[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 424-558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-33]
[[Page 423]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source
Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 424]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471
[FRL-6897-6]
RIN 2040-AB79
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point
Source Category; Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean
Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards for wastewater discharges from metal products and machinery
facilities. EPA initially proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for a portion of this category on May 30, 1995
(60 FR 28210). This proposal completely replaces the 1995 proposal.
Today's proposed regulation would establish technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater
discharges associated with the operation of new and existing metal
products and machinery facilities. The metal products and machinery
industry includes facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain
metal products, parts, or machines.
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will reduce the
discharge of conventional pollutants by at least 115 million pounds per
year, priority pollutants by 12 million pounds per year, and
nonconventional metal and organic pollutants by 43 million pounds per
year for an estimated compliance cost of $1.98 billion (pre-tax, 1999$)
annually. EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the proposal range
from $0.4 billion to $1.1 billion. In addition, this proposal solicits
comment on new methodologies for expanding the analysis to include
additional categories of recreational benefits.
DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by May 3, 2001. EPA is
conducting a public meeting (9:00 AM--12:00 PM) and hearing on the
pretreatment standards (1:00 PM--4:00 PM) for this proposed rule on
each of the following dates: February 6, 2001 in Oakland, CA; February
13, 2001 in Dallas, TX; and February 22, 2001 in Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to, Mr. Michael Ebner, Office of
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 if by mail and to Mr.
Michael Ebner, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Room 611 West Tower,
Washington, DC 20460 if by hand delivery. Comments may also be sent via
E-mail to ``[email protected]''. Please submit any references cited
in your comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your
comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA
to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
For additional information on how to submit electronic comments see
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
EPA will be holding public meetings and pretreatment hearings on
today's proposal on three separate dates. The meeting in Oakland, CA
will be held at the Oakland Mariott, City Center, 1001 Broadway,
Oakland, CA 96607. The meeting in Dallas, TX will be held in the
Oklahoma and Texas rooms at the EPA Region 6 Offices, 1455 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX. The meeting in Washington, DC will be held in EPA's
Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
EPA established the public record for this proposed rulemaking
under docket number W-99-23. It is located in the Water Docket, East
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, call
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a
reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's proposed rule, contact Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260-5397 or
Ms. Shari Barash at (202) 260-7130. For economic information contact
Dr. Lynne Tudor at (202) 260-5834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Facilities that manufacture,
maintain, or rebuild metal parts,
products or machines used in the
following sectors: Aerospace, Aircraft,
Bus & Truck, Electronic Equipment,
Hardware, Household Equipment,
Instruments, Job Shops, Mobile
Industrial Equipment, Motor Vehicles,
Office Machines, Ordnance, Precious
Metals and Jewelry, Printed Wiring
Boards, Railroad, Ships and Boats,
Stationary Industrial Equipment, and
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
Government................... State and local government
facilities that manufacture, maintain,
or rebuild metal parts, products or
machines (e.g., a town that operates its
own bus, truck, and/or snow removal
equipment maintenance facility).
Federal facilities that
manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal
parts, products or machines (e.g., U.S.
Naval Shipyards).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it
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 proposed in Sections III and VI.C
and detailed further in section 438.1 of the proposed rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
How To Submit Comments
Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-99-23
and must be submitted as an ASCII, or WordPerfect 5/6/7/8/9 or
Microsoft Word 97 file avoiding the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. EPA also will accept comments and data on disks in
Word Perfect 5/6/7/8/9, Microsoft Word 97 or ASCII file format.
Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at some Federal
Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should
be sent via e-mail. In the public record for
[[Page 425]]
the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from the 1995
Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore, comments
submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to resubmitted in response to
this proposal.
Public Meeting and Pretreatment Hearing Information:
In each location, the public meeting will be held in the morning
and the pretreatment hearing will be held in the afternoon (see DATES
and ADDRESSES for dates and locations of public meetings and
pretreatment hearings). During the public meeting, EPA will present
information on the applicability of the proposed regulation, the
technology options selected as the basis for the proposed limitations
and standards, and the compliance costs and pollutant reductions. EPA
will also allow time for questions and answers during this session.
During the pretreatment hearing, the public will have the opportunity
to provide oral comment to EPA. EPA will not address any issues raised
during the pretreatment hearing at that time, but these comments will
be recorded and included in the public record for the rule. Persons
wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should contact
Mr. Michael Ebner before the hearing and should have a written copy of
their comments for submittal.
Protection of Confidential Business Information
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed
rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA has not included
these documents in the public record. To support the rulemaking, EPA is
presenting certain information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is
masking facility identities in order to preserve confidentiality
claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not
claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly
reveal information claimed to be confidential.
Facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the
company that submitted the information. To ensure that EPA protects all
CBI in accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for company-
specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead and
signed by the official authorized to receive such data. The request
must list the specific data requested and include the following
statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer confidential
business information submitted by my company, and that I am authorized
to receive it.''
Supporting Documentation
Several key documents support the proposed regulations:
1. ``Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-00-005]: This document presents EPA's
methodology and technical conclusions concerning the Metal Products &
Machinery Point Source Category.
2. ``Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed
Metal Products & Machinery Rule'' [EPA-821-B-00-008]: This document
presents the methodology employed to assess economic and environmental
impacts of the proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
3. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-00-007] This document analyzes the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
4. ``Statistical Support Document for the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery
Industry'' [EPA-821-B-00-006]: This document establishes the
statistical methodology for developing numerical discharge limitations.
Major supporting documents are available in hard copy from the
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S.
EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, (800) 490-
9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. You can obtain electronic copies of
this preamble and rule as well as the technical and economic support
documents for today's proposal at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm.
Overview
The preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used
in this notice; the background documents that support these proposed
regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of the
proposal; background information; and the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This
preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.
In addition, this preamble proposes to update references in the
relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to include the
Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category. References in 40 CFR
would be updated in the Electroplating (part 413), Metal Finishing
(part 433), Plastic Molding and Forming (part 463), Metal Molding and
Casting (part 464), Aluminum Forming (467), and Nonferrous Metals
Forming and Metal Powders (part 471) effluent guidelines point source
categories.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Statutory Authorities
B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
III. Scope of Proposal
IV. Industry Description
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Existing Data Sources
B. Survey Questionnaires
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
D. Industry Submitted Data
E. Summary of Public Participation
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of
Subcategorization
B. Proposed Subcategories
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse, and Water Conservation
Practices
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Overview of Technology Options
B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology
B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
A. Need for Pretreatment Standards
B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES
C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions
D. General Metals Subcategory
[[Page 426]]
E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
H. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
I. Oily Wastes Subcategory
J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory
B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory
C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
E. NSPS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
F. PSNS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
G. NSPS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
H. PSNS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
I. NSPS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
J. PSNS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
K. NSPS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
L. PSNS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
M. NSPS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
N. PSNS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
O. NSPS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
P. PSNS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIV. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW
Performance
A. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs
B. Assessment of Acceptable Data
C. Assessment of Removals When Effluent Is Below the Analytical
Method Minimum Level
XV. Methodology for Estimating Costs & Pollutant Reductions
XVI. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Facility Level Impacts
C. Firm Level Impacts
D. Impacts on Governments
E. Community Level Impacts
F. Foreign Trade Impacts
G. Impacts on New Facilities
H. Social Costs
XVII. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
A. Methodology
B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Indirect Dischargers
C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct Dischargers
XVIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XIX. Water Quality, Sewage Sludge, and Other Environmental Impacts
A. Introduction
B. Beneficial Impacts of the MP&M Proposed Rule
XX. Benefit Analysis
A. Overview of Benefits
B. Reduced Human Health Risk
C. Ecological, Recreational, and Nonuser Benefits
D. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
E. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
F. Benefit-Cost Comparison
XXI. Regulatory Implementation
A. Compliance Dates
B. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
C. Monitoring Flexibility
D. Pollution Prevention Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job
Shops Subcategory
E. Upset and Bypass Provisions
F. Variances and Modifications
G. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment
Standards to NPDES Permits and Local Limits
H. Best Management Practices
XXII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Plain Language Directive
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
A. Types of Data Requested
B. Analytes Requested
C. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A to the Preamble:Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms
Used in This Document.
I. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this regulation under the authorities of sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and under
authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq., Pub L. 101-508, November 5, 1990.
II. Background
A. Statutory Authorities
1. 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 CWA confronts the
problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. Its primary
reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the types and
amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial,
and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). EPA
establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, the Agency develops
pretreatment standards to ensure that wastewater from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. In addition, EPA requires POTWs to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. EPA
establishes these limitations and standards by regulation for
categories of industrial dischargers and bases them on the degree of
control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control
technology.
a. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec.
304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent limits for conventional, toxic,\1\ and non-
[[Page 427]]
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However,
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging
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 processes
employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional statutory
factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally,
EPA determines the economic achievability on the basis of the total
cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule
on the industry's financial health. The Agency may base BAT limitations
upon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, EPA may base BAT upon technology transferred from
a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial
category. In addition, the Agency may base BAT upon process changes or
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice.
c. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 304(b)(4)
of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. 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).
d. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best available demonstrated control technology
for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, the CWA directs EPA to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
e. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for implementing categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass through
that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through
and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic
dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
f. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 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. 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.
2. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the
national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an
environmental management hierarchy in which pollution ``should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as
a last resort* * *'' (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, preventing pollution
before it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or
dispose of it after it is created. According to the PPA, source
reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances,
pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the source, usually
within a process. The term source reduction ``* * * includes equipment
or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications,
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials,
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory
[[Page 428]]
control. The term `source reduction' does not include any practice
which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or
the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through
a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary for
the production of a product or the providing of a service.'' In effect,
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a
waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior
to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen
industrial categories which may perform operations that are sometimes
found in MP&M facilities. These effluent guidelines are:
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);
Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420);
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 421);
Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR part 424);
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);
Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
Metal Molding & Casting (40 CFR part 464);
Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469);
and
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (40 CFR part
471).
In 1986, the Agency reviewed coverage of these regulations and
identified a significant number of metals processing facilities
discharging wastewater that these 13 regulations did not cover. Based
on this review, EPA performed a more detailed analysis of these
facilities that were not subject to national effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards. This analysis identified the discharge of
significant amounts of pollutants. This analysis resulted in the
decision to develop national limitations and standards for the
``Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding'' (MM&R) point source
category. In 1992, EPA changed the name of the category to ``Metal
Products and Machinery'' (MP&M) to clarify coverage of the category (57
FR 19748).
EPA recognizes that in some cases unit operations performed in
industries covered by the existing effluent guidelines are the same as
unit operations performed at MP&M facilities. In general, when unit
operations and their associated wastewater discharges are already
covered by an existing effluent guideline, they will remain covered
under that effluent guideline. (See Sec. 438.1(b)). However, for the
existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433)
effluent guidelines some facilities will be covered by this proposal.
EPA is proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413)
and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M
regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory
(see proposed rule Sec. 438.40) and the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory (see proposed rule Sec. 438.20). (See Table II.B-1 for
clarification for details and Section VI.C for a discussion of
subcategory-specific applicability).
When a facility covered by an existing metals effluent guidelines
(other than Electroplating or Metal Finishing) discharges wastewater
from unit operations not covered under that existing metals guideline
but covered under MP&M, the facility will need to comply with both
regulations. (See Sec. 438.1(c)). In those cases, the permit writer or
control authority (e.g., Publicly Owned Treatment Works) will combine
the limitations using an approach that proportions the limitations
based on the different in-scope production levels (for production-based
standards) or wastewater flows. POTWs refer to this approach as the
``combined wastestream formula'' (40 CFR 403.6(e)), while NPDES permit
writers refer to it as the ``building block approach.'' Permit writers
and local control authorities currently issue permits and control
mechanisms for many facilities in other effluent guidelines categories
where overlaps with more than one effluent limitation guidelines
regulation occur (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers; Pesticide Manufacturing; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and
Repackaging; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing). See Sections III and
VI.C of this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.
Table II.B-1.--Clarification of Coverage by MP&M Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposing to continue Proposing to cover
Proposing to continue to to cover under 40 CFR under 40 CFR Part 438
Subcategory cover under 40 CFR Part Part 433 (Metal (Metal Products &
413 (Electroplating) Finishing) Machinery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals...................... Existing facilities that Existing facilities All new and existing
are currently covered that are currently direct dischargers in
by 413 AND are indirect covered (or new this subcategory
dischargers that facilities that would regardless of annual
introduce less than or be covered) by 433 AND wastewater discharge
equal to 1 million are indirect volume and all new and
gallons per year into a dischargers that existing indirect
POTW. introduce less than or dischargers in this
equal to 1 million subcategory with
gallons per year into annual wastewater
a POTW. discharges greater
than 1 million gallons
per year.(See Sec.
438.10).
Metal Finishing Job Shops........... none (see non-chromium none (see non-chromium All new and existing
anodizing). anodizing). direct and indirect
discharges under this
subcategory. These
facilities would no
longer be covered by
413 or 433. (See Sec.
438.20).
[[Page 429]]
Non-Chromium Anodizers.............. Existing indirect New and existing Existing and new direct
Note: Facilities that perform dischargers that are indirect dischargers dischargers that only
anodizing with chromium or with the currently covered by (not covered by 413) perform non-chromium
use of dichromate sealants (or 413 AND that only that only perform non- anodizing (or do not
commingle their non-chromium perform non-chromium chromium anodizing (or commingle their non-
anodizing process wastewater with anodizing (or do not do not commingle their chromium anodizing
wastewaster from other MP&M commingle their non- non-chromium anodizing wastewater with other
subcategories) will be covered by chromium anodizing wastewater with other process wastewater for
40 CFR 438. wastewater with other process wastewater for discharge). (See Sec.
process wastewater for discharge). 438.30).
discharge).
Printed Wiring Board (Printed None.................... None................... All new and existing
Circuit Board). direct and indirect
dischargers under this
subcategory. These
facilities would no
longer be covered by
413 or 433. (See Sec.
438.40).
Steel Forming & Finishing........... N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct and indirect
discharges under this
subcategory as
described. (See Sec.
438.50).
Oily Waste.......................... N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct and indirect
dischargers under this
subcategory as
described. (See Sec.
438.60) (This
subcategory excludes
new and existing
indirect dischargers
that introduce less
than or equal to 2 MGY
into a POTW.
Facilities under the
cutoff are not and
will not be covered by
national categorical
regulations).
Railroad Line Maintenance........... N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct dischargers
under this subcategory
as described. (See
Sec. 438.70) There
are no national
categorical
pretreatment standards
for these facilities.
Shipbuilding Dry Docks.............. N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct dischargers
under this subcategory
as described. (See
Sec. 438.80) There
are no national
categorical
pretreatment standards
for these facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it
provides a guide for readers regarding the clarification of the
proposed applicability to the Electroplating, Metal Finishing, and
Metal Products & Machinery effluent guidelines. In order to determine
whether EPA is proposing to regulate a particular facility by this
action, please carefully examine the applicability criteria detailed in
the codified text of this proposed rule accompanying today's preamble.
C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
On May 30, 1995, EPA published a proposal entitled, ``Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery'' (60 FR 28210).
Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to this 1995 proposal as the
``Phase I'' or the ``1995'' proposal for the Metal Products and
Machinery industry. EPA initially divided the industry into two phases
based on industrial sector as the Agency believed that would make the
regulation more manageable. The Phase I proposal included the following
industry sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; Hardware;
Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; and Stationary Industrial
Equipment. At that time, EPA planned to propose a rule for the Phase II
sectors approximately three years after the MP&M Phase I proposal.
EPA received over 4,000 pages of public comment on the Phase I
proposal. One area where commenters from all stakeholder groups (i.e,
industry, environmental groups, regulators) were in agreement was that
EPA should not divide the industry into two separate regulations.
Commenters raised concerns regarding the regulation of similar
facilities with different compliance schedules and potentially
different limitations solely based on whether they were in a Phase I or
Phase II MP&M industrial sector. Furthermore, many facilities performed
work in multiple sectors. In such cases, permit writers and control
authorities (e.g., POTWs) would need to decide which MP&M rule (Phase I
or II) applied to a facility.
Based on these comments, EPA decided to combine the two phases of
the regulation into one proposal--today's proposal. Today's proposal
will completely replace the 1995 proposal. Under the 304(m) decree as
amended, these MP&M rules are to be promulgated in December 2002. EPA
developed today's proposal using data from both the Phase I and II data
collection efforts. (See Section V for discussion on MP&M data
collection efforts). In the public
[[Page 430]]
record for the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from
the 1995 Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore,
comments submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to be resubmitted in
response to this proposal. In addition, compliance deadlines proposed
in the 1995 Phase I proposal would obviously no longer apply.
D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
In addition to the merging of the Phase I and Phase II industry
sectors under one proposed rule, as discussed in Section II.C. above,
there were several areas of comments from the 1995 proposal that EPA
attempted to address in today's proposed rule.
Use of Aluminum and Iron as Indicator Parameters
In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES) for seven metals and cyanide as well as oil &
grease. Aluminum and iron were two of the seven metals with numerical
pretreatment standards. As discussed in the Phase I preamble (60 FR
28228), EPA intended to regulate aluminum and iron as indicator metals
for removal of non-regulated metals that may be processed at MP&M
sites. Due to the fact that the optimal pH levels for the removal of
aluminum (pH = 7.5-8) and iron (pH = 10.5) represent the end points of
the pH range for the removal of most metals that EPA expected to be in
MP&M wastewater, the Agency concluded that the removal of aluminum and
iron would indicate effective removal of other metal types. EPA
received many comments from various stakeholder groups, including
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) on this issue. The comments from
POTWs indicated that in addition to MP&M sites using aluminum and iron
as treatment chemicals, POTWs also use coagulants and flocculation aids
containing these metals for treatment. Many POTWs considered it
desirable to receive discharges containing aluminum and iron as it may
reduce their treatment chemical costs. Therefore, EPA has decided not
to propose pretreatment standards for aluminum and iron from indirect
discharging MP&M facilities in today's combined MP&M proposal. However,
EPA is proposing aluminum limitations for facilities in one subcategory
(i.e., Non-Chromium Anodizing) that discharge directly into the
nation's surface waters (see Section VI for a discussion on
subcategorization).
Use of Oil and Grease as an Indicator Parameter
EPA also received many comments on the Phase I proposal regarding
regulation of another pollutant, oil & grease (O&G), as an indicator
parameter. In an effort to reduce the burden of analytical monitoring
for organic pollutants on the Phase I MP&M facilities, EPA chose to
propose the use of O&G as an indicator parameter for organic
pollutants. EPA proposed a limit (daily maximum of 35 mg/L and a
monthly average of 17 mg/L) that demonstrated good removals of organic
pollutants in MP&M wastewater. As discussed in the preamble of the 1995
proposal (60 FR 28231), EPA identified several organic pollutants (2-
methylnapthalene, 2-propanone, n-octadecane, and n-tetradecane) that
would ``pass through'' a POTW (see Section XII for a discussion of POTW
pass through). EPA stated that ``these organic pollutants are more
likely to partition to the oily phase than the water phase, thus EPA
believed that the treatment and removal of oil and grease in wastewater
will also result in significant removals of these pollutants.'' Many
commenters stated that the pretreatment standard proposed for O&G was
too stringent. They commented that EPA typically does not establish
pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants such as O&G and that
local POTWs are in the best position to establish standards for O&G,
where necessary, taking into account POTW design and current O&G
loading and that the typical local limits for O&G are between 100-200
mg/L.
Based on these comments, EPA expanded its wastewater sampling and
analysis program to include a variety of potential organic pollutant
indicators. EPA investigated the correlation of organic pollutant
concentrations and removals at MP&M sites with the following
parameters: Oil & Grease (as Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)), Total
Organic Carbon (TOC), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 5-Day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (as Silica
Gel Treated-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)), and Total
Recoverable Phenolics. EPA determined TOC to be the best correlation
for removal of organic pollutants from MP&M wastewater.
To determine which parameter best indicated the amount of organic
pollutants in an MP&M wastestream, EPA researched the analytical
methods for each parameter to determine what organic constituents the
method measures, how the method measures them, and the limitations of
the method. Because sampling at MP&M facilities generally lasted five
days, EPA did not have enough data available to statistically establish
a correlation on a site level. Therefore, EPA grouped all of the data
from EPA sampling at MP&M facilities into the following organic-
pollutant-bearing wastestream categories that fed sampled treatment
systems: machining and grinding, washing and maintenance, wastewater
expected to have low concentrations of organic compounds, and oily
wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks. The Agency chose to group the
wastestreams in this manner in order to determine if a particular
organic indicator parameter was more appropriate for different types of
wastewater. That is, machining and grinding wastewater tended to have
more concentrated organic constituents while wastewater from washing
and maintenance was more dilute. EPA also identified other unit
operations (apart from washing and maintenance) that resulted in
wastewater with low concentrations of organic constituents. And, EPA
chose to analyze wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks separately
because of the type of treatment in place. Shipbuilding dry docks tend
to treat their wastewater with dissolved air flotation (DAF);
therefore, the Agency analyzed the data from these facilities in order
to determine the best organic indicator parameter for these treatment
systems.
For each wastewater type and its associated wastewater treatment
system, EPA characterized the composition of organic pollutants in all
of the influent samples, in all of the effluent samples, and the total
samples (influent, effluent, and intermediate sampling points)
associated with the treatment system. EPA studied the correlation of
the concentration of each indicator parameter noted above to the sum of
the concentrations of the organic pollutants by calculating the Pearson
and Spearman Rank correlation coefficients and comparing the
coefficients of each parameter against each other. Additionally, EPA
compared the general removal of the sum of organic pollutant compounds
with the removal of each indicator parameter (see the Technical
Development Document for a detailed discussion of these analyses).
EPA determined TOC to be the best overall indicator parameter for
the evaluated MP&M wastestreams because this analysis measures all
types of organic compounds. Total recoverable phenolics, O&G (as HEM),
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM), and BOD5 analyses
only measure
[[Page 431]]
specific organic components so they would not measure all possible
organic compounds in an effluent stream.
In addition to expanding its sampling program, EPA considered a
variety of approaches to address the comments on the use of O&G as an
indicator for organic pollutants. EPA considered the use of a Total
Organics list or an organics management plan (similar to the Total
Toxic Organics (TTO) list and solvent management plan used in the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433)) as well as allowing
facilities to choose from a list of possible indicator pollutants
(where they would demonstrate a correlation to their wastewater) or to
choose to monitor for the specific organic pollutants themselves. EPA
shared these ideas with small entity representatives during the SBREFA
process (see Section XXII.C for a discussion on the SBREFA process) and
with stakeholders during various public meetings and industry
conferences. (See Section V.E for a discussion on EPA's public outreach
efforts).
EPA has decided to propose three alternatives to allow for maximum
flexibility while ensuring reductions in the amount of organic
pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing to require
MP&M facilities within the scope of this rule to either: (1) Meet a
numerical limit for the total sum of a list of specific organic
pollutants (similar to the TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing
effluent guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for the specified
indicator parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of
an organics management plan. (See Section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on
regulatory implementation and proposed monitoring flexibility).
Variability of MP&M Process Wastewater Discharges
EPA also revised its analytical wastewater sampling program to
address two other issues raised by commenters in response to the 1995
proposal. First, commenters stated that EPA's analytical data did not
accurately reflect the variability in the wastewater flow and pollutant
concentration experienced over time at MP&M sites. More specifically,
metal finishing and electroplating job shops stated that EPA did not
account for the variability of the metal types and products processed
at their facilities; and therefore, EPA's proposed numerical limits did
not accurately reflect pollutant concentrations achievable by these
types of facilities (see Section VI.C.2. for a description of metal
finishing job shops). EPA has addressed this by performing specific
sampling targeted to assess the wastewater variability at metal
finishing and electroplating job shops. EPA sampled raw wastewater from
a variety of unit operations as well as wastewater treatment systems at
three job shops for five days each. After a period of a few months, the
Agency then returned to each facility a second and/or a third time for
three days of analytical wastewater sampling. In addition, when
determining proposed limits for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory, EPA, when possible, only used data collected from metal
finishing and electroplating facilities. However, EPA had to transfer
data from the General Metals subcategory for several pollutants that
are being proposed in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. Based
on this approach, the limits for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job
Shop subcategory include increased variability factors as compared to
the General Metals subcategory (i.e., the subcategory that EPA
considers to be the most similar in terms of raw wastewater
characterization).
Second, commenters stated the variability factors that EPA used in
the development of limitations were relatively small. Commenters
expressed their view that EPA's variability factors did not reflect the
variations in raw wastewater pollutant concentrations nor the
variations in the effectiveness of treatment technologies (particularly
in the case of cyanide). Section VIII.B of today's preamble discusses
the statistical methodology used for developing variability factors. In
an effort to ensure that the variability factors represent the
variability found in MP&M wastewater, EPA performed 44 sampling
episodes during post-1995 proposal data collection in addition to the
27 sampling episodes performed during the Phase I data collection
effort. EPA also specifically included sampling of 20 cyanide
destruction systems.
In addition, the Agency has collected long-term effluent data from
facility Compliance Reports and Discharge Monitoring Reports in an
effort to perform a ``real world'' check on the achievability of
today's proposed limits. This data is available for review in the
public record for today's proposal (see Section 6.6.1 of the public
record). Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with
their control authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per year as
required under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403)
while direct discharges file discharge monitoring reports with their
permitting authority at least once per year. The Agency received these
reports from 14 well-operated BAT facilities whose analytical data EPA
used in establishing limitations. EPA sent letters to nine facilities
requesting this data. In addition, five sites provided EPA with this
data during site visits or sampling episodes or as part of their
questionnaire response. Because this data is not in a form that allows
direct use for calculating limits or for comparison to the proposed
limits, EPA was not able to use this data in setting or evaluating the
compliance aspects of the limits and standards in today's proposal.
However, following proposal, EPA will reformat and evaluate this long-
term effluent monitoring data in relation to the proposed limits. In
cases where EPA finds a facility in its costing database that was used
to set the numerical limits and is not in compliance with the proposed
pollutant limitations, EPA will reassess the achievability of these
limits by a well-operated BAT system. When a system is not achieving
the proposed limits consistently it may be because either the system is
not achieving the projected long-term average (LTA) or the system has
higher variability than EPA determined using its standard methodology.
EPA requests comment on its methodology for determining LTAs and
variability factors. In cases where EPA determines that improved system
operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved it will
include additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost
estimations for the final rule where EPA has not already done so. EPA
concludes, in following the approach described above, that it will
address the concerns of commenters on the Phase I proposed rule related
to the achievability of the numerical limits by well operated and
economically achievable treatment systems. EPA requests comment on this
method of performing a ``real world'' check on the achievability of its
proposed limits.
Finally, as compared to the 1995 proposed limits, today's proposed
numerical limits for total cyanide have increased almost one order of
magnitude from 0.03 mg/L for the daily maximum and 0.02 for the monthly
average to 0.21 and 0.12, respectively. This increase is largely due to
increased variability factors.
