming. All but one EAF in the United
States are equipped with dry or semi-wet air pollution controls and
operate with no process wastewater discharges. The process wastewater
source from the one EAF with a wet air pollution control system is the
scrubber water; however that facility is being converted to a dry air
cleaning system, and no new EAFs are likely to be constructed with wet
air controls. Accordingly, the Agency is not proposing separate limits
for EAFs with wet air pollution controls. Any EAF constructed in the
future with wet air controls will have to meet the limits for dry
systems. The wastewater sources for non-integrated vacuum degassing,
non-integrated continuous casting, and non-integrated hot forming are
the same as those listed for operations at integrated and stand-alone
facilities.
b. Pollutants of Concern. From sampling data and industry-provided
data from the Analytical and Production Survey, EPA determined that the
principal pollutants for vacuum degassing operations, continuous
casters and hot forming mills are TSS and metals. O&G (measured as HEM
and SGT-HEM) is found in process wastewaters from continuous casting
and hot forming operations.
EPA identified the following 11 POCs for the carbon and alloy
segment of the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Subcategory:
2 conventionals, 1 non-conventional metal, 5 other non-conventionals,
and 3 priority metals. EPA selected lead as a POC for the reasons set
out above for integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills. EPA
[[Page 81981]]
identified the following 23 POCs for the stainless segment of the Non-
Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6
non-conventional metals, 7 other non-conventionals, 1 priority organic,
and 7 priority metals. EPA selected lead as a POC for the reasons set
out above for integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills.
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Non-integrated mills have demonstrated
lower discharge volumes than hot forming at integrated and stand alone
mills because less water is used at these mills. Two types of air
pollution control systems (semi-wet, and dry) are commonly used in the
EAF steelmaking operations, and each system has a different wastewater
flow rate. Dry air cleaning systems generate no process wastewater. In
addition, the hot-forming manufacturing process produces steel in
primary, section, flat, pipe, or tube; each product type generates a
different wastewater flow rate. Ten of 25 non-integrated vacuum
degassing systems and 30 of 73 non-integrated continuous casting
systems reported discharge rates less than 10 gpt. EPA is using PNFs
for non-integrated vacuum degassing systems and continuous casters of
10 gpt each. Forty-two of 94 non-integrated hot forming operations
report flows less than or equal to 50 gpt. EPA is using a PNF of 50 gpt
for non-integrated hot forming operations, which represents the best
demonstrated flows for non-integrated hot forming operations operating
at a 95% recycle rate. Many non-integrated sites report zero discharge
of process wastewater using high-rate recycle systems for the entire
mill and alternative disposal methods, although available data suggests
that it would not be economically achievable for the entire
subcategory, or even any definable sub-group of the existing
facilities, to be able to achieve zero discharge of process wastewater.
6. Steel Finishing
a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Steel Finishing Subcategory
consists of two segments: Carbon and Alloy Steels and Stainless Steels.
The Carbon and Alloy segment comprises acid pickling (typically with
hydrochloric or sulfuric acids), cold forming, alkaline cleaning, hot
coating, and electroplating operations. The Stainless segment includes
salt bath and electrolytic sodium sulfate (ESS) descaling, acid
pickling (typically with sulfuric, nitric, and nitric/hydrofluoric
acids), cold forming, and alkaline cleaning. Salt bath descaling
process wastewaters are generated from quenching and rinsing operations
conducted after the steel is processed in the molten salt baths and
from fume scrubbers. ESS descaling wastewaters result from spent baths,
rinse waters, and fume scrubbers. Acid pickling process wastewaters
include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and pickling line fume
scrubbers. Process wastewaters from cold rolling processes result from
spent synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions and equipment
cleaning. Continuous annealing wastewaters originate from associated
alkaline cleaning operations. Alkaline cleaning process wastewaters
include cleaning solution and rinse water blowdown. Wastewaters from
hot coating operations result from product rinses, fume scrubbers, and
cleaning operations. Wastewaters from electroplating operations result
from acid and alkaline cleaning operations, plating solution losses,
plating solution conditioning and treatment, and fume scrubbers. Tank
clean-outs and equipment cleaning are other wastewater sources reported
by a number of sites.
b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis of sampling data
and industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey,
EPA determined that the principal pollutants from salt bath descaling
in the stainless segment are TSS, cyanides, hexavalent and trivalent
chromium, and nickel. The principal pollutants from acid pickling in
both segments are TSS and metals, although for carbon steel operations,
the principal metals are lead and zinc; and for stainless steel,
chromium and nickel. The principal pollutants in cold rolling
wastewaters are TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and metals (lead and zinc for
carbon steels and chromium and nickel for stainless steels; chromium
may also be a contaminant from cold rolling of carbon steels resulting
from wear on chromium-plated work rolls). Toxic organic pollutants
including naphthalene, other polynuclear aromatic compounds, and
chlorinated solvents have been found in cold rolling wastewaters.
Because alkaline cleaning baths do not attack or dissolve the
surface of the steel processed, the principal pollutants generated from
alkaline cleaning operations are O&G removed from the steel. There is
the potential for the presence of low levels of toxic organic
pollutants found in cold rolling solutions. The principal hot coating
pollutants are usually those associated with the coating metal or metal
combinations and hexavalent chromium for lines with chromium
brightening or passivation operations. Typical electroplating
pollutants are TSS and O&G generated from the precleaning operations
and the plated metals from plating solution losses, rinsing, and fume
scrubbers.
In addition to these pollutants which EPA identified through its
POC selection criteria process, EPA selected sulfate and total cyanide
as POCs because these pollutants are present in sulfuric acid pickling
wastewaters and reducing salt bath descaling wastewaters, respectively.
(EPA did not sample these two wastewaters during the sampling program
and therefore did not apply its POC selection criteria.)
EPA identified a total of 38 POCs for the carbon and alloy segment
of the Steel Finishing Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 10 non-
conventional metals, 7 non-conventional organics, 9 other non-
conventionals, 2 priority organics, and 8 priority metals. EPA
identified a total of 51 POCs for the stainless segment of the Steel
Finishing Subcategory: 11 non-conventional metals, 17 non-conventional
organics, 9 other non-conventionals, 4 priority organics, 9 priority
metals, and one other priority pollutant (total cyanide).
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. EPA subdivided manufacturing operations
by product type to capture differences in flow associated with
different types of products and different metals coated. This approach
should address product quality issues associated with water use.
Although a number of mills engaging in certain finishing operations
claim to need a relatively high PNF, information in today's record did
not support a different PNF for the subcategory as a whole.
The acid pickling, other descaling, and alkaline cleaning
operations are performed on various steel products such as sheet,
strip, coil, bar, billet, rod, pipe, tube, and plate; and each product
type generates a different wastewater flow rate. For cold forming, the
manufacturing process could be conducted in either single or multiple
mill stands, and the rolling solutions can be applied in a once-
through, recirculated, or a combined manner; and the various
application technique generates a different wastewater flow rate. For
the electroplating process, either chrome/tin or other metals can be
applied to sheet, strip, coil, and plate; and each product type
generates a different wastewater flow rate.
No stand-alone salt bath descaling lines were found during the
analysis of the iron and steel industry, and the industry did not
report isolated flows for salt bath descaling lines that are co-located
with combination acid pickling lines. Therefore, flow rates for salt
bath descaling are included in the flow rates for combination acid
pickling.
[[Page 81982]]
Wastewater discharge rates for acid pickling vary by product and steel
type. Wastewater discharge rates for acid pickling vary by product and
steel type, as well as acid used (in the case of carbon and alloy
steels). For hydrochloric acid pickling of carbon and alloy steel, EPA
is using a PNF of 50 gpt for sheet and strip (achieved by 18 of 47
lines), 490 gpt for bar, billet, rod, and coil, and 1020 gpt for pipe
and tube. For sulfuric acid pickling of carbon and alloy steel, EPA is
using a PNF of 230 gpt for strip and sheet (achieved by five of nine
lines), 280 gpt for bar, billet, rod, and coil, and 500 gpt for pipe
and tube. For acid pickling of stainless steel, EPA is using a PNF of
230 gpt for bar and billet (representing the median flow rate), 700 gpt
for sheet and strip (achieved by 19 of 50 lines), and 35 gpt for plate
(representing the median flow rate). For all pickling operations with
fume scrubbers, EPA is using a normalized flow rate of 15 gallons per
minute (gpm). The PNFs for hydrochloric and sulfuric acid pickling for
bar, billet, rod, and coil and pipe and tube are retained from the 1982
Iron and Steel regulation. The Agency obtained current PNFs for the
other four pickling operations. EPA is using a PNF of 100 gpm for acid
regeneration.
Wastewater discharge rates for cold forming vary by the number of
mill stands, steel type, and whether rolling solutions are
recirculated. EPA is using the following PNFs: single stand, direct
application--3 gpt; single stand, recirculation--1 gpt; multi-stand,
direct application--275 gpt; multi-stand, recirculation--25 gpt; multi-
stand, combination--143 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for the alkaline
cleaning sections of continuous annealing lines of 20 gpt (achieved by
seven of 16 stand alone annealing lines). Wastewater discharge rates
for alkaline cleaning vary by product and steel type. For carbon and
alloy steel, EPA is using a PNF of 350 gpt for sheet and strip and 20
gpt for pipe and tube. EPA is using a PNF of 2,500 gpt for stainless
sheet and strip. EPA is using a PNF of 550 gpt for hot dip coating
operations. With the exception of continuous annealing, each of these
represents the median of PNFs observed.
Discharge rates for electroplating vary by the type of metal
applied. EPA is using a PNF of 1,100 gpt for tin and chromium sheet and
strip lines; 550 gpt for other sheet and strip lines. EPA is using a
PNF of 35 gpt for electroplating of steel plate. Each of these
represents the median of PNFs observed. For all electroplating
operations with fume scrubbers, EPA is using a normalized flow rate of
15 gpm.
7. Other Operations
a. Wastewater Sources. The subcategory EPA proposes for other
operations encompasses segments for direct-reduced ironmaking, forging,
and briquetting. Wet air pollution control systems are the primary
process wastewater source for DRI operations. Contact water comprises
the majority of the process wastewater from forging operations. Some
sites identified equipment cleaning as another source of wastewater
from forging operations. Briquetting operations use dry air pollution
controls and do not generate process wastewater.
b. Pollutants of Concern. EPA has only limited sampling and
industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey for
forging, briquetting, and DRI operations. EPA solicits comments and
additional data for these operations.
Based on all available data, EPA found that the principal pollutant
parameter from DRI facilities is TSS. For forging, the principal
pollutants are TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and metals. All briquetting
operations are dry.
Using the POC selection criteria presented above, EPA identified 8
POCs for the Other Operations Subcategory: 1 conventional, 4 non-
conventional metals, and 3 other non-conventionals.
c. Wastewater Flow Rates. The Agency found forging operations to be
similar to other hot forming operations, and therefore used a 96%
recycle rate, as demonstrated for other hot forming operations, as the
basis for PNF determination, giving a PNF for forging operations of 100
gpt. EPA is using a PNF for DRI operations of 90 gpt, which was
demonstrated by two of three DRI plants engaged in high rate recycling
of their scrubber wastewater.
V. Technology Options, Costs, and Pollutant Reductions
A. Introduction
This section describes the technology options and associated costs
and pollutant reductions that EPA evaluated in developing the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards proposed today for the seven
subcategories. To determine the technology basis and performance level
for the proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of
daily effluent data collected from the Analytical and Production Survey
and the EPA wastewater sampling program. EPA used this database to
support the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations
guidelines and standards proposed today. While EPA has proposed
effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on a combination of
processes and treatment technologies, EPA is not proposing to require a
discharger to use those processes or technologies in treating the
wastewater. Rather, the processes and technologies used to treat iron
and steel wastewaters are left to the discretion of each facility; EPA
would require only that the numerical discharge limits are achieved.
In order to establish the proposed limits, EPA reviewed data from
treatment systems in operation at a number of iron and steel facilities
and used the data to calculate concentration limits that are achievable
based on a well-operated system using the proposed model processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. In Section C below, EPA presents a
summary of the technology options EPA considered for the proposed
effluent limitations guidelines and standards in each subcategory.
1. Focused Rulemaking Approach
EPA is developing this regulation using a focused rulemaking
approach, which involves conducting several aspects of data gathering
and analysis activities in parallel and assessing only a limited number
of regulatory options. This is unlike the traditional approach where
EPA conducts these efforts in a serial manner and considers a wider
range of regulatory options. The focused rulemaking approach is
feasible for the iron and steel regulation because the Agency has
acquired a good understanding of the industry, its associated
pollutants, and the available control and treatment technologies from
its prior rulemaking efforts. Furthermore, EPA also adopted the focused
approach for the iron and steel regulation in order to meet a court-
ordered schedule (see Section II.B). In general, the focused approach
allows EPA to have a more focused data gathering process and reduces
the time spent investigating marginal regulatory options. EPA then
evaluates each option it identifies in accordance with the statutory
factors, e.g., the removal efficiencies and economic achievability of
various model treatment technologies.
A successfully implemented focused rulemaking process involves a
combination of early analysis of available information, focused data
collection effort, and extensive stakeholder involvement. A key
component of the data gathering process was using a questionnaire
distributed under authority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act. See
Section IV.D. EPA worked with stakeholders in developing
[[Page 81983]]
this questionnaire, which was approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. For the iron and steel rulemaking, EPA utilized its 1997
questionnaire results from individual facilities, in conjunction with
EPA's field sampling data, to assess the wastewater characteristics and
the effectiveness of various pollution control and treatment
technologies for the industry. In addition, EPA also supplemented the
database with information voluntarily submitted by industry, permitting
and pretreatment authorities, and vendors. Furthermore, by involving
the stakeholders early in the rulemaking, the Agency also developed a
good understanding of the experience that the industry has gained from
pollution control technologies implemented since the 1980's, when the
current rule was promulgated.
In addition to early information gathering and analysis, extensive
stakeholder involvement is also an important element of the focused
rulemaking process. EPA met with the industry, environmental groups and
other stakeholders at various stages of the rulemaking process to
discuss the preferred options and identify issues of concern. For
instance, between December 1998 and January 2000, EPA sponsored five
stakeholder meetings to present the technology bases for the Agency's
preliminary options and to solicit comments and ideas from the
stakeholders. Section IV.D.5 contains additional information regarding
the various stakeholder meetings. EPA also expects to gather additional
information through the public comment process.
As the result of this focused process, the Agency is proposing a
streamlined group of seven subcategories that will be used as the
framework for revising the existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Section IV.E explains the basis for the proposed
subcategorization. Section V.C and IX contain detailed information on
technology options that were considered and the selected technologies,
respectively.
During the public comment period on today's proposed rule, EPA
plans to continue its data gathering and analysis efforts for support
of the final rule. EPA may publish in the Federal Register a subsequent
notice of data availability for data and information that the Agency
may use to support the final rule. Such data may be generated by EPA or
submitted by stakeholders in response to this proposal.
EPA encourages full public participation in developing the final
Iron and Steel Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards. EPA
welcomes comment on all options and issues and encourages commenters to
submit additional data during the comment period. EPA also is willing
to talk with interested parties during the comment period to ensure
that EPA considers the views of all stakeholders and the best possible
data upon which to base a decision for the final regulation. EPA will
conduct a public hearing during the public comment period.
2. Available Technologies
The treatment technologies used by the iron and steel industry
consist of in-process treatment and reuse of process solutions and
process waters, and end-of-pipe physical-chemical and biological
treatment.
The in-process, physical-chemical, and biological treatment
technologies in use at Iron and Steel facilities include:
Acid purification: An in-process resin technology applied
to spent acid baths to adsorb acid and allow contaminants to pass into
a waste stream. The process produces an acid which is reused for acid
pickling.
Acid Regeneration: Thermal decomposition of spent pickle
liquor, which contains free hydrochloric acid, ferrous chloride, and
water.
Alkaline Chlorination: Chemical addition of chlorine in a
two-stage, pH-adjusted system to oxidize cyanide, ammonia, phenols, and
other organic compounds.
Biological Treatment: There are several forms of
biological treatment. For the purpose of this regulation, biological
treatment refers to an activated sludge system with nitrification; a
continuous flow, aerobic treatment process which employs suspended-
growth aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants and
oxidize ammonia to nitrate. A portion of the biomass is collected and
returned to the activated sludge system.
Clarification: Usually a circular, cone-bottom steel or
concrete tank with a center stilling well and mechanical equipment at
the bottom for settling and subsequent removal of suspended solids from
the wastewater stream.
Classification: Any device, such as a dragout tank or
screw classifier, used to aggregate and remove large suspended solids
from wastewater.
Coagulation/flocculation: Coagulation/flocculation causes
small suspended solids such as precipitated metal hydroxides and
biological mixed liquor solids to aggregate into larger particles with
a density greater than water. The particles are then separated from the
wastewater by gravity settling.
Cooling Tower: Direct cooling through evaporative heat
transfer to lower the temperature of non-contact cooling water or
process water prior to further treatment or recycle.
Countercurrent Rinses: The use of a series of rinse tanks
to minimize the amount of water used to clean the surface of steel
products. Rinse water overflows from one tank to another in a direction
opposite the flow of steel product.
Cyanide Precipitation: Cyanide precipitation combines free
cyanide with iron to form an insoluble iron-cyanide complex that can be
precipitated and removed by gravity settling.
Diversion Tank: Tank used to handle hydraulic or waste
loading surges in cases of emergency overflow.
Emulsion Breaking: Addition of de-emulsifying agents such
as heat, acid, metal coagulants, polymers, and clays to oily
wastewaters to break down emulsions and produce a mixture of water and
free oil and/or an oily floc.
Equalization: Equalization through proper retention and
mixing in a tank dampens variation in hydraulic and pollutant loadings,
thereby reducing shock loads and increasing treatment facility
performance.
Free and Fixed Ammonia Still: Ammonia distillation is the
transfer of gas (ammonia) dissolved in a liquid (coke plant excess
flushing liquor) into a gas stream (steam). In the coke industry,
flushing liquor is pumped to the top of a tray-type distillation tower
while steam is injected into the base. As the rising steam passes
through the boiling flushing liquor moving down the tray tower, ammonia
is transferred from the liquid to the gas phase, eventually passing out
the top of the tower. A ``free'' still operates with steam only, with
no alkali addition, to remove ammonia and acid gases (hydrogen cyanide,
hydrogen sulfide). A ``fixed'' still is similar to a ``free'' still
except lime or sodium hydroxide is added to the liquor to convert the
water soluble ammonium ion to ammonia which can be removed as a gas.
Granular Activated Carbon : The use of granular activated
carbon to remove dissolved organic compounds from wastewater. When the
attractive forces at the carbon surface overcome the attractive forces
of the liquid, organic pollutants adsorb to the carbon particle
surface. Pollutants in the water phase will continue to bond to the
activated carbon until all surface bonding sites are occupied. When all
bonding sites are occupied, the carbon is considered to be ``spent''
and is either disposed or regenerated.
[[Page 81984]]
Heat Exchanger: Device which allows indirect cooling
through the use of noncontact cooling water to lower the temperature of
wastewater prior to biological treatment.
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction: The use of a reducing agent
to convert hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.
High-Rate Recycle: A system of pumps and piping which
return treated and temperature adjusted process water back to a steel
manufacturing process or air pollution control unit. For purposes of
this proposed rule, high-rate recycle means recycle of the circulating
flow at 95 percent or higher.
Metals Precipitation: The removal of metal contaminants
from aqueous solutions by converting soluble, metal ions to insoluble
metal hydroxides. The precipitated solids are then removed from
solution by coagulation/flocculation (see definition above) followed by
clarification and/or filtration. Precipitation is caused by the
addition of chemical reagents such as sodium hydroxide, lime or
magnesium hydroxide to adjust the pH of the water to the minimum
solubility of the metal.
Mixed-media Filtration: Mixed-media filtration involves a
fixed (gravity or pressure) or moving bed of porous media that traps
and removes suspended solids from water passing through the media.
Oil/water Separation: Oil/water separators are usually
long rectangular tanks in which free oil floats to the surface, where
it can be skimmed off. Often inclined parallel plates are added to
serve as collecting surfaces for oil globules. Oil/water separation is
typically preceded by emulsion breaking (see definition above).
pH Control: The use of chemical addition and mixing to
adjust the pH of wastewater to a desired pH level, usually in the range
of 8.5 to 9.0 for effective metals precipitation.
Roughing Clarifiers: High surface loading clarifiers
designed to remove settleable solids from wastewater prior to
filtration or other treatment.
Scale Pit: An in-ground basin constructed of concrete for
recovery of scale from process wastewaters used in hot forming and
continuous casting operations.
Sludge Dewatering: Gravity thickening is first
accomplished in a tank equipped with a slowly rotating rake mechanism
which breaks the bridge between sludge particles, thereby increasing
settling and compaction. A sludge dewatering device such as a belt
pressure filter, plate-and-frame pressure filter, or vacuum filter is
then used to mechanically remove excess water from the sludge.
Tar/oil Removal: Tar and oils are recovered from coke
plant flushing liquor by gravity separation in a flushing liquor
decanter and subsequent tar separation devices including storage tanks
or filtration systems.
B. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved
by Model Treatment Technologies
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant
reductions associated with today's proposed rule from data collected
through survey responses, site visits, sampling episodes, data
collected from state agencies, comments submitted during the
stakeholder process, and computerized cost and pollutant loadings
models developed for each of the technology options considered. EPA
calculated facility specific compliance costs and pollutant reductions
for facilities in the Cokemaking, Ironmaking, Steelmaking, and
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming Subcategories. For all other
subcategories, EPA used statistically calculated survey weights to
develop national estimates of these results.
EPA evaluated wastewater treatment technology performance for each
survey respondent using effluent data provided in the Detailed and
Short Form Surveys, effluent data collected from state agencies for
sites that have made significant wastewater treatment modifications
since 1997, and effluent data collected during Agency site visits and
sampling episodes conducted from 1996 to 1999. EPA assumed that
facilities whose current pollutant loadings exceeded the pollutant
loadings associated with each technology option would incur costs as a
result of compliance with that option. To determine the wastewater
treatment upgrades or modifications necessary for each facility to
achieve compliance, the Agency performed an analysis of wastewater
treatment technology in place using data provided in the Detailed and
Short Form Surveys and information collected during Agency site visits
and sampling episodes conducted from 1996 through 1999. Based on this
evaluation, EPA developed a computerized design and cost model to
estimate the following capital costs and one-time consulting fees for
each technology option under consideration.
Major equipment: purchased equipment costs, including
freight.
Installation: mechanical equipment installation, piping
installation, civil/structural (site preparation/grading, foundations,
etc.), and electrical and process control.
Indirect costs: costs for temporary facilities, spare
parts, engineering procurement and contract management and other costs.
Contingency: additional costs included in estimate to
account for unforeseen items in vendor and/or contractor estimates.
Consultant costs: single-occurrence costs associated with
hiring an outside consultant to upgrade wastewater treatment system
performance (e.g., improve operating and maintenance to optimize
biological treatment system performance).
EPA developed major equipment costs using data from the Cost Survey
and vendor quotes. An engineering and design firm that has performed
wastewater treatment installations for the iron and steel industry
estimated indirect costs, installation, and contingency. Based on Cost
Survey data and the estimates provided by the engineering and design
firm, the Agency estimated installation costs separately for each
technology option; indirect costs were assumed to be 28% of total
direct costs; contingency costs were assumed to be 20% of total direct
and indirect costs. EPA used engineering judgment to estimate
consultant costs, based on its review of consultant costs.
The Agency also designed the cost model to estimate incremental
operating and maintenance costs associated with the following cost
items:
Labor (operating and maintenance)
Maintenance (materials and vendors)
Chemical costs
Energy costs
Steam costs
Sludge/residuals (hazardous/nonhazardous) disposal costs
Oil disposal costs
Sampling/monitoring costs
EPA developed incremental operating and maintenance costs using
data provided in the Detailed and Short Form Surveys, Perry's Chemical
Engineers Handbook--Sixth Edition, U.S. Department of Energy--Average
Industrial Electrical Costs in 1998, the 1998 Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and the 1997 Chemical Market Reporter.
EPA evaluated the hydraulic capacity of the process water treatment
and recycle systems. Where the system was found to be capable of
recirculating the incremental flow necessary to achieve the model BAT
discharge flow, EPA assigned no investment cost for new equipment in
the main treatment and recycle circuit. In most instances, the increase
in recycle rate was only a few percent of the total recirculating flow
[[Page 81985]]
rate. For these cases, EPA assigned a one-time cost of $50,000 for
consultant and mill services to conduct an evaluation of the treatment
and recycle system and to modify water management practices and
operations to achieve the model BAT discharge flow rate.
For those mills described above where one-time costs were assigned
to achieve the model BAT discharge flow rate for the main process water
treatment and recirculation circuit, incremental operation and
maintenance costs were not assigned. The Agency assumed the increased
costs associated with modifying the recycle rate (power costs) would be
minimal and offset by likely savings in recirculating process water
chemical treatment.
EPA requests that interested stakeholders comment on this costing
approach and offer suggestions for improvements.
To determine the pollutant loading reduction associated with
process and treatment upgrades, EPA estimated the baseline load and the
post-compliance load expected from sites after treatment improvements
and process changes associated with each technology option. The post-
compliance reduction in pollutant mass is attributable to both improved
treatment and process changes, most notably high-rate recycle for
several subcategories. Improved treatment resulted in lower
concentrations for some pollutants. EPA estimated that sites with high-
rate recycle have a lower discharge flow and a subsequent lower
pollutant mass discharged. EPA calculated the pollutant loading
reduction as the difference between the estimated baseline load and the
post-compliance load for each technology option. All pounds reported
below are annual estimates.
EPA compared production normalized flows, as described in Section
IV.F, with the facilities' actual process wastewater flow rates to
determine what level of additional treatment facilities would have to
add to achieve the level of pollution control described in the
technology options (e.g., through reducing flow rates). This was
especially important when a component of the technology option was high
rate recycle. In this way a facility's flow rate had a direct impact on
both the expected cost to the facility and on the pollutant removal EPA
estimated for the facility.
Information on EPA's compliance cost and pollutant loading
estimates and methodologies, including the cost curves for all
treatment technologies considered as the basis for today's proposed
rule, is located in the public record. Some of the information EPA used
to estimate compliance costs and pollutant loadings was claimed by
survey recipients as CBI. This information is not in the public record.
However, EPA provides in the public record a number of publicly
available documents that set forth its methodology, assumptions and
rationale for developing its cost estimates and that also present as
much data as possible through the use of aggregations, summaries and
other techniques to mask CBI. EPA encourages all interested parties to
refer to the record and to provide comment on any aspect of the
methodology or the data used to estimate compliance costs associated
with today's proposal.
C. Technology Options, Regulatory Costs, and Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated the costs and pollutant loading reductions
associated with iron and steel facilities to achieve compliance for
each proposed technology option under consideration. This section
summarizes the proposed technology options under consideration and the
estimated costs and pollutant reductions associated with each option,
by subcategory. For each option the capital cost, operating and
maintenance costs, and other one-time costs are presented. See Section
VI for a listing of total annualized costs by subcategory. All cost
estimates in this section are expressed in terms of pre-tax 1997
dollars. Note that BPT technology options are discussed where
applicable.
1. Cokemaking
a. By-product cokemaking. For the by-product cokemaking segment of
this subcategory, EPA considered several different BAT, PSES, NSPS, and
PSNS technologies.
EPA estimates that by-product cokemaking sites currently discharge
approximately 2.3 million pounds of conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS,
and O&G) directly. By-product cokemaking operations discharge
approximately 2.7 million pounds of total priority and non-conventional
pollutants directly and approximately 550,000 pounds indirectly.
Table V.C.1-1 presents the various options considered for by-
product cokemaking, Table V.C.1-2 presents the associated costs, and
Table V.C.1-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction estimates.
Table V.C.1.-1.--Proposed By-Product Cokemaking BAT/PSES Technology Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment options
Technology units ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tar/oil removal................................................. X X X X X X X X
Equalization/still feed tank.................................... X X X X X X X X
Free and fixed ammonia still.................................... X X X X X X X X
Heat exchanger.................................................. X X X X ......... ......... X X
Cyanide precipitation........................................... ......... X ......... ......... ......... X ......... .........
Equalization tank............................................... X X X X ......... ......... X X
Biological treatment with secondary clarification............... X X X X ......... ......... X X
Sludge dewatering............................................... X X X X ......... X X X
Alkaline chlorination........................................... ......... ......... X X ......... ......... ......... X
Mixed-media filtration.......................................... ......... ......... ......... X ......... X ......... .........
Granular activated carbon....................................... ......... ......... ......... X ......... ......... ......... .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81986]]
Table V.C.1-2.--Cost of Implementation for Cokemaking
[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment options
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills................. 14 ........ ........ ........ 8 ........ ........ ........
Capital costs................... 8.0 12.4 42.3 66.5 0 6.0 18.6 32.1
Annual O&M costs................ 0.1 3.0 7.2 14.9 0.3 1.8 3.3 5.8
One-time costs.................. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.C.1-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Cokemaking
[In million pounds/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment options
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT-1 BAT-2 BAT-3 BAT-4 PSES-1 PSES-2 PSES-3 PSES-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.68 ........ ........ ........ ........
Conventional Pollutants (BOD,
TSS, and O&G)..................
Removal of Priority and Non- 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.54 0.54
conventional Pollutants........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. BAT
The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the same
technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for by-product
cokemaking, but with significant improvements in design and operation.
Each of the other BAT options builds on this foundation. Under the
first BAT option, water usage can be reduced by 1.6 million gallons per
year from current levels and the rate of removing non-conventional
pollutants can increase by 14% over those levels. The second BAT option
results in no further reduction in flow beyond BAT-1 levels, but does
result in the additional removal of 24% of the total cyanide from
direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams through the use of cyanide
precipitation. The third BAT option also results in no further
reduction in flow beyond BAT-1 levels, but does result in the
additional removal of 29% of the total cyanide (as well as additional
removal of other pollutants) from direct discharging cokemaking
wastestreams beyond BAT-1 levels through the use of alkaline
chlorination. The fourth BAT option, which was included in the analysis
as a potential means to achieve significant pollutant reduction,
results in no further reduction in flow beyond that to be achieved by
any of the BAT options, and does not lead to significant additional
pollutant removal beyond that to be achieved by BAT-3.
EPA performed a preliminary assessment of including non-recovery
cokemaking as a technology option for this segment. While this
technology would result in a zero discharge of process wastewater and
would reduce air emissions, the Agency did not consider it as an option
for this segment for the following reasons:
--Non-recovery cokemaking has not reliably demonstrated the ability to
produce foundry coke. Therefore, it is not an available technology for
the segment as a whole.
--Non-recovery cokemaking processes preclude the production of coal by-
products. Therefore, it is not an available technology for facilities
in this segment that produce these by-products.
--Choosing non-recovery cokemaking processes as BAT to the exclusion of
by-product processes would have significant adverse secondary economic
effects on coal by-products markets and consuming industries. For
example, the domestic coal tar refining industry, which consists of 5
companies with 13 facilities in 10 states as of 1997, is dependent upon
the coke by-product production of crude coal tar as a feedstock.
--The estimated capital cost of replacing current cokemaking capacity
with non-recovery coke plants is at least $3 billion. The estimate does
not include full scale heat recovery for power generation and flue gas
scrubbing. The estimated additional capital cost for heat recovery co-
generation is at least $2.5 billion.
--The estimated operating costs are uncertain. The recently constructed
non-recovery coke plant with associated heat recovery was the final
coke plant to qualify for a federal alternative energy tax credit,
which expired in June 1998. The presence of this tax credit clouds
comparisons of operating costs between traditional by-product
cokemaking and non-recovery cokemaking. Further, it is uncertain
whether heat recovery co-generation is a necessary component of non-
recovery cokemaking in the comparison of relative operating costs of
by-product and non-recovery cokemaking.
--The economic viability of non-recovery cokemaking is impacted by
site-specific factors, including land availability and local energy
markets. For example, the local cost of electricity is a key
determinant of the economic viability of heat recovery co-generation.
Economic viability also depends on the presence of a large industrial
energy user that would purchase electrical power and/or steam from co-
generation. In cases where steel production and coke production are co-
located, this condition is met; however, a number of existing coke
plants are not co-located with steel production.
ii. PSES
Table V.C.1-1 shows the technical bases for the PSES options EPA
examined. Except as noted, the technology basis for PSES-1 consists of
the same technologies and processes comprising the current PSES for
cokemaking with significant improvements in design and operation. This
technology option would control the pollutants EPA has determined pass
through. See Section IX. Unlike the current PSES model technology,
however, PSES-1 does not include a dephenolizer. EPA collected
information through its sampling program and technical surveys that
shows that a dephenolizer is unnecessary to control the pollutants that
EPA has determined pass through.
[[Page 81987]]
The technology basis for PSES-2 consists of PSES-1 plus cyanide
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and mixed-media filtration. The
technology basis for PSES-3 is identical to BAT-1. The technology basis
for PSES-4 is identical to BAT-3.
The technology options for BAT and PSES are different because they
are designed to control different parameters, based on EPA's pass-
through analysis (see Section IX.A.2). For a discussion of the
different technologies, refer to Section V.A.3.
Under PSES-1, water use can be reduced by 30% over the current
levels, and the rate of removal of ammonia can increase by 62% over
current levels. Under PSES-2, water use can be decreased by an
additional 3.5% over that expected under PSES-1, and removal of cyanide
can increase by 45% over that expected under PSES-1. Under PSES-3, the
removal of ammonia can increase by 95% over that expected under PSES-2.
Under PSES-4, there are virtually no additional removals.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other
treatment technologies are demonstrated. The Agency, however, did
perform a preliminary assessment of non-recovery cokemaking as a
technology option for NSPS for the by-product cokemaking segment but
did not consider it as an option for the reasons discussed in the BAT
section (Section V.C.1.a.i). Therefore, all technology options
presented as BAT or PSES options also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
b. Non-recovery cokemaking. For the non-recovery cokemaking segment
of this subcategory, EPA considered only one BPT, BAT, PSES, NSPS and
PSNS technology option, i.e., the technology in place at the two sites
currently using the non-recovery method for cokemaking. For a
discussion of this technology, see Section 4 of the technical
development document. The non-recovery cokemaking process results in
zero discharge because the non-recovery cokemaking process does not
generate process wastewater.
2. Ironmaking
This proposed subcategory encompasses two segments: sintering and
blast furnace operations. The subcategory is segmented to take into
account differences in the model treatment system flow rates used to
develop the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
However, EPA considered the same technologies for both segments (with
the exception of cooling towers, which are not used for sinter
operations). EPA did so because, where co-located, the wastewaters from
both these processes are generally co-treated. BAT and PSES
technologies would apply to either separate or combined treatment of
wastewater from sintering and blast furnace operations. Technology
options, costs, and pollutant loading reduction estimates for these two
segments are presented on a combined basis below because of co-
treatability of the wastewaters.
EPA estimated that Ironmaking operations discharge approximately
2.4 million pounds of conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G) directly.
Ironmaking operations directly discharge approximately 5 million pounds
of total priority and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency does not
present results for indirect dischargers, because there is only one
indirect discharger in this proposed subcategory and data aggregation
or other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of
information claimed as confidential business information.
Table V.C.2-1 presents the options considered, Table V.C.2-2
presents the associated costs, and Table V.C.2-3 presents the
associated pollutant reduction estimates.
a. Blast Furnaces. Some blast furnace operations achieve zero
discharge by evaporating wastewater on slag. EPA does not advocate the
practice of slag quenching with blast furnace wastewater because runoff
from the process can lead to documented ground water contamination;
therefore, the various treatment options do not include slag quenching.
The Agency considered sites performing slag quenching to be zero
discharge sites in the cost and pollutant reduction estimates because
that practice, however undesirable, would allow them to achieve
compliance with today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the blast furnace segment.
b. Sintering. The source of pollutants in sinter wastewater is from
the sinter plant's air pollution control system. Of the eight sinter
plants operating in 1997, three have achieved zero discharge by using
baghouses in place of wet air pollution control. The other five sinter
plants generate wastewater as a result of wet air pollution control and
therefore have installed treatment systems for that wastewater. The
various components of typical treatment systems are identified in Table
V.C.2-1. EPA considered whether to explore baghouses as a technology
option, in place of wet air pollution controls, in an effort to achieve
zero discharge. EPA concluded that the use of baghouses would not be a
viable option because of significant retrofit costs and the potential
for adverse non-water quality environmental impacts, which are
discussed in detail in the iron and steel technical development
document.
i. BAT
The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the same
technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for ironmaking,
but with significant improvements in design and operation. EPA intended
to evaluate a second BAT option, building on this foundation by
including granular activated carbon to the blowdown treatment. However,
EPA did not pursue the option because all significant POCs in the
effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at
levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-on
technology.
Table V.C.2-1.--Ironmaking Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment units ---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal.............................. X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
Cooling tower1.............................. X X
High-rate recycle........................... X X
Blowdown treatment
Metals precipitation........................ X X
Alkaline chlorination....................... X
[[Page 81988]]
Mixed-media filtration...................... X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applies to blast furnace process wastewater only
Table V.C.2-2.--Cost of Implementing for Ironmaking
[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
(BAT-1 and
PSES-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills............................................ 15
Capital costs.............................................. 25.8
Annual O&M costs........................................... 2.7
One-time costs............................................. 0.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.
Table V.C.2-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Ironmaking
[In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
(BAT-1 and
PSES-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G) 2.3
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants........ 3.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.
Under BAT-1, water usage can be reduced by 5% from current levels,
and total loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants can be
reduced by 68%.
ii. PSES
The technology option identified as PSES-1 consists of the same
technologies and processes comprising the current PSES for ironmaking,
but with significant improvements in design and operation. This
technology option would control the pollutants EPA has determined pass
through. See Section IX. Unlike the current PSES model technology or
BAT-1, however, PSES-1 does not include alkaline chlorination or mixed-
media filtration. Data from EPA's iron and steel sampling program and
survey responses indicated that alkaline chlorination and mixed-media
filtration are unnecessary to control the pollutants that EPA has
determined pass through.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other
treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all technology
options presented in Table V.C.2-1 as BAT or PSES options also describe
NSPS and PSNS options.
3. Integrated Steelmaking
EPA is not proposing to further segment this subcategory. EPA
considered BAT and PSES technologies for treatment of wastewater for
this subcategory. EPA estimates that integrated steelmaking operations
directly discharge approximately 2.5 million pounds of conventional
pollutants (TSS and (O&G) and approximately 6.2 million pounds of total
priority and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency does not present
results for indirect dischargers, because there is only one indirect
discharger in this proposed subcategory and data aggregation or other
masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information
claimed as confidential business information.
Table V.C.3-1 presents the options considered for integrated
steelmaking, Table V.C.3-2 presents the associated costs, and Table
V.C.3-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction estimates.
Table V.C.3-1.--Integrated Steelmaking Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment units ---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with classifier and clarifier X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
Cooling tower1.............................. X X
High-rate recycle........................... X X
Blowdown treatment
Metals precipitation........................ X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and was
costed accordingly.
Table V.C.3-2.--Cost of Implementation for Integrated Steelmaking
[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options (BAT-
1 and PSES-
1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills........................................... 21
Capital costs............................................. 16.8
Annual O&M costs.......................................... 2.9
One-time costs............................................ 2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.
Table V.C.2-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Steelmaking
[In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
(BAT-land
PSES-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G) 19
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants........ 4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.
a. BAT. The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the
same technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for
steelmaking, but with significant improvements in design and operation.
EPA intended to evaluate a second BAT option, building on this
foundation by including mixed-media filtration to the blowdown
treatment. However, EPA did not pursue the option because all
significant POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are
projected to exist at levels too low to be further treated by this or
any other add-on technology.
Under the BAT-1, water usage can be reduced by 83% over current
levels, and total loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants can
be reduced by 66%. b.
b. PSES. The technology option identified as PSES-1 consists of the
same technologies and processes comprising the current PSES for
steelmaking (which is also the same technical basis as BAT-1), but with
improvements to design and
[[Page 81989]]
performance. This technology option would control the pollutants EPA
determined pass through. See Section IX.
c. NSPS/PSES. The technology options EPA considered for new sources
are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers because
no other treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all
technology options presented in Table V.C.3-1 as BAT or PSES options
also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
EPA proposes dividing this subcategory into two segments: carbon
and alloy steels, and stainless steels. See Section IV.E above. The
treatment options for the two segments are identical. For this proposed
subcategory, EPA considered BAT and PSES technologies for treatment of
wastewater from hot forming operations located at integrated and stand-
alone facilities.
Table V.C.4.-1 presents the options considered for integrated and
stand-alone hot forming, Table V.C.4-2 presents the associated costs,
and Table V.C.4-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction
estimates.
Table V.C.4-1.--Integrated And Stand-alone Hot Forming Technology
Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment units ---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale pit with oil skimming................. X X
Roughing clarifier with oil removal......... X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
Mixed-media filtration \1\.................. X X
High-rate recycle........................... X X
Blowdown treatment.......................... ............ ............
Mixed-media filtration \1\.................. X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale pit with oil skimming................. X X
Roughing clarifier with oil removal......... X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
Mixed-media filtration \1\.................. X X
High-rate recycle........................... X X
Blowdown treatment
Mixed-media filtration \1\.................. X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow.
Table V.C.4-2.--Cost Of Implementation For Integrated And Stand-alone
Hot Forming
[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills............................. 44 7
Capital costs............................... 115.3 0.3
Annual O&M costs 16.1 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills............................. 0 3
Capital costs............................... 0 1.1
Annual O&M costs............................ 0 0.2
One-time costs.............................. 0 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.C.4-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Integrated And
Stand-alone Hot Forming
[In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional 22 -
Pollutants (TSS and 22-- O&G)..............
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional 5.2 0.02
Pollutants.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81990]]
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional \1\ 0 -
Pollutants (TSS and 01-- O&G)..............
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional \1\ 01 0.001
Pollutants.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No direct discharging stainless facilities exist in this
subcategory.
a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA estimates that carbon and alloy
steel hot forming operations sites directly discharge approximately 26
million pounds of conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G). These
operations also discharge directly approximately 12 million pounds of
total priority and non-conventional pollutants and approximately 0.038
million pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
Currently, effluent limitations guidelines exists only at the BPT
level. The technical basis of BPT is comprised of a scale pit with oil
skimming, a roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, and filtration. EPA
analyzed BAT-1 using the current BPT as a base, but adding on high rate
recycle and mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This BAT option
resembles the technical basis of the current NSPS, but with improved
design and operation in terms of reduced flows and pollutant
concentration. EPA estimates that implementation of limitations based
on BAT-1 will result in a flow reduction of 84% over current
conditions, and a reduction of 43% of toxic and non-conventional
pollutants.
ii. PSES
The technology option for PSES is identical to that for BAT-1. The
technical basis of PSES-1 is comprised of a scale pit with oil
skimming, a roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, filtration, and high
rate recycle, with mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This technology
option would control the pollutants EPA determined pass through. See
Section IX. EPA estimates that this would result in a flow reduction of
74% over current conditions, and a 53% reduction in discharge of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other
treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all technology
options presented in Table V.C.4-1 as BAT or PSES options also describe
NSPS and PSNS options.
b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel integrated and stand-alone hot
forming operations discharge indirectly approximately 5,000 pounds of
total priority and non-conventional pollutants. No stainless steel hot
forming sites discharge wastewater directly.
i. BAT
As stated above, there are no direct discharging stainless
facilities in this subcategory, and therefore there are no anticipated
pollutant reductions or costs associated with proposing options for
BAT. However, EPA is proposing BAT for this segment in the event that a
new stainless facility commences operation or if an indirect discharger
changes its status to direct before EPA promulgates this rule. Any such
dischargers would be subject to BAT (not NSPS) because under 306(b) and
EPA's implementing regulations a source is a ``new source'' subject to
NSPS only if it commences construction after the promulgation of the
final rule in April 2002.
As with the Carbon and Alloy segment, the technology basis of BAT-1
for the Stainless segment consists of a scale pit with oil skimming, a
roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, filtration, and high rate
recycle, with mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This BAT option
resembles the technology basis of the current NSPS for integrated
steelmaking and stand-alone hot forming, but with improved design and
operation in terms of reduced flows and pollutant concentration. In
addition to BAT-1, EPA intended to analyze a second BAT option, BAT-1
plus metals precipitation of the blowdown, for this segment. However,
EPA did not fully develop the costing information for this option
because data indicated that adding on metals precipitation for this
type of wastestream would not result in additional pollutant loadings
removals in systems with well-operated BAT-1 technology in place.
ii. PSES
The PSES-1 option is the same as the BAT-1 option described above.
This technology option would control the pollutants EPA determined pass
through. See Section IX. EPA estimates that PSES-1 would result in a
reduction of 90% of the flow from current levels, and a 66% removal of
toxic and non-conventional pollutants.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other
treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all technology
options presented in Table V.C.4-1 as BAT or PSES options also describe
NSPS and PSNS options.
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
For this proposed subcategory, EPA considered BAT and PSES
technologies for two segments: Carbon and Alloy Steels, and Stainless
Steels. The treatment options for the two segments are identical except
for the addition of metals precipitation of blowdown for the proposed
Stainless Steels segment as BAT-2. Table V.C.5-1 presents the various
options considered for non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming,
Table V.C.5-2 presents the associated costs, and Table V.C.5-3 presents
the associated pollutant reduction estimates.
[[Page 81991]]
Table V.C.5-1 Non-integrated Steelmaking Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment unit ---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon & Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with clarifier............... X X
Cooling tower \1\........................... X X
Mixed-media filtration \2\.................. X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
High-rate recycle........................... X X
Blowdown treatment:
Mixed-media filtration \2\.............. X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and
was costed accordingly
\2\ Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow
of hot forming wastewater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment unit -----------------------------------------
BAT-1 BAT-2 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with clarifier. X X X
Cooling tower \1\............. X X X
Mixed-media filtration \2\.... X X X
Sludge dewatering............. X X X
High-rate recycle............. X X X
Blowdown treatment:
Metals precipitation...... ............ X ............
Mixed-media filtration \2\ X X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and
was costed accordingly
\2\ Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow
of hot forming wastewater
Table V.C.5-2 Cost Of Implementation For Non-integrated Steelmaking And
Hot Forming
[In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon & Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills............................... 39 15
Capital costs................................. 18.9 2.5
Annual O&M costs.............................. 2.0 0.4
One-time costs................................ 3.9 0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
--------------------------------------
BAT-1 BAT-2 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills.................. 4 4 4
Capital costs.................... 0.4 3.7 0
Annual O&M costs................. 0.1 0.6 0
One-time costs................... 0.2 0.2 0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 81992]]
Table V.C.5-3 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Non-integrated
Steelmaking And Hot Forming
[In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon & Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants 2.6 ...........
(TSS andO&G).................................
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants...... 0.34 0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-----------------------------------------
BAT-1 BAT-2 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of 0.10 0.10 --
Conventional Pollutants (TSS
and O&G).....................
Priority and Non-Conventional 0.018 0.018 0.012
Pollutants...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA estimated that carbon and alloy
steel operations directly discharge approximately 0.18 million pounds
of conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G). These operations also
discharge approximately 53,000 pounds of total toxic and non-
conventional pollutants directly and approximately 14,000 pounds
indirectly.
i. BAT
The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the same
technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for non-
integrated steelmaking, but with significant improvements in design and
operation resulting in lower flow and reduced discharge of pollutants
of concern. EPA also investigated zero discharge as the basis for BAT
because some facilities do achieve zero discharge. However, EPA
believes it is not feasible for the segment as a whole or any
identifiable subsegment to achieve zero discharge because of site-
specific circumstances, most significantly the ability to manage
effectively process area storm water. Accordingly, the investment cost
to retrofit zero discharge at such sites is likely to be too high to be
economically achievable for the segment as a whole.
EPA estimates that the BAT-1 technology would result in a reduction
of 90% of flow and a 72% reduction in the discharge of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants.
ii. PSES
The technology basis for PSES-1 is the same as described as BAT-1.
The technological basis for PSES-1 is solids removal, a cooling tower,
mixed-media filtration, sludge dewatering, high-rate recycle, and
mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This technology option would
control the pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX. EPA
concludes that all existing indirect discharging facilities in this
segment have the equipment in place to achieve this level of
performance, and would also not incur additional operating and
maintenance costs. See Section V.B for discussion of why EPA concludes
that facilities can achieve pollutant reduction without incurring
capital or O&M costs. EPA has included in its estimate of costs a one-
time fee for facilities to ascertain the changes in water management
needed, and to implement them.
EPA estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in a
reduction of flow of 32%, and the reduction in the discharge of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants by 33%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
For NSPS/PSNS in the Carbon & Alloy segment of the Non-Integrated
Steelmaking and Hot Forming subcategory, EPA identifies process water
and water pollution control technologies that would result in zero
discharge. The model NSPS/PSNS technologies consist of treatment and
high-rate recycle systems, management of process area storm water, and
disposal of low-volume blowdown streams by evaporation through
controlled application on electric furnace slag, direct cooling of
electrodes in electric furnaces, and other evaporative uses. Operators
of 24 existing non-integrated steel mills (in the subcategory as a
whole) have reported zero discharge of process wastewater. These
facilities are located in various states and produce various products
such as bars, beams, billets, flats, plate, rail, rebar, rod, sheet,
slabs, small structurals, strip, and specialty sections. EPA has
determined that new facilities can easily incorporate new process water
treatment and water pollution control at the design stage, thus
providing avoiding costs associated with retrofit situations.
Consequently, the Agency has identified zero discharge as an
appropriate NSPS/PSNS for non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming
operations located in any area of the United States and producing any
product.
b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel operations discharge directly
approximately 180,000 pounds of total conventional pollutants (TSS and
O&G). Stainless steel operations discharge approximately 53,000 pounds
of total priority and non-conventional pollutants directly and
approximately 14,000 pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
With one exception, the technology option identified as BAT-1
consists of the same technologies and processes comprising the current
BAT for integrated steelmaking but with significant improvements in
design and operation. Unlike the current BAT, however, BAT-1 does not
have metals precipitation. In addition to BAT-1, EPA analyzed a second
BAT option, BAT-2, which consists of the BAT-1 technology but with
metals precipitation. Although metals precipitation of blowdown is part
of both the current BAT and BAT-2, EPA's data indicated no additional
decrease in pollutant loadings as a result of metals precipitation. EPA
also investigated zero discharge as the basis for BAT because some
facilities do achieve zero discharge. However, EPA believes it is not
feasible for the segment as a whole or any identifiable subsegment to
achieve zero discharge because of site-
[[Page 81993]]
specific circumstances, most significantly the ability to manage
effectively process area storm water. Accordingly, the investment cost
to retrofit zero discharge at such sites is likely too high to be
economically achievable for the segment as a whole.
EPA estimates that selection of the BAT-1 option as the technology
basis would result in the reduction of flow by this segment of the non-
integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory by 52%, and the
reduction in the discharge of toxic and non-conventional pollutants by
34%.
ii. PSES
The current technological basis for PSES is solids removal, a
cooling tower, mixed-media filtration, sludge dewatering, high-rate
recycle, and metals precipitation of blowdown. The technical basis for
PSES-1 is the same as described as BAT-1. This technology option would
control the pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX.
EPA estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in a
reduction of flow of 89%, and the reduction in the discharge of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants by 86%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
Like the Carbon and Alloy segment, EPA identifies technologies that
result in zero discharge as NSPS/PSNS for the Stainless segment of the
Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming subcategory. See discussion
under Section V.C.5.a.iii above. The Agency has identified zero
discharge as an appropriate NSPS for non-integrated steelmaking and hot
forming operations located in any area of the United States and
producing any product.
6. Steel Finishing
For the proposed Steel Finishing subcategory, EPA considered BAT
and PSES technologies for the Carbon and Alloy segment, and Stainless
segment. The treatment options for the two segments are identical
except for the addition of acid purification units for the proposed
stainless steels segment. Table V.C.6-1 presents the options considered
for steel finishing, Table V.C.6-2 presents the associated costs, and
Table V.C.6-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction estimates.
Table V.C.6-1 Steel Finishing Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment units ---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Process Controls:
Countercurrent rinses....................... X X
Recycle of fume scrubber water.............. X X
Wastewater Treatment:
Diversion tank.............................. X X
Oil/water separation........................ X X
Equalization................................ X X
Hexavalent chromium reduction \1\........... X X
Multiple-stage pH control for metals X X
precipitation..............................
Clarification............................... X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For sites with hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
Treatment units ---------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Process Controls:
Countercurrent rinsesX...................... X
Recycle of fume scrubber water.............. X X
Acid purification units \1\................. X X
Wastewater Treatment:
Diversion tank.............................. X X
Oil/water separation........................ X X
Equalization................................ X X
Hexavalent chromium reduction \2\........... X X
Multiple-stage pH control for metals X X
precipitation..............................
Clarification............................... X X
Sludge dewatering........................... X X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applies to sites with sulfuric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid baths
for stainless products.
\2\ For sites with hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.
[[Page 81994]]
Table V.C.6-2 Cost Of Implementation For Steel Finishing
[in millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-------------------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon and Alloy Steels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills........................................................... 51 31
Capital costs............................................................. 16.0 6.0
Annual O&M costs.......................................................... 2.5 1.2
One-time costs............................................................ 1.6 0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-------------------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills........................................................... 18 14
Capital costs............................................................. 16.4 4.0
Annual O&M costs.......................................................... (1.1) 0.2
One-time costs............................................................ 0.8 0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) denotes cost savings due to acid purification.
Table V.C.6-3 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Steel Finishing
[in million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants 2.8 ...........
(TSS and O&G)................................
Removal of Non-Conventionals.................. 0.24 0.0017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options
-------------------------
BAT-1 PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants 0.72 ...........
(TSS and O&G)................................
Removal of Non-Conventionals.................. 14 0.031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA estimated that carbon and alloy
steel operations directly discharge approximately 4.6 million pounds of
conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G). Carbon and alloy steel
operations discharge approximately 1.7 million pounds of total priority
and non-conventional pollutants directly and approximately 0.017
million pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
The technical basis of the current BAT limitations consists of
recycle of fume scrubber water, a diversion tank, oil/water separation,
equalization, hexavalent chrome reduction (where applicable), metals
precipitation, clarification, and sludge dewatering. The technical
basis for BAT-1 is the same as that for the existing BAT limitations,
but with the addition of counter-current rinsing. BAT-1 also reflects
significant improvements in design and operation that have occurred in
the industry, which result in lower flow and reduced discharge of
pollutants of concerns. EPA intended to evaluate a second BAT option,
building on this foundation by including mixed-media filtration.
However, EPA did not pursue the option because all significant POCs in
the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist
at levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-on
technology. EPA considered zero discharge of regulated pollutants as a
third BAT option, since certain facilities have demonstrated the
ability to achieve zero discharge. These facilities generally have low
production rates and are achieving zero discharge by off-site disposal
of a small quantity of wastewater. EPA's data indicates that zero
discharge would not be economically achievable for low production
facilities as a whole, since availability of affordable off-site
hauling and disposal may not be certain, and therefore proposes not to
further subcategorize this segment. Zero discharge through off-site
disposal would also be cost prohibitive for larger facilities.
EPA estimates that, under BAT-1, flow from the Carbon and Alloy
segment of the Steel Finishing subcategory would decrease by 59%, and
the amount of toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged would
decrease by 14%.
[[Page 81995]]
ii. PSES
The technology basis for the current PSES for steel finishing is
the same as that for the current BAT. The PSES-1 technology is the same
as the BAT-1 technology. This technology option would control the
pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX. EPA estimates
that, under PSES-1, flow from this segment of the Steel Finishing
subcategory would decrease by 30%, and the amount of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other
treatment technologies are demonstrated (since availability of
affordable off-site hauling and disposal may not be certain.)
Therefore, all technology options presented in Table V.C.6-1 as BAT or
PSES options also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel operations discharge directly
approximately 1.2 million pounds of total conventional pollutants (TSS
and O&G). Stainless steel operations discharge directly approximately
31 million pounds of total priority and non-conventional pollutants and
approximately 0.31 million pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
Like the Carbon & Alloy segment of the Steel Finishing subcategory,
the technology basis of the BAT limitations currently applicable to
Stainless Steel mills consists of recycle of fume scrubber water, a
diversion tank, oil/water separation, equalization, hexavalent chrome
reduction (where applicable), metals precipitation, clarification, and
sludge dewatering. The technical basis for BAT-1 of the Stainless
segment is the same as that for the current BAT limitations, but with
the addition of counter-current rinsing and acid purification units.
BAT-1 also reflects significant improvements in design and operation
that have occurred in the industry, which result in lower flow and
reduced discharge of pollutants of concern. EPA intended to evaluate a
second BAT option, building on this foundation by including mixed-media
filtration. However, EPA did not pursue the option because all
significant POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are
projected to exist at levels too low to be further treated by this or
any other add-on technology. EPA considered zero discharge of regulated
pollutants as a third BAT option, since certain facilities have
demonstrated the ability to achieve zero discharge. EPA's data
indicates that zero discharge would not be economically achievable for
low production facilities as a whole, since availability of affordable
off-site hauling and disposal may not be certain, and therefore
proposes not to further subcategorize this segment. Zero discharge
through off-site disposal would be cost prohibitive for larger
facilities.
EPA estimates that, under BAT-1, flow from this segment of the
Steel Finishing subcategory would decrease by 47%, and the amount of
toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 45%.
EPA did not perform a detailed pollutant removal or costing analysis
for BAT-2 because data indicated that mixed-media filtration achieved
no projected pollutant reduction beyond that seen at well-operated
facilities with BAT-1.
ii. PSES
The technology basis for the current PSES for steel finishing is
the same as that for the current BAT. The PSES-1 technology is the same
as the BAT-1 technology. This technology option would control the
pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX. EPA estimates
that, under PSES-1, flow from the stainless segment of the Steel
Finishing subcategory would decrease by 23%, and the amount of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other
treatment technologies are demonstrated. EPA's data indicates that zero
discharge would not be economically achievable for low production
facilities as a whole, since availability of affordable off-site
hauling and disposal may not be certain. Zero discharge through off-
site disposal would be cost prohibitive for larger facilities.
Therefore, all technology options presented in Table V.C.6-1 as BAT or
PSES options also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
7. Other Operations
The Agency considered BPT and PSES technologies for treatment of
wastewater from three segments of this subcategory: Briquetting,
Direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI), and Forging operations. There are no
existing BPT limitations for these operations.
a. Briquetting. Briquetting facilities do not generate process
wastewater; therefore, BPT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS technology options for
briquetting are those that result in zero discharge.
b. DRI. EPA identified one option for this segment, BPT/BCT-1,
which consists of solids removal, clarifier, and high rate recycle with
filtration for blowdown wastewater. EPA did not identify a separate BCT
technology because nothing more advanced that the BPT technology was
cost-reasonable as required by statute. The Agency did not identify BAT
limits since the only POCs for the DRI segment are conventionals. Table
V.C.7-1 presents the option considered for DRI, Table V.C.7-2 presents
the associated costs, and Table V.C.7-3 presents the associated
pollutant reduction estimates. The Agency does not present pollutant
removal or costing results for DRI facilities, because there are only
two mills in this segment and data aggregation or other masking
techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed
as confidential business information.
Table V.C.7-1 Direct-reduced Ironmaking BPT/BCT Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
Treatment units -------------
BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with classifier and clarifier.............. X
Cooling tower............................................. X
Sludge dewatering......................................... X
High-rate recycle......................................... X
Blowdown treatment:
Mixed-media filtration................................ X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.C.7-2 Cost of Implementation for Direct-reduced Ironmaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
option
-------------
BPT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills........................................... 2
Capital costs............................................. *
Annual O&M costs.......................................... *
One-time costs............................................ *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to
protect confidential business information.
[[Page 81996]]
Table V.C.7-3 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Direct-reduced
Ironmaking
[In pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
-------------
BPT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conventionals (TSS and O&G as HEM).................. *
Reduction of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants..... *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to
protect confidential business information.
c. Forging. For forging operations, EPA estimated that sites
discharge approximately 1,100 pounds of O&G directly. EPA identified
one option for this segment, BPT/BCT, which is an oil/water separator.
EPA did not identify a separate BCT technology because nothing more
advanced that the BPT technology was cost-reasonable as required by
statute. The Agency did not identify BAT limits since the only POCs for
the forging segment are conventionals. Table V.C.7-4 presents the
option considered for forging, Table V.C.7-5 presents the associated
costs, and Table V.C.7-6 presents the associated pollutant reduction
estimates.
i. BPT/BCT
EPA estimates that there will be a reduction of O&G of 40% from
direct discharging forging operations as a result of implementation of
this BPT/BCT option. See Section V.B for discussion of why EPA
concludes that facilities can achieve pollutant reduction without
incurring capital or O&M costs.
ii. PSES
EPA is not proposing PSES for the forging segment because EPA
determined that pollutants present in forging wastewaters do not pass
through.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
Since no other treatment technologies have been demonstrated, EPA
identifies the same technology basis for NSPS as would be used for BPT.
EPA is not identifying PSNS because EPA determined that pollutants
present in forging wastewaters do not pass through.
Table V.C.7-4 Forging Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
Treatment units -------------
BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-rate recycle......................................... X
Blowdown treatment:
Oil/water separator................................... X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.C.7-5 Cost Of Implementation for Forging
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
-------------
BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills........................................... 8
Capital costs............................................. 0
Annual O&M costs.......................................... 0
One-time costs............................................ 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.C.7-6 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Forging
[in pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
options
-------------
BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conventionals (O&G as HEM).......................... 440
Reduction of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants..... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction and Overview
This section describes the capital investment and annualized costs
of compliance with the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the iron and steel industry and the potential impacts of
these compliance costs on the industry. EPA's economic assessment is
presented in detail in the report titled ``Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Iron and
Steel Manufacturing'' (hereafter ``EA'') and in the rulemaking record.
The EA estimates the economic effect of compliance costs on subcategory
operations at a site, the combined cost for all subcategory operations
at a site for selected cost combinations, aggregate costs for all sites
owned by each company, impacts on employment and output, domestic and
international markets, and environmental justice issues. EPA also
conducted a small business analysis, which estimates effects on small
entities, and a cost-effectiveness analysis of all evaluated options.
B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry and Baseline
Conditions
The United States is the third largest steel producer in the world
with 12 percent of the market, an annual output of approximately 105
million tons per year, and nearly 145,000 employees. Major markets for
steel are service centers and the automotive and construction
industries. A service center is an operation that buys finished steel,
processes it in some way, and then sells it. Together these three
markets account for about 58 percent of steel shipments. The remaining
42 percent is dispersed over a wide range of products and activities,
such as agricultural, industrial, and electrical machinery; cans and
barrels; and appliances. The building of ships, aircraft, and railways
and other forms of transport is included in this group as well.
The iron and steel rulemaking includes sites within the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 324199 (coke
ovens, now part of ``All other petroleum and coal product
manufacturing''), 331111 (iron and steel mills), 331210 (steel pipes
and tubes), and 331221 (cold finishing of steel shapes). The iron and
steel and metal products and machinery effluent guideline rulemakings
both may have sites in the last two NAICS codes. Section III.C
describes the dividing line between sites with iron and steel
operations and sites with metal products and machinery operations.
The iron and steel effluent guideline would apply to approximately
254 iron and steel sites. Of these 254 sites, approximately 216 can be
analyzed for post-regulatory compliance impacts at the site level. the
remaining 38 sites, 13 did not report data at the site level, and 15
could not be analyzed due to being jointly owned sites or foreign owned
sites or newly constructed sites, and 10 were in poor financial health
prior to the regulation and are treated as closures under the
prevailing baseline conditions. Approximately 60 sites are owned by
small business entities.
The 254 sites are owned by 115 companies, as estimated by the EPA
survey. The global nature of the industry is illustrated by the fact
that 18 companies have foreign ownership. Twelve other companies are
joint entities with at least one U.S. company partner. Excluding joint
entities and foreign ownership, the data base contains 85 U.S.
companies, more than half of which are privately owned. Responses to
the EPA survey are the only sources of financial information for these
privately-held firms.
[[Page 81997]]
The EPA survey collected financial data for the 1995-1997 time
period (the most recent data available at the time of the survey). This
three-year time frame marks a period of high exports (six to eight
million tons per year). This high point in the business cycle allowed
companies to replenish retained earnings, retire debt, and take other
steps to reflect this prosperity in their financial statements. Even
so, an initial analysis of the pre-regulatory condition of 115
companies in the EPA survey indicated that 27 of them would be
considered ``financially distressed'' for reasons ranging from start-up
companies and joint ventures to established firms that still showed
losses.
The financial situation changed dramatically between 1997 and 1998
due to the Asian financial crisis and slow economic growth in Eastern
Europe. The following analysis of economic conditions occurring after
the 1995-1997 time frame is based upon sources such as trade journal
reports, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, and trade
case filings with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S.
International Trade Commission (ITC).
When these countries' currencies fell in value, their steel
products fell in price relative to U.S. producers. While the U.S. is
and has been the world's largest steel importer (and a net importer for
the last two decades), the U.S. was nearly the only viable steel market
to which other countries could export during 1998. U.S. imports jumped
by 13.3 million tons from 41 million to 54.3 million tons--a 32 percent
increase--from 1997 to 1998. About one out of every four tons of steel
consumed in 1998 was imported. At least partly due to increased
competition from foreign steel mills, the financial health of the
domestic iron and steel industry also experienced a steep decline after
1997. This decline is not reflected in the survey responses to the
questionnaire, which covered the years 1995 through 1997 and which were
the most recent data available at the time the questionnaire was
administered in 1998. Based upon publically available sources, EPA
learned that, after 1997, at least four companies went into Chapter 11
bankruptcy while at least four additional companies merged with
healthier ones.
The flood of imports affected the industry disproportionately.
Integrated steelmakers manufacture semi-finished and intermediate
products, such as slabs and hot rolled sheet, as well as finished
products, such as cold rolled sheet and plate. Integrated steelmakers
were hurt most severely during 1998, as imports increased dramatically
across most of their product line (for example, slabs, hot rolled sheet
and strip, plate, and cold rolled sheet and strip). Mini-mills suffered
as well, albeit to a lesser extent financially. The low-priced imports,
however, benefitted some companies that purchase semi-finished and
intermediate products for further processing.
The industry filed numerous countervailing duty and antidumping
cases with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. ITC charging
various countries (for example, Japan, Russia, Brazil) with unfair
trade practices concerning carbon and stainless steel products. The ITC
found for the U.S. industry in some cases (for example, hot rolled
carbon sheet, carbon plate, stainless plate) meaning that it determined
that the domestic industry was materially injured or threatened with
material injury by the imports. In the case of Russia, the threat of
trade remedies was sufficient to have Russia agree to voluntarily limit
exports of a variety of steel products to the U.S.
The Clinton administration launched an initiative to address the
economic concerns of the steel industry in 1999. The Steel Action Plan
includes initiatives focused on eliminating unfair trade practices that
support excess capacity, enhanced trade monitoring and assessment, and
maintenance of strong trade laws. Further in a separate action on
August 17, 1999, President Clinton signed into law an act providing
authority for guarantees of loans to qualified steel companies. The
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-51) established
the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program (13 CFR part 400) for
guaranteeing loans made by private sector lending institutions to
qualified steel companies. The Program will provide guarantees for up
to $1 billion in loans to qualified steel companies. These loans will
be made by private sector lenders, with the Federal Government
providing a guarantee for up to 85 percent of the amount of the
principal of the loan. A qualified steel company is defined in the Act
to mean: any company that is incorporated under the laws of any state,
is engaged in the production and manufacture of a product defined by
the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill product,
and has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses
since January 1998 or that operates substantial assets of a company
that meets these qualifications. Certain determinations must be made in
order to guarantee a loan, including that credit is not otherwise
available to a qualified steel company under reasonable terms or
conditions sufficient to meet its financing needs, that the prospective
earning power of the qualified company together with the character and
value of the security pledged must furnish reasonable assurance of
repayment of the loan to be guaranteed, and that the loan must bear
interest at a reasonable rate. All loans guaranteed under this Program
must be paid in full not later than December 31, 2005 and the aggregate
amount of loans guaranteed with respect to a single qualified steel
company may not exceed $250 million. According to a March 1, 2000 press
release from U.S. Department of Commerce, thirteen companies have
applied for loan guarantees totaling $ 901 million.
C. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Introduction
This section (and, in more detail, the EA and record for the
proposed rule) evaluates several measures of economic impacts that
result from the estimated compliance costs. The analysis in the EA
consists of nine major components: (1) An assessment of the number of
facilities that could be affected by this rule; (2) an estimate of the
annualized aggregate cost for these facilities to comply with the rule
using site-level capital, one-time non-capital, and annual operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs; (3 and 4) two separate site-level closure
analyses to evaluate the impacts of compliance costs for operations in
individual subcategories at the site and for the combined cost of the
options for all subcategories at the site; (5) an evaluation of the
corporate financial distress incurred by the companies in the industry
as a result of combined compliance costs for all sites owned by the
company; (6) an industry-wide market analysis of the impacts of the
compliance costs; (7) an evaluation of secondary impacts such as those
on employment and economic output; (8) an analysis of the effects of
compliance costs on small entities; and (9) a cost-benefit analysis
pursuant to E.O. 12866.
All costs are reported in this section of the preamble in 1999
dollars, with the exception of cost-effectiveness results, which, by
convention, are reported in 1981 dollars. The primary source of data
for the economic analysis is the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel
Industry Data (Section 308 Survey). Other sources include government
data from the Bureau of the Census, industry trade journals, and EPA's
Development Document for this rulemaking.
[[Page 81998]]
2. Methodology Overview
The starting point for the economic analysis is the cost
annualization model, which uses site-specific cost data and other
inputs to determine the annualized capital, one-time non-capital, and
O&M costs of improved wastewater treatment. This model uses these costs
along with the company-specific real cost of capital (discount rate)
and corporate tax rate over a 16-year analytic time frame to generate
the annual cost of compliance for each option EPA considered. EPA based
the 16-year time frame for analysis on the depreciable life for
equipment of this type--15 years according to Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) rules--plus a mid-year convention for putting the new equipment
in operation (i.e., six months between purchase, installation and
operation). The model generates the present value and annualized post-
tax cost for each option for each site in the survey, which are then
used in the subcategory, site, and company analyses, discussed below.
In the base case, the Agency adopts an assumption of zero ``cost pass-
through'' of compliance costs. The Agency also estimates a ``cost pass-
through'' factor from the market model discussed below and uses the
result to examine the sensitivity of the impact analysis to the ``cost
pass-through'' assumption.
In the subcategory analysis, EPA models the economic impacts of
regulatory costs from individual subcategories on a site. The site
analysis evaluates the combined costs on the profitability of the site.
In both, the model compares the present value of forecasted cash flow
over 16 years with the present value of the regulatory option over the
same 16-year period. If the present value of the regulatory costs
exceeds that of the projected cash flow, it does not make financial
sense to upgrade the site. That is, if the present value of projected
cash flow is positive before, but negative after, the incurrence of
regulatory costs, the site is presumed to close. the analysis, cash
flow at the site-level is defined as the sum of net income and
depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in evaluating
capital investment decisions because both net income and depreciation
(which is an accounting offset against income, but not an actual cash
expenditure) are potentially available to finance future investment.
However, assuming that total cash flow is available over an extended
time horizon (for example, 15 years) to finance investments related to
environmental compliance could overstate a site's ability to comply.
EPA requests comment (see Section XIV for an amplified discussion) on
its use of cash flow as a measure of resources available to finance
environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies.
EPA developed three forecasting models for the iron and steel
industry. None of these methods assume any growth in real terms and are
calculated in terms of constant 1997 dollars. This conservative
approach precludes any site from ``growing'' its way out of financial
difficulties imposed by the regulation. Site-specific data are only
available for 1995 to 1997. The period form 1998 to 2001 is the
rulemaking period and the forecasting methods begin. Promulgation is
scheduled for 2002; this is taken as the first year of implementation
and the beginning of the 16-year period over which to consider the
regulatory impact on projected earnings. The first two models
explicitly address the sharp downturn in the industry after 1997 but
differ in the strength and duration of recovery and subsequent
downturns. That is, both address the cyclicality seen in the iron and
steel industry, but with differing magnitudes and timing. The third
forecasting method is a three-year average (1995 through 1997) to
provide an ``upper bound'' analysis.
EPA calculates the post-regulatory status of a site as the present
value of forecasted earnings minus the after-tax present value of
regulatory costs. With three forecasting methods, there are three ways
to evaluate each site. If a site's post-regulatory status is less than
zero, EPA assigned a score of ``1'' for that forecasting method. A
site, then, may have a score ranging from zero to three. Closure is the
most severe and irrecoverable impact for the site. Such a decision is
not made lightly. A business would examine a site's future in several
ways and would likely make a determination to close a site only when
the weight of evidence so indicated. EPA followed the same decision-
making logic; a score of 2 or 3 is interpreted to identify the long-
term non-viability of the site.
EPA could not perform an economic analysis of a number of sites at
the subcategory and site levels, even though the annualized costs were
calculated. these sites, the analysis defaults to the company level. A
site may be in this category for several reasons: It is a cost center;
it is a ``captive'' site that exists primarily to produce products
transferred to other sites under the same ownership; components for the
analysis are not recorded on the site's books, only those of the
company; or the site's cash flow is negative for at least two years
(sufficient to project a negative present value for earnings).
Consistent with OMB guidance, EPA estimated postcompliance closures by
counting projected closures due solely to the effect of the proposed
rule. Direct impacts, such as loss in employment, revenues, production,
and (possibly) exports are calculated from projected closures.
EPA evaluated many methods to estimate corporate financial distress
reported in the economic literature of the last ten years and chose the
``Altman's Z''' model. This well-known and well-tested model was
developed to analyze the financial health of both private and public
manufacturing firms. It is based on empirical data and creates a
weighted average of financial ratios, thus avoiding the difficulty in
interpreting multiple ratios with differing implications for financial
health. The single index, Z', is compared against the ranges developed
by Altman to indicate ``good,'' ``indeterminate,'' and ``distressed''
financial conditions. EPA examines 1997 financial data (the most recent
collected in the survey) to estimate the pre-regulatory company
conditions. EPA then aggregates costs for all sites belonging to that
company. EPA recalculates Altman's Z' after incorporating the effects
of the pollution control compliance costs into the income statement and
balance sheet for the company. All companies whose ``Altman's Z' ''
score changes such that the company goes from a ``good'' or
``indeterminate'' baseline category to a ``distressed'' postcompliance
category are classified as impacted. Such companies may have
significant difficulties raising the capital needed to comply with the
proposed rule, which can indicate the likelihood of bankruptcy, loss of
financial independence, or shedding of assets.
EPA uses input-output analyses to determine the effects of the
regulation using national-level employment and output multipliers.
Input-output multipliers allow EPA to estimate the effect of a loss in
output in the iron and steel industry on the U.S. economy as a whole.
Every projected closure has direct impacts in lost employment and
output. These direct losses also have repercussions throughout the rest
of the economy and the input-output multipliers allow EPA to calculate
the national losses in output and employment based on the direct
impacts.
EPA also determines the impacts on regional-level employment. The
increase in metropolitan statistical area (MSA) unemployment level, or
county if
[[Page 81999]]
non-metropolitan, is calculated for each MSA or county in which there
is at least one projected closure.
EPA investigated the industry-wide market effects of the
regulation. EPA performed a 3-stage non-linear least-squares
econometric estimation of a single-product translog cost model based on
20 years of U.S. Census and industry data. The market supply
relationship is derived from the cost function and accounts for the
effect of imperfect competition in the steel market. The model also
incorporates international trade. The model estimates the supply shift,
and the resulting changes in: domestic price, domestic consumption,
export demand, and import supply. The model results may be used to
estimate a ``cost pass-through'' factor indicating the portion of the
increased cost that the iron and steel industry can pass through to the
customers.
D. Economic Costs and Impacts of Technology Options by Subcategory
In this section, EPA presents the capital costs and post-tax total
annualized costs for each technology option in each subcategory. As
discussed above in Section VI.C.2, the cost annualization model derives
total post-tax annualized costs from site-specific capital costs, one-
time noncapital costs, and operating and maintenance costs, but only
capital costs are reported here. a detailed presentation of all costing
information, see Section V. As noted in Section VI.B, ten facilities
are projected to close under baseline conditions and are not included
further in the economic analysis. this reason, the costs and removals
reported in Section VI. will differ from the results reported in the
engineering analysis in Section V.
The Agency evaluates the first stage of the impact analysis by
projecting the impacts associated with the regulatory costs for a
single subcategory (or segment) at a site. example, a fully integrated
facility may have cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, hot
forming and finishing operations, but the postcompliance cash flow
analysis only reflects the regulatory costs associated with a single
subcategory. This stage of the analysis serves as a screening mechanism
for potentially significant impacts for facilities which may be
impacted by options in multiple subcategories. Alternatively, for any
facility with operations in a single subcategory such as a stand-alone
coke plant, this stage represents the complete facility level analysis.
1. Cokemaking
a. By-product Cokemaking.
i. BAT. The regulatory compliance costs associated with BAT options
1 and 2 for by-product cokemaking are not projected to result in any
postcompliance facility closures. The regulatory compliance costs
associated with BAT Options 3 and 4 are projected to result in one
postcompliance closure, with a potential job loss of less than 500 full
time equivalent employees (FTEs).
Table VI.D.1 BAT Options, Costs, and Impacts for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
OPTION Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... $8.3 $1.0 0/0
2.................................... 12.9 4.1 0/0
3.................................... 35.8 7.2 1/500
4.................................... 56.1 12.2 1/500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. PSES. The regulatory compliance costs associated with PSES
options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not projected to result in any
postcompliance closures.
Table VI.D.2 PSES Options, Costs, and Impacts for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
OPTION Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... $0.0 $0.2 0/0
2.................................... 6.2 1.8 0/0
3.................................... 19.3 4.1 0/0
4.................................... 33.4 6.7 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
b. Non-recovery Cokemaking. i. BAT and PSES. The technology option
for both BAT and PSES is zero discharge. No compliance costs are
associated with these options as all existing sources currently meet
the zero discharge requirement. Since there are no compliance costs,
there are no impacts resulting from the BAT and PSES option.
ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology option EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
No compliance costs are associated with the zero discharge option, just
as in the case of existing sources. Likewise, no impacts are projected
to result from the new source requirements, just as in the case of
existing sources.
[[Page 82000]]
2. Ironmaking
a. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs associated with
the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to result in any
postcompliance closures. The Agency does not separately present costs
for direct and indirect dischargers, because there are less than 3
indirect dischargers and data aggregation or other masking techniques
are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as
confidential business information.
Table VI.D.3 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Ironmaking Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax Total Impacts
Pre-tax Capital cost Annualized Cost (1999 $ -------------------------
(1999 $ M) M) Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES...................... $26.8 $4.5 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
3. Integrated Steelmaking
a. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs associated with
the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to result in any
postcompliance closures. The Agency does not separately present costs
for direct and indirect dischargers, because there are less than 3
indirect dischargers and data aggregation or other masking techniques
are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as
confidential business information.
Table VI.D.4 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Integrated Steelmaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax Total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ -------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES...................... $17.5 $3.6 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
4. Integrated and Stand-alone Hot ming
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance
costs associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not
projected to result in any postcompliance closures.
Table VI.D.5 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Integrated and Hot ming, Carbon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax Total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ -------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................... $116.3 $21.2 0/0
PSES.............................. 0.3 0.1 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs
associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to
result in any postcompliance closures.
Table VI.D.6 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Integrated and Hot ming, Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax Capital cost annualized cost (1999$ -------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT:
PSES.......................... $0.8 $0.1 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 82001]]
ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance
costs associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not
projected to result in any postcompliance closures.
Table VI.D.7.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming, Carbon and Alloy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT.................................. $19.0 $2.8 0/0
PSES................................. 2.6 0.4 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers,
with the addition of a zero discharge option. A substantial number of
recently constructed facilities have been able to achieve zero
discharge. EPA believes the zero discharge new source option would not
present a barrier to entry because as of 1997, a total of 24
nonintegrated facilities of all types have been able to achieve zero
discharge.
b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs
associated with either BAT option and the PSES option are not projected
to result in any postcompliance closures.
Table VI.D.8.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming, Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 1................................ $0.4 $0.1 0/0
BAT 2................................ 3.8 0.7 0/0
PSES................................. 0.0 0.02 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. NSPS and PSES. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers,
with the addition of a zero discharge option. A substantial number of
recently constructed facilities have been able to achieve zero
discharge. EPA believes the zero discharge new source option would not
present a barrier to entry because as of 1997, a total of 24
nonintegrated facilities of all types have been able to achieve zero
discharge.
6. Steel Finishing
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance
costs associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not
projected to result in any postcompliance closures.
Table VI.D.9.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Steel Finishing, Carbon and Alloy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT.................................. $14.8 $2.9 0/0
PSES................................. 6.2 1.7 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
b. Stainless i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs
associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to
result in any postcompliance closures.
[[Page 82002]]
Table VI.D.10.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Steel Finishing, Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT.................................. $15.8 $0.2 0/0
PSES................................. 4.2 0.4 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers.
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
7. Other Operations.
a. Direct Reduced Iron. i. BPT. The regulatory compliance costs
associated with the BPT option are not projected to result in any
postcompliance closures. The Agency does not present costs for direct
dischargers, because there are only 2 direct dischargers in this
segment and data aggregation or other masking techniques are
insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as confidential
business information.
Table VI.D.11.--BPT Costs and Impacts Directed Reduced Iron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT.................................. ....................... ....................... 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. ging. i. BPT. The regulatory compliance costs associated with
the BPT option are not projected to result in any postcompliance
closures.
Table VI.D.12.--BPT Costs and Impacts ging
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total Impacts
Pre-tax capital cost annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
(1999$ M) M) Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT.................................. $0.0 $0.05 0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of Regulatory Options
In this section, the Agency evaluates the second stage of the
impact analysis by projecting the impacts associated with the
regulatory costs for all subcategories affected at a facility or site
(the terms are used interchangeably). example, a fully integrated
facility may have cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, hot
forming and finishing operations, and the postcompliance cash flow
analysis reflects the regulatory costs associated with all affected
operations at the site. This stage of the analysis evaluates the
aggregate regulatory costs and impacts upon each facility, which may be
subject to the proposed rule and incur compliance costs in multiple
subcategories.
The incorporation of the aggregate regulatory costs based upon the
proposed options across all subcategories into the postcompliance cash
flow analysis does not generate any additional projected facility
closures (one facility closure was projected in the first stage of
analysis--see Section VI.D.1). The Agency conducted the facility level
analysis both with and without allowing for potential cost passthrough
and the results are unchanged. The Agency determines the set of
proposed options across all subcategories to be economically
achievable.
F. Firm Level Impacts
In this section, the Agency evaluates the economic impacts of the
regulatory options to the firms that own the facilities potentially
subject to this proposed rule. EPA evaluates the third stage of the
impact analysis by incorporating the regulatory costs borne by each
facility into the financial status of the firm that owns the facility
or multiple facilities. example, if a company owns an integrated
facility, a stand-alone coke facility, and a stand-alone finishing
facility, the aggregate regulatory costs for all three facilities are
added to the baseline or precompliance financial conditions of the firm
as reflected by the firm income statement and balance sheet. The Agency
then calculates the postcompliance Altman Z-score and checks for
changes in financial status from good or indeterminate to distressed
with any such changes to be considered impacts.
In any combination of costs that includes the adoption of the BAT
option for carbon and alloy steel segment of the integrated and stand-
alone hot forming subcategory, the Agency projects the financial health
of at least one multiple facility firm to deteriorate from
indeterminate to financially distressed. A financially distressed
company may have significant difficulties raising the capital needed to
comply with the proposed rule, which can lead to the sale of assets,
likelihood of bankruptcy, or the loss of financial independence. The
one or more firms that are projected to be impacted have a current work
force numbering in the several
[[Page 82003]]
thousands. In contrast, any combination of costs that does not include
adoption of the BAT option for the carbon and alloy steel segment of
the integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory, the Agency
projects no firms to experience an impact.
The Agency projected only one postcompliance facility closure in
the facility-level analysis for the entire proposed rule. This result
indicates the viability of virtually all facilities as going concerns.
The firm level analysis projects at least one firm may be financially
distressed postcompliance. Given the continued viability of virtually
all facilities including those in the carbon and alloy steel segment of
the integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory, EPA expects
that a financially distressed firm would respond to the financial
distress by selling assets. The sale of assets (such as a facility) may
include the continued operation by the purchasing firm, resulting in
limited job losses or secondary impacts. The Agency determines the set
of proposed options across all subcategories to be economically
achievable.
G. Community Impacts
The Agency evaluates community impacts by examining the potential
increase in county or metropolitan statistical area (MSA) unemployment.
The Agency assumes all employees of the affected facilities reside in
the county (if the county is not part of a larger metropolitan area) or
metropolitan area in which the facilities are located. In the case of
the single facility closure/firm associated with the by-product
cokemaking BAT options 3 and 4, the impacts increase the county
unemployment rate by 0.6 percent.
In the case of the BAT option for the carbon and alloy steel
segment of the integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory, the
Agency examines the effects if the one or more firms that become
financially distressed lay off all of its workers, which corresponds to
a worst case scenario. The one or more distressed firms have multiple
facilities in various locations. The Agency assumes all employees of
each affected facility reside in the county or metropolitan area in
which the facility is located. The resulting impacts range from
increasing the metropolitan unemployment rate by less than 0.1
percentage points to increasing the metropolitan unemployment rate by
2.1 percentage points, depending on the size of the affected community,
the size of the affected facility and the prevailing unemployment rate.
Although the Agency recognizes that an increase in community level
unemployment of 2.1 percentage points would be significant, the Agency
believes the actual community impacts associated with the one or more
distressed firms would be much less than the worst case scenario
presented here, given the results of the firm level analysis described
above in Section VI.F and the opportunity for financially distressed
firms to sell, rather than close, a viable facility.
H. eign Trade Impacts
The Agency evaluates the potential for foreign trade impacts by
application of the market model. The aggregate regulatory compliance
costs are incorporated to estimate the postcompliance impacts. If the
proposed set of options is adopted, the analysis indicates 0.23 to 0.25
percent decrease in exports (decreases of $9.2 million to $9.9 million)
and 0.11 to 0.12 percent increase in imports (increases of $7.5 million
to $8.1 million).
I. Small Business Analysis
Based upon information provided in the Collection of 1997 Iron and
Steel Industry Data (Section 308 Survey), the Agency was able to
reasonably determine the appropriate SIC classification for each
company. EPA applied the relevant SBA size standard for each SIC to
determine whether each company was to be considered a small entity. SBA
has recently finalized size standards for each NAICS industry; however,
EPA determined that no companies change classification under the new
NAICs standards. The SIC classifications observed were predominantly
SICs 3312, 3316 and 3317, with a number of other industries also
reported. The relevant size standards varied from 500 to 1500
employees, and included a few revenue based standards. EPA identified
an estimated 34 small entities that may be affected by the rule among
the estimated 115 total companies potentially affected by the rule. EPA
has fully evaluated the economic achievability of the proposed rule to
affected small entities. The economic achievability analysis was
conducted using a discounted cash flow approach for the facility
analysis and the Altman Z test for the firm analysis (for a full
discussion, see Section VI.C.). EPA projects that one small entity (a
firm owning a single facility) may incur an impact such as facility
closure or firm failure. Further, for small entities, EPA examined the
compliance cost to revenue ratio to identify any other potential
impacts of the rule upon small entities. Using the most stringent set
of co-proposed options, EPA has determined that the range is between 0
and 1.91 percent with only three entities experiencing an impact of
greater than 1%.
J. Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Agency estimates the total monetized social costs of the
proposed rule range between $56.5 million and $61.4 million and the
total monetized social benefits range between $1.1 million and $2.7
million.
K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
This section provides the cost-effectiveness analysis of the BAT
and PSES regulatory options by subcategory. The cost-effectiveness
analysis compares the total annualized cost incurred for a regulatory
option to the corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing
the discharge of pollutants.
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency
of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory
option. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of
a pollution control option in an industry subcategory per incremental
pollutant removal. The increments are considered relative to another
option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-
effectiveness analyses, pollutant removals are measured in toxicity
normalized units called ``pound-equivalents.'' The cost-effectiveness
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing an additional
pound-equivalent (lb. eq.) of pollutants. In general, the lower the
cost-effectiveness value, the more cost-efficient the regulation will
be in removing pollutants, taking into account their toxicity. While
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a
useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis does not take into account the
removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, biochemical
oxygen demand, and total suspended solids).
the cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimated pound-equivalents
of pollutants removed were calculated by multiplying the number of
pounds of each pollutant removed by the toxic weighting factor for each
pollutant. The more toxic the pollutant, the higher will be the
pollutant's toxic weighting factor; accordingly, the use of pound-
equivalents gives correspondingly more weight to pollutants with higher
toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants
removed, the cost per pound-equivalent removed
[[Page 82004]]
would be lower when more highly toxic pollutants are removed than if
pollutants of lesser toxicity are removed. Annual costs for all cost-
effectiveness analyzes are reported in 1981 dollars so that comparisons
of cost-effectiveness may be made with regulations for other industries
that were issued at different times.
1. Cokemaking
a. By-product Cokemaking. i. BAT. The first three BAT options for
this segment display significant incremental pollutant reductions (as
measured in lb-equivalents). BAT option 4 results in very limited
additional pollutant removals beyond BAT option 3 with very substantial
increases in capital and total annualized costs.
Table VI.K.1 BAT Removals and Cost-Effectiveness for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Incremental
annualized Removals (lb- cost Average cost
OPTION cost (1999$ eq) effectiveness effectiveness
M) (1981$/lb-eq) (1981$/lb-eq);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... $0.9 56,300 $10 $10
2............................................... 4.4 71,200 134 36
3............................................... 8.9 147,600 35 35
4............................................... 15.8 147,700 38,300 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. PSES. All PSES options result in significant removals with PSES
option 1 imposing very low incremental costs, PSES option 2 imposing
moderate incremental costs, PSES option 3 providing very substantial
removals with relatively modest incremental costs, and PSES option 4
providing limited additional removals with higher incremental costs.
Table VI.K.2 PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Incremental
annualized Removals (lb- cost Average cost
OPTION cost (1999$ eq) effectiveness effectiveness
M) (1981$/lb-eq) (1981$/lb-eq);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... $0.3 3,400 $52 $52
2............................................... 2.3 5,600 527 240
3............................................... 5.2 48,500 39 62
4............................................... 8.8 51,400 729 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Non-recovery Cokemaking. i. BAT and PSES. The Agency is
evaluating a technology option for the Non-recovery Cokemaking Segment
which is based on zero discharge for BAT and PSES and is estimated to
have no associated regulatory compliance costs as all existing non-
recovery cokemaking facilities achieve the zero discharge limitation.
As a result, a cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be constructed for
this segment.
2. Ironmaking
a. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option yields substantial
removals with relatively low compliance costs. The Agency does not
separately present results for direct and indirect dischargers, because
there are fewer than 3 indirect dischargers and data aggregation or
other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of
information claimed as confidential business information.
Table VI.K.3 BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness for Ironmaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Incremental
annualized Removals (lb- cost
cost (1999$ eq) effectiveness
M) (1981$/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES.................................................... $5.6 63,200 $52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Integrated Steelmaking
a. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option yields substantial
removals with relatively low compliance costs. The Agency does not
separately present results for direct and indirect dischargers, because
there are less than 3 indirect dischargers and data aggregation or
other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of
information claimed as confidential business information.
[[Page 82005]]
Table VI.K.4--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost Effectiveness for
Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Incremental
total cost
annualized Removals effectiveness
cost (lb-eq) (1981 $/lb-
(1999$ M) eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES................... $5.0 102,600 $29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option
yields substantial removals with moderate compliance costs. The
evaluated PSES option yields very limited removals with a relatively
low costs.
Table VI.K.5--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Integrated
and Stand-Alone Hot ming, Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
total Incremental
annualized Removals cost
cost (1999$ (lb-eq) effectiveness
M) (1981$/lb-eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................ $28.6 87,200 $191
PSES........................... 0.1 100 319
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. There were no directly discharging
facilities identified in the EPA survey. The evaluated PSES option
yields extremely limited removals with a relatively low costs.
5. Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES The evaluated BAT option
yields substantial removals with relatively low compliance costs. The
evaluated PSES option yields very small removals with modest compliance
costs.
Table VI.K.6--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Integrated
and Stand-alone Hot ming, Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
total Incremental
annualized Removals cost
cost (1999$ (lb-eq) effectiveness
M) (1981$/lb-eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................
PSES........................... $0.2 10 $12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option
yields substantial removals with relatively low compliance costs. The
evaluated PSES option yields very small removals with modest compliance
costs.
Table VI.K.7--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness,
Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot ming, Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Incremental
total cost
annualized Removals effectiveness
cost (lb-eq) (1981 $/lb-
(1999$ M) eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................ $4.2 39,100 $62
PSES........................... 0.6 40 9,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Stainless.s i. BAT and PSES.
The evaluated BAT 1 and PSES 1 options both yield substantial
removals with relatively low compliance costs, while the BAT 2 options
yields very limited removals with substantial costs.
[[Page 82006]]
Table VI.K.8--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness Nonintegrated
Steelmaking and Hot ming, Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Cost
total effectiveness
annualized Removals (1981 $/lb-
cost (lb-eq) eq)
(1999$ M) incremental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 1.......................... $0.1 1,873 $35
BAT 2.......................... 0.9 1,874 440,000
PSES 1......................... 0.03 1,501 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Steel Finishing
a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES.
The evaluated BAT option yields substantial removals with
relatively low compliance costs. The evaluated PSES option yields very
small removals with modest compliance costs.
Table VI.K.9--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Steel
Finishing, Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Incremental
total cost
annualized Removals effectiveness
cost (lb-eq) (1981 $/lb-
(1999$ M) eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................ $3.5 16,600 $126
PSES........................... 1.9 400 2,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Stainless.
i. BAT and PSES
The evaluated BAT option yields substantial removals with very low
compliance costs. The evaluated PSES option yields limited removals
with modest compliance costs.
Table VI.K.10--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Steel
Finishing, Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Incremental
total cost
annualized Removals effectiveness
cost (lb-eq) (1981 $/lb-
(1999$ M) eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................ $0.2 69,700 $2
PSES........................... 0.6 650 525
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Other Operations
The Agency is evaluating technology options for Direct Reduced
Ironmaking and ging segments for the control of only conventional
parameters at BPT (see Section VI.L). The Agency is evaluating a
technology option for the Briquetting Segment which is based on zero
discharge and is estimated to have no associated regulatory compliance
costs. As a result, a cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be constructed
for these segments.
L. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis
As stated in Section VI.K, the Agency is evaluating technology
options for the Direct Reduced Ironmaking and ging segments of the
Other Operations Subcategory for the control of only conventional
parameters at BPT. CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining BPT
limitations, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved by such
technology. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt
BPT limitations that are achievable with available technology unless
the required additional reductions are wholly out of proportion to the
costs of achieving such marginal reduction.
The cost-reasonableness ratio is average cost per pound of
pollutant removed by a BPT regulatory option. The cost component is
measured as pre-tax total annualized costs (1999$). In this case, the
pollutants removed are conventional pollutants although in some cases,
removals may include priority and nonconventional pollutants. the
Direct Reduced Ironmaking segment, the evaluated BPT option 1 removes
approximately 800 pounds of conventional pollutants with a cost-
reasonableness ratio of $6. the ging segment, the evaluated BPT option
1 removes approximately 500 pounds of conventional pollutants with a
cost-reasonableness ratio of $15. EPA considers the cost-reasonableness
ratio to be acceptable and the proposed option to be cost-reasonable in
both segments.
VII. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the
discharges of 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants from iron and
steel facilities to surface waters and POTWs in national analyses of
direct and indirect discharges. A total of 125 analytes were found in
iron and steel effluents. Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or
toxicity profiles are established for 60 of those analytes. Discharges
of these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter
aquatic habitats,
[[Page 82007]]
adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact human health
through the consumption of 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
methods of disposal for sewage sludge and the POTW's costs (though, as
noted below, there is no evidence of this for this sector). Most of
these pollutants have at least one known 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.
The Agency did not evaluate the effects of conventional pollutants
discharged from iron and steel mills on aquatic life and human health
because of a lack of quantitative AWQC. EPA did not evaluate the
effects of conventional pollutants on POTWs because POTWs are designed
to treat these pollutants. However, the discharge of a conventional
pollutant such as total suspended solids (TSS) or oil & grease can have
adverse effects on aquatic life and the environment. example, habitat
degradation can result from increased suspended particulate matter that
reduces light penetration, and thus primary productivity, or from
accumulation of suspended particles that alter benthic spawning grounds
and feeding habitats.
Oil and grease produce toxic effects on aquatic organisms (i.e.,
fish, crustacea, larvae and eggs, gastropods, bivalves, invertebrates,
and flora). The marine larvae and benthic invertebrates, appear to be
the most intolerant of petroleum products, particularly the water-
soluble compounds, at concentrations ranging from 0.1 ppm to 25 ppm and
1 ppm to 6,100 ppm, respectively. However, since oil and grease is not
a definitive chemical category, but instead includes many organic
compounds with varying physical, chemical, and toxicological
properties, it is difficult for EPA to establish a numerical criterion
which would be applicable to all types of oil and grease. this reason,
EPA does not model the effects of oil and grease on the environment.
Of a total of 254 iron and steel facilities, EPA evaluated 150
facilities, of which 103 are direct wastewater dischargers that
discharge up to 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams and 47 are
indirect wastewater dischargers discharging up to 60 pollutants to 43
receiving streams. EPA did not evaluate 56 facilities with zero
discharge or 48 facilities for which EPA had insufficient data to
conduct the water quality analysis. To estimate some of the benefits
from the improvements in water quality expected to result from this
rule, instream concentration estimates are modeled and then compared to
aquatic life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC)
guidance documents published by EPA or to toxic effect levels. States
often consult these water quality criteria guidance documents when
adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality
standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria may vary, for
this analysis EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the
representative values for the particular pollutants. EPA also modeled
the effects of iron and steel discharges on POTWs. Results of the of
the 150 facilities were extrapolated to the national level of 198
direct and indirect dischargers, using the statistical methodology for
estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts.
Since at least 20% of the iron and steel facilities discharge in
multiple waste subcategories, and many waterbody reaches receive
discharges from more than one iron and steel facility, EPA chose to
perform the environmental assessment analyses on a reach-by-reach
basis. The reach-by-reach basis has the advantage over a subcategory-
specific basis in that it more accurately predicts the overall effects
of the rule on the environment.
In addition, EPA reviewed the CWA section 303(d) lists of impaired
waterbodies developed by States in 1998 and noted that at least 17
waterbodies, identified with industrial point sources as a potential
source of impairment, receive direct discharges from iron and steel
facilities (and other sources). EPA also identified 12 waterbodies with
fishing advisories for iron and steel pollutants of concern (mercury)
that receive direct discharges from iron and steel facilities (and
other sources).
EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic
benefits to result from reductions in effluent loadings (see
Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the
Iron and Steel Industry, (Environmental Assessment)). In particular,
the benefits assessment addresses the following benefit categories: (a)
Human health benefits due to reductions in excess cancer cases; (b)
human health benefits due to reductions in lead exposure; (c) human
health benefits due to reductions in noncarcinogenic 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 proposed rule would reduce excess cancer cases by approximately
0.01 per year with estimated monetized benefits of $24,000 to $126,000
($1997). 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 $2.4 million to $12.6 million ($1997).
EPA's SAB recently recommended that VSL's be adjusted downward using a
discount factor to account for latency in cases (such as cancer) where
there is a lag between exposure and mortality. This was not done in the
current analysis because EPA requires more information to estimate
latency periods associated with cancers caused by Iron and Steel
pollutants. example, the risk assessments for several pollutants are
based on data from animal bioassays; these data are not sufficiently
reliable to estimate a latency period for humans. Extrapolating the
results to the national level results in a 0.02 cancer case reduction
and a monetized benefit of $48,000 to $252,000.
B. Reduced Lead Health Risk
the proposed rule, EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface
waters from iron and steel discharges will reduce lead levels in those
waters. Under the proposed treatment levels, the ingestion of lead-
contaminated fish tissues by recreational and subsistence anglers would
be reduced at 79 waterbodies. 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 from reduced adult and
neonatal mortality are also estimated. 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
[[Page 82008]]
estimates that this proposed regulation would reduce cases of these
adverse health effects; the total benefit for these reductions would be
approximately $0.62 to $0.98 million ($1997). Extrapolating the results
to the national level results in monetized benefits of $0.64 to $1.01
million ($1997) due to reduced ingestion of lead-contaminated fish
tissues at 104 waterbodies.
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
proposed 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
noncarcinogenic effects, due to consumption of contaminated fish
tissue, by approximately 900 people for both the sample set and the
national extrapolation of iron and steel facilities. Presently EPA does
not have a methodology for monetizing these benefits.
D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
EPA expects this proposed rule to generate environmental benefits
by improving water quality. There is 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 (intrinsic)
values. 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 affected streams. EPA considers the value of the recreational
fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this proposed
rule, but does not evaluate the other types of ecological and
environmental benefits (e.g., increased assimilative capacity of the
receiving stream, protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that
consume aquatic organisms, and improvements to other recreational
activities, such as swimming, boating, water skiing, and wildlife
observation) due to data limitations.
Modeled end-of-pipe pollutant loadings are estimated to decline by
about 22 percent, from 227 million pounds per year under current
conditions to 177 million pounds per year under this proposed rule
(from 253 million pounds per year down to 198 million pounds per year
on a national level). The analysis comparing modeled instream pollutant
concentration to AWQC estimates that current discharge loadings result
in excursions at 44 streams receiving the discharge from iron and steel
facilities. The proposed rule would reduce excursions to 41 receiving
streams. The number of receiving streams with excursions would be
reduced from 55 to 51 streams at the national level.
EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range
from $188,000 to $671,000 ($1997). Monetized benefits extrapolated to
the national level are $252,000 to $900,000 ($1997). EPA evaluates
these recreational benefits by 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 3 of the 44 receiving streams (4 of the 55
receiving streams on a national level). 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.
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 $94,000 to $336,000 ($1997) for the
sample set and from at least $126,000 to $450,000 ($1997) at the
extrapolated national level. These intrinsic benefits are estimated as
half of the recreational benefits and may be under or overestimated.
E. Effect on POTW Operations
EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this
proposed 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.
EPA has concluded from its analysis that under current conditions
POTW operation and biosolid quality are not significantly affected by
discharges from iron and steel mills. EPA is presently researching
anecdotal evidence from POTW operators to support or refute this
position.
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 considered. 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, at the national
level, resulting from this proposed rule range from $1.07 million to
$2.61 million ($1997). Table VII.F.1 summarizes these benefits, by
category. The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects
of this proposed rule and in placing a dollar value on these effects.
As indicated in Table VII.F.1, these monetized benefits ranges do not
reflect some benefit categories, including improved ecological
conditions from improvements in water quality due to reductions in
conventional pollutants. Therefore, the reported benefit estimate may
understate the total benefits of this proposed rule.
Table VII.F.1--Potential Economic Benefits (National Level)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of 1997 dollars
Benefit category per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk....................... 0.05-0.25
Reduced Lead Health Risk.................. 0.64-1.01
Reduced Noncarcinogenic Hazard............ Unquantified
Improved Ecological Conditions............ Unquantified
Improved Recreational Value............... 0.25-0.90
Improved Intrinsic Value.................. 0.13-0.45
[[Page 82009]]
Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW.... ............................
Improved POTW Operation (inhibition)...... ............................
Reduced Costs at POTWs.................... ............................
Total Monetized Benefits.............. 1.07-2.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts associated with effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. In accordance with these
requirements, EPA has considered the potential impact of today's
technical options on air emissions, solid waste generation, and energy
consumption. While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts
across all media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the
impacts identified below are acceptable in light of the benefits
associated with compliance with the proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.
A. Air Pollution
Various subcategories within the Iron and Steel Industry generate
process waters that contain significant concentrations of organic and
inorganic compounds, some of which are listed as Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs) in Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of
1990. The Agency has developed National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) that address air emissions of HAPs for certain manufacturing
operations. Subcategories within the Iron and Steel industry where
NESHAPs are applicable include cokemaking (58 FR 57898, October 1993)
and steel finishing with chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing
(60 FR 4948, January 1995).
the cokemaking subcategory, maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards are currently being developed by EPA for pushing,
quenching, and battery stacks. Like effluent guidelines, MACT standards
are technology based. The CAA sets maximum control requirements on
which MACT can be based for new and existing sources. By-products
recovery operations in the cokemaking subcategory remove the majority
of HAPs through processes that collect tar, heavy and light oils,
ammonium sulfate and elemental sulfur. Ammonia removal by steam
stripping could generate a potential air quality issue if uncontrolled;
however ammonia stripping operations at cokemaking facilities capture
vapors and convert ammonia to either an inorganic salt or anhydrous
ammonia, or destroy the ammonia.
Biological treatment of cokemaking wastewater can potentially emit
hazardous air pollutants if significant concentrations of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) are present. To estimate the maximum air
emissions from biological treatment, the individual concentrations of
all VOCs in cokemaking wastewater entering the biological treatment
system were multiplied by the maximum design flow and the operational
period reported in the U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel
Industry Data to determine annual VOC loadings to the biological
treatment unit. The concentrations of the individual VOCs entering the
biological treatment system was determined from the sampling episode
data. Assuming all the VOCs entering the biological treatment system
are emitted to the atmosphere (no biological degradation), the maximum
VOC emission rate would be approximately 1,800 pounds per year. See
Technical Development Document, Section 13.
Treatment technology options proposed for integrated and non-
integrated steelmaking operations focus on removal of suspended solids,
dissolved metals and oils from process wastewaters. Under ambient
conditions, the vapor pressure of these pollutants is such that
insignificant volatilization occurs, even with extended atmospheric
contact in open-top treatment units and induced draft cooling towers.
EPA does not project any net increase in air emissions if facilities
employ the proposed model technologies. As such, no adverse air impacts
are expected to occur as a result of the proposed regulations.
B. Solid Waste
Solid waste, including hazardous and nonhazardous sludges and waste
oil, will be generated from a number of the model treatment
technologies used to develop the proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. Solid wastes include sludge from biological
treatment systems, chemical precipitation and clarification systems,
and gravity separation and dissolved air flotation systems. EPA
accounted for the associated costs related to on-site recovery and off-
site treatment and disposal of the solid wastes generated due to the
implementation of the various technology options. These costs were
included in the economic evaluation for the proposed regulation.
Biological nitrification proposed as the technology basis for
ammonia removal from cokemaking wastewaters will produce a biological
treatment sludge that facilities would need to dispose. EPA estimates
that approximately 0.39 million pounds (dry wt.) per year of additional
biological treatment sludge will be generated by the cokemaking
subcategory as a result of lower effluent ammonia limits. The non-
hazardous biological treatment sludges can be disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill, recycled to the coke ovens for incineration, or land applied.
Additional solids captured by roughing clarifiers and sand filters
proposed for recycle water systems within the integrated and non-
integrated steelmaking facilities (blast furnace, sinter plant, BOF,
vacuum degasser, continuous caster, hot forming mill) will account for
an additional 1.8 percent of the solids currently being collected in
scale pits and classifiers. Data provided in the industry surveys
indicates the total annual sludge and scale production from all of
these facilities, including stand-alone hot formers, was approximately
500,000 tons/year (dry weight). Solids removal equipment proposed for
this rule is expected to remove an additional 9,000 tons per year of
dry wastewater treatment sludge.
Sludges generated at steel finishing operations may be classified
as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as
either a listed or characteristic waste based on the following
information:
If the site performs electroplating operations, sludge
from treatment of electroplating wastewater on site is listed as
hazardous waste F006 (40 CFR 260.31).
If the site mixes electroplating wastewaters or sludges
with other wastewaters or sludges generated on site, the resulting
mixture would be a hazardous waste under the RCRA ``mixture rule.'' (40
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).
If the sludge from wastewater treatment exceeds the
standards for the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (i.e. is
hazardous), or exhibits other RCRA-defined hazardous characteristics
(i.e., reactive, corrosive, or flammable) it is considered a
characteristic hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.24).
Additional federal, state, and local regulations may result in
steel finishing
[[Page 82010]]
sludges being classified as a hazardous waste.
Based on information collected during site visits and sampling
episodes to Iron and Steel operations, the Agency believes that some of
the solid waste generated by steel finishing operations would not be
classified as hazardous. However, for the purpose of compliance cost
estimation, the Agency assumed that all solid waste generated as a
result of the technology options would be hazardous. Date provided in
the industry surveys indicates the total annual sludge production from
all steel finishing operations throughout the industry was
approximately 21,000 tons/year (dry weight). Additional sludge
generation from finishing operations resulting from this proposed rule
is approximately 900 tons/year (dry weight).
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that compliance with this proposed regulation would
result in a net increase in energy consumption at Iron and Steel
facilities. The maximum estimated increased energy use by subcategory
are presented in Table VIII-1. The costs associated with these energy
requirements are included in EPA's estimated operating costs for
compliance with the proposed rule. The projected increase in energy
consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of components such as
pumps, mixers, blowers, and fans. the integrated and stand-alone hot
forming mills, the added energy requirements are related to recycle
systems. Electrical equipment in the recycle system includes sand
filters, cooling towers, and recycle pumps to return the treated and
cooled water to the process.
Table VIII-1.--Additional Energy Requirements by Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
required
Subcategory (million
kilowatt
hours/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking Operations...................................... 21.7
Ironmaking Operations...................................... 10.6
Integrated Steelmaking Operations.......................... 7.8
Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Operations............. 170
Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Operations......... 8.4
Steel Finishing Operations................................. 2.0
Other Operations........................................... 0.04
------------
Total.................................................. 220.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 3,100,000 million kilowatt hours of electric power
were generated in the United States in 1997 (Energy Information
Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume 1, Table A1). Total
additional energy needs for all Iron and Steel facilities to comply
with this proposed rule correspond to approximately 0.007% of the
national energy demand. The increase in energy demand due to the
implementation of this proposed rule will in turn cause an air emission
impact from the electric power generation facilities. The increase in
air emissions is expected to be proportional to the increase in energy
requirements.
IX. Options Selected for Proposal
A. Introduction
1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
EPA selects pollutants for regulation based on the following
factors: Applicable Clean Water Act provisions regarding the pollutants
subject to each statutory level; the pollutants of concern identified
for each subcategory; and co-treatment of compatible wastewaters from
different manufacturing operations.
The current regulation requires facilities to maintain the pH
between 6.0 and 9.0 at all times. EPA intends to retain this limitation
and proposes to codify identical pH limitations for previously
unregulated subcategories. EPA also proposes to codify a specific
reference to the general exception codified at 40 CFR 401.17, which
authorizes excursions from the pH range codified in the applicable
effluent limitations guidelines under certain enumerated circumstances.
The pH shall be monitored at the point of discharge from the wastewater
treatment facility to which effluent limitations derived from this part
apply.
EPA selected a subset of pollutants for which to establish
numerical effluent limitations from the list of Pollutants of Concern
(POC) for each regulated subcategory. Section IV.F discusses EPA's
methodology for selecting Pollutants of Concern (POC) and identifies on
a subcategory basis the POCs relevant to this proposal. Generally, a
chemical is considered as a POC if it was detected in untreated process
wastewater at 10 times the minimum level (ML) in more than 10% of the
samples.
Monitoring for all pollutants of concern is not necessary to ensure
that Iron and Steel wastewater pollution is adequately controlled,
since many of the pollutants originate from similar sources, have
similar treatabilities, are removed by similar mechanisms, and treated
to similar levels. Therefore, it may be sufficient to monitor for one
pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of several others.
Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA would
establish numerical effluent limitations and standards. EPA selected a
POC for regulation in a subcategory if it meets all the following
criteria:
With the exception of TRC, chemical is not used as a
treatment chemical in the selected treatment technology option.
Chemical is not considered a non-conventional bulk
parameter.
Chemical is not considered as a volatile compound, e.g.,
generally with Henry's Constant greater than or equal to
1x10-4.
Chemical is effectively treated by the selected treatment
technology option.
Chemical is detected in the untreated wastewater at
treatable levels in a significant number of samples, e.g., generally 10
times the minimum level at more than 10% of the raw wastewater samples.
Chemicals whose control through treatment processes would
lead to control of a wide range of pollutants with similar properties;
these chemicals are generally good indicators of overall wastewater
treatment performance.
Based on the methodology described above, EPA proposes to regulate
pollutants in each subcategory that will ensure adequate control of a
range of pollutants.
a. Clean Water Act. The CWA provides for the limitation of
conventional, non-conventional and toxic pollutants at the following
regulatory levels:
BPT: conventional, non-conventional, toxic
BAT: non-conventional, toxic
NSPS: conventional, non-conventional, toxic
PSES: pass through/interfere or otherwise incompatible with POTW
PSNS: pass through/interfere or otherwise incompatible with POTW
BCT: conventional
b. Pollutants of Concern. Depending on the manufacturing processes,
the wastewater characteristics vary from operation to operation. The
pollutants to be regulated are proposed on a subcategory basis.
c. Co-Treatment of Compatible Wastewaters. Wastewaters from certain
manufacturing operations are compatible for treatment in a single
treatment system. EPA's proposed selection of regulated parameters is
designed to foster co-treatment of compatible wastewaters and to
discourage co-treatment of wastewaters
[[Page 82011]]
which the Agency believes to be incompatible.
Untreated by-product cokemaking process wastewaters contain
relatively high concentrations of ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds,
and several toxic organic compounds including benzene, toluene, xylene
and polynuclear aromatic compounds. The chemical composition of those
wastewaters is unique within the iron and steel industry, as are the
physical/chemical and biological processes typically used to treat
them. Consequently, EPA regards cokemaking wastewaters to be
incompatible with wastewaters from other subcategories. Therefore, the
model technologies EPA proposes and the corresponding limitations are
designed to discourage co-treatment with wastewaters from operations in
other subcategories.
Process wastewaters from the sintering and blast furnace operations
segments of the proposed ironmaking subcategory contain many of the
same pollutants (ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds, toxic metals and
high loadings of suspended solids from wet air pollution control and
gas cleaning operations). They are universally co-treated where sinter
plants with wet air pollution controls are co-located with blast
furnaces. Accordingly, the proposed regulation is structured to
facilitate co-treatment and permitting of those wastewaters independent
of wastewaters from other subcategories. Likewise, the regulation is
structured to allow for co-treatment and cascading of wastewaters from
the integrated steelmaking operations (basic oxygen furnaces, vacuum
degassing, continuous casting). These wastewaters contain typically the
same toxic metals.
Like the current regulation, the proposed regulation is based on
the assumption that recycle system blowdowns from hot forming
operations are compatible with wastewaters from steelmaking and steel
finishing operations. When recycled to a high degree, the remaining
volume of hot forming wastewaters can be effectively co-treated for
TSS, O&G, lead and zinc with steelmaking and steel finishing
wastewaters. Today's proposed regulation would limit the same toxic
metals, such as lead and zinc, for carbon and alloy steel hot forming
operations, carbon and alloy steelmaking, and steel finishing
operations. This approach is intended to facilitate co-treatment and
NPDES permitting across subcategories where feasible. EPA has taken the
same approach with chromium and nickel for stainless steel hot forming,
non-integrated steelmaking, and steel finishing operations.
Notwithstanding EPA's consideration of this factor, EPA does not
propose to exclude any pollutants from regulation on the theory that
they are not amenable to co-treatment.
2. Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment Standards
Unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater will receive no further
treatment once it leaves the facility, indirect dischargers send their
wastewater to POTWs for further treatment. EPA establishes pretreatment
standards for those BAT pollutants that pass through POTWs. Therefore,
for indirect dischargers, before proposing 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. A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' POTWs when
the median percentage removed by well-operated POTWs is less than the
median percentage removed by direct dischargers complying with BAT
effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that the combined
treatment at indirect discharging facilities and POTWs is at least
equivalent to that obtained through treatment by direct dischargers.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by POTWs with the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by BAT facilities, EPA compares the percentage of
the pollutants removed by BAT facilities to the POTW removals. EPA
takes this approach because a comparison of the mass or concentration
of pollutants in POTW effluents with pollutants in BAT facility
effluents would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged
to the POTW from other industrial and non-industrial sources, nor the
dilution of the pollutants in the POTW to lower concentrations from the
addition of large amounts of other industrial and non-industrial water.
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.''
This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs
that employ secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants. Each
sample was analyzed for three conventional, 16 non-conventional, and
126 priority toxic 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 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
lower 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
effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) Manufacturing, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT), and
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for at least 12
parameters, different analytical minimum levels were reported for
different rulemaking studies (10 of the 21 metals, cyanide, and one of
the 41 organics).
[[Page 82012]]
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 final rules for CWT and Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industries and for this proposed rule and the Metal
Products and Machinery proposed rule. A more detailed discussion of the
methodology used and the results of the ML evaluation are contained in
the record for today's proposal.
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. many
toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower than
those of BAT treatment systems. 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 threshold level,
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 nominal ``minimum
level'' (ML) established in 40 CFR Part 136 for laboratory data
reported below the analytical threshold level. Use of the nominal
minimum level (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 detection levels, 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. today's proposal, EPA used the
following editing criteria:
(1) Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical
minimum level for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,''
``less than [followed by a number],'' or a number less than the
standardized analytical minimum level,
(2) Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent values if
the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal to 10
times the pollutant minimum level (10xML), and
(3) If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations are at
least 10 times the minimum level, then retain average influent values
greater than or equal to two times the minimum level (2xML) along with
the corresponding average effluent values. (In most cases, 2xML will be
equal to or less than 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 rationale for retaining POTW data using the ``10xML'' editing
criterion is based on the BAT organic pollutant treatment performance
editing criteria initially developed for the 1987 OCPSF regulation (52
FR 42522, 42545-48; November 5, 1987). BAT treatment system designs in
the OCPSF industry typically achieved at least 90 percent removal of
toxic pollutants. Since most of the OCPSF effluent data from BAT
biological treatment systems had values of ``not detected,'' the
average influent concentration for a compound had to be at least 10
times the analytical minimum level for the difference to be meaningful
(demonstration of at least 90 percent removal) and qualify effluent
concentrations for calculation of effluent limits.
Additionally, due to the large number of pollutants of concern for
the Iron and Steel industry, EPA also used data from the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly
called the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to
augment the POTW database for the pollutants which the 50-POTW Study
did not cover. This database provides information, by pollutant, on
removals obtained by various treatment technologies. The database
provides the user with the specific data source and the industry from
which the wastewater was generated. each pollutant of concern EPA
considered for this proposed rule that was not found in the 50-POTW
database, EPA used data from the NRMRL database, using only treatment
technologies representative of typical POTW secondary treatment
operations (activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated
lagoons). EPA further edited these files to include information
pertaining only to domestic or industrial wastewater. EPA used pilot-
scale and full-scale data only, and eliminated bench-scale data and
data from less reliable references. These and other aspects of the
methodology used for this proposal are described in Chapter 11 of the
Technical Development Document.
The results of the POTW pass-through analysis for indirect
dischargers are discussed in Sections IX.B-H for each subcategory.
3. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW Performance
today's proposal, EPA used its traditional methodology to
determine POTW performance (percent removal) for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. POTW performance is a component of the pass-
through methodology used to identify the pollutants to be regulated for
PSES and PSNS. It is also a component of the analysis to determine net
pollutant reductions (for both total pounds and toxic pound-
equivalents) for various indirect discharge technology options.
However, as discussed in more detail below, EPA is considering
revisions to its traditional methodology for determining POTW
performance and solicits comments on a variety of methodological
changes.
a. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs. EPA developed the principle
pass-through analysis for today's iron and steel proposal by using data
from all 50 POTWs that were part of the 50 POTW Study data base. Some
of these POTWs were not operated to meet the secondary treatment
requirements at 40 CFR part 133 for all portions of their wastestream.
Most POTWs today have secondary treatment or better in place. EPA
estimates that as of 1996, POTWs with at least secondary treatment in
place service greater than 90 percent of the indirect discharging
population. If the POTW removal calculations do not reflect the
upgrades and system improvements that have occurred since the time of
the 50 POTW Study, they would tend to under-estimate POTW removals.
This would result in overestimating the pollutant reductions that are
achieved through the regulation of indirect dischargers, thereby making
the regulation appear more cost-effective for indirect dischargers than
it is.
One partial solution to this methodological issue would be to
evaluate individual treatment trains in the 50 POTW Study data base,
and include only those treatment trains that achieved compliance with
40 CFR part 133 in the analysis of POTW pollutant removal rates. There
were 29 treatment trains that achieved BOD5 and TSS effluent
concentrations between 15 mg/
[[Page 82013]]
l and 45 mg/l during the sampling and could potentially be considered
reflective of secondary treatment (based on 40 CFR 133.102 limitations
of 30 mg/l monthly average and 45 mg/l weekly max for secondary
treatment), and an additional 2 treatment trains were either trickling
filters or waste stabilization ponds that achieved BOD5 and
TSS effluent concentrations between 40 mg/l and 65 mg/l and could
potentially be considered equivalent to secondary treatment pursuant to
40 CFR 133.101(g) (based on 40 CFR 133.105 limitations of 45 mg/l
monthly average and 65 mg/l weekly maximum). In addition, 15 treatment
trains achieved BOD5 and TSS effluent concentrations below
15 mg/l each, and could potentially be considered greater than
secondary treatment.
Using data from these 46 treatment trains only would omit the worst
performers in the 50 POTW Study that are probably not reflective of
current performance. It might not fully correct, however, for
additional upgrades and optimization that may have occurred over the
past two decades.
b. Assessment of Acceptable Data. EPA developed the pass-through
analysis that is the basis for today's proposal using POTW data editing
criteria that are generally consistent with those used for the industry
data. Specifically, EPA included only data from POTWs for which
influent concentrations were 10 times the analytical minimum
(quantitation) level (10xML) if available. If none of the average
pollutant influent concentrations are at least 10 times the ML, then
EPA retained only data from POTWs for which influent concentrations
were 2 times the analytical minimum level. Because it is difficult to
achieve the same pollutant reduction (in terms of percent) in a dilute
wastestream as in a more concentrated wastestream, EPA believes that a
10 X ML editing criteria may overestimate the percent removals that are
calculated for both industry and POTWs in the pass-through analysis.
As a general rule, more POTW data than industry data is eliminated
through this editing criteria for the specific pollutants that are
being examined. This is not surprising since the pass-through analysis
would not even be performed on pollutants generally found at less than
10 times the method minimum level in industry since EPA would, in many
cases, not require pretreatment for such low levels of a pollutant. As
a result of this imbalance (pollutant influent levels at POTWs being
less than pollutant influent levels to industrial pretreatment), EPA
believes that it is possible that this editing criteria may bias the
pass-through results by over-estimating POTW removals where influent
concentrations are generally lower. This would result in
underestimating the pollutant reductions that are achieved through the
regulation of indirect dischargers thereby making the rule appear less
cost-effective than it is. On the other hand, there may be little
difference in percent removals across the range of influent
concentrations generally experienced by POTWs.
One potential solution to this methodological question would be to
include data (for both indirect dischargers and POTWs) even if the
influent concentration is not 10 times the analytical minimum level.
This solution needs to be considered in context, however, with data
handling criteria for effluent measurements of ``non-detect'' discussed
below.
c. Assessment of removals when effluent is below the analytical
method minimum level. EPA developed the pass-through analysis that is
the basis for today's proposal using the analytical method minimum
level as the effluent value when the pollutant was not detected in the
effluent. This is the approach that is generally used when developing
pollutant reduction estimates for the regulation, performing cost-
effectiveness calculations, and developing effluent limitations. EPA
believes that this methodology may underestimate the performance of the
selected technology option for both directs and indirects. Once again,
this would result in underestimating the removals estimated for direct
dischargers, and thereby making the rule appear less cost-effective
than it is. indirect dischargers, EPA believes that the overall effect
of using the minimum level for non-detect values for both industry and
POTW data creates a bias for underestimating POTW removals in
comparison to industry removals. This may result in an overestimation
of pollutant removals by indirect dischargers, and may make the rule
appear more cost-effective than it is. (Note that this problem is
minimized by only using data with influent levels exceeding 10 X ML,
because a non-detect assures that at least 90 percent of the pollutant
has been removed. It is arguably less important that the true removal
may be greater than 90 percent, rather than exactly 90 percent. Using a
less stringent editing criteria of 2 X ML as discussed above would
exacerbate this problem. If the influent were only 2 X ML, then
removals greater than 50 percent could never be measured.)
One potential alternative would be to assume a value of one half of
the minimum level for effluent values of non-detect. This approach
would have to be applied uniformly for the indirect dischargers as well
as the POTWs in order for the percent removal calculations to be
reasonable.
a more detailed discussion of alternative approaches to the POTW
pass-through analysis, see the Technical Development Document, Section
X. EPA solicits comment on the significance of each of these
methodological issues and the potential alternatives.
4. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
This subsection describes the statistical methodology used to
develop long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations for
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The same basic procedures apply to
the calculation of all effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for this industry, regardless of whether the technology is BPT, BCT,
BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS. simplicity, the following discussion refers
only to effluent limitations guidelines; however, the discussion also
applies to new source and pretreatment standards.
The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as
presented in today's notice, are provided as ``daily maximums'' and
``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2
state that the daily maximum limitation is the ``highest allowable
`daily discharge ''' and the maximum for monthly average limitation is
the ``highest allowable average of `daily discharges' over a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all `daily discharges' measured during
a calendar month divided by the number of `daily discharges' measured
during that month.'' Daily discharges are defined to be the ``
`discharge of a pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-
hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of
sampling.''
EPA calculates the limitations based upon percentiles chosen with
the intention, on one hand, to accommodate reasonably anticipated
variability within the control of the facility and, on the other hand,
to reflect a level of performance consistent with the Clean Water Act
requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the ``best''
technologies. The daily maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th
percentile of the distribution of the daily measurements. The maximum
for monthly average limitation is an
[[Page 82014]]
estimate of the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly
averages of the daily measurements. The percentiles for both types of
limitations are estimated using the products of long-term averages and
variability factors.
In the first of two steps in estimating both types of limitations,
EPA determines an average performance level (the ``long-term average'')
that a facility with well-designed and operated model technologies
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of
achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects
that all facilities subject to the limitations will design and operate
their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average performance
level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and
operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be done. In
the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance
for the variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through
well designed and operated treatment systems. This allowance for
variance incorporates all components of variability including process
and wastewater generation, sample collection, shipping, storage, and
analytical variability. This allowance is incorporated into the
limitations through the use of the variability factors, which are
calculated from the data from the facilities using the model
technologies. If a facility operates its treatment system to meet the
relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility to be able to meet
the limitations. 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. The data sources,
the selection of pollutants and data, and the calculations of pollutant
long-term averages and variability factors are briefly described below.
More detailed explanations are provided in the technical development
document.
EPA recognizes that, as a result of modifications to 40 CFR part
420, some dischargers that consistently meet effluent limitations based
on the current regulation may need to improve treatment systems,
process controls, and/or treatment system operations in order to
consistently meet effluent limitations based on revised effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. EPA believes that this
consequence is consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory framework,
which requires that discharge limitations reflect the best available
technology, and that the best available technology should be redefined
periodically.
The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from three data sources:
EPA sampling episodes, the 1997 Analytical and Production follow-up
survey, and data submitted by industry. When the data from the EPA
sampling episodes at a facility met the data editing criteria, EPA used
the sampling data and any monitoring data provided by the facility. See
Technical Development Document Section 10 for more information.
5. BPT
In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of the
best existing performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes
or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is
considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or industry. Limitations based upon transfer of
technology must be supported by a conclusion that the technology is
indeed transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will be capable
of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners' Council of
America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on end-
of-pipe treatment rather than process changes or internal controls,
except where the process changes or internal controls are common
industry practice.
The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, committed
to EPA's discretion, which does not require the Agency to quantify the
benefits in monetary terms. In balancing costs in relation to effluent
reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing
discharges expected after the application of BPT, the general
environmental effects of the pollutants, and the cost and economic
impact of the required pollution controls. When setting BPT
limitations, EPA is required under section 304(b) to perform a limited
cost-benefit balancing to ensure the costs are not wholly out of
proportion to the benefits achieved. See Weyerhaeuser Company v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
a. New Subcategories/Segments. EPA proposes to promulgate BPT
limitations for conventional pollutants (TSS and/or oil & grease) for
the following subcategories or segments that have not previously been
regulated under part 420: Non-recovery cokemaking; sintering operations
with dry air pollution controls; electric arc furnace operations within
the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory; direct reduced
iron; forging; and, briquetting. There are no BPT limitations in the
current regulation applicable to non-recovery cokemaking, direct
reduced iron, forging and briquetting. The current Steelmaking
Subcategory BPT regulation requires ``no discharge of pollutants'' for
semi-wet electric arc furnace operations (Sec. 420.43(a)) and allows
discharges for wet electric arc furnace operations (Sec. 420.43(c)).
Under the proposed subcategorization scheme, there are no wet electric
arc furnace operations within the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot
ming Subcategory. The current BPT regulation does not specifically
cover sintering operations with dry air pollution controls.
b. Existing Subcategories/Segments. manufacturing operations
subject to current BPT regulations (i.e., all iron and steel operations
regulated under the current part 420 and electroplating operations
regulated currently under part 433 but proposed for regulation under
the revised Part 420), the Agency at this time is not proposing to
revise the BPT limitations for TSS and oil & grease. Because EPA is
proposing to establish a revised subcategorization schedule for part
420 by consolidating several former subparts and creating new ones, EPA
has presented the current part 420 BPT limitations for each proposed
subpart in the form of segments corresponding to the subcategorization
schedule that EPA proposes to replace. With respect to continuous
electroplating operations, which are currently regulated under part 433
(Metal Finishing), but which EPA proposes to regulate under part 420
(Iron & Steel), EPA presents BPT limitations for the conventional
parameters TSS and oil and grease in proposed subpart F,
Secs. 420.62(a)(9) and (b)(9) based on the limitations as currently
codified in part 433 for those operations.
The Agency is also considering an alternative approach that would
simplify the regulation and ease implementation of BPT limitations in
the NPDES permit program. The Agency solicits comment on this
alternative approach, which is discussed below. The alternative is also
presented in the Technical Development Document for this proposed
regulation.
j. Alternative approach: Codify BPT limitations as the TSS and O&G
Concentrations used to develop the Current part 420 Regulation. The
Agency is aware that incorporating the current BPT limitations into the
new
[[Page 82015]]
subcategorization structure of the proposed regulation is complex and
will be difficult to implement because the BPT limitations are
unchanged and reflect a different subcategorization schedule. If the
regulation were promulgated as proposed, permit writers and the
industry would be required to implement the existing part 433 BPT
limitations, existing part 420 BPT limitations for 12 subcategories and
more than 50 segments, as well as the proposed BAT limitations for
seven subcategories with far fewer segments. As a result, permit
writers would need to identify process units using different
characteristics for BPT than they would use for BAT and other
technology levels. Therefore, EPA is considering an alternative
approach that EPA believes would ease implementation of BPT limitations
in the NPDES permit program.
Under this alternative approach, EPA would replace the current
mass-based BPT limitations for TSS and oil & grease with corresponding
concentration-based limitations for TSS and oil & grease. The
concentration-based BPT limitations would be the treated effluent
concentrations used to develop the current regulation for all
operations EPA proposes to continue to regulate under the revised part
420 regulations. (Thus, this option would not apply to Cold Worked Pipe
& Tube operations currently subject to part 420, but which EPA proposes
to regulate under Part 438. Those concentrations are shown as the daily
maximum and maximum monthly average TSS and oil & grease concentrations
(mg/L) for the 12 subcategories of the existing regulation (see Table
I-1 (pages 13 to 17), Vol. I of the ``Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category,'' (EPA 440/1-82-024; May 1982)). electroplating
operations regulated currently under part 433, the corresponding BPT
concentration limitations would be either those listed at part 433, or
those for the steel finishing operations listed in Table I-1 referenced
above.
Under this option, the TSS and oil & grease concentrations listed
in the 1982 development document would be codified as BPT limitations
in the seven subcategories proposed for this regulation. Because the
TSS and oil & grease concentrations used to develop the 1982 regulation
are the same for operations within each of the seven subcategories for
this proposed regulation, the structure of the revised regulation would
be streamlined and implementation would be much simpler. example,
permit writers and the industry would not have to contend with
classifying hot forming and steel finishing operations under both the
more complicated subcategory and segment schedule from the current
regulation and the less complicated subcategory and segment schedule
from this proposed regulation.
Under this option, the permit writers would develop NPDES permit
effluent limitations by first applying the corresponding BAT
limitations for toxic and non-conventional pollutants for each internal
or external outfall discharging process wastewaters. Mass effluent
limitations for TSS and oil & grease would be developed by applying the
respective concentration-based BPT effluent limitations guidelines to a
reasonable measure of actual process wastewater discharge flow, taking
into account process wastewaters regulated directly by Part 420 and
those process wastewaters that may be unregulated by part 420 (see
proposed regulation at Sec. 420.03(f)). As with the BAT limitations,
the Agency intends that only the mass limitations derived for TSS and
oil & grease as described above be included in NPDES permits.
Depending upon site-specific circumstances, this option could
result in either more or less stringent limitations for TSS and oil &
grease than would be derived from the current BPT limitations. example,
if a mill has process wastewater discharge flows lower than the model
BPT production normalized flows from the 1982 regulation and no
unregulated process wastewaters, the resulting TSS and oil & grease
permit limitations would be more stringent in proportion to the amount
of the lower discharge flow. On the other hand, if the mill had higher
process wastewater flows or a substantial volume of unregulated process
wastewaters, the resultant effluent limitations would be higher in
proportion to the higher discharge flow. The Agency believes that in
many instances the volume of regulated process wastewaters currently
discharged or that will be discharged to attain compliance with the BAT
limitations will be somewhat less than the model BPT flow rates.
Consequently, on balance, EPA expects that the resulting NPDES permit
effluent limitations for TSS and oil & grease would be somewhat more
stringent but in the range of those derived from the current BPT
limitations.
Under this approach, as a practical matter, there would be no
additional costs of compliance to achieve the resulting BPT TSS and oil
& grease effluent limitations. Incremental investment costs and
incremental operation and maintenance costs were considered, where
appropriate, as costs to achieve the BAT limitations. In addition, EPA
would not expect facilities to incur additional monitoring costs
associated with concentration-based BPT limitations because facilities
already monitor for these pollutants under the current regulation, and
EPA does not propose to establish any new monitoring requirements for
the conventional pollutants. Nonetheless, for the purposes of
calculating cost per pound of conventional pollutants removed, EPA has
estimated both the costs associated with implementing new BPT
technologies (in this case, identical to the proposed BAT technologies,
even though as a practical matter, they are already subsumed in the BAT
costs ), as well as the total pounds removed by those technologies.
(These totals reflect only the subcategories and segments for which EPA
is considering revising BPT limitations.) The total estimated costs are
$53.8 million (1997 pretax total annualized costs) and the total
estimated removals are 30.3 million pounds of conventional pollutants.
EPA believes these costs to be reasonable in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits. If EPA were to adopt this alternative approach, EPA
would revise BCT limitations to reflect the new BPT levels because
nothing more stringent that those levels appears to pass the BCT cost
test.
EPA solicits comments on this alternative approach, which EPA
believes would ease the implementation of the BPT limitations and would
reflect current manufacturing, waste management, and wastewater
treatment practices. EPA also solicits other options for consideration.
6. BCT
The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses
the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent
limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT
candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by
applying a two-part cost test:
(1) The POTW test; and
(2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
In the POTW test, EPA 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 pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry
[[Page 82016]]
must be less than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976
dollars).
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 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29
percent).
In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
than proposed for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-
reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. EPA identified no
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional
pollutants than the BPT standards that also pass the BCT cost-
reasonableness tests. Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT
effluent limitations equal to the current BPT limitations.
7. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS
Technology Options Selection
Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that each
proposed model technology is technically available. EPA is also
proposing that each is economically achievable for the segment to which
it applies. Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set forth in
Section VIII, that none of the proposed technology options has
unacceptable adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. Finally,
EPA has determined that each proposed technology option achieves
greater pollutant removals than any other economically achievable
technology considered by EPA and, for that reason, also represents the
best technology among those considered for the particular segment. EPA
also considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors
pertinent to facilities in the proposed segments for the purpose of
evaluating the technology options. None of these factors provides a
basis for selecting different technologies than those EPA proposes to
select as its model BAT and PSES technologies for the segments within
each subcategory, or if EPA does not propose segmentation, for the
subcategory itself.
In selecting its proposed NSPS technology for these segments and
subcategories, EPA considered all of the factors specified in CWA
section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent reductions.
(These findings also apply to the proposed PSNS for these segments.)
The proposed NSPS technologies for these segments are presently being
employed at facilities in each segment of these subcategories.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier
to entry. The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts for the proposed NSPS options and
concluded that these impacts were no greater than for the proposed BAT
technology options for the particular segment and are acceptable. EPA
therefore concluded that the NSPS technology bases proposed for these
segments constitute the best available demonstrated control technology
for those segments.
B. Cokemaking
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the by-product and non-recovery cokemaking segments of the proposed
Cokemaking Subcategory.
1. By-Product Cokemaking
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. the By-Product segment of this
subcategory, EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N,
total cyanide, phenol, benzo(a)pyrene, thiocyanate, naphthalene,
mercury, selenium, and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). Except for TRC,
these pollutants are characteristic of cokemaking wastewaters. TRC is
an indicator of post-alkaline chlorination residual concentration of
chlorine. Facilities would not need to meet the TRC limit if they
certify to the permitting authority that they do not employ alkaline
chlorination in their wastewater treatment. These proposed regulated
pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the ammonia
distillation, biological treatment, and alkaline chlorination
processes, which are the key components of the complex model BAT and
NSPS treatment systems for by-product coke plants.
ii. PSES. EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under
PSES: ammonia-N, total cyanide, thiocyanate, selenium, phenol, and
naphthalene. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has
determined that each of these pollutants passes through. EPA notes that
ammonia-N is a key indicator of the performance of the PSES and PSNS
treatment systems because it reflects the performance of the ammonia
stills, which not only control ammonia-N, but also acid gasses (HCN,
H2S) and volatile toxic organic pollutants (benzene,
toluene, xylenes), some portions of which would otherwise be lost in
coke plant and municipal sewer systems and in biological processes at
POTWs. EPA has determined that the other pollutants EPA proposes to
regulate at BAT (benzo(a)pyrene and mercury) do not pass through.
iii. NSPS. NSPS limitations, EPA proposes to regulate the same
pollutants as those for BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil and
grease (measured as HEM).
iv. PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate the same parameters as under
PSES for this segment.
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The Agency is proposing to
establish BAT-3 for the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking
subcategory. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the
development of the proposed BAT limits are: Tar removal, equalization,
ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, single-stage
biological treatment with nitrification, and alkaline chlorination. EPA
estimates that only one facility will close as a result of BAT-3. EPA
has determined that this option is economically achievable and cost
effective.
As presented in Section V.C.1, four BAT options were under
consideration. Under BAT-1, water usage would be reduced by 1.6 million
gallons per year from current levels and the removal toxic and non-
conventional pollutants would increase by 14% over those levels. BAT-2
results in no further reduction in flow beyond that to be achieved by
BAT-1, but does result in the additional removal of 17% of the total
cyanide from direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams through the use
of cyanide precipitation. BAT-3 also results in no further reduction in
flow beyond that to be achieved by BAT-1, but does result in the
additional removal of 50% of the total cyanide from direct discharging
cokemaking wastestreams beyond BAT-1 levels through the use of alkaline
chlorination. BAT-4 results in no further reduction in flow beyond that
to be achieved by any of the BAT options, and does not lead to
significant additional pollutant removal beyond that to be achieved by
BAT-3.
BAT-1 removes 56,300 toxic pound equivalents over current discharge
at an annualized compliance cost of $0.9 million (1997$). BAT-2 removes
an additional 26% of toxic pound equivalents over BAT-1, at an
additional annualized compliance cost of $3.3 million (1997$). Neither
of these options results in any facility closures, so both are
considered economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing
either of these options,
[[Page 82017]]
because BAT-3 removes even more pollutants of concern at a cost that is
also economically achievable.
EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. As was the
case for BAT-3, EPA estimates that only one facility would close as a
result of BAT-4, so EPA has determined that this option is economically
achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limits based
on BAT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly equivalent
reductions in pound-equivalents for much less cost. EPA has determined
that BAT-3 would remove 0.43 million pounds of priority and non-
conventional pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of $8.6
million (1997$). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove the same quantity of
pollutants at a total annualized cost of $15.2 million (1997$). In view
of the fact that BAT-4 appears to achieve no additional pollutant
removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $6.6
million, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the ``best
available'' technology economically achievable for the by-products
recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory.
ii. PSES. EPA is co-proposing two sets of technologies to serve as
the bases for the development of the proposed PSES limits: (1) Tar
removal, equalization, ammonia stripping, temperature control and
equalization, and (2) tar removal, equalization, ammonia stripping,
temperature control, equalization, and single-stage biological
treatment with nitrification. These are identified as options PSES-1
and PSES-3 in Section V.C., respectively, and provide controls for each
pollutant that EPA has determined pass through. EPA estimates that no
facilities would close as a result of compliance with either of these
options. EPA has concluded that these options are economically
achievable.
Under Option PSES-1, EPA estimates an additional 3,400 toxic pound
equivalents would be removed per year above the current amount, at an
additional annualized compliance cost of $0.3 million (1997$). Under
Option PSES-2, EPA estimates an additional 2,200 toxic pound
equivalents would be removed per year above PSES-1, at an additional
annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million (1997$). Under PSES-3, EPA
estimates an additional 42,900 toxic pound equivalents would be removed
per year above PSES-2, at an additional annualized compliance cost of
$2.8 million (1997$). Under PSES-4, EPA estimates an additional 2,900
toxic pound equivalents would be removed per year above PSES-3, at an
additional annualized compliance cost of $3.5 million (1997$). Based on
consideration of the additional pollutant removals achieved by PSES-4
for indirect dischargers in this subcategory and the additional costs
needed to achieve them, EPA has determined that PSES-3 is the best
technology for the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking
subcategory.
Although EPA considers PSES-3 to be the best among the PSES options
EPA considered, EPA is also co-proposing PSES-1 because it may provide
a lower cost means of obtaining similar pollutant reductions. EPA plans
to further evaluate setting PSES equal to BAT-3 between proposal and
promulgation of this rule.
iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
the development of the proposed NSPS are the same as Option BAT-3. the
reasons set forth above for BAT in its comparison of BAT-3 and BAT-4,
EPA has determined that BAT-3 is the ``best'' demonstrated technology
for new sources in the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking
subcategory.
iv. PSNS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
the development of the proposed PSNS are the same as Option PSES-3. the
reasons discussed above, EPA proposes PSES-3 as the basis for its PSNS
for this segment. The Agency also solicits comment on the second option
discussed under PSES for this segment, identified as option PSES-1. EPA
plans to further evaluate setting PSNS equal to BAT-3 between proposal
and promulgation of this rule.
2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
Since the non-recovery cokemaking process does not generate any
process wastewater, EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the U.S. for BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS for all
categories for this segment.
C. Ironmaking
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the blast furnace and sintering segments of the proposed Ironmaking
Subcategory.
1. Blast Furnace
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the
following parameters under BAT: Ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenol, lead,
zinc, and total recoverable chlorine (TRC). Ammonia-N and total cyanide
are regulated in the current part 420 and are again proposed for
regulation. These pollutants are characteristic of blast furnace
ironmaking wastewaters and are key indicators of the performance of the
alkaline chlorination process. Phenol is proposed for regulation in
place of total phenols, because EPA judged phenol to be a better
indicator of treatment performance of ironmaking wastewater than total
phenols. EPA proposes to limit TRC to ensure residual concentrations of
chlorine are kept to a minimum to avoid effluent toxicity. Facilities
would not need to meet the TRC limit if they certify to the permitting
authority that they do not employ alkaline chlorination in their
wastewater treatment. EPA proposes to limit lead and zinc because they
are the principal metals present and will track performance of the
metals precipitation model BAT system with respect to other metals
identified as pollutants of concern.
ii. PSES. EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under
PSES: ammonia-N, lead, and zinc. Using the methodology described in
Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that each of these pollutants passes
through. EPA has determined that the other pollutants EPA proposes to
regulate at BAT (total cyanide and phenol) do not pass through.
iii. NSPS. In addition to the parameters listed under BAT for this
segment, EPA proposes to regulate TSS and oil & grease (measured as
HEM).
iv. PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate the same parameters under PSNS
for this segment as it does for PSES.
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits for
the ironmaking subcategory (Blast Furnace and Sintering Segments) are:
solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals precipitation,
alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media-filtration for the blowdown
wastewater. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. Under BAT-1,
water usage would be reduced by 5% over current levels, and total
loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants would be reduced by
68%. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1.
EPA has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did
not pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant
POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology
[[Page 82018]]
basis for BAT for the ironmaking subcategory.
ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
the development of the proposed PSES limits are: solids removal with
high-rate recycle and metals precipitation for the blowdown wastewater.
This is identified as Option PSES-1 in Section V.C. This option
provides controls for each pollutant that EPA has determined passes
through for this segment. EPA has determined that this option is
economically achievable. Although BAT-1 achieves additional removal of
ammonia-N through alkaline chlorination, EPA has found that all POTWs
currently receiving wastewater from ironmaking operations are achieving
ammonia removal comparable to that achieved by BAT-1. Therefore, EPA
proposes PSES-1 as the technology basis for PSES for the ironmaking
subcategory.
EPA is proposing regulatory flexibility that would allow indirectly
discharging ironmaking operations to not have to meet the pretretment
standards for ammonia-N if the facility certifies to the pretreatment
control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 that they discharge to POTWs with
the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
under BAT for ammonia-N.
EPA plans to further evaluate setting PSES equal to BAT-1 between
proposal and promulgation of this rule.
iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
the development of the proposed NSPS limits are the same as Option BAT-
1 for this segment. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue
additional, more stringent options for NSPS because all significant
POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-
on technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis
for NSPS for the ironmaking subcategory because EPA believes it
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
iv. PSNS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
the development of the proposed PSNS limits are the same as Option
PSES-1 for this segment. the reasons set forth above for NSPS, EPA
proposes PSES-1 as the basis for PSNS for this subcategory.
EPA is proposing regulatory flexibility that would allow indirectly
discharging ironmaking operations to not have to meet the pretreatment
standards for ammonia-N if the facility certifies to the pretreatment
control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 that they discharge to POTWs with
the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
under BAT for ammonia-N.
EPA plans to further evaluate setting PSNS equal to BAT-1 between
proposal and promulgation of this rule.
2. Sintering
a. Regulated Pollutants. Because several congeners of dioxins have
been shown to cause adverse health effects at concentration levels far
below those of most pollutants, EPA proposes to regulate 2,3,7,8-tetra-
chloro-dibenzo furan (TCDF). EPA selected this congener because
sampling data indicates that it is present in post-treatment sinter
plant wastewater, and because removal of this pollutant is expected to
correlate strongly with removal of other dioxin congeners, due to their
similar chemical structures. EPA's sampling program did not indicate
that there are measurable quantities of 2,3,7,8-tetra-chloro-dibenzo
dioxin (TCDD) in post-treatment sinter plant wastewater. The proposed
limit would be expressed as less than the minimum level (``ML'') or ten
parts per quadrillion using current analytical methods. The ``ML'' is
an abbreviation for the minimum level of the analytical method for TCDF
specified in 40 CFR part 136. EPA proposes to require compliance
monitoring at internal outfalls (after treatment of sinter plant
wastewaters separately or in combination with blast furnace
wastewaters), i.e., before any additional process or non-process flows
are combined with the sinter plant wastewater. This regulatory approach
is similar to that used in the regulation of the bleached paper grade
plant effluents at bleached kraft pulp and paper mills (see 40 CFR
430.24(e)). EPA expects to gather additional information on dioxin and
furan concentrations in sinter plant effluent and on this proposed
regulatory approach through the public comment process. EPA also is
willing to speak with interested parties during the comment period to
ensure that EPA considers the views of all stakeholders and uses the
best possible data upon which to base a decision for the final
regulation.
i. BAT
EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under BAT:
ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenol, lead, zinc, TRC and 2,3,7,8 TCDF. EPA
proposes to regulate ammonia-N, total cyanide and phenol in order to
track performance of the BAT model treatment technology, which includes
alkaline chlorination. EPA proposes to regulate TRC in order to ensure
residual concentrations of chlorine are kept to a minimum to avoid
effluent toxicity. Facilities would not need to meet the TRC limit if
they certify to the permitting authority that they do not employ
alkaline chlorination in their wastewater treatment. EPA proposes to
regulate lead and zinc because they are the principal metals present
and will track performance of the metals precipitation model BAT system
with respect to other metals identified as pollutants of concern.
ii. PSES
EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under PSES:
ammonia-N, lead, zinc, and 2,3,7,8 TCDF. Using the methodology
described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that each of these
pollutants passes through. EPA has determined that the other pollutants
EPA proposes to regulate at BAT (cyanide and phenol) do not pass
through.
iii. NSPS
In addition to the parameters listed under BAT for this segment,
EPA proposes to regulate TSS and oil & grease (measured as HEM).
iv. PSNS
EPA proposes to regulate the same parameters under PSNS for this
segment as it does for PSES.
b. Technologies Selected.
i. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
See discussions under ``Blast Furnace'' above.
D. Integrated Steelmaking
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the proposed Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory.
1. Regulated Pollutants
a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate lead and zinc under
BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS because they are the principal metals present and
because they are good indicators of the performance of the metals
precipitation component of the proposed model technology. Using the
methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that both
lead and zinc pass through.
[[Page 82019]]
2. Technology Selected
a. BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS. The treatment technologies that serve as the
basis for the development of the proposed BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limits
are: solids removal and high rate recycle, with metals precipitation
for blowdown wastewater. Cooling towers are also part of the model
technology for process wastewater associated with vacuum degassing or
continuous casting. This option is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C.
Under BAT-1, water usage can be reduced by 83% over current levels,
and total loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants can be
reduced by 66%. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a
result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that this option is economically
achievable. EPA did not pursue other options because all significant
POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on
technologies. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for
BAT for the proposed Integrated Steelmaking subcategory.
the same reason, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the basis for PSES for this
subcategory. This option provides controls for each pollutant that EPA
has determined passes through for this subcategory.
As was the case for BAT and PSES, EPA did not pursue additional,
more stringent options for NSPS and PSNS because all significant POCs
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for
NSPS and PSNS for the integrated steelmaking subcategory because EPA
believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this
subcategory.
E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the carbon and allow segment and the stainless steel segment of the
proposed Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming Subcategory.
1. Carbon and Alloy
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing to regulate the
following pollutants: lead and zinc.
ii. PSES/PSNS. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES/
PSNS'' below.
iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for
BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease (measured as HEM).
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. EPA is proposing two different BAT
approaches today because of the uncertainty regarding the economic
achievability of the preferred option in April 2002 when EPA is
scheduled to take final action on this proposal.
BAT Option A: The treatment technologies that serve as the basis
for the development of BAT Option A are: scale pit with oil skimming,
roughing clarifier, cooling tower with high rate recycle and mixed-
media filtration of blowdown. As required by CWA section 301(b)(2),
each existing direct discharger subject to this proposed BAT would be
subject to the corresponding limitations as soon they are incorporated
into the facility's NPDES permit. EPA believes the BAT Option A is
economically achievable because the facility level analysis projects no
facility closures. The firm level analysis does, however, project that
one or more firms may experience financial ``distress'' as a result of
the aggregate compliance costs of the rule, including the hot forming
segment compliance costs. Financial ``distress'' may indicate the loss
of financial independence, sale of assets or the likelihood of
bankruptcy. In this case, the facility level analysis indicates the
facilities would be expected to remain viable postcompliance and would
possess value as continuing concerns. Therefore, EPA expects that the
firm(s) would respond to financial ``distress'' through the sale of
assets, rather than through declaration of bankruptcy, which would be
far more disruptive in terms of economic impacts for the subcategory as
a whole. example, job losses would be more limited in the event of the
sale of a facility owned by a distressed firm rather than a bankruptcy
induced closure and any community impacts associated with job losses
would likewise be less severe. The Agency believes that this projected
level of financial distress is not significant and therefore believes
that Option A is economically achievable for the segment as a whole.
BAT Option B: As discussed in more detail above in Section V.C.4.b,
Section VI.D.4, and Section VI.F, EPA has estimated that it could cost
affected facilities $ 21.2 million in total annualized costs to comply
with BAT limitations based on the proposed BAT model technology, which
includes high rate recycle. When those costs are considered together
with other costs that EPA estimates firms will incur if this rule is
promulgated as proposed, EPA has predicted that the cumulative costs of
this rule could jeopardize the corporate financial health of one or
more firms. See Section VI.F. While EPA considers those possible
impacts to be acceptable for the purposes of today's proposal, EPA is
also aware that new information received after this proposal, including
information regarding changes in the financial health of the industry
due to changes in the national economy and foreign trade, might lead
EPA to reach a different conclusion when EPA takes final action on this
proposal in April 2002. Therefore, in addition to proposed BAT Option A
for the carbon and alloy segment of the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot
ming subcategory, EPA is proposing a second BAT approach for this
segment. EPA is considering BAT limitations for this segment based on
BAT Option B in the event it determines that BAT Option A is not
economically achievable for the segment as a whole at the time it takes
final action on today's proposal. The proposed alternative described
below is designed to minimize possible adverse economic impacts of the
primary proposed BAT option for this segment.
Like the BAT option A, BAT Option B includes high rate recycle.
(Indeed, the technology basis for BAT Option A and the proposed
alternative is identical.) The difference between BAT Option A and BAT
Option B involves the amount of time that facilities in the segment
would have to achieve the BAT limitations based on that technology.
Under BAT option A, all direct discharging facilities covered by the
carbon and alloy segment of the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming
subcategory would be subject to the BAT limitations as soon as they are
placed in the facilities' NPDES permit. See sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D)
and (F) of the Clean Water Act. Although it is common practice for
permit writers to issue administrative orders concurrent with issuing
permits based on a new or revised effluent guideline, the decision to
do so is left to the permit writers' enforcement discretion. Therefore,
EPA cannot assume the availability of such relief when it estimates the
costs and impacts of this proposed rule. Under BAT Option B, in
contrast, all facilities within the carbon and alloy segment of the
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory could receive
additional time to achieve the limitations based on the proposed BAT
technology for that segment. If EPA ultimately determines in April 2002
that
[[Page 82020]]
BAT Option A is not economically achievable for the segment as a whole,
it may decide to take final action based on BAT Option B.
Under BAT Option B, EPA would codify BAT limitations that consisted
of three separate components. Together, the three components would
comprise BAT for the carbon and alloy segment of the Integrated and
Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory and, operating incrementally, would
become progressively more stringent over time. Although applied in
stages, the limitations would represent a continuum of progress that
all facilities under BAT Option B would be required to achieve by April
30, 2007. Under the first component, consisting of ``stage 1'' BAT
limitations, each facility subject to this segment would be immediately
subject to limitations based on the mill's existing effluent quality
for the regulated pollutants, or its current technology-based permit
limits for those pollutants, whichever are more stringent. The second
component would consist of enforceable interim milestones developed on
a best professional judgment basis by the permitting authority to
reflect reasonable interim milestones toward achievement of the
ultimate BAT limitations. Under the third component, consisting of the
ultimate, or ``stage 2'', BAT limitations, each facility by April 30,
2007 would be subject to limitations that are based on the BAT
technology proposed for this segment (i.e., scale pit with oil
skimming, roughing clarifier, filtration, high rate recycle and mixed-
media filtration of blowdown).
With respect to the ``stage 1'' limitations, EPA intends that the
permitting authority would express that limitation in numeric form for
each facility on a case-by-case basis. The ``stage 1'' limitations thus
will be numeric values on the regulated pollutants, that, for each
pollutant, are equivalent to the more stringent of either the
technology-based limit on that pollutant in the facility's last permit
or the facility's current effluent quality with respect to that
pollutant. Existing effluent quality for the regulated pollutants would
be determined at the internal monitoring point where the wastewater
containing those pollutants leaves the hot forming wastewater treatment
plant. These ``stage 1'' BAT limits would represent the first step in
the BAT continuum for BAT Option B and would be enforceable against the
facility as soon as they are placed in the facility's NPDES permit. The
purpose of the ``stage 1'' BAT limits would be to ensure that, at a
minimum, existing effluent quality is maintained while the facility
moves toward achieving the ``stage 2'' BAT limitations that are based
on the model BAT technologies for this segment. Allowing a facility to
degrade its effluent quality during development and installation of the
model BAT technologies would be inconsistent with the statute's
direction that BAT limitations achieve reasonable further progress
toward the Clean Water Act's national goals. EPA's ``stage 1''
limitations, thus, would be intended to capture continuously improving
effluent quality.
Because the ``stage 1'' limitations would reflect a level of
technology that the facility is already employing or that was
previously determined to be BAT for that facility, EPA would be able to
conclude at the time of promulgation that the technology bases for the
``stage 1'' limits are both technically available and economically
achievable. If EPA were to promulgate such limitations, EPA would also
consider whether they would result in any adverse non-water quality
environmental impacts, and would also consider all of the other
statutory factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) and 306. EPA
believes that ``stage 1'' limitations could be the ``best'' available
technology economically achievable for facilities in the segment if the
record shows that they allow those facilities to focus their resources
on the research, development, testing, and installation of the
technologies ultimately needed to achieve the ``stage 2'' limitations,
which are based on model BAT technology for the subpart. ``Stage 1''
limitations thus would reflect ``reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants,'' as
called for by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), and could reasonably represent
the appropriate first rung of the segment BAT ladder, if EPA were to
determine that the model technology is not economically achievable at
the time of promulgation.
The second component would consist of interim milestone
limitations. Under this component, facilities would be required to meet
enforceable requirements determined by the permitting authority based
on best professional judgment; these milestones would be expressed as
narrative or numeric conditions in the facility's NPDES permit and
would reflect each step in a facility's progress toward achievement of
the ultimate, ``stage 2,'' performance requirements.
With respect to ``stage 2,'' EPA would promulgate limitations that
represent the performance that can be achieved using the model BAT
technology for the segment. Because the model technology for BAT Option
B's ``stage 2'' limitations would be the same as those proposed for BAT
Option A, the calculated limitations would be identical as well. The
difference between the BAT Option A and BAT Option B is that the
facilities in this segment would not be required to be subject to those
limitations upon promulgation. Rather, the facilities would be subject
to the ``stage 2'' limitations at some later date specified in the
regulation by EPA, e.g., April 30, 2007. That date would represent the
date by which EPA determines--based on the administrative record at the
time of promulgation--that the model technology would be economically
achievable for the segment as a whole. Thus, under BAT Option B , if
EPA concludes at the time of promulgation that five years would be
sufficient time to allow the subcategory as a whole to raise the
capital necessary to implement the model BAT technology for the segment
in a way to assure its economic achievability, then EPA would specify
that date as the date by which the segment as a whole is subject to the
``stage 2'' BAT limitations.
EPA acknowledges that the uncertainties of the iron and steel
market and the financial circumstances of individual firms may make it
difficult to project the economic achievability of particular
technologies in future years, even in the comparative near-term. EPA
expects it would take into account a variety of factors, including the
costs of the BAT model technology over a specified number of years, the
expected industry price and revenue cycle, the economic impact on the
segment of other EPA regulations that might affect them within the time
frame, and resulting aggregate costs, closures, and firm failures.
In the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp,
paper and paperboard industry, EPA adopted an approach similar to BAT
Option B as part of its Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. See 40 CFR 430.24(b). Facilities choosing to participate in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program could enroll at
one of three levels, or tiers, each with its own set of limits and time
frames for compliance and each based on a different model BAT
technology (with technologies becoming more advanced as the time
periods for compliance were extended). each tier, EPA promulgated
voluntary advanced technology BAT limitations that consisted of three
separate components. Together, the three components comprised BAT for
any bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill that elected to participate
in the voluntary
[[Page 82021]]
incentives program. See 40 CFR 430.24(b). The first component consisted
of ``stage 1'' existing effluent quality limitations that were similar
in principle to the ``stage 1'' limitations described above for BAT
Option B. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). The second component consisted of
enforceable interim milestones developed on a best professional
judgment basis by the permitting authority to reflect reasonable
interim milestones toward achievement of the ultimate BAT limitations.
See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2). (The program also included numeric six-year
milestone limitations that would apply to facilities that enrolled in
Incentives Tiers with deadlines of 2009 and 2014. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(3).) The third component consisted of numeric ``stage 2''
effluent limitations that reflected the limitations achievable by the
model BAT technology for the particular tier. Taken together, these
three components constitute reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants and for
this reason represented BAT.
EPA recognizes that some facilities in this segment are already
achieving or are capable of achieving limitations approaching the
ultimate ``stage 2'' limitations. In this situation, the ``stage 1'' or
interim milestone BAT limitations for these mills would correspond to
that level of achievement, as judged by the permitting authority based
on monitoring data supplied by the facility. In this way, EPA would
ensure that, for the segment as a whole, limitations would be derived
from the ``best'' available technology economically achievable, even
though that technology might vary on a mill-by-mill basis during the
interim period before the ``stage 2'' limitations apply. This
incremental approach is authorized by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), which
expressly requires BAT to result in reasonable further progress toward
the national goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. EPA believes
that the two-step approach set forth in BAT Option B would move
facilities toward that national goal. Each facility in the segment
would be required immediately to begin to implement a BAT package
consisting of successively more stringent permit limits and conditions.
Although environmental improvements are realized only incrementally,
the facility is subject to BAT limits as soon as its permit is written
based on the first increment of that BAT package. Thus, the facility is
continuously subject to and must comply immediately with the BAT limits
as they progressively unfold, including each interim BAT limitation or
permit condition representing that progress.
EPA's promulgation of BAT as a package of progressively more
stringent limitations and conditions is also consistent with the use of
BAT as a ``beacon to show what is possible.'' Kennecott v. EPA, 780
F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985). By using BAT Option B, EPA thus would be
able to promulgate forward-looking effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the segment as a whole. If EPA were to adopt BAT Option
B, EPA would be promoting a form of technological progress that is
consistent with Congressional intent that BAT should aspire to
``increasingly higher levels of control.'' See, e.g., Statement of Sen.
Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (``1972 Leg. Hist.''), at 170.
It would also be consistent with the overall goals of the Act. See CWA
section 101(a). Agencies have considerable discretion to interpret
their statutes to promote Congressional objectives. `` `[T]he breadth
of agency discretion is, if anything, at zenith when the action * * *
relates primarily to * * * the fashioning of policies, remedies and
sanctions, including enforcement and voluntary compliance programs[,]
in order to arrive at maximum effectuation of Congressional
objectives.'' ' U.S. Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d
1189, 1230-31 n.64 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (upholding OSHA rule staggering
lead requirements over 10 years) (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v.
FPC, 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1967)), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 9113
(1981). In this case, the codification of progressively more stringent
BAT limitations advances not only the general goal of the Clean Water
Act, but also the explicit goal of the BAT program. See Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).
Moving toward the elimination of pollutant discharges in stages is
also consistent with the overarching structure of the effluent
limitations guidelines program. Congress originally envisioned that the
sequence of attaining BPT limits in 1977 and BAT limits in 1983 would
result in ``levels of control which approach and achieve the
elimination of the discharge of pollutants.'' Statement of Sen. Muskie
(Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in 1972 Legislative History, at 170. This
two-step approach produced dramatic improvements in water quality, but
did not achieve the elimination of pollutant discharges. Therefore, EPA
periodically revisits and revises its effluent limitations guidelines
with the intention each time of making further progress toward the
national goal. This is the third effluent limitations guideline
promulgated for the iron and steel industry. Achieving these
incremental improvements through successive rulemakings carries a
substantial cost, however. The effluent guideline rulemaking process
can be highly complex, in large part because of the massive record
compiled to inform the Agency's decisions and because of the
substantial costs associated with achieving each additional increment
of environmental improvement. If EPA were to adopt BAT Option B, EPA
would hope to achieve the goals that Congress envisioned for the BAT
program at considerably less cost: one rulemaking that looks both at
the present and into the future.
Finally, like other agencies, EPA has inherent authority to phase
in regulatory requirements in appropriate cases. EPA has employed this
authority in other contexts. example, EPA recently phased in, over two
years, TSCA rules pertaining to lead-based paint activities. See 40 CFR
746.239 and 61 FR 45788, 45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration phased in, over 10 years,
a series of progressively more stringent lead-related controls. See 29
CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.). Indeed, in upholding that rule, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that ``the extremely remote
deadline at which the [sources] are to meet the final [permissible
exposure limits] is perhaps the single most important factor supporting
the feasibility of the standard.'' United Steelworkers of America v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d at 1278.
EPA is aware that CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C) & (D) require BAT
limits to be achieved ``in no case later than three years after the
date such limits are promulgated under section 304(b), and in no case
later than March 31, 1989.'' (Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to BAT
limitations for nonconventional pollutants, also contains the March 31,
1989 date, but uses as its starting point the date the limitations are
``established.'') This language does not speak to the precise question
EPA confronts here: whether EPA can promulgate BAT limitations that are
phased in over time, so that a direct discharger at all times is
subject to and must comply immediately with the particular BAT
limitations applicable to them at any given point in time. Section
301(b)(2) provides no clear direction. EPA therefore is charged with
making a reasonable interpretation of the statute
[[Page 82022]]
to fill the gap. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843-44.
EPA believes that subjecting facilities to progressively more stringent
BAT limitations over time could be the best way of achieving reasonable
further progress toward eliminating all pollutant discharges, as
intended by Congress. EPA could use BAT Option B to push facilities to
achieve environmental reductions beyond those achievable if EPA
proposes a BAT based on what is immediately attainable. BAT Option B
would also make it possible for facilities to achieve these performance
requirements at a pace that makes technical and economic sense. In
fact, the Agency estimates the total annualized compliance costs for
the alternative to be $13.3 million, which represents a savings of $7.9
million.
EPA specifically solicits comment on both of these options,
including options for less expensive technology. Even though the Agency
believes that Option A is economically achievable, there may be non-
trivial impacts for a few firms. The Agency could not identify less-
expensive treatment technology that would meet the objectives of the
CWA. Therefore EPA also solicits comment on whether there is any
rational basis to distinguish among mills in this segment, so as to
apply BAT Option B only to a specific subsegment of mills for which the
model technology is not economically achievable at the time of
promulgation.
ii. PSES/PSNS. EPA estimates that PSES-1, whose technical basis
consists of a scale pit with oil skimming, a roughing clarifier, sludge
dewatering, filtration, and high rate recycle, with mixed-media
filtration of blowdown, would result in a flow reduction of 74% over
current conditions, and a 53% reduction in discharge of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. However, EPA does not propose to promulgate
PSES for the carbon and allow steel segment of the proposed Integrated
and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes that nationally
applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this time, because there
are only seven facilities in this segment and because PSES-1 would
result in an average removal of only 21 toxic pound-equivalents per
facility per year for these facilities. These reductions are much lower
than other categorical standards promulgated by EPA. example, Organic
Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF), Electroplating,
Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling toxic pound equivalents
removed per facility per year range from 6,747 to 14,960. In addition,
EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for two
industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August
18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 2000), based on
low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities in those
categories. In the case of industrial laundries, EPA decided not to
promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents
per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA
decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous
landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per
facility per year.
The Agency believes that pretreatment local limits implemented on a
case-by-case basis can more appropriately address any individual toxic
parameters present at these facilities.
iii. NSPS. EPA proposes BAT Option A as the basis for NSPS for this
segment because EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated
technology for this segment.
iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing not to revise PSNS for this segment
because EPA does not foresee the construction of any new indirect
discharging facilities that would be subject to this segment. EPA also
does not believe that it is practicable for a direct discharging
facility covered by this segment to become an indirect discharging
facility because their flows would be too large for a POTW to handle.
2. Stainless
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT EPA is proposing regulating the
following pollutants: chromium and nickel.
ii. PSES/PSNS. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES/
PSNS'' below.
iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing to regulate the same pollutants as for
BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease.
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits for
the stainless segment of the integrated and stand alone hot forming
subcategory are: Scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, with
high rate recycle and mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This option
is referred to as BAT-1 in Section V.C. EPA estimates that no
facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that
this option is economically achievable. EPA did not pursue additional,
more stringent options because all significant POCs in the effluent
after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at levels too
low to be further treated by any add-on technology. Therefore, EPA
proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for BAT for the stainless steels
segment of the proposed Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming
subcategory.
ii. PSES/PSNS. EPA estimates that PSES-1 for the stainless segment
of the integrated and stand alone hot forming subcategory would result
in a reduction of 90% of the flow from current levels, and a 66%
removal of toxic and non-conventional pollutants. However, EPA does not
propose to promulgate PSES for the stainless steel segment of the
proposed Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes
that nationally applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this
time, because there are only three facilities in this segment and
because PSES-1 would result in an average removal of only 4 toxic
pound-equivalents per facility per year for these facilities. These
reductions are much lower than other categorical standards promulgated
by EPA. example, Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF), Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling
toxic pound equivalents removed per facility per year range from 6,747
to 14,960. And, EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment
standards for two industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64
FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19,
2000), based on low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities
in those categories. In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not
to promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound
equivalents per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent
guidelines, EPA decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for
non-hazardous landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound
equivalents per facility per year.
The Agency believes that pretreatment local limits implemented on a
case-by-case basis can more appropriately address any individual toxic
parameters present at these facilities.
iii. NSPS. EPA's proposed technology is the same as the proposed
BAT technology for this segment because no other treatment technologies
are demonstrated to control the pollutants EPA proposes to regulate.
F. Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the carbon and alloy segment and
[[Page 82023]]
the stainless steel segment of the proposed Non-integrated and Stand
Alone Hot ming Subcategory.
1. Carbon and Alloy
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the
following pollutants: lead and zinc.
ii. PSES. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES'' below.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS and PSNS.
b. Technology Selected.
i. BAT. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the
development of the proposed BAT limits for the carbon and alloy segment
of the proposed Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming Subcategory
are: solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media
filtration of recycled flow or of low volume blowdown flow, and sludge
dewatering. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. EPA estimates
that the BAT-1 technology would result in a reduction of 90% of flow
and a 72% reduction in the discharge of toxic and non-conventional
pollutants. EPA estimates BAT-1 to remove 39,100 toxic pound-
equivalents beyond current conditions, at an annualized compliance cost
of $3.1 million (1997$). EPA estimates that no facilities would close
as a result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that this option is
economically achievable. EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent
options because all significant POCs in the effluent after application
of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at levels too low to be further
treated by any add-on technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the
technology basis for BAT for the carbon and allow steel segment of the
proposed Non-Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory.
ii. PSES. EPA estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in
a reduction of flow of 7%, and the reduction in the discharge of non-
conventional pollutants by 4.3%. However, EPA does not propose to
revise PSES for the carbon and alloy steel segment of the proposed Non-
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes that
nationally applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this time,
because there are only 15 facilities in this segment and because PSES-1
would result in an average removal of only 3 toxic pound-equivalents
per facility per year for these facilities. These reductions are much
lower than other categorical standards promulgated by EPA. example,
Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF),
Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling toxic
pound equivalents removed per facility per year range from 6,747 to
14,960. And, EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment
standards for two industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64
FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19,
2000), based on low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities
in those categories. In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not
to promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound
equivalents per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent
guidelines, EPA decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for
non-hazardous landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound
equivalents per facility per year.
While EPA does not propose to revise PSES for this segment, EPA
intends to re-codify the current PSES to fit the new proposed
subcategorization format.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS and PSNS. The model NSPS
process water and water pollution control technologies include
treatment and high-rate recycle systems, management of process area
storm water, and disposal of low-volume blowdown streams by evaporation
through controlled application on electric furnace slag, direct cooling
of electrodes in electric furnaces, and other evaporative uses.
Operators of 24 existing non-integrated steel facilities have reported
zero discharge of process wastewater. These facilities are located in
the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. In the Non-
Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming subcategory, the 24 facilities
produce the following products: Bars, beams, billets, flats, plate,
rail, rebar, rod, sheet, slabs, small structurals, strip, and specialty
sections. Consequently, the Agency has determined that zero discharge
is an appropriate NSPS for non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming
operations located in any area of the United States and producing any
product. EPA judged that there is no barrier to entry for new sources
to achieve this option.
2. Stainless
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the
following pollutants: chromium and nickel.
ii. PSES. EPA is proposing regulating the following pollutants:
chromium and nickel. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2,
EPA has determined that both pollutants pass through.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS/PSNS.
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT.
The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the
development of the proposed BAT limits for the Stainless segment are:
solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media
filtration of recycled flow or of low volume blowdown flow, and sludge
dewatering. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. Under BAT-1,
water usage would be reduced by 50% over current levels, and total
loadings of non-conventionals would be reduced by 29%. EPA estimates
BAT-1 to remove 1,560 toxic pound-equivalents beyond current
conditions, at an annualized compliance cost of $0.1 million (1997$).
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA
has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did not
pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant POCs
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any add-on technology.
Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for BAT for the
stainless steel segment of the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
subcategory.
ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
the development of the proposed PSES limits for the Stainless segment
are the same as for BAT-1. This option provides controls for each
pollutant that EPA has determined passes through for this segment. EPA
estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in a reduction of
flow of 85%, and the reduction in the discharge of non-conventional
pollutants by 20%. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a
result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that this option is economically
achievable. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional,
more stringent options for PSES because all significant POCs in the
effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at
levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-on
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for
PSES for this segment.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS and PSNS. See discussion under
NSPS/PSNS for the Carbon and Alloy segment of this subcategory, above.
[[Page 82024]]
G. Finishing
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the carbon and allow segment and the stainless steel segment of the
proposed Finishing Subcategory.
1. Carbon and Alloy
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the
following pollutants: hexavalent chromium, chromium, lead, and zinc.
ii. PSES. See discussion under ``Technology selected--PSES'' below.
iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for
BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease.
iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for
BAT. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has
determined that hexavalent chromium, chromium, lead, and zinc pass
through.
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits for
the Carbon and Alloy segment for the proposed steel finishing
subcategory are: recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil
removal, hexavalent chrome reduction (where applicable), equalization,
metals precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering, and counter-
current rinses. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. EPA
estimates that selection of the BAT-1 option as the technology basis
would result in the reduction of flow by this segment of the non-
integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory by 65%, and the
reduction in the discharge of non-conventional pollutants by 25%. EPA
estimates BAT-1 to remove 22,410 toxic pound-equivalents beyond current
conditions, at an annualized compliance cost of $4.0 million (1997$).
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA
has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did not
pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant POCs
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for
BAT for the carbon and alloy segment of the proposed Steel Finishing
subcategory.
ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
PSES-1 are the same as the BAT-1 technologies. EPA estimates that,
under PSES-1, flow from this segment of the Finishing subcategory would
decrease by 30%, and the amount of toxic and non-conventional
pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%. However, EPA does not
propose to revise PSES for the carbon and allow steel segment of the
proposed Steel Finishing subcategory. EPA believes that nationally
applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this time, because PSES-
1 would result in an average removal of only 12 toxic pound-equivalents
per facility per year for these facilities. These reductions are much
lower than other categorical standards promulgated by EPA. example,
Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF),
Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling toxic
pound equivalents removed per facility per year range from 6,747 to
14,960. And, EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment
standards for two industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64
FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19,
2000), based on low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities
in those categories. In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not
to promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound
equivalents per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent
guidelines, EPA decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for
non-hazardous landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound
equivalents per facility per year.
While EPA does not propose to revise PSES for this segment, EPA
intends to re-codify the current PSES to fit the new proposed
subcategorization format.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes NSPS and PSNS for this subcategory to
be the same as the proposed BAT technology because no other treatment
technologies are demonstrated to control the pollutants EPA proposes to
regulate.
2. Stainless
a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the
following pollutants: hexavalent chromium, chromium, nickel, ammonia-N,
and fluoride.
EPA is aware of a potential problem associated with nitrate
discharge from one stainless steel finishing operation with combination
(hydrofluoric and nitric) acid pickling. It may be that similar
problems are associated with discharges coming from similar operations
in other parts of the country. Nitrates, when consumed in drinking
water, can be associated with health problems in humans, particularly
infants.
Nitrates were identified as a pollutant of concern for stainless
steel acid pickling operations where nitric acids and combinations of
nitric and hydrofluoric acids are used for surface treatments for
various grades of stainless steels. Nitrates originate from the nitric
acids used in the process and are released from three sources: waste or
spent pickling acids, pickle rinse waters and acid pickling fume
scrubbers. Some stainless steel finishing operations dispose of their
nitrate bearing wastewater via off-site hauling. Many other stainless
steel finishing facilities treat spent nitric acid and nitric/
hydrofluoric acid pickle liquors on site with the pickling rinse waters
and fume scrubber waters from other stainless steel finishing
operations. Nitrates are soluble in water and thus are not removed to
any appreciable degree in the metals precipitation systems used to
treat chromium and nickel in stainless steel finishing wastewaters.
EPA collected information from mills with stainless steel finishing
operations with onsite chemical precipitation treatment of spent nitric
and nitric/hydrofluoric acids in combination with pickle rinse waters
and acid pickling fume scrubber blow-down. The treated effluent nitrate
concentrations from the mills without acid purification units ranged
from about 500 to more than 1,000 mg/l.
Acid purification systems are used on several stainless steel acid
pickling lines for recovery and reuse of nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric
acids. This technology comprises removal of dissolved metals (iron,
chromium, nickel) from a side stream of the strong acid pickling
solution and return of the purified acid to the acid pickling bath.
This essentially extends the life of the pickling acids, thereby
reducing the consumption of virgin nitric acid. A reject stream
containing dilute acid and the dissolved metals is periodically sent to
wastewater treatment.
The model BAT technology for stainless steel finishing operations
includes acid purification units for recovery and reuse of spent nitric
and nitric/hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions. EPA believes
facilities using acid purification technology can achieve long-term
average concentrations of nitrates in the treated stainless steel acid
pickling wastewater effluent in the range of 200 mg/l to 300 mg/l.
EPA is considering developing a limit for nitrate (in the form of
nitrate-nitrite-N) for stainless steel finishing operations with
combination acid pickling. EPA solicits comment and information on this
issue, particularly (a) monitoring data from steel finishing
[[Page 82025]]
operations that discharge nitrates, or POTWs that receive wastewater
from these operations, and (b) performance data and cost estimates from
vendors of pollution control equipment that is capable of achieving
substantial reduction of nitrates from steel pickling wastewaters.
ii. PSES. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES'' below.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as
for BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease.
iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for
BAT. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has
determined that hexavalent chromium, chromium, nickel, ammonia-N, and
fluoride pass through.
b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT for the
Stainless segment of the proposed steel finishing subcategory are
Recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil removal, hexavalent
chrome reduction (where applicable), equalization, metals
precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering, counter-current
rinses, and acid purification. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section
V.C. EPA estimates that, under BAT-1, flow from this segment of the
Finishing subcategory would decrease by 47%, and the amount of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 45%. EPA
estimates BAT-1 to remove 69,700 toxic pound-equivalents beyond current
conditions, at an annualized compliance cost of $0.2 million (1997$).
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA
has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did not
pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant POCs
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for
BAT for the stainless steel segment of the proposed Steel Finishing
subcategory.
ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for
PSES-1 are the same as the BAT-1 technologies. EPA estimates that,
under PSES-1, flow from the stainless segment of the Steel Finishing
subcategory would decrease by 23%, and the amount of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%. However, EPA
is not proposing to revise PSES for facilities in this segment.
EPA discovered that the majority (548 of 653) of the toxic pound-
equivalents projected to be removed through promulgation of PSES
standards were attributable to one parameter (fluoride) from one
facility. EPA believes that, in a situation like this, it is more
appropriate for the POTW control authority for that facility to control
the pollutant release through its pretreatment control mechanism,
rather than to implement a national pretreatment standard. When these
toxic pound-equivalents are removed from the analysis, the number of
toxic pound-equivalents per facility drops to 7. EPA recently decided
not to promulgate pretreatment standards for two industrial categories,
Industrial Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills,
see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 2000), with projected removals of toxic
pound equivalents by facilities in those categories comparable to this.
In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not to promulgate
pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents per facility
per year; and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA decided not to
promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous landfills based on
the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per facility per year.
While EPA does not propose to revise PSES for this segment, EPA
intends to re-codify the current PSES to fit the new proposed
subcategorization format. The PSES limits currently in 40 CFR part 420
for each manufacturing process except electroplating would continue to
apply under this proposal. Limits for the electroplating manufacturing
process are currently included in 40 CFR part 433. The PSES limits in
40 CFR part 433 are concentration-based, as opposed to those in 40 CFR
part 420, which are mass-based. To ensure a consistent basis for
facilities operating other operations in addition to electroplating,
EPA is proposing to convert the existing 40 CFR part 433 PSES
concentration-based limits to mass-based limits by multiplying by the
proposed BAT production-normalized flow rate and the appropriate
conversion factor. Nine pollutants are regulated under PSES at 40 CFR
part 433, some of which do not apply to electroplating operations as
performed in the Iron and Steel industry. EPA proposes to specify PSES
limits for four of the pollutants: Chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc.
These four metals were identified as POCs for electroplating
manufacturing operations in section 7 of the technical development
document. EPA does not believe this action will result in incremental
cost increases to the industry. EPA seeks industry comment on this
matter.
iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes NSPS and PSNS for this subcategory to
be the same as the proposed BAT technology because no other treatment
technologies are demonstrated to control the pollutants EPA proposes to
regulate.
H. Other
After considering all of the technology options described in the
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(1)(B)
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select
the technology options identified below as BPT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS
for the following proposed segments in this final subcategory: Direct-
Reduced Ironmaking, ging, and Briquetting.
1. Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)
a. Regulated Pollutants. The Agency proposes to regulate TSS for
this segment.
b. Technology Selected. i. BPT/BCT/NSPS. EPA is proposing BPT and
BCT for the Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI) segment because the Agency
is setting limits for the first time for the conventional pollutants in
this subcategory. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis
for the development of the proposed BPT/BCT/NSPS limits for the DRI
segment are: solids removal, clarifier, and high rate recycle, with
filtration for blowdown wastewater. This is identified as BPT-1 in
Section V.C. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result
of BPT-1.EPA proposes this option because it is the best practicable
control technology currently available. It is also the best
demonstrated technology for controlling the discharge of conventional
pollutants from these operations. EPA is not proposing BAT limitations
for this segment because it has identified no toxic or non-conventional
pollutants of concern for the segment.
ii. PSES/PSNS. The Agency reserves PSES/PSNS for the DRI segment it
found no pollutants that pass through.
2. ging
a. Regulated Pollutants and Limits. i. Direct Dischargers (BPT/BCT/
NSPS). The Agency proposes to regulate TSS and oil & grease for this
segment.
ii. Indirect Dischargers (PSES/PSNS). The Agency reserves PSES/PSNS
for the forging segment because it found no pollutants that pass
through.
b. Technology Selected. i. BPT/BCT/NSPS. forging operations, EPA is
proposing BPT/BCT because the Agency is setting limits for the first
time for the conventional pollutants in this
[[Page 82026]]
subcategory. The treatment technology that serves as the basis for the
development of the proposed BPT and BCT limitations and NSPS for the
ging segment is oil/water separation. This is identified as BPT-1 in
Section V.C. EPA estimates that there will be a reduction of O&G of 72%
from direct discharging forging operations as a result of
implementation of this BPT/BCT option.
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BPT-1.
EPA proposes this option because it is the best practicable control
technology currently available. It is also the best demonstrated
technology for controlling the discharge of conventional pollutants
from these operations.
EPA is not proposing BAT limitations for this segment because it
has identified no toxic or non-conventional pollutants of concern for
the segment. EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for this
segment because it found no pollutants that pass through.
3. Briquetting
a. Technology Selected. The proposed BPT/BCT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limits
for the Briquetting segment are: no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the U.S.
X. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of Part 420 Through the NPDES Permit Program and the
National Pretreatment Program
Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 of the CWA, EPA promulgates
national effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance
for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1)
Conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease,
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and
zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, and
naphthalene); and (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N,
fluoride, iron, total phenols, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran).
As discussed in Section II, EPA must promulgate six types of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each major industrial
category, as appropriate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent limitation guideline
Abbreviation or standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT.................................... Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently
Available.
BAT.................................... Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable.
BCT.................................... Best Control Technology for
Conventional Pollutants.
NSPS................................... New Source Performance
Standards.
PSES................................... Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources.
PSNS................................... Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pretreatment standards apply to industrial facilities with
wastewater discharges to POTWs, which generally are municipal
wastewater treatment plants. The effluent limitations guidelines and
new source performance standards apply to industrial facilities with
direct discharges to navigable waters.
1. NPDES Permit Program
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is
designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of
the United States through a combination of various requirements
including technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limitations. This proposed regulation contains the categorical
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards
applicable to the iron and steel industry to be used by permit writers
to derive NPDES permit technology-based effluent limitations. Water
quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based on receiving
water characteristics and ambient water quality standards, including
designated water uses. They are derived independently from the
technology-based effluent limitations set out in this proposed
regulation. The CWA requires that NPDES permits must contain for a
given discharge, the more stringent of the applicable technology-based
and water quality-based effluent limitations.
Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides that in the absence of
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards, the
Administrator, or her designee, may establish effluent limitations for
specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Federal NPDES permit
regulations provide that these limits may be established using ``best
professional judgment'' (BPJ) taking into account any proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and other relevant scientific,
technical and economic information. Where EPA has promulgated
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
particular pollutants, any more stringent effluent limitations must be
either WQBELs or effluent limitations derived under other regulations
established by the permit authority.
Section 301 of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987, requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are
to have been achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not later than
three years from date of promulgation of such limitations and in no
case later than March 31, 1989. See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed
revisions to 40 CFR part 420 will be promulgated after March 31, 1989,
NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the revised effluent
limitations guidelines must be included in the next NPDES permit issued
after promulgation of the regulation and the permit must require
immediate compliance.
2. New Source Performance Standards
purposes of applying the new source performance standards (NSPS)
being proposed today, a source is a new source if it commences
construction after the effective date of the forthcoming final rule.
(EPA expects to take final action on this proposal in April 2002, which
is more than 120 days after the date of proposal.) See 40 CFR 122.2.
Each source that meets this definition would be required to achieve any
applicable newly promulgated NSPS upon commencing discharge.
However, the currently codified NSPS continue to have force and
effect for a limited universe of new sources; for this reason, in
today's proposed rule, EPA is retaining the NSPS promulgated in 1982
for part 420. Specifically, following promulgation of any revised NSPS,
the 1982 NSPS would continue to apply for a limited period of time to
new sources that commenced discharge within the time period beginning
ten years before the effective date of a final rule revising part 420.
Thus, if EPA promulgates revised NSPS for Part 420 in April 2002, and
those regulations take effect in June 2002, any direct discharging new
source that commenced discharge after June 1992 but before June 2002
would be subject to the currently codified NSPS for ten years from the
date it commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of such facility, whichever comes first. See CWA section
306(d). After that ten year period expires, any new or revised BAT
limitations would apply with respect to toxics and nonconventional
pollutants. Limitations on conventional pollutants would be based on
the1982 NSPS for conventional pollutants unless EPA promulgates
revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional pollutants that are more
stringent than the 1982 NSPS.
[[Page 82027]]
Rather than reproduce the 1982 NSPS in the proposed rule (which is
substantially reorganized from the 1982 structure), EPA proposes to
refer permitting authorities to the NSPS codified in the 2000 edition
of the Code of Federal Regulations for use during the applicable ten-
year period. (The 2000 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations
presents the 1982 NSPS tables.) This approach would allow EPA to avoid
reproducing in the new regulations numerous tables of NSPS that would
soon become outdated.
National Pretreatment Standards
40 CFR Part 403 sets out national pretreatment standards which have
three principal objectives: (1) To prevent the introduction of
pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that will
interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of municipal
sludge; (2) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which
will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible
with the treatment works; and (3) to improve opportunities to recycle
and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
The national pretreatment standards comprise a series of prohibited
discharges designed to prevent interference with POTW operations and
federal categorical pretreatment standards designed to prevent pass
through of pollutants introduced to POTWs by industrial sources. Local
control authorities are required to implement the national pretreatment
program including application of the federal categorical pretreatment
standards to their industrial users that are subject to such
categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any pretreatment
standards derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are more
restrictive than the federal categorical standards. This proposed
regulation sets out revisions to the federal categorical pretreatment
standards (PSES and PSNS) applicable to iron and steel facilities
regulated by 40 CFR part 420.
The federal categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources
must be achieved not later than three years after promulgation of the
standards. During that three year period, existing indirect discharges
are subject to the 1982 PSES. The 1982 PSES would no longer apply after
the expiration of that three-year period. Rather than reproduce the
1982 PSES in the proposed rule (which is substantially reorganized from
the 1982 structure), EPA proposes to refer pretreatment control
authorities to the PSES codified in the 2000 edition of the Code of
Federal Regulations for use during that three-year period. (The 2000
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations presents the 1982 PSES
tables.) This approach would allow EPA to avoid reproducing in the new
regulations numerous tables of pretreatment standards that would become
outdated within three years.
the purposes of this rule, EPA proposes to treat new indirect
dischargers in the same way that it treats new direct dischargers, in
several material respects.
First, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA proposes PSNS
technologies to be identical to NSPS technologies except where
different technologies are justified by EPA's pass through analysis.
Second, for indirect dischargers that are subject to the current
PSNS, EPA proposes to maintain the current PSNS for ten years beginning
on the date the new indirect discharger commenced discharge or during
the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever
comes first. Thereafter, the indirect discharger would be subject to
any newly promulgated PSES. EPA sees no principled basis to distinguish
between new direct and indirect dischargers when deciding whether to
apply more stringent standards within the first ten years of operation.
Like new direct dischargers, new indirect dischargers were designed and
constructed to meet existing performance standards for new sources.
Concluding that it would be unfair to require a new source to meet a
new set of limits within the first ten years of operation, Congress
passed CWA section 306(d). EPA believes the same concerns apply to new
indirect dischargers; therefore, in the interests of equity, EPA
proposes to apply the ten-year shield to new indirect dischargers as
well.
Third, EPA proposes to characterize a source as a new source
subject to the new PSNS if it commences construction after the
effective date of the forthcoming final rule. Each source that meets
this definition would be required to achieve any applicable newly
promulgated PSNS upon commencing discharge. EPA believes this
definition is appropriate in the context of part 420 because PSNS
already exists to regulate any indirect discharges that might commence
construction prior to promulgation of revisions to part 420. Therefore,
this is not a situation where new discharges might go unregulated
during the period between proposed and final action. This definition is
also consistent with the most recent interpretation of CWA section 306,
upon which EPA relies by analogy. In 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeal for
the Third Circuit struck down the definition of new source in EPA's
pretreatment regulations based on its interpretation of section 306,
which applies to direct discharging new sources. See National Assoc. of
Metal Finishers, et al. v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624 (3d Cir. 1983). In 1987,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed with
the Third Circuit's interpretation of section 306 and upheld a
definition of new source that was tied to the date of promulgation
rather than the date of proposal. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104 (D.C.
Cir. 1987). The court reasoned that a period of uncertainty beyond 120
days (from proposal to promulgation) was unreasonable, and that
Congress could not have intended potential new sources ``to languish in
doubt as to when non-final regulations would eventually enjoy the force
of law.'' This reasoning is relevant to this rulemaking, where EPA is
scheduled to take final action on today's proposal in 18 months.
Finally, EPA's approach in this proposed rule is also distinguishable
from the facts contemplated by the Third Circuit, which did not
consider the retrofitting costs a new source might incur when planning
and constructing its facility in accordance with the current PSNS, only
to have to make potentially costly adjustments soon thereafter to
comply with newly promulgated PSNS.
Rather than reproduce the 1982 PSNS in the proposed rule (which is
substantially reorganized from the 1982 structure), EPA proposes to
refer pretreatment control authorities to the PSNS codified in the 2000
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations for use during the
applicable ten-year period. (The 2000 edition of the Code of Federal
Regulations presents the 1982 PSNS tables.) This approach would allow
EPA to avoid reproducing in the new regulations numerous tables of PSNS
that have already been codified.
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams 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.
[[Page 82028]]
C. Variances and Removal Credits
1. Variances
The NPDES permit regulations provide for the following types of
modifications of permit effluent limitations derived from the effluent
limitations guidelines:
a. Section 301(c) economic variance from BAT for non-conventional
pollutants.
b. Section 301(g) water quality-related variance from BAT for non-
conventional pollutants.
c. Section 316(a) thermal variance from BPT, BCT and BAT.
d. Fundamentally different factors variance (40 CFR part 125,
subpart D).
Although final regulations that set out criteria for applying for
and evaluating applications for section 301(c) and 301(g) variances
have not been promulgated, EPA has published guidance materials for
permit authorities regarding such variances. Variances under section
316(a) for thermal discharges are not at issue in the current 40 CFR
part 420, or with these proposed modifications, because effluent
limitations guidelines for thermal discharges have not been promulgated
previously, nor is EPA proposing them at this time. See the published
guidance materials and 40 CFR part 125 for further information
regarding the above-listed variances. The pretreatment regulations
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
2. Removal Credits
Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA establishes a discretionary program
for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers.
Removal credits are a regulatory mechanism by which industrial users
may discharge a pollutant in quantities that exceed what would
otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical pretreatment
standard because it has been determined that the POTW to which the
industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant. EPA has
promulgated removal credit regulations as part of its pretreatment
regulations. See 40 CFR 403.7. These regulations provide that a POTW
may give removal credits if prescribed requirements are met. The POTW
must apply to and receive authorization from the Approval Authority. To
obtain authorization, the POTW must demonstrate consistent removal of
the pollutant for which approval authority is sought. Further, the POTW
must have an approved pretreatment program. Finally, the POTW must
demonstrate that granting removal credits will not cause the POTW to
violate applicable Federal, State and local sewage sludge requirements.
40 CFR 403.7(a)(3).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
interpreted the Clean Water Act as requiring EPA to promulgate the
comprehensive sewage sludge regulations required by CWA
Sec. 405(d)(2)(A)(ii) before any removal credits could be authorized.
See NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir., 1986); cert. denied. 479
U.S. 1084 (1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water Quality Act
of 1987, which provided that EPA could not authorize any removal
credits until it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal regulations.
On February 19, 1993, EPA promulgated Standards for the Use or Disposal
of Sewage Sludge, which are codified at 40 CFR part 503 (58 FR 9248).
EPA interprets the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only allowing
removal credits for a pollutant if EPA has either regulated the
pollutant in part 503 or established a concentration of the pollutant
in sewage sludge below which public health and the environment are
protected when sewage sludge is used or disposed.
The part 503 sewage sludge regulations allow four options for
sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land application for beneficial use, (2)
placement on a surface disposal unit, (3) firing in a sewage sludge
incinerator, and (4) disposal in a landfill which complies with the
municipal solid waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part 258. Because
pollutants in sewage sludge are regulated differently depending upon
the use or disposal method selected, under EPA's pretreatment
regulations the availability of a removal credit for a particular
pollutant is linked to the POTW's method of using or disposing of its
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits may be
potentially available for the following pollutants:
(1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial
uses, disposes of it in a surface disposal unit, or incinerates it in a
sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for the
pollutants for which EPA has established limits in 40 CFR part 503. EPA
has set ceiling limitations for nine metals in sludge that is land
applied, three metals in sludge that is placed on a surface disposal
unit, and seven metals and 57 organic pollutants in sludge that is
incinerated in a sewage sludge incinerator. (40 CFR
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
(2) Additional removal credits may be available for sewage sludge
that is land-applied, placed in a surface disposal unit, or incinerated
in a sewage sludge incinerator, so long as the concentration of these
pollutants in sludge do not exceed concentration levels established in
part 403, Appendix G, Table II. sewage sludge that is land applied,
removal credits may be available for an additional two metals and 14
organic pollutants. sewage sludge that is placed on a surface disposal
unit, removal credits may be available for an additional seven metals
and 13 organic pollutants. sewage sludge that is incinerated in a
sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for three
other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR part 258, removal
credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage sludge
(40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).
Several iron and steel companies which are indirect dischargers to
POTWs have sought removal credits for pollutants subject to categorical
pretreatment standards but for which no sewage sludge standard (part
503, part 403, Appendix G-Table I) or maximum concentration (part 403,
Appendix G--Table II) has been established. Specifically, these
companies claim that phenols (4AAP) are consistently treated by POTWs
and do not cause the sewage sludge to adversely affect human health and
the environment. (See, e.g., LTV Steel v. EPA, No. 94-1516 (7th Cir.)).
Today's proposal, if finalized, would mean that removal credits for
phenols (4AAP) would no longer be necessary, because there would no
longer be a categorical pretreatment standard for that pollutant.
However, for those pollutants which would be included in the
categorical pretreatment standard, only those included in either part
403, Appendix G--Table I or Table II would be eligible for removal
credits.
D. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
1. Background
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS proposed today are expressed as mass limitations
in pounds/ton of product. The mass limitation is derived by multiplying
an effluent concentration (determined from the analysis of treatment
system performance) by a model flow appropriate for each subcategory
expressed in gallons/ton of product, or gallons/day. The production
normalized flows used to develop many of the limits in the proposed
rule are considerably lower than those used to
[[Page 82029]]
develop currently applicable limits. Consequently, many of the proposed
limitations are more stringent than the current limitations for the
same operations, even though other components of the wastewater
treatment system remains the same. The proposed limitations neither
require the installation of any specific control technology nor the
attainment of any specific flow rate or effluent concentration. A
facility subject to today's proposed regulation can use various
treatment alternatives or water conservation practices to achieve a
particular effluent limitation or standard. The model treatment systems
described here illustrate at least one means available to achieve the
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
The NPDES permit regulations at Sec. 122.45(f) require that NPDES
permit effluent limitations be specified as mass effluent limitations
(e.g., lbs/day or kg/day), except under certain enumerated
circumstances that do not apply here. In order to convert the proposed
effluent limitations expressed as pounds/ton to a monthly average or
daily maximum permit limit, the permitting authority would use a
production rate with units of tons/day. The current part 420 and part
122.45(b)(2) NPDES permit regulations require that NPDES permit and
pretreatment limits be based on a ``reasonable measure of actual
production.'' The production rates used for NPDES permitting for the
iron and steel industry have commonly been the highest annual average
production from the prior five year period prorated to a daily basis,
or the highest monthly production over the prior five years prorated to
a daily basis. Industry stakeholders have indicated that (1) EPA should
put the method used to determine appropriate production rates for
calculating allowable mass loadings into the regulation for
consistency, so that the permit writers can all use the same basis; and
(2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as maximum monthly
production over the previous five year period or maximum design
production, in order to ensure that a facility will not be out of
compliance during periods of high production.
The NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i) require that
for existing sources mass effluent limitations calculated from
production-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards must be
based not on production capacity, but on a ``reasonable measure of
actual production.'' The current iron and steel regulation at 40 CFR
420.04 sets out the basis for calculating mass-based pretreatment
requirements and requires that the pretreatment requirements also be
based on a reasonable measure of actual production. That regulation
provides the following examples of what may constitute a reasonable
measure of actual production: the monthly average for the highest of
the previous five years, or the high month of the previous year. Both
values are converted to a daily basis (i.e., tons/day) for purposes of
calculating monthly average and daily maximum mass permit effluent
limitations. Similar provisions exist in the national pretreatment
regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3) for deriving mass-based pretreatment
requirements.
Each of the above regulations requires that effluent limitations
and pretreatment standards for new sources must be based on projected
production. That approach is carried forward in this proposed
regulation.
EPA believes that some NPDES and pretreatment permit production
rates have been derived in a manner that is not consistent with the
term ``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at
Sec. 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum
production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment
system were determined from different years or months, which may
provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's
view, this would occur if the different process units could not
reasonably produce at these high rates simultaneously.
The ideal situation for the application of production-based
effluent limitations and standards is where production is relatively
constant from day-to-day or month-to-month. In this case, the
production rate used for purposes of calculating the permit limitations
would then be the average rate. However, in the case of the iron and
steel industry, production rates are not constant and vary
significantly based on factors such as fluctuations in marked demand
for domestic products, maintenance, product changes, equipment
failures, and facility modifications. As such, the typical production
rate for individual mills vary significantly over time, especially over
the customary five-year life of a permit.
The objective in determining a production estimate for a mill is to
develop a reasonable measure of production which can reasonably be
expected to prevail during the next term of the permit. This is used in
combination with the production-based limitations to establish a
maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each day and month.
However, if the permit production rate is based on the maximum month,
then the permit could allow excessive discharges of pollutants during
significant portions of the life of the permit. These excessive
allowances may discourage mills from ensuring optimal waste management,
water conservation, and wastewater treatment practices during lower
production periods. On the other hand, if the average permit production
rate is based on an average derived from the highest year of production
over the past five years, then mills may have trouble ensuring that
their waste management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment
practices can accommodate shorter periods of higher production. This
might require mills to target a more stringent treatment level than
that on which the limits were based during these periods of high
production. To accomplish this mills would likely have to develop more
efficient treatment systems, greater hydraulic surge capacity, and
better water conservation and waste management practices during these
periods.
2. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations
EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative approaches that
may result in more stringent mass-based permits for some mills with
better protection of the environment for the entire life of a permit
and may result in higher costs. Each alternative requires that
production from unit operations that do not generate or discharge
process wastewater shall not be included in the calculation of
operating rates.
Alternative A: This is the basis for today's proposed limits. It
retains the essential requirements of the current rule as described
above (see Sec. 420.3). However, today's proposal provides additional
instructions for avoiding approaches that result in unrealistically
high estimates of actual production by only considering production from
all production units that could occur simultaneously (see
Sec. 420.3(c)). This may result in higher costs for those mills with
current permit conditions based on production levels that are higher
than levels that could occur simultaneously at multiple process units.
However, these costs were included in the economic analysis for the
1982 I&S regulation as well as today's proposal.
Alternative B: The Agency is considering including in the rule a
requirement for the permit writer to establish multi-tiered permit
limits. Permit writers and control authorities
[[Page 82030]]
currently use their best professional judgment for establishing multi-
tiered permits. The Agency has issued guidance for use in considering
multi-tiered permits (see Chapter 5 of the ``U.S. EPA NPDES Permit
Writers' Manual,'' (EPA-833-8-96-003, December 1996) and Chapter 7 of
the ``Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual,'' (EPA 833/R-89-001,
September 29, 1989).
In situations where a single set of effluent limitations are not
appropriate for the permit's entire period, a tiered permit may be
established. One set of limits would apply for periods of average
production along with other sets which take effect when there are
significant changes in the average production rate. The guidance notes
that a 10 to 15 percent deviation above or below the long-term average
production rate is within the range of normal variability. Predictable
changes in the long-term production higher than this range would
warrant consideration of a tiered or multi-tiered permit. The iron and
steel industry has a variable historical production rate where the
permit modification process is not fast enough to respond to the need
for higher or lower equivalent limits. example, many iron and steel
mills have a characteristic historical average monthly production rate
that varies between 60 to 95 percent of plant capacity. (Note that for
a mill operating at 60 percent of capacity, a production increase to 95
percent of capacity would represent nearly a 60 percent jump in
production.) In these cases, alternate effluent limitations might be
established for average production rates associated, for example, with
75 and 95 percent of capacity.
Alternative C: To provide a basis for deriving NPDES and
pretreatment permit production rates that is consistent with the term
reasonable measure of actual production and that can be applied
consistently for steel mills subject to part 420, EPA is also
considering revising the definition of production. The modified
definition of the NPDES and pretreatment permit production basis would
be the average daily operating rate for the year with the highest
annual production over the past five years, taking into account the
annual hours of operation of the production unit and the typical
operating schedule of the production unit, as illustrated by the
following example:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest annual production from previous 3,570,000 tons.
five years.
Operating hours........................... 8,400 hours.
Hourly operating rate..................... 425 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (24 hour day) 10,200 tons/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above example is for a process unit that is operated typically
24 hours per day with short-term outages for maintenance on a weekly or
monthly basis. steel processing facilities that are operated typically
less than 24 hours per day, the average daily operating rate must be
determined based on the typical operating schedule (e.g., 8 hours per
day for a facility operated one 8-hour turn (or shift) per day; 16
hours per day for a facility operated for two 8-hour turns per day).
example:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest annual production from previous 980,000 tons.
five years.
Operating hours........................... 4,160 hours.
Hourly operating rate..................... 235.6 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (16 hour day) 3,769 tons/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this example, EPA recognizes that the approach could cause
problems for a facility that was operated 16 hours/day at the time the
permit was issued and then wished to change to 24 hours/day based on
unforseen changes in market conditions. To address this issue, the
approach could be combined with the tiered permit approach discussed
above.
multiple similar process units discharging to the same wastewater
treatment system with one NPDES or pretreatment permit compliance point
(e.g., two blast furnaces operated with one treatment and recycle
system for process waters), under this approach the year with the
highest annual production over the previous five years would be
determined on the basis of the sum of annual production for both
furnaces. Then, based on this year's average daily operating rate would
be calculated as above independently for each furnace using total
annual production and annual operating hours for each furnace. The
daily production values would be summed to calculate the average daily
operating rate for the combination of the two furnaces. example,
consider the following production data:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace A Furnace B Total (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 1,850,000 1,305,000 3,155,000
1996............................................................ 1,675,000 1,425,000 3,100,000
1997............................................................ 1,760,000 1,406,000 3,166,000
1998............................................................ 1,580,000 1,328,000 2,908,000
1999............................................................ 1,825,000 1,380,000 3,205,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual maximum production rates for each furnace and the
combination of the two furnaces are underlined. In this example, 1999
was the maximum production year for the combination of the furnaces and
the data from each furnace that year would be used to calculate the
average daily operating rates. Had the 1995 data from Furnace A and the
1996 data from Furnace B been used in combination (3,275,000 tons), an
unrealistic measure of actual production might have resulted if the two
furnaces could not produce at these high levels concurrently. example,
if the downstream intermediate production capacity effectively limits
the combined production of the two furnaces. On the other hand, if the
two furnaces could produce at these high levels concurrently, and might
reasonablely be expected to over the forthcoming five-year permit cycle
if strong market conditions prevailed, then the production measure
based on the 1995 Furnace A data and the 1996 Furnace B data might not
be an unrealistic measure of actual production.
In contrast to the previous example, for multiple process units
that are not similar, but have process wastewater co-treated in one
centralized wastewater treatment system with one NPDES or pretreatment
permit compliance point, the year with the highest production over the
previous five years would be determined separately for each production
unit or combination of similar production units with the highest annual
production. example, where process wastewater for BOF steelmaking,
vacuum degassing, and
[[Page 82031]]
continuous casting operations are discharged through one NPDES permit
or pretreatment permit compliance point. Consider the following
example:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Caster
BOF V. Degasser (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 2,675,000 1,305,000 2,658,000
1996............................................................ 2,900,000 1,600,000 2,885,000
1997............................................................ 3,150,000 1,690,000 3,140,000
1998............................................................ 3,280,000 1,668,000 3,270,000
1999............................................................ 3,225,000 1,380,000 3,215,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this example, 1998 production data for the BOF, 1997 data from
the vacuum degasser, and 1998 data for the continuous caster would be
used to develop the NPDES permit effluent limitations. An analogous
situation would be for a steel finishing plant with acid pickling, cold
rolling and electroplating operations.
The permit applicant would, under this alternative, need to provide
the following information with its permit application or pretreatment
report: for each process operation regulated, the average daily
operating rate determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3, including the
underlying production data and operating schedule information necessary
to calculate the average daily operating rate; and, sufficient
information to identify each process operation in terms of the
definitions of process operations set out in this part.
Alternative D: The Agency is considering establishing production-
based maximum monthly average effluent limitations and standards in
combination with daily-maximum concentration-based effluent limitations
and standards. Under this alternative, the maximum monthly average
NPDES permit and pretreatment mass basis requirements would be
determined using the part 420 production-based standards in combination
with a reasonable measure of actual production, such as Alternative C
above. However, the daily-maximum requirements would be in the form of
effluent concentrations that would be included in part 420 in lieu of
the daily-maximum production-based mass effluent limitations guidelines
and standards. The daily maximum concentrations set out as effluent
limitations guidelines and standards would be those concentrations that
were used to develop the proposed production-based mass effluent
limitations guidelines and standards.
The Agency believes this approach would effectively address the
potential issue cited above regarding short-term peaks in production
under most circumstances. There would be no additional burden on the
industry and permit writers for applying for and writing NPDES or
pretreatment permits. Permit authorities may need to revise their
automated compliance tracking systems to account for both mass and
concentration limitations at the same outfall, which is a common
feature in many NPDES and pretreatment permits issued prior to this
proposal.
This approach would also provide some flexibility for the industry
where, because of historical conditions, relatively high volumes of
storm water from intense rainfall events are collected and treated with
process water. In some cases, the volume of storm water collected and
treated may cause short-term peak discharge flows that exceed the
normal process water discharge flow which may result in violation of
daily-maximum limitations. On balance, the Agency believes that
treatment of such storm water flows is beneficial. The combination of
maximum monthly average mass limits and daily-maximum concentration
limits would provide such flexibility.
EPA solicits comments about these alternatives to the proposed
production bases for calculating NPDES permit effluent limitations and
pretreatment requirements including comments on related costs and any
technical difficulties that mills might have in meeting limits during
short periods of high production. EPA also solicits other options for
consideration.
E. Water Bubble
The ``water bubble'' is a regulatory flexibility mechanism
described in the current regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for
trading of identical pollutants at any single steel facility with
multiple compliance points. The bubble has been used at some facilities
to realize cost savings and/or for compliance. It is structured in a
way to produce also a benefit for the environment.
As currently structured the water bubble has the following
restrictions:
Trades can be made only for like pollutants (e.g. lead for
lead, not lead for zinc).
Trades are subject to any applicable water quality-based
effluent limitations.
Each outfall must have specific fixed limitations
Cokemaking and cold rolling are excluded from
consideration for water bubble use.
Each trade must result in a minimum net reduction amount
of the amount traded (15% for TSS/Oil & Grease, 10% for toxic
pollutants).
Bubble restricted to existing sources.
While at present NPDES permits for only nine facilities have
alternative effluent limitations derived from the water bubble, there
may be increased interest in the water bubble with the promulgation of
a revised part 420. With this in mind, EPA proposes making the
following changes to the water bubble rule:
Allow trades for cokemaking operations but only if the
cokemaking alternative limitations are more stringent than the
limitations in Subpart A. These more stringent limits would be offset
by less stringent limits for some other operation. EPA is proposing to
limit trades involving cokemaking in this way because it is concerned
about co-occurring contaminants in cokemaking wastewaters for which
limits are not being established (e.g., benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene). Allowing a relaxation of the limits
for cokemaking wastewater could allow undetected increases in
discharges of these co-occurring contaminants that would not
necessarily be offset by tighter limits on the regulated pollutants in
another waste stream.
Prohibit trades for sintering operations because of the
presence of dioxins and furans in sinter wastewater unless the
alternative limitations are more stringent than the sintering process
wastewater limitations in subpart B. As with cokemaking, these more
stringent sintering limits would be offset by less stringent limits on
some
[[Page 82032]]
other waste stream. The logic for this restriction is the same as for
cokemaking.
Prohibit trades of oil and grease because of differences
in the types of oil and grease used among the I&S operations (the
finishing operations tend to use and discharge synthetic and animal
fats and oils used to lubricate metal materials, the hot-end operations
tend to discharge petroleum-based oil and grease used to lubricate
machinery, and cokemaking operations tend to discharge oil and grease
containing polynuclear aromatics generated by the combustion of coal).
Allow trades for cold rolling operations.
Allow trades for new, as well as existing sources. Since
the existing source environmental gain is 10 percent for all parameters
except for TSS which is 15 percent, EPA is considering whether a higher
net gain, e.g., 20 percent, is appropriate for new sources given their
flexibility in design.
EPA is proposing to change the current regulations to prohibit
trading between outfalls of oil and grease. As noted above, EPA is
concerned that different types of oil and grease may be discharged by
different process units, and that trading might thus allow an increase
in a more environmentally harmful type of oil and grease (e.g.,
petroleum based), with the offsetting reduction being from a less
harmful type (e.g., animal fats). EPA recognizes that facilities will
generally identify trades that save them money. EPA has no data to
suggest that the most economically beneficial trading opportunities
(i.e., those likely to be used by facilities) would systematically
either decrease or increase the most harmful types of oil and grease.
Giving the existing requirement for a 15 percent net decrease of oil
and grease across all outfalls if trading is utilized, it may well be
the case that even with the possibility that an individual trade might
allow for an increase in, say, petroleum-based oil and grease, the net
effect of trading would be both beneficial to the environment and
provide cost saving opportunities to facilities. EPA requests comment
on whether trading should continue to be allowed for oil and grease,
including the current 15 percent (or greater) net reduction.
Potential cost impacts associated with changes in the water bubble
have been accounted for in the estimated capital and operating and
maintenance costs prepared for the economic impact and cost-
effectiveness analyses.
EPA requests comment on the modified restrictions on the use of the
bubble, particularly on the larger environmental gain through the use
of the bubble that would be required for new sources.
EPA proposes to retain the other restrictions specified in the
current water bubble rule.
XI. Other Coinciding Agency Activities
A. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L--National Air Emission Standard for Coke
Oven Batteries
Promulgated on October 27, 1993, this regulation established coke
oven emission limits for lids (% leaking lids), offtakes PLO (% leaking
offtakes), charging (log), and doors PLD (% leaking doors). The
regulation established two alternate tracks of limits through which
coke ovens batteries may achieve compliance; the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) track and the Lowest Achievable Emissions
Rate (LAER) extension track. All coke manufacturing facilities have
chosen a specific track and, where appropriate, are attempting to
conform with these regulations. Of the 58 by-product recovery coke
batteries in operation in the United States, 50 have selected the LAER
extension track, which subjects them to requirements through the year
2020. The LAER extension track limits may become more stringent in
2010. These plants will not be affected by the residual Risk Standards
when promulgated. The remaining eight by-product recovery coke
batteries that selected the MACT Track Limits must comply with Residual
Risk Standards after they are promulgated.
B. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Proposed Rule
EPA is developing a regulation under section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) to reduce emissions from pushing, quenching, and battery
stacks at coke plants and plans to propose the rule in November 2000
and promulgate it in November 2001. This rule would establish
requirements to control coke oven emissions and would apply to all coke
batteries at coke plants that are major sources of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions or that are part of a facility that is a
major source of HAP emissions. A major source means any stationary
source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit
considering controls, in aggregate, 10 tons or more per year of any
single HAP or 25 tons per year of more of any combination of HAP.
The rule includes both emission limitations and work practice
standards. Relative to pushing, two options are proposed. One option
would require sources to meet an opacity limit based on the daily
observations of four pushes. The other option is a work practice
standard that places failing ovens under scrutiny until they are
repaired or taken out of service. The proposed rule also includes
emission limits for particulate matter (PM), as a surrogate for coke
oven emissions, for control devices applied to pushing emissions. To
address quenching emissions, sources would be required to use clean
water as makeup water, equip quench towers with baffles, and inspect
and repair baffles on an on-going basis. battery stacks, the proposed
rule establishes opacity limits and requires the installation and
operation of continuous opacity monitors (COM). In addition, all
batteries would be required to operate at all times according to an
operation and maintenance plan to ensure good operation and maintenance
of batteries and control equipment. The proposed rule also includes
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
C. Steel Pickling--HCL Process
The Steel Pickling National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) final rule was published on June 22, 1999, 64 FR,
33202-33223, to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from sources
in steel pickling facilities.
The steel pickling rule applies to all facilities that pickle steel
using hydrochloric acid or that regenerate hydrochloric acid and (a)
that are major sources or (b) are part of a facility that is a major
source. The EPA estimates that 62 of the 80 steel pickling facilities
using hydrochloric acid and all 8 acid regeneration plants currently in
operation (six of which are co-located with pickling facilities) are
affected by this rule. The steel pickling rule does not apply to any
pickling line that uses an acid other than hydrochloric acid, an acid
solution containing less than 6 percent HCl, or at a temperature less
than 100 deg.F.
Existing plants have up to two years from the effective date of the
final rule to comply with its requirements. If necessary, the owner or
operator of an affected facility may request that EPA (or the
applicable regulatory authority in a State with an approved permit
program) grant one additional year to install controls. The EPA's rule
establishes limitations for hydrochloric acid and chlorine emissions
and offers flexibility to the industry by providing
[[Page 82033]]
cost-effective options for both emissions control and monitoring.
Pickling facility operators may comply with the emission limitation
for hydrochloric acid by meeting either an emissions reduction target
or a concentration standard. This option allows operators to comply
with the rule under a wide variety of acid bath and ventilation
conditions. Emissions reductions for hydrochloric acid are based on wet
scrubber control technology, which provides the facility operator the
option of recycling hydrochloric acid from the scrubber effluent.
Interested parties can download the final rule from EPA's web site
on the Internet under ``recent actions'' at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. further information about the rule,
contact James Maysilles of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards at 919-541-3265.
D. Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing NESHAP
EPA plans to propose an Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
NESHAP under section 112(d) of the CAA applicable to sinter plants,
blast furnaces, BOF shops and ancillary operations in November 2000 and
to promulgate it in November 2001. The EPA has included integrated iron
and steel manufacturing facilities on the list of major sources of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions under section 112(c) of the
CAA. Information on this action is at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarp.
You may be subject to the rule if you own or operate an integrated
iron and steel facility that is a major source of HAP emissions, or
that is part of a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions.
This source category includes sinter production, iron production, and
steel production.
XII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to 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.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.
purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has
between 500 and 1500 employees (each firm was assigned the relevant
definition depending on SIC determination and based on SBA size
standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of 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.
After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on
small entities, including consideration of alterative regulatory
approaches being proposed, I certify that this action will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA identified an estimated 34 small companies that may be affected by
the rule among the estimated 115 total companies potentially affected
by the rule. EPA has fully evaluated the economic impact of the
proposed rule on affected small companies. In some instances, EPA
proposes alternative regulatory approaches. This analysis reflects the
most stringent of the alternative options. small companies, EPA
examined the compliance cost to revenue ratio to identify the potential
impact of the rule on small companies. EPA has determined that the
range of compliance costs to revenues is between 0 and 1.91 percent
with only three companies experiencing an impact of greater than 1%,
using the most stringent set of co-proposed options. Furthermore, an
economic achievability analysis was conducted using a discounted cash
flow approach for facility impacts analysis and the Altman Z test for
the firm impacts analysis (for a full discussion, see Section VI). EPA
projects that one small company may incur an impact such as facility
closure or firm failure. No small governments are regulated by this
action.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The Agency
has attempted to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed rule to
all entities, including small entities, by measures such as simplifying
the structure of the existing regulation and encouraging the co-
treatment of compatible wastewaters. EPA has engaged in very
substantive outreach to the potentially affected entities via public
meetings and trade association consultations. The outreach activities
are described in detail in Section IV.D.5 of this preamble. We continue
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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-
[[Page 82034]]
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 with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not 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 the
rule as between $56.5 million to $61.4 million (1999 $, pre-tax).
Accordingly, today's proposal is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has, however, sought meaningful
and timely input from the private sector, states, and small governments
on the development of this notice. Prior to issuing this proposed rule,
EPA met with members of the private sector as discussed earlier in the
preamble.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments. EPA recognizes that small
governments may own or operate POTWs that will need to enter into
pretreatment agreements with the indirect dischargers of the Iron and
Steel industry that would be subject to this proposed rule. However,
EPA currently estimates that the added costs of entering into or
modifying existing pretreatment agreements will be minimal. The main
costs resulting from this proposed rule will fall upon the private
entities that own and operate the Iron and Steel facilities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed iron and steel effluent limitations guidelines and
standards contain no information collection activities and, therefore,
no information collection request will be submitted to OMB for review
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
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) of 1995, (Pub L. 104-
113 sec. 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, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standard 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. The rule requires
dischargers to measure for 7 metals, 4 organic contaminants, TSS, Oil
and Grease (HEM), thiocyanate, total cyanide, total residual chlorine,
ammonia as Nitrogen, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, nitrate and pH. EPA performed a
search to identify potentially voluntary consensus standards that could
be used to measure the analytes in today's final guideline. EPA's
search revealed that consensus standards have already been promulgated
in tables at 40 CFR 136.3 for measurement of all analytes except
thiocyanate.
Today, EPA is proposing to promulgate two consensus standards for
thiocyanate, Method 4500-CN M (Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998) and D4374-98 (Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, volume 11.02, 1999). EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect f the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public
to identify additional potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
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 or safety risk that EPA 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
proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866
(EPA estimates that it would have an annual effect on the economy of
less than $100 million), and is a technology-based rule that does not
involve health standards or address an environmental health or safety
risk that may have a disproportional effect on children.
G. 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 proposed 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 proposed rule establishes
effluent limitations imposing requirements that apply to iron and steel
facilities when they discharge process wastewater or introduce process
wastewater to a POTW. EPA has determined that there are no iron and
steel facilities owned and operated by State and local governments that
would be subject to this proposed rule; therefore, this proposed rule
will not impose any treatment technology costs on State or local
governments. Further, this proposed rule will only affect State and
local governments incidentally in their capacity as implementers of CWA
permitting programs. Therefore, the proposed rule, at most, imposes
only
[[Page 82035]]
minimal administrative costs on States that have authorized NPDES
programs and on local governments that are administering approved
pretreatment programs. (These State and local governments must
incorporate the new effluent limitations guidelines and standards in
new and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or
permits). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did
consult with State government representatives in developing this
proposal, as discussed in Section IV of this document. A summary of the
concerns raised during consultation and EPA's response to those
concerns is provided in Section IV.D.5 of this preamble. In addition,
in the spirit of this Executive Order and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
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 nor does it impose substantial
direct compliance costs on them. EPA has determined that no communities
of Indian tribal governments are affected by this rule. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.
I. Plain Language Directive
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to
understand. example: Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule contain
technical language or jargon that isn't clear? Would a different format
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make
the rule easier to understand? Would more (but shorter) sections be
better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data.
The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection
activities with EPA in order to facilitate mutually beneficial and
cost-effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in
study plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the ``
Further Information'' section at the beginning of this preamble for
technical contacts at EPA. Comments on the proposal must be received by
February 26, 2001.
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
1. Revised Production Basis for Regulation
EPA believes that some NPDES and pretreatment permit production
rates have been derived in a manner that is not consistent with the
term ``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at
Secs. 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. Thus EPA is soliciting
comment on four alternate approaches for establishing permit effluent
limitations. These are described in detail in Section X.D.2, and
summarized below:
Alternative A: Retaining essential requirements of the current rule
while providing additional instructions for avoiding unrealistically
high estimates of actual production
Alternative B: Including a requirement for the permit writer to
establish multi-tiered permit limits
Alternative C: Revising the definition of production to be the average
daily operating rate for the year with the highest annual production
over the past five years
Alternative D: Establishing production-based maximum monthly average
effluent limitations and standards in combination with daily-maximum
concentration-based effluent limitations and standards.
2. Revised Subcategorization
The revised subcategorization described in Section IV.E simplifies
the structure and use of the regulation. The proposed subcategorization
removes defunct manufacturing processes, eliminates subsegments in the
hot forming and finishing subcategories, creates a new subcategory for
non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming processes, and creates new
subcategories or segments for manufacturing processes not currently
regulated. The Agency requests comments on the new subcategorization
and its effects on the implementation of today's proposed rule.
3. Applicability Changes
As described in Section III, the Agency determined that certain
facilities covered by the current Iron and Steel rule have
manufacturing processes that more closely resemble those in facilities
to be covered by the MP&M rule. These processes include: The cold
forming for steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch hot dip coating
of steel; and wire drawing and coating. EPA is proposing to move these
operations into the MP&M category, which will be regulated under 40 CFR
part 438. The Agency also proposes coverage of the following operations
not covered by the current Iron and Steel rule: continuous
electroplating of flat steel products, direct-reduced ironmaking,
briquetting, and steel forging operations. EPA solicits comments on
these proposed applicability changes. EPA also solicits comments on its
proposal to regulate continuous strip electroplating operations in the
part 420.
4. Changes in Water Bubble
As discussed in Section X.E, EPA is proposing making the following
changes to the water bubble rule:
Allow trades for cokemaking where more stringent limits
for cokemaking would result;
Prohibit trades for sintering operations where less
stringent
[[Page 82036]]
limitations for sintering would result, since discharge of dioxins
could result;
Allow trades for cold rolling operations which are
currently excluded from the water bubble provisions; and
Prohibit trades for oil & grease.
The Agency solicits comments on the economic and environmental
impacts of the proposed changes.
5. Approach to PSES and PSNS for ammonia-N in Ironmaking Wastewaters
In Section IX.B, EPA proposes regulatory flexibility that would
allow indirectly discharging ironmaking operations to not have to meet
the pretretment standards for ammonia-N if the facility certifies to
the pretreatment control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 that they
discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with
the indirect discharger's removals, to achieve removals at least
equivalent to those expected under BAT for ammonia-N. The Agency
solicits comment on this certification alternative, particularly from
POTWs currently receiving process wastewaters from ironmaking
operations.
6. Alternative Approaches for Regulating Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot
ming Mills
EPA is proposing two different BAT approaches for the carbon and
alloy segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Subcategory.
The technology basis for these options is identical and consists of a
scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower with
high-rate recycle and mixed-media filtration of blowdown.
The difference between BAT Option A and BAT Option B involves the
amount of time that facilities in the segment would have to achieve BAT
limitations. Under BAT Option A, all facilities would be subject to BAT
limitations as soon as they are placed in the facility's NPDES permit.
Under BAT Option B, in contrast, all facilities could obtain additional
time to achieve BAT limitations. If EPA ultimately determines in April
2002 that BAT Option A is not economically achievable for the segment
as a whole, it may decide to take final action based on BAT Option B.
more details on Options A and B, refer to Section IX.D. EPA
solicits comment on both of these options. EPA also solicits comment on
whether there is any rational basis to distinguish among mills in this
segment, so as to apply BAT Option B only to a specific subsegment of
mills for which the model technology is not economically achievable at
the time of promulgation.
7. Compliance Monitoring Location for pH
Stakeholders have indicated that permit authorities often interpret
the current regulation to require application of pH limitations at
internal monitoring locations, prior to additional treatment or mixing
with other wastewater. EPA is proposing to allow permit authorities the
flexibility to establish pH effluent limitations at final outfalls such
that redundant and unnecessary pH neutralization can be avoided.
8. ELGs and Standards in lbs/ton vs kg/kkg or lbs/1000 lbs
The current part 420 regulation and other previous mass-based
regulations have presented pollutant limitations in terms of kilograms
of allowable pollutant discharge per thousand kilograms of production
(kg/kkg), also expressed as pounds of allowable pollutant discharge per
thousand pounds of production (lbs/1,000 lbs). Today's proposed
regulation presents pollutant limitations in terms of pounds of
allowable pollutant discharge per ton of production (lbs/ton). The
Agency made this change to express the limitations in terms of the
production value that is a standard throughout the industry. The Agency
requests comments on this format.
9. POTW Performance Criteria
In Section IX.A(2) and (3), EPA describes the traditional
methodology used to determine POTW performance and the proposed
revisions to that methodology, respectively. EPA used the traditional
methodology to estimate POTW percent removals, which are a component of
the pass-through methodology used to identify the pollutants to be
regulated for PSES and PSNS and the analysis to determine net pollutant
reductions. Previously, EPA edited data at or near the minimum level
for POTW performance based on the editing criteria used to calculate
BAT limitations. EPA is considering revising the POTW data editing
criteria. Given the range of analytical minimum levels and their
influence on calculated percent removals, EPA is considering several
editing alternatives, detailed in Section IX.A(3). The Agency solicits
comments on potential revisions to the pass-through methodology.
10. Mercury and Selenium in Cokemaking Wastewater
EPA is proposing regulation of mercury and selenium at cokemaking
plants based on toxicity and presence in cokemaking wastewaters as
discussed in Section IX.B(1) Currently, permits for several cokemaking
sites require monitoring for mercury and selenium. EPA solicits
comments on the need for limits for mercury and selenium, including any
additional data available to support or oppose the need for limits.
11. Regulatory Approach for Dioxins and Furans at Sinter Plants
In Section IX, dioxins and furans were identified as pollutants of
concern for sinter plants using wet air pollution controls. EPA
proposes to limit dioxins and furans in wastewaters from sinter plants.
The proposed limit would be for 2,3,7,8-TCDF and would be set to less
than the minimum level. EPA proposes to require compliance monitoring
after primary treatment of sinter plant wastewaters or after sinter
plant and blast furnace wastewaters are co-treated, but before any
additional process or non-process flows are combined with the
wastewater. EPA solicits comments on this proposed regulatory approach.
The Agency is also considering whether to limit dioxins and furans
found in sinter plant wastewaters on the basis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs
(toxicity equivalents) which would measure all of the 17 dioxin and
furan congeners with chlorine substitutions at the 2,3,7 and 8 lateral
positions. This is consistent with the international toxicity
equivalents factors approach; consistent with EPA's approach to
regulating dioxins in other media and for conducting risk assessments;
and consistent with EPA's source characterization work to assess the
national inventory of dioxin releases to environmental media.
12. Consideration of Zero Discharge as NSPS for the Non-Integrated
Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory
As described in Section IV.F(5)c, non-integrated mills have
demonstrated lower discharge flow rates than continuous casters and hot
forming mills at integrated and stand alone mills. Many non-integrated
sites report zero discharge of process wastewater using high-rate
recycle systems for the entire mill. EPA determined that new facilities
can incorporate process water treatment and water pollution control at
the design stage, thus avoiding costs associated with retrofit
situations. The Agency solicits comments on establishing zero discharge
limitations at NSPS for the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
Subcategory.
13. Zero Discharge for all EAFs
As described in Section IV.F(5)a, the proposed Non-Integrated
Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory includes a segment for EAF
steelmaking. Since the only EAF remaining in the United States
[[Page 82037]]
that discharges wastewater is now only used for emergency purposes, EPA
did not cost the site to replace the wet air pollution control unit. If
the unit is still being used at the time this rule is promulgated, BPJ
will apply. The Agency solicits comments on excluding a segment for
EAFs with wet air pollution control.
14. Surface Quality Issues for Steel Finishing Operations
the purposes of this proposal, the Agency has selected the median
production-normalized flow rate (PNF) reported by the industry for
steel finishing operations. This approach was intended to address
product quality issues associated with water use. A number of mills
engaging in steel finishing operations claim to need a relatively high
PNF (i.e., higher than the median PNF selected by EPA for this proposed
subcategory). Therefore, the Agency requests comments on surface
quality and any other issues that impact water use and necessitate high
water use rates in steel finishing operations.
15. Limits for Nitrates/Nitrites at Stainless Finishing Facilities
In Section IX, nitrate/nitrite was identified as a pollutant of
concern for stainless steel acid pickling operations where nitric acids
and combinations of nitric and hydrofluoric acids are used for surface
treatments for various grades of stainless steels. The model BAT
technology for stainless steel finishing operations includes acid
purification units for recovery and reuse of spent nitric and nitric/
hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions. EPA is considering developing a
limit, based on acid purification technology, for nitrate/nitrite (in
the form of nitrate-nitrite-N) for stainless steel finishing operations
with combination acid pickling. EPA solicits effluent quality
monitoring data from stainless steel acid pickling operations using
acid purification and from POTWs that receive wastewater from these
operations.
EPA is aware of other process changes which may result in decreased
nitrate concentrations in stainless steel acid pickling wastewaters,
including chemical substitution for nitric acid. EPA solicits
information on this or any other process capable of achieving
substantial reduction or elimination of nitrates from stainless steel
pickling wastewaters, particularly process details; for which grades of
stainless steel the process can be used; performance data; and detailed
cost estimates.
16. Revision of Subcategorization for BPT Effluent Limitations
EPA is considering converting the existing mass-based BPT
limitations for conventional pollutants TSS and O&G to corresponding
concentration-based BPT limitations via the production normalized flows
used to develop the existing BPT limitations. By this conversion, EPA
does not intend to change the substance of the current BPT limitations
in any way. Rather, EPA intends to simplify application of the current
BPT limitations in view of the new subcategorization arrangement. EPA
solicits comments on this approach.
17. Best Management Practices
EPA is planning to include in guidance documents or in the
technical development document for the final rule a number of
recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use in the NPDES and
pretreatment programs. These BMPs would not be codified in part 420,
but could be used by permit writers on a facility-by-facility basis as
deemed appropriate to address site-specific issues. Among the BMPs
being considered in this fashion are those listed at Section 6.5 of the
Preliminary Study (EPA 821-R-95-037) and others dealing with management
of oily wastewaters from hot forming operations and periodic reviews
and assessments of the integrity of process water collection systems
and wastewater treatment system operations. EPA solicits comments on
this approach.
18. Cash Flow in the Economic Analysis
In the economic analysis, cash flow at the site-level is defined as
the sum of net income and depreciation. The measure is widely used
within industry in evaluating capital investment decisions because both
net income and depreciation (which is an accounting offset against
income, but not an actual cash expenditure) are potentially available
to finance future investment. However, assuming that total cash flow is
available over an extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to
finance investments related to environmental compliance could overstate
a site's ability to comply. In particular, the cost of capital
equipment (not associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out
of cash flow, as it is of income through the subtraction of
depreciation. Thus, any costs associated with either replacing existing
capital equipment, or repaying money that was previously borrowed to
pay for it, are omitted from the site-level analysis. EPA solicits
comment on its use of cash flow as a measure of resources available to
finance environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative
methodologies.
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
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 for industrial discharges to
surface waters, as defined by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT--The best control technology for conventional pollutants,
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of the
CWA.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, applicable to effluent limitations, for industrial
discharges to surface waters, as defined by section 304(b)(1) of the
CWA.
Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended
e.g., by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaire--A qestionnaire
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.
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as
determined by section 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations),
i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
Daily Discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a
calendar day.
Direct Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
Effluent Limitation--Under CWA section 502(1), any restriction,
including schedules of compliance, established by a State or the
Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged
from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
Existing Source-- this rule, any facility from which there is or
may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is
commenced before the publication of the final regulations
prescribing a standard of performance under section 306 of the CWA.
[[Page 82038]]
Facility--All contiguous property owned, operated, leased, or
under the control of the same person or entity.
Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as
hazardous under RCRA, TSCA, or any state law.
Indirect Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
LTA (Long-Term Average)-- 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 effluent limitations guidelines and standards in
today's proposed regulation.
Minimum Level--the lowest level at which the entire analytical
system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration
point for the analyte.
NAICS--North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was
developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new
comparability in statistics about business activity across North
America.
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.
Non-Conventional Pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
part 401.
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 effective date of
the final regulations (if those regulations are promulgated after
April 26, 2001). EPA is scheduled to take final action on this
proposal in April 2002. See 40 CFR 122.2.
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
Pass Through--A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' a
POTW when the average percentage removed by an efficiently operated
POTW is less than the average percentage removed by the industry's
direct dischargers that are using well-designed, well-operated BAT
technology.
Point Source--Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See CWA section
502(14).
Pollutants of Concern (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in iron
and steel wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered as a POC
if it was detected in untreated process wastewater at 10 times the
minimum level (ML) in more than 10% of the 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. See 40 CFR part 403, Appendix A
(reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17).
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect
dischargers that commenced construction after December 27, 2001. See
40 CFR 403.3 (K)(1).
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources under section
307(c) 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. 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, treatment,
storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous wastes.
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.
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.
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 in 40 CFR Part 420
Environmental protection, Iron, Steel, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: October 31, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by revising part 420 as follows:
Part 420--Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category
Sec.
420.1 General applicability.
420.2 General definitions.
420.3 Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent
limitations.
420.4 Alternative effluent limitations under the ``water bubble.''
420.5 Pretreatment standards compliance date.
420.6 Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pH.
420.7 Supplemental NPDES permit application and pretreatment
report requirements.
Subpart A--Cokemaking Subcategory
420.10 Applicability.
420.11 Subcategory definitions.
420.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.14 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Ironmaking Subcategory
420.20 Applicability.
420.21 Subcategory definitions.
420.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.24 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.25 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.26 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
420.28 Point of compliance monitoring.
Subpart C--Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory
420.30 Applicability.
420.31 Subcategory definitions.
420.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.33 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.34 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.35 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.36 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
[[Page 82039]]
420.37 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Subcategory
420.40 Applicability.
420.41 Subcategory definitions.
420.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.43 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.45 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.46 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory
420.50 Applicability.
420.51 Subcategory definitions.
420.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.53 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.54 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.55 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.56 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart F--Steel Finishing Subcategory
420.60 Applicability.
420.61 Subcategory definitions.
420.62 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.64 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.65 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart G--Other Operations Subcategory
420.70 Applicability.
420.71 Subcategory definitions.
420.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.73 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.74 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.75 New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.76 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.77 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. 420.1 General applicability.
(a) This part applies to discharges and the introduction of
pollutants to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) resulting from the
manufacture of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and foundry coke),
sinter, iron, steel and semi-finishing steel products including hot and
cold finished flat-rolled carbon and alloy and stainless steels; flat-
rolled and other steel shapes coated with other metals or combinations
of metals; plates; structural shapes and members; and hot rolled pipes
and tubes. Manufacturing activities that may be subject to this part
are generally reported under one or more of the following North
American Industry Classification System (NAISC) codes: 32419, 331111,
331210, 331221 and 331222 (North American Industry Classification
System, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 1997).
(b) This part does not apply to discharges and the introduction of
pollutants to POTWs resulting from cold finished bar or cold finished
pipe and tube operations; wire drawing or coating operations; or,
stand-alone, hot-dipped coating operations for products other than
flat-rolled products.
Sec. 420.2 General definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401
shall apply, except as modified in this part.
(b) Alloy steels means steels which contain one or more of the
following alloying elements in excess of the specified percentage:
Manganese, 1.65%; silicon, 0.5%; copper, 0.6%; or in which a definite
range or a definite minimum quantity of any of the following elements
is specified or required within the limits of the recognized field of
constructional alloy steels: aluminum, boron, chromium (less than 10%),
cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, niobium (columbium), titanium,
tungsten, vanadium, zirconium, or any other alloying element added to
obtain a desired alloying effect.
(c) Billet means a semi-finished piece of steel, usually smaller
than a bloom, resulting from hot-rolling an ingot. The piece may be
square, but not more than twice as wide as thick . It is normally used
for ``long'' products, such as bars, channels or other structural
shapes.
(d) Bloom means a semi-finished piece of steel resulting from
rolling or forging an ingot. The piece is square, or not more than
twice as wide as thick, and has a cross-sectional area of at least 8
square inches but usually 36 square inches or more.
(e) Carbon steels are those steels for which no minimum content of
elements other than carbon is specified or necessary to obtain a
desired alloying effect and when the maximum content for any of the
following elements do not exceed the percentage specified: Manganese,
1.65%; silicon, 0.5%; copper, 0.6%.
(f) Maximum daily means the highest allowable discharge of
wastewater pollutants during any one day.
(g) Maximum monthly average means the highest allowable average of
daily discharges of wastewater pollutants over a calendar month, and is
calculated as the sum of all daily values measured during a calendar
month divided by the number of daily values measured during that month.
(h) Plate means finished sheet steel with a width of more than 8
inches and a thickness ranging from 0.25 inch to more than 12 inches.
(i) Regulated parameters with approved methods of analysis in Table
1B at 40 CFR 136.3 are defined as follows:
(1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia reported as nitrogen.
(2) Chromium means total chromium.
(3) Chromium (VI) means hexavalent chromium.
(4) Copper means total copper.
(5) Cyanide means total cyanide.
(6) HEM means oil and grease measured as hexane extractable
material.
(7) Lead means total lead.
(8) Mercury means total mercury.
(9) Nickel means total nickel.
(10) Nitrate+Nitrite (as N) means nitrite and nitrate reported as
nitrogen.
(11) Selenium means total selenium.
(12) TRC means total residual chlorine.
[[Page 82040]]
(13) TSS means total suspended solids.
(14) Zinc means total zinc.
(j) Regulated parameters with approved methods of analysis in Table
1C at 40 CFR 136.3 are as follows:
(1) Benzo(a)pyrene
(2) Naphthalene
(3) Phenol
(k) Regulated parameter with approved method of analysis by EPA
Method 1613B is defined as follows:
(1) 2,3,7,8-TCDF means 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
(l) Process wastewaters are defined at 40 CFR 401.11.
(m) Non-process wastewaters mean utility wastewaters (for example,
water treatment residuals); treated or untreated wastewaters from
groundwater remediation systems; dewatering water for building
foundations; and other wastewater streams not associated with a
production process.
(n) Rod means a semi-finished length of steel with circular cross-
section (diameter 0.25 inch or less) that is rolled from a billet and
coiled for further processing. Rod is commonly drawn into wire products
or used to make bolts and nails.
(o) Semi-finished steel means blooms, billets or slabs that are
later worked into finished shapes (bar, rod, plate, sheet).
(p) Sheet means a thin flat steel shape created by hot-rolling a
cast slab flat while maintaining the side dimensions. Sheets are within
the following size limitations: 0.0499 to 0.2299 inches thick and 12 to
over 48 inches width, and are often coiled.
(q) Slab means a semi-finished piece of steel resulting from hot-
rolling an ingot into an oblong shape, which is relatively wide and
thin.
(r) Specialty steels are steels containing alloying elements that
are added to enhance the properties of the steel product when
individual alloying elements (e.g., aluminum, chromium, cobalt,
columbium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, zirconium)
exceed 3%, or when the total of all alloying elements exceeds 5
percent. Specialty steel categories include: Electrical, alloy,
stainless and tool.
(s) Stainless means steel containing 10% or more chromium, with or
without other alloying elements. It is a trade name given to corrosion
and heat resistant steel in which the chief alloying elements are
chromium, nickel and silicon in various combinations and possibly a
small per cent of titanium, vanadium, and other elements.
(t) Strip means thin flat steel resembling hot-rolled sheet, but
normally narrower (up to 12 inches wide) and produced to more closely
controlled thicknesses (0.0255 to 0.2299 inches).
Sec. 420.3 Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent
limitations.
(a) The following protocols shall be used when calculating the
daily operating rate (reasonable meaure of actual production), except
as specifically provided for in subparts A through G of this part:
(1) Production levels from unit operations that do not generate or
discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the calculation
of the daily operating rate.
(2) similar, multiple production facilities with process waters
treated in the same process wastewater treatment system (e.g., two
blast furnaces equipped with one process water treatment and recycle
system), the reasonable measure of production (daily operating rate)
shall be determined from the combined production of the similar
production facilities during the same time period.
(3) process wastewater treatment systems where wastewaters from two
or more different production facilities (e.g., blast furnaces and
sintering) are co-treated in the same process wastewater treatment
system, the reasonable measure of production (daily operating rate)
shall be determined for each production facility or combination of
similar, multiple production facilities separately (not necessarily
during the same time period) and summed. The reasonable measure of
production for each set of similar, multiple production facilities
shall be established using the protocols in Sec. 420.3(a)(2).
(b) all process operations regulated by subparts A through G of
this part, mass effluent limitations and pretreatment requirements for
each process operation shall be computed by multiplying the reasonable
measure of actual production by the respective effluent limitations
guidelines or standards. The mass effluent limitations or pretreatment
requirements applicable at a given NPDES or pretreatment compliance
monitoring point shall be the sum of the mass effluent limitations or
pretreatment requirements for each process operation with process
wastewaters discharging to that compliance monitoring point.
(c) Mass NPDES permit effluent limitations or pretreatment
requirements derived from this part shall remain in effect for the term
of the NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism, except:
(1) When the permit is modified in accordance with Sec. 122.62 of
this chapter or local POTW permit modification provisions; or
(2) Where alternate effluent limitations are established for
increased or decreased production levels in accordance with
Sec. 122.45(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this chapter.
(d) Permit and pretreatment control authorities may provide for
increased loadings for non-process wastewaters defined at Sec. 420.2
and for storm water from the immediate process area in NPDES permits
and pretreatment control mechanisms using best professional judgment,
but only to the extent such non-process wastewaters result in an
increased flow.
Sec. 420.4 Alternative effluent limitations under the ``water
bubble''.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) through (g) of this
section, any existing and new source direct discharging point source
subject to this part may qualify for alternative effluent limitations
to those specified in subparts A through G of this part, representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently available, best available
technology economically achievable, best conventional technology, and
best demonstrated technology. The alternative effluent limitations for
each pollutant are determined for a combination of outfalls by totaling
the mass limitations allowed under subparts A through G of this part
for each pollutant and subtracting from each total the net reduction
amount specified for that pollutant in paragraph (b) of this section.
The permit authority shall determine a net reduction amount for each
pollutant subject to this section that is greater than the minimum
percentage specified in paragraph (b) of this section upon
consideration of additional available control measures that would
result in effluent reductions and which can be achieved without
requiring significant additional expenditures at any outfall(s) in the
combination for which the discharge is projected to be better than
required by this regulation.
(b) The water bubble may be used to calculate alternative effluent
limitations only for identical pollutants (e.g. lead for lead, not lead
for zinc).
(c) In the case of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), the minimum net
reduction amount shall be at least 15 percent of the amount(s) for
existing sources and 20 percent of the amount(s) for new sources by
which the TSS discharges from any waste stream(s) in
[[Page 82041]]
the combination will meet otherwise allowable effluent limitations for
TSS. all other pollutants, the minimum net reduction amount shall be at
least 10 percent of the amount(s) for existing sources and 20 percent
of the amount(s) for new sources by which the discharges from any waste
stream(s) in the combination will meet otherwise allowable effluent
limitations for each pollutant under this regulation.
(d) Use of the water bubble to develop alternate effluent
limitations for oil & grease is prohibited.
(e) A discharger cannot qualify for alternative effluent
limitations if the application of such alternative effluent limitations
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water
quality standards.
(f) Each outfall or internal NPDES permit compliance point from
which process wastewaters are discharged must have specific, fixed
effluent limitations for each pollutant limited by the applicable
subparts A through G of this part.
(g) Subcategory-Specific Restrictions:
(1) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for cokemaking
process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are more
stringent than the limitations in subpart A of this part;
(2) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for sintering
process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are more
stringent than the sintering process wastewater limitations in subpart
B of this part.
(h) The water bubble may be used to calculate alternative effluent
limitations only for identical pollutants (e.g., lead for lead, not
lead for zinc).
Sec. 420.5 Pretreatment standards compliance dates.
Compliance with the pretreatment standards for existing sources set
forth in this part is required not later than three years from date of
publication of the final rule whether or not the pretreatment authority
issues or amends a pretreatment permit requiring such compliance. Until
that date, the pretreatment standards for existing sources set forth in
the 2000 version of this part shall continue to apply.
Sec. 420.6 Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pH.
(a) The pH level shall be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0 su at all
times.
(b) The pH level in process wastewaters subject to a subpart within
this part shall be monitored at the point of discharge to the receiving
water or at the point at which the wastewater leaves the wastewater
treatment facility operated to treated effluent subject to that
subpart.
Sec. 420.7 Supplemental NPDES permit application and pretreatment
report requirements.
In addition to the information and data for NPDES permit
applications and pretreatment reports required by part 122, subpart B
and Sec. 403.12, respectively, the permit applicant shall provide the
following information with its permit application or pretreatment
report:
(a) Complete applications for any new variances or for renewal of
any existing variances from the generally applicable effluent
limitations;
(b) Any proposed alternative effluent limitations under the ``water
bubble'' rule at Sec. 420.4.
Subpart A--Cokemaking Subcategory
Sec. 420.10 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from by-product and other cokemaking operations.
Sec. 420.11 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means the average daily operating (production) rate of
metallurgical coke plus coke breeze determined in accordance with
Sec. 420.3.
(b) By-product cokemaking means operations in which coal is heated
in the absence of air to produce metallurgical coke (furnace coke and
foundry coke) and recovery of by-products derived from the gases and
liquids which are driven from the coal during cokemaking.
(c) Cokemaking, non-recovery means cokemaking operations for
production of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and foundry coke)
without recovery of by-products.
(d) Coke means a processed form of coal which serves as the basic
fuel for the smelting of iron ore.
(1) Foundry coke means coke produced for foundry operations.
(2) Furnace coke means coke produced for blast furnace operations.
(e) Iron and steel coke plant means by-product cokemaking
operations which provide more than fifty per cent of the coke produced
to ironmaking blast furnaces associated with steel production.
(f) Merchant coke plant means by-product cokemaking operations
other than those at iron and steel coke plants.
(g) Merchant bar means rounds, flats, angles, squares and channels
that are used by fabricators to manufacture a wide variety of products
such as furniture, stair railings and farm equipment.
(h) Wet desulfurization system means one that utilizes water to
remove (scrub) sulfur compounds from coke oven off-gases.
(i) NESHAPs means National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants applicable to by-product coke plants.
Sec. 420.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source Maximum daily \3\ avg.\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Iron and steel coke plants \1\
Oil & grease.................. 0.0654 0.0218
TSS........................... 0.506 0.262
(2) Merchant coke plants \2\
Oil & grease.................. 0.0698 0.0232
TSS........................... 0.540 0.280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ iron and steel coke plants, increased loadings, not to exceed 11 per
cent of the above limitations, shall be provided for process
wastewaters from wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent
such systems generate process wastewaters.
\2\ merchant coke plants, increased loadings, not to exceed 10 per cent
of the above limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters
from wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems
generate process wastewaters. \3\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82042]]
(b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT): There shall
be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.12 for the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.14 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available
control technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available
control technology economically achievable (BAT):
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................ 0.00137 0.000618
Benzo(a)pyrene........................ 0.0000909 0.0000304
Cyanide............................... 0.0104 0.00394
Mercury............................... 0.000000864 0.000000523
Naphthalene........................... 0.000103 0.0000345
Phenol................................ 0.0000332 0.0000187
Selenium.............................. 0.000185 0.000159
Thiocyanate........................... 0.00164 0.00115
TRC................................... 0.000659
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pounds per ton of product.
(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(4) The effluent limitations for TRC shall be applicable only when
chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters is practiced.
(b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available
control technology economically achievable (BAT): There shall be no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Sec. 420.14. toxic and nonconventional pollutants,
those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the applicable
time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source
must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.14.
(b) By-product cokemaking. The following standards apply with
respect to each new source that commences construction after [insert
date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................ 0.00137 0.000618
Benzo(a)pyrene........................ 0.0000909 0.0000304
Cyanide............................... 0.0104 0.00394
Mercury............................... 0.000000864 0.000000523
Naphthalene........................... 0.000103 0.0000345
Oil & grease.......................... 0.0246 0.0132
[[Page 82043]]
Phenol................................ 0.0000332 0.0000187
Selenium.............................. 0.000185 0.000159
Thiocyanate........................... 0.00164 0.00115
TRC................................... 0.000659
TSS................................... 0.0665 0.0337
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pounds per ton of product.
(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(4) The effluent limitations for TRC shall be applicable only when
chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters is practiced.
(c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of
process wasterwater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Option 1 for paragraph (a): (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as
provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
Physical Chemical Treatment
[Pretreatment Standards (PSES)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................ 0.0845 0.0559
Cyanide............................... 0.0244 0.0128
Naphthalene........................... 0.00268 0.000869
Phenol................................ 2.13 0.720
Selenium.............................. 0.00125 0.00104
Thiocyanate........................... 0.402 0.317
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.9 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.3 per cent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastwaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
Option 2 for paragraph (a): (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as
provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
Physical Chemical plus Biological Treatment
[Pretreatment Standards (PSES)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum
Regulated parameter \1\ monthly avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)....................... 0.00539 0.00357
Cyanide.............................. 0.00616 0.00422
Naphthalene.......................... 0.000103 0.0000345
Phenol............................... 0.0000332 0.0000187
Selenium............................. 0.000185 0.000159
Thiocyanate.......................... 0.00164 0.00115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82044]]
(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(b) Cokemaking-non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Sec. 420.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Sec. 420.16 for ten years beginning on the date the
source commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of the facility, whichever comes first, after which the
source must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.16.
(b) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the
following standards apply with respect to each new source that
commences discharge after [insert date that is 60 days after the
publication date of the final rule]:
Physical Chemical Plus Biological Treatment
[Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................ 0.00539 0.00357
Cyanide............................... 0.00616 0.00422
Naphthalene........................... 0.000103 0.0000345
Phenol................................ 0.0000332 0.0000187
Selenium.............................. 0.000185 0.000159
Thiocyanate........................... 0.00164 0.00115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate
process wastewaters.
(3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking wastewaters.
(c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Subpart B--Ironmaking Subcategory
Sec. 420.20 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from: Sintering operations conducted by heating in a
traveling grate combustion system of iron bearing materials (e.g., iron
ore, mill scale, blast furnace flue dusts, blast furnace wastewater
treatment sludges), limestone, coke fines and other materials to
produce an agglomerate for charging to the blast furnace; and,
ironmaking operations in which iron ore and other iron-bearing
materials are reduced to molten iron in a blast furnace.
Sec. 420.21 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means:
(1) Sinter agglomerated from iron-bearing materials; or
(2) Molten iron produced in a blast furnace, and does not include
slag skimmed remotely from the blast furnace.
The average daily operating (production) rate of sinter and molten
iron must be determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
(b) Dry-air pollution control system is an emission control system
that utilizes filters to remove iron-bearing particles (fines) from
blast furnace or sintering off-gases.
(c) Minimum level (ML) means the level at which the analytical
system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the minimum level is 10 pg/L per EPA
Method 1613B for water and wastewater samples.
(d) Pg/L means picograms per liter (ppt = 1.0 x 10-12
gm/L).
(e) Sintering means a process for agglomerating iron-bearing
materials into small pellets (sinter) which can be charged to a blast
furnace.
(f) Wet-air pollution control system is an emission control system
that utilizes a water mist to clean process or furnace off-gases.
Sec. 420.22 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, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application
[[Page 82045]]
of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ avg \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution controls:
Oil & grease.............................................................. 0.0300 0.0100
TSS....................................................................... 0.150 0.050
(b) Blast furnaces:
OIl & grease..............................................................
TSS....................................................................... 0.156 0.0520
(c) Sintering operations with dry air pollution controls...................... (\2\) (\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for sintering operations
with dry air pollution controls.
Sec. 420.23 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.22 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.24 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available control technology
economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table is effluent limitations (BAT) for sintering operations
with wet air pollution control system:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily \1\ Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)............................. 0.000652 0.000293
Cyanide.................................... 0.00493 0.00187
Lead....................................... 0.0000913 0.0000476
Phenol..................................... 0.0000463 0.0000157
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................... \3\ML
TRC \2\.................................... 0.000313
Zinc....................................... 0.000116 0.0000457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).
(b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters
of the U.S.
(c) Blast furnaces. The following table is effluent limitations
(BAT) for blast furnaces:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily \1\ Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)............................. 0.000217 0.0000977
Cyanide.................................... 0.00164 0.000623
Lead....................................... 0.0000304 0.0000159
Phenol..................................... 0.0000154 0.00000523
2,3,7,8-TCDF \3\........................... \4\ ML
TRC \2\.................................... 0.000104
Zinc....................................... 0.0000387 0.0000152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when blast furnace process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewaters from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).
[[Page 82046]]
Sec. 420.25 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.24 and 420.34. toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall not apply after the
expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable
standards specified in Sec. 420.24.
(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after
the publication date of the final rule].
(1) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table is Performance Standards (NSPS) for sintering
operations with wet air pollution control system:
Performance Standards (NSPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily \1\ Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)............................. 0.000652 0.000293
Cyanide.................................... 0.00493 0.00187
Lead....................................... 0.0000913 0.0000476
Oil & grease............................... 0.00531 0.00420
Phenol..................................... 0.0000463 0.0000157
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................... \3\ ML
TRC \2\.................................... 0.000313
TSS........................................ 0.0251 0.00939
Zinc....................................... 0.000116 0.0000457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-2 g/l).
(2) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters
of the U.S.
(3) Blast furnaces. The following table is Performance Standards
(NSPS) for blast furnaces:
Performance Standards (NSPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily \1\ Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)............................. 0.000217 0.0000977
Cyanide.................................... 0.00164 0.000623
Lead....................................... 0.0000304 0.0000159
Oil & grease............................... 0.00177 0.00140
Phenol..................................... 0.0000154 0.00000523
2,3,7,8-TCDF\3\............................ \4\ ML
TRC \2\.................................... 0.000104
TSS........................................ 0.00836 0.00313
Zinc....................................... 0.0000387 0.0000152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when blast furnace process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewaters from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).
Sec. 420.26 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for sintering
operations with wet air pollution control system:
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated parameter Maximum daily \1\ Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \2\......................... 0.000652 0.000293
Lead....................................... 0.0000913 0.0000476
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................... \3\ ML
Zinc....................................... 0.000116 0.0000457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82047]]
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with the
indirect discharger's removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected under BAT.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).
(b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
(c) Blast furnaces. The following table is Pretreatment Standards
(PSES) for blast furnaces:
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N ) \2\................... 0.000217 0.0000977
Lead.................................. 0.0000304 0.0000159
2,3,7,8-TCDF \3\...................... \4\ ML
Zinc.................................. 0.0000387 0.0000152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the
capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
under BAT.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewater from blast furnaces and
sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 \-12\ g/l).
Sec. 420.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Sec. 420.26 for ten years beginning on the date the
source commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of the facility, whichever comes first, after which the
source must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.26.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule]:
(1) sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) for sintering
operations with wet air pollution control system:
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \2\.................... 0.000652 0.000293
Lead.................................. 0.0000913 0.0000476
2,3,7,8-TCDF.......................... \3\ ML
Zinc.................................. 0.000116 0.0000457
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the
capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
under BAT.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 \-12\ g/l).
(2) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system.
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
(3) Blast furnaces: The following table is Pretreatment Standards
(PSNS) for blast furnaces:
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Regulated parameter \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N ) \2\................... 0.000217 0.0000977
Lead.................................. 0.0000304 0.0000159
2,3,7,8-TCDF \3\...................... \4\ ML
Zinc.................................. 0.0000387 0.0000152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the
capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
under BAT.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewater from blast furnaces and
sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 \-12\ g/l).
[[Page 82048]]
Sec. 420.28 Point of compliance monitoring.
(a) Sinter Direct Dischargers. Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and
122.45(h), a direct discharger must demonstrate compliance with the
effluent limitations and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the point after
treatment of sinter plant wastewater separately or in combination with
blast furnace wastewater, but prior to mixing with any other process or
non-process wastewaters or non-contact cooling waters.
(b) Sinter Indirect Dischargers. An indirect discharger must
demonstrate compliance with the pretreatment standards for 2,3,7,8=TCDF
by monitoring at the point after treatment of sinter plant wastewater
separately or in combination with blast furnace wastewater, but prior
to mixing with any other process or non-process wastewaters or non-
contact cooling waters.
Subpart C--Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory
Sec. 420.30 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from steelmaking operations conducted at integrated steel
mills. Such operations include steelmaking in basic oxygen furnaces and
vacuum degassing and continuous casting of molten steels. The
provisions of this subpart are also applicable to steelmaking in basic
oxygen furnaces conducted at any location.
Sec. 420.31 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means steel produced in a basic oxygen furnace (BOF)
from molten iron, steel scrap, fluxes and alloying elements in various
combinations by adding oxygen (air), before further processing in ladle
metallurgy stations or casting operations. The average daily operating
(production) rates shall be determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3,
except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Average hourly operating rate and average daily operating rate
for vacuum degassing operations must be determined in accordance with
the methods set out in Sec. 420.3 for the week with the highest vacuum
degassing production during the year with the highest annual production
from the past five years.
(c) Basic furnace means one in which the brick lining is composed
of refractory material derived from dolomite (CaO and MgO), limestone
(CaO), or magnesite (MgO).
(d) Semi-wet-air means an emission control system in which water is
added for the purpose of conditioning the temperature and/or the
humidity of furnace or process off-gases prior to cleaning the gases in
a dry-air emission control system.
(e) Wet-air open combustion means an emission control system which
has been designed to add excess air to furnace or process off-gases so
as to assure a more complete combustion (conversion) of carbon monoxide
to carbon dioxide.
(f) Wet-air suppressed combustion means an emission control system
which has been designed to restrict the amount of air available to
furnace or process off-gases so as to assure minimal combustion
(conversion) of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide.
Sec. 420.32 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, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ Avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Basic oxygen furnaces:
(1) semi-wet air pollution (3)
controls:........................
Oil & grease..................
TSS...........................
(2) wet-open combustion:
Oil & grease..................
TSS........................... 0.137 0.0458
(3) wet-suppressed combustion:
Oil & grease..................
TSS........................... 0.0624 0.0208
(b) Vacuum degassing:
Oil & grease
TSS............................... 0.0312 0.0104
(c) Continuous casting:
Oil & grease...................... 0.0468 0.0156
TSS............................... 0.156 0.052
(d) Ladle metallurgy.................. (2) (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to
waters of the U.S. for ladle metallurgy.
\3\ 1982 regulation allowed for no discharge of process wastewater from
this operation.
Sec. 420.33 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.32 for the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.34 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point
[[Page 82049]]
source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available control technology economically achievable (BAT):
(a) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. This
table is Effluent Limitations (BAT) for basic oxygen furnaces with
semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-
suppressed combustion air pollution control system; vacuum degassing;
and continuous casting:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Basic oxygen furnaces:
(i) semi-wet air pollution
controls:
(A) Lead...................... 0.0000122 0.00000634
(B) Zinc...................... 0.0000140 0.00000795
(ii) wet-suppressed combustion:
(A) Lead...................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(B) Zinc...................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
(2) Vacuum degassing:
(i) Lead...................... 0.0000183 0.00000951
(ii) Zinc..................... 0.0000209 0.0000119
(3) Continuous casting:
(i) Lead...................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(ii) Zinc..................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(b) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution
control system. The following table is Effluent Limitations (BAT) for
basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution control
system:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127
Zinc.................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(c) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.35 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.44, 420.54 and 420.64. toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall not apply after the
expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable
standards specified in Sec. 420.34.
(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after
the publication date of the final rule].
(1) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The
following table is Performance Standards (NSPS) for basic oxygen
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen
furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air pollution control system;
vacuum degassing; and continuous casting:
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Basic oxygen furnaces:
(A) semi-wet air pollution
controls:
(1) Lead...................... 0.0000122 0.00000634
(2) Zinc...................... 0.0000140 0.00000795
(ii) wet-suppressed combustion:
(A) Lead.......................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(B) Zinc.......................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
(ii) Vacuum degassing
(A) Lead.......................... 0.0000183 0.00000951
[[Page 82050]]
(B) Zinc.......................... 0.0000209 0.0000119
(iii) Continuous casting
(A) Lead.......................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(B) Zinc.......................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(2) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution
control system. The following table is Performance Standards (NSPS) for
basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution control
system:
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum
\1\ monthly avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127
Zinc.................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.36 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES):
(a) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for basic oxygen
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen
furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air pollution control system;
vacuum degassing; and continuous casting:
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process Wastewater Source \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Basic oxygen furnaces:
(i) semi-wet air pollution
controls
(A) Lead...................... 0.0000122 0.00000634
(B) Zinc...................... 0.0000140 0.00000795
(ii) wet-suppressed combustion
(A) Lead...................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(B) Zinc...................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
(2) Vacuum degassing:
(i) Lead.......................... 0.0000183 0.00000951
(ii) Zinc......................... 0.0000209 0.0000119
(3) Continuous casting:
(i) Lead.......................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(ii) Zinc......................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(b) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution
control system. The following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
for basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution
control system:
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127
Zinc.................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82051]]
(c) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Sec. 420.37 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Secs. 420.46, 420.56, and 420.66 for ten years
beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during the
period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever comes
first, after which the source must achieve the standards specified in
Sec. 420.36.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule]:
(1) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) for basic oxygen
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen
furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air pollution control system;
vacuum degassing; and continuous casting:
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Basic oxygen furnaces:
(A) semi-wet air pollution
controls:
(1) Lead...................... 0.0000122 0.00000634
(2) Zinc...................... 0.0000140 0.00000795
(B) wet-suppressed combustion:
(1) Lead...................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(2) Zinc...................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
(ii) Vacuum degassing:
(A) Lead...................... 0.0000183 0.00000951
(B) Zinc...................... 0.0000209 0.0000119
(iii) Continuous casting:
(A) Lead...................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(B) Zinc...................... 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(2) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution
control system. The following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution control
system:
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0000243 0.0000127
Zinc.................................. 0.0000279 0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Subpart D--Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Subcategory
Sec. 420.40 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from primary, section, flat and pipe and tube hot forming
operations conducted at integrated steel mills and at stand-alone hot
forming mills.
Sec. 420.41 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means the solid, flat-rolled steel, steel shapes or
pipe and tube produced at primary, section, flat, pipe and tube hot-
forming mills. The average daily operating (production) rate shall be
determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
(b) Hot forming means those steel processing operations in which
solidified, heated steel is shaped by mechanical pressure applied
through one or a series of rolls.
(c) Primary mill means the first hot forming operation performed on
solidified steel after the steel is removed from ingot molds in which
steel ingots are reduced to blooms or slabs by passing the heated steel
between rotating steel rolls.
(d) Section mill means those steel hot forming operations that
produce a variety of steel shapes other than those produced on primary
mills, flat mills or pipe and tube mills.
(e) Flat mill means those steel hot forming operations that reduce
heated slabs to plates, strip and sheet or skelp.
(f) Pipe and tube mill means steel hot forming operations that
produce butt-welded or seamless tubular steel products.
(g) Scarfing means steel surface conditioning operations in which
flames generated by combustion of oxygen and fuel are used to remove
surface metal imperfections from blooms, billets or slabs.
(h) Plate mill means steel hot forming operations that produce
flat, hot-rolled
[[Page 82052]]
products that are: Between 8 and 48 inches wide and over 0.23 inches
thick; or greater than 48 inches wide and over 0.18 inches thick.
(i) Hot strip and sheet mill means operations that produce flat,
hot rolled steel products other than plates.
(j) Carbon steel hot-forming means operations that produce a
majority (tonnage basis) of carbon steels by hot forming.
(k) Specialty steel hot-forming means operations that produce less
than a majority (tonnage basis) of carbon steel by hot forming.
(l) Carbon and alloy steel means operations that produce a majority
(tonnage basis) of carbon and alloy steel products by hot forming.
(m) Stainless steels means operations that produce a majority
(tonnage basis) of stainless steel products by hot forming.
(n) Skep means flat, hot-rolled steel strip or sheet used to form
welded pipe or tube products.
Sec. 420.42 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, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ Avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Primary mills, carbon and
specialty:
(1) without scarfing:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.0748
(ii) TSS...................... 0.300 0.112
(2) with scarfing:
(i) Oil & grease:............. 0.442
(ii) TSS...................... 0.111 0.166
(b) Section mills:
(1) carbon:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.179
(ii) TSS...................... 0.714 0.268
(2) Specialty:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.112
(ii) TSS...................... 0.448 0.128
(c) Flat mills:
(1) Hot strip and sheet, carbon
and specialty:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.214
(ii) TSS...................... 0.854 0.320
(2) Plate mills, carbon:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.114
(ii) TSS...................... 0.454 0.170
(3) Plate mills, specialty:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.0500
(ii) TSS...................... 0.200 0.0752
(d) Pipe and tube mills, carbon and
specialty:
(i) Oil & grease.............. 0.106
(2) TSS....................... 0.424 0.159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
Sec. 420.43 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.42 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available control technology
economically achievable (BAT):
(a) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The following table is Effluent
Limitations (BAT) for carbon and alloy steels:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.000122 0.0000634
Zinc.................................. 0.000131 0.0000907
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82053]]
(b) Stainless Steels. The following table is Effluent Limitations
(BAT) for stainless steels:
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.0000808 0.0000362
Nickel................................ 0.000275 0.000144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
Sec. 420.45 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.44, 420.54, 420.64, and 420.74. toxic
and nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall not apply after
the expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable
standards specified in Sec. 420.44.
(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after
the publication date of the final rule].
(1) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The following table is Performance
Standards (NSPS) for carbon and alloy steels:
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.000122 0.0000634
Oil & grease.......................... 0.00793 0.00628
TSS................................... 0.0182 0.0124
Zinc.................................. 0.000131 0.0000907
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(2) Stainless Steels. The following table is Performance Standards
(NSPS) for stainless steels:
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.0000808 0.0000362
Nickel................................ 0.000275 0.000144
Oil & grease.......................... 0.0236 0.0119
TSS................................... 0.0265 0.0109
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
Sec. 420.46 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to
this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.
Sec. 420.47 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.
Subpart E--Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory
Sec. 420.50 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from steelmaking and hot forming operations conducted at non-
integrated steel mills. Such operations include steelmaking in electric
arc furnaces; vacuum degassing and continuous casting of molten steels;
and, hot forming of flat-rolled steels, steel shapes and pipe and tube.
The provisions of this subpart are also applicable to steelmaking
operations in electric arc furnaces and related vacuum degassing,
continuous casting and hot forming operations conducted at any
location.
Sec. 420.51 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means:
(1) Steel produced in electric furnaces before further processing
in ladle metallurgy stations or casting operations;
(2) Flat-rolled steel, steel shapes or pipe and tube produced by
hot-forming operations. The daily operating
[[Page 82054]]
(production) rate shall be determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
(b) Except for the term ``product,'' definitions set out for
subpart C of this part are applicable to this subpart.
(c) Electric arc furnace means one in which the heat is supplied by
an electric arc from graphite electrodes to the molten metal bath. The
charge is generally 100% scrap metal.
Sec. 420.52 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, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Process wastewater source \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Electric arc furnaces............. (\2\) (\2\)
(b) Vacuum degassing:
(1) Oil & grease
(2) TSS........................... 0.0312 0.0104
(c) Continuous casting:
(1) Oil & grease.................. 0.0468 0.0156
(2) TSS........................... 0.156 0.052
(d) Hot forming mills:
(1) Oil & grease.................. 0.0748
(2) TSS........................... 0.300 0.112
(e) Ladle metallurgy.................. (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to
waters of the U.S. for electric arc furnaces or ladle metallurgy.
Sec. 420.53 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.52 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.54 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available control technology
economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The following effluent limitations
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each
operation as applicable.
(1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is
Effluent Limitations (BAT) for vacuum degassing and continuous casting:
Carbon and Alloy Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0000122 0.00000634
Zinc.................................. 0.0000101 0.00000450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Hot forming operations. The following table is Effluent
Limitations (BAT) for hot forming operations:
Carbon and Alloy Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0000609 0.0000317
Zinc.................................. 0.0000506 0.0000225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82055]]
(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
(b) Stainless Steels. The following effluent limitations apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable.
(1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is
Effluent Limitations (BAT) for vacuum degassing and continuous casting:
Stainless Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00000808 0.00000362
Nickel................................ 0.0000275 0.0000144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Hot forming operations. The following table is Effluent
Limitations (BAT) for hot forming operations:
Stainless Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.0000404 0.0000181
Nickel................................ 0.000137 0.0000720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.55 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Sec. 420.74. toxic and nonconventional pollutants,
those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the applicable
time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source
must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.54.
(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after
the publication date of the final rule].
(1) Carbon and alloy steels. The following performance standards
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each
operation as applicable: There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
(2) Stainless steels. The following performance standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to waters of the U.S.
Sec. 420.56 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources.
(a) Carbon and alloy steels. The following pretreatment standards
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each
operation as applicable:
(1) Electric arc furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. [Reserved.]
(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for vacuum degassing and continuous
casting:
Carbon and Alloy Steels.--Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0001878 0.0000626
Zinc.................................. 0.000282 0.0000938
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Hot forming operations. Any existing source subject to this
subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.
(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
(b) Stainless steels. The following pretreatment standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable.
(1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
[[Page 82056]]
(2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for vacuum degassing and continuous
casting:
Stainless Steels--Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00000808 0.00000362
Nickel................................ 0.0000275 0.0000144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Hot forming operations. The following table is Pretreatment
Standards (PSES) for hot forming operations:
Stainless Steels--Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.0000404 0.0000181
Nickel................................ 0.000137 0.0000720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Sec. 420.57 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Sec. 420.76 for ten years beginning on the date the
source commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of the facility, whichever comes first, after which the
source must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.56.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule]:
(1) Carbon and alloy steels. The following performance standards
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each
operation as applicable: There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
(2) Stainless steels. The following effluent limitations apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to POTWs.
Subpart F--Steel Finishing Subcategory
Sec. 420.60 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and
the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from carbon, alloy and stainless steel finishing operations.
Such operations include descaling, acid pickling, cold rolling and
annealing, acid and alkaline cleaning, continuous hot dip coating and
electroplating of metals on steels.
(b) Wastewater discharges from the following operations on steel
are subject to this subpart: Cold forming, continuous electroplating,
or continuous hot dip coating of sheets, strips or plates.
(c) This subpart does not apply to discharges of process wastewater
from surface finishing or cold forming operations on steel wire, rod,
bar, pipe or tubing. This subpart does not apply to process wastewater
from these same operations when they are performed on base materials
other than steel. Wastewater discharges from performing these
operations are subject to 40 CFR part 438.
Sec. 420.61 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means:
(1) Steel processed (including rework) for descaling, acid pickling
and acid or alkaline cleaning operations;
(2) Finished rolled steel for cold rolling and annealing
operations; and
(3) Finished coated steel for hot coating and electroplating
operations. The daily operating (production) rate shall be determined
in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
(b) Acid cleaning means surface treatment of steel products using
acid solutions conducted after cold rolling operations and prior to
subsequent surface coating operations, and associated rinsing
operations.
(c) Acid pickling means the first surface treatment of steel
products using acid solutions conducted after hot forming operations
for chemical removal of oxides and scale, and associated rinsing
operations.
(d) Acid purification units or acid recovery units means those
devices used for recovery and/or reconstitution of acid solutions from
used acid pickling solutions.
(e) Acid regeneration means recovery of hydrochloric acid from used
pickling solutions.
(f) Alkaline cleaning means surface treatment of steel products
using alkaline solutions and associated rinses, which are conducted
after cold rolling operations and prior to subsequent surface coating
operations.
(g) Bar means a finished hot-rolled steel product.
(h) Batch means those steel finishing operations in which semi-
finished steel products are processed in discrete batches.
(i) Cold forming means operations conducted on unheated steel for
purposes of imparting desired mechanical properties and surface
qualities (density, smoothness) to the steel.
[[Page 82057]]
(j) Cold working means operations (rolling, forging, stretching)
conducted on unheated (often ambient temperature) steel that change
structure, shape and create a permanent increase in hardness and
strength.
(k) Combination means cold rolling operations which include
recirculation of rolling solutions at one or more mill stands, and
once-through use of rolling solutions at the remaining stand or stands.
(l) Combination pickling means acid pickling operations using more
than one acid solution or mixed acid solutions.
(m) Continuous means operations in which semi-finished steel
products are processed on a continuous or semi-continuous basis.
(n) Descaling means removal of scale from semi-finished steel
products by action of molten salt baths or chemical solutions.
(o) Direct application means cold rolling operations which include
once-through use of rolling solutions at all mill stands.
(p) Electrolytic descaling means removal of scale from semi-
finished steel products by electrolysis utilizing sodium sulfate
solutions.
(q) Electroplating means the application of metal coatings
including, but not limited to, chromium, copper, nickel, tin, zinc and
combinations thereof on steel products using an electro-chemical
process.
(r) Flat bar means a semi-finished hot-rolled flat steel product.
(s) Fume scrubbers means emission control devices used to collect
and clean fumes originating in acid pickling, acid cleaning, alkaline
cleaning and steel coating operations.
(t) Hot coating-galvanizing means coating steel products with zinc
or mixtures of zinc and aluminum by the hot dip process, including
related operations preceding and subsequent to immersing the steel in
the molten metal.
(u) Hot coating-terne means coating steel products with terne (lead
and zinc) metal by the hot dip process, including related operations
proceeding and subsequent to immersing the steel in the molten metal.
(v) Hydrochloric acid pickling means acid pickling operations using
hydrochloric acid solutions.
(w) Miscellaneous steel products means flat rolled strip and sheet
steel products other than wire and fasteners.
(x) Multiple stands means those recirculation or direct application
cold rolling mills which include more than one stand of work rolls.
(y) Other hot coating means coating steel products with metals
other than zinc or terne metal by the hot dip process, including
related operations preceding and subsequent to immersing the steel in
the molten metal.
(z) Pickling means the descaling process by which the hard black
oxide formed on the steel surface during hot rolling is removed by the
chemical action of acids.
(aa) Recirculation means cold rolling operations which include
recirculation of rolling solutions at all mill stands.
(bb) Salt bath descaling-reducing means the removal of scale from
semi-finished steel products by action of molten salt baths containing
sodium hydride.
(cc) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing means removal of scale from
semi-finished steel by action of molten salt baths other than those
containing sodium hydride.
(dd) Single stand means those recirculation or direct application
cold rolling mills which include only one stand of work rolls.
(ee) Spent acid solution (or spent pickle liquor) means acid
solutions which are no longer effective and are discharged or removed
from the pickling process.
(ff) Tube means a hollow steel cylinder formed usually from a
strip.
(gg) Wire rod means a semi-finished steel product of circular cross
section, generally with a diameter of approximately 0.25 inches.
Sec. 420.62 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, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each
applicable operation, the following effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
Performance Standards (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant TSS \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing:
(1) batch, sheet and plate........ 0.408 0.175
(2) batch, rod.................... 0.246 0.105
(3) batch, pipe and tubes......... 0.992 0.426
(4) continuous.................... 0.193 0.0826
(b) Salt bath descaling-reducing:
(1) batch......................... 0.190 0.0814
(2) continuous.................... 1.06 0.456
(c) Acid pickling-sulfuric:
(1) rod, coil..................... 0.164 0.070
(2) bar, billet, bloom............ 0.0526 0.0226
(3) strip, sheet and plate........ 0.105 0.045
(4) pipe, tubes and other products 0.292 0.125
(d) Acid pickling-hydrochloric:
(1) rod, coil..................... 0.286 0.123
(2) strip, sheet and plate........ 0.164 0.070
(3) pipe, tubes and other products 0.596 0.256
(e) Acid pickling-combination:
(1) rod, coil..................... 0.298 0.128
(2) bar, billet, bloom............ 0.134 0.0576
(3) strip, sheet and plate- 0.876 0.376
continuous.......................
(4) strip, sheet and plate-batch.. 0.268 0.115
(5) pipe, tubes and other products 0.450 0.193
(f) Cold rolling mills:
(1) recirculation-single stand.... 0.0025 0.00125
[[Page 82058]]
(2) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0125 0.00626
(3) combination................... 0.150 0.0752
(4) direct application-single 0.045 0.0226
stand............................
(5) direct application-mult. 0.200 0.100
stands...........................
(g) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) batch......................... 0.146 0.0626
(2) continuous.................... 0.204 0.0876
(h) Hot coating: galvanizing, terne,
other metals:
(1) strip, sheet and miscellaneous 0.350 0.150
products.........................
(i) Electroplating.................... \2\ 60 \2\ 31
(j) Fume scrubbers
Acid pickling, alkaline cleaning, \3\ 12.58 \3\ 5.39
hot coating, other...............
(k) Absorber vent scrubber, \3\ 84.04 \3\ 35.86
hydrochloric acid regeneration.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant oil & grease \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing:
(1) batch, sheet and plate........ NA NA
(2) batch, rod.................... NA NA
(3) batch, pipe and tubes......... NA NA
(4) continuous.................... NA NA
(b) Salt bath descaling-reducing:
(1) batch......................... NA NA
(2) continuous.................... NA NA
(c) Acid pickling-sulfuric \4\:
(1) rod, coil..................... 0.0700 0.0234
(2) bar, billet, bloom............ 0.0226 0.00750
(3) strip, sheet and plate........ 0.0450 0.0150
(4) pipe, tubes and other products 0.125 0.0418
(d) Acid pickling-hydrochloric \4\:
(1) rod, coil..................... 0.123 0.0408
(2) strip, sheet and plate........ 0.0700 0.0234
(3) pipe, tubes and other products 0.256 0.0852
(e) Acid pickling-combination \4\:
(1) rod, coil..................... 0.128 0.0426
(2) bar, billet, bloom............ 0.0576 0.0192
(3) strip, sheet and plate- 0.376 0.125
continuous.......................
(4) strip, sheet and plate-batch.. 0.115 0.0384
(5) pipe, tubes and other products 0.193 0.0644
(f) Cold rolling mills:
(1) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00104 0.000418
(2) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0522 0.00208
(3) combination................... 0.0626 0.0250
(4) direct application-single 0.0188 0.00752
stand............................
(5) direct application-mult. 0.0834 0.0334
stands...........................
(g) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) batch......................... 0.0626 0.0208
(2) continuous.................... 0.0876 0.0292
(h) Hot coating: galvanizing, terne,
other metals:
(1) strip, sheet and miscellaneous 0.150 0.0500
products.........................
(i) Electroplating................ \2\ 52 \2\ 26
(j) Fume scrubbers:
Acid pickling, alkaline cleaning, \3\ 5.39 \3\1.76
hot coating, other...............
(k) Absorber vent scrubber, \3\ 35.86 \3\ 11.99
hydrochloric acid regeneration.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except electroplating,
fume scrubbers, and adsorber vent scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in milligrams per liter for this operation.
\3\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
\4\ The limitations for oil and grease shall be applicable when acid
pickling wastewaters are treated with cold rolling wastewaters.
[[Page 82059]]
Sec. 420.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.62 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.64 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available control technology
economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Ammonia (as N) (1) Stainless Steel. The following effluent
limitations apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for
each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided
by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(A) bar, billet................... 0.0437 0.0287
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.146 0.0960
(C) plate......................... 0.00665 0.00436
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.133 0.0873
(ii) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 4.109 \2\ 2.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(b) Chromium (VI). (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following
effluent limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels
segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may
be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume. The effluent
limitations for chromium (VI) shall be applicable only when chromium
(VI) is present in untreated wastewaters as a result of process or
other operations.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0000508 0.0000463
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000106 0.0000963
(C) plate......................... 0.0000363 0.00000330
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000518 0.00000472
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0000290 0.0000264
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000518 0.0000472
(C) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000238 0.0000217
(iii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers............ \2\ 0.0149 \2\ 0.0136
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.00000207 0.00000189
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000363 0.0000330
(v) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.000000311 0.000000283
stand........................
(B) direct application- 0.0000285 0.0000260
multiple stands..............
(C) recirculation-single stand 0.000000104 0.000000944
(D) recirculation-multiple 0.00000259 0.00000236
stands.......................
(E) combination-multiple stand 0.0000148 0.0000135
(vi) Continuous annealing lines....... 0.00000207 0.00000189
[[Page 82060]]
(vii) Electroplating:
(A) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000114 0.000104
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.0000570 0.0000519
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.0000570 0.0000519
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.00224 \2\ 0.00204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(2) Stainless Steel. The following effluent limitations apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(A) bar, billet................... 0.000318 0.000196
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.00107 0.000655
(C) plate......................... 0.0000484 0.0000298
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000969 0.000595
(ii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.199 \2\ 0.122
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000277 0.0000170
(B ) strip, sheet................. 0.00346 0.00213
(iv) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.0000484 0.0000298
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000381 0.000234
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000415 0.00000255
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000221 0.0000136
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000198 0.000122
(v) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000277 0.0000170
(vi)Wet air pollution control devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0299 \2\ 0.0184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(c) Chromium. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following effluent
limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume. The effluent
limitations for chromium shall be applicable only when chromium is
present in untreated wastewaters as a result of process or other
operations.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000227 0.000117
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000472 0.000243
(C) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
[[Page 82061]]
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000231 0.0000119
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000130 0.0000668
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000231 0.000119
(C) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000106 0.0000548
(iii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0666 \2\ 0.0343
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.00000925 0.00000477
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.000162 0.0000834
(v) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.00000139 0.000000715
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000127 0.0000656
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000000463 0.000000238
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000116 0.00000596
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000662 0.0000341
(vi) Continuous annealing lines....... 0.00000925 0.00000477
(vii) Electroplating:
(A) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000509 0.000262
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000255 0.000131
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000255 0.000131
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.00999 \2\ 0.00515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(2) Stainless Steel. The following effluent limitations apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(A) bar, billet................... 0.000500 0.000280
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.00167 0.000939
(C) plate......................... 0.0000760 0.0000427
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.00152 0.000854
(ii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.313 \2\ 0.176
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000434 0.0000244
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.00543 0.00305
(iv) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.0000760 0.0000427
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000597 0.000335
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000652 0.00000366
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000348 0.0000195
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000311 0.000174
(v) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000434 0.0000244
(vi) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0469 \2\ 0.0263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
[[Page 82062]]
(d) Fluoride. (1) Stainless Steel. The following effluent
limitations apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for
each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided
by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(A) bar, billet................... 0.0446 0.0356
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.149 0.119
(C) plate......................... 0.00679 0.00542
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.136 0.108
(ii) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 4.19 \2\ 3.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(e) Lead. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following effluent
limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000596 0.000311
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.00124 0.000647
(C) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.00609 0.0000317
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000341 0.000178
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000609 0.000317
(C) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000280 0.000146
(iii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.175 \2\ 0.913
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.000426 0.000222
(v) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.00000365 0.00000190
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000335 0.000174
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000122 0.00000634
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000304 0.0000159
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000174 0.0000907
(vi) Continuous annealing lines....... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(vii) Electroplating:
(A) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000134 0.000698
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000669 0.000349
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000669 0.000349
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.026396 \2\ 0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
[[Page 82063]]
(f) Nickel. (1) Stainless Steel. The following effluent limitations
apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation
as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(A) bar, billet................... 0.000147 0.000104
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000494 0.000347
(C) plate......................... 0.0000224 0.0000158
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000449 0.000315
(ii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0923 \2\ 0.0649
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000128 0.00000901
(B) strip, sheet.................. \2\ 0.00160 \2\ 0.00113
(iv) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.0000224 0.0000158
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000176 0.000124
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000192 0.00000135
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000103 0.00000721
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000917 0.0000644
(v) Continuous annealing 0.0000128 0.00000901
(vi) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0138 \2\ 0.00973
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(g) Zinc. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following effluent
limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000637 0.000262
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.00133 0.00546
(C) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000650 0.0000267
(i) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000364 0.000150
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000650 0.000267
(C) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000299 0.000123
(ii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.187 \2\ 0.0770
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000260 0.0000107
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.000455 0.000187
(iv) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.00000390 0.00000160
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000357 0.000147
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000130 0.00000535
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000325 0.0000134
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000186 0.0000765
(v) Continuous annealing 0.0000260 0.0000107
(vii) Electroplating:
[[Page 82064]]
(A) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.00143 0.000588
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000715 0.000294
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000715 0.000294
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0281 \2\ 0.0116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
Sec. 420.65 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.84, 420.94, 420.104, 420.114, and
420.124. toxic and nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall
not apply after the expiration of the applicable time period specified
in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the
applicable standards specified in Sec. 420.64.
(b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after
the publication date of the final rule].
(1) Total Suspended Solids. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The
following performance standards apply to discharges in the carbon and
alloy steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased
effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0566 0.0308
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.118 0.0641
(C) plate......................... 0.00405 0.00220
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.00578 0.00314
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0324 0.0176
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.0578 0.0314
(C) plate......................... 0.00405 0.00220
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0266 0.0145
(iii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 16.6 \2\ 9.05
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.00231 0.00126
(B ) strip, sheet................. 0.0405 0.0220
(v) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.000347 0.000189
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.0318 0.0173
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000116 0.0000628
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.00289 0.00157
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0165 0.00899
(vi) Continuous annealing lines 0.00231 0.00126
(vii) Electroplating:
(A) plate......................... 0.00405 0.00220
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.127 0.0691
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.0636 0.0346
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.0636 0.0346
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 2.50 \2\ 1.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
[[Page 82065]]
(ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.0242 0.0121
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.0809 0.0406
(3) plate......................... 0.00368 0.00184
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0735 0.0369
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 15.1 \2\ 7.59
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00210 0.00105
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.263 0.132
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.00368 0.00184
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.0289 0.0145
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000315 0.000158
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.00168 0.000843
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0150 0.00754
(E) Continuous annealing 0.00210 0.00105
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 2.27 \2\ 1.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(2) Oil & Grease. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following
performance standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased
effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0307 0.0274
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.638 0.0571
(3) plate......................... 0.00219 0.00196
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.00313 0.00280
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0175 0.0157
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.0313 0.0280
(3) plate......................... 0.00219 0.00196
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0144 0.0129
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 9.01 \2\ 8.07
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00125 0.00112
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.0219 0.0196
(E) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.000188 0.000168
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.0172 0.0154
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.0000626 0.0000560
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.00156 0.00140
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0895 0.00801
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.00125 0.00112
(G) Electroplating:
[[Page 82066]]
(1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.00219 0.0196
(2) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.0688 0.0616
metals...........................
(3) plate......................... 0.0344 0.0308
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.0344 0.0308
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 1.35 \2\ 1.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.0172 0.0136
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.0576 0.0456
(3) plate......................... 0.00262 0.00207
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0523 0.0414
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 10.8 \2\ 8.52
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00149 0.00118
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.187 0.148
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.00262 0.00207
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.0206 0.0163
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000224 0.000177
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.00120 0.000947
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0107 0.00846
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.00149 0.00118
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 1.61 \2\ 1.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(3) Ammonia as (N). (i) Stainless Steel. The following performance
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.0437 0.0287
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.146 0.0960
(3) plate......................... 0.00665 0.00436
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.133 0.0873
(B) Wet air pollution control devices:
[[Page 82067]]
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 4.10 \2\ 2.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(4) Chromium (VI). (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following
performance standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased
effluent volume. The performance standards for chromium (VI) shall be
applicable only when chromium (VI) is present in untreated wastewaters
as a result of process or other operations.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0000508 0.0000463
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000106 0.0000963
(3) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.00000518 0.00000472
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0000290 0.0000264
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000518 0.0000472
(3) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000238 0.0000217
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0149 \2\ 0.0136
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00000207 0.00000189
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000363 0.0000330
(E) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.000000311 0.000000283
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.0000285 0.0000260
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000000104 0.000000944
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.00000259 0.00000236
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000148 0.0000135
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.00000207 0.00000189
(G) Electroplating:
(1) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000114 0.000104
(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.0000570 0.0000519
metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.0000570 0.0000519
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.00224 \2\ 0.00204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
[[Page 82068]]
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.000318 0.000196
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.00107 0.000655
(3) plate......................... 0.0000484 0.0000298
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000969 0.000595
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.199 \2\ 0.122
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000277 0.0000170
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.00346 0.00213
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.0000484 0.0000298
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000381 0.000234
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000415 0.00000255
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000221 0.0000136
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000198 0.000122
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000277 0.0000170
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0299 \2\ 0.0184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(5) Chromium. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following performance
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume. The
performance standards for chromium shall be applicable only when
chromium is present in untreated wastewaters as a result of process or
other operations.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000227 0.000117
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000472 0.000243
(3) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000231 0.0000119
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000130 0.0000668
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000231 0.000119
(3) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000106 0.0000548
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0666 \2\ 0.0343
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00000925 0.00000477
(2 ) strip, sheet................. 0.000162 0.0000834
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.00000139 0.000000715
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000127 0.0000656
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000000463 0.000000238
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000116 0.00000596
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000662 0.0000341
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.00000925 0.00000477
(G) Electroplating:
(1) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000509 0.000262
(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000255 0.000131
metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000255 0.000131
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0010 \2\ 0.00515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
[[Page 82069]]
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.000500 0.000280
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.00167 0.000939
(3) plate......................... 0.0000760 0.0000427
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.00152 0.000854
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.313 \2\ 0.176
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000434 0.0000244
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.00543 0.00305
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.0000760 0.0000427
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000597 0.000335
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000652 0.00000366
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000348 0.0000195
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000311 0.000174
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000434 0.0000244
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0469 \2\ 0.0263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(6) Fluoride. (i) Stainless Steel. The following performance
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.0446 0.0356
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.149 0.119
(3) plate......................... 0.00679 0.00542
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.136 0.108
(B) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 4.19 \2\ 3.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(7) Lead. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following performance
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
[[Page 82070]]
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000596 0.000311
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.00124 0.000647
(3) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000609 0.0000317
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000341 0.000178
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000609 0.000317
(3) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000280 0.000146
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.175 \2\ 0.0913
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.000426 0.000222
(E) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.00000365 0.00000190
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000335 0.000174
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000122 0.000000634
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000304 0.0000159
(5) combination-multiple stands... 0.000174 0.0000907
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.0000243 0.0000127
(G) Electroplating:
(1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(2) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.00134 0.000698
metals...........................
(3) plate......................... 0.000669 0.000349
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000669 0.000349
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0263 \2\ 0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(8) Nickel. (i) Stainless Steel. The following performance
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.000147 0.000104
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000494 0.000347
(3) plate......................... 0.0000224 0.0000158
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000449 0.000315
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0923 \2\ 0.0649
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000128 0.00000901
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.00160 0.00113
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.0000224 0.0000158
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000176 0.000124
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000192 0.00000135
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000103 0.00000721
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000917 0.0000644
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000128 0.00000901
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
[[Page 82071]]
(1) fume scrubbers................ 0.01382 0.009732
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(9) Zinc. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following performance
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000637 0.000262
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.00133 0.000546
(C) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000650 0.0000267
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000364 0.000150
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000650 0.000267
(C) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000299 0.000123
(iii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.1872 \2\ 0.07702
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000260 0.0000107
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.000455 0.000187
(v) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.00000390 0.00000160
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000357 0.000147
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000130 0.000000535
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000325 0.0000134
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000186 0.0000765
(vi) Continuous annealing lines....... 0.0000260 0.0000107
(vii) Electroplating:
(A) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.00143 0.000588
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000715 0.000294
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000715 0.000294
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ 0.02812 0.01162
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
Sec. 420.66 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the
following pretreatment standards for existing sources.
(a) Salt bath descaling, oxidizing.
(1) Batch, sheet and plate.
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00584 0.00234
Nickel................................ 0.00526 0.001752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82072]]
(2) Batch, rod and wire.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00350 0.001402
Nickel................................ 0.00316 0.001052
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Batch, pipe and tube.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.01418 0.00568
Nickel................................ 0.01276 0.00426
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(4) Continuous.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00276 0.001102
Nickel................................ 0.00248 0.000826
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(b) Salt bath descaling, reducing.
(1) Batch.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00272 0.00108
Nickel................................ 0.00244 0.000814
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(2) Continuous.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.0152 0.00608
Nickel................................ 0.01366 0.00456
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(c) Sulfuric acid (spent acid solutions and rinse waters).
(1) Rod, wire, and coil.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.001052 0.000350
Zinc.................................. 0.001402 0.000468
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82073]]
(2) Bar, billet, and bloom.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.000338 0.0001126
Zinc.................................. 0.000450 0.0001502
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Strip, sheet, and plate.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.000676 0.000226
Zinc.................................. 0.000902 0.000300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(4) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.001878 0.000626
Zinc.................................. 0.00250 0.000834
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(5) Fume scrubber.
Performance Standards (PSES) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0810 0.0271
Zinc.................................. 0.1080 0.0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable for each fume scrubber
associated with sulfuric acid pickling operations.
(d) Hydrochloric acid pickling (spent acid solutions and rinse
waters).
(1) Rod, wire, and coil.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.00184 0.000614
Zinc.................................. 0.00246 0.000818
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(2) Strip, sheet, and plate.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.001052 0.000350
Zinc.................................. 0.001402 0.000468
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82074]]
(3) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.00384 0.001276
Zinc.................................. 0.00510 0.001702
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(4) Fume scrubber.
Performance Standards (PSES) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.0810 0.0271
Zinc.................................. 0.1080 0.0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable for each fume scrubber
associated with hydrochloric acid pickling operations.
(5) Acid regeneration (absorber vent scrubber).
Performance Standards (PSES) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead.................................. 0.539 0.1802
Zinc.................................. 0.719 0.240
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable to the absorber vent
scrubber wastewater associated with hydrochloric acid regeneration
plants.
(e) Combination acid pickling (spent acid solutions and rinse
waters).
(1) Rod, wire, and coil.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00426 0.001704
Nickel................................ 0.00384 0.001276
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(2) Bar, billet, and bloom.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.001920 0.000768
Nickel................................ 0.001728 0.000576
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(3) Strip, sheet, and plat-continuous.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.01252 0.00500
[[Page 82075]]
Nickel................................ 0.01126 0.00376
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(4) Strip, sheet, and plate-batch.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00384 0.001536
Nickel................................ 0.00346 0.001152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(5) Pipe, tube, and other products.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.00644 0.00258
Nickel................................ 0.00578 0.001928
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(6) Fume scrubber.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 0.1802 0.0719
Nickel................................ 0.1617 0.0539
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable to each fume scrubber
associated with a combination acid pickling operation.
(f) Cold rolling.
(1) Recirculation-single stand.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium\2\........................... 0.0000418 0.0000168
Lead.................................. 0.0000188 0.0000062
Nickel \2\............................ 0.0000376 0.0000126
Zinc.................................. 0.0000126 0.0000042
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.
(2) Recirculation-multiple stands.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
Pollutant daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\.......................... 0.000208 0.0000836
Lead.................................. 0.0000938 0.0000312
Nickel \2\............................ 0.0001878 0.0000626
[[Page 82076]]
Zinc.................................. 0.0000626 0.0000208
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.
(3) Combination.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\.......................... 0.00250 0.001002
Lead.................................. 0.001126 0.000376
Nickel \2\............................ 0.00226 0.000752
Zinc.................................. 0.000752 0.000250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.
(4) Direct application-single stand.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\.......................... 0.000752 0.000300
Lead.................................. 0.000338 0.0001126
Nickel2............................... 0.000676 0.000226
Zinc.................................. 0.000226 0.0000752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.
(5) Direct application-multiple stands.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\.......................... 0.00334 0.001336
Lead.................................. 0.001502 0.000500
Nickel \2\............................ 0.0030 0.001002
Zinc.................................. 0.001002 0.000334
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.
(g) Electroplating.
Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium.............................. 2.77 1.71
Lead.................................. 0.69 0.43
Nickel................................ 3.98 2.38
Zinc.................................. 2.61 1.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter.
[[Page 82077]]
(h) Galvanizing, terne coating and other coatings.
(1) Strip, sheet, and miscellaneous products.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium (hexavalent) \2\............. 0.000300 0.0001002
Lead.................................. 0.00226 0.000752
Zinc.................................. 0.00300 0.001000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for hexavalent chromium shall be applicable only to
galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from the chromate
rinse step.
(2) Fume scrubbers.
Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
Pollutant \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium (hexavalent) \2\............. 0.01078 0.003586
Lead.................................. 0.0810 0.0271
Zinc.................................. 0.1080 0.0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The limitations for hexavalent chromium shall be applicable only to
galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from the chromate
rinse step.
Sec. 420.67 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the
2000 version of Secs. 420.86, 420.96, 420.106, 420.116, and 420.126 for
ten years beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or
during the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility,
whichever comes first, after which the source must achieve the
standards specified in Sec. 420.66.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule]:
(1) Ammonia as (N). (i) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Performance Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.0437 0.0287
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.146 0.0960
(3) plate......................... 0.00665 0.00436
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.133 0.0873
(B) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 4.10 \2\ 2.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(2) Chromium (VI). (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following
pretreatment standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such
[[Page 82078]]
increased mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase
of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the
increased effluent volume. The pretreatment standards for chromium (VI)
shall be applicable only when chromium (VI) is present in untreated
wastewaters as a result of process or other operations.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0000508 0.0000463
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000106 0.0000963
(3) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.00000518 0.00000472
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.0000290 0.0000264
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000518 0.0000472
(3) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000238 0.0000217
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0149 \2\ 0.0136
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00000207 0.00000189
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000363 0.0000330
(E) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.000000311 0.000000283
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.0000285 0.0000260
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000000104 0.000000944
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.00000259 0.00000236
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000148 0.0000135
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.00000207 0.00000189
(G) Electroplating:
(1) plate......................... 0.00000363 0.00000330
(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000114 0.000104
(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.0000570 0.0000519
metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.0000570 0.0000519
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.00224 \2\ 0.00204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(ii) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.000318 0.000196
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.00107 0.000655
(3) plate......................... 0.0000484 0.0000298
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000969 0.000595
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.199 \2\ 0.122
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000277 0.0000170
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.00346 0.00213
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.0000484 0.0000298
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000381 0.000234
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000415 0.00000255
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000221 0.0000136
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000198 0.000122
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000277 0.0000170
[[Page 82079]]
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0299 \2\ 0.0184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(3) Chromium. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following
pretreatment standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased
effluent volume. The pretreatment standards for chromium shall be
applicable only when chromium is present in untreated wastewaters as a
result of process or other operations.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000227 0.000117
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000472 0.000243
(3) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000231 0.0000119
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000130 0.0000668
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000231 0.000119
(3) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000106 0.0000548
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0666 \2\ 0.0343
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.00000925 0.00000477
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.000162 0.0000834
(E) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.00000139 0.000000715
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000127 0.0000656
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.000000463 0.000000238
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000116 0.00000596
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000662 0.0000341
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.00000925 0.00000477
(G) Electroplating:
(1) plate......................... 0.0000162 0.00000834
(2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.000509 0.000262
(3) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000255 0.000131
metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000255 0.000131
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.00999 \2\ 0.00515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(ii) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment standards apply to
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the
basis of the increased effluent volume.
[[Page 82080]]
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.000500 0.000280
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.00167 0.000939
(3) plate......................... 0.0000760 0.0000427
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.00152 0.000854
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.313 \2\ 0.176
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000434 0.0000244
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.00543 0.00305
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.0000760 0.0000427
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000597 0.000335
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000652 0.00000366
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000348 0.0000195
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000311 0.000174
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000434 0.0000244
(F)Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0469 \2\ 0.0263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(4) Fluoride. (i) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.0446 0.0356
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.149 0.119
(3) plate......................... 0.00679 0.00542
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.136 0.108
(B) Wet air pollution control devices
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 4.19 \2\ 3.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(5) Lead. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following pretreatment
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000596 0.000311
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.00124 0.000647
(3) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000609 0.0000317
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
[[Page 82081]]
(1) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000341 0.000178
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000609 0.000317
(3) plate......................... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000280 0.000146
(C) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.175 \2\ 0.0913
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000243 0.0000127
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.000426 0.000222
(E) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.00000365 0.00000190
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000335 0.000174
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000122 0.000000634
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000304 0.0000159
(5) combination-multiple stands... 0.000174 0.0000907
(F) Continuous annealing lines........ 0.0000243 0.0000127
(G) Electroplating:
(1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.0000426 0.0000222
(2) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.00134 0.000698
metals...........................
(3) plate......................... 0.000669 0.000349
(H) Hot coating:
(1) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000669 0.000349
metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0263 \2\ 0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(6) Nickel. (i) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
(1) bar, billet................... 0.000147 0.000104
(2) pipe, tube.................... 0.000494 0.000347
(3) plate......................... 0.0000224 0.0000158
(4) strip, sheet.................. 0.000449 0.000315
(B) Acid regeneration:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0923 \2\ 0.0649
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
(1) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000128 0.00000901
(2) strip, sheet.................. 0.00160 0.00113
(D) Cold forming:
(1) direct application-single 0.0000224 0.0000158
stand............................
(2) direct application-multiple 0.000176 0.000124
stands...........................
(3) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000192 0.00000135
(4) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000103 0.00000721
(5) combination-multiple stand.... 0.0000917 0.0000644
(E) Continuous annealing.............. 0.0000128 0.00000901
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
(1) fume scrubbers................ \2\ 0.0138 \2\ 0.00973
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
(7) Zinc. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following pretreatment
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g.,
oily
[[Page 82082]]
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.
Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum monthly
\1\ avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000637 0.000262
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.00133 0.000546
(C) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.0000650 0.0000267
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
(A) bar, billet, rod, coil........ 0.000364 0.000150
(B) pipe, tube.................... 0.000650 0.000267
(C) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(D) strip, sheet.................. 0.000299 0.000123
(iii) Acid regeneration:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\0.187 \2\0.0770
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
(A) pipe, tube.................... 0.0000260 0.0000107
(B) strip, sheet.................. 0.000455 0.000187
(v) Cold forming:
(A) direct application-single 0.00000390 0.00000160
stand............................
(B) direct application-multiple 0.000357 0.000147
stands...........................
(C) recirculation-single stand.... 0.00000130 0.000000535
(D) recirculation-multiple stands. 0.0000325 0.0000134
(E) combination-multiple stand.... 0.000186 0.0000765
(vi) Continuous annealing lines....... 0.0000260 0.0000107
(vii) Electroplating:
(A) plate......................... 0.0000455 0.0000187
(B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium... 0.00143 0.000588
(C) strip, sheet: zinc, other 0.000715 0.000294
metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
(A) galvanizing, terne and other 0.000715 0.000294
metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
devices:
(A) fume scrubbers................ \2\0.0281 \2\0.0116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
Subpart G--Other Operations Subcategory
Sec. 420.70 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works
resulting from production of direct-reduced iron and forging
operations.
Sec. 420.71 Subcategory definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Product means:
(1) Direct-reduced iron, including any undersize product;
(2) Direct-reduced iron after forging operations, but prior to any
further shaping or finishing operations; and
(3) Direct-reduced iron briquetted, including any undersized
product. The average daily operating (production) rate must be
determined as specified in Sec. 420.3.
(b) Briquetting operations means a hot or cold process that
agglomerates (presses together) iron-bearing materials into small lumps
without melting or fusion. Used as a concentrated iron ore substitute
for scrap in electric furnaces.
(c) Direct-reduced iron means iron produced by reduction of iron
ore (pellets or briquettes) using gaseous (carbon monoxide-carbon
dioxide, hydrogen) or solid reactants.
(d) ging means the hot-working of heated steel shapes (e.g.,
ingots, blooms, billets, slabs) using hydraulic presses.
Sec. 420.72 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, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable
segment, the following effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
(a) Direct-reduced iron. This table is Effluent Limitations (BPT)
for direct-reduced iron:
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum
Pollutant \1\ monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
TSS................................... 0.0200 0.00929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
[[Page 82083]]
(b) ging operations. This table is Effluent Limitations (BPT) for
forging operations:
Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum
Pollutant \1\ monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
Oil and grease........................ 0.0149 0.00889
TSS................................... 0.0235 0.0118
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
Sec. 420.73 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best control technology for
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.72 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 420.74 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Direct-reduced iron; forging operations. (Reserved)
(b) Briquetting. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through
125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available control
technology economically achievable (BAT): There shall be no discharge
of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 420.75 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Direct-reduced iron. This table is Performance Standards (NSPS)
for direct-reduced iron:
Performance Stancards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum
Pollutant \1\ monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
TSS................................... 0.0200 0.00929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(b) ging operations. This table is for Performance Standards
(NSPS):
Performance Stancards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum daily Maximum
Pollutant \1\ monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
Oil and grease........................ 0.0149 0.00889
TSS................................... 0.0235 0.0118
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
(c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
Sec. 420.76 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to
this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
(a) Direct-reduced iron; forging operations. (Reserved)
(b) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to POTWs.
Sec. 420.77 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
(a) Direct-reduced iron; forging operations. (Reserved)
(b) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to POTWs.
[FR Doc. 00-31185 Filed 12-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P