[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4360-4385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2019]
[[Page 4360]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 444
[FRL-6503-6]
RIN 2040-AC23
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustor Subcategory of the Waste Combustors Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule represents the Agency's first effort to
develop Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for wastewater discharges from the commercial hazardous waste
combustor (CHWC) segment of the waste combustion industry. This rule
generally applies to hazardous waste combustion facilities, except
cement kilns, regulated as ``incinerators'' or ``boilers and industrial
furnaces'' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
under certain conditions.
This regulation limits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters of the United States and the introduction of pollutants into
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) by existing and new stand-alone
CHWCs that incinerate waste received from offsite.
EPA estimates that compliance with this final regulation will
reduce the discharge of pollutants by at least 170,000 pounds per year
at an estimated annualized cost of $2 million. EPA predicts that the
rule will improve water quality for both aquatic life and human health
in five streams. EPA also projects that today's rule will reduce sewage
sludge contamination associated with discharges from CHWC facilities at
POTWs.
DATES: This regulation shall become effective February 28, 2000. The
incorporation by reference of test methods listed in Sec. 444.12 is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 28,
2000. In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, for purposes of judicial review,
this rule will be considered promulgated at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time on
February 10, 2000.
ADDRESSES: For additional technical information write to: Ms. Samantha
Lewis, US EPA, (4303), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 or send E-
mail to: [email protected] or call at (202) 260-7149. For
additional economic information contact Mr. William Anderson at the
address above or send E-mail to: [email protected] or call at
(202) 260-5131.
The complete public record is available for review in the EPA Water
Docket, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA has assigned the
record for this rulemaking docket number W-97-08. The record includes
supporting documentation, but does not include any information claimed
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is available for
inspection from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. For access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to
schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
contact Ms. Samantha Lewis at (202) 260-7149. For additional 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................... Incinerators that discharge directly to or
indirectly through publicly owned
treatment works to waters of the U.S. and
that burn RCRA hazardous wastes received
from off-site for a fee or other
remuneration (regulated under RCRA, 40
CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265,
subpart O (i.e. rotary kiln incinerators,
liquid injection incinerators)). Boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that
discharge directly to or indirectly
through publicly owned treatment works to
waters of the U.S. and that burn RCRA
hazardous wastes received from off-site
for a fee or other remuneration
(regulated under RCRA, 40 CFR part 266,
subpart H (i.e. boilers, industrial
furnaces)).
Federal Govt................ Incinerators that discharge directly to or
indirectly through publicly owned
treatment works to waters of the U.S. and
that burn RCRA hazardous wastes received
from off-site for a fee or other
remuneration (regulated under RCRA, 40
CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265,
subpart O (i.e. rotary kiln incinerators,
liquid injection incinerators)). Boilers
and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that
discharge directly to or indirectly
through publicly owned treatment works to
waters of the U.S. and that burn RCRA
hazardous wastes received from off-site
for a fee or other remuneration
(regulated under RCRA, 40 CFR part 266,
Subpart H (i.e. boilers, industrial
furnaces)).\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA identified no Federal agencies that operate commercial hazardous
combustion facilities subject to this regulation. However, Federal
agencies that burn RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a
fee or other remuneration would be covered by the final regulation.
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 this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 444.10 of the final rule and
the definitions in Sec. 444.11 of the final rule. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult one of the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Compliance Dates
Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on
the best practicable technology currently available, the best
conventional pollutant control technology, and the best available
technology economically achievable as soon as their National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit includes such limitations.
Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's regulations must
comply with the pretreatment standards for existing sources no later
than January 27, 2003. New direct and indirect discharging sources must
comply with applicable limitations and standards on the date the new
sources begin operations.
Supporting Documentation
The final regulations are supported by several major documents:
1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-R-
99-020). This Technical Development Document (TDD) presents the
technical information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions
concerning the final
[[Page 4361]]
rule. In it, EPA describes, among other things, the data collection
activities following the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology
options considered, what pollutants are found in CHWC wastewater and
the estimation of costs to the industry to comply with final
limitations and standards.
2. ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-99-
008).
3. ``Statistical Support Document for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors''
(EPA 821-B-99-010).
4. ``Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors''
(EPA 821-B-99-009).
How to Obtain Supporting Documents
The Technical Development Document and Economic Analysis will be
posted on the Internet, at www.EPA.gov/OST/guide. The documents are
also available from the Office of Water Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786
for the voice mail publication request.
Organization of This Document
Legal Authority
I. Statutory Background for Effluent Regulations
A. Overview of the Clean Water Act
B. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT)--Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec.
304(b)(4) of the CWA
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec.
307(b) of the CWA
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA
C. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
II. Background of the Industry and Prior Regulations
A. Updated Profile of the Industry
B. Proposed Rule
1. Proposal
2. Notice of Data Availability
C. Related Regulations--Hazardous Waste Combustion Regulation
Promulgated September 30, 1999
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. EPA Limited the Scope of the Final Guidelines to Waste
Combustors that Burn Hazardous Waste
B. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to Hazardous Waste
Combustors Exempt from RCRA
C. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to the Burning of Waste
that Is Received From Off Site for No Fee or Other Remuneration
D. EPA Has Excluded Cement Kilns From the Scope of the
Guidelines
E. EPA Used Additional Data to Calculate the Final Limitations
and Standards
F. Change in Technology Basis of Limitations and Standards Due
to Expanded Data Set
G. Change in Regulation Name
H. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
IV. The Final Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Regulation
A. Scope of the Final Rule
B. BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES
C. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
D. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
V. Costs and Impacts for the Final Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustor Regulations
A. Contents of Economic Analysis
B. Summary of Results
1. Overview of Methodology
2. Summary of Costs
3. Summary of Economic Impacts for Existing Dischargers
4. Cost Reasonableness of Final BPT Option
5. Economic Impacts of New Sources
6. Firm-Level Impacts
7. Community Impacts
8. Foreign Trade Impacts
VI. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits
A. Characterization of Pollutants
B. Facilities Modeled
C. POTWs
VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Waste Treatment Residuals
C. Energy Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
2. Water Quality Variances
3. Permit Modifications
4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and
Monitoring Requirements
D. Analytical Methods
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
X. Summary of Public Participation
A. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses
B. Summary of Notice of Availability Comments and Responses
Appendix 1--Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Legal Authority
EPA is promulgating these regulations under the authority of
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.
I. Statutory Background for Effluent Regulations
A. Overview of the 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
attacks 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.
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations and new
source performance standards. These limitations and standards are
established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and
are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various
levels of pollution control technology. Permits authorizing discharges
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System must
require compliance with these limitations and standards (CWA sections
301(b), 304(b), 306, 307(b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and
1317(b)-(d)). In the absence of national effluent limitations and new
source performance standards, EPA must establish ``best professional
judgement'' limitations and standards on a case-by-case basis before it
may issue an NPDES discharge permit.
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 (for new
and existing sources) which restrict pollutant discharges for those who
[[Page 4362]]
discharge wastewater indirectly though sewers flowing to publicly-owned
treatment works (POTWs) (section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and
(c)). National pretreatment standards are established for those
pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass
through or interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment
standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
B. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
The CWA requires EPA to establish effluent limitations guidelines,
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources, and new source
performance standards.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines the BPT
effluent limitations for conventional, priority, and non-conventional
pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA
first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation
to the effluent reductions obtained. The Agency also considers the age
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate
(CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate,
however, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practicably applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA require EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources beyond
the effluent reductions achieved under BPT. In addition to other
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated treatment technology. New facilities have
the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS
should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants
(i.e., conventional, 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)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
The CWA requires EPA to establish pretreatment standards to prevent
pollutants passing through POTWs or interfering with POTW operations.
EPA determines whether a pollutant passes through a POTW by comparing
BAT removals of the pollutants at direct discharging facilities. The
preamble to the proposal explains this. See 63 FR at 6405-06. As
explained above, EPA develops BAT limitations by considering a number
of factors, including the availability and feasibility of use of the
treatment technology, pollutant removals, and its cost to dischargers.
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA. EPA evaluates the same factors in
establishing pretreatment standards as it considers when it develops
BAT limitations (A Legislative History of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1977, H.R. Rep. No. 830, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 271
(1978)). Pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to
BAT effluent limitations. Pretreatment standards also must be
economically achievable on a national basis to the industry category.
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of POTWs, including interfering with sludge disposal methods.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR part 403. Those regulations require POTWs to establish
pretreatment standards to address local passthrough and establish
pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See
52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
C. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)), added by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (1)
reviewing and revising existing effluent limitation guidelines and
standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (2) promulgating new effluent
guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines
Plan (55 FR 80), that included schedules for developing new and revised
effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of the
industries for
[[Page 4363]]
which the Agency established a schedule was the ``Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Phase II'' Category. EPA subsequently changed the category
name ``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'' to ``Landfills and
Incinerators.''
The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public
Citizen, Inc. challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed
in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al v.
Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980). Under the terms of the consent decree, EPA
agreed, among other things, to propose effluent guidelines for the
``Landfills and Incinerators'' category by November 1997 and to take
final action by November 1999. Although ``Landfills and Incinerators''
is listed as a single entry in the Consent Decree schedule, EPA
proposed two separate rulemaking actions in the Federal Register, both
on February 6, 1998. In order to reflect the fact that the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards to be proposed would apply only to
a segment of the waste combustion industry, EPA changed the name of the
proposed regulation from ``Incinerators'' to ``Industrial Waste
Combustor'' regulations prior to the proposal. In order to reflect
accurately the segment of the combustion industry being regulated
today, EPA has now changed the name for this final regulation to
``Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor'' regulations.
II. Background on the Industry and Prior Regulations
A. Updated Profile of the Industry
The universe of incineration facilities currently in operation in
the United States is broad. These include municipal waste combustors
that burn household and other municipal trash and incinerators that
burn hazardous wastes. Among other types of incinerators burning waste
material are those that burn medical wastes exclusively and sewage
sludge incinerators that burn residual solids from wastewater treatment
at POTWs. In addition, some boilers and industrial furnaces may also
burn waste materials for fuel.
While many industries began incinerating some of their wastes as
early as the late 1950's, the current market for waste combustion
(particularly combustion of hazardous wastes) is essentially a creature
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA's
resulting regulation of hazardous waste disposal. For more information
on the development of the industry, see the preamble to the proposed
guideline at 63 FR 6392, 6395 (February 6, 1998).
Today's rule establishes national effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for a segment of the waste combustion industry--
``commercial hazardous waste combustors.'' The segment of the universe
of incineration units for which EPA has adopted regulations includes
units which operate commercially and which use controlled flame
combustion in the treatment or recovery of energy values from hazardous
industrial waste. For example, industrial boilers, industrial furnaces,
rotary kiln incinerators and liquid-injection incinerators are all
types of units included in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors
Subcategory.
Thermal treatment or recovery operations at these facilities
generate the following types of wastewater: Air pollution control
wastewater, flue gas quench wastewater, truck/equipment wash water,
container wash waster, laboratory drain wastewater, and floor washings
from process areas. Section 4 of the TDD describes these more fully.
Typical non-wastewater by-products of thermal treatment or recovery
operations may include: Slag or ash developed in the thermal unit
itself, and emission particles collected using air pollution control
systems. There are many different types of air pollution control
systems in use by thermal units. The types employed by thermal units
include, but are not limited to, the following: Packed towers (which
use a caustic scrubbing solution for the removal of acid gases),
baghouses (which remove particles and do not use any water), wet
electrostatic precipitators (which remove particles using water but do
not generate a wastewater stream), and venturi scrubbers (which remove
particles using water and generate a wastewater stream). Thus, the
amount of wastewater and types of wastewater generated by a thermal
unit are directly dependent upon the types of air pollution control
systems employed by the thermal unit.
The Agency estimates that there are approximately 55 Commercial
Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities that are potentially subject to
the rule. These include rotary kiln incinerators, liquid injection
incinerators, fluidized-bed incinerators, multiple-hearth incinerators,
fixed-hearth incinerators, industrial boilers, industrial furnaces, and
other types of thermal units. These do not include cement kilns, since
EPA specifically exempts cement kilns from this final rule. Of these 55
facilities, approximately 33 facilities do not generate any wastewater
that EPA is regulating under this final rule. Twelve of these
facilities generate CHWC wastewater but do not discharge the wastewater
to a receiving stream or POTW. These ``zero or alternative''
dischargers use a variety of methods to dispose of their wastewater. At
these facilities, (1) wastewater is sent off-site for treatment or
disposal (four facilities); (2) wastewater is burned or evaporated on
site (four facilities); (3) wastewater is sent to a surface impoundment
on site (three facilities); and (4) wastewater is injected underground
on site (one facility).
For the final rule, EPA identified only 10 facilities that were
discharging CHWC wastewater to a receiving stream or introducing
wastewater to a POTW. Of these 10 facilities, two facilities have,
since 1992, either stopped accepting waste from off site for combustion
or have closed their combustion operations.
B. Proposed Rule
1. Proposal
On February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6391), EPA proposed limitations and
standards for the Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Industry. The
proposal applied to existing and new stand-alone industrial waste
combustors that burned hazardous and non-hazardous wastes received from
offsite. The proposed guidelines and standards would not have applied
to wastewater discharges from industrial waste combustors that only
burned wastes generated on-site at the industrial facility or generated
at facilities under common corporate ownership. The principal source of
regulated wastewater under the proposal was air pollution control
wastewater. The comment period for the proposal closed on May 7, 1998.
EPA received comments from 39 interested stakeholders.
2. Notice of Data Availability
On May 17, 1999 (64 FR 26714), EPA published a Notice of Data
Availability related to the proposed limitations and standards for the
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor industry. This notice solicited
comments on new wastewater treatment system performance data from three
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities. EPA received this new
performance data in early 1999, subsequent to the close of the comment
period for the proposal.
Three CHWCs submitted influent and effluent wastewater treatment
system performance data and related information on the operation of
their
[[Page 4364]]
treatment systems. Each facility submitted daily measurements for
chlorides, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, pH,
and 15 metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper,
iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, silver, tin, titanium and
zinc). One facility provided 11 days of sampling data, and the two
other facilities provided 30 days of sampling data each. The comment
period for the notice closed on June 16, 1999. EPA received comments
from 4 interested stakeholders.
C. Related Regulations--Hazardous Waste Combustion Regulation
Promulgated September 30, 1999
The preamble to the proposal discusses a number of EPA regulatory
efforts affecting the waste combustion industry, including a proposal
to establish standards for hazardous waste combustion. 63 FR at 6395-
96. Recently, under the joint authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA promulgated the
Hazardous Waste Combustion (HWC) MACT (64 FR 52828, September 30,
1999). These final regulations apply to the following types of
combustors:
RCRA Incinerators (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10).
RCRA Cement Kilns and RCRA Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10 under the Industrial Furnace definition).
These regulations do not apply to:
RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (other than Cement
Kilns and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10).
The HWC regulations establish stack emission limits for several
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Under the Clean Air Act, these limits
must require the maximum achievable degree of emission reductions of
HAPs, taking into account the cost of achieving such reductions and
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
requirements--so-called Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT)
standards. The HWC regulation does not set limits on the water
effluents from the air pollution control systems (APCS) (like wet
scrubbers, quench systems). As a result of promulgation of these
standards, it is likely that some facilities using dry air pollution
control, not presently generating wastewater, may switch to using wet
APCS.
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
This section describes the most significant changes to the rule
since proposal. Many of these changes result from EPA consideration of
the comments submitted on the proposal. Section X below discusses the
most significant of these. EPA's responses to all the comments provides
more detailed explanations for changes. The record for the final rule
includes these responses.
A. EPA Limited the Scope of the Final Guidelines to Waste Combustors
that Burn Hazardous Waste
Today's final rule does not apply to industrial waste combustors
that do not burn hazardous waste. EPA had proposed to regulate both
hazardous and non-hazardous waste combustors. EPA received comments
questioning whether its data collection effort was complete enough to
allow EPA to characterize non-hazardous industrial waste combustor
facilities and develop limitations and standards for such facilities.
Examples of non-hazardous industrial waste burned by waste combustors
include: tire-derived fuels, alternative fuels, recycled manufactured
products and reclaimed materials.
The data examined by EPA as well as information supplied by
commenters supports the conclusion that the pollutant profile of
scrubber water for non-hazardous industrial waste combustors burning
alternative fuels will exhibit significant variation depending on the
type of fuels burned. The variation will range from scrubber water
containing few, if any, pollutants of potential concern to facilities
whose scrubber water may more closely resemble that of hazardous waste
combustion practices. EPA determined that, in order to develop
appropriate limitations and standards, EPA would need to consider
multiple subcategories, based on the different fuels burned before it
could regulate these facilities. This effort would require information
that the Agency currently lacks.
At this time, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is exploring the
development of MACT CAA standards for industrial commercial waste
incineration. They have identified four potential subcategories for
regulation: wood and other biomass waste incinerators, pathological
waste incinerators, drum and parts reclaimer incinerators,
miscellaneous industrial and commercial waste incinerators. EPA may
consider taking a second look at these facilities for wastewater
regulation, following development of the MACT standards.
The CHWC regulation focuses on RCRA combustor units and includes
units that burn both RCRA and non-RCRA wastes. If a combustor does not
burn any RCRA hazardous waste, it is not subject to the rule. The
regulation will apply to the CHWC wastewater produced by burning non-
hazardous industrial wastes in conjunction with RCRA hazardous waste.
B. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to Hazardous Waste Combustors
Exempt From RCRA
In today's final rule, EPA is clarifying the proposal regarding
incinerators and BIFs regulated under RCRA. EPA proposed to regulate
only ``commercially-operating hazardous waste combustor facilities
regulated as `incinerators' or `boilers and industrial furnaces' under
RCRA.'' EPA based its decision to limit the scope of the guidelines, in
part, on its determination that wastewater from these exempt facilities
would be qualitatively different from the regulated wastewater.
However, EPA failed to make it clear that it was not proposing to
regulate facilities that are granted exemptions from 40 CFR part 264,
subpart O; part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart H. The
applicability provisions of the final guideline make it clear that the
rule does not apply to those exempted facilities. One example of a
facility of this type is a facility that is conditionally exempt from
regulation as a RCRA BIF under 40 CFR 266.100(c).
C. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to the Burning of Waste that Is
Received From Off Site for No Fee or Other Remuneration
In today's final rule, EPA is not regulating hazardous waste
combustors (HWCs) that only take waste from off-site (from facilities
not under the same corporate structure) for no fee or other
remuneration. At proposal, EPA had included waste burned from off-site
for a fee or other remuneration in the scope of the rule. Examples of
``not-for-fee'' activities include wastes burned as a public service
and product stewardship activities.
As explained in greater detail below, EPA decided it would not
include captive or intra-company HWCs within this guideline so long as
the combustors did not burn off-site wastes generated at a facility not
under the same corporate structure or subject to the same ownership. A
captive or intra-company HWC would still not be subject to the
guideline if it burned off-site waste generated at a facility not under
the same ownership so long as the wastes are similar to the wastes
being generated on-site. EPA's review of data on captive facilities
showed that permit writers regulated captive scrubber water either
through specific guideline limitations or by developing BPJ limitations
that
[[Page 4365]]
generally paralleled the limitations for the associated industrial
process wastewater. The apparent reason for this is that if the
incinerator is burning on-site industrial waste or similar waste, then
the pollutant profile of its scrubber water would include many of the
same pollutants seen in wastewater from its industrial operations.
Given the small quantity of scrubber water and commingled treatment,
applying the same requirements to scrubber water would be appropriate.
EPA concluded that the quantity of wastes burned on a ``not-for-
fee'' basis was unlikely to be great for such captive and intra-company
facilities. In those circumstances, the burning of such waste was not
likely to change the character of the scrubber water for these
combustors significantly. In these circumstances, the same reasoning
that supported not including these combustors in this guideline would
still apply.
D. EPA Has Excluded Cement Kilns From the Scope of the Guidelines
EPA is not including cement kilns within the scope of the CHWC
guidelines for several reasons. Although EPA proposed to include cement
kilns in the scope of this rule, EPA's survey identified no cement
kilns that are currently discharging scrubber water or other wastewater
that is potentially subject to the CHWC guidelines. In the absence of
detailed information on the wastes burned in these kilns, wastewater
characterizations, and treatment effectiveness, EPA is not applying the
final limitations and standards to cement kilns.
EPA learned, as part of its analysis for the final rule, that there
may be a cement kiln considering the installation of wet scrubbers in
order to comply with the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT. (See
discussion on this MACT final rule above at Section II.C.) In the event
that a cement kiln burning hazardous waste switched from a dry to wet
scrubber, EPA would expect it to produce scrubber water with a
pollutant profile very similar to those wastestreams regulated here as
CHWC wastewater. In those circumstances, NPDES permit writers should
consider whether they will need to establish BPJ limitations or local
control authorities may need to establish local limits to control
discharges of toxic pollutants in the scrubber water. Permit writers
should compare cement kiln scrubber wastewater with the information
provided in the TDD concerning the characteristics of CHWC wastewater
to determine whether similar discharge limitations should be
established.
In EPA's view, thermal operations burning hazardous wastes that use
wet emissions control equipment will generally result in wastewater
with similar pollutant profiles. This conclusion is supported by the
data EPA has collected. Thus, EPA's wastewater data included data from
wet emission control equipment at thermal operations burning hazardous
waste exclusively as well as operations that burned hazardous waste as
a fuel for other industrial operations such as acid regeneration. As
EPA expected, the wastewater included extremely low levels of organic
pollutants which are largely destroyed in the combustion process. EPA
did find present a number of metals at treatable levels. Permit writers
and local control authorities should carefully examine cement kiln
emission control wastewater to see if it also contains metal pollutants
when the permit writer establishes case-by-case limitations under NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 125.(3) or the control authority establishes
local limits under the General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR
403.5.
EPA has established limitations and standards for cement
manufacturers at 40 CFR part 411. Among these limitations and standards
are discharge limits for cement kilns which use water in wet scrubbers
to control kiln stack emissions. While the part 411 regulations include
BPT/BAT limitations, they only limit conventional pollutants and
temperature. There are no pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers and no BAT limitations to control the discharge of toxic
pollutants from these facilities. Consequently, the permit writer or
local control authority must include technology-based limits for any
toxic pollutant which is or may be discharged at a level greater than
the level which can be achieved by treatment requirements appropriate
to the permittee or which may pass through or interfere with POTW
operations (40 CFR 122.44(e), 125.3. See also 40 CFR 403.5(c) which
requires the establishment of local limits in a POTW pretreatment
program for any pollutant which may cause pass through or
interference). The presence of metal pollutants in scrubber water would
likely trigger these requirements.
E. EPA Used Additional Data To Calculate the Final Limitations and
Standards
As described in the Notice of Availability on May 17, 1999 (64 FR
26714), EPA received influent and effluent data from three CHWC
facilities following proposal of the regulation. Commenters supported
the use of this data in the development of the final CHWC limitations
and standards. Following an evaluation of the three facilities, EPA
determined that two of the three facilities employed effective
treatment. EPA used data from these two facilities as follows. The
concentrations of pollutants in the treated effluent from these two
additional facilities are higher for some pollutants and lower for
others, as compared to the facility used to develop limitations and
standards for the proposal. EPA used the new pollutant concentration
data for the final rule. EPA did not rely on data from the two
additional facilities to calculate variability factors. For both
facilities, the average variability of the effluent concentrations was
lower than the average variability of the effluent concentrations used
to calculate the proposed limitations and standards. EPA used only the
variability factors calculated from the facility it used at proposal to
calculate the final limitations and standards. The variability factors
calculated using the proposal data better reflect the variability seen
in waste receipts at CHWCs.
F. Change in Technology Basis of Limitations and Standards Due to
Expanded Data Set
Based on the new data received and analyzed by EPA following
proposal, EPA has changed the technology basis for PSES and BPT/BAT
(noted this way because the BPT and BAT limitations are equivalent).
For the final rule, PSES and BPT/BAT are based on chromium reduction
(as necessary) followed by two stages of chemical precipitation with
(or without) sand filtration. EPA developed the final limitations and
standards using sampling data from facilities both with and without a
final sand filtration step. The data show that filtration may or may
not be necessary to meet the final limitations, depending upon the
level of treatment provided in the initial two stages of chemical
precipitation. EPA costed the limitations and standards with sand
filtration, however, to ensure its economic achievability.
G. Change in Regulation Name
EPA changed the name of this regulation from ``Industrial Waste
Combustors'' to ``Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors.'' This change
reflects the changes made in the scope of the project from proposal to
promulgation. Specifically, EPA is regulating only hazardous, rather
than all industrial, waste combustors for the final regulation (see
Section IV.A.
[[Page 4366]]
above). Also, EPA is regulating only facilities which receive waste for
a fee or other remuneration, rather than all facilities that take waste
from off-site from facilities not under their same corporate structure,
regardless of whether a fee is charged (see Section IV.C above).
H. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
In the proposed regulation, EPA included RCRA permit modification
capital costs as one component of the total proposed capital costs.
This was an error. The wastewater treatment unit exemption at 40 CFR
264.1(g)(6) and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10) and 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2)(v) exempts,
from certain RCRA requirements, wastewater treatment units at
facilities that are subject to the NPDES or pretreatment requirements
under the Clean Water Act. Thus, CHWC facilities would not need to
modify their RCRA permits as a result of this rule and would not incur
these RCRA permit modification costs. The final rule does not include
these RCRA permit modification costs.
IV. The Final Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Regulation
This section discusses the scope of the final rule, the treatment
options that EPA considered for development of the final limitations
and standards and the rationale for the Agency's selected options for
BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS.
A. Scope of the Final Rule
Today's final effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards cover pollutants only in discharges of specified wastewater
from new and existing Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities.
Based on its consideration of comments, EPA has narrowed the scope of
the final rule to commercial hazardous waste combustors, rather than
industrial waste combustors, as proposed.
As explained in Section III.G, EPA now defines the regulated
facilities as Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors (CHWCs). A CHWC is
any thermal unit, except a cement kiln, that is subject to either to 40
CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart H if
the thermal unit burns RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for
a fee or other remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal
unit is a commercial hazardous waste combustor if the off-site wastes
are generated at a facility not under the same corporate structure or
subject to the same ownership as the thermal unit and (1) the thermal
unit is burning wastes that are not of a similar nature to wastes being
burned from industrial processes on site, or (2) there are no wastes
being burned from industrial processes on site. Examples of wastes of a
``similar nature'' may include the following: wastes generated in
industrial operations whose wastewaters are subject to the same
provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N (Part 400 to 471) or wastes burned as
part of a product stewardship activity.
The term ``commercial hazardous waste combustor'' includes the
following facilities: a facility that burns exclusively waste received
from off-site; and, a facility that burns both wastes generated on-site
and wastes received from off-site. Facilities that may be commercial
hazardous waste combustors include hazardous waste incinerators, rotary
kiln incinerators, lime kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and
boilers.
A facility not otherwise a commercial hazardous waste combustor is
not a commercial hazardous waste combustor if it burns RCRA hazardous
waste for charitable organizations, as a community service or as an
accommodation to local, state or government agencies so long as the
waste is burned for no fee or other remuneration. Thermal units that
only burn non-hazardous industrial waste are no longer in the scope of
this guideline, based on EPA's assessment of public comments.
The scope of wastewater regulated for the final rule remains the
same as proposed. CHWC wastewater means water used in air pollution
control systems or water used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a
result of commercial hazardous waste combustion operations. Most of the
wastewater generated by Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor operations
result from these three sources.
As proposed, EPA is not including within the scope of the rule
those hazardous waste combustors that burn only wastes received from
off-site facilities within the same corporate ownership (intracompany
wastes) or hazardous waste combustors that only burn wastes generated
on-site. Thus, facilities which only burn waste from off-site
facilities under the same corporate structure (an intracompany
facility) and/or only burn waste generated on-site (captive facility)
are not regulated under these guidelines.
EPA received comments that claim that the Agency's proposal not to
apply the guidelines to intracompany facilities would mean that as many
as several thousand on-site and intracompany facilities would not be
subject to the rule, without assurances other comparable categorical
standards would apply to the wastewaters discharged by such facilities.
EPA also received comments that the universe of commercial waste
combustors covered by the rule is narrow considering the magnitude of
the total pollutant loadings from the whole IWC industry. The comments
state that EPA is ignoring the majority of pollutants discharged from
combustion sources by excluding captive and intracompany sources.
EPA has concluded that its decision to limit the scope of this
regulation to a narrow universe of combustion operations is well-
supported by the record. From the information developed by the Agency
for this rulemaking and confirmed by comments on the proposal, EPA has
concluded that the combustor wastewater generated by captive and intra-
company hazardous waste combustors operated in conjunction with, and
receiving the bulk of their waste from, associated industrial or
commercial operations are currently subject to effluent guideline
limitations for other point source categories either explicitly through
the guideline or through permit writer-developed BPJ limitations. In
some cases, EPA specifically considered scrubber water as a wastewater
source in developing guidelines and thus scrubber water is a
specifically regulated stream. In other cases, industrial operations
with associated combustors commingle scrubber water with other
industrial wastewater for treatment. In these circumstances, permit
writers are applying the applicable industrial guideline to the
scrubber water through BPJ limitations because of the small volumes of
scrubber water and the similarity of the metals profile of the scrubber
water to that of other wastewater being treated.
The record shows the great bulk of wastewater discharges from
captive and intracompany combustion operations are in fact being
regulated under industry-specific guidelines. EPA has based those
guidelines on data that are specific to the particular industrial
processes being conducted on-site. Those guidelines regulate the
appropriate range of pollutants associated with the on-site industrial
processes. As a consequence, these pollutants are likely constituents
of the waste being burned. In fact, many existing effluent guidelines
specify air pollution control wastewaters (APC) as an ``in-scope''
wastewater (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
category and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing category). The preamble to
the proposal provided detailed
[[Page 4367]]
information on 156 captive and intracompany facilities receiving EPA's
screener survey that are covered by existing categorical standards. (63
FR 6392 at 6415). EPA has updated this information. Rather than 107
facilities as reported at proposal, EPA has now determined that 140 out
of the 156 facilities are subject to existing categorical standards.
There are 97 facilities subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic fibers category (40 CFR part 414), 17 facilities subject to
the Pharmaceutical category (40 CFR part 439), 16 facilities subject to
the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR part 423), 3
facilities subject to the Pesticide Manufacturing category (40 CFR part
455), and 7 subject to other categories. EPA could not identify an
effluent guidelines category for 16 of these 156 facilities (five of
these are federal facilities). Moreover, in the case of the small
number--less than 10 percent--for which EPA could not identify a
specific guideline that would apply, the permit writer has ample
authority to obtain any necessary data to write facility-specific BPJ
limitations or standards.
In addition, EPA looked at the pollutant data for commercial and
non-commercial hazardous facilities and concluded that their scrubber
water is qualitatively different. EPA evaluated the grab samples of
untreated scrubber water it collected from eight non-commercial
facilities to determine if there was a difference in wastewater
characteristics at non-commercial versus commercial facilities. For
each regulated pollutant, the average untreated IWC wastewater
concentration is less for the eight non-commercial facilities than for
the three commercial facilities used to determine the final
limitations. EPA concluded this results from the fact that non-
commercial facilities do not take the large variety of different wastes
that commercial facilities do. Additionally, two of the nine regulated
metal pollutants (mercury and silver) were not at treatable levels for
any of the eight non-commercial facilities. Two more of the nine
regulated metal pollutants (arsenic and cadmium) were at treatable
levels at only one of the eight non-commercial facilities. Further,
only one of the nine regulated metal pollutants (zinc) was at treatable
levels at more than half of the eight non-commercial facilities. In
contrast, seven of the nine regulated metal pollutants (arsenic,
cadmium copper, lead, mercury, titanium and zinc) were found at
treatable levels at all three of the commercial facilities used to
determine the final limitations. Further, the remaining two metal
pollutants (chromium and silver) were found at treatable levels at two
of these three commercial facilities. These circumstances further
support EPA's decision not to subject non-commercial, captive hazardous
incinerators to the limitations and standards developed here.
There may be instances when a combustor is operated in conjunction
with on-site industrial activities and the combustor wastewater is
treated and discharged separately from the treatment of industrial
wastewater (or treated separately and mixed before discharge). Permit
writers should consider this guideline as one source of information
when developing limitations and standards for these situations.
Therefore, EPA determined that it has appropriately balanced
coverage of the guidelines without imposing limitations on thermal
units already adequately regulated under existing guidelines. Given the
circumstances reviewed above, EPA concluded that there is not likely to
be any significant regulatory gap in the treatment of combustor
wastewater.
B. BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES
a. Summary of Technology Basis
For this final rule, EPA is promulgating BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES
(BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES) limitations and standards based on the same
wastewater treatment technology. EPA proposed BPT limitations for nine
priority and non-conventional metal pollutants, TSS, and pH when
discharged from Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities. EPA
proposed BCT limitations equivalent to BPT because it did not identify
any more stringent technology for the control of conventional
pollutants. EPA proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT because it
did not identify any more stringent technology option that it
considered would represent BAT levels of control. EPA proposed PSES for
nine priority and non-conventional metal pollutants. EPA proposed BPT/
BCT/BAT based on two stages of chemical precipitation followed by sand
filtration. EPA proposed PSES based on two stages of chemical
precipitation, with no sand filtration as the final step.
EPA has based the final BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations and standards
on the same treatment technologies it had considered at proposal with
one modification. The technology forming the basis of the final
limitations and standards is two-stage chemical precipitation with and
without sand filtration as a final step. See 63 FR at 6404.
b. Rationale for BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES Limitations and Standards
Based on a thorough analysis of the sampling data and public
comments, EPA considered only one option for the final BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES
limitations. EPA concluded that a two-stage precipitation process with
or without a sand filtration polishing step provided the greatest
overall pollutant removals at a cost that is economically achievable at
most commercial hazardous waste combustion facilities. Consequently,
EPA has based the final limitations on this treatment technology
(Option 1), consisting of chromium reduction (as necessary), primary
precipitation, solid-liquid separation, secondary precipitation, and
solid-liquid separation with (or without) sand filtration.
EPA has based BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations upon two stages of
chemical precipitation, each followed by some form of separation and
sludge dewatering. The pH levels used for chemical precipitation vary
to promote optimal removal of metals because different metals are
preferentially removed at different pH levels. In addition, chromium
reduction precedes the first stage of chemical precipitation, when
necessary. In some cases, BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations would require
the current treatment technologies in place to be improved by use of
increased quantities of treatment chemicals and additional chemical
precipitation/sludge dewatering systems. Sand filtration is employed at
the end of the treatment train, if necessary.
In response to the proposal, EPA received comments claiming that
carbon and other adsorptive media, including filtration technologies,
would be more appropriate than sand filtration for treating waste
streams likely to contain mercury. EPA did not include sand filtration
system in the model treatment technology specifically to remove
mercury, but, rather as a polishing step to help remove TSS and metals
associated with fine precipitate particles. In addition, EPA finds that
sand filtration is effective in removing mercury. EPA did investigate
the use of Lancy filtration and carbon adsorption during the sampling
conducted at one facility. EPA found that the removals for mercury at
that facility were lower (88.6 percent) than those at the model plant
(99.1 percent) whose data formed the basis for the BPT limitations.
Although the influent mercury concentration was
[[Page 4368]]
an order of magnitude greater at the model facility (21.4 g/l)
compared to the facility using Lancy filtration (3.3 g/l), the
final effluent concentration was lower (non-detect, 0.2 g/l
detection limit) than it was at the second plant (0.4 g/l).
EPA has found that the treatment performance of activated carbon is
sometimes unreliable due to the competitive adsorption and desorption
of different pollutants that have different affinities for adsorption
on activated carbon. Also, pH changes of the wastewater going through
the carbon system may cause stable metal complexes to dissolve and thus
cause an increase in some metals concentrations through the carbon
system. The sampling data for the facility using Lancy filtration shows
this. There, the concentration of several metallic pollutants increased
across the activated carbon treatment system (see Table 6-4 of the TDD;
specifically selenium, antimony, and boron as examples). Thus, the
final technology basis includes sand filtration.
The Agency has concluded that this treatment system represented the
best practicable technology currently available and should be the basis
for the BPT limitations for the following reasons. First, the
demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through this control
technology represent performance that may be achieved through the
application of demonstrated treatment measures currently in operation
in this industry. Three facilities containing the identified BPT
technology were used in the database to calculate the effluent
limitations. This database reflects technology and removals readily
applicable to all facilities. Second, the adoption of this level of
control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants
discharged into the environment (approximately 94,000 pounds of TSS and
metals). Third, the Agency assessed the total cost of water pollution
controls likely to be incurred, in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits and found those costs were reasonable.
Although EPA is not changing the technology basis significantly,
EPA is revising all BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations and standards. EPA has
based the final BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES effluent limitations and standards on
data from the CHWC facility used in the development of the proposed IWC
limitations as well as data from two other CHWC facilities that
submitted sampling data to EPA (See 64 FR 26714, May 17, 1999)
following proposal of the IWC rule. See Section III.E above.
As previously noted, EPA proposed BAT equal to BPT for all non-
conventional and priority pollutants for which it had proposed BPT
limitations. EPA did consider and reject zero discharge as a possible
BAT technology at proposal. EPA concluded that it should not promulgate
zero discharge requirements for the following reasons.
EPA determined that combustors have two main options for achieving
zero discharge--off-site disposal or on-site incineration. Facilities
will likely choose off-site disposal where the cost of on-site
incineration is greater than the cost of off-site disposal. But off-
site disposal ultimately results in some pollutant discharge to surface
waters which will exceed the level achieved by BPT unless the
limitations and standards applicable to the off-site treater are
equivalent to today's guideline. EPA is concerned that adopting a BAT
zero discharge requirement may, in actuality, result in fewer effluent
reductions than expected from today's limitations and standards. The
second option for zero discharge is on-site. In this case, a facility
must either incinerate its scrubber water or replace its wet scrubbing
system with a dry scrubber. EPA has determined that on-site
incineration would be more expensive than off-site disposal and
therefore result in off-site treatment. Similarly, EPA believes, but
cannot confirm, that the cost of changing air pollution control systems
is probably so high that a combustor would send its scrubber water off-
site for treatment. Moreover, even if the cost is not greater, EPA
found that replacement of wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbers may
result in an unstable solid (as opposed to the stable solids generated
in wastewater treatment systems) that must be disposed of in a
landfill, with potentially adverse, non-water quality effects.
Consequently, EPA determined that zero discharge is not, in fact, the
best available technology. EPA is promulgating BAT limitations equal to
the BPT limitations for the non-conventional and priority pollutants
covered under BPT.
EPA proposed BCT equal to BPT for all conventional pollutants
covered under BPT. The Agency indicated that it had not identified
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
other that those associated with the proposed BPT limits. EPA has not
received any comments concerning its proposed BCT technology basis.
Because EPA did not identify any incremental conventional pollutant
removal technology options that pass the BCT cost reasonableness test,
EPA is promulgating BCT limitations equal to the BPT limitations for
conventional pollutants covered under BPT.
As explained above, EPA based the proposed pretreatment standard on
two stages of chemical precipitation, with no sand filtration as the
final step. EPA received comments that it should include the additional
filtration step used in calculating its BPT/BCT/BAT standards for the
proposal to calculate PSES standards, and adopt pretreatment standards
based on the same level of treatment as its BPT/BAT standards. EPA also
received comments that it should promulgate PSES standards as proposed.
Based on new data received and analyzed by EPA following proposal
of the IWC rule, EPA has decided to base PSES and BPT/BCT/BAT on the
same treatment technology. The standards based on this technology allow
a facility to either use or not use sand filtration as the last
treatment step, depending on what is necessary to meet the pretreatment
standards. EPA costed the PSES technology standards with sand
filtration to ensure its economic achievability.
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs
or which would interfere with the operation of POTWs. EPA looks at a
number of factors in deciding whether a pollutant was not susceptible
to treatment at a POTW or would interfere with POTW operations--the
predicate to establishment of pretreatment standards. First, EPA
assesses the pollutant removals achieved at POTWs relative to those
achieved by directly discharging systems using BAT treatment. Second,
EPA estimates the quantity of pollutants likely to be discharged to
receiving waters after POTW removals. Third, EPA studies whether any of
the pollutants introduced to POTWs by combustors interfered with or are
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations.
EPA is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-through
of the same pollutants controlled by BPT/BCT/BAT from POTWs to waters
of the U.S. EPA has determined that all of the pollutants that ``passed
through'' at proposal would ``pass through'' and has consequently
developed pretreatment standards for these pollutants. Today's
pretreatment standards represent a national baseline for CHWCs. Local
authorities are free to establish stricter limitations (based on site-
specific water quality concerns) if they deem it necessary.
For this rule, EPA has looked at the combined economic impacts of
the final
[[Page 4369]]
regulatory option for both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA has
combined these because it concluded, that in the case of CHWCs, there
are no economic differences between direct and indirect dischargers
that would support separate evaluation of the economic achievability of
the selected technology. Both direct and indirect dischargers face the
same capital requirement for treatment technology upgrades.
Furthermore, the costs of the selected treatment technology are
essentially the same for both direct and indirect dischargers because
the technology is designed to remove metal pollutants not susceptible
to POTW treatment. There are not additional biological controls for
direct dischargers because the thermal operations are expected to
destroy any organic pollutants in the incinerated wastes so that only
traces remain in the scrubber water. In these circumstances, both
direct and indirect dischargers also share similar profiles with
respect to the characteristics of wastewater generated. In order to
determine the cost of compliance with the BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations
and standards, EPA included the cost of installation of sand filtration
at all CHWC facilities as a conservative approach because, as explained
above, not all facilities will require one to meet the limitations and
standards. EPA concluded the cost of installation of the selected
control technology is economically achievable. See discussion of
economic impacts in Section V below.
C. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
EPA proposed to establish NSPS equal to BPT/BCT/BAT for all
conventional, non-conventional and priority pollutants covered under
BPT. EPA has decided that it should not promulgate NSPS based on any
more stringent technology. EPA considered basing NSPS on zero discharge
but has rejected this technology. As explained above, EPA has concluded
that zero discharge may not ultimately result in any reduction in
effluent discharges relative to BPT/BCT/BAT levels or it may have
unacceptable non-water quality effects.
EPA received a comment stating that EPA's discussion of recycling
scrubber water as a potential component of NSPS was insufficient. The
commenter explained that it understood why EPA might be hesitant in
recommending such a system as a basis for BAT, but argued that
incorporating a system to recycle scrubber water would pose a lesser
financial burden on new sources. EPA agrees that such a system would
pose a lesser financial burden on new sources, but does not agree that
it should require all new sources to be zero dischargers as explained
previously. EPA bases its decision on the fact that the HWC final MACT
rule standards for new incinerators permit use of both wet and dry
scrubbing systems. EPA bases the emission standards for dioxins and
furans, for example, on an activated carbon injection system used at
Waste Treatment Industries (WTI) Incinerator in Liverpool, Ohio.
However, EPA bases the emission standards for mercury on wet scrubbing
and hazardous waste feedrate control of mercury. EPA concluded that it
could not establish that all systems using wet scrubbers, as allowed
under the HWC final MACT rule, could recycle all of their scrubber
water discharges.
EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control the same conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants as the BPT effluent
limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants at existing
facilities are fully applicable to new facilities. Therefore, EPA is
promulgating NSPS limitations that are identical to BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES.
EPA considered the cost of the NSPS technology for new facilities.
EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently operating
facilities are using these technologies. The Agency considered energy
requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and
found no basis for any different standards than the selected NSPS.
D. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
EPA proposed PSNS for nine priority and non-conventional metal
pollutants. EPA based the proposed standards on two stages of chemical
precipitation, with no sand filtration as the final step. The proposed
pretreatment standards for new sources were identical to the proposed
PSES. EPA received comments that it should adopt PSNS based on two
stages of chemical precipitation followed by sand filtration, given the
increased removals that would be achieved by the addition of sand
filtration. The final PSNS essentially does this. EPA has decided to
base PSNS on the same technology as it used for BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES--
chromium reduction (as necessary) and two-stage precipitation with or
without sand filtration. EPA concluded that sand filtration was not
necessary in all cases to achieve BAT metals removals. The data showed
that the facilities with and without filtration were achieving high,
BAT removals. Filtration may be used as a polishing step depending on
the level of treatment provided in the initial two stages of
precipitation. The final BAT limitations and PSES were based on data
from facilities with and without filtration.
The Agency is establishing PSNS for the same priority and non-
conventional pollutants as for PSES.
EPA considered the cost of the PSNS technology for new facilities.
EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently operating
facilities are using these technologies. The Agency considered energy
requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and
found no basis for any different standards than the selected PSNS.
V. Costs and Impacts for the Final Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustor Regulations
A. Contents of Economic Analysis
The economic analysis for the final Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustor effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
assesses the costs and impacts of these guidelines. The record for the
final rule contains results of this analysis. The ``Economic Analysis
of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Commercial
Hazardous Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-99-008) (hereafter ``EA'')
summarizes these results. This document looks at (1) the annualized
cost of the rule (2) the impacts of the rule on Commercial Hazardous
Waste Combustor facilities and firms (3) the impacts of the rule on
employment and communities; and, (4) other secondary impacts on trade,
inflation, POTWs, environmental justice, and distributional equity. The
preamble to the proposal also discusses EPA's approach to costing this
rule (63 FR 6407). EPA has used the same methodology for estimating the
cost of compliance with the final rule as it used for the proposal
except for the RCRA permit costing issue discussed under Section III.H
above.
B. Summary of Results
1. Overview of Methodology
The EA evaluates the economic effect on the industry of compliance
with the regulation by two measures of impact: facility closures
(severe impacts) and adverse financial effects short of closure
(moderate impacts). For this rule, EPA has looked at the combined
economic impacts of the final regulatory option for both direct and
indirect dischargers. EPA has combined these because there are no
differences between direct and
[[Page 4370]]
indirect discharges with respect to the characteristics of wastewater
generated or the model process technologies considered to develop the
final limitations and standards, as well as to prevent the disclosure
of confidential business information. The report also includes an
analysis of the effects of the regulation on new Commercial Hazardous
Waste Combustor facilities and impacts on small businesses and other
small entities. EPA made no substantive changes to the economic impact
methodology since proposal. The preamble to the proposed rule
summarizes the methodology (63 FR at 6409). Chapter 4 of the EA
contains a complete description of the methodology.
2. Summary of Costs
Table V.C-1 shows the total costs for the final limitations and
standards. EPA estimates the final rule will have a total post-tax
annualized cost of $2.01 million.
Table V.C-1 Total Costs of Final Limitations and Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total post-tax
Total capital Total O&M costs annualized
Final limitations and standards costs (million (million 1998$) costs (million
1998$) 1998$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BAT/PSES................................................. 8.19 1.97 2.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of Economic Impacts for Existing Dischargers
EPA evaluates the impacts associated with compliance costs for all
the facilities affected by the regulation. EPA projects one facility
will discontinue its waste burning operations. The facility as a whole,
however, will continue to operate. The waste burning operations at this
facility represent significantly less than 10 percent of total facility
revenue. EPA estimates that the cessation of waste burning operations
will cause 27 job losses on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE). EPA
estimates that no other facilities will experience either severe or
moderate impacts.
4. Cost Reasonableness of Final BPT Option
EPA evaluated the cost of the BPT option in relation to effluent
reduction benefits by first calculating pre-tax total annualized costs
and total pollutant removals in pounds. EPA then compared the ratio of
costs to removals for the option to the range of ratios in previous
regulations to gauge its impact. EPA calculates that BPT costs $27 per
pound of TSS and metal pollutants removed. EPA found this cost to
reduction comparison to be reasonable.
5. Economic Impacts of New Sources
EPA is establishing NSPS and PSNS equivalent to the limitations
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES. In general, EPA
concluded that new sources will be able to comply at costs that are
similar to or less than the costs for existing sources, because new
sources can apply control technologies more efficiently than sources
that need to retrofit for those technologies. As a result, given EPA's
finding of economic achievability for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES , EPA also
finds that the NSPS and PSNS will be economically achievable and will
not constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
6. Firm-Level Impacts
A firm is a business entity or company and may be composed of a
number of facilities. The firm level analysis evaluates the effects of
regulatory compliance on firms owning one or more affected CHWC
facilities. It also serves to identify impacts not captured in the
facility level analysis. For example, some companies might be too weak
financially to undertake the investment in the required effluent
treatment, even though the investment might seem financially feasible
at the facility level. Companies owning more than one facility subject
to regulation may experience this effect.
The firm-level analysis assesses the impacts of compliance costs at
all facilities owned by the firm. EPA uses ratio analysis for this
assessment. This analysis employs two indicators of financial
viability: the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the interest coverage
ratio (ICR). ROA is a measure of the profitability of a company's
capital assets. It is computed as the earnings before interest and
taxes minus taxes divided by total assets. ICR is a measure of the
financial leverage of a company. It is computed as the earnings before
interest and taxes divided by interest expense.
Two firms each own three CHWC facilities that would be subject to
the guidelines. EPA evaluated the effect on the firms as described
above. First, EPA calculated the baseline ROA and ICR for each company
absent the final regulation. Then EPA calculated the ratios after the
projected investment in wastewater treatment equipment and the
associated compliance costs. One firm experiences no measurable effect
as the result of compliance with the final regulation. In its case,
neither the ROA nor the ICR changes between the baseline and
postcompliance analysis. The second firm experiences an insignificant
decline in ROA and a minor decline in ICR. The decline in ICR, while
significant in percentage terms, is an artifact of the firm's extremely
low level of debt. As a result, EPA concluded that the guidelines will
not significantly affect the two firms.
7. Community Impacts
EPA assesses community impacts by estimating the expected change in
employment in communities with CHWCs subject to the guidelines.
Possible community employment effects include the employment losses in
the facilities that are expected to close because of the regulation and
the related employment losses in other businesses in the affected
community. In addition to these estimated employment losses, employment
may increase as a result of facilities' operation of treatment systems
for regulatory compliance. It should be noted that job gains will
mitigate community employment losses only if they occur in the same
communities in which facility closures occur.
EPA estimates the final regulation will result in the
postcompliance closure of the waste burning operations of one facility.
The postcompliance closure results in the direct loss of 27 Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) positions. EPA estimates secondary employment effects
based on multipliers that relate the change in employment in a directly
affected industry to aggregate employment effects in linked industries
and consumer businesses whose employment is affected by changes in the
earnings and expenditures of the employees in the directly and
indirectly affected industries. The application of the national average
multiplier of 4.049 to the 27 direct FTE losses leads to an estimated
community impact of 110
[[Page 4371]]
total FTE losses as the result of the final rule. The county in which
EPA projects one closure has a current employment of approximately
170,000 FTEs dispersed among 9,900 establishments. The direct and
secondary job losses represent 0.06 percent of current employment in
the affected county.
Job gains associated with the operation of control equipment
mitigate the FTE losses. EPA estimates the gains at 10 FTEs nationally.
EPA estimates the secondary and indirect effects at the national level
by using the average multiplier of 4.049. This results in an estimate
of 40 total FTE gains associated with the pollution control equipment.
EPA concludes the projected impacts are small and do not change EPA's
finding of economic achievability.
8. Foreign Trade Impacts
The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Because most of the
affected CHWC facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under
RCRA, international trade in CHWC services for treatment of hazardous
wastes is virtually nonexistent.
VI. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits
A. Characterization of Pollutants
EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the
discharges to surface waters and POTWs from CHWCs of the 9 priority and
nonconventional pollutants regulated by today's rule as well as the
incidental removals of 6 other priority and nonconventional pollutants
(aluminum, antimony, iron, molybdenum, selenium and tin). Discharges of
these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter
aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact
human health through the consumption of contaminated fish and drinking
water. Furthermore, these pollutants may also interfere with POTW
operations by inhibiting activated sludge or biological treatment or by
contaminating sewage sludges, thereby limiting how it may be disposed
and thereby raising its costs.
All of these pollutants have at least one identified toxic effect
(human health carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant).
EPA reviewed additional information on toxicity since the proposal, and
updated the toxicity values for nine of the 15 pollutants modeled in
the water quality analysis. Toxicity values for three pollutants
increased, while toxicity values for six pollutants decreased. In
addition, many of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms
and persist in the environment.
The Agency did not evaluate the effects of the discharges of any
conventional pollutant because its analysis focused on priority and
nonconventional pollutants. However, the discharge of a conventional
pollutant such as total suspended solids (TSS) can have adverse effects
on human health and the environment. For example, habitat degradation
can result from increased suspended particulate matter that reduces
light penetration, and thus primary productivity, or from accumulation
of sludge particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding
habitats.
B. Facilities Modeled
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of wastewater discharges to receiving waters at current levels of
treatment and at levels achieved by BPT/BAT/PSES treatment for direct
and indirect discharges. EPA predicted steady-state instream pollutant
concentrations assuming immediate mixing with no loss from the system,
and compared these levels to EPA-published water quality criteria
guidance or to documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or
estimated toxic concentration) for those chemicals for which EPA has
not published water quality criteria. (In performing this analysis, EPA
used its published guidance documents that recommend numeric human
health and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants.
States often consult these guidance documents when adopting water
quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However,
because those State-adopted criteria may vary, EPA used the nationwide
criteria guidance as the most representative value.)
In addition, EPA assessed the potential benefits to human health by
estimating the risks (carcinogenic and systemic effects) associated
with reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue and drinking water from
current to BPT/BAT treatment levels for direct dischargers, and from
current to pretreatment levels for indirect dischargers. EPA estimated
risks for recreational and subsistence anglers and their families, as
well as the general population.
EPA performed these analyses for the eight CHWC facilities
currently in operation. Achievement of BPT/BAT and pretreatment
standards will reduce current pollutant loadings (in pounds) of the 15
priority and nonconventional pollutants modeled by 88 percent.
EPA projected instream concentrations for five pollutants will
exceed acute or chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in
three of the eight receiving streams. Compliance with the guidelines
will eliminate excursions of the acute criteria by two pollutants and
the excursions of chronic criteria by one pollutant.
Current instream concentrations exceed human health criteria or
toxic effect levels in five of the receiving streams. Compliance with
the guidelines eliminates excursions in one stream completely and
reduces the remaining excursions to a limited extent by eliminating the
excursions of one pollutant. Estimates of the increase in value of
recreational fishing to anglers as a result of this improvement range
from $93,300 to $334,000 annually (1998 dollars). In addition, the
estimate of the nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to the general public, as a
result of the same improvements in water quality, ranges from $46,700
to $167,000 (1998 dollars).
Compliance with the guidelines will reduce total excess annual
cancer cases by an estimated 6.6E-3 excess cases. The monetary value of
benefits to society from these avoided cancer cases is $17,700 to
$92,700 (1998 dollars). (EPA did not assign a monetary value to this
benefit at proposal.) EPA does not project systemic toxicant effects
(non-carcinogenic adverse human health effects including reproductive
toxicity) for any of the receiving streams at current discharge levels.
C. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts from CHWC
discharges on POTW operations (inhibition of microbial activity during
biological treatment) and contamination of sewage sludge at the POTW.
The Agency estimates inhibition by comparing predicted POTW influent
concentrations to available inhibition levels. For this evaluation, EPA
used the inhibition values in an EPA document, Guidance Manual for
Preventing Interference at POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Site
Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 1990). EPA estimated
potential contamination of sewage sludge by comparing projected
pollutant concentrations in POTW sewage sludge to available EPA
criteria. EPA has established CWA standards for sewage sludge use and
disposal at 40 CFR part 503. These regulations limit the concentrations
of pollutants in sewage sludge that is used or disposed. For the
purpose of this analysis, EPA considered the sewage
[[Page 4372]]
sludge contaminated if the concentration of a pollutant in sewage
sludge exceeds the limits presented in 40 CFR part 503 for land
application of the sludge or surface disposal.
EPA evaluated 10 pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition
and seven pollutants for potential sewage sludge contamination. At
current discharge levels, EPA projects no inhibition problems at POTWs
receiving wastewater but does project sewage sludge contamination. EPA
projects that compliance with the pretreatment standards will eliminate
contamination problems. EPA estimates that POTWs will accrue a modest
benefit through reduced recordkeeping requirements and exemption from
certain sewage sludge management practices. EPA did not assign a
monetary value to this improvement in sewage sludge quality.
The POTW inhibition values used in this analysis are not, in
general, regulatory values. EPA based these values upon engineering and
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA
and other sources. Therefore, EPA has not based these pretreatment
standards on the fact that some pollutants may impair POTW treatment
effectiveness. Of course, as explained above, EPA did find that certain
pollutants would pass through as a basis for establishing pretreatment
standards. Still, the values used in this analysis help indicate the
potential benefits for POTW operations that may result from the
compliance with pretreatment discharge levels.
VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, sections 304(b) and
306 of the Act call for EPA to consider non-water quality environmental
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly,
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution,
waste treatment residual generation, and energy consumption.
A. Air Pollution
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities treat wastewater
streams which contain very low concentrations of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Typically, concentrations of VOCs are below treatable
levels in CHWC wastewater streams.
Because there are only low concentrations of VOCs in CHWC
wastewater, EPA estimates that there will be no significant air
emissions associated with treatment systems installed to comply with
the guidelines. Thus, EPA does not expect adverse air quality impacts
due to the final regulations.
B. Waste Treatment Residuals
Use of metals precipitation and sand filtration to comply with the
guidelines will generate waste treatment residuals. EPA assessed the
cost of off-site disposal in subtitles C and D landfills for these
residuals. These costs were included in the economic evaluation of the
technologies.
EPA estimates that the 8 facilities will generate an additional 1
million pounds of sludge per year from metals precipitation and sand
filtration operations. The disposal of this filter cake will not have
an adverse effect on the environment or result in the release of
pollutants in the filter cake to other media. The reason EPA has
concluded this will be true is that the disposal of these wastes into
controlled subtitles C or D landfills are strictly regulated by the
RCRA program.
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS will increase energy consumption by a small increment over present
industry use. Overall, compliance with the guidelines will result in an
increase of 1,672 thousand kilowatt hours per year, which equates to
937 barrels of oil per year. The United States consumed 19 million
barrels of oil per day in 1994.
VIII. Regulatory Implementation
The purpose of this section is to provide assistance and direction
to permit writers and control authorities to aid in their
implementation of this regulation. This section also discusses the
relationship of upset and bypass provisions, variances and
modifications, and analytical methods to the final limitations and
standards.
A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
As previously explained, new and reissued Federal and State NPDES
permits to direct dischargers must include the effluent limitations
promulgated today. Existing indirect dischargers must comply with
today's pretreatment standards no later than January 27, 2003. New
direct and indirect discharging sources must comply with applicable
limitations and standards on the date the new sources begin operations.
Permit writers and pretreatment authorities should also closely
explore special circumstances which might merit BPJ limitations similar
to the limitations promulgated here. If an intracompany incinerator
burns waste from off site from a facility under the same corporate
structure and operations generating the off-site waste is neither
subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR subchapter N nor is the waste
of a similar nature to the wastes being burned from industrial
processes on site, it would not be a CHWC. However, permit writers and
pretreatment authorities should consider whether limitations similar to
the guidelines should apply to this intracompany facility. Also, if a
facility burns dissimilar wastes for no fee or other remuneration, it
would not be a CHWC. In this case, permit writers and pretreatment
authorities should also consider whether limitations similar to the
guidelines should apply to this facility.
As explained above, EPA has decided that these guidelines do not
apply to cement kilns for the reasons discussed above at section III.D.
However, there may be circumstances where permit writers should
consider whether they will need to establish BPJ limitations or local
control authorities may need to establish local limits to control
discharges of toxic pollutants in the scrubber water. Permit writers
should compare cement kiln scrubber wastewater with the information
provided in the TDD concerning the characteristics of CHWC wastewater
to determine whether similar discharge limitations should be
established.
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 are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and
(n) and 40 CFR 403.16 and 403.17.
C. Variances and Modifications
Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the
CHWC Industry must include the effluent limitations. In addition, the
indirect dischargers must comply with the pretreatment standards within
3 years of issuance.
[[Page 4373]]
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority,
conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n
v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish
alternative requirements. Under section 301(n), an application for
approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information
submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that are
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be
no less stringent than justified by the difference and not result in
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the
national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater,
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must
determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the
facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and
factors considered by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable
effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF
variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct
dischargers.
The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
2. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine,
color, iron, and total phenols.
3. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person
may request that a permit modification be made. There are two
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor
modifications do not. Virtually any modifications that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The
conditions for minor modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring
Requirements
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits
issued by the EPA or authorized States under section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for today's
rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial
subcategory. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may
elect to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not
covered by this regulation. In addition, if State water quality
standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on
pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent
limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must apply
those limitations.
For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple
categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are applied using
a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline for each
category or
[[Page 4374]]
subcategory. Where a facility treats an Commercial Hazardous Waste
Combustor waste stream and process wastewater from other industrial
operations, the effluent guidelines would be applied by using a flow-
weighted combination of the BPT/BAT limitations for the Commercial
Hazardous Waste Combustor and the other industrial operations to derive
the appropriate limitations. However, as stated above, if State water
quality standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require
limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more
stringent limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must
apply those limitations regardless of the limitations derived using the
flow-weighted combinations.
Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility.
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in
order to assure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers
may establish additional internal monitoring points to the extent
consistent with EPA's regulations.
D. Analytical Methods
Section 304(h) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate guidelines
establishing test methods for the analysis of pollutants. EPA uses
these methods to determine the presence and concentration of pollutants
in wastewater. NPDES permitting authorities use these methods for
compliance monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program
under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 and 123.25. Pretreatment control
authorities also use these for the implementation of the pretreatment
standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA has promulgated
methods for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and for some
nonconventional pollutants. EPA's CWA regulations list five
conventional pollutants at 40 CFR 401.16. Table I-B at 40 CFR Part 136
lists the analytical methods approved for the conventional pollutants.
EPA's CWA regulations list 65 toxic metals and organic pollutants and
classes of pollutants at 40 CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes of
toxic pollutants EPA identified a list of 126 ``Priority Pollutants,''
shown, for example, at 40 CFR part 423, appendix A. The list includes
non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos,
and pesticide pollutants. The table of approved inorganic test
procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I-B includes the currently approved
methods for metals. Discharger permits must include the test methods
promulgated at 40 CFR 136.3 or incorporated by reference in the tables,
when available, to monitor pollutant discharges from commercial
hazardous waste combustors for the pollutants specified in today's
effluent limitations guidelines.
As a part of today's final rule, EPA is promulgating an additional
test method for some of the metal pollutants to be regulated under part
444. This test method is EPA Method 200.8, ``Determination of Trace
Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass
Spectrometry.'' EPA first proposed this analytical method with others
in 1995 (60 FR 53988, October 18, 1995). EPA plans to promulgate the
other proposed methods in the near future. In the meantime, EPA has
decided to promulgate EPA Method 200.8 in today's rulemaking because
EPA used this test method to analyze samples during development of this
rule. EPA included testing results using this method in the
administrative record at the time of proposal. EPA also has
incorporated this method into the approved methods for its Safe
Drinking Water Act national primary drinking water regulations at 40
CFR 141.23.
In addition, EPA is allowing use of an applicable Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry method from the Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, ASTM D 5673-96, for monitoring of the regulated pollutants.
The final rule allows for use of these two additional test methods for
several reasons: First, it allows greater flexibility in monitoring;
Second, it conforms use of methods in EPA's drinking water and
wastewater programs; Third, it moves toward a performance-based
measurement system; Finally, it allows use of technical standards as
contemplated by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA; see Section IX). EPA is promulgating these methods today
using direct final rulemaking.
With the allowed use of the test methods included above, in
addition to those already approved in Table IIB at 40 CFR 136.3 and
incorporated by reference into this regulation, EPA will provide
dischargers with greater flexibility in selection of a method for
monitoring the pollutants being regulated in today's final rule.
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is a not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small
business that has annual revenues less than $6 million (i.e., the
definition for SIC 4953, Refuse Systems); (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.
[[Page 4375]]
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose
any requirements on small entities. Today's final rule establishes
requirements applicable only to Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors.
The facilities subject to this rule are all owned by large entities
with firm revenues in excess of $230 million each per year.
Consequently, there are no small businesses affected by the rule.
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective February 28, 2000.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requirements.
Therefore, it is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
E. 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-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
final rule as $2.01 million (1998$, post-tax). Thus, today's rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA projected no incremental requirements for small
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.
F. 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.''
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule will not impose
substantial costs on States and localities. The rule establishes
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards imposing requirements
that apply to CHWCs when they discharge wastewater or introduce
wastewater to a POTW. The rule does not apply directly to States and
localities and will only affect State and local governments when they
are administering CWA permitting programs. The final rule, at most,
imposes minimal administrative costs on States and local governments if
the States have an authorized NPDES programs and local governments
administering approved pretreatment programs. (These States and
localities must incorporate the new limitations and standards in new
and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or permits).
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.
G. 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,
[[Page 4376]]
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In
addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's Rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. EPA has not identified any
facilities covered by today's rule that are owned and operated by
Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L.
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 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 rule involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable test methods from
voluntary consensus standard bodies. EPA's search revealed that there
is one new consensus standard for some metals included in today's rule.
Even prior to enactment of the NTTAA, EPA has traditionally included
any applicable test methods in its regulations. EPA promulgates this
voluntary consensus standard (ASTM Method D 5673-96) as part of this
rulemaking. Today's rule also promulgates a number of voluntary
consensus standards for the regulated pollutants. These standards were
previously promulgated at 40 CFR part 136.
I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
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 rule is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
X. Summary of Public Participation
The following sections describe the major comments on the proposed
rule and the NOA, and EPA's responses. The public record contains the
full comment summary and response document for this rulemaking.
A. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses
Thirty-nine commenters provided detailed comments on the February
6, 1998 proposal. In all, the comments dealt with 51 separate aspects
of the proposal. This summary addresses only the major comments.
Comment: Several commenters asked EPA to redefine ``IWC facility''
so that a waste combustor burning off-site wastes without charge would
not automatically fall within the scope of the rule. The commenters
suggested adopting the definition of intracompany waste combustors
found in the 1992 survey of the IWC industry.
Response: EPA has decided to limit the applicability of the
guidelines to certain commercial hazardous waste combustors. The
revised scope of the rule for CHWCs (formerly IWCs) will alleviate the
concerns expressed and will allow a facility to burn wastes if received
for no fee or other remuneration without subjecting the associated
wastewaters to the CHWC guidelines.
Comment: The commenter supports the inclusion of a de minimis
exclusion for wastes associated with product stewardship, public
service, and sub-contractor activities off-site.
Response: Under the revised definition, a facility would not be a
CHWC merely because it accepted product stewardship wastes if these
wastes are either of a similar nature or are subject to the same
provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the operations generating the
wastes being burned from industrial processes on-site. Further, for
example, a facility would not be a CHWC if it burns household hazardous
wastes for the community. Household hazardous wastes are exempt from
RCRA hazardous waste regulations. CHWC facilities, however, that burn
dissimilar RCRA hazardous wastes will be covered by the final CHWC
rule.
EPA has no information on which to establish a de minimis level for
dissimilar wastes burned from off-site for a fee or other remuneration.
EPA believes that the majority of waste burned as product stewardship
activity and waste received from subcontractor activities from off-site
will be exempt from the CHWC rule due to its similar nature. EPA also
believes that public service activities will generally be exempt
because the waste received is either not hazardous under RCRA or exempt
from RCRA hazardous waste regulations (e.g., exempt household hazardous
waste, non-hazardous waste from public agencies, and wastes from small
quantity generators).
Comment: One commenter suggests that the HWC maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) rule will cause higher loadings in the
scrubber water than there currently are.
Response: EPA promulgated the MACT rule for hazardous waste
combustors (HWC) this summer at (64 FR 52828, July 30, 1999).
Using detailed emissions data collected under the HWC MACT rule,
EPA estimates that, overall, there is a possibility of a 100 percent
increase in particulate matter loadings at a CHWC facility. EPA used
this estimate to determine the potential effect the MACT standards
would have on CHWC facilities. (The commenter submitted no data that
would allow EPA to determine how much its own loadings will change.)
Specifically, EPA has performed an economic sensitivity analysis to
estimate the effects on costs of a 100 percent increase in loadings in
the scrubber water for CHWC facilities. EPA compared BPT/BAT baseline
costs to costs for an increase of 100 percent in concentration for
metals and total suspended solids. For direct discharge facilities, the
total annualized compliance costs ($1992) would increase 3 percent and
for indirect discharge facilities, the total annualized compliance
costs would increase 13 percent. However, no facilities would
experience severe impacts (closure) or moderate impacts (compliance
costs greater than 5 percent of revenue) as a result of the increased
compliance costs. Thus, the sensitivity analysis indicates that a
potential increase in loadings of 100 percent would not affect the
[[Page 4377]]
economic achievability determination for the selected technology
option.
Comment: EPA should not regulate high temperature metals recovery
facilities under the IWC guideline if they are exempt from regulation
under 40 CFR 266.100(c) as a RCRA BIF.
Response: The guidelines do not apply to facilities (like high
temperature metals recovery facilities) that are not subject either to
40 CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart
H. EPA based its decision to limit the scope of the guidelines, in
part, on its determination that wastewater from these exempt facilities
would be qualitatively different from the regulated wastewater. The
data from a high temperature metals recovery facility confirms this.
These data show that wastewater from a high temperature metals recovery
facility has higher metals concentrations than typically observed for
the regulated facilities.
Comment: Commenter is unsure of the types of IWC wastewater subject
to the proposed regulation and thinks it is important to make precisely
clear exactly how the regulation of ``other'' IWC wastestreams should
be addressed by a permit writer.
Response: Sections 444.1 and 444.2 of the final regulation clearly
state the types of wastewater a CHWC (formerly IWC) may generate that
are subject to the final regulation. In addition, this preamble to the
final rule further explains the regulated wastewaters.
EPA does not agree with this commenter that it is important to make
clear exactly how the regulation of ``other'' waste streams should be
addressed by a permit writer. EPA did not collect data on these
streams. The permitting authority will use BPJ authority to develop
limitations that reflect the characteristics of the particular waste
streams. However, EPA does agree with the commenter that the ``other''
waste streams should not be subject to CHWC guidelines unless the
characteristics of the waste streams are similar to the CHWC streams
(e.g. a waste stream that comes into contact with the waste after it is
burned would have characteristics similar to regulated CHWC streams.)
Comment: None of the facilities sampled by EPA employed state-of-
the-art dioxin air emission controls that will be required for at least
some of the facilties covered by the proposed rule. None of the
commercial facilities from which EPA obtained its wastewater data
employed activated carbon injection (ACI), recently proposed beyond-
the-floor MACT by EPA.
Response: EPA did not base the promulgated MACT dioxin emission
standards on activated carbon injection (ACI) for approximately 85
percent of the hazardous waste incinerators identified by the HWC final
rule. The standards are instead based on rapid quench of the flue gas
prior to the particulate matter control device. Although EPA did not
sample ACI, as the commenter mentioned, it did sample CHWC facilities
with rapid flue gas quench prior to the particulate matter control
device. For the 15 percent of hazardous waste incinerators identified
by the HWC final rule that have waste heat boilers, EPA promulgated the
emission standard based on activated carbon injection.
The commenter is concerned that the low dioxin concentrations found
by EPA in the CHWC wastewater sampling program are a result of weak
dioxin emission controls. As stated above, EPA sampled facilities with
the promulgated HWC control for 85% of hazardous waste incinerators.
For the 15% of hazardous waste incinerators that have waste heat
boilers, EPA does not anticipate that the addition of ACI will increase
the dioxin concentrations found in the wastewater because the ACI
control devices specified in the final HWC rule are all ``dry'' carbon
systems--either a carbon bed or a fabric filter with dry carbon
injection. That is, the dioxin that is removed via the carbon injection
will not be added to the wastewater--it will stay with the carbon.
Based on the data available and its resulting decision not to
establish limitations and standards for dioxins, EPA cannot justify the
imposition of a monitoring program for dioxins. While EPA recognizes
that the promulgation of the MACT dioxin emission standards may result
in some changes in the volume and character of air pollution control
wastewater generated, EPA does not believe that the changes will result
in a media transfer for dioxins that would change its decision that it
should not establish dioxin limitations and standards. The promulgated
MACT standards for 85% of the hazardous waste incinerators in the final
HWC rule are based on changes in air pollution control device process
conditions to minimize generation of dioxins and furans. Various
studies have shown that a significant source of dioxin in waste
incinerators is the formation of dioxin in the flue gas as it is cooled
to around 400 degrees C. The longer the flue gas is held at this
temperature the greater the formation of dioxin. One useful control
measure is the rapid cooling of flue gas to levels below this
temperature range to minimize this dioxin production window. EPA has
concluded that the largest portion of the reduction in dioxin emissions
will be through reductions in the amount generated rather than a media
transfer.
Comment: Commenter questioned whether EPA conducted the type of
data collection analysis necessary to characterize adequately the non-
hazardous industry sector that falls within the scope of the proposal.
Response: At the onset of this project, EPA decided to limit the
scope of its examination of the combustion industry. Thus EPA's initial
planning did not include consideration of limitations and standards for
medical waste incinerator or sewage sludge incinerators. Neither did
the Agency undertake to revisit some of its existing guidelines for
industrial categories which included allowances for wastewater
discharges associated with air pollution control equipment for on-site
incinerators. As a result of these decisions, EPA tailored its initial
data collection to address its perceived needs for this guideline. As a
result, EPA agrees that there may be gaps in the data which limit the
Agency's ability to adequately characterize wastewater from certain
combustion units at such facilities. This is particularly true with
respect to non-hazardous combustion operations. As a result, EPA
decided that the CHWC guideline would not extend to these facilities as
explained earlier. EPA's 1992 data collection efforts for the CHWC
Industry identified only one facility generating CHWC wastewater that
burned only non-hazardous industrial waste and operated commercially,
and this facility regenerated activated carbon.
The CHWC regulation focuses on RCRA combustor units, and includes
units that burn both RCRA and non-RCRA wastes. The above definition
makes it clear that if a combustor does not burn any RCRA hazardous
waste, it is not subject to the rule. The regulation, however, will
apply to the CHWC wastewater produced by burning non-hazardous
industrial wastes in conjunction with RCRA hazardous waste.
Comment: It is difficult to understand how the Agency could assume
that treatment performance data from a single facility could be
representative of BPT/BAT performance for this point source category.
Response: Subsequent to the close of the comment period, EPA
received wastewater treatment data from three additional CHWC
facilities. Each of the three CHWCs submitted influent and effluent
wastewater treatment system performance data and related information on
the operation of the
[[Page 4378]]
treatment systems (referred to as Episodes 6181, 6182, and 6183). Each
facility submitted daily measurements for chlorides, total dissolved
solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, pH, and 15 metals (aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury,
molybdenum, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, and zinc).
EPA has reviewed this data and incorporated it into the data base
for determining the CHWC limitations. Inclusion of the submitted data
followed a careful check to ensure its accuracy, quality, and that it
was collected using procedures consistent with EPA sampling and
collection standards. EPA has used this information in the calculation
of BPT/BAT effluent limitations for the final rule. EPA concluded that
two of the three new facilities represented the ``average of the best''
technology for the industry. The remaining facility (Episode 6182)
provided insufficient treatment for the profile of metals detected in
its wastewaters. Incorporation of the post-proposal data into EPA's
database had the effect of increasing the effluent long-term averages
for some of the regulated pollutants and decreasing others.
Comment: EPA's proposed MACT standards for Hazardous Waste
Combustors overlooked a preferred component of establishing emissions
control--reductions in metal feed rates to combustors (pollution
prevention)--because combustion of metals is not an appropriate form of
treatment for these pollutants.
Response: Combustion of wastes is an appropriate management,
treatment, and recovery practice for a wide variety of wastes,
including those with trace quantities of metals. EPA rulemaking efforts
under the CWA, CAA, and RCRA usually consider multi-media water, air,
and solid waste impacts. EPA expects that well-designed, well-operated
combustors will reduce the organic components of feed material to near-
elemental compounds (carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts).
However, since the metal components of the feed material are immutable
(neither destroyed nor reduced to other elemental compounds), any
effort to control or reduce metal pollutants in one medium must
recognize the potential ancillary impact on the volumes and pollutant
concentrations of the other media.
Further, the commenter's suggestion that EPA's proposed MACT air
emission standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWCs) should have
considered reductions in metal feed rates as a control technique to
limit emissions of metals is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The
Agency received many public comments, including substantial comment on
the issue of feedrate control of metals and chlorine in the hazardous
waste, in response to the HWC MACT proposal and subsequent notices (61
FR 17358 and 62 FR 24212) . These comments were considered in
developing the final air emissions standards for HWCs that were
promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). The Agency's comment
response document supporting the final rule responds to all comments
regarding feedrate control of metals and chlorine in the hazardous
waste as MACT control. See Final Response to Comments to the Proposed
HWC MACT Standards, Volume I: Standards, July 1999, available in docket
F-1999-RC2F-FFFFF.
Comment: Some state regulations are more stringent than EPA's
proposed regulations for mercury and cadmium. Systems in use have
achieved lower mercury levels than EPA has proposed.
Response: The limitations and standards established by EPA in the
CHWC regulation are national minimum technology-based standards based
on data from CHWCs. States, of course, under the CWA, remain free to
establish more stringent discharge limits. In addition, the permit
writer or control authority may establish more stringent permit
requirements in order, for example, to comply with water quality
standards as necessary.
Based on new data received from CHWC facilities, EPA has decided to
promulgate standards for PSES identical to the BAT/BPT standards. This
technology basis is two stages of chemical precipitation with or
without a final sand filtration step. The promulgated mercury and
cadmium limits for direct dischargers and indirect dischargers are
lower than the proposed mercury and cadmium limits.
B. Summary of Notice of Availability Comments and Responses
Comment: Two commenters want EPA to use the noticed data to set
final limitations and standards for the final IWC rule. One commenter
also argues that the data submitted illustrates the variability of
influent and effluent concentrations for most metals and TSS between
IWC facilities.
Response: EPA used the submitted data from the CHWC (formerly IWC)
facilities that operate BPT/BAT/PSES treatment in development of the
final effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA only used
additional data from two facilities of the three facilities that
submitted data in calculating the final limitations and standards. EPA
concluded that only these two facilities were operating BPT/BAT/PSES
treatment systems. The third facility was operating only one (rather
than two) stages of chemical precipitation at the time of its sampling.
Inclusion of these data has lead to higher effluent limits for some
pollutants and lower effluent limits for others than at proposal.
Additionally, while the Agency recognizes that different facilities
will accept variable ranges of hazardous and solid wastes for
incineration, the Agency has concluded that the final limitations and
standards do not need to take these differences into account. The
statistical methods used by the Agency to calculate final limitations
and standards do not result in limits that require a discharger to meet
a single long-term average value for a particular pollutant. Instead,
EPA has designed the final pollutant limits so that any facility
employing good engineering practice and an appropriately designed
treatment system will perform at least as well, or better than, the
average observed performance and variability of the systems whose data
were used to develop the limitations. Rather than allowing for between-
facility variation, EPA uses the performance of the mean treatment
system as a standard to establish limits that a well-operated system
should be capable of achieving. However, this standard is not itself a
limit. In developing daily maximum and monthly average limits, EPA
provides an allowance for average within-facility variation about the
average facility's average effluent concentration. Thus, a treatment
system designed and operated to achieve the BPT/BAT model long-term
average on a consistent basis should have no problem in complying with
the limitations. See the comment response document for details.
Comment: One commenter thinks it is important to simulate the level
of metals that could be encountered in the course of taking a broad
variety of wastes into an Industrial Waste Combustor.
Response: The Agency has taken feed concentrations of metals into
account in establishing effluent limits for CHWCs (formerly IWCs). EPA
calculates the regulatory limits based on data from multiple facilities
which experienced different feed rates over time. EPA does not accept
the commenter's conclusion that the spiking simulation validly
describes routine CHWC performance. The commenter introduced the spiked
metal solutions to the treatment system downstream of the influent
sampling point. Without knowing the resulting metal concentrations and
without
[[Page 4379]]
knowing whether these concentrations are representative of potential
loadings, EPA can not use the spiked data in its calculations for the
final limitations and standards.
EPA is aware of the RCRA trial burn procedures and understands the
techniques regarding waste ``spiking'' for thermal treatment. However,
EPA's Office of Water has never used such techniques in developing its
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards and does
not believe these techniques are appropriate for wastewater treatment
technologies. The variability factors calculated by EPA will
accommodate any unusual ``spikes'' in metal concentrations experienced
by a CHWC facility.
Appendix 1 to the Preamble--Definitions, Acronyms, and
Abbreviations
Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as
described in section 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as
described in section 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
Boiler--means an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion
and having the following characteristics:
(1)(i) The unit must have physical provisions for recovering and
exporting thermal energy in the form of steam, heated fluids, or heated
gases; and
(ii) The unit's combustion chamber and primary energy recovery
section(s) must be of integral design. To be of integral design, the
combustion chamber and the primary energy recovery section(s) (such as
waterwalls and superheaters) must be physically formed into one
manufactured or assembled unit. A unit in which the combustion chamber
and the primary energy recovery section(s) are joined only by ducts or
connections carrying flue gas is not integrally designed; however,
secondary energy recovery equipment (such as economizers or air
preheaters) need not be physically formed into the same unit as the
combustion chamber and the primary energy recovery section. The
following units are not precluded from being boilers solely because
they are not of integral design: Process heaters (units that transfer
energy directly to a process stream), and fluidized bed combustion
units; and
(iii) While in operation, the unit must maintain a thermal energy
recovery efficiency of at least 60 percent, calculated in terms of the
recovered energy compared with the thermal value of the fuel; and
(iv) The unit must export and utilize at least 75 percent of the
recovered energy, calculated on an annual basis. In this calculation,
no credit shall be given for recovered heat used internally in the same
unit. (Examples of internal use are the preheating of fuel or
combustion air, and the driving of induced or forced draft fans or
feedwater pumps); or
(2) The unit is one which the Regional Administrator has
determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be a boiler, after considering
the standards in 40 CFR 260.32.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently available,
as described in section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
Captive--Used to describe a facility that only accepts waste
generated on site and/or by the owner operator at the facility.
Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217) and the Water Quality Act
of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
Closed--A facility or portion thereof that is currently not
receiving or accepting wastes and has undergone final closure.
Combustion Unit--A device for waste treatment which uses elevated
temperatures as the primary means to change the chemical, physical,
biological character or composition of the waste. Examples of
combustion units are incinerators, boilers, industrial furnaces, and
kilns.
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor means any thermal unit, except
a cement kiln, that is subject to either to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O;
part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart H if the thermal unit burns
RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a fee or other
remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal unit is a
commercial hazardous waste combustor.
Commercial hazardous waste combustor means any thermal unit, except
a cement kiln, that is subject to either to 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O;
Part 265, Subpart O; or Part 266, Subpart H if the thermal unit burns
RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a fee or other
remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal unit is a
commercial hazardous waste combustor if the off-site wastes are
generated at a facility not under the same corporate structure or
subject to the same ownership as the thermal unit and
(1) The thermal unit is burning wastes that are not of a similar
nature to wastes being burned from industrial processes on site or
(2) There are no wastes being burned from industrial processes on
site.
Examples of wastes of a ``similar nature'' may include the
following: wastes generated in industrial operations whose wastewaters
are subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N or wasters
burned as part of a product stewardship activity.
The term commercial hazardous waste combustor includes the
following facilities: a facility that burns exclusively waste received
from off-site; and, a facility that burns both wastes generated on-site
and wastes received from off-site. Facilities that may be commercial
hazardous waste combustors include hazardous waste incinerators, rotary
kiln incinerators, lime kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and
boilers.
A facility not otherwise a commercial hazardous waste combustor is
not a commercial hazardous waste combustor if it burns RCRA hazardous
waste for charitable organizations, as a community service or as an
accommodation to local, state or government agencies so long as the
waste is burned for no fee or other remuneration.
Commercial hazardous waste combustor wastewater means wastewater
attributable to commercial hazardous waste combustion operations, but
includes only wastewater from air pollution control systems and water
used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of commercial
hazardous waste combustor operations.
Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in section
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease,
fecal coliform, and pH).
Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
Disposal--Intentional placement of waste or waste treatment
residual into or on any land where the material will remain after
closure. Waste or residual placed into any water is not defined as
disposal, but as discharge.
Effluent--Wastewater discharges.
Effluent limitation--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
[[Page 4380]]
navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean. (CWA
sections 301(b) and 304(b).)
EA--Economic Analysis.
EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated,
leased or under the control of the same person. The contiguous property
may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewaters defined as
hazardous under RCRA or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Incinerator--means any enclosed device that:
(1) Uses controlled flame combustion and neither meets the criteria
for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon regeneration
unit, nor is listed as an industrial furnace; or
(2) Meets the definition of infrared incinerator or plasma arc
incinerator.
Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
Industrial Furnace means any of the following enclosed devices that
are integral components of manufacturing processes and that use thermal
treatment to accomplish recovery of materials or energy:
(1) Cement kilns.
(2) Lime kilns.
(3) Aggregate kilns.
(4) Phosphate kilns.
(5) Coke ovens.
(6) Blast furnaces.
(7) Smelting, melting and refining furnaces (including
pyrometallurgical devices such as cupolas, reverberator furnaces,
sintering machine, roasters, and foundry furnaces).
(8) Titanium dioxide chloride process oxidation reactors.
(9) Methane reforming furnaces.
(10) Pulping liquor recovery furnaces.
(11) Combustion devices used in the recovery of sulfur values from
spent sulfuric acid.
(12) Halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) for the production of acid from
halogenated hazardous waste generated by chemical production facilities
where the furnace is located on the site of a chemical production
facility, the acid product has a halogen acid content of at least 3
percent, the acid product is used in a manufacturing process, and
except for hazardous waste burned as fuel, hazardous waste fed to the
furnace has a minimum halogen content of 20 percent as generated.
(13) Such other devices as the Administrator may, after notice and
comment, add to this list on the basis of one or more of the following
factors:
(i) The design and use of the device primarily to accomplish
recovery of material products;
(ii) The use of the device to burn or reduce raw materials to make
a material product;
(iii) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary materials
as effective substitutes for raw materials, in processes using raw
materials as principal feedstocks;
(iv) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary materials as
ingredients in an industrial process to make a material product;
(v) The use of the device in common industrial practice to produce
a material product; and,
(vi) Other factors, as appropriate.
Intracompany--A facility that treats, disposes, or recycles/
recovers wastes generated by off-site facilities under the same
corporate ownership. The facility may also treat on-site generated
wastes. If any waste from other facilities not under the same corporate
ownership is accepted for a fee or other remunerations, the facility is
considered commercial.
Long-term average (LTA)--For purposes of the effluent guidelines,
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a facility,
subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in developing the
limitations and standards in today's final regulation.
Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
Municipal Facility--A facility which is owned or operated by a
municipal, county, or regional government.
New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29
for direct discharging facilities and at 40 CFR 403.3 for facilities
discharging to a POTW.
Non-commercial facility--A facility that accepts waste from off-
site for treatment only from facilities under the same ownership.
Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants listed at 40 CFR 401.16 nor the 126 priority
pollutants listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 423.
Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported below
the sample-specific minimum level that can reliably be measured by the
analytical method for the pollutant.
Non-hazardous waste--All waste not defined as hazardous under RCRA
regulations.
Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact of
a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under section 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United
States.
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers industry
or Effluent Guideline (40 CFR part 414).
Off-site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a facility.
On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which
a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters or POTWs.
Point source category--A category of sources of water pollutants.
Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive materials,
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(o).
Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA
section 307(b).)
Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as priority
in 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A.
Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR
122.2.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307 (b) and (c) of the CWA.
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of
1976, as amended.
Residuals--The material remaining after a natural or technological
process has taken place, e.g., the sludge remaining after initial
wastewater treatment.
Sewage Sludge--Sludge generated by a sewage treatment plant or
POTW.
Sludge--The accumulated solids separated from liquids during
processing.
Solids--For the purpose of this notice, a waste that has a very low
moisture content, is not free-flowing, and does not release free
liquids. This definition deals with the physical state of the waste,
not the RCRA definition.
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical
[[Page 4381]]
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or group
of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an
operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group establishments by
the economic activities in which they are engaged. SIC codes often
denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic
activities.
Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than $6
million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of small
business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch. I,
Sec. 121.601).
Treatment--Any activity designed to change the character or
composition of any waste so as to prepare it for transportation,
storage, or disposal; render it amenable for recycling or recovery; or
reduce it in volume.
TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of particulate
matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure is obtained by
filtering a water sample of known volume. The particulate material
retained on the filter is then dried and weighed.
Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery.
Waters of the United States--See 40 CFR 122.2.
Wastewater treatment system--A facility, including contiguous land
and structures, used to receive and treat wastewater. The discharge of
a pollutant from such a facility is subject to regulation under the
Clean Water Act.
Zero discharge--No discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are
``alternative'' discharges of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 444
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Incineration,
Incorporation by reference, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
Dated: November 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding part 444 to read as
follows:
PART 444--WASTE COMBUSTORS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A--Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory
Sec.
444.10 Applicability.
444.11 Definitions.
444.12 Monitoring requirements.
444.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practical control technology currently available (BPT).
444.14 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
444.15 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
444.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
444.17 New source performance standards (NSPS).
444.18 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.
Subpart A--Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory
Sec. 444.10 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this part apply only to that portion of
wastewater discharges that are associated with Commercial Hazardous
Waste Combustor (CHWC) wastewater.
(b) The discharge from a CHWC of wastewater that is not CHWC
wastewater, may be subject to other applicable provisions of EPA's CWA
effluent guidelines and standards regulations at Subchapter N of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 444.11 Definitions.
As used in this part the general definitions and abbreviations in
40 CFR part 401 shall apply.
Commercial hazardous waste combustor means any thermal unit, except
a cement kiln, that is subject either to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; 40
CFR part 265, subpart O; or 40 CFR part 266, subpart H if the thermal
unit burns RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a fee or
other remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal unit is
a commercial hazardous waste combustor if the off-site wastes are
generated at a facility not under the same corporate structure or
subject to the same ownership as the thermal unit and
(1) The thermal unit is burning wastes that are not of a similar
nature to wastes being burned from industrial processes on site or
(2) There are no wastes being burned from industrial processes on
site. Examples of wastes of a ``similar nature'' may include the
following: Wastes generated in industrial operations whose wastewaters
are subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N or wastes
burned as part of a product stewardship activity. The term commercial
hazardous waste combustor includes the following facilities: a facility
that burns exclusively waste received from off-site; and, a facility
that burns both wastes generated on-site and wastes received from off-
site. Facilities that may be commercial hazardous waste combustors
include hazardous waste incinerators, rotary kiln incinerators, lime
kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and boilers. A facility not
otherwise a commercial hazardous waste combustor is not a commercial
hazardous waste combustor if it burns RCRA hazardous waste for
charitable organizations, as a community service or as an accommodation
to local, state or government agencies so long as the waste is burned
for no fee or other remuneration.
Commercial hazardous waste combustor wastewater means wastewater
attributable to commercial waste combustion operations, but includes
only wastewater from air pollution control systems and water used to
quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of commercial hazardous
waste combustor operations.
Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
Parameters are defined as Parameters at 40 CFR 136.2 in Table 1B,
which also cites the approved methods of analysis.
(1) Arsenic means total arsenic, Parameter 6.
(2) Cadmium means total cadmium, Parameter 12.
(3) Chromium means total chromium, Parameter 19.
(4) Copper means total copper, Parameter 22.
(5) Lead means total lead, Parameter 32.
(6) Mercury means total mercury, Parameter 35.
(7) pH means hydrogen ion, Parameter 28.
(8) Silver means total silver, Parameter 62.
(9) Titanium means total titanium, Parameter 72.
(10) TSS means total suspended solids, Parameter 55.
(11) Zinc means total zinc, Parameter 75.
POTW means a publicly owned treatment works.
Sec. 444.12 Monitoring Requirements
(a) Both direct and indirect discharges must monitor to establish
compliance with their limitations and standards. Thus, all the permits
of all direct
[[Page 4382]]
dischargers must include requirements to monitor, according to EPA-
approved test procedures, each pollutant limited in the permit, the
volume of effluent discharged from each outfall, and other appropriate
measurements subject to notification requirements. See 40 CFR
122.44(i). EPA's pretreatment regulations similarly require indirect
dischargers to monitor to demonstrate compliance with pretreatment
standards. See 40 CFR 403.12(g).
(b) Incorporation by reference:
(1) Compliance with the monitoring requirements may be accomplished
using approved test procedures listed in the table to this paragraph.
Most of these test procedures have previously been incorporated by
reference at 40 CFR 136.3(a), Table IB. The test procedures for the
regulated pollutants (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total), copper, pH,
lead, mercury, TSS, silver, titanium, and zinc) listed in the table to
this paragraph are also incorporated by reference into this regulation.
The full texts of the test procedures listed in this paragraph are
available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(2) In addition to those test procedures incorporated by reference
at 40 CFR 136.3(a), Table IB, you may also use EPA Method 200.8,
``Determination of Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' from ``Methods for Determination of
Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement I,'' EPA-600/R-94-111, May
1994, and ASTM Method D 5673-96, ``Standard Test Method for Elements in
Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Mass Spectrometry,'' from 1999
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, for determination of arsenic, cadmium,
chromium (total), copper, lead, silver, and zinc. The full texts of
these methods are incorporated by reference into this regulation and
may be obtained from the sources identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
List of Approved Inorganic Test Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (method number or page)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter, units and method Standard Methods [18th
EPA \1\ Edition] \6\ ASTM USGS \2\ Other
-----------------------------------\16\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Arsenic--Total,\4\ mg/L:
Digestion \4\ followed by 206.5 .......................... .......................... ......................... .........................
AA gaseous hydride....... 206.3 3114B 4.d D2972-93(B) I-3062-85 .........................
AA furnace............... 206.2 3113B D2972-93(C) ......................... .........................
ICP/AES \15\............. \5\ 200.7 3120 B .......................... ......................... .........................
Colorimetric (SDDC), or.. 206.4 3500-As C 2972-93(A) I-3060-85 .........................
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
2. Cadmium--Total,\4\ mg/L;
Digestion \4\ followed by:
AA direct aspiration \15\ 213.1 3111 B or C D3557-90(A or B) I-3135-85 or 974.27,\3\ p. 37.
I-3136-85
AA furnace............... 213.2 3113 B .......................... ......................... .........................
ICP/AES \15\............. \5\ 200.7 3120 B D3557-90(D) ......................... .........................
DCP \15\................. ........... .......................... .......................... I-1472-85 (14)
Voltametry \9\........... ........... .......................... D4190-82(88) ......................... .........................
Colorimetric (Dithizone), ........... 3500-Cd D D3557-90(C) ......................... .........................
or.
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
3. Chromium-Total,\4\ mg/L;
Digestion \4\ followed by:
AA direct aspiration \15\ 218.1 3111 B D1687-92(B) I-3236-85 974.27.\3\
AA chelation-extraction.. 218.3 3111 C .......................... ......................... .........................
AA furnace............... 218.2 3113 B D1687-92(C) ......................... .........................
ICP/AES \15\............. \5\ 200.7 3120 B .......................... ......................... .........................
DCP \15\................. ........... .......................... D4190-82(88) ......................... (14)
Colorimetric ........... 3500-Cr D .......................... ......................... .........................
(Diphenylcarbazide), or.
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
4. Copper--Total,\4\ mg/L;
Digestion \4\ followed by:
AA direct aspiration \15\ 220.1 3111 B or C D1688-90(A or B) I-3270-85 or I-3271-85 974.27 \3\ p. 37.\8\
AA furnace............... 220.2 3113 B D1688-90(C) ......................... .........................
ICP/AES \15\............. \5\ 200.7 3120 B .......................... ......................... .........................
DCP \15\ or.............. ........... .......................... D4190-82(88) ......................... (14)
Colorimetric ........... 3500-Cu D .......................... ......................... .........................
(Neocuproine) or.
(Bicinchoninate), or..... ........... or E .......................... ......................... (10)
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
5. Hydrogen ion (pH), pH
units:
Electrometric measurement 150.1 4500-H+B D1293-84 (90)(A or B) I-1586-85 973.41.
Automated electrode...... ........... .......................... .......................... ......................... (11)
6. Lead--Total,\4\ mg/L;
Digestion \4\ followed by:
AA direct aspiration \15\ 239.1 3111 B or C D3559-90(A or B) I-3399-85 974.27.\3\
AA furnace............... 239.2 3113 B D3559-90(D) ......................... .........................
ICP/AES \15\............. \5\ 200.7 3120 B .......................... ......................... .........................
DCP \15\................. ........... .......................... D4190-82(88) ......................... (14)
Voltametry \9\........... ........... .......................... D3559-90(C) ......................... .........................
Colorimetric (Dithizone), ........... 3500-Pb D .......................... ......................... .........................
or.
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
[[Page 4383]]
7. Mercury--Total,\4\ mg/L:
Cold vapor, manual or.... 245.1 3112 B D3223-91 I-3462-85 977.22.\3\
Automated................ 245.1 .......................... .......................... ......................... .........................
8. Residue--nonfilterable
(TSS), mg/L:
Gravimetric, 103-105- 160.2 2540 D .......................... I-3765-85 .........................
post washing of residue.
9. Silver--Total,\4\ mg/L:
Digestion 4,12 followed by:
AA direct aspiration..... 272.1 3111 B or C .......................... I-3720-85 974.27 \3\ p. 37. \8\
AA furnace............... 272.2 3113 B .......................... ......................... .........................
ICP/AES.................. \5\ 200.7 3120 B .......................... ......................... .........................
DCP, or.................. ........... .......................... .......................... ......................... (14)
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
10. Titanium--Total,\4\ mg/L;
Digestion \4\ followed by:
AA direct aspiration..... 283.1 3111 D .......................... ......................... .........................
AA furnace, or........... 283.2 .......................... .......................... ......................... .........................
DCP...................... ........... .......................... .......................... ......................... (14)
11. Zinc--Total,\4\ mg/L;
Digestion \4\ followed by:
AA direct aspiration \15\ 289.1 3111 B or C D1691-90(A) or B) I-3900-85 974.27,\3\ p. 37.\8\
AA furnace............... 289.2 .......................... .......................... ......................... .........................
ICP/AES \15\............. \5\ 200.7 3120 B .......................... ......................... .........................
DCP \15\................. ........... .......................... .......................... ......................... (14)
Colorimetric (Dithizone) ........... 3500-Zn E D4190-82(88) ......................... .........................
or.
(Zincon), or............. ........... 3500-Zn F .......................... ......................... (13)
ICP/MS................... \7\ 200.8 .......................... D5673-96 \17\ ......................... .........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table Notes:
\1\ ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory--Cincinnati
(EMSL-CI), EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983 and 1979 where applicable.
\2\ Fishman, M.J., et al. ``Methods for Analysis of Inorganic Substances in Water and Fluvial Sediments,'' U.S. Department of the Interior, Techniques
of Water--Resource Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, Revised 1989.
\3\ ``Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,'' methods manual, 15th ed. (1990).
\4\ For the determination of total metals the sample is not filtered before processing. A digestion procedure is required to solubilize suspended
material and to destroy possible organic-metal complexes. Two digestion procedures are given in ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
1979 and 1983''. One (Section 4.1.3), is a vigorous digestion using nitric acid. A less vigorous digestion using nitric and hydrochloric acids
(Section 4.1.4) is preferred; however, the analyst should be cautioned that this mild digestion may not suffice for all samples types. Particularly,
if a colorimetric procedure is to be employed, it is necessary to ensure that all organo-metallic bonds be broken so that the metal is in a reactive
state. In those situations, the vigorous digestion is to be preferred making certain that at no time does the sample go to dryness. Samples containing
large amounts of organic materials may also benefit by this vigorous digestion, however, vigorous digestion with concentrated nitric acid will convert
antimony and tin to insoluble oxides and render them unavailable for analysis. Use of ICP/AES as well as determinations for certain elements such as
antimony, arsenic, the noble metals, mercury, selenium, silver, tin, and titanium require a modified sample digestion procedure and in all cases the
method write-up should be consulted for specific instructions and/or cautions. Note.--If the digestion procedure for direct aspiration AA included in
one of the other approved references is different than the above, the EPA procedure must be used.
Dissolved metals are defined as those constituents which will pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter. Following filtration of the sample, the
referenced procedure for total metals must be followed. Sample digestion of the filtrate for dissolved metals (or digestion of the original sample
solution for total metals) may be omitted for AA (direct aspiration or graphite furnace) and ICP analyses, provided the sample solution to be analyzed
meets the following criteria:
a. Has a low COD (20)
b. Is visibly transparent with a turbidity measurement of 1 NTU or less
c. Is colorless with no perceptible odor, and
d. Is of one liquid phase and free of particulate or suspended matter following acidification.
\5\ EPA Method 200.7, ``Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Element Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' from ``Methods
for Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement I,'' EPA-600/R-94-111, May 1994.
\6\ ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 18th Edition (1992).
\7\ EPA Method 200.8, ``Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' from ``Methods for
Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement I,'' EPA-600/R-94-111, May 1994.
\8\ American National Standard on Photographic Processing Effluents, Apr. 2, 1975. Available from ANSI, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
\9\ The use of normal and differential pulse voltage ramps to increase sensitivity and resolution is acceptable.
\10\ Copper, Biocinchoinate Method, Method 8506, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, Hach Chemical Company, PO Box 389, Loveland, CO 80537.
\11\ Hydrogen ion (pH) Automated Electrode Method, Industrial Method Number 378--75WA, October 1976, Bran & Luebbe (Technicon) Autoanalyzer II. Bran &
Luebbe Analyzing Technologies, Inc., Elmsford, NY 10523.
\12\ Approved methods for the analysis of silver in industrial wastewaters at concentrations of 1 mg/L and above are inadequate where silver exists as
an inorganic halide. Silver halides such as the bromide and chloride are relatively insoluble in reagents such as nitric acid but are readily soluble
in an aqueous buffer of sodium thiosulfate and sodium hydroxide to pH of 12. Therefore, for levels of silver above 1 mg/L, 20 mL of sample should be
diluted to 100 mL by adding 40 mL each of 2 M Na2S2O3 and NaOH. Standards should be prepared in the same manner. For levels of silver below 1 mg/L the
approved method is satisfactory.
\13\ Zinc, Zincon Method, Method 8009, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, pages 2-231 and 2-333, Hach Chemical Company, Loveland, CO 80537.
\14\ ``Direct Current Plasma (DCP) Optical Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Elemental Analysis of Water and Wastes, Method AES0029,'' 1986--
Revised 1991, Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation, 27 Forge Parkway, Franklin, MA 02038.
[[Page 4384]]
\15\ ``Closed Vessel Microwave Digestion of Wastewater Samples for Determination of Metals,'' CEM Corporation, PO. Box 200, Matthews, NC 28106-0200,
April 16, 1992. Available from the CEM Corporation.
\16\ Precision and recovery statements for the atomic absorption direct aspiration and graphite furnace methods, and for the spectrophotometric SDDC
method for arsenic are provided in Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 136 and titled, ``Precision and Recovery Statements for Methods for Measuring Metals.''
\17\ This method does not include the digestion for solids given in Method 200.8. Not using the solids digestion procedure could affect the determined
concentrations. Therefore, this method may not be used for analysis of aqueous samples with suspended solids greater than 1%.
(2) The full texts of the methods from the following references
which are cited in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are
incorporated by reference into this regulation and may be obtained from
the sources identified. All costs cited are subject to change and must
be verified from the indicated sources. The full texts of all the test
procedures cited are available for inspection at the Analytical Methods
Staff, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capital Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington DC.
Appendix to Sec. 444.12(b)--References, Sources, Costs, and Table
Citations:
(1) ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983
and 1979 where applicable. Available from: ORD Publications, CERI, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. [Note 1]
(2) ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater.'' Joint Editorial Board, American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment
Federation, 18th Edition, 1992. Available from: American Public Health
Association, 1015 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. [Note 6]
(3) ``Annual Book of ASTM Standards--Water and Environmental
Technology,'' Section 11, Volumes 11.01 (Water I) and 11.02 (Water II),
1994. [1996 for D5673-96; see Note 17]. American Society for Testing
and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
(4) ``Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental
Samples--Supplement I'', National Exposure Risk Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600 R-94/111, May 1994. [Notes 5 and 7]
(5) ``Methods for Determination of Inorganic Substances in Water
and Fluvial Sediments,'' by M.J. Fishman and Linda C. Friedman,
Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological
Survey, Book 5 Chapter A1 (1989). Available from: U.S. Geological
Survey, Denver Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Cost:
$108.75 (subject to change). [Note 2]
(6) ``Closed Vessel Microwave Digestion of Wastewater Samples for
Determination of Metals,'' CEM Corporation, P.O. Box 200, Matthews,
North Carolina 28106-0200, April 16, 1992. Available from the CEM
Corporation. [Note 15]
(7) ``Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC--International, 15th
Edition,'' 1990. Price: $359.00. Available from: AOAC--International,
1970 Chain Bridge Rd., Dept. 0742, McLean, VA 22109-0742. [Note 3]
(8) ``American National Standard on Photographic Processing
Effluents,'' April 2, 1975. Available from: American National Standards
Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036. [Note 8]
(9) Bicinchoninate Method for Copper. Method 8506, Hach Handbook of
Water Analysis, 1979, Method and price available from Hach Chemical
Company, P.O. Box 300, Loveland, Colorado 80537. [Note 10]
(10) Hydrogen Ion (pH) Automated Electrode Method, Industrial
Method Number 378-75WA. October 1976. Bran & Luebbe (Technicon) Auto
Analyzer II. Method and price available from Bran & Luebbe Analyzing
Technologies, Inc. Elmsford, N.Y. 10523. [Note 11]
(11) Zincon Method for Zinc, Method 8009. Hach Handbook for Water
Analysis, 1979. Method and price available from Hach Chemical Company,
P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80537. [Note 13]
(12) ``Direct Current Plasma (DCP) Optical Emission Spectrometric
Method for Trace Elemental Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' Method AES
0029, 1986 Revised 1991, Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation (508-520-1880),
27 Forge Parkway, Franklin, MA 02038. [Note 14]
Sec. 444.13 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 the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:
Effluent Limitations \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS............................................. 113,000 34,800
Arsenic......................................... 84 72
Cadmium......................................... 71 26
Chromium........................................ 25 14
Copper.......................................... 23 14
Lead............................................ 57 32
Mercury......................................... 2.3 1.3
Silver.......................................... 13 8
Titanium........................................ 60 22
Zinc............................................ 82 54
pH.............................................. (2) (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Micrograms per liter (ppb)
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.
Sec. 444.14 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS and pH are the same as the corresponding limitation specified
in Sec. 444.13.
Sec. 444.15 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium
and zinc are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in
Sec. 444.13.
Sec. 444.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any source that
introduces wastewater pollutants into a POTW must comply with part 403
and achieve the following pretreatment standards:
Pretreatment Standards \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic......................................... 84 72
Cadmium......................................... 71 26
Chromium........................................ 25 14
Copper.......................................... 23 14
Lead............................................ 57 32
[[Page 4385]]
Mercury......................................... 2.3 1.3
Silver.......................................... 13 8
Titanium........................................ 60 22
Zinc............................................ 82 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Micrograms per liter (ppb)
Sec. 444.17 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
performance standards: Standards for TSS, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium, zinc and pH are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 444.13.
Sec. 444.18 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any source that introduces
wastewater pollutants into a POTW must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and
achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium and zinc are
the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 444.16.
[FR Doc. 00-2019 Filed 1-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P