Low Discharge Flow Exclusion
Another significant change from the 1995 proposal is EPA's proposed
low wastewater discharge flow exclusion (``low flow cutoff'') for
indirect dischargers. In the 1995 proposed rule, EPA set a low flow
cutoff at one million gallons per year (1 MGY) for all indirect
[[Page 432]]
discharging facilities included in the Phase I sectors. This meant that
EPA proposed to exclude, from the MP&M pretreatment standards,
facilities discharging less than 1 MGY to a POTW. The Agency included
the low flow cutoff to reduce the potentially large burden on POTWs
related to issuing permits or other control mechanisms to thousands of
the smallest MP&M Phase I sector facilities. EPA received many comments
on the level of the proposed flow cutoff. Based on these comments and
the recommendations of the SBREFA panel (see Section XXII.C on the
SBREFA process), EPA analyzed a range of flow cutoffs for indirect
dischargers ranging from no flow cutoff to 6.25 million gallons per
year. EPA notes that at 6.25 million gallons per year, the General
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) classify indirect discharging
facilities as ``Significant Industrial Users'' (SIUs). Under the
General Pretreatment Standards, control authorities (e.g., POTWs) must
issue permits or other control mechanisms to SIUs and, therefore, no
POTW burden reductions are realized above a flow cutoff of 6.25 MGY.
(However, there may be some minimal increase in burden for modifying
permits or control mechanisms).
EPA estimates that there are a total of 89,000 facilities within
the scope of the proposed rule. Many of these facilities are small
facilities and may be contributing minimal pollutant loadings to the
environment. A low flow exclusion allows regulatory authorities to
focus attention on those facilities with significant discharges. This
may also improve the cost-effectiveness of the rule. In developing
today's proposal, EPA considered POTW burden, costs, pollutant
removals, and economic impacts of the various flow cutoffs.
Unlike the 1995 proposal, EPA is now proposing to subcategorize
(i.e., subdivide) the MP&M category (see Section VI of this preamble
for a discussion on subcategorization of the industry). Therefore, EPA
has analyzed the various low flow cutoffs by subcategory, noting in
particular which subcategories are not currently covered under existing
pretreatment standards. When existing pretreatment standards already
cover all facilities in a particular subcategory, POTWs will not be
relieved of their administrative burden, regardless of whether or not a
low flow exclusion exists in the MP&M pretreatment standards. But other
factors, such as a disproportionate economic impact have been
considered.
The combination of subcategorization of the industry, current
coverage under existing pretreatment standards, and analysis of a range
of low flow cutoffs has led EPA to propose different levels for the low
flow exclusion for indirect dischargers in various subcategories. For
example, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY cutoff for indirect dischargers in
the General Metals subcategory, but is proposing no flow cutoff for
indirect dischargers in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory (see
Section VI.C. for descriptions of the proposed subcategories). This
difference is partially due to the fact that under the Electroplating
and Metal Finishing pretreatment standards (40 CFR parts 413 and 433),
EPA already regulates (thus it already requires POTWs to issue control
mechanisms for) all indirect discharging facilities in the proposed
Printed Wiring Board subcategory (approximately 620 facilities). In
addition, EPA does not project any severe or moderate economic impacts
for the small estimated number of printed wiring board facilities (52)
that would be eligible for a low flow cutoff of 1 MGY. In contrast, EPA
has not previously established pretreatment standards for approximately
75 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the proposed
General Metals subcategory (approximately 26,000 total facilities).
Approximately 23,000 indirect dischargers in the proposed General
Metals Subcategory discharge less than 1 MGY. If EPA did not exclude
these facilities, the number of permit issuances that POTWs are
responsible for would increase significantly. There are approximately
30,000 industrial users currently covered nationally by existing
pretreatment standards for all effluent guidelines. Low flow exclusions
being proposed for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories,
POTWs (or other control authorities) would have to issue an additional
51,000 permits/control mechanisms. EPA discusses further the rationale
for proposing a low flow cutoff exclusion for certain subcategories in
Section XII.
Mass-Based v. Concentration-Based Limits
EPA also received many comments on the issue of mass-based versus
concentration-based limits. In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed
concentration-based limits with the requirement that control
authorities (e.g., POTWs) implement them as mass-based limits. EPA
notes that under the NPDES permit program, the Agency already requires
permit writers to implement effluent limitations guidelines as mass-
based limits whenever feasible (40 CFR 122.45(f)). EPA proposed
requiring this conversion to mass-based limits because the Agency
believed that it was necessary to ensure the use of water conservation
and pollution prevention practices similar to those that were part of
EPA's selected option (60 FR 28230). EPA expected permit writers and
control authorities to use historical flow as a basis for the
conversion to mass-based limits for facilities that demonstrated good
water conservation practices. However, for facilities that did not have
good water conservation in place, EPA provided detailed guidance to
permit writers and control authorities in the Technical Development
Document (TDD) for the 1995 proposal. The TDD included information on a
full range of water use levels (in gallons/sq.ft.) for a large variety
of MP&M operations as well as guidance on how permit writers and
control authorities could determine if a facility was using good water
conservation practices.
EPA received comments on the administrative burden on POTWs
associated with implementation of mass-based limits. The commenters
stated that the burden was largely due to the fact that most MP&M
facilities do not collect production information on a wastestream-by-
wastestream basis. POTWs have continued to voice these concerns at
recent public stakeholder meetings. To address this issue, EPA
collected additional MP&M unit operation-specific information on
pollution prevention practices, water use, and wastewater generation in
the data collection efforts that followed the Phase I proposal.
In today's proposal, EPA is again proposing concentration-based
limits (for all but one subcategory) and is providing detailed
information on water use levels for specific unit operations in the
Technical Development Document. However, the Agency is no longer
proposing to require control authorities (e.g., POTWs) or permit
writers to implement the limits on a mass basis. Instead EPA is
proposing to authorize control authorities and permit writers to decide
when it is most appropriate to implement mass-based limits. EPA
believes that this approach will reduce implementation burden on POTWs
and will result in increased use of water conservation practices at the
facilities where POTWs and permit writers think it is most needed. EPA
believes that MP&M facilities that use the best pollution prevention
and water conservation practices may request that the control authority
or permit writer use mass-based limits in their permits or other
control mechanisms. (See Section XXI.B for a discussion on regulatory
implementation).
[[Page 433]]
III. Scope of Proposal
Today's proposed effluent guideline applies to process wastewater
discharges from existing or new industrial sites engaged in
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or
machines to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:
Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Bus and Truck;
Electronic Equipment;
Hardware;
Household Equipment;
Instruments;
Job Shops;
Mobile Industrial Equipment;
Motor Vehicle;
Office Machine;
Ordnance;
Precious Metals and Jewelry;
Printed Wiring Boards;
Railroad;
Ships and Boats;
Stationary Industrial Equipment; and
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
EPA has identified these eighteen industrial sectors in the MP&M
category; these sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal
products under more than 200 different SIC codes. See Appendix A of
today's proposed rule for a description of typical products within
these eighteen MP&M industrial sectors. Although EPA is using these 18
industrial sectors to generally describe the scope of today's proposal,
the Agency notes that it is not using these industrial sectors to
subcategorize (or subdivide) the regulations for the industry. EPA's
analysis to date suggests that the industrial sectors do not correlate
well with the types of waste generated, and many facilities perform
operations covered by multiple sectors. Instead, EPA is proposing to
define subcategories based on unit operations performed and the nature
of the waste generated (see Section VI of today's notice for a
discussions on subcategorization and subcategory-specific
applicability).
EPA does not intend to include maintenance or repair of metal
parts, products, or machines that occur only as ancillary activities at
facilities that it did not include in the 18 industrial sectors. (See
Sec. 438.1(d)). EPA believes that these ancillary repair and
maintenance activities would typically generate only small quantities
of wastewater. In most cases, these periodic repair and maintenance
activities at facilities not in one of the 18 industrial sectors would
comprise only a very small portion of the total wastewater flow at the
facility. The Agency believes local limits will be adequate to address
these discharges for indirect dischargers and that permit writers can
establish limits using Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) to regulate
these ancillary waste streams for direct dischargers. Permit writers
should consult the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
the primary category of such a facility (See 40 CFR Chapter I,
Subchapter N for all existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards). As an example, EPA does not intend for the MP&M proposal to
include process wastewater discharges from an on-site machine or
maintenance shop at a facility engaged in the manufacture of organic
chemicals when the facility operates that shop to maintain the
equipment related to manufacturing their products (i.e., organic
chemicals). As discussed above, these wastewaters can be regulated
through local limits or through BPJ using the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) regulations. Alternatively,
since aircraft is an in-scope MP&M industrial sector, EPA is proposing
to include process wastewater discharges from activities related to
maintaining or repairing aircraft or other related (metal) equipment
(e.g., deicing vehicles) at airports.
EPA also intends to cover wastewater from MP&M operations related
to maintenance and repair of metal products, parts, and machinery at
military installations. For example, this proposal includes wastewater
generated from the maintenance and repair of aircraft, cars, trucks,
buses, tanks (or other armor personnel carriers), and industrial
equipment--all of which are commonly performed at military
installations.
Today's proposal only covers process wastewater generated at MP&M
facilities. EPA is not covering non-process wastewater which includes
sanitary wastewater, non-contact cooling water, and storm water. EPA
has characterized typical MP&M unit operations as belonging to one or
more of the following types: Assembly/disassembly; metal deposition;
metal shaping; organic deposition; printed wiring board; surface
finishing; surface preparation; and dry dock operations. Typical unit
operations at MP&M facilities include any one or more of the following:
abrasive blasting, abrasive jet machining, acid treatment, adhesive
bonding, alkaline cleaning for removal of oil, alkaline treatment,
anodizing, aqueous degreasing, assembly, barrel finishing, brazing,
burnishing, calibration, chemical conversion coating, chemical milling,
chromate conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, disassembly,
electrical discharge machining, electrochemical machining, electroless
plating, electrolytic cleaning, electroplating, electron beam
machining, electropolishing, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating,
hot-dip coating, impact deformation, laminating, laser beam machining,
machining, metal spraying, painting (spray/brush or immersion), photo
resist applications, physical vapor deposition, plating, plasma arc
machining, polishing, pressure deformation, rinsing, salt bath
descaling, soldering, solvent degreasing, sputtering, stripping (paint
or metallic coating), testing, thermal cutting, thermal infusion,
ultrasonic machining, vacuum metalizing, washing finished product,
welding, wet air pollution control, and numerous sub-operations within
those listed above. EPA notes that not all MP&M unit operations
generate process wastewater. In addition, many of these operations
frequently have associated rinses that remove materials that preceding
processes deposit on the surface of the workpiece and water-discharging
air pollution control devices which become contaminated with process
contaminants removed from the air. EPA is including both of these
wastewater flows under the scope of today's proposed regulation. (See
Sec. 438.2(e)).
The Agency is also including under today's proposed regulation
wastewater discharges from non-contact, nondestructive testing
performed at MP&M facilities. (See Sec. 438.2(e)). A common source of
``nondestructive testing'' wastewater is photographic waste from
nondestructive X-ray examination of parts. The Agency is proposing to
cover this wastewater because of the potential concentration of silver
in the wastewater discharge.
EPA is not covering wastewater generated from electroplating-type
operations during semiconductor wafer manufacturing or wafer
fabrication processes (i.e., tape automated bonding--``TAB'' and
controlled collapse chip connection--``C-4'') occurring in a ``clean
room'' environment because it believes that these operations are much
different than the other electroplating operations that EPA is covering
by these guidelines and do not contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to the wastewater discharge. (See Sec. 438.1(e)). The new
and emerging technologies involved in semiconductor wafer fabrication
add microscopic amounts of metal (usually copper) to only selective
portions of the wafer to
[[Page 434]]
enhance circuitry and decrease wafer size. Other electroplating
operations that EPA is proposing to cover under this guideline
generally occur on a larger scale and produce a more concentrated
metal-bearing wastewater. Moreover, the wafer fabrication processes
occur in a clean room with a highly-controlled atmosphere and using
highly-purified materials and specialized tools that are much different
from typical metal-finishing equipment. These specialized tools and
conditions enable the manufacturer to add microscopic levels (less than
one micron) of metal to only one side of the wafer, in contrast to the
non-selective, macroscopic (micron to micron-inch) plating used in
common metal finishing. Therefore, EPA is proposing not to cover
wastewater from wafer fabrication processes under this rule. However,
in today's proposal the Agency is covering wastewater generated from
electroplating during semiconductor final wafer assembly. (See
Sec. 438.1(e)).
EPA is proposing to cover wastewater generated from washing
vehicles only when it occurs as a preparatory step prior to performing
an MP&M unit operation (e.g., prior to disassembly to perform engine
maintenance or rebuilding). (See Sec. 438.1(f)). MP&M facilities may
perform these preparatory washes to remove oils, dirt and grit prior to
performing the maintenance or repair operations and as a result the
combined wastewater contains significant amounts of oil and grease
along with total suspended solids. However, this proposed regulation
does not cover the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles when it
is performed only for aesthetic/cosmetic purposes because EPA does not
expect these washes to contain significant concentrations of
pollutants. (See Sec. 438.1(f)).
EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated from unit
operations performed by drum reconditioners/refurbishers to prepare
drums for reuse. (See Sec. 438.1(a)). These facilities perform
operations on metal drums such as chaining, caustic washing, acid
cleaning, acid etching, impact deformation, leak testing, corrosion
inhibition, shot blasting, and painting. The Agency considers
facilities that perform these operations as part of the Stationary
Industrial Equipment sector. However, the Agency notes that it is
currently considering the development of an effluent guideline for the
drum reconditioning industry. If EPA develops regulations for this new
industrial category, it is possible that the Agency would cover these
facilities under that rule and not under the MP&M regulation. EPA
solicits comment on whether these facilities would be more
appropriately covered under the MP&M rule or under a new industrial
category for drum reconditioners.
EPA did not collect information with respect to MP&M operations at
gasoline service stations (SIC code 5541), passenger car rental
facilities (SIC code 7514), or utility trailer and recreational vehicle
rental facilities (SIC code 7519); therefore, this proposed regulation
does not cover process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair
activities when they occur at gasoline stations or car rental
facilities. (See Sec. 438.1(g)). As discussed in Sections VI.C and XII
of this notice, EPA is proposing to exclude facilities in the General
Metals and Oily Waste subcategories that discharge MP&M process
wastewater below a specified flow rate (one and two million gallons per
year, respectively). EPA expects that many facilities that only perform
repair and maintenance activities (e.g., auto repair shops, light
aircraft maintenance) will be excluded as most will fit into the
applicability of either the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories
and have process wastewater discharges below the subcategory-specific
flow cutoffs.
EPA is proposing to cover MP&M process wastewater at mixed-use
facilities (i.e., any municipal, private, U.S. military or federal
facility which contains both industrial and commercial/administrative
buildings at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations
within the facility's boundaries). (See Sec. 438.1(h)). However, unlike
the typical industrial facility, such as an aircraft or electronic
equipment manufacturing plant with one primary manufacturing activity,
the majority of military installations are mixed-use facilities and are
more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other
operations within their boundaries. Many of these installations also
include a variety of tenant activities, including contractor and other
Department of Defense federal agency activities. At these mixed-use
facilities, EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from manufacturing,
maintenance and repair activities performed on metal parts, products or
machines (e.g. maintenance and repair of vehicles and aircraft). (See
Sec. 438.1(h)). EPA concluded that these types of operations will
generate wastewater containing either high metals content or high oil
and grease, or both. EPA is not proposing to cover wastewater from
other non-metal repair, maintenance or manufacturing operations at
mixed-use facilities such as wastewater from residential housing,
schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, gas stations,
utility plants, and hospitals. The Agency believes that wastewater
generated from these activities will not contain the same types and
concentrations of pollutants (such as metals and oil and grease) as
wastewater from MP&M operations. Finally, the geographic size of many
military installations (for example, over 300 square miles at Fort
Hood, TX and over 1.1 million acres at the China Lake Naval Air Warfare
Center, CA) makes it difficult to treat them as a single facility.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow wastewater generated at different
sites (individual buildings as well as outdoor locations where
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance occur on metal parts,
products, or machines) within a mixed-use facility to be dealt with as
separate discharges for the purpose of applying the appropriate low
flow cutoff (when applicable). EPA is proposing to allow the control
authority to use its discretion in determining which wastewater
discharges can be considered separate discharges for the purposes of
applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). The
determination would likely be based on the degree of proximity between
industrial operations and a practical application of the requirements
for applicable MP&M subcategories. Control authorities (and permit
writers) will have to determine when it is appropriate to apply
standards for more than one subcategory to a mixed-use facility and
when to use the combined waste stream formula (or building block
approach). For example, a military installation that generates
wastewater from vehicle maintenance operations that is treated in a
separate wastewater system than wastewater generated from its metal
finishing operations could be covered by both the Oily Wastes
subcategory for its vehicle maintenance operations and by the General
Metals subcategory for it surface finishing operations. (See Section VI
for a discussion of subcategorization and subcategory-specific
applicability).
EPA seeks information from other facilities that believe they would
fall within this mixed-use facility category. In addition, EPA seeks
comments on the choice to allow control authorities to make a
determination concerning applying the low flow cutoffs to separate
discharges and the factors for making such a decision as well as
alternative ways to divide a mixed-use facility.
See Section II.B for a discussion on the applicability of today's
proposed rule with respect to the thirteen existing
[[Page 435]]
metals-related effluent limitations guidelines and standards
regulations.
IV. Industry Description
As described in Section III, the MP&M industry is comprised of
facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal parts, products
or machines to be used in one of 18 industrial sectors. Based on
results of the MP&M survey database, there are an estimated 89,000 MP&M
sites. Based on detailed survey results, an estimated 63,000 MP&M sites
discharge process water. Of the facilities discharging process
wastewater, EPA estimates that 93 percent are indirect dischargers and
7 percent are direct dischargers. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 26,000 facilities that fall into one of three zero
discharge categories: zero discharge, non-water-using, or contract
haulers.
MP&M water-discharging sites range in size from less than 10
employees to sites with tens of thousands of employees and from
wastewater discharge flow rates of less than 100 gallons per year to
wastewater discharge flow rates exceeding 100 million gallons per year.
Of water discharging facilities, approximately 98 percent of MP&M sites
have 500 or fewer employees and approximately 78 percent of MP&M sites
have 100 or fewer employees. EPA estimates that facilities with less
than 100 employees discharge approximately 11 percent of the total
annual wastewater discharged by the MP&M industry and that facilities
having between 100 and 500 employees discharge approximately 50% of the
industry total flow. Facilities with greater than 500 employees
discharge 39 percent of the industry total.
MP&M facilities are located throughout the United States. The
Agency received survey data from every EPA region and 48 separate
states. EPA estimates that the largest concentrations of MP&M
facilities are located in EPA Regions III (MD, PA, VA, WV), V (IL, IN,
MI, MN, OH, WI), and IX (AZ, CA, HI). In addition EPA estimates the
seven states with the largest concentrations of MP&M facilities are:
California (25 percent), Pennsylvania (23 percent), Virginia (11
percent), Ohio (5 percent), Colorado (4 percent), Texas (3 percent),
and Indiana (2 percent).
EPA estimates that approximately 3 percent of the industry (water
dischargers and zero dischargers) generates annual revenues less than
$100,000, approximately 41 percent generate annual revenues between
$100,000 and $500,000, approximately 5 percent generate annual revenues
between $500,000 and $1,500,000, and approximately 33 percent generate
over $5,000,000 annual revenues. The Agency notes that facilities with
annual revenues greater than $5,000,000 discharge approximately 73
percent of the total wastewater discharged by the industry.
Although facilities in the MP&M industry produce a wide range of
products, the operations performed can be described by two types of
activities: manufacturing, and rebuilding/maintenance. Manufacturing is
the series of unit operations necessary to produce metal products, and
is generally performed in a production environment. Rebuilding/
maintenance is the series of unit operations necessary to disassemble
used metal products into components, replace the components or
subassemblies or restore them to original function, and reassemble the
metal product. These operations are intended to keep metal products in
operating condition and can be performed in either a production or a
non-production environment.
Table IV-1, below, summarizes the estimated number of MP&M sites
(water dischargers and zero dischargers) and total discharge flow
(prior to implementation of the proposed rule) by activity or activity
combination. The largest number of sites, approximately 44,000, perform
``rebuilding/maintenance only'' and account for approximately 9 percent
of the total estimated discharge flow for the industry. ``Manufacturing
only'' represents the next largest number of facilities (27,000) and
represents the largest percentage of the total estimated discharge flow
for the industry (75.2 percent).
Table IV-1.--MP&M Sites * and Total Discharge Flow by Activity Combination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total
number of estimated Percentage of Percentage of
Activity water discharge flow total water total
discharging (million gal/ discharging discharge flow
MP&M sites yr) MP&M sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing, Rebuilding/Maintenance........... 7,400 11,200 8.3 9.1
Manufacturing Only.............................. 27,000 91,700 30.4 75.2
Rebuilding/Maintenance Only..................... 44,000 11,100 49.5 9.1
Unknown/others.................................. 10,500 8,100 11.8 6.6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total **.................................... 89,000 122,000 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table includes all MP&M sites, for a presentation of this distribution for water discharging sites only,
see the Technical Development Document for today's proposal.
** Totals may not add due to rounding.
Of the 26,000 sites that achieve zero discharge of process
wastewater, many use but do not discharge process water. Based on
information from the MP&M Detailed Surveys, site visits, and technical
literature (see Section V for a discussion of the data collection
activities), these sites achieve zero discharge of process wastewater
in one or more of the following ways:
Sites contract haul for off-site disposal all process
wastewater generated on site;
Sites discharge process wastewater to either on-site
septic systems or deep-well injection systems;
Sites perform end-of-pipe treatment and reuse all process
wastewater generated on site;
Sites perform either in-process or end-of-pipe evaporation
to eliminate wastewater discharges; or
Sites perform in-process recirculation and recycling to
eliminate wastewater discharges.
EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, authorized by
the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulates shallow on-site systems and deep
wells that discharge fluids or wastewater into the subsurface and thus
may endanger underground sources of drinking water.
If a facility disposes any wastewater (other than solely sanitary
waste) into a shallow disposal system (e.g., septic system or a floor
drain connected to a dry well) that well is covered by the UIC program.
If you think you have a UIC
[[Page 436]]
disposal well on your facility, you should contact your State UIC
Program authority to determine your compliance status.
EPA published the Class V Rule in the Federal Register on December
7, 1999 (64 FR 68545), which affected facilities using on site systems
to dispose waste associated with motor vehicle service and repair in
state-designated groundwater protection areas. The EPA is scheduled to
develop additional requirements for other Class V wells that receive
endangering waste. Contact your State UIC Program for more information
on these developing regulations.
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Existing Data Sources
While developing today's proposal, EPA reviewed data from other
metals industry effluent guidelines, the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) treatability database, the 50 POTW Study,
the Domestic Sewage Study, and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
For the MP&M technology effectiveness assessment effort, EPA
reviewed sampling data collected to characterize treatment systems for
the development of effluent guidelines for other metals industries (see
Section II.B for a discussion on other metals industry effluent
guidelines). For several previous effluent guidelines, EPA used
treatment data from metals industries to develop the Combined Metals
Database (CMDB), which served as the basis for developing limits for
these industries. EPA also developed a separate database used as the
basis for limits for the Metal Finishing category. EPA used the CMDB
and Metal Finishing data as a guide in identifying well-designed and
well-operated MP&M treatment systems. EPA did not use these data in
developing the MP&M technology effectiveness concentrations, since the
Agency collected sufficient data from MP&M sites to develop technology
effectiveness concentrations.
EPA also reviewed the Technical Development Documents (TDDs),
sampling episode reports, and supporting record materials for the other
metals industries' rulemakings to identify available data. EPA used
these data for the preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry, but did
not use these data for estimating MP&M pollutant loadings because EPA
obtained sufficient data for the MP&M sampling program to characterize
the MP&M unit operations.
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to provide data on the removal
and destruction of chemicals in various types of media, including
water, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment. This database contains
treatability data from POTWs and industrial facilities for various
pollutants. The database includes physical and chemical data for each
pollutant, the types of treatment used to treat the specific
pollutants, the types of wastewater treated, the size of the POTW or
industrial site, and the treatment concentrations achieved. EPA used
this database as one means to assess removal of MP&M pollutants of
concern by POTWs.
In September 1982, EPA published the Fate of Priority Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, referred to as the 50 POTW Study. The
purpose of this study was to generate, compile, and report data on the
occurrence and fate of the 129 priority pollutants in 50 POTWs. The
report presents all of the data collected, the results of preliminary
evaluations of these data, and the results of calculations to determine
the quantity of priority pollutants in the influent to POTWs;
discharged from the POTWs; in the effluent from intermediate process
streams; and in the POTW sludge streams. EPA used the data from this
study as one means to assess removal by POTWs of MP&M pollutants of
concern (see Section XII.A for additional discussion on the use of the
50 POTW Study).
In February 1986, EPA issued the ``Report to Congress on the
Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works'',
referred to as the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS). This report, which was
based in part on the 50 POTW Study, revealed a significant number of
sites discharging pollutants to POTWs, which are a threat to the
treatment capability of the POTW. These pollutants were not regulated
by national categorical pretreatment standards at that time. EPA used
the information in the DSS in developing the Preliminary Data Summary
(PDS) for the MP&M category (October 1989).
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database contains specific toxic
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities
throughout the United States. EPA considered using the TRI database in
developing the MP&M effluent guidelines. However, EPA did not use TRI
data on wastewater discharges from MP&M sites because sufficient data
were not available for effluent guidelines development. For example, in
developing the MP&M effluent guidelines, EPA uses wastewater influent
concentrations to characterize a facility's wastewater and to calculate
treatment efficiency (i.e., percent removal across the treatment
system). TRI does not provide concentrations for the influent to a
facility's treatment system. EPA also did not use the data on
wastewater discharge because many MP&M sites do not meet the reporting
thresholds for the TRI database.
B. Survey Questionnaires
As discussed in Section II.C, EPA originally intended to propose
the MP&M rulemaking in two phases. Therefore, EPA's data collection
efforts, particularly the use of survey questionnaires, was handled in
two phases to collect data from the relevant industrial sectors. EPA
distributed two screener and six detailed questionnaires (surveys)
between 1989 and 1996. For a list of surveys by distribution date, see
the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
1. Screener Surveys
EPA developed and distributed two screener surveys. In 1990, EPA
distributed 8,342 screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in
the original seven Phase I MP&M sectors. In 1996, EPA distributed 5,325
screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in the eleven Phase II
MP&M sectors. The purpose of the screener surveys was to identify sites
to receive the more detailed follow-up surveys and to make a
preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry.
In each case, EPA identified the SIC codes applicable to the
respective MP&M sectors and then calculated the number of sites to
receive the screener within each SIC code by a coefficient of variation
(CV) minimization procedure (see the respective Database Summary
Reports for the screener surveys in the public record for a detailed
discussion of the CV procedure). Based on the number of sites selected
within each SIC code, the Agency purchased a list of randomly selected
names and addresses from Dun & Bradstreet. This list included twice the
number of sites specified by the CV minimization procedure for each SIC
code. Dun & Bradstreet randomly selected the requested number of sites
from the Dun & Bradstreet database for each SIC code. From this list of
potential recipient sites, the Agency randomly selected sites to
receive the screener surveys. For a more detailed discussion on the
screener surveys, see the Technical
[[Page 437]]
Development Document for today's proposed rule.
EPA also sent the 1996 screener survey to 1,750 randomly selected
sites in Ohio for the purpose of collecting information for an
environmental benefits study. (See Section XX.F or the Economic,
Environmental, and Benefits Analysis for today's proposed rule for a
detailed discussion of EPA's Ohio Benefits Case Study).
2. Industrial Detailed Surveys
Based on responses to the 1990 screener, EPA sent a more detailed
survey to a select group of water-using MP&M sites. The Agency designed
this survey to collect detailed technical and financial information.
EPA selected 1,020 detailed survey recipients from the following three
groups of sites:
Water-discharging 1989 screener respondents (860 sites);
Water-using 1989 screener respondents that did not
discharge process water (74 sites); and
Water-discharging sites from well-known MP&M companies
that did not receive the 1989 screener (86 sites).
EPA used information from the first two groups of survey recipients
to develop pollutant loadings and reductions and to develop compliance
cost estimates. Because EPA did not randomly select the third group of
recipients, EPA did not use the data to develop national estimates.
In an effort to reduce burden on survey recipients for the second
phase of the data collection effort, EPA developed two similar detailed
surveys. Based on the development of the 1995 MP&M proposal, EPA chose
to collect more detailed information from sites with annual process
wastewater discharges greater than one million gallons per year (1
MGY). EPA sent the ``long'' detailed survey to all 353 1996 screener
respondents who indicated they discharged one million or more gallons
of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M operations. The
Agency sent the ``short'' detailed survey to 101 randomly selected 1996
screener respondents who indicated they discharged less than one
million gallons of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M
operations.
The detailed surveys collected information to identify the site
location and contact person, number of employees, facility age, process
wastewater discharge status and destination, and wastewater discharge
permits and permitting authority as well as general information about
metal types processed, MP&M products and production levels, water use
for unit operations, and wastewater discharge from unit operations. EPA
used the process information to evaluate water use and discharge
practices and sources of pollutants for each MP&M unit operation. EPA
also requested detailed information on MP&M wet unit operations,
pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment technologies,
costs for water use and wastewater treatment systems, and wastewater/
sludge disposal costs. EPA also requested each site to provide block
diagrams of the production process and the wastewater treatment system.
The unit operation information included: metal types processed,
production rate, operating schedule, chemical additives, volume and
destination of process wastewater and rinse waters, in-process
pollution prevention technologies, and in-process flow control
technologies. The information EPA requested for each wastewater
treatment unit included: operating flow rate, design capacity,
operating time, chemical additives, and unit operations discharging to
each treatment unit. In addition, EPA asked each site to provide the
type of MP&M wastewater sampling data collected. EPA used these data to
characterize the industry, to perform subcategorization analyses, to
identify best management practices, to evaluate performance of the
treatment technology for inclusion in the regulatory options, and to
develop regulatory compliance cost estimates.
EPA also collected detailed financial and economic information
about the site or the company owning the site. In addition, the 1996
long detailed questionnaire included a section that requested
supplemental information on other MP&M facilities owned by the company.
EPA included this voluntary section to measure the combined impact of
proposed MP&M effluent guidelines on companies with multiple MP&M
facilities that discharge process wastewater. This section requested
the same information collected in the 1996 MP&M screener survey.
Responses to questions in this section provided the size, industrial
sector, revenue, unit operations, and water usage of the company's
other MP&M facilities.
The 1996 short survey included the identical general site and
process information and economic information collected in the long
detailed survey. However, to minimize the burden on facilities
discharging less than one million gallons of process wastewater, EPA
did not require these facilities to provide the detailed information on
MP&M unit operations or treatment technologies that the Agency
requested in the long survey. For a question-by-question comparison of
the short and long 1996 detailed surveys, see the Technical Development
Document for today's proposed rule.
Finally, EPA developed a detailed survey, under a separate
rulemaking effort, to collect detailed information from facilities that
are currently covered by the Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent
guidelines. Following field sampling of iron and steel sites and review
of the completed industry surveys, EPA decided that some iron and steel
operations would be more appropriately covered by the MP&M rule because
they were more like MP&M operations (see Section VI.C.5 for a
discussion on the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory). Based on
EPA's decision regarding these operations, the Agency coded and entered
process information from 47 iron and steel surveys into the MP&M
costing input database.
3. Municipality Survey
EPA distributed the municipality surveys in 1996 to city and county
facilities that might operate MP&M facilities. The Agency designed this
survey to measure the impact of this rule on municipalities and other
government entities that perform maintenance and rebuilding operations
on MP&M products (e.g., bus and truck, automobiles).
The Agency sent the municipality survey to 150 city and county
facilities randomly selected from the Municipality Year Book-1995 based
on population and geographic location. EPA allocated sixty percent of
the sample to municipalities and 40 percent to counties. The 60/40
distribution was approximately proportional to their aggregate
populations in the frame. EPA divided the municipality sample and the
county sample into three size groupings as measured by population. For
municipalities, the population groupings were: less than 10,000
residents, 10,000-50,000 residents, and 50,000 or more residents. For
counties, the population groupings were: less than 50,000 residents,
50,000-150,000 residents, and 150,000 or more residents. The geographic
stratification conformed to the Census definitions of Northeast, North
Central, South, Pacific, and Mountain states. The technical questions
in the Municipality Survey were basically identical to the 1996 short
detailed survey; however, EPA adapted the financial and economic
questions so that they were appropriate for these facilities.
[[Page 438]]
4. Federal Facilities Survey
In April 1998, EPA distributed the federal facilities detailed
survey to the following federal agencies:
Department of Energy;
Department of Defense;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
Department of Transportation (including the United States
Coast Guard);
Department of the Interior;
Department of Agriculture; and
United States Postal Service.
EPA designed this survey to assess the impact of the MP&M effluent
limitations guidelines and standards on federal agencies that operate
MP&M facilities. EPA distributed the survey to federal agencies likely
to perform industrial operations on metal products or machines. The
Agency requested that the representatives of the seven listed federal
agencies voluntarily distribute copies of the survey to sites they
believed performed MP&M operations. The information collected in the
1996 federal survey was identical to the long survey. After engineering
review and coding, EPA entered data from 44 federal surveys into the
database. Because EPA did not randomly select the survey recipients,
data from these questionnaires was not used to develop national
estimates.
5. POTW Survey
EPA distributed the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) survey in
November 1997. The Agency designed this survey to estimate benefits
associated with implementation of the MP&M regulations and to estimate
possible costs and burden that POTWs might incur in writing MP&M
permits or other control mechanisms. The Agency sent the POTW survey to
150 POTWs with flow rates greater than 0.50 million gallons per day.
EPA randomly selected the recipients from the 1992 Needs Survey Review,
Update, and Query System Database (RUQus). The Agency divided the POTW
sample into two strata by daily flow rates: 0.50 to 2.50 million
gallons, and 2.50 million gallons or more.
In addition to the total volume of wastewater treated at the site,
the POTW survey requested the number of industrial permits written, the
cost to write the permits, the permitting fee structure, the percentage
of industrial dischargers covered by National Categorical Standards
(i.e., effluent guidelines), and the percentage of permits requiring
expensive administrative activities. EPA used this information to
estimate administrative burden and costs. In addition, EPA requested
information on the use or disposal of sewage sludge generated by the
POTW. The Agency only required POTWs that received discharges from an
MP&M facility to complete those questions. The sewage sludge
information requested included the amount generated, use or disposal
method, metal levels, use or disposal costs, and the percentage of
metal loadings from MP&M facilities. The Agency used this information
to assess the potential changes in sludge handling resulting from the
MP&M rule and to estimate economic benefits to the POTW (See Section
XIX.B.2 for a discussion of the results of the POTW survey.)
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
The Agency visited 201 MP&M sites to collect information about MP&M
unit operations, water use practices, pollution prevention and
treatment technologies, and waste disposal methods, and to evaluate
sites for potential inclusion in the MP&M sampling program (described
below). In general, the Agency visited sites to encompass the range of
sectors, unit operations, and wastewater treatment technologies within
the MP&M industry.
The Agency based site selection on information contained in the
MP&M screener and detailed surveys. The Agency also contacted regional
EPA personnel, state environmental agency personnel, and local
pretreatment coordinators to identify MP&M sites believed to be
operating in-process source reduction and recycling technologies or
end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies. The Agency also
attempted to visit sites of various sizes. EPA visited sites with
wastewater flows ranging from less than 200 gallons per day to more
than 1,000,000 gallons per day. Site-specific selection criteria are
discussed in site visit reports (SVRs) prepared for each site visited
by EPA.
In addition to performing site visits, EPA conducted wastewater
sampling episodes at 72 sites to obtain data on the characteristics of
MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: The
loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the
effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants
from MP&M wastewater; design and operational parameters; and the
variation of MP&M wastewater characteristics across unit operations,
metal types processed in each unit operation, and sectors.
The Agency used information collected during MP&M site visits to
identify candidate sites for sampling. The Agency used the following
general criteria to select sites for sampling:
The site performed MP&M unit operations EPA was evaluating
for development of the MP&M regulation;
The site processed metals through MP&M unit operations for
which the metal type/unit operation combination needed to be
characterized for the sampling database;
The site performed in-process source reduction, recycling,
or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA was evaluating for
technology option development; and
The site performed unit operations in a sector that EPA
was evaluating for development of the MP&M regulation.
The Agency also attempted to sample at sites of various sizes. EPA
sampled at sites with wastewater flows ranging from less than 200
gallons per day to more than 1,000,000 gallons per day.
In addition, EPA worked with several stakeholders to collect site
visit and sampling data from MP&M facilities. Following the 1995
proposal of the Phase I MP&M rule, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR), the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), and the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) proposed potential
sampling sites to the Agency, and EPA visited these sites to identify
candidates for sampling. After conducting site visits, EPA selected
five sites for sampling episodes to characterize end-of-pipe treatment
technologies in metal finishing and aircraft parts job shops and the
railroad and shipbuilding industrial sectors. EPA prepared detailed
sampling plans based on the information collected during the five site
visits, and supported AAR, HRSD and LACSD sampling episodes for the
collection of wastewater samples, and EPA prepared the sampling episode
reports.
The Agency collected the following types of information during each
sampling episode:
Dates and times of sample collection;
Flow data corresponding to each sample;
Production data corresponding to each sample of wastewater
from MP&M unit operations;
Design and operating parameters for source reduction,
recycling, and treatment technologies characterized during sampling;
Information about site operations that had changed since
the site visit or that were not included in the SVR; and
Temperature and pH of the sampled wastestreams.
EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes in the
[[Page 439]]
sampling episode report (SER) for each sampled site which are located
in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential information from
these reports is available in the public record for this proposal. For
detailed information on sampling and preservation procedures,
analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control procedures
see the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
D. Industry Submitted Data
EPA evaluated other industry data in developing the MP&M effluent
guidelines. The data sources reviewed include: public comments to the
1995 MP&M Phase I proposed rule; the Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark
Study (September 1998); data supporting the 180-Day Accumulation Time
Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From the Metal Finishing
Industry Final Rule (65 FR 12377, March 8, 2000); data provided by the
Aluminum Anodizing Council (AAC), the American Wire Producers
Association (AWPA), and the Aerospace Association; data and storm water
pollution prevention plans provided by several shipbuilding sites, and
data from periodic compliance monitoring reports/discharge monitoring
reports for several sites that were part of EPA's wastewater sampling
program. Data submitted with the MP&M Phase I comments did not include
the quality control data required to verify the accuracy of sample
analyses and, therefore, EPA did not use the data. These data sources
are located in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential
information is available in the public record for this proposal.
E. Summary of Public Participation
EPA has met regularly with industry trade associations and their
members at various association annual meetings and conferences. There
are over 20 trade associations that represent facilities that were part
of the initial scope of the MP&M proposed rule. These trade
associations have formed an informal coalition (referred to as the
``MP&M'' coalition) that coordinates regular meetings with
representatives from the various affected industries. In the past year,
EPA has also participated in several of the Small Business
Administration's ``Small Business Roundtable'' meetings.
As discussed in detail in Section XXII.C, EPA conducted outreach
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. For this proposed
rule, the small entity representatives included nine small MP&M
facility owner/operators, one small municipality, and the following six
trade associations representing different sectors of the industry:
National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF)/Association of
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF)/MP&M Coalition; the
Association Connecting Electronics Industries (also known as IPC);
Porcelain Enamel Institute; American Association of Shortline Railroads
(ASLRA); Electronics Industry Association (EIA); and the American Wire
Producers Association (AWPA).
Because many facilities affected by this proposal are indirect
dischargers, the Agency also conducted outreach to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) individually and through the Association of
Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). EPA also conducted a survey of 150
POTWs to assess the burden associated with implementing the proposed
MP&M rule (see Section V.B.5 above for discussion of the POTW survey).
In addition, EPA made a concerted effort to consult with pretreatment
coordinators and state and local entities that will be responsible for
implementing this regulation.
EPA sponsored three stakeholders' meetings between November 1997
and May 2000. Two meetings were held in Washington, DC, and the third
was held in Chicago, IL. The primary objectives of the meetings were to
present the Agency's current thinking regarding the technology bases
for the MP&M proposed rule and to solicit comments, issues, and new
ideas from interested stakeholders, including members of environmental
groups.
EPA provided information on the potential technology options and
in-process pollution prevention practices as well as the potential
subcategories. EPA also provided preliminary information on pollutant
reductions, compliance costs, and potential monitoring flexibility.
Most recently, EPA has put up a website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm) to provide ongoing information on the MP&M project. The site
includes background information, links to related documents, and
information presented at MP&M stakeholders meetings.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
EPA may divide a point source category (e.g., MP&M) into groupings
called ``subcategories'' to provide a method for addressing variations
between products, raw materials, processes, and other factors which
result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of
a category by using formal subcategories provides that each subcategory
has a uniform set of effluent limitations which take into account
technological achievability and economic impacts unique to that
subcategory. In some cases, effluent limitations within a subcategory
may be different based on consideration of the factors described in
section 304(b)(2)(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The CWA
requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards, to consider a number of different
subcategorization factors. The statute also authorizes EPA to take into
account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate. Stakeholders
specifically suggested that EPA consider subcategories based on
industry sector or type of activity within an industry sector (e.g.,
repair and maintenance versus manufacturing), some of which appear to
have very low baseline pollutant loadings.
EPA considered the following factors in its evaluation of potential
MP&M subcategories:
Unit operation;
Activity;
Raw materials;
Products;
Size of site;
Location;
Age;
Nature of the waste generated;
Economic impacts;
Treatment costs;
Total energy requirements;
Air pollution control methods;
Solid waste generation and disposal; and
POTW burden.
One result of grouping similar facilities into subcategories is the
increased likelihood that the regulations are practicable, and it
diminishes the need to address variations between facilities through a
variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. V. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C.
Cir. 1978)).
EPA considered subcategorizing the MP&M category by industrial
sector (e.g., aerospace, aircraft, bus and truck, electronic equipment,
hardware, household equipment, instruments, job shops, mobile
industrial equipment, motor vehicles, office machines, ordnance,
precious metals and jewelry, printed wiring boards, railroad, ships and
boats, stationary industrial equipment, and miscellaneous metal
products). Sectors are broadly defined and not only include
manufacturing and repair facilities within the sector (e.g.,
shipbuilding facilities in the ship and boat sector), but also include
facilities that produce products that are used within the sector (e.g.,
a facility that
[[Page 440]]
manufactures hydraulic pumps used on ships is also in the ship and boat
sector). The Agency determined that subcategorization based solely on
industrial sector would require much more detailed subcategorization
scheme than the approach proposed (see below). Adopting a
subcategorization scheme based on industrial sector would complicate
the implementation of the limitations and standards because permit
writers might be required to develop facility-specific limitations
across multiple subcategories.
The Agency determined that wastewater characteristics, unit
operations, and raw materials used to produce products within a given
sector are not always the same from site to site, and they are not
always different from sector to sector. Within each sector, sites can
perform a variety of unit operations on a variety of raw materials. For
example, a site in the aerospace sector may primarily machine aluminum
missile components and not perform any surface treatment other than
alkaline cleaning. Another site in that sector may electroplate iron
parts for missiles and perform little or no machining. Wastewater
characteristics from these sites may differ because of the different
unit operations performed and different raw materials used.
Based on the analytical data collected for this rule, EPA has not
found a statistically significant difference in industrial wastewater
discharge among industrial sectors when performing similar unit
operations for cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, manganese,
molybdenum, nickel, oil & grease, silver, tin, TSS, and zinc. (The
analytical data are available in the public record for this
rulemaking.) For example, a facility that performs electroplating in
the process of manufacturing office machines produces metal-bearing
wastewater with similar chemical characteristics as a facility that
performs electroplating in the process of manufacturing a part for a
bus. Similarly, a facility that performs repair and maintenance on a
airplane engine produces oil-bearing wastewater that has similar
chemical characteristics to a facility that performs repair and
maintenance on construction machinery.
Most MP&M unit operations are not unique to a particular sector and
are performed across all sectors. For example, all sectors may perform
several of the major wastewater-generating unit operations (e.g.,
alkaline treatment, acid treatment, machining, electroplating). And,
for the most part, the unit operations that are rarely performed (e.g.,
abrasive jet machining) are not performed in all sectors, but are also
not limited to a single sector. Therefore, a facility in any one of the
18 industrial sectors can generate metal-bearing or oil-bearing
wastewater (or a combination of both) depending on what unit operations
the facility performs.
In addition, two facilities that may be part of the same sector may
generate wastewater with vastly different chemical characteristics and
thus require different types of treatment. For example, an automobile
manufacturer and an automobile repair facility are both part of the
motor vehicle sector. However, the automobile manufacturer may perform
unit operations that generate metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater
(aqueous degreasing, electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.)
while the automobile repair facility may perform unit operations that
only generate oil-bearing wastewater (machining, aqueous degreasing,
impact deformation, painting, etc.).
Due to the numerous MP&M facilities that could fall under the scope
of multiple sectors, EPA determined that a regulation based on MP&M
industrial sector would create a variety of implementation issues for
State and local regulators as well as for those multiple-sector
facilities. Therefore, as mentioned above, EPA is not proposing to use
industrial sector to subcategorize the industry.
In the Phase I proposal, EPA did not subcategorize the Phase I
segment of MP&M sectors (see 60 FR 28221; May 30, 1995). As discussed
in Section II.C, the scope of the 1995 proposal differed from today's
proposal in that it only covered seven of the 18 MP&M industrial
sectors. For today's proposal, EPA performed the analysis for
determining whether or not to subcategorize considering all facilities
under the scope of today's rule (i.e., both Phase I and II industrial
sectors). See Section III for a discussion on the scope of today's
proposal. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that it is necessary
to subcategorize the MP&M industry.
A variety of factors influenced EPA's decision to subcategorize the
MP&M industry. First, EPA found two basic types of wastestreams in the
industry: (1) wastewater with high metals content (metal-bearing), and
(2) wastewater with low concentration of metals, and high oil and
grease content (oil-bearing). The type of wastewater a facility
generates is directly related to the unit operations it performs. For
example, unit operations such as machining, grinding, aqueous
degreasing, and impact or pressure deformation tend to generate a
wastewater with high oil and grease (and associated organic pollutants)
loadings without significant concentrations of metal pollutants. While
other unit operations such as electroplating, conversion coating,
chemical etching and milling, and anodizing generate higher metals
loadings with moderate/low oil and grease concentrations.
Although many facilities generate both metal- and oil-bearing
wastewater, there are a large number of facilities that only generate
oil-bearing wastewater. Such facilities are typically machine shops and
maintenance and repair facilities. Since the wastewater at these
facilities primarily contains oil and grease and other organic
constituents, treatment technologies at these facilities focus on oil
removal only and do not require the chemical precipitation step needed
for treating metal-bearing wastewater. Treatment technologies in place
at these facilities generally include ultrafiltration, or chemical
emulsion breaking followed by either gravity floatation, coalescing
plate oil/water separators, or dissolved air flotation (DAF).
Therefore, EPA first divided the industry on the basis of unit
operations performed and the nature of the wastewater generated,
resulting in the following two groups: (1) metal-bearing with or
without oily and organic constituents group; and (2) oil-bearing only
group. As a second step, EPA performed an analysis to see if there were
any significant differences in the subcategorization factors within the
two basic groups.
When looking at facilities with metal-bearing wastewater (with or
without oil-bearing wastewater), EPA identified several groups of
facilities which could potentially be subcategorized by dominant
product, raw materials used, and/or nature of the waste generated. In
two subcategories, EPA also considered economic impacts as a factor in
subcategorization because of the reduced ability of these facilities to
afford treatment costs. There were also two subcategories where the
number of facilities that were not currently covered by an existing
effluent guidelines regulation was large enough to present an
unacceptable burden to POTWs.
Based on the currently available data, EPA is proposing to
subcategorize the metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing
wastewater) MP&M facilities into the following subcategories: non-
chromium anodizing; metal finishing job shops; printed wiring board
facilities; steel forming and finishing facilities; and general metals
facilities. EPA describes its rationale for
[[Page 441]]
subcategorization below (see Section VI.C for additional detailed
discussion and applicability of each of these subcategories).
The non-chromium anodizers are different from other MP&M facilities
in that all of their products are primarily of one metal type--anodized
aluminum--and most importantly, they do not use chromic acid or
dichromate sealants in their anodizing process. Based on EPA's limited
data for these facilities, EPA expects that these facilities have very
low levels of metals (with the exception of aluminum) or toxic organic
pollutants in their wastewater discharges. EPA determined that other
MP&M facilities had much greater concentrations of a wider variety of
metals. In addition, due to the presence of large quantities of
aluminum, these facilities require much larger wastewater treatment
systems to remove the large amounts of aluminum and low levels of alloy
metals. The need for larger treatment systems results in higher costs
and large economic impacts for this potential subcategory. EPA found
that as many as 60 percent of the non-chromium anodizers could
experience closures as a result of complying with the proposed
regulation (see Section XVI for a discussion of economic impacts).
Therefore, based on the difference in raw materials used, product
produced, nature of the waste generated (i.e., low levels of pollutants
discharged), treatment costs, and projected economic impacts, EPA
concluded that a basis exists for subcategorizing the non-chromium
anodizing facilities in the MP&M industry.
EPA investigated whether or not to subcategorize the metal
finishing and electroplating job shops covered by the Metal Finishing
(40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent
guidelines. Although the facilities have metal types that require the
same treatment technologies as many other metals-bearing facilities,
EPA determined these facilities to be different due to the variability
of their raw materials and products as well as the slightly higher
level of economic impacts incurred as compared to other costed
facilities. As discussed in Section VI.C.2 below, this subcategory
includes only those facilities who perform the six operations defining
the applicability of the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent
guidelines and who are ``job shops'' by the definition provided in the
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (i.e., they own less than 50
percent of the products processed on site on an annual area basis).
(See 40 CFR 433.11). Because these facilities are job shops and perform
work on a contract basis, they cannot always predict the type of
plating or other finishing operations required. In addition, because
these facilities perform work on a large variety of metal types from
various customers, the wastewater generated at these facilities can
vary from week to week (or even day to day). EPA performed wastewater
sampling to specifically identify the variability in the wastewater
generated at metal finishing job shops and found that the variability
factors calculated solely on the analytical wastewater sampling data of
metal finishing and electroplating job shops is higher for most
pollutant parameters than those calculated for similar metal-bearing
subcategories (e.g., General Metals) (see Section II.D for a discussion
of EPA's job shop variability wastewater sampling and Section VIII.B
for a discussion on determining limits and variability factors). In
addition, EPA found that up to 10 percent of the indirect discharging
metal finishing job shops subcategory could experience facility
closures as a result of compliance with the proposed regulatory
technology option (see Section VIII for a discussion of technology
options). Therefore, EPA concluded that it has an appropriate basis for
subcategorizing metal finishing and electroplating job shops.
EPA determined that there is a basis for establishing a different
subcategory for the printed wiring board facilities from the other
facilities in the group of metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing
wastewater) facilities based on raw materials, unit operations
performed, dominant product, and nature of the waste generated. First,
these facilities process a more consistent mix of metal types
(primarily copper, tin, and lead) than other MP&M facilities to produce
a specific product. EPA has concluded that this more consistent mix of
metal types enables the printed wiring board facilities to tailor their
treatment technology and incorporate more of the advanced pollution
prevention and recovery technologies (e.g., ion exchange). Printed
wiring board facilities generally work with copper-clad laminate
material, allowing them to target copper for removal in their
wastewater treatment systems or recover the copper using in-process ion
exchange. Second, these facilities apply, develop, and strip
photoresist--a set of unit operations which is largely unique to this
proposed subcategory. This process results in a higher concentration of
a more consistent group of organic constituents than other facilities
in the metal-bearing group. Finally, the nature of the wastewater
generated at these facilities may also be different due to the fact
that these facilities perform more lead-bearing operations (e.g., lead/
tin electroplating, wave soldering) than other MP&M facilities.
Steel forming and finishing is another proposed subcategory under
the metal bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group of
MP&M facilities. These facilities perform both cold forming and
finishing operations on steel at stand-alone facilities as well as at
steel manufacturing facilities. EPA formerly covered these facilities
under the 1982 Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR
part 420). Typical operations include: acid pickling, annealing,
conversion coating (e.g., zinc phosphate, copper sulfate), hot dip
coating and/or electroplating of steel wire or rod, heat treatment,
welding, drawing, patenting, and oil tempering. EPA concluded that the
basis for subcategorization is the difference in the raw material and
dominant product at these facilities. Facilities in this subcategory
only process steel and for the most part produce uniformly-shaped
products such as wire, rod, bar, pipe and tube. In addition, this is
the only subcategory where EPA is proposing to cover forming operations
under the MP&M regulations. Effluent guidelines specific to forming
operations exist for all other common metal types (e.g., Aluminum
Forming (40 CFR part 467); Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468); and
Nonferrous Metals Forming & Metal Powders (40 CFR part 471)).
Finally, after subcategorization of the non-chromium anodizing,
metal finishing job shops, printed wiring board facilities, steel
forming and finishing facilities, EPA is proposing to group the
remaining metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group
of MP&M facilities into a subcategory entitled ``General Metals.'' This
subcategory would be a ``catch-all'' for facilities that did not fall
into any of the previous subcategories but whose wastewater, at a
minimum, requires metals removal and may also require the preliminary
treatment steps of oil/water separation, chromium reduction, and
cyanide destruction. For example, wastewater generated from most
manufacturing operations and heavy rebuilding operations (e.g.,
aircraft/aerospace, automobile, bus/truck, railroad) would be regulated
under the proposed General Metals subcategory.
When looking at facilities with only oil-bearing wastewater for
potential further subcategorization, EPA found that there were two
types of facilities that were different from the other
[[Page 442]]
facilities in that group based on size, location, and dominant product/
activity. The first type of facility includes MP&M operations that
occur in shipbuilding dry docks or similar structures, and the second
includes railroad line maintenance facilities (see VI.C.8 and VI.C.9,
respectively, for a detailed description of these proposed
subcategories). Dry docks (and similar structures such as graving
docks, building ways, lift barges, and marine railways) are large,
outdoor areas exposed to precipitation that shipyards use to perform
final assembly, maintenance, rebuilding and repair work on large ships
and boats. Due to their size, outdoor location, low level of pollutant
loadings discharged to the environment, and the fact this wastewater is
unique to the shipbuilding industry, EPA believes that a basis exists
to subcategorize shipbuilding dry docks and similar structures. This
proposed subcategory does not include other MP&M operations that occur
at shipyards (e.g., shore-side operations).
Similarly, railroad line maintenance facilities are outdoor
facilities where light maintenance and cleaning of railroad cars,
engines and car-wheel trucks occur. Due to their outdoor location, unit
operations performed, and low level of pollutant loadings discharged to
the environment, EPA concluded that there is a basis to subcategorize
railroad line maintenance facilities. EPA notes that this proposed
subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing operations or
railroad overhaul/rebuilding facilities.
Finally, after subcategorization of the shipbuilding dry dock and
railroad line maintenance facilities, EPA is proposing to group the
remaining oily-bearing wastewater group of MP&M facilities into a
subcategory entitled ``Oily Wastes.'' This subcategory would be a
``catch-all'' for facilities that did not fall into the two above
``oily'' subcategories but whose wastewater does not have metals
loadings at levels where they can be effectively treated. Following
further analysis, EPA has decided not to propose pretreatment standards
for indirect discharging facilities in the shipbuilding dry dock and
railroad line maintenance subcategories (see Section XII for a
discussion pertaining to pretreatment standards).
B. Proposed Subcategories
As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has determined that a basis
exists for dividing the MP&M category into the following subcategories
for the proposed rule: General Metals, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal
Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and
Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry
Dock. In Section VI.C below, EPA describes each subcategory and defines
the applicability of the rule for facilities in each subcategory. EPA
notes that with the exception of the two general subcategories (General
Metals and Oily Wastes), the remaining proposed subcategories would not
have been relevant to the subcategorization of the Phase I MP&M
proposal. The facilities that have been further subcategorized in
today's proposal were all part of the Phase II MP&M sectors (see
Section II.C for a discussion on the 1995 Phase I proposal).
EPA believes its proposed subcategories make sense, for the reasons
discussed above, but requests comment on other possible subcategories.
In particular, it has been suggested that the large General Metals
subcategory be further subdivided into industrial sectors based on
preliminary analyses which suggest that discharges from some sectors
may be low enough to warrant exclusion from this regulation. Some of
the wastewaters in these sectors may be covered by other effluent
guidelines. EPA requests comment on further subdivision of the General
Metals subcategory. Commenters should include data to support their
suggestions where possible.
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
1. General Metals
As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has created the General
Metals subcategory as a ``catch-all'' for MP&M facilities that
discharge metal-bearing wastewater (with or without oil-bearing
wastewater) that do not fit the applicability of the Printed Wiring
Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, or Steel
Forming and Finishing subcategories. Therefore, the General Metals
subcategory may include facilities from 17 of the 18 MP&M industrial
sectors (i.e., all except the printed wiring board sector). This
subcategory also includes General Metals facilities that are owned and
operated by states and municipalities. (See Section III for a
discussion on the general scope of today's proposal). General Metals
facilities likely perform manufacturing or heavy rebuilding of metal
products, parts, or machines. Facilities that perform metal finishing
or electroplating operations on-site, but do not meet the definition of
a job shop (i.e., captive shops), would fit in the applicability of the
General Metals subcategory.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 26,000 indirect
dischargers and 3,800 direct dischargers that could be covered by this
proposed subcategory. EPA currently regulates 26 percent of the
facilities in this subcategory by existing effluent guidelines. Based
on responses to its questionnaires, the Agency estimates that the Metal
Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413)
effluent guidelines cover approximately 16 percent of these facilities
and other metals related effluent guidelines (such as those discussed
in Section II.B.) cover a portion of the wastewater discharges at an
additional 10 percent of these facilities.
EPA is proposing to exclude, from the MP&M regulations, indirect
discharging facilities that would fall into the General Metals
subcategory when they discharge less than or equal to 1 million gallons
per year (MGY) of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. (See Sections
II.D, III, and XII for discussions on the proposed low flow cutoff and
its impact on POTW burden reduction). In cases where these General
Metals facilities discharge less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW,
these pretreatment standards proposed today do not apply; however,
facilities are still subject to other applicable pretreatment
standards, including those established under parts 413 and 433. See
Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance
costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts associated with the
MP&M rule for the General Metals subcategory.
2. Metal Finishing Job Shops
Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory must meet
the following criteria: (1) Discharge wastewater from one or more of
the six operations identified in the applicability of the Metal
Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413)
effluent limitations guidelines regulations; and (2) must meet the
definition of a job shop. The six identifying operations are:
Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating (chromating,
phosphating, passivation, and coloring), Chemical Etching and Milling,
and Printed Circuit Board Manufacture (i.e, Printed Wiring Boards). As
in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433), EPA
defines a ``job shop'' as ``a facility which owns not more than 50
percent (on an annual area basis) of the materials undergoing metal
finishing.'' EPA is proposing to include printed
[[Page 443]]
wiring board job shops in this subcategory based on the unique
economics of job shop operation. However, EPA solicits comment on the
variability of the raw materials, products, and wastewater at printed
wiring board job shops. EPA also solicits comment on including printed
wiring board job shops under this subcategory or whether EPA should
include them in the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory (see Section
VI.C.4 for a discussion on the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory).
The Agency estimates that there are approximately 1,500 indirect
dischargers and 15 direct dischargers in the proposed Metal Finishing
Job Shops subcategory. EPA currently regulates all facilities in this
subcategory by the existing Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent
guidelines and standards. EPA is proposing to cover all of these
facilities under this proposed rule. Therefore, under today's proposal,
facilities subject to the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory would
no longer be covered by the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433. (See Sec. 438.20(a)).
EPA estimates that today's proposal could reduce pollutant loadings
from this subcategory by an additional 1.75 million toxic pound
equivalents \2\ annually over the reductions currently achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of
toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic
life. The Agency calculates toxic pound-equivalents by multiplying
the mass of pollutants discharged (or removed) by that pollutant's
toxic weighting factor (TWF). EPA develops TWFs using a combination
of toxicity data on human health and aquatic life and are relative
to the toxicity of copper. (See Section XVII of today's notice or
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this proposed rule for
a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting factors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has identified approximately 30,000 facilities that meet the
definition of job shop but do not discharge wastewater from one or more
of the six identifying metal finishing operations as defined in 40 CFR
part 433. EPA does not consider such job shops to be part of the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory. For example, these other job shops
perform assembly, painting, and machining on a contract basis and are
likely to fall in the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories.
EPA is considering an alternative compliance option for this
subcategory which includes the demonstration of specified pollution
prevention practices for all facilities in the subcategory (or possibly
only those facilities below a specified flow cutoff). See Section XXI.D
for a discussion on the pollution prevention alternative for Metal
Finishing Job Shops. Also see Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble
for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
3. Non-Chromium Anodizing
Facilities covered under the proposed Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory must perform aluminum anodizing without the use of chromic
acid or dichromate sealants in their MP&M operations. Anodizing is a
surface conversion operation used to alter the properties of aluminum
for better corrosion resistence and heat transfer. Generally, non-
chromium anodizing facilities perform sulfuric acid anodizing; however,
facilities can use other acids, such as oxalic acid, for aluminum
anodizing. EPA is not including anodizers that use chromic acid or
dichromate sealants under this subcategory. EPA is proposing to cover
those facilities in the General Metals subcategory or the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory (if they operate as a job shop). EPA
solicits comment on the chromium content of sulfuric acid anodizing
baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other wastewater from sulfuric acid
anodizing.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 190 indirect dischargers
and, to date, has not identified any direct dischargers in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The wastewater generated at non-
chromium anodizing facilities contains very low levels of metals (with
the exception of aluminum) and toxic organic pollutants. In addition,
as discussed in Section VI.A, above, EPA determined that compliance
with the proposed regulation would cause 60 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in this subcategory to close. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed in Section XII.F below, EPA is proposing to exclude
wastewater from indirect discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities
(that also do not use dichromate sealants) from the MP&M categorical
pretreatment standards. Such facilities would still need to comply with
the pretreatment standards of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for their non-
chromium anodizing wastewater and the general pretreatment standards at
40 CFR part 403. EPA is proposing limits for direct dischargers in this
subcategory. EPA solicits comment on whether the applicable standards
for indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers should be transferred
from 40 CFR part 433 to the MP&M regulation in order to include all
non-chromium anodizers under one regulation. Because today's proposal
includes a monitoring waiver for pollutants that are not present (see
Section XXI.C.1 for a discussion on the monitoring waiver), the Agency
believes that transferring the pretreatment standards for these
facilities to the MP&M regulation would allow non-chromium anodizing
indirect dischargers to reduce the number of parameters for which they
have to monitor. See Section IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Some facilities that could potentially fall into the Non-Chromium
Anodizing subcategory may also perform other metal surface finishing
operations at their facilities. If these facilities commingle their
wastewater from their non-chromium anodizing operations with wastewater
from other surface finishing operations (e.g., chromic acid anodizing,
electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.) for treatment, they
would not be covered by the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Instead, the General Metals or Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories
would apply. However, for facilities that discharge their non-chromium
anodizing wastewater separate from their other surface finishing
wastewater, control authorities and permit writers would apply the
appropriate limits to each discharge.
4. Printed Wiring Board
EPA is proposing the Printed Wiring Board subcategory to cover
wastewater discharges from the manufacture, maintenance, and repair of
printed wiring boards (i.e., circuit boards). This subcategory does not
include job shops that manufacture, maintain or repair printed wiring
boards--EPA is covering these facilities under the Metal Finishing Job
Shops subcategory, see Section VI.C.2 above for a discussion. EPA
currently regulates all facilities in this subcategory by the existing
Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines and standards.
EPA is proposing to cover all of these facilities under this proposed
rule. Therefore, under today's proposal, facilities subject to the
Printed Wiring Board subcategory would no longer be covered by the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40
CFR part 433. Printed wiring board facilities perform unique operations
including applying, developing and stripping of photoresist, lead/tin
soldering, and wave soldering. EPA estimates that there are
approximately 620 indirect
[[Page 444]]
dischargers and 11 direct dischargers in the proposed Printed Wiring
Board subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, XII, and XVI of this preamble
for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
5. Steel Forming & Finishing
Although many facilities may perform MP&M operations with steel,
EPA is proposing to establish the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory
for process wastewater discharges from facilities that perform MP&M
operations (listed in Section III) or cold forming operations on steel
wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. This subcategory does not include
facilities that perform those operations on base materials other than
steel. In a separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise the Iron and
Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines. The proposed revisions to the
Iron and Steel regulations include revising the applicability to
exclude those facilities that EPA has determined to be appropriately
regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. EPA based this decision on the
information gathered during the data collection effort for the proposed
revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing regulations.
The MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing proposed subcategory does not
cover wastewater generated from performing any hot steel forming
operations; or wastewater from cold forming, electroplating or
continuous hot dip coating of steel sheet, strip, or plates. As
mentioned above, the new proposed Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent
guidelines cover wastewater from such operations.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 110 indirect dischargers
and 43 direct dischargers in the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory
of the proposed MP&M regulation. All facilities in this subcategory
have permits or other control mechanisms under the existing Iron and
Steel Manufacturing regulation (40 CFR part 420).
EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from these steel forming and
finishing operations, regardless of whether they occur at a stand-alone
facility or at a steel manufacturing facility. When a steel
manufacturing facility performs these MP&M steel forming and finishing
operations and commingles the wastewater for treatment with wastewater
from other non-MP&M unit operations, control authorities (e.g., POTWs)
and permit writers will need to set limits which account for both the
MP&M and the Iron & Steel regulations. As mentioned previously, EPA
refers to this approach as the combined waste stream formula or the
building block approach. For facilities that choose to discharge their
MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing wastewater separate from their Iron &
Steel wastewater, control authorities and permit writers will apply the
appropriate limits to each discharge. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of
this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant
reductions, and economic impacts for the Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory.
6. Oily Wastes
EPA has created the Oily Wastes subcategory as a ``catch-all'' for
MP&M facilities that discharge only oil-bearing wastewater and that do
not fit the applicability of the other MP&M subcategories. EPA is
defining the applicability of this subcategory by the presence of
specific unit operations. Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
must not fit the applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance or
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories and must only discharge wastewater
from one or more of the following MP&M unit operations: alkaline
cleaning for oil removal, aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive
coating, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, impact deformation,
machining, pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (e.g.,
hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), painting, steam
cleaning, and laundering. EPA is defining ``corrosion preventive
coating'' to mean the application of removable oily or organic
solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive environments.
Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not limited to:
petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds, solvent-cutback
petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing polar compounds,
and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion preventive coating
does not include electroplating, painting, chemical conversion coating
(including phosphate conversion coating) operations. EPA is soliciting
comment on the differences in metals content of wastewater generated
from ``light'' phosphoric acid operations (such as some phosphoric acid
etching operations and cleaning operations using phosphoric acid
solutions) and from phosphate conversion coating. EPA is considering
including phosphoric acid etching and cleaning using phosphoric acid
solutions in the definition of ``oily operations'' discussed above.
However, the Agency is not considering the inclusion of phosphate
conversion coating as one of the ``oily operations.'' Based on EPA's
database for this proposal, EPA believes that wastewater generated from
phosphate conversion coating operations contains high levels of zinc
and manganese.
If a facility discharges wastewater from any of the above listed
operations but also discharges wastewater from other MP&M operations,
it does not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory.
Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or
maintenance and repair shops. EPA has determined that other MP&M unit
operations generate metal-bearing wastewater or combination metal- and
oil-bearing wastewater and require different treatment technology
(i.e., chemical precipitation). EPA included wastewater from floor
cleaning and testing operations based on review of the analytical data
that confirmed little or no metals content in these two streams. This
subcategory also includes state- and municipally-owned facilities only
performing the listed operations.
Like the General Metals subcategory, the Oily Wastes subcategory
may include a number of facilities from each of 17 of the 18 MP&M
industrial sectors (i.e., all except the printed wiring board sector).
(See Section III for a discussion on the general scope of today's
proposal).
EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect
dischargers and 900 direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory.
EPA has concluded that less than 1 percent of the MP&M process
wastewater discharged from facilities in this subcategory are covered
by an existing effluent guideline.
For the reasons stated in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude
from the MP&M regulations indirect discharging facilities that would
fall into the Oily Wastes subcategory when they discharge less than or
equal to 2 MGY of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. EPA is also
seriously considering a higher flow cutoff of 3 MGY for these indirect
dischargers. See Sections IX, XI, XII of this preamble for information
on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the
Oily Wastes subcategory.
7. Railroad Line Maintenance
EPA has developed the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory to
cover facilities that perform routine cleaning and light maintenance on
railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar parts or
machines. More specifically these facilities only discharge wastewater
from MP&M unit
[[Page 445]]
operations that EPA defines as oily operations (see Section VI.C.6,
above) and/or washing of final product. For other primarily oily
subcategories (oily wastes and shipbuilding dry docks), EPA does not
consider the unit operation ``washing of final product'' an MP&M
``oily'' operation; however, EPA has reviewed the analytical wastewater
sampling data for this wastestream at railroad line maintenance
facilities and determined that there is little or no metal content.
This subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing facilities or
railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities. Railroad line
maintenance facilities are similar to facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory in that they produce oil-bearing wastewater and do not
perform MP&M operations that generate wastewater that require metals
removal treatment technology.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 800 indirect dischargers
and 35 direct dischargers in the Railroad Line Maintenance
subcategories. The wastewater generated at railroad line maintenance
facilities contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic
pollutants. For the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing
to exclude wastewater from indirect discharging railroad line
maintenance facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is
proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in
this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory.
8. Shipbuilding Dry Dock
EPA has created the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory to
specifically cover MP&M process wastewater generated in or on dry docks
and similar structures such as graving docks, building ways, marine
railways and lift barges at shipbuilding facilities (or shipyards).
Shipbuilding facilities use these structures to perform maintenance,
repair or rebuilding of existing ships, or the final assembly and
launching of new ships (including barges). Shipbuilders use these
structures to reach surfaces and parts that would otherwise be under
water. Since dry docks and similar structures include sumps or
containment systems, they also enable shipyards to control the
discharge of pollutants to the surface water. Typical MP&M operations
that occur in dry docks and similar structures include: abrasive
blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion preventive
coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing (e.g.,
hydrostatic testing). Not all of these unit operations generate
wastewater. EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated when a
shipyard cleans a ship's hull in a dry dock (or similar structure) for
removal of marine life (e.g., barnacles) only when in preparation for
performing MP&M operations. EPA discusses typical MP&M unit operations
in Section III.
EPA is proposing that this subcategory only cover wastewater
generated from MP&M operations that occur in or on these structures.
The Agency is not including MP&M process wastewater that is generated
at other locations at the shipyard (``on-shore'' operations) in this
proposed subcategory. EPA expects that wastewater from these ``on-
shore'' shipbuilding operations (e.g., electroplating, plasma arc
cutting) will fall under either the General Metals or Oily Wastes
subcategories of the proposed MP&M regulation. Also, EPA is not
including wastewater generated on-board ships when they are afloat
(i.e., not in dry docks or similar structures). For U.S. military
ships, EPA is in the process of establishing standards to regulate
discharges of wastewater generated on-board these ships when they are
in U.S. waters and are afloat under the Uniform National Discharge
Standards (UNDS) pursuant to section 312(n) of the CWA. (See 64 FR
25125, May 10, 1999). However, when ships are located in dry docks or
similar structures, EPA is proposing to cover process wastewater
generated and discharged from MP&M operations inside and outside the
vessel (including bilge water).
EPA identified three other types of water streams in or on dry
docks and similar structures: flooding water, dry dock ballast water,
and storm water. Flooding water enters and exits the dry dock or
similar structure prior to performing any MP&M operations. For example,
in a graving dock, the gates are opened allowing flooding water in and
ships to float inside the chamber. Then the flooding water is drained,
leaving the ship's exterior exposed so shipyard employees can perform
repair and maintenance on the ship's hull. Dry dock ballast water
serves a similar purpose. It is used to lower (or sink) the dry dock so
that a ship can float over it. Then the dry dock ballast water is
pumped out, raising the dry dock with the ship on top. Finally, since
these structures are located outdoors and are exposed to the elements,
storm water may fall in or on the dry dock or similar structures. EPA
is proposing to exclude all three of these water streams from the MP&M
regulation. Flooding water and dry dock ballast water do not come into
contact with MP&M operations. In addition, EPA has determined that
storm water at these facilities is covered by EPA's recent Storm Water
Multi-Sector General permit, similar general permits issued by
authorized states, and individual storm water permits. In general,
storm water permits at shipyards include best management practices
(BMPs) that are designed to prevent the contamination of storm water.
For example, these practices include sweeping of areas after completion
of abrasive blasting or painting. If EPA were to cover storm water in
dry docks (or similar structures) under today's proposed rule, it would
be unlikely that EPA would set numerical limits similar to those it is
proposing for process wastewater. Most likely, EPA would set BMPs
similar to those currently used in the storm water permits. Therefore,
in an effort to avoid duplication of coverage, EPA is not covering
storm water in dry docks (or similar structures) under today's
proposal.
EPA estimates that there are 6 indirect dischargers and 6 direct
dischargers in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory. The Agency notes
that many shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar
structures) and that this is the number of estimated facilities (not
dry docks) that discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and
similar structures). Many shipyards only perform dry MP&M unit
operations in their dry docks (and similar structures) or do not
discharge wastewater generated in dry docks (and similar structures)
from MP&M unit operations. Many shipyards prefer to handle this
wastewater as hazardous, and contract haul it off-site due to the
possible presence of copper (used as anti-foulant) in paint chips from
abrasive blasting operations. EPA has determined that shipyards
currently discharging MP&M wastewater from dry docks have oil/water
separation technology in place, such as dissolved air flotation (DAF).
The wastewater discharged from dry docks and similar structures
contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic pollutants. For
the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude
wastewater from indirect discharging dry docks and similar structures
at shipbuilding facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is
proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in
this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XIII of this preamble for
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and
[[Page 446]]
economic impacts for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory.
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
EPA classified the MP&M unit operations into the following three
groups depending on their water use and discharge: (1) Unit operations
that typically use process water and discharge process wastewater; (2)
unit operations that typically either do not use process water or use
process water but do not discharge wastewater; and (3) miscellaneous
operations reported in the MP&M questionnaires by fewer than five
respondents.
Process wastewater includes any water that, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw materials, intermediate products, finished
products, by-products, or waste products. Process wastewater includes
wastewater from wet air pollution control devices. For the purposes of
the MP&M regulation, EPA does not consider non-contact cooling water or
storm water a process wastewater nor does it consider non-aqueous
wastes used as processing liquids, such as spent solvents or quench
oil, as process wastewater. (See Section III for detailed discussion on
general applicability of today's proposed rule).
Wastewater from the operations that use process water have
different characteristics depending on the unit operation from which
they are derived. EPA discusses the five different types of MP&M
process wastewater below. First, oil-bearing wastewater is typically
generated from the use of metal shaping coolants and lubricants,
surface preparation solutions used to remove oil and dirt from
components, and associated rinses. Some examples of oil-bearing
wastewater are: Machining and grinding coolants and lubricants;
pressure and impact deformation lubricants; dye penetrant and magnetic
flux testing; and alkaline cleaning solutions and rinses used to remove
oil and dirt. This wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment
to remove oil and grease. The most common type of treatment for oil-
bearing wastewater is chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity
separation and oil skimming. EPA also identified MP&M facilities that
used membrane separation technologies for oil and grease removal.
Second, hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater typically consists
of concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition solutions,
sealants, and associated rinses. Some examples of hexavalent chromium-
bearing wastewater are: Chromic acid treatment solutions and rinses;
chromate conversion coating solutions and rinses; and chromium
electroplating solutions and rinses. This wastewater typically requires
preliminary treatment to reduce the hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium for subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. Typically,
MP&M facilities use sodium metabisulfite or gaseous sulphur dioxide as
reducing agents in the reduction of hexavalent chromium-bearing
wastewater.
Third, many surface preparation or metal deposition solutions and
their associated rinses generate process wastewater that contains
cyanide. Two examples of cyanide-bearing wastewater are: Cyanide-
bearing alkaline treatment solutions and rinses (typically used as a
surface treatment step prior to electroplating with cyanide solutions)
and cyanide-bearing electroplating solutions and rinses. This
wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment to destroy cyanide
and facilitate subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. MP&M
facilities most often use sodium hypochlorite for the destruction of
cyanide by alkaline chlorination.
Fourth, concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition
solutions and their associated rinses can generate process wastewater
that contain complexed or chelated metals. In particular, electroless
plating operations and their rinses typically produce this type of
wastestream. This wastewater requires preliminary treatment to break
and/or precipitate the complexes for subsequent chemical precipitation
and settling. MP&M facilities typically use sodium borohydride,
hydrazine, sodium hydrosulfite, or sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (DTC)
as reducing and precipitating agents in this preliminary treatment
process.
For the MP&M proposal, EPA based the estimated costs and pollutant
removals associated with the treatment of chelated or complexed metals
on the use of DTC. When DTC is used appropriately, it may effectively
enhance the removal of some difficult to treat pollutants without
impacting the environment or POTW operations. However, DTC is toxic to
aquatic life and to activated sludge and thus can upset POTW
operations. DTC can combine to form, or break down to, a number of
other toxic chemicals, including thiram and ziram (both EPA registered
fungicides) and other thiurams, other dithiocarbamates, carbon
disulfide, and dimethylamine. EPA's pollutant of concern list (see
below for a description of the development of this list) contained
ziram, carbon disulfide, and N-nitrosodimethylamine. Ziram is known to
be toxic to aquatic life at the following levels: LC50 less than 10 ug/
L (parts per billion) for several varieties of bluegill and trout; LC
50 between 10 and 100 ug/L in other studies (AQUIRE data base at http://www.epa.gov/medecotx/quicksearch.htm.) EPA solicits comment on the use
of DTC for the treatment of chelated wastewater and its potential
harmful effects on the environment and on POTW operations. The Agency
is particularly interested in receiving data and information on
alternative treatments for wastewater containing chelated or complexed
metals.
Finally, virtually all MP&M process wastewater contains some
metallic pollutants. Metal shaping solutions, surface preparation
solutions, metal deposition solutions, and surface finishing solutions
typically produce the most concentrated metal-bearing wastewater. MP&M
facilities most commonly use chemical precipitation (usually with
either lime or sodium hydroxide) and settling for metals removal. Many
facilities also use coagulants and flocculants to assist chemical
precipitation and settling.
As discussed in Section V.C, EPA conducted wastewater sampling
episodes at 71 MP&M facilities to obtain data on the characteristics of
MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: the
loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the
effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants
from MP&M wastewater; and the variation of MP&M wastewater
characteristics across unit operations, metal types processed in each
unit operation, and sectors. Although EPA analyzed the wastewater from
these facilities for approximately 324 pollutant parameters (including
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants), it did not
consider all of these pollutants for potential regulation. Rather, EPA
reduced the list to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of
concern or POCs) for further consideration by retaining only those
pollutants that met the following criteria:
EPA detected the pollutant parameter in at least three
samples collected during the MP&M sampling program.
The average concentration of the pollutant parameter in
samples of
[[Page 447]]
wastewater from MP&M unit operations and influents-to-treatment was at
least five times the minimum level (ML) or the average concentration of
effluent-from-treatment wastewater samples exceeded five times the
minimum level. EPA defines the ML as ``the lowest level at which the
entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and an
acceptable calibration point for the analyte.'' (Development Document
for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. U.S. EPA).
EPA analyzed the pollutant parameter in a quantitative
manner following the appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/
QC) procedures. To meet this criteria, the Agency excluded wastewater
analyses performed solely for certain semi-quantitative ``screening''
purposes. EPA performed these semi-quantitative analyses only in
unusual cases (e.g. to qualitatively screen for the presence of a rare
metal such as osmium).
From the list of 132 pollutants that passed the editing criteria
above, EPA selected the regulated pollutants for each subcategory. See
Section 7 of the technical development document for more information on
the selection of pollutants to regulate. The Agency also used the
pollutant parameters on the POC list to calculate the pollutant
removals for each technology option.
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation
Practices
The data gathered to support this rule indicate that a number of
pollution prevention and water conservation practices exist in the MP&M
industry. EPA determined that some of these pollution prevention,
recycling, and water conservation practices were broadly applicable to
the MP&M category and included these in the technology options (see
Section VIII.A).
A large number of additional pollution prevention practices were
site specific and could not be used as the basis for a national
standard. However, EPA considers it important to make this site-
specific pollution prevention information available for possible use by
MP&M sites. Therefore, the Technical Development Document (TDD)
contains a summary of the pollution prevention practices identified
during the development of this rule. EPA also collected data on water
use and wastewater generation at facilities employing pollution
prevention and good water use practices. The TDD contains this data and
discusses the applicability of the more prevalent pollution practices
identified in this category (e.g., drag-out reduction, flow reduction,
coolant and paint curtain recycling). EPA is soliciting comment and
data on any of the pollution prevention, recycle, reuse and water
conservation practices that it discusses in the TDD as well as
additional information about these types of technologies that EPA did
not discuss in the TDD. In addition, EPA is requesting data and comment
on its flow data from facilities with pollution prevention and good
water use practices in place. See Section XXI.D for a discussion on a
pollution prevention alternative that EPA is considering for facilities
in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Overview of Technology Options
In developing its technology options, EPA determined that a
different set of wastewater treatment technologies was appropriate for
facilities that performed unit operations that produced primarily
metal-bearing wastewater than for those facilities that performed unit
operations that produced primarily oily wastes (see Section VI.C.6 for
list of the unit operations that generate primarily oily only
wastewater). EPA concluded that the following subcategories typically
produce metal-bearing wastewater (with or without associated oily-
bearing wastestreams) and evaluated metals control technologies for
these subcategories: General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and
Finishing. For the remaining subcategories (Oily Wastes, Railroad Line
Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks), EPA evaluated oily wastewater
treatment technologies. The following sections discuss the wastewater
treatment technologies that EPA evaluated for each subcategory at each
regulatory level (BPT, BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS). See Section VI for a
discussion on subcategorization.
1. Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
MP&M facilities in the General Metals subcategory, the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory, the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory, the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, and the Steel
Forming and Finishing subcategory produce primarily metal-bearing
wastewater. EPA evaluated the following four wastewater treatment
technology options for the MP&M industry subcategories whose unit
operations produce metal-bearing wastewater (and may also produce oily
wastewater):
Option 1. Segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment
steps as necessary (including oils removal using oil-water separation
by chemical emulsion breaking), chemical precipitation using lime or
sodium hydroxide, and sedimentation using a clarifier.
Option 1, as well as each of the three other options considered by
EPA for the metal-bearing wastewater subcategories, includes the
segregation of wastestreams and preliminary treatment of certain
wastestreams. Segregation of wastewater and subsequent preliminary
treatment allows for the most efficient, effective, and economic means
for removing pollutants in certain wastestreams. For example, if a
facility segregates its oil-bearing wastewater from its metal-bearing
wastewater, then the facility can design an oil removal treatment
technology based on only the oily waste flow volume and not on the
combined metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater flow. Therefore,
preliminary treatment technologies are more effective and less costly
on segregated wastestreams, prior to adding wastewater that does not
contain the pollutants being treated with the preliminary treatment.
EPA includes these preliminary treatment steps, as applicable whenever
it refers to chemical precipitation and sedimentation treatment.
As mentioned previously in Section VII (Water Use and Wastewater
Characteristics), unit operations performed at MP&M sites produce
wastewater with varying characteristics (i.e., oil-bearing, hexavalent
chromium-bearing, cyanide-bearing, complexed metals). Wastewater with
these characteristics requires preliminary treatment before the
chemical precipitation step for metals removal. EPA included the
following preliminary steps in Option 1 for the metal-bearing
wastewater subcategories: removal of oil and grease through chemical
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming; destruction of
cyanide using sodium hypochlorite; reduction of hexavalent chromium to
trivalent chromium which can subsequently be precipitated as a chromium
hydroxide; and chemical reduction/precipitation of chelated or
complexed metals. EPA has also included the contract hauling of any
wastewater associated with organic solvent degreasing as part of the
Option 1 technology.
Option 1 consists of preliminary treatment for specific pollutants
and end-of-pipe treatment with chemical precipitation (usually
accomplished by raising the pH with an alkaline chemical such as lime
or sodium hydroxide, also
[[Page 448]]
known as caustic, to produce insoluble metal hydroxides) followed by
clarification and sludge dewatering. This treatment has been widely
used throughout the metals industry and is well documented to be
effective for removing metal pollutants. As with a number of previously
promulgated regulations, EPA is proposing BPT on the basis that all
process wastewater, except solvent-bearing wastewater, will be treated
through chemical precipitation and clarification end-of-pipe treatment.
Option 1 treatment systems (chemical precipitation with gravity
clarification) sampled by EPA demonstrated effective removal for
targeted metals. (Targeted metals are those metals that an MP&M
facility was operating its wastewater treatment system to remove.)
Option 2. In-process flow control and pollution prevention,
segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment steps as
necessary (including oils removal using oil-water separation by
chemical emulsion breaking), chemical precipitation using lime or
sodium hydroxide, and sedimentation using a clarifier.
Option 2 builds on Option 1 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. As discussed in Section VII.B,
techniques or technologies, such as centrifugation or skimming for
metal working fluids, or water paint curtains, may in some cases save
money for companies by allowing materials to be used over a longer
period before they need to be disposed. Using these techniques along
with water conservation also leads to the generation of less pollution
and results in more effective treatment of the wastewater that is
generated. The incorporation of pollution prevention practices can lead
to smaller wastewater flows and increased pollutant concentrations.
However, the treatment of metal-bearing wastewater by chemical
precipitation is relatively independent of influent metal
concentration. For example, a well-operated chemical precipitation and
clarification treatment system can achieve the same effluent
concentration with an influent stream of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm)
and 10 parts per million (ppm) as it can achieve with an influent
stream which is 500 gpm and 20 ppm. In fact, within a broad range of
influent concentrations, the more highly concentrated wastewater
influent, when treated down to the technology effectiveness
concentrations of a chemical precipitation and clarification treatment
system, results in better pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant
in the discharge. In addition, the cost of a treatment system is
largely dependent on the size, which in turn is largely dependent on
flow. As a result, good recycle and water conservation practices may
result in cost savings, though there may also be associated cost
increases, depending on site specific factors (e.g., costs associated
with capital investment for pollution prevention equipment). Option 2
in-process pollution prevention and water conservation technologies
include:
Flow reduction using flow restrictors, conductivity
meters, and/or timed rinses, for all flowing rinses, plus
countercurrent cascade rinsing for all flowing rinses;
Centrifugation and recycling of painting water curtains;
and
Centrifugation and pasteurization to extend the life of
water-soluble machining coolants reducing discharge volume.
Option 3. Segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment
steps as necessary (including oils removal by ultrafiltration),
chemical precipitation using lime or sodium hydroxide, and solids
separation using a microfilter.
This option differs from Option 1 in that an ultrafilter replaces
the oil water separator for the removal of oil and grease and a
microfilter, rather than a clarifier, follows chemical precipitation.
EPA determined through sampling episodes that ultrafiltration systems
are very effective for the removal of oil and grease at MP&M
facilities. Ultrafilters sampled by EPA demonstrated effective removal
of oil and grease. Additionally, EPA also collected treatment
effectiveness data for solids removal after chemical precipitation
through microfiltration. Microfilters sampled by EPA at MP&M facilities
achieved long-term average effluent concentrations for targeted metals
that were, in several cases, an order of magnitude lower than the long-
term averages achieved by Option 2.
Option 4. In-process flow control and pollution prevention,
segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment steps as
necessary (including oils removal by ultrafiltration), chemical
precipitation using lime or sodium hydroxide, and solids separation
using a microfilter.
This option builds on Option 3 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 4 as in
Option 2.
For all of the subcategories with metal-bearing wastewater, EPA
determined that Option 2 costed less than Option 1 and demonstrated
greater pollutant removals. Likewise, for all subcategories with metal-
bearing wastewater, Option 4 costed less than Option 3 and demonstrated
greater pollutant removals. As discussed above, the incorporation of
water conservation and pollution prevention technologies results in
greater pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant in the discharge.
In addition, the cost of a treatment system is largely dependent on the
size, which in turn is largely dependent on flow. As a result, Options
2 and 4, which include water conservation and pollution prevention,
have smaller flows requiring treatment and are projected to cost less
than Options 1 and 3, respectively. Therefore, for the remainder of the
discussions in this preamble regarding technology options for
subcategories with metal-bearing wastewater, EPA only considers Options
2 and 4. The Agency has fully evaluated Options 1 and 3, and a
discussion of the results of this evaluation is contained in the
Technical Development Document. EPA requests comment on its
determination that pollution prevention, recycle and water conservation
result in net cost savings to facilities, and examples of any specific
situations where this may not be true.
2. Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Oily Wastewater
MP&M facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory, the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory, and the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory
produce primarily oil-bearing wastewater. EPA evaluated the following
six wastewater treatment technology options for the MP&M industry
subcategories whose unit operations produce only oily wastewater (see
Section VI.C.6 for a discussion of oily unit operations):
Option 5. Oil-water separation by Chemical Emulsion Breaking.
Chemical emulsion breaking is used to break stable oil/water
emulsions (oil dispersed in water, stabilized by electrical charges and
emulsifying agents). A stable emulsion will not separate or break down
without chemical treatment. Chemical emulsion breaking is applicable to
wastewater streams containing emulsified coolants and lubricants such
as machining and grinding coolants and impact or pressure deformation
lubricants as well as cleaning solutions that contain emulsified oils.
Treatment of spent oil/water emulsions involves using chemicals to
break the emulsion followed by gravity differential separation. The
major
[[Page 449]]
equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking includes reaction
chambers with agitators, chemical storage tanks, chemical feed systems,
pumps and piping. Factors to be considered for destroying emulsions are
type of chemicals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mixing, heating
requirements, and retention time. EPA describes this technology option
in more detail in Section 8 of the Technical Development Document.
In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
that employed chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity separation
and oil skimming.
Option 6. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by chemical emulsion breaking.
This option builds on Option 5 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same pollution
prevention techniques or technologies discussed in Option 2 such as
flow reduction and reuse, paint curtain recycling and/or recirculation,
and coolant recycling, as applicable.
Option 7. Oil-water separation by ultrafiltration.
In the MP&M industry, ultrafiltration is applied in the treatment
of oil/water emulsions. In ultrafiltration, a semi-permeable
microporous membrane performs the separation. Wastewater is sent
through membrane modules under pressure. Water and low-molecular-weight
solutes (for example, salts and some surfactant) pass through the
membrane and are removed as permeate. Emulsified oil and suspended
solids are rejected by the membrane and are removed as concentrate. The
concentrate is reticulated through the membrane unit until the flow of
the permeate drops. The permeate may either be discharged or passed
along to another treatment unit. The concentrate is contained and held
for further treatment or disposal. EPA describes this technology option
in more detail in Section 8 of the Technical Development Document.
In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
that employed ultrafiltration. EPA also collected data on
ultrafiltration systems at metal-bearing facilities which segregated
their oily wastestreams for treatment.
Option 8. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by Ultrafiltration.
This option builds on Option 7 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 8 as in
Option 6.
Option 9. Oil-water Separation by Dissolved Air Flotation.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is commonly used to remove suspended
solids and dispersed oil and grease from oily wastewater. DAF is the
process of using fine bubbles to induce suspended particles to rise to
the surface of a tank where they can be collected and removed. The
major components of a conventional DAF unit include a centrifugal pump,
a retention tank, an air compressor, and a flotation tank. EPA
describes this technology option in more detail in Section 8 of the
Technical Development Document.
In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Railroad Line
Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories that employed
dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA compared the effluent concentrations
achieved by these DAF systems to effluent concentration achieved by DAF
systems in other industry categories (e.g., industrial laundries).
Option 10. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by Dissolved Air Flotation.
This option builds on Option 9 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 10 as in
Option 6 and 8.
For all of the subcategories with only oily wastewater, EPA
determined that the options that involved water conservation and
pollution prevention costed less and removed more pollutant than those
options that did not include these technologies or techniques. As
discussed above, the incorporation of water conservation and pollution
prevention technologies results in greater pollutant removals and less
mass of pollutant in the discharge. In addition, the cost of a
treatment system is largely dependent on the size, which in turn is
largely dependent on flow. As a result, Options 6, 8, and 10, which all
include water conservation and pollution prevention, cost less than
their counterpart options (Options 5, 7, and 9, respectively) that did
not include these pollution prevention technologies or techniques.
Therefore, for the remainder of the discussions in this preamble
regarding technology options for subcategories with oily wastewater,
EPA only considers Options 6, 8, and 10. However, the Agency fully
evaluated Options 5, 7, and 9, and discusses the results of this
evaluation in the Technical Development Document.
B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations
1. Overview of Limitations Calculations
EPA visited over 200 facilities and sampled wastewater from 71 MP&M
facilities covering all the industrial sectors covered by this proposed
rule. (See Section III for a discussion on applicability). In addition
to sampling to characterize the process wastewater, EPA sampled 46 end-
of-pipe chemical precipitation and clarification treatment systems, 5
microfilters, 5 oil-water emulsion breaking and gravity separation
systems, 16 ultrafilters, and 4 chemical emulsion breaking and DAF
systems. EPA reviewed the treatment data gathered and identified data
considered appropriate for calculating limitations for the MP&M
industry. EPA identified data from well-designed and well-operated
treatment systems and focused on data for specific pollutants processed
and treated on site. The data editing procedures used for this
assessment consisted of four major steps:
Assessment of the performance of the entire treatment
system;
Identification of process upsets during sampling that
impacted the treatment effectiveness of the system;
Identification of pollutants not present in the raw
wastewater at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment
effectiveness; and
Identification of treatment chemicals used in the
treatment system.
EPA describes the evaluation criteria used for each of these steps
below. The Agency excluded data that failed one or more of the
evaluation criteria from calculation of the limitations.
Assessment of Treatment System Performance. EPA assessed the
performance of the entire treatment system during sampling. The Agency
excluded data for systems identified as not being well-designed or
well-operated from use in calculating BPT limitations. EPA first
identified the metals processed on site, as well as if the site
performed unit operations likely to generate oil and grease and
cyanide. EPA focused on these pollutants because MP&M facilities
typically design and operate their treatment systems to treat and
remove these
[[Page 450]]
pollutants. EPA then performed the following technical analyses of the
treatment systems:
--Based on the pollutants processed or treated on site, EPA excluded
data from systems that were not operated at the proper pH for removal
of the pollutants.
--EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and clarification
systems that did not have solids removal indicative of effective
treatment. In general, EPA identified as having poor solids removal
systems that did not achieve at least 90 percent removal of total
suspended solids (TSS) and had effluent TSS concentrations greater than
50 milligrams per liter. EPA made site-specific exceptions to this
rule.
--EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and clarification
systems at which the concentration of most of the metals present in the
influent stream did not decrease, indicating poor treatment.
Although EPA believes this is an appropriate practice, in order to
focus on facilities with well-run treatment systems, it also introduces
a risk of biasing estimates of treatment effectiveness upwards with
respect to identifying pollutant removals on a national basis. If a
particular metal is not able to be effectively removed by a particular
treatment train, but its concentration fluctuates randomly over time in
both the influent and the effluent, then retaining only data showing
positive ``removals'' may give a misleading impression of effectiveness
of that treatment technology nationally. Some commenters have raised
this issue in the past particularly with respect to boron, which those
commenters believe is not effectively removed by certain treatment
trains where EPA's data (edited to include only decreases) appears to
show removals. EPA is continuing to assess this concern both with
regards to metals in general and with regards to boron in particular.
EPA requests comment on this issue and suggestions for addressing it.
EPA is planning to do a re-analysis of its estimates of its baseline
load and removals for boron and will provide results of this analysis
when available. This analysis will be placed in Section 6.8 of the
public record.
Identification of Process Upsets Occurring During Sampling. EPA
reviewed the sampling episode reports for each of the sampled sites and
identified any process upsets that resulted in poor treatment during
one or more days of the sampling episode. EPA excluded the data
affected by the process upsets.
Identification of Pollutants Not Present in the Raw Wastewater at
Sufficient Concentrations to Evaluate Removal. EPA excluded data for
pollutants that it did not detect in the treatment influent streams at
a sampled facility, or it detected at concentrations less than 10 times
the minimum level. Because these proposed limitations are technology-
based, EPA requires that a facility must demonstrate pollutant removal
through treatment in order for that data to be used in the calculation
of effluent limitations. Therefore, the Agency determined that for a
BPT/BAT facility to demonstrate effective treatment, the pollutant must
be present in the wastewater at a treatable concentration--which EPA
defined as 10 times the minimum level for this proposal. EPA also
excluded data for pollutants that were not processed on site. In
addition, EPA reviewed the water use practices for the sampled sites
and excluded data from sites that may have been diluting the raw
wastewater and reducing the concentration of pollutants processed on
site. Because these proposed MP&M effluent guidelines include water
conservation practices and pollution prevention technologies, EPA
reviewed the data to ensure that the facilities it used as the basis
for BPT limitations had these practices and technologies in place.
Identification of Wastewater Treatment Chemicals. EPA identified
treatment chemicals used in each of the sampled treatment systems to
determine if the removal of the metals used as treatment chemicals were
consistent with removal of other metals on site, indicating a well-
designed and well-operated system. If a sampled facility used a metal
as a treatment chemical, and the facility treated the metal to a
concentration consistent with other metals removed on site, EPA
included the metal in calculation of the BPT limitations. If the
sampled facility used a metal as a treatment chemical and the treatment
system did not remove it to a concentration consistent with other
metals removed on site, EPA excluded the treatment chemical from
calculation of the limitations. (Note that this practice may raise
similar concerns to those discussed above with respect to editing out
data that do not show positive removals.) The Agency used the data
remaining after these data editing procedures to calculate the
limitations.
Calculation of Limitations
The Technical Development Document and the Statistical Support
Document contain a detailed description of the statistical methodology
used for the calculation of limitations. EPA based the effluent
limitations and standards in today's notice on widely-recognized
statistical procedures for calculating long-term averages and
variability factors. The following presents a summary of the
statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent
limitations.
Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment
systems using the proposed treatment technologies described in Section
VIII. The purpose of the variability factor is to allow for normal
variation in effluent concentrations. A facility that designs and
operates its treatment system to achieve a long-term average on a
consistent basis should be able to comply with the daily and monthly
limitations in the course of normal operations.
EPA developed the variability factors and long-term averages from a
database composed of individual measurements on treated effluent based
on EPA sampling data. EPA sampling data reflects the performance of a
system over a three to five day period, although not necessarily over
consecutive days.
EPA performed the following steps in order to calculate the
proposed limitations for each pollutant. For each subcategory, EPA
calculated the arithmetic long-term average concentration of a
pollutant for each facility representing the proposed treatment
technology, and determined the median from the arithmetic average
concentrations. For each pollutant, this median concentration is the
long-term average (LTA) concentration that EPA used in determining the
proposed effluent limitations.
The Agency then used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to
estimate daily and monthly variability factors. This is the same
distributional model used by EPA in the final rulemakings for the Pulp
and Paper and Centralized Waste Treatment. The modified delta-lognormal
distribution models the data as a mixture of non-detect observations
and measured values. EPA selected this distribution because the data
for most analytes consisted of a mixture of measured values and non-
detects. The modified delta-lognormal distribution assumes that all
non-detects have a value equal to the sample specific
[[Page 451]]
detection limit and that the detected values follow a lognormal
distribution.
The Agency fit the daily concentration data from each facility that
had enough detected concentration values for parameter estimation to a
modified delta lognormal distribution. The daily variability factor for
each pollutant at each facility is the ratio of the estimated 99th
percentile of the distribution of the daily pollutant concentration
values divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily
values. (EPA assumed that the furthest excursion from the LTA that a
well-operated plant using the proposed technology option could be
expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent of
the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution.) The
pollutant daily variability factor for a treatment technology is the
average of the pollutant daily variability factors from the facilities
with that technology. EPA calculates the daily maximum limitation as
the product of the pollutant LTA concentration and the daily
variability factor.
The Agency calculates the monthly maximum limitation in much the
same way. However, it bases the variability factor (known as the
monthly variability factor) on the 95th percentile of the distribution
of four-day average pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th
percentile. Therefore, the monthly variability factor for each
pollutant at each facility is the estimated 95th percentile of the
distribution of the 4-day average pollutant concentration values
divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily values.
The pollutant monthly variability factor for a treatment technology is
the average of the pollutant monthly variability factors from the
facilities with that technology. EPA calculates the maximum monthly
average limitation as the product of the pollutant LTA concentration
and the monthly variability factor.
There were several instances where variability factors could not be
calculated directly from the MP&M database because there were not at
least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level
for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data
is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore,
in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency
transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit
similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system. The
Technical Development Document and the Statistical Support Document
provide detailed information on the transfer of variability factors.
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
As discussed in Section II, in the guidelines for an industry
category, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic
(priority), and non-conventional pollutants for direct discharging
facilities. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA
first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate
(CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate,
EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in place in an
industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be
practically applied. See ``A Legislative History of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972'', U.S. Senate Committee of
Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT
limits, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does
not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are
achievable with available technology unless the required additional
reductions are ``wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving
such marginal level of reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit.
p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify
benefits in monetary terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel
Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975). For the BPT cost-
reasonableness assessment, EPA used the total pounds of COD removed for
the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Steel Forming and Finishing, and Oily Wastes, and Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategories because this parameter best represented the
pollutant removals without counting removals of individual pollutants
more than once. EPA used O&G for the cost-reasonableness assessment for
the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories because it best represented the
pollutant removals for these subcategories without counting removals of
individual pollutants more than once.
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants,
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution
control. In past effluent limitations guidelines and standards, BPT
cost-reasonableness has ranged from $0.94/lb-removed to $34.34/lb-
removed in 1996 dollars. In developing guidelines, the Act does not
require or permit consideration of water quality problems attributable
to particular point sources, or water quality improvements in
particular bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these
factors in developing the limitations being proposed today. See
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Table IX-1 below summarizes the pounds of pollutants removed for
direct dischargers, and Table IX-2 summarizes the costs, costs per
pound removed, and economic impacts for direct dischargers associated
with each of the proposed options by subcategory. (See Section XII for
summary tables for indirect dischargers.)
Table IX-1.--Pounds of Pollutants Removed by the Proposed BPT Option for Direct Dischargers by Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and Priortiy and
Subcategory \1\ (number of TSS (lbs O&G (lbs COD (lbs nonconventional nonconventional Cyanide (lbs
facilities) Selected option removed/yr) removed/yr) removed/yr) metals (lbs organics (lbs removed/yr)
removed/yr) removed/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,794)...... Option 2........ 10.1 million.... 7.8 million..... 181 million..... 4 million....... 5 million....... 184,000
Metal Finishing Job Shops Option 2........ 13,000.......... 14,400.......... 232,000......... 34,000.......... 4,600........... 5,700
(15) \2\.
[[Page 452]]
Printed Wiring Boards (11) Option 2........ 51,000.......... 238,000......... 1.3 million..... 172,000......... 22,000.......... 1,400
\2\.
Steel Forming and Finishing Option 2........ 884,000......... 101,000......... 4.5 million..... 387,000......... 76,000.......... 1,100
(43).
Oily Waste (911)............ Option 6........ 349,000......... 885,000......... 5.1 million..... 81,000.......... 127,000......... 10
Railroad Line Maintenance Option 10....... 9,000........... 47,400.......... 59,000.......... 1,000........... 78.............. 0
(34).
Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6)... Option 10....... 650............. 8.5 million..... 0............... 1,400........... 700............. 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore, there are no estimated removals. See
Section IX.C.
\2\ Although EPA is not revising limits for TSS and O&G for these two subcategories, removals are reported based on incidental removals for the proposed
MP&M Option 2 technology for BPT control of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
EPA notes that the pounds removed presented in Table IX-1 may
differ from the pounds removed presented in the Economic Analysis
section (Section XVI). This difference is a result of the fact that
when performing certain economic analyses (e.g., cost-effectiveness),
the Agency does not include facilities (or the associated pollutant
loadings and removals) that closed at the baseline (i.e., EPA predicted
that these facilities would close prior to the implementation of the
MP&M rule). Table IX-1 above estimates that annual pounds removed by
the selected option for all of the direct discharging facilities in
EPA's questionnaire data base that discharged wastewater at the time
the data were collected.
Table IX-2.--Annualized Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed BPT Option for Direct Dischargers by
Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic
impacts
(facility BPT cost per
Annualized compliance closures) of pound removed
Subcategory \1\ (number of Selected option costs for selected selected \2\ (1996 $/
facilities) option ($1996) option pound removed)
(Percent of
regulated
subcategory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,794)............ Option 2............. 230 million.......... 20 (1%) 1.22
Metal Finishing Job Shops (15).... Option 2............. 1.3 million.......... 0 5.60
Printed Wiring Boards (11)........ Option 2............. 2.5 million.......... 0 1.92
Steel Forming and Finishing (43).. Option 2............. 29.3 million......... 0 6.51
Oily Waste (911).................. Option 6............. 11.2 million......... 0 2.18
Railroad Line Maintenance (34).... Option 10............ 1.18 million......... 0 20.00
Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6)......... Option 10............ 2.15 million......... 0 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore,
there are no estimated costs. See Section IX.C for estimates based on a model facility.
\2\ EPA based the pounds used in calculating the BPT cost reasonableness on the COD removals only (shown in
Table IX-1) for each subcategory, except for the use of oil and grease removals only (shown in Table IX-1) for
the shipbuilding dry dock subcategory.
A. General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the General Metals subcategory in Section VI.C.1 of
this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 3,800
direct discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory. EPA
estimates that the direct discharging facilities in the General Metals
subcategory currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants
into the surface waters of the United States, including 8.2 million
pounds per year of oil and grease, 10.9 million pounds per year of
total suspended solids, 187 million pounds of COD, 5.2 million pounds
per year of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 5.2 million
pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants, and 187,000
pounds per year of cyanide. As a result of the quantity of pollutants
currently discharged directly to the nation's waters by General Metals
facilities, EPA determined that there was a need for BPT regulation for
this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the General Metals subcategory generally perform unit
operations such as cleaning, etching, electroplating, electroless
plating, and conversion coating that produce metal-bearing wastewater.
In addition, some of these facilities also perform machining and
grinding, impact deformation, and surface preparation operations that
generate oily wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options
1 through 4 for this subcategory because technologies included in these
options treat both oily wastewater as well as metal-bearing wastewater.
As explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in
this preamble since these options costed less and removed more
pollutant than Options 1 and 3 (respectively). See Section VIII.A.1 for
a discussion of technology options.
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for the new BPT
regulation for the General Metals subcategory. EPA's decision to
propose BPT limitations based on Option 2 treatment reflects primarily
two factors: (1) The degree of effluent reductions attainable, and (2)
the total cost of the proposed treatment technologies in relation to
the effluent reductions achieved. No basis could be found for
identifying different BPT limitations based on age, size, process or
other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the size of a facility
in the General Metals subcategory will directly
[[Page 453]]
affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For facilities in
this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for establishing the
limitations are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions
obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $1.22 per pound of
COD removed (1996 $). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory.
Approximately 22 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by a
clarifier (Option 2) while less than 1 percent employ microfiltration
after chemical precipitation (Option 4).
Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 66,000 pounds of TSS, 12,300 pounds of O&G,
15,000 pounds of priority metals, and 880,000 pounds of nonconventional
metals, while removing 324,000 pounds less COD and 31,000 pounds less
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. Although
there is a large amount of additional removals of TSS and
nonconventional metals for Option 4 when considered across the entire
population (3,800 facilities), the Agency determined that these
additional removals were not significant when considered on a per
facility basis. In addition, Option 4's annualized cost is $52 million
more than Option 2. EPA concluded that the lack of significant
additional pollutant removals per facility achieved by Option 4 (and
the fact that it removes less COD and organic pollutants) support the
selection of Option 2 as the BPT technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the General Metals Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, the Agency calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory
using data from General Metals facilities employing Option 2
technology. For cyanide limitations, EPA used data from all
subcategories where cyanide destruction systems were sampled. If data
was not sufficient for developing BPT limitations for an individual
pollutant in this subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another
subcategory (see the Technical Development Document for a more detailed
discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.12 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the General Metals
Subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed
BPT limitations.
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory in Section
VI.C.2 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 15 direct discharging facilities in the Metal Finishing
Job Shops subcategory. EPA has previously promulgated BPT and BAT
limitations for all of the facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR
part 413 (Electroplating Pretreatment Standards) and at 40 CFR part 433
(Metal Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards). However, EPA developed the existing regulations applicable
to the facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in
electroplating and metal finishing processes, water conservation,
pollution prevention, and wastewater treatment have occurred. EPA is
proposing new BPT effluent limitations guidelines for this subcategory.
EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory currently discharge substantial
quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the United States,
including 17,900 pounds per year of oil and grease, 20,500 pounds per
year of TSS, 287,400 pounds per year of COD, 44,000 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 6,000 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants, and 6,000 pounds per
year of cyanide. As a result of the quantity of pollutants currently
discharged directly to the nation's waters by metal finishing job shop
facilities, EPA determined that there was a need for BPT regulation for
this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory generally
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, electroplating,
electroless plating, passivating, and conversion coating that produce
metal-bearing wastewater. In addition, some of these facilities also
perform machining and grinding, impact deformation, and surface
preparation operations that generate oily wastewater. Therefore, EPA
considered technology options 1 through 4 for this subcategory because
technologies included in these options treat both oily wastewater as
well as metal-bearing wastewater. As explained above, EPA only
discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this preamble since these
options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3,
respectively.
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. The new BPT limitations
incorporate more stringent effluent requirements for priority metals,
nonconventional pollutants, cyanide, and organic pollutants (by way of
an indicator parameter) as compared to the limitations contained in 40
CFR 433.13. EPA has included the conventional pollutants, TSS and oil
and grease, in the new BPT regulation for this subcategory at the same
level as 40 CFR 433.13. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based
on Option 2 treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of
effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed
treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based
on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor
the size of a facility in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable. EPA based its decision not to revise
the conventional pollutant limitations on the use of the alternate
organics control parameters (i.e., TOC or TOP) and the small additional
removals of TSS obtainable after the incidental removal due to control
of the metals.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $5.60 per pound of
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
[[Page 454]]
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in the subcategory. The Agency
estimates that 100 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory employ chemical precipitation
followed by a clarifier (Option 2) while no facilities employ
microfiltration after chemical precipitation (Option 4). Because no
facilities in this subcategory employ microfiltration after chemical
precipitation for solids separation, the Agency concluded that Option 4
does not represent the average of the best treatment.
Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 6,900 pounds of priority and nonconventional
metals, while removing 1,500 pounds less COD, and 600 pounds less
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. EPA
concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant
removals achieved by Option 4 (and the fact that it removes less COD,
and organic pollutants) support the selection of Option 2 as the BPT
technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, EPA calculated the new BPT limitations for this subcategory
using data from facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
employing Option 2 technology. As discussed above, EPA did not
calculate new limitations for TSS or oil and grease for this
subcategory. Instead, EPA set them at the same level as in the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433.13). For cyanide limitations,
EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide destruction systems
were sampled. If data was not sufficient for developing BPT limitations
for an individual pollutant in this subcategory, the Agency transferred
data from another subcategory (see the Technical Development Document
for a more detailed discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.22
following this preamble for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a
discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development
Document contains detailed information on which facilities EPA used in
calculating the proposed BPT limitations.
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory in Section
VI.C.3 of this preamble. EPA's survey of the MP&M industry did not
identify any non-chromium anodizing facilities discharging directly to
surface waters. All of the non-chromium anodizing facilities in EPA's
data base are either indirect or zero dischargers. EPA consequently
could not evaluate any treatment systems in place at direct discharging
non-chromium anodizing facilities for establishing BPT limitations.
Therefore, EPA relied on technology transfer based on information and
data from indirect discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. The Agency concluded that the technology in place at some
indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers is appropriate to use as
the basis for regulation of direct dischargers because the pollutant
profile of the wastewater generated at non-chromium anodizers
discharging directly would be similar in character to that from
indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers and the model technologies
in place at indirect dischargers are effective in treating the
conventional pollutants that are generally not regulated in
pretreatment standards.
EPA has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of
the facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards). However,
EPA developed the regulations applicable to this subcategory
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in anodizing
processes, water conservation, pollution prevention, and wastewater
treatment have occurred. EPA is proposing to set new BPT effluent
limitations guidelines for this subcategory for metals, but is not
revising the limitations for conventional pollutants (TSS and oil and
grease). EPA based its decision not to revise the limitations for
conventional pollutants on the small additional removals attainable
after the incidental removal due to control of the metals.
The current regulations in 40 CFR part 433 require non-chromium
anodizing facilities to meet effluent limitations for 7 metal
pollutants. EPA's data show that these seven metals are present only in
very small quantities in the current discharges at non-chromium
anodizing facilities. Under the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines,
EPA did not establish a BPT limit for aluminum, the metal found in the
largest quantity in non-chromium anodizers wastewater. The Agency has
determined that direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium
Anodizing subcategory should have a limit for aluminum and thus is
proposing to replace BPT in 40 CFR part 433 with new MP&M effluent
limitations that more appropriately reflect the pollutants found in
non-chromium anodizing wastewater. EPA notes that the Agency expects a
reduction in monitoring burden associated with this revision for direct
discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory generally
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, and anodizing of
aluminum, that produce metal-bearing wastewater. The majority of the
metal found in anodizing wastewater is aluminum. In addition, some of
these facilities also perform machining and grinding, impact
deformation, and surface preparation operations that generate oily
wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 1 through 4
for this subcategory because technologies included in these options
treat both oily wastewater as well as metal-bearing wastewater. As
explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this
preamble since these options costed less and removed more pollutant
than Options 1 and 3 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation
for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. Although EPA did not
identify any existing non-chromium anodizers, EPA estimated the cost of
treatment and pollutant removal for a median-sized direct discharging
facility with a wastewater flow of 6.25 MGY, based on the
characteristics of a similarly sized indirect discharging non-chromium
anodizer facility. Because direct dischargers are more likely to have
treatment in place, EPA provided the model facility with treatment in
place equivalent to Option 1. Therefore at the model direct discharging
non-chromium anodizing facility, EPA estimates that implementation of
Option 2 will cost $0.83 per pound COD removed (1996$), and has found
that cost to be reasonable. EPA estimates that Option 2 would remove
25,700 pounds of pollutants per median-sized facility per year
(including 9,200 pounds of TSS as incidental removals based on the
control of metals and 1,240 pounds of aluminum).
[[Page 455]]
Additionally, because solids separation by microfiltration is not
used by any non-chromium anodizer facilities, the Agency concluded that
Option 4 does not represent best practicable control technology for
this subcategory.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Non-Chromium Anodizing
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. Because
EPA's survey did not identify any direct dischargers in this
subcategory, EPA used data from indirect discharging facilities to
develop the BPT limitations. The Agency identified two indirect
discharging facilities in this subcategory that achieved very good
pollutant reductions (including, on average, 96 percent reduction of
aluminum and incidental removals of 95 percent for TSS). Therefore, EPA
determined that the data from these facilities were appropriate for the
development of BPT limitations. If data was not sufficient for
developing BPT limitations for an individual pollutant in this
subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another subcategory (see
the Technical Development Document for a more detailed discussion). In
the case of TSS and oil and grease, EPA used the limitations in 40 CFR
part 433.13. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.32 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Non-Chromium
Anodizers Subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains
detailed information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the
proposed BPT limitations.
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Printed Wiring Board subcategory in Section
VI.C.4 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 11 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA
has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of the
facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards). However,
EPA developed the regulations applicable to this subcategory
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in printed
wiring board manufacturing processes, water conservation practices,
pollution prevention techniques, and wastewater treatment have
occurred. EPA is proposing to set new BPT effluent limitations
guidelines for this subcategory.
EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the Printed
Wiring Board subcategory currently discharge substantial quantities of
pollutants into the surface waters of the United States, including
262,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 100,000 pounds per year of
total suspended solids, 1.7 million pounds per year of COD, 242,000
pounds per year of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants,
35,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional organic
pollutants, and 1,600 pounds per year of cyanide. As a result of the
quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's
waters by printed wiring board facilities, EPA determined that there
was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory generally
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, masking,
electroplating, electroless plating, applying, developing and stripping
of photoresist, and tin/lead soldering that produce metal-bearing and
organic-bearing wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology
options 1 through 4 for this subcategory. As explained above, EPA only
discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this preamble since these
options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3
(respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation
for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. The new BPT limitations
incorporate more stringent effluent requirements for priority metals,
nonconventional pollutants, cyanide, and organic pollutants (by way of
an indicator parameter) as compared to the limitations contained in 40
CFR part 433.13. EPA has included the conventional pollutants, TSS and
oil and grease, in the new BPT regulation for this subcategory at the
same level as 40 CFR part 433.13. Removals for these pollutants are
incidental removals based on the increased control of metals and
organic pollutants (by way of an indicator parameter) by the proposed
BPT technology options. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based
Option 2 treatment for priority metals, nonconventional pollutants,
cyanide and organic pollutants reflects primarily two factors: (1) The
degree of effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the
proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reductions
achieved. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT
limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors.
Neither the age nor the size of a facility in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory will directly affect the treatability of MP&M process
wastewater. For facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent
factors for establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the
level of effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $1.92 per pound of
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. The Agency
estimates that 100 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
Printed Wiring Board subcategory employ chemical precipitation and
sedimentation treatment (Option 2); however, the Agency did identify
indirect dischargers in this subcategory with Option 4 technology in
place. In fact, EPA collected wastewater treatment samples at one
indirect discharging printed wiring board manufacturing facility that
employed Option 4 technology.
Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 48,000 pounds of priority and nonconventional
metals, while removing 9,000 less pounds of COD, and 250 less pounds of
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. In
addition, Option 4's annualized cost is $2 million more than Option 2.
EPA concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant
removals achieved by Option 4 (and the fact that it removes less COD,
and organic pollutants) support the selection of Option 2 as the BPT
technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Printed Wiring Board
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, EPA calculated the new BPT limitations for this subcategory
using data from facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory
employing Option 2 technology. As discussed above, EPA
[[Page 456]]
did not calculate new limitations for TSS or oil and grease for this
subcategory. Instead, EPA set them at the same level as in the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433.13). For cyanide
limitations, EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide
destruction systems were sampled. If data was not sufficient for
developing BPT limitations for an individual pollutant in this
subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another subcategory (see
the Technical Development Document for a more detailed discussion). See
the proposed rule Sec. 438.42 following this preamble for a list of the
proposed BPT limitations for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. (See
Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The
Statistical Development Document contains detailed information on which
facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed BPT limitations.
E. Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory in Section
VI.C.5 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 43 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA
has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of the
facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 420 (Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards). However, EPA developed the regulations applicable to this
subcategory approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, changes in
the industry, particularly in growth of the number of facilities
conducting steel forming and finishing operations without the presence
of the typical steel manufacturing processes, and changes in water
conservation practices, pollution prevention techniques, and wastewater
treatment have occurred. In addition, the operations covered by this
proposed rule are segments of the forming and finishing subcategories
in 40 CFR part 420. The proposed MP&M subcategory is comprised of
limitations and standards based on specific forming and finishing
operations only.
EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the new Steel
Forming & Finishing subcategory currently discharge substantial
quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the United States,
including 195,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 1.08 million
pounds per year of total suspended solids, 6 million pounds per year of
COD, 771,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional metal
pollutants, 168,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional
organic pollutants, and 2,300 pounds per year of cyanide. As a result
of the quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the
nation's waters by steel forming & finishing facilities, EPA determined
that there was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory. In a
separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise other subcategories in the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the proposed MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory generally perform unit operations such as acid pickling,
annealing, conversion coating (e.g., zinc phosphate, copper sulfate),
hot dip coating, electroplating, heat treatment, welding, and drawing
of steel bar, rod, and wire that produce metal-bearing and oil-bearing
wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 1 through 4
for this subcategory. As explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2
and 4 in detail in this preamble since these options costed less and
removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for the new BPT
regulation for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. EPA's
decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 2 treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $6.51 per pound of
COD removed ($1996). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. The Agency
estimates that 64 percent of the direct discharging facilities in this
subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation
(Option 2). Because no facilities in this subcategory employ
microfiltration after chemical precipitation for solids separation, the
Agency concluded that Option 4 does not represent best practicable
control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Steel Forming & Finishing
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, EPA calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data
transferred from facilities employing Option 2 technology in the
General Metals subcategory. However, EPA determined that mass-based
limitations (rather than concentration-based limitations developed for
the General Metals subcategory) are more appropriate for this
subcategory. Facilities in this subcategory keep close track of their
production on a mass basis primarily because of their prior regulation
under the mass-based Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines.
Furthermore, EPA determined that mass-based limitations are appropriate
for this subcategory due to the uniform nature of the products produced
(wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube). The uniform nature of the products
produced by this industry makes for an easier conversion from
concentration-based to mass-based limitations. One of the primary
reasons that EPA is not requiring mass-based limitations for other
subcategories is the fact that most MP&M facilities do not collect
production information on a wastestream-by-wastestream basis, and
therefore development of mass-based limitations could create a
significant burden for both the POTW and the MP&M facility. In the case
of the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory, EPA is able to use the
industry's production information to propose production-based
limitations for the steel forming and finishing subcategory.
EPA solicits paired treatment system influent and effluent data
from Steel Forming & Finishing facilities, so that limits may better
reflect treatment at steel forming and finishing facilities. EPA also
solicits comment on whether to allow concentration-based limits for
this subcategory and any rationale for doing so. For cyanide
limitations, EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide
destruction systems were sampled (see the Technical
[[Page 457]]
Development Document for a more detailed discussion). See the proposed
rule Sec. 438.52 following this preamble for a list of the proposed BPT
limitations for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. (See Section
XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical
Development Document contains detailed information on which facilities
EPA used in calculating the proposed BPT limitations.
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Oily Wastes subcategory in Section VI.C.6 of this
preamble. EPA estimates that approximately 900 MP&M direct discharging
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory currently discharge
substantial quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the
United States, including 965,000 pounds per year of oil and grease,
414,00 pounds per year of total suspended solids, 6.4 million pounds
per year of COD, 595,000 pounds per year of priority and
nonconventional metal pollutants, and 135,000 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of the
quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's
waters by Oily Waste facilities, EPA determined that there was a need
for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory generally perform unit
operations such as alkaline cleaning and its associated rinses to
remove oil and dirt from components, machining and grinding producing
wastewater containing coolants and lubricants, and dye penetrant and
magnetic flux testing that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater (see
Section VI.C.6 for a list of the unit operations that define the
applicability of this subcategory). Because of the oily nature of the
wastewater, EPA considered technology options 5 through 8 for this
subcategory. (EPA did not consider oily wastewater treatment using DAF
(Options 9 and 10) because it was not widely used by facilities in this
subcategory. The Agency analyzed the DAF options for the Railroad Line
Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories only.) As explained
above, EPA only discusses Options 6 and 8 in detail in this preamble
since these options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options
5 and 7 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 6, oil-water separation by chemical
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming, as the basis
for the new BPT regulation for the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA's
decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 6 treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Oily Wastes subcategory will directly affect
the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For facilities in this
subcategory, the most pertinent factors for establishing the
limitations are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions
obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 6, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 6 will cost $2.18 per pound of
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 6 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 6 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical emulsion
breaking and oil-skimming in this subcategory. The Agency estimates
that 11 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory perform oil-water separation through chemical emulsion
breaking (Option 6) while only 4 percent employ ultrafiltration (Option
8).
Based on the available data base, Option 8 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 19,000 pounds of TSS, 56,600 pounds of O&G, while
removing 1.42 million less pounds of COD, 12,000 less pounds of
priority and nonconventional metals, and 2,400 less pounds of priority
and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 6. In addition,
Option 8's annualized cost is $43 million more than Option 6. EPA
concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant
removals achieved by Option 8 do not justify its use as a basis for BPT
for this subcategory.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Oily Wastes subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory employing Option 6
technology. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.62 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Oily Wastes
subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed
BPT limitations.
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory in Section
VI.C.7 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 34 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA
determined that BPT limitations for this subcategory were necessary
because of the oil and grease and potential TSS loads that facilities
in this subcategory generate. EPA estimates that direct discharging
facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory currently
discharge substantial quantities of pollutants into the surface waters
of the United States, including 52,000 pounds per year of oil and
grease, 170,000 pounds per year of COD, 18,000 pounds per year of total
suspended solids, 54,000 pounds per year of priority and
nonconventional metal pollutants, and 1,600 pounds per year of priority
and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of the quantity of
pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's waters by
Railroad Line Maintenance facilities, EPA determined that there was a
need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory generally
perform unit operations that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater such
as alkaline cleaning and its associated rinses to remove oil and dirt
from components, and machining and grinding which use coolants and
lubricants. Because of the oily nature of the wastewater, EPA
considered technology options 7 through 10 for this subcategory. (EPA
did not consider oily wastewater treatment using oil-water separation
through emulsion breaking (Options 5 and 6) for this subcategory
because a large number of railroad line maintenance facilities
currently use DAF (Options 9 and 10)). As explained above, EPA only
discusses Options 8 and 10 in detail in this preamble since these
options costed less and removed
[[Page 458]]
more pollutant than Options 7 and 9 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 10, oil-water separation by DAF, as
the basis for the new BPT regulation for the Railroad Line Maintenance
subcategory. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option
10 treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 10, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of O&G removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 10 will cost $20.00 per pound
of COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 10 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 10 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of DAF in this
subcategory. The Agency estimates that 91 percent of the direct
discharging facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory
employ DAF (Option 10) while no facilities employ ultrafiltration
(Option 8). Because no facilities in this subcategory employ
ultrafiltration for removal of O&G, the Agency concluded that Option 8
does not represent best practicable control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Railroad Line Maintenance
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from
facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory employing
Option 10 technology. In cases where data from the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory was not sufficient for a particular pollutant,
the Agency transferred effluent data from facilities in the
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory in order to develop a proposed BPT
limitation (see the Technical Development Document for a more detailed
discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.72 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains
detailed information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the
proposed BPT limitations.
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory in Section
VI.C.8 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are six direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory. The Agency notes that many
shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar structures) and
that this is the number of estimated facilities (not dry docks) that
discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and similar
structures). EPA determined that BPT limitations for this subcategory
were necessary because of the oil and grease and potential TSS loads
that facilities in this subcategory generate. EPA estimates that direct
discharging facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory
currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants into the
surface waters of the United States, including 8.5 million pounds per
year of oil and grease, 18,400 pounds per year of total suspended
solids, 976,000 pounds per year of COD, 88,500 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, and 6,000 pounds per
year of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of
the quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's
waters by Shipbuilding Dry Dock facilities, EPA determined that there
was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory generally
perform unit operations that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater such
as abrasive blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion
preventive coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing
(e.g., hydrostatic testing). Because of the oily nature of the
wastewater, EPA considered technology options 7 through 10 for this
subcategory. (EPA did not consider oily wastewater treatment using oil-
water separation through chemical emulsion breaking (Options 5 and 6)
for this subcategory because all of the shipbuilding dry dock
facilities in EPA's database currently use DAF (Options 9 and 10)). As
explained above, EPA only discusses Options 8 and 10 in detail in this
preamble since these options costed less and removed more pollutant
than Options 7 and 9 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 10, oil-water separation by DAF, as
the basis for the new BPT regulation for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategory. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based Option 10
treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of effluent
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 10, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of O&G removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 10 will cost $0.25 per pound of
O&G removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 10 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 10 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of DAF in this
subcategory. According to EPA's database, 100 percent of the direct
discharging facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory employ
DAF (Option 10) while no facilities employ ultrafiltration (Option 8).
Because no facilities in this subcategory employ ultrafiltration for
removal of O&G, the Agency concluded that Option 8 does not represent
best practicable control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from
facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory employing Option 10
technology. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.82 following this preamble
for a
[[Page 459]]
list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategory. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed
BPT limitations.
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology
The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses
the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent
limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT
candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by
applying a two-part cost test:
(1) The POTW test; and
(2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional
pollutant removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a
BCT candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per
pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the
POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29
percent).
B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to
establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M sites that would
attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for TSS. The
only technology option identified to attain further TSS reduction is
the addition of multimedia filtration to existing BPT systems. For the
BCT option, EPA considered the addition of multimedia filtration to the
BPT technology option for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job
Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming
and Finishing subcategories (i.e., the metal-bearing subcategories).
EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of multimedia filtration
technology as a means to reduce TSS loadings. EPA split the MP&M sites
into three flow categories: less than 10,000 gallons per year (gpy));
10,000 gpy to 1,000,000 gpy; and greater than 1,000,000 gpy. For each
of these three flow categories, EPA chose a representative site for
which EPA had estimated the costs of installing the Option 2
technologies discussed under BPT (See Section IX above). The Agency
evaluated the costs of installing a polishing multimedia filter to
remove an estimated additional 35 percent of the TSS discharged after
chemical precipitation and clarification treatment. This estimated
removal reflects the reduced TSS concentrations seen when filters are
used after chemical precipitation and sedimentation in the MP&M
industry. The cost per pound removed for facilities discharging greater
than 1 MGY was $13/lb of TSS (in 1976 dollars), the cost per pound
removed for facilities discharging between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gpy was
$518/lb and the cost per pound removed for facilities discharging less
than 10,000 gpy was $1,926/lb of TSS (in 1976 dollars). All of these
cases individually as well as combined exceed the $0.25/lb (in 1976
dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these costs exceed the POTW
benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails; therefore, the second
part of the test was unnecessary. Therefore, EPA determined that
multimedia filtration does not pass the cost test for BCT regulations
development. In light of the above, EPA is proposing to set BCT
limitations for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming and
Finishing subcategories equivalent to BPT limitations for their
respective subcategories.
C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater
For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to
establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M facilities that
would attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for
O&G. EPA considered the addition of an ultrafilter to existing BPT
systems (oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking, gravity
separation, and oil skimming) as a viable technology option to attain
further O&G reduction. EPA considered this BCT option for the Oily
Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategories.
EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of ultrafiltration technology
as a means to reduce O&G loadings. EPA split the MP&M sites into three
flow categories: less than 10,000 gallons per year (gpy); 10,000 gpy to
1,000,000 gpy; and greater than 1,000,000 gpy. For each of these three
flow categories, EPA chose a representative site for which EPA had
estimated the costs of installing the Option 2 technologies discussed
under BPT (See Section IX above). The Agency evaluated the costs of
installing an ultrafilter to remove an estimated additional 36 percent
of the O&G discharged after oil-water separation by chemical emulsion
breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming. This estimated removal
reflects the reduced O&G concentrations seen when ultrafilters are used
after chemical emulsion breaking with oil skimming in the MP&M
industry. The cost per pound removed for facilities discharging greater
than 1 MGY was $238/lb of O&G (in 1976 dollars), the cost per pound
removed for facilities discharging between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gpy was
$2,213/lb, and the cost per pound removed for facilities discharging
less than 10,000 gpy was $5,031/lb of O&G (in 1976 dollars). All of
these cases individually as well as combined exceed the $0.25/lb (in
1976 dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these costs exceed the POTW
benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails; therefore, the second
part of the test was unnecessary. Therefore, EPA determined that
ultrafiltration does not pass the cost test for BCT regulations
development. In light of the above, EPA is proposing to set BCT
limitations for the Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories equivalent to BPT limitations for
their respective subcategories.
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA considers the following factors in establishing the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) level of control:
the age of process equipment and facilities, the processes employed,
process changes, the engineering aspects of applying various types of
control techniques, the costs of applying the control technology,
economic impacts imposed by the regulation, non-water quality
environmental impacts such as energy requirements, air pollution and
solid waste generation, and other such factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate (section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act). In general, the
BAT technology level represents the best existing economically
achievable performance among plants with shared characteristics. In
making the determination about economic achievability, the Agency takes
into consideration factors such as plant closures and product line
closures. Where existing wastewater treatment performance is uniformly
inadequate,
[[Page 460]]
BAT technology may be transferred from a different subcategory or
industrial category. BAT may also include process changes or internal
plant controls which are not common industry practice.
EPA considered the same 10 technology options for BAT as it
discussed under BPT. EPA did not include the application of filters,
discussed under BPT, as a BAT option. Data collected during sampling at
MP&M facilities demonstrated very little, if any, additional removal of
many metal pollutants resulting from the use of filters as compared to
concentrations of the same metals after the chemical precipitation and
clarification treatment followed by gravity settling. Thus, although
filtration is demonstrated to be effective in achieving additional
removals of suspended solids, and as such EPA considered it for the
basis of BPT, multimedia or sand filtration does not reflect the best
available technology performance for priority and nonconventional
pollutants.
For all of the MP&M subcategories (except Railroad Line Maintenance
and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories), EPA is proposing BAT
limitations equivalent to BPT. For the Railroad Line Maintenance and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories, EPA is not proposing BAT
limitations. EPA briefly discusses the BAT selection for each of the
subcategories below and refers to Section IX for a detailed discussion
of the need for BPT regulation, the selected BPT technology option, the
calculation of BPT limitations, and the estimated removals and costs of
BPT for each subcategory.
A. General Metals Subcategory
EPA has not identified any more stringent economically-achievable
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level
of control applicable to General Metals subcategory facilities.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT
for toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the General Metals
subcategory. EPA estimates that 20 facilities (less than 1 percent of
the direct dischargers in this subcategory) will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. EPA found this option to be economically
achievable for the subcategory as a whole. Additionally, the Agency
believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available'' technology as
it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating all priority
pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum
level.
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 4 as a basis for establishing BAT more
stringent than the BPT level of control being proposed today. EPA
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option 4 levels would result in 35 facility closures (1 percent of the
direct dischargers in this subcategory). See Section XVI.E for a
discussion on job losses. While EPA does not have a bright line for
determining what level of impact is economically achievable for the
industry as a whole, EPA looked for a breakpoint that would mitigate
adverse economic impacts without greatly affecting the toxic pound
equivalents being removed under the proposed rule. By selecting Option
2 as BAT, EPA was able to reduce facility closures by 43 percent, while
only losing about 1.5 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would
be removed under Option 4. Option 4 resulted in some level of improved
pollutant reductions; however, the amounts are not very large and the
cost of implementing the level of control associated with Option 4 is
disproportionately high. Thus, EPA rejected Option 4 as a basis for BAT
for this subcategory.
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Metal Finishing Job Shop
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this Option to be
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. As was the case for BAT based on Option
2, EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT
based on Option 4. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 4 to be
economically achievable for this subcategory. However, EPA is not
proposing to establish BAT limitations based on Option 4 because it
determined that Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in
pound-equivalents for much less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the
basis for BAT, EPA reduced annualized compliance costs by $1.1 million
(1996$) while only losing 2 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that
would be removed under Option 4. The Agency concluded that the
additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the lack of significant
additional pollutant removals achieved for direct dischargers in this
subcategory. Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best
available'' technology economically achievable for the Metal Finishing
Job Shop subcategory.
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. As mentioned in the BPT discussion, EPA's survey of the
MP&M industry did not identify any non-chromium anodizing facilities
discharging directly to surface waters. All of the non-chromium
anodizing facilities in EPA's data base are either indirect or zero
dischargers. EPA consequently could not evaluate any treatment systems
in place at direct discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities for
establishing BAT limitations. Therefore, EPA relied on information and
data from indirect discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. Based on this analysis the Agency believes that Option 2
represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. However, EPA is not proposing to
establish BAT limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that
Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for
much less cost. EPA used a facility with a flow of 6.25 MGY (the median
discharge flow for indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory)
to model the costs and pollutant loads reduced for a direct discharging
facility. Because direct dischargers are more likely to have treatment
in place, EPA provided the model facility with treatment in place
equivalent to Option 1. Based on this model facility, EPA estimated
that annualized compliance costs per facility for Option 2 will be
$41,000 (1996$) less than Option 4, and Option 2 will remove only 83
pound-equivalents less than Option 4. The Agency concluded that the
additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the additional pollutant
removals achieved for direct dischargers in this subcategory.
Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best available''
technology economically
[[Page 461]]
achievable for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this option to be
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 4 as a basis for establishing BAT more
stringent than the BPT level of control being proposed today. As was
the case for BAT based on Option 2, EPA estimates that no facilities
would close as a result of BAT based on Option 4. Therefore, EPA does
consider Option 4 to be economically achievable for this subcategory.
However, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limitations based on
Option 4 because it determined that Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent
reductions in pound-equivalents for much less cost. By selecting Option
2 as the basis for BAT, EPA reduced annualized compliance costs by $2
million (1996$) while only losing 3 percent of the toxic pound
equivalents that would be removed under Option 4. The Agency concluded
that the additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the lack of
significant additional pollutant removals achieved for direct
dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA determined that Option
2 is the ``best available'' technology economically achievable for the
Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this Option to be
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. EPA is not proposing to establish BAT
limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that Option 2
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for much
less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for BAT, EPA reduced
annualized compliance costs by $2.6 million (1996$) while only losing 3
percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed under
Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of Option 4 do
not justify the insignificant additional pollutant removals achieved
for direct dischargers in this subcategory.
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
EPA has not identified any more stringent economically-achievable
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level
of control applicable to Oily Wastes subcategory facilities. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants for the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA
estimates that no facilities will close as a result of BAT based on
Option 6. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option 6 represents
the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high level of
pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very low levels,
often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 8 (ultrafiltration) as a basis for
establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of control being
proposed today. As was the case for BAT based on Option 6, EPA
estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT based on
Option 8. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 8 to be economically
achievable for this subcategory. However, based on the available data
base, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limitations based on Option
8 because it removes fewer pound-equivalents than Option 6. Therefore,
the Agency determined that Option 6 is the ``best available''
technology economically achievable for the removal of priority
pollutants from wastewater generated at Oily Wastes subcategory
facilities.
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
EPA is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for the Railroad
Line Maintenance subcategory. The Agency concluded that the facilities
in this subcategory discharge very few pounds of toxic pollutants. EPA
estimates that 34 railroad line maintenance facilities discharge 1,100
pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about 32 pound
equivalents per year per facility. The Agency based the loadings
calculations on EPA sampling data, which found very few priority toxic
pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. Therefore,
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and
direct dischargers will remain subject to permit limitations for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants established on a case-by-case basis
using best professional judgement.
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
EPA is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for the
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory because of the small number of
facilities in this subcategory. EPA estimates that there are 6
shipbuilding facilities operating one or more dry docks in the U.S.
that discharge directly to surface waters. EPA determined that
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time because
of the small number of facilities in this subcategory. The Agency
believes that limitations established on a case-by-case basis using
best professional judgement can more appropriately address individual
toxic and nonconventional pollutants that may be present at these six
facilities.
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
A. Need for Pretreatment Standards
Indirect dischargers in the MP&M industrial category, like the
direct dischargers, use raw materials that contain many priority
pollutant and nonconventional metal pollutants. These indirect
facilities may discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at
significant mass or concentration levels, or both. EPA estimates that
indirect discharging facilities annually discharge approximately 125
million pounds of priority and nonconventional metals, and 47 million
pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants.
Unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater will receive no further
treatment once it leaves the facility, indirect dischargers send their
wastewater to POTWs for further treatment, which occurs unless there is
a bypass, upset, or sewer overflow. EPA establishes pretreatment
standards for those BAT pollutants that pass through POTWs. Therefore,
for indirect dischargers, before proposing pretreatment standards, EPA
examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry ``pass
through'' POTWs to waters of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations
or sludge disposal practices on a national basis. Generally, to
determine if pollutants pass through POTWs, EPA compares the percentage
[[Page 462]]
of the pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs achieving secondary
treatment with the percentage of the pollutant removed by facilities
meeting BAT effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that
the combined treatment at indirect discharging facilities and POTWs is
at least equivalent to that obtained through treatment by direct
dischargers.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by POTWs with the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by BAT facilities, EPA compares the percentage of
the pollutants removed by BAT facilities to the POTW removals. EPA
takes this approach because a comparison of the mass or concentration
of pollutants in POTW effluents with pollutants in BAT facility
effluents would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged
to the POTW from other industrial and non-industrial sources, nor the
dilution of the pollutants in the POTW to lower concentrations from the
addition of large amounts of other industrial and non-industrial water.
The primary source of the POTW percent removal data is the ``Fate
of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-
82/303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study.''
This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs
that employ secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants. Each
sample was analyzed for three conventional, 16 non-conventional, and
126 priority toxic pollutants.
At the time of the 50-POTW sampling program, which spanned
approximately 2\1/2\ years (July 1978 to November 1980), EPA collected
samples at selected POTWs across the U.S. The samples were subsequently
analyzed by either EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using test
procedures (analytical methods) specified by the Agency or in use at
the laboratories. Laboratories typically reported the analytical method
used along with the test results. However, for those cases in which the
laboratory specified no analytical method, EPA was able to identify the
method based on the nature of the results and knowledge of the methods
available at the time.
Each laboratory reported results for the pollutants for which it
tested. If the laboratory found a pollutant to be present, the
laboratory reported a result. If the laboratory found the pollutant not
to be present, the laboratory reported either that the pollutant was
``not detected'' or a value with a ``less than'' sign () indicating
that the pollutant was below that value. The value reported along with
the ``less than'' sign was the lowest level to which the laboratory
believed it could reliably measure. EPA subsequently established these
lower levels as the minimum levels of quantitation (MLs). In some
instances, different laboratories reported different (sample-specific)
MLs for the same pollutant using the same analytical method.
Because of the variety of reporting protocols among the 50-POTW
Study laboratories (pages 27 to 30, 50-POTW Study), EPA reviewed the
percent removal calculations used in the pass-through analysis for
previous industry studies, including those performed when developing
effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) Manufacturing, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT), and
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for 12
parameters, different analytical minimum levels were reported for
different rulemaking studies (10 of the 21 metals, cyanide, and one of
the 41 organics).
To provide consistency for data analysis and establishment of
removal efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50-POTW Study, standardized the
reported MLs for use in the final rules for CWT and Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industries and for this proposed rule and the Iron
and Steel proposed rule. A more detailed discussion of the methodology
used and the results of the ML evaluation are contained in the record
for today's proposal.
In using the 50-POTW Study data to estimate percent removals, EPA
has established data editing criteria for determining pollutant percent
removals. Some of the editing criteria are based on differences between
POTW and industry BAT treatment system influent concentrations. For
many toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower
than those of BAT treatment systems. For many pollutants, particularly
organic pollutants, the effluent concentrations from both POTW and BAT
treatment systems were below the level that could be found or measured.
As noted in the 50-POTW Study, analytical laboratories reported
pollutant concentrations below the analytical threshold level,
qualitatively, as ``not detected'' or ``trace,'' and reported a
measured value above this level. Subsequent rulemaking studies such as
the 1987 OCPSF study used the analytical method nominal ``minimum
level'' (ML) established in 40 CFR part 136 for laboratory data
reported below the analytical threshold level. Use of the nominal
minimum level (ML) may overestimate the effluent concentration and
underestimate the percent removal. Because the data collected for
evaluating POTW percent removals included both effluent and influent
levels that were close to the analytical detection levels, EPA devised
hierarchal data editing criteria to exclude data with low influent
concentration levels, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW
removals might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of
being a true measure of treatment effectiveness.
EPA has generally used hierarchic data editing criteria for the
pollutants in the 50-POTW Study. For today's proposal, as in previous
rulemakings, EPA used the following editing criteria:
Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical
minimum level for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,''
``less than [followed by a number],'' or a ``number'' less than the
standardized analytical minimum level,
Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent
values if the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal
to 10 times the pollutant minimum level (10 x ML), and
If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations
are at least 10 times the minimum level, then retain average influent
values greater than or equal to two times the minimum level (2 x ML)
along with the corresponding average effluent values. (In most cases,
2 x ML will be equal to or less than 20 g/l.)
EPA then calculates each POTW percent removal for each pollutant based
on its average influent and its average effluent values. The national
POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-through test
is the median value of all the POTW pollutant specific percent
removals.
The rationale for retaining POTW data using the ``10 x ML'' editing
criterion is based on the BAT organic pollutant treatment performance
editing criteria initially developed for the 1987 OCPSF regulation (52
FR 42522, 42545-48; November 5, 1987). BAT treatment system designs in
the OCPSF industry typically achieved at least 90 percent removal of
toxic pollutants. Since most
[[Page 463]]
of the OCPSF effluent data from BAT biological treatment systems had
values of ``not detected,'' the average influent concentration for a
compound had to be at least 10 times the analytical minimum level for
the difference to be meaningful (demonstration of at least 90 percent
removal) and qualify effluent concentrations for calculation of
effluent limits.
Additionally, due to the large number of pollutants of concern for
the MP&M industry, EPA also used data from the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly called the
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to augment the
POTW database for the pollutants which the 50-POTW Study did not cover.
EPA notes that the 50 POTW Study contains percent removal data for all
of the pollutants for which EPA is proposing effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards. The RREL database was used to estimate
incidental pollutant reductions achieved by the technology for some
pollutants that are not being expressly limited. This database provides
information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various treatment
technologies. The database provides the user with the specific data
source and the industry from which the wastewater was generated. For
each pollutant of concern EPA considered for this proposed rule that
was not found in the 50-POTW database, EPA used data from the NRMRL
database, using only treatment technologies representative of typical
POTW secondary treatment operations (activated sludge, activated sludge
with filtration, aerated lagoons). EPA further edited these files to
include information pertaining only to domestic or industrial
wastewater. EPA used pilot-scale and full-scale data only, and
eliminated bench-scale data and data from less reliable references.
These and other aspects of the methodology used for this proposal are
described in Section 7 of the Technical Development Document.
The results of the POTW pass-through analysis for indirect
dischargers are discussed in Sections XII.D to XII.K for each
subcategory. In addition, Section XIV of today's proposal discusses
several issues related to the editing criteria applied to the 50-POTW
data base. EPA solicits comments on its pass-through methodology,
including the revised editing criteria discussed above as well as the
additional issues described in Section XIV and in the record for
today's proposal.
B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES
Indirect discharging MP&M facilities generate wastewater with
similar pollutant characteristics to direct discharging facilities.
Hence, in evaluating technology options for PSES, EPA considered the
same ten treatment technologies discussed previously for BPT and BAT.
However, as described below, along with the technology options, EPA
also evaluated ``low flow'' exclusions for indirect discharging
facilities (see Sections II.D and VI for additional discussion on the
low flow exclusions).
C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions
For each subcategory, EPA evaluated various low flow exclusions
(also referred to as ``flow cutoffs'') for indirect dischargers. The
Agency considered several factors in determining what flow level, if
any, is appropriate for excluding facilities from compliance with
pretreatment standards. For several of the subcategories, EPA
considered the local control authorities' increased burden associated
with the development of new permits or other control mechanisms for
MP&M facilities. For some subcategories, the Agency considered flow
exclusions as a way to reduce economic impacts. EPA also considered the
amount of pollutant (in pound-equivalents) discharged per year by the
subcategory and by each of the facilities on an average annual basis,
in conjunction with the costs of regulation, to identify an appropriate
level for an exclusion. In cases where EPA is proposing an option that
also specifies a flow cutoff, it means that facilities with annual
wastewater flow below the cutoff would not be subject to the MP&M
categorical pretreatment standards. These facilities would remain
subject to the general pretreatment regulation at 40 CFR part 403 or
their existing categorical pretreatment standards (e.g., 40 CFR part
413 or part 433). For the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory,
although the proposed option does not contain a flow cutoff, several
other options with various flow cutoffs are discussed in today's
proposal. Some of these options would require excluded facilities to
remain covered by categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR part
413 (Electroplating) and 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing). In
addition, some indirect discharging facilities in the General Metals
subcategory that discharge less than 1 MGY will remain covered by the
pretreatment standards in 40 CFR part 433. EPA is not proposing
pretreatment standards for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Therefore, all indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory will
remain subject to the applicable pretreatment standards in 40 CFR part
413 or 40 CFR part 433.
In this section, the Agency discusses only some of the flow cutoff
options for each subcategory. EPA presents its analysis of a full range
of flow cutoff options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory in
the Technical Development Document.
Table XII.C-1 below summarizes the pounds of pollutants removed by
the proposed options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory, and
Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with
the proposed options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory with
proposed standards. EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for the
Non-Chromium Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry
Dock subcategories for the reasons described later in this section.
(See Section IX for summary tables for direct dischargers).
Table XII.C-1.--Annual Pounds of Pollutant Removed by the Proposed PSES Option for Indirect Dischargers by
Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and Priority and
Subcategory (number of Selected option nonconventional nonconventional Cyanide (lb-
facilities) (flow cutoff) metals (lb-removed/ organics (lb- removed/yr)
yr) removed/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,055)........... Option 2 (1 MGY)... 28.1 million....... 7.7 million........ 284,000.
Metal Finishing Job Shops (1,514) Option 2........... 2.4 million........ 47,000............. 1 million.
Printed Wiring Boards (621)...... Option 2........... 2.6 million........ 14,000............. 230,000.
Steel Forming and Finishing (110) Option 2........... 617,000............ 16,000............. 181.
[[Page 464]]
Oily Waste (226)................. Option 6 (2 MGY)... 191,000............ 1.1 million........ 0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XII.C-2.--Annual Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed PSES Option for Indirect Dischargers by
Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic
impacts
(facility
Annualized compliance closures) of
Subcategory (number of facilities) Selected option (flow costs for selected option selected
cutoff) ($1996) option
(percent of
regulated
subcategory *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,055).................. Option 2 (1 MGY).......... 1.57 billion.............. 24 (1%)
Metal Finishing Job Shops (1,514)....... Option 2.................. 178 million............... 128 (10%)
Printed Wiring Boards (621)............. Option 2.................. 147 million............... 7 (1%)
Steel Forming and Finishing (110)....... Option 2.................. 24 million................ 6 (6%)
Oily Waste (226)........................ Option 6 (2 MGY).......... 10 million................ 14 (1%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Baseline closures will not be regulated and, therefore, are not included when estimating the percentage of
regulatory closures (% regulatory closures = regulatory closures/all facilities in subcategory excluding
baseline closures).
D. General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA uses to
determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants
discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency only applied
the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected for regulation
under BAT. For the General Metals subcategory, EPA determined that 13
pollutants pass through; and therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment
standards equivalent to BAT for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Options
As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the General Metals Subcategory, EPA considered the same
technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the additional
consideration of a flow cutoff. The Agency is proposing BAT Option 2
with a 1 MGY flow cutoff for PSES. EPA is proposing Option 2 for many
of the same reasons it selected that option for BPT and BAT (See
Sections IX.A and XI.A) and provides additional rationale below.
EPA determined that Option 2 represented the best available
technology and that Option 2 with a 1 MGY flow cutoff was economically
achievable and greatly reduced the burden on POTWs. This option results
in 24 facility closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect
discharging General Metals subcategory population). See Section XVI.E
for a discussion on job losses. Additionally, the Agency believes that
Option 2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
Approximately 15 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by a
sedimentation (Option 2) while 1 percent employ microfiltration after
chemical precipitation (Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 with a 1 MGY flow cutoff as a basis for
establishing PSES. EPA estimates that the economic impact due to the
additional controls at Option 4 levels would result in 92 facility
closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect dischargers in this
subcategory). See Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses. While
EPA does not have a bright line for determining what level of impact is
economically achievable for the industry as a whole, EPA looked for a
breakpoint that would mitigate adverse economic impacts without greatly
affecting the toxic pound equivalents being removed under the proposed
rule. By selecting Option 2 as PSES, EPA was able to reduce facility
closures by more than two-thirds, while only losing a little over one
percent of the toxic pound equivalents from control under Option 4. The
Agency concluded that the additional facility closures associated with
Option 4 do not justify the insignificant additional pollutant removals
achieved for indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
Considering the large number of indirect dischargers in the General
Metals subcategory which have the potential to be covered by this
proposed regulation, an important issue to the affected industry and to
permit writers is the potentially enormous administrative burden
associated with issuing permits or other control mechanisms for all of
these facilities. Therefore, in developing this proposal, EPA has
looked for means of reducing the administrative burden, reducing
monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting requirements. In order
to meet this end, the Agency is proposing a 1 million gallon per year
(MGY) flow cutoff for the General Metals subcategory. Under this
proposed option, facilities in the General Metals subcategory that
discharge greater than 1 MGY of MP&M process wastewater would be
subject to the proposed categorical pretreatment standards. Facilities
in the General Metals subcategory that discharge 1 MGY or less would
not be subject to MP&M PSES requirements. However, some of the
facilities in this subcategory discharging under 1 MGY are currently
covered by 40 CFR part 433, Metal Finishing PSES or PSNS, and these
indirect dischargers would remain subject to those pretreatment
standards and the general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 403.
The Agency determined that the 1 MGY flow cutoff was appropriate
for the
[[Page 465]]
General Metals subcategory based on several factors. First, and the
most important factor, was the overall size of the General Metals
subcategory. EPA estimates that there are over 26,000 indirect
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory, of which 74
percent are not currently regulated by nationally established effluent
guidelines. Establishing an MP&M pretreatment standard for all 26,000
facilities would greatly increase the number of permits or other
control mechanisms for which local authorities are responsible. (EPA
estimates that there are approximately 30,000 control mechanisms
today.) EPA concluded that this increased permit burden was not
reasonable and therefore explored potential flow cutoffs as a way to
reduce the impact on POTW permitting authorities.
Second, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory
based in part on the small number of pound-equivalents that would be
removed by facilities with annual wastewater flows less than or equal
to 1 MGY. EPA determined that 89 percent of the indirect discharging
facilities in the General Metals subcategory discharge less than or
equal to 1 MGY, yet these facilities are responsible for less than 6
percent of the total pound-equivalents currently discharged. If the
Agency proposed pretreatment standards for facilities in the General
Metals subcategory that discharged less than or equal to 1 MGY, it
estimates average removals of only 22 pound-equivalents per facility
per year for those facilities. EPA recently decided not to promulgate
pretreatment standards for two industrial categories, Industrial
Laundries (64 FR 45072) and Landfills (65 FR 3008), based on low
removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities in those categories.
In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not to promulgate
pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents per facility
per year, and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA decided not to
promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous landfills based on
the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per facility per year.
In both instances, the Agency considered that the small additional
removals that would be achieved through regulation did not warrant
adoption of national categorical standards.
The Agency concluded that regulation of facilities discharging only
22 pound-equivalents per year was not justified by the additional
permitting burden associated with these facilities. Although this
decision is based upon a subset of small facilities, and not an entire
subcategory as was done before, EPA believes this approach would allow
Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the facilities
discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to
the overall problem. EPA acknowledges that this may create an economic
advantage for the smaller facilities, and solicits comment on this
exclusion.
EPA also closely evaluated Option 2 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff for
the General Metals subcategory. The Agency is not proposing this option
because it does not reduce the number of facility closures (24) or
further reduce the burden on control authorities in a significant way,
and there is a significant number of pound equivalents associated with
facilities discharging between 1 and 2 MGY. EPA determined that only 3
percent more of the facilities in this subcategory discharge between 1
and 2 MGY. This small number of facilities accounts for an additional
13 percent of the annual pollutant discharge load (in pound-
equivalents). If EPA proposed Option 2 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff, the
economic impacts would not be reduced. Based on these considerations,
EPA is not proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff for the General Metals
subcategory. EPA concluded that the 1 MGY flow cutoff was the most
appropriate option in terms of balancing POTW burden reduction with
pollutant removals and mitigating economic impacts. Table XII.C-1 above
shows the pounds of pollutants removed by the proposed option, and
Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with
the proposed option. Where these General Metals facilities discharge
less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW, these pretreatment standards
proposed today do not apply; however, facilities are still subject to
other applicable pretreatment standards, including those established
under parts 413 and 433. EPA requests comment on the 1 MGY flow cutoff
and whether a higher or lower cutoff would be appropriate. EPA also
requests comment on whether the flow cutoff should be different for
facilities currently covered under 40 CFR part 413 or part 433 and
whether or not that would create an unfair economic advantage for those
facilities (e.g., captive electroplating shops in General Metals
remaining regulated under 40 CFR part 433 but Metal Finishing Job Shops
being regulated under the proposed MP&M rule).
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.D.1, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the General Metals subcategory equivalent to those
limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.15
(as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies this
preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.15 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) (See Section XXII.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed above in Section XII.A., one of the factors that EPA
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected
for regulation under BAT. For the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory, EPA determined that 12 pollutants pass through; and
therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT
for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory, EPA
considered the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with
the additional consideration of a flow cutoff. The Agency is proposing
BAT Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected that
option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.B and XI.B) and provides
additional rationale below. EPA is proposing that pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 be applied to all facilities (i.e., no flow
exclusion) for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
[[Page 466]]
The Agency estimates that 1,514 metal finishing job shop facilities
currently discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The Agency
projects that 128 of these facilities (10 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities when baseline closures are taken into
consideration) might close as a result of the proposed option (see
Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA concluded that this
level of impact was economically achievable for the subcategory as a
whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts, considered several
flow exclusions and compliance alternatives.
The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available''
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the
analytical minimum level. Approximately 55 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2)
while less than 1 percent employ microfiltration after chemical
precipitation (Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option 4 levels would result in 393 facility closures (32 percent of
the indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory). (See Section
XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). Thus, EPA rejected Option 4 as
not economically achievable.
The Agency evaluated Option 2 with several levels of flow cutoffs,
compliance options, and various combinations of the two. EPA analyzed
the cutoffs and alternative compliance options in terms of reduction in
economic impacts and quantity of toxic pound-equivalents discharged to
the environment. EPA did not consider the reduction in POTW burden for
this subcategory, unlike the General Metals subcategory, because EPA
has already established PSES for all of the facilities in this
subcategory under 40 CFR part 413 and 40 CFR part 433, and local
control authorities would not have to develop entirely new permits (or
other control mechanisms) for these facilities.
With respect to alternatives, first, EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow
cutoff, which would exclude 831 of the 1,514 estimated metal finishing
job shop facilities (or 457 of the 1,231 facilities after baseline
closures are removed from the analysis), and would reduce the economic
impacts for 23 of the 128 facilities EPA projected would close under
Option 2. This represents less than 2 percent of the 1,231 metal
finishing jobs that operate in the baseline and 18 percent of the
projected facility closures under Option 2. This means that there are
still 105 of the 128 facilities that EPA predicts to close with a 1 MGY
flow cutoff. Further, EPA determined that the proposed regulation would
control an average of 135 pound-equivalents per year from facilities
discharging less than 1 MGY. This is higher than the level at which EPA
has previously determined that discharges are not significant enough to
warrant national regulation. Facilities discharging less than 1 MGY are
associated with removals under the proposed option of about 61,000
pound-equivalents (or about 3 percent of the removals associated with
the proposed option) at an incremental cost-effectiveness of about $300
per pound-equivalent ($1981). This is higher than has generally been
associated with pretreatment standards in the past, though not
necessarily higher than has been associated with the smaller facilities
regulated with pretreatment standards in the past. This is to be
expected since smaller facilities incur the same level of costs for
monitoring as larger facilities and are sometimes forced to purchase
larger capacity treatment units than they would need due to
availability. Nonetheless, the Agency concluded that the pollutant
reductions associated with Option 2 were feasible and achievable and
the economic impacts were not substantially mitigated under the 1 MGY
flow cutoff, so a 1 MGY flow cutoff is not being proposed for the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA requests comment on the use of a
flow cutoff for this subcategory.
Second, EPA considered an option with (a) MP&M pretreatment
standards for facilities discharging greater than 1 MGY and (b) a
pollution prevention alternative for those discharging less than 1 MGY.
Under this option, EPA would exclude from the MP&M numeric pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 those metal finishing job shops discharging
less than 1 MGY that choose to perform the pollution prevention and
water conservation activities discussed in Section XXI.D (referred to
as the ``P2 alternative''). EPA would require the low flow facilities
to continue to meet the pretreatment standards codified at 40 CFR part
433, which remain unchanged by today's proposal. All facilities
discharging greater than 1 MGY (and those facilities discharging less
than 1 MGY but not choosing the P2 alternative) would be subject to the
MP&M pretreatment standards for this subcategory. In analyzing this
option, EPA assumed that all facilities discharging less than 1 MGY
chose the P2 alternative. EPA's analysis shows that this option would
reduce the facility closures for 23 of the 128 facilities EPA projected
would close under Option 2 (no flow cutoff). As with the 1 MGY flow
cutoff approach discussed above, this represents less than 2 percent of
the 1,231 metal finishing jobs that operate in the baseline and about
18% of the closures projected by the proposed option. Further, although
the P2 alternative would be somewhat effective in reducing toxic
discharges, the option is not as protective as the numeric pretreatment
standards based on Option 2. For facilities discharging less than 1
MGY, EPA estimates that the P2 alternative would control 59 pound-
equivalents per facility per year (compared to 135 pound-equivalents
per facility at Option 2). Thus, EPA is not proposing the option of a 1
MGY flow cutoff combined with a P2 alternative for today's proposal.
EPA solicits comment and data on the pollutant reductions that can be
achieved using the practices outlined in Section XXI.D.
Third, EPA analyzed a 2 MGY flow cutoff, which would exclude 1,024
facilities (66 percent) from MP&M pretreatment standards. Excluding a
larger number of facilities (compared to the 1 MGY cutoff option)
resulted in a smaller number of facility closures. For this option, EPA
predicts that 59 facilities (approximately 5 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities) might close. EPA estimates that the facilities
discharging less than 2 MGY represent less than 12 percent of the total
pound-equivalents currently discharged by facilities in this
subcategory. For facilities discharging less than 2 MGY, EPA estimates
that pretreatment standards would remove an average of 189 pound-
equivalents per facility per year. While a 2 MGY flow cutoff reduced
the number of facility closures, EPA concluded that the pollutant
reductions associated with Option 2 were feasible and achievable and is
not proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff. EPA requests comment on the 2 MGY
flow cutoff for this subcategory.
Fourth, EPA analyzed the 2 MGY flow cutoff with the pollution
prevention alternative for those facilities below the cutoff. Under
this option, EPA would exclude from the MP&M numeric pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 those metal finishing job shops discharging
less than 2 MGY that choose to perform the pollution prevention and
water conservation activities discussed in Section XXI.D (i.e. the P2
alternative). EPA would require the low flow facilities to continue to
meet the
[[Page 467]]
pretreatment standards codified at 40 CFR part 433, which remain
unchanged by today's proposal. All facilities discharging greater than
2 MGY (and those facilities discharging less than 2 MGY but not
choosing the P2 alternative) would be subject to the MP&M pretreatment
standards for this subcategory. In analyzing this option, EPA assumed
that all facilities discharging less than 2 MGY chose the P2
alternative. EPA's analysis shows that this option may not reduce the
number of facility closures any further than a 1 MGY flow cutoff (or 1
MGY P2 Alternative). The model facilities representing the facilities
that close with flows of 2 MGY or less would require annualized costs
to be reduced at least 68 percent in order to avoid closure. Since
there are some compliance costs associated with implementing the
practices of the P2 alternative, EPA estimates that these may close
under the P2 Alternative. See Section XVI.E for a discussion on job
losses. Although the P2 alternative reduces the number of facility
closures as compared to an option with no flow cutoff, the option is
not as protective as numeric pretreatment standards based on Option 2.
For facilities discharging less than 2 MGY, EPA estimates that the P2
alternative would control an average of 67 pound-equivalents per
facility per year (compared to 189 pound-equivalents per facility at
Option 2). Thus, EPA is not proposing the option of 2 MGY flow cutoff
combined with a P2 alternative. EPA solicits comment and data on the
pollutant reductions that can be achieved using the practices outlined
in Section XXI.D.
In summary, for all of the flow cutoff and P2 alternatives that EPA
considered for this subcategory, the Agency identified no combination
that would significantly reduce the economic impacts without also
significantly reducing control of pollutants. At all the flow cutoffs
and compliance alternatives, EPA concluded that the potential removals
the Agency would be choosing to forego were above levels which EPA has
previously determined insufficient to warrant national categorical
pretreatment standards. Thus, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff for
this subcategory. Under the proposed option, all facilities in this
subcategory would be subject to the pretreatment standards, which would
reduce pass through of pollutants based on a technology EPA has
determined to be technologically feasible and economically achievable.
The Agency is soliciting comment on alternatives that might reduce the
economic impact and still provide acceptable environmental protection,
including all of the options discussed above. See Section XXI.D for a
discussion of the P2 alternative and Section XXIII for solicitation of
comments on this issue. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of
pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes
the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed option.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.E.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory equivalent to
those limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at
Sec. 438.25 (as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies
this preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.25 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXII.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Non-Chromium
Anodizing subcategory based on the economic impacts associated with
Option 2 and the small quantity of toxic pollutants discharged by
facilities in this subcategory remaining covered at an economically-
achievable flow cutoff. EPA determined that 60 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in this subcategory would close as a result of
complying with Option 2 based standards. Pretreatment standards for
this subcategory based on either Option 2 or Option 4 would require
facilities to remove large quantities of aluminum, a metal that is
beneficial to POTWs because it assists in the flocculation of
wastewater prior to sedimentation. Aluminum anodizers use a large
quantity of water in their anodizing processes and produce a wastewater
that contains mostly aluminum. If the Agency proposed pretreatment
standards for this subcategory, even without regulating aluminum, the
standards would require facilities to install very large treatment
systems (because of their high flow volume) and would result in the
removal of large quantities of aluminum in order to remove small
quantities of other metals such as nickel, zinc, and manganese.
Therefore, EPA determined that the benefits of the aluminum discharge
to POTWs outweighed the benefits gained from the removal of small
quantities of other metals. In addition, because EPA has already
promulgated pretreatment standards for non-chromium anodizers at 40 CFR
parts 413 and 433, there is already a level of control for the small
quantities of other metals being discharged along with the aluminum.
Facilities subject to this subcategory must still comply with
applicable PSES limitations (either 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part
433). 40 CFR 438.40(b).
G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed above in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected
for regulation under BAT. For the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, EPA
determined that 9 pollutants pass through; and therefore, EPA is
proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT for these
pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B above, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory, EPA considered
the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the
additional consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is
proposing Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected
that option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.D and XI.D) and provides
additional rationale below. EPA also determined that pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 for all facilities (i.e., no flow
exclusion) are appropriate for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
The Agency estimates that 621 printed wiring board facilities currently
discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The Agency projects that 7
of these facilities (1 percent of the current indirect
[[Page 468]]
discharging population) might close as a result of the MP&M regulation
(see Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA concluded that
this level of impact was economically achievable for the subcategory as
a whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts (and or maintain
existing limitations for facilities where potential removals may not be
sufficient to warrant national regulation), considered flow exemptions
and compliance alternatives.
The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available''
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the
analytical minimum level. Approximately 80 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory employ
chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2) while 2
percent employ microfiltration after chemical precipitation (Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option 4 levels would result in 18 more facility closures than Option 2
(total of 25 closures). EPA itEPA is not proposing to establish PSES
limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that Option 2
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for much
less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for PSES, EPA reduced
annualized compliance costs by $75 million (1996$) while only losing
0.5 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed under
Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of Option 4 do
not justify the additional insignificant amount of pollutant removals
achieved for indirect dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA
determined that Option 2 is the ``best available'' technology
economically achievable for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
Although EPA concluded that the level of economic impact associated
with Option 2 with no flow cutoff was economically achievable, it
considered flow exclusions in an effort to minimize the impacts and/or
maintain existing limitations for facilities where potential removals
may not be significant enough to warrant national regulations. EPA did
not consider the reduction in POTW burden for this subcategory, unlike
the General Metals subcategory, because EPA has already established
PSES for all of the facilities in this subcategory under 40 CFR parts
413 and 433, and local control authorities would not have to develop
entirely new permits (or other control mechanisms) for these
facilities. EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow cutoff, which would exclude 85
facilities, but would not reduce economic impacts. The same 7
facilities that EPA predicted to close with no flow cutoff are also
expected to close with a 1 MGY flow cutoff. EPA determined that the
proposed regulation would remove a total of less than 500 pound
equivalents from the facilities discharging less than 1 MGY (after
removing baseline closures from the analysis), or less than 10 pound-
equivalents per facility. The incremental removals beyond current
regulations is very small for facilities less than 1 MGY, and therefore
EPA will consider the 1 MGY cutoff at final. However, the Agency
concluded that the pollutant reductions associated with Option 2 were
feasible and achievable, the economic impacts were not mitigated at a 1
MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory, and POTW burden would not be
reduced with a flow cutoff, and is thus not proposing a 1 MGY flow
cutoff for this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments on a 1 MGY
flow cutoff, with the existing regulation applying to facilities under
1 MGY. EPA also solicits comment on the implementation and market
consequences of this option. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of
pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes
the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed option.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.G.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory equivalent to those
limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.45
(as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies this
preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.45 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
H. Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed above in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected
for regulation under BAT. For the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory, EPA determined that 13 pollutants pass through; and
therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT
for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B above, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory, EPA
considered the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with
the additional consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is
proposing Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected
that option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.E and XI.E) and provides
additional rationale below. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards
based on Option 2 for all facilities (i.e., no flow exclusion) for the
Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory.
The Agency estimates that 110 steel forming and finishing
facilities currently discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The
Agency projects that 6 of these facilities (6 percent of the current
indirect discharging population) might close as a result of the MP&M
regulation (see Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA
concluded that this level of impact was economically achievable for the
subcategory as a whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts,
considered flow exemptions and compliance alternatives.
The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available''
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the
analytical minimum level. Approximately 63 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory
employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2)
while no facilities employ microfiltration after chemical precipitation
(Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA
estimates
[[Page 469]]
that the economic impact due to the additional controls at Option 4
levels would result in the same number of facility closures (6) as
Option 2. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 4 to be economically
achievable for this subcategory. However, EPA is not proposing to
establish PSES limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that
Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for
much less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for PSES, EPA
reduced annualized compliance costs by $12 million (1996$) while only
losing 0.6 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed
under Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of
Option 4 do not justify the additional insignificant pollutant removals
achieved for indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory.
Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best available''
technology economically achievable for the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory.
Although EPA concluded that the level of economic impact associated
with Option 2 with no flow cutoff was economically achievable, it
considered flow exclusions in an effort to minimize the impacts. EPA
did not consider the reduction in POTW burden for this subcategory,
unlike the General Metals subcategory, because EPA has already
established PSES for all of the facilities in this subcategory under 40
CFR 420, and local control authorities would not have to develop
entirely new permits (or other control mechanisms) for these
facilities. However, to mitigate economic impacts (and or maintain
existing limitations for facilities where potential removals may not be
sufficient to warrant national regulation), EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow
cutoff, which would exclude 21 facilities (after accounting for
baseline closures), and a 2 MGY flow cutoff which would exclude 30
facilities. Neither a 1 MGY flow cutoff nor a 2 MGY flow cutoff would
reduce economic impacts. The same 6 facilities that EPA predicted to
close with no flow cutoff are also expected to close with either a 1 or
2 MGY flow cutoff. However, a 1 MGY flow cutoff would eliminate less
than 100 total pound-equivalents that would be removed under the
proposed option, or less than 5 pound-equivalents per excluded
facility, while a 2 MGY flow cutoff would eliminate less than 200
pound-equivalents total, or less than 7 pound-equivalents per excluded
facility. These incremental removals beyond current regulations are
very small, and therefore EPA will consider the 1 and 2 MGY cutoffs as
final. Although a 3 MGY flow cutoff would reduce projected economic
impacts by half (3 projected closures instead of 6), it would eliminate
2,157 pound-equivalent removals, or about 58 pound-equivalents per
facility. These incremental removals are nearly twice the removals (on
a per facility basis) than would have been realized by regulating
industrial laundry and landfill facilities. Because EPA has concluded
that the proposed option is feasible and achievable, and POTW burden
would not be reduced with a flow cutoff, EPA is not proposing a flow
cutoff for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. However, EPA
solicits comment on flow cutoffs at the 1, 2, and 3 MGY levels. Under
these scenarios, existing regulations in 40 CFR part 420 would continue
to apply to the excluded facilities. Unlike the facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops or Printed Wiring Board subcategories, the
facilities in the MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory are
covered in their current regulations as parts of several subcategories,
thus creating problems for control authorities in implementing the
appropriate requirements. EPA solicits comment on implementation and
market consequences of these options. Table XII.C-1 above shows the
pounds of pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2
summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed
option.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.H.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory equivalent to
those limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at
Sec. 438.55 (as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies
this preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.55 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
I. Oily Wastes Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed in Section XII.A, two of the factors that EPA uses to
determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants
discharged by an industry pass through or interfere with a POTW. For
the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards
equivalent to BAT for the following three pollutants or pollutant
parameters: TOC, TOP and total sulfide.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Oily Wastes Subcategory, EPA considered the same
technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the additional
consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is proposing BAT
Option 6 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff for PSES. The Agency is proposing
Option 6 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected that option
for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.F and XI.F) and provides additional
rationale below. EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff primarily to
reduce the burden on POTWs, and solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff as a
possible alternative to further reduce impacts.
EPA determined that Option 6 represented the best available
technology and that Option 6 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff was economically
achievable and greatly reduced the burden on POTWs. This option results
in 14 facility closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect
discharging Oily Wastes subcategory population). See Section XVI.E for
a discussion on job losses. Additionally, the Agency believes that
Option 6 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
According to EPA's detailed questionnaires, approximately 44 percent of
the indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
employ oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking followed by
gravity separation and oil skimming (Option 6) while no facilities
employ ultrafiltration (Option 8).
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 8 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff as a basis
for establishing PSES more stringent than the level of control being
proposed
[[Page 470]]
today. EPA estimates that the economic impact due to the additional
controls at Option 8 levels would result in the same number of facility
closures (14) as Option 6. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 8 to be
economically achievable for this subcategory. However, based on the
available data base, EPA is not proposing to establish PSES limitations
based on Option 8 because it removes fewer pound-equivalents than
Option 6. Therefore, the Agency determined that Option 6 is the ``best
available'' technology economically achievable for the removal of
priority pollutants from wastewater generated at Oily Wastes
subcategory facilities.
Considering the large number of indirect dischargers which have the
potential to be covered by this proposed regulation, an important issue
to the affected industry and to permit writers is the potentially
enormous administrative burden associated with issuing permits or other
control mechanisms for all these facilities. Therefore, in developing
this proposal, EPA has looked for means of reducing the administrative
burden, reducing monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting
requirements. In order to meet this end, the Agency is proposing a 2
MGY flow cutoff for the Oily Wastes subcategory. Under this proposed
option, facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory that discharge
greater than 2 MGY per year of MP&M process wastewater would be subject
to the proposed pretreatment standards. However, those facilities in
the Oily Wastes subcategory that discharge 2 MGY or less would not be
subject to MP&M PSES requirements. These facilities would, however,
remain subject to the existing general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR
Part 403.
The Agency is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff exclusion for the
Oily Wastes subcategory based on several factors. First, and the most
important factor, was the overall size of the Oily Wastes subcategory.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect discharging
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory, of which over 99 percent are
not currently regulated by categorical pretreatment standards.
Establishing an MP&M pretreatment standard for all 28,500 facilities
would nearly double the number of permits that local authorities are
currently responsible for. EPA concluded that this increased permit
burden was not reasonable given the projected loadings reductions and
therefore explored potential flow cutoffs as a way to reduce the impact
on POTW permitting authorities.
Second, EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory
based in part on the small number of pound-equivalents that would be
removed by facilities with annual wastewater flows less than or equal
to 2 MGY. EPA determined that after removing facilities that close in
the baseline (``baseline closures'') from the analysis, over 99 percent
of the indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY. EPA estimates average removals
of only 2 pound-equivalents per facility per year for these facilities.
In addition, EPA determined that for those facilities in this
subcategory that discharge between 1 and 2 MGY the MP&M regulation
would remove an average of 31 pound-equivalents per year per facility.
These reductions, as discussed previously, are lower than those
projected for industrial laundries and landfills, for which EPA
determined national regulation was not warranted. The Agency concluded
that regulation of facilities discharging only 2 pound-equivalents per
year (with those discharging between 1 and 2 MGY at 31 pound-
equivalents per year) was not justified by the additional permitting
burden associated with these facilities. EPA believes this approach
would allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the
facilities discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to
the overall problem. EPA does note, however, that the indirect
discharging facilities that discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY are
responsible for an estimated 78 percent of the total pound-equivalents
currently discharged (approximately 51,000 of the 65,000 pound-
equivalents discharged after removing baseline closures from the
analysis).
EPA also closely evaluated Option 6 with a 3 MGY flow cutoff for
the Oily Waste subcategory. Based on EPA's data collection efforts,
after removing facilities that close in the baseline (``baseline
closures'') from the analysis, over 99 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory discharge less
than or equal to 3 MGY. The Agency determined that after removing
baseline closures from the analysis there are approximately 64 indirect
discharge facilities in this subcategory between 2 and 3 MGY and that
they discharge an average of 24 pound-equivalents per year per
facility. If EPA proposed Option 2 with a 3 MGY flow cutoff, the
economic impacts would decrease slightly (12 facility closures rather
than 14 at the proposed option). The Agency concluded that the 3 MGY
flow cutoff was not necessary to reduce POTW burden for the Oily Wastes
subcategory although it would reduce the economic impact somewhat. EPA
solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff, but notes that these approximately
28,160 facilities are responsible for an estimated 81 percent of the
total pound-equivalents currently discharged (approximately 52,500 of
the 65,000 pound-equivalents discharged after removing baseline
closures from the analysis).
Therefore, EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff but is also
seriously considering a 3 MGY cutoff. EPA believes this approach would
allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the facilities
discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to
the overall problem. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of pollutants
removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs
and economic impacts associated with the proposed option (both tables
include facilities that close in the baseline). EPA's methodology for
identifying baseline closures is discussed in Section XVI.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.I.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Oily Wastes subcategory equivalent to those limitations
proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.65 (as provided
in the codified regulation that accompanies this preamble). EPA is
proposing a pretreatment standard for total sulfide based on potential
POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of total sulfide
from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for TOC
and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory based on the small quantity
[[Page 471]]
of toxic pollutants discharged by facilities in this subcategory. The
Agency estimates that there are 799 indirect discharging railroad line
maintenance facilities that currently discharge 1,800 pound-equivalents
per year to our nation's waters (taking into account removals at the
POTW), or just over 2 pound-equivalents per facility per year. Based on
this analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to
develop nationally applicable regulations for this subcategory due to
the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this
subcategory.
K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Shipbuilding Dry
Dock subcategory based on the small number of facilities in this
subcategory and on the small quantity of toxic pollutants removed by
the technology options evaluated by EPA for this proposal. The Agency
estimates that there are 6 indirect discharging facilities that have
one or more dry docks that currently discharge 852 pound-equivalents
per year to our nation's waters (taking into account removals at the
POTW). On a national basis, Option 8 (ultrafiltration + P2) removed
less than 1 pound-equivalent per year while Option 10 (DAF plus P2)
only removed 26 pound-equivalents per year (or less than 5 pound-
equivalents removed per facility per year). The Agency estimates that
all of these facilities currently have DAF treatment in place. EPA
determined that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at
this time because of the small number of facilities in this subcategory
and based on the small amount of toxic pounds removed by the technology
options evaluated by the Agency. The Agency believes that pretreatment
local limits implemented on a case-by-case basis can more appropriately
address any individual toxic parameters present at these six
facilities.
XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates
new source performance standards (NSPS). New facilities have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies
including process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies.
The same technologies discussed previously for BAT and PSES are
available as the basis for NSPS and PSNS. Since new sites have the
potential to install pollution prevention and pollution control
technologies more cost effectively then existing sources, EPA strongly
considered the more advanced treatment options for NSPS and PSNS. The
Agency discusses its analysis of these more stringent options for NSPS
and PSNS on a subcategory-by-subcategory basis below.
A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the General Metals subcategory
will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS regulation is the same
as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section IX.A.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option
4 is capable of achieving much lower long-term averages than Option 2
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent.
Although Option 4 costs $54,500 (1996$) more than Option 2 annually for
a new facility with a wastewater flow of 1.1 MGY (the wastewater flow
for a representative direct discharging facility in the General Metals
subcategory), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of
metal pollutants in the wastewater effluent. EPA noted in the
discussion of its consideration of this technology for BPT/BAT that it
is not being proposed for BPT because the additional removals, while
large when considered across the entire population of existing
facilities, were not significant on a per facility basis, and because
of concerns with potential increased loadings (relative to Option 2) of
COD and organic pollutants. EPA requests comment on basing NSPS on
Option 2 for the same reasons it is proposing to base BPT/BAT on Option
2.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.16. (See Section XXI.C.
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA based these proposed
regulations on EPA sampling episodes at four facilities that employed
Option 4 technologies. Three of the four facilities are General Metals
facilities while the fourth is a printed wiring board manufacturer. The
Agency used the same statistical methods for determining the effluent
limitations for NSPS as it described in Section VIII. Because of the
limited number of facilities that EPA has analytical sampling data on
for Option 4, the Agency is soliciting comment and data on Option 4
technologies. Specifically, the Agency is interested in wastewater
treatment data from MP&M facilities employing Option 4 technologies
(ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and microfiltration
following chemical precipitation for removal of TSS and metals). See
Section XXIII ``Solicitation of Comments.''
4. NSPS Analysis
The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities
in the General Metals subcategory. EPA determined that the cost of
compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.04 percent
of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA concluded that
NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to entry.
B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the General Metals subcategory
will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS regulation is the same
as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section XII.D.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. EPA is also requesting comment on basing PSNS on
Option 2, as with NSPS. In addition, EPA is
[[Page 472]]
proposing a 1 MGY flow cutoff exclusion for PSNS. This is the same flow
cutoff level that EPA is proposing for PSES for the existing indirect
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory. The Agency
concluded that a 1 MGY flow cutoff is appropriate for new indirect
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory based on the
potential POTW permitting burden that would be associated with
developing and then maintaining permits for new sources with low flows
and the likelihood that these facilities discharge a small amount of
pound-equivalents at these low flow rates. The Agency assumes that the
pound-equivalents removed per facility for new facilities with flows
below or equal to 1 MGY would be even lower than the 22 pound-
equivalents per facility for similarly sized existing sources in this
subcategory. The Agency concluded that a similar (or even smaller)
amount of pollutant removal is not significant and does not justify
regulation of these facilities by a national categorical regulation.
EPA solicits comment on whether it is appropriate to exclude new
sources that discharge process wastewater equal to 1 million gallons or
less for the reasons described above.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.17. EPA determined that all of the pollutants
listed in Sec. 438.17 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Agency based these proposed limitations on the same
four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.09 percent of a new
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create
a barrier to entry.
C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section
IX.B.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option
4 is capable of achieving much lower long term averages than Option 2
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent.
Although Option 4 costs $72,500 (1996$) more than Option 2 annually for
a new facility with a wastewater flow of 6.0 MGY (the wastewater flow
for a representative direct discharging facility in the Metal Finishing
Job Shops), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of
metal pollutants in the treated wastewater effluent. EPA is not
proposing Option 4 for BPT for this subcategory because of the lack of
significant overall pollutant removals achieved, and the fact that it
removes less COD, O&G, and organic pollutants. EPA requests comment on
using Option 2 as the basis for NSPS.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.26. (See Section XXI.C
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA based these proposed
regulations on the same four EPA sampling episodes that it used to
calculate NSPS for the General Metals subcategory. See Section XIII.A.
4. NSPS Analysis
The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities
in the Metal Finishing subcategory. EPA determined that the cost of
compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 1.41 percent
of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA concluded that
NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to entry.
D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section
XII.E.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. EPA is also requesting comment on PSNS limits
based on Option 2. In addition, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff
exclusion for PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it
did not propose a flow cutoff for PSES, but is requesting comment on
flow cutoffs of 1 and 2 MGY, as with PSES. (See Section XII.E.)
The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.27. EPA determined that all of the pollutants
listed in Sec. 438.27 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a
[[Page 473]]
limitation for total sulfide based on potential POTW interference or
upset associated with discharges of total sulfide from facilities in
this subcategory. EPA is proposing limitations for TOC and TOP as part
of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant discharges. (See
Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Agency
based these proposed limitations on the same four EPA sampling episodes
that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up 4.64 percent of a new facility's
projected revenues and expects that this would not create a barrier to
entry. EPA notes that this is a higher percentage than for other
subcategories and solicits comment on whether EPA should consider
Option 2 for these facilities.
E. NSPS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. EPA notes that it did not identify any
existing direct dischargers in this subcategory and that estimates of
costs and pollutant loadings were transferred from the best performing
indirect dischargers in this subcategory (see Section IX.C). Therefore,
the need for NSPS regulation is the same as the need for BPT
regulation. (See Section IX.C.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 2. As discussed in the BPT analysis for
this subcategory, non-chromium anodizers discharge large quantities of
aluminum but have very low levels of other metals in their wastewater.
EPA determined that Option 2 is capable of removing most of the
aluminum discharged by facilities in this subcategory and that any
additional removals achieved by Option 4 are not justified by the
additional cost.
The Agency also evaluated not proposing NSPS for facilities in this
subcategory and instead continuing to require compliance with NSPS
limitations established under 40 CFR part 433. However, the Agency has
tentatively rejected this option because these new proposed NSPS
limitations require an increased removal of TSS and the Agency feels
that the pollutants proposed for regulation here are more appropriate
for the non-chromium anodizing industry. The NSPS limitations
established in 40 CFR part 433 require facilities to meet an average
monthly discharge of 31 mg/L of TSS and allow for a maximum daily
discharge of 60 mg/L. These proposed MP&M limitations require non-
chromium anodizers to meet an average monthly discharge for TSS of 22
mg/L and allow for a monthly maximum discharge of 52 mg/L. EPA believes
that the costs associated with NSPS are justified by the additional
removal of TSS from this subcategory. In addition, 40 CFR part 433
requires non-chromium anodizers to meet effluent limitations for 7
metal pollutants. EPA's data show that these seven metals are present
only in very small quantities at non-chromium anodizing facilities. In
40 CFR part 433, EPA did not establish a limit for aluminum, the metal
found in the largest quantity in non-chromium anodizers' wastewater.
The Agency has determined that direct discharging facilities in the
Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory should have a limit for aluminum and
thus is proposing to cover them here. The Agency notes that this will
reduce the number of pollutants that non-chromium anodizers would have
to monitor for.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.36. (See Section XXI.C
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
A barrier to entry analysis is typically performed for new
facilities by using existing facilities as a model. However, there are
no existing direct dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, the
Agency could not perform an economic analysis in order to determine if
Option 2 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
F. PSNS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge and therefore EPA is not proposing
pretreatment standards for new sources for this subcategory for the
same reasons it is not proposing PSES for this subcategory. See Section
XII.F and VI.C.3.
G. NSPS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section
IX.D.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option
4 is capable of achieving much lower long term averages than Option 2
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent.
Although Option 4 costs $162,000 more than Option 2 annually for a new
facility with a wastewater flow of 25.5 MGY (the wastewater flow for a
representative direct discharging facility in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of
metal pollutants in the wastewater effluent. EPA is not proposing
Option 4 for BPT/BAT because of the lack of significant overall
additional removals and the fact that it removes less COD, O&G, and
organic pollutants, relative to Option 2. EPA also requests comment on
basing NSPS on Option 2.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.46.
[[Page 474]]
(See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA
based these proposed regulations on the same four EPA sampling episodes
that it used to calculate NSPS for the General Metals subcategory. (See
Section XIII.A.3). As mentioned above, EPA collected analytical
wastewater treatment data from a printed wiring board manufacturer that
employed this technology.
4. NSPS Analysis
The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities
in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. EPA determined that the cost
of compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.02
percent of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA
concluded that NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to
entry.
H. PSNS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section
XII.G.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. It is also requesting comment on PSNS based on
Option 2. As was the case for PSES, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff
exclusion for this subcategory for the same reasons discussed in
Section XII.G.2, but is requesting comment on a flow cutoff of 1 MGY ,
as with PSES.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.47. EPA determined that all of the pollutants
listed in Sec. 438.47 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from facilities in this subcategory. EPA is proposing
limitations for TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for
organic pollutant discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.) EPA determined that all of these pollutants
pass through POTWs. The Agency based these proposed limitations on the
same four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
As mentioned above, EPA collected analytical wastewater treatment data
from a printed wiring board manufacturer that employed this technology.
4. PSNS Analysis
Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.20 percent of a new
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create
a barrier to entry.
I. NSPS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section
IX.E.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option
4 is capable of achieving much lower long-term averages than Option 2
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent.
Although Option 4 costs $42,400 more than Option 2 annually for a new
facility with a wastewater flow of 18.4 MGY (the wastewater flow for a
representative direct discharging facilities in the Steel Forming and
Finishing subcategory), EPA determined that the additional cost of
Option 4 are justified by the lower levels of metal pollutants in the
wastewater effluent.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by a clarifier for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.56. (See Section XXI.C
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Agency based these
proposed limitations on the same four EPA sampling episodes that EPA
discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. NSPS Analysis
The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities
in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. EPA determined that the
cost of compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.14
percent of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA
concluded that NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to
entry.
J. PSNS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section
XII.H.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. In addition, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff
exclusion for PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it
did not propose a flow cutoff for PSES, but is requesting comment on
flow cutoffs of 1, 2, and 3 MGY as with PSES. (See Section XII.H.)
The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the
[[Page 475]]
oil/water separator replaced by an ultrafilter. The Agency is
soliciting comment and data on this PSNS option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.57. EPA determined that all of the pollutants
listed in Sec. 438.57 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from facilities in this subcategory. EPA is proposing
limitations for TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for
organic pollutant discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.) The Agency based these proposed limitations on
the same four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section
XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.17 percent of a new
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create
a barrier to entry.
K. NSPS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory will
discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS regulation is the same
as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section IX.F.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 6, oil-water separation by chemical
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming. The Agency
determined that Option 6 is the best available demonstrated technology
for the removal of pollutants in this subcategory and is proposing this
option for the same reasons it selected this option for BPT and BAT.
(See Section IX.F.2).
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to those
proposed for BPT for this subcategory. The NSPS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.66. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
Since EPA is proposing to set NSPS equal to BAT (Option 6) and this
option is determined to be economically-achievable for these facilities
under BAT, EPA concluded that NSPS based on Option 6 would not create a
barrier to entry.
L. PSNS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory will
discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS regulation is the same
as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section XII.I.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 6 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. In addition, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff
exclusion for PSNS with serious consideration of a 3 MGY flow cutoff as
well. This is the same flow cutoff level that EPA is proposing for PSES
for the existing indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory. The Agency is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff for new
indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory based on
the potential POTW permitting burden that would be associated with
developing and then maintaining permits for new sources with low flows
and the likelihood that these facilities discharge a small amount of
pound-equivalents at these low flow rates. The Agency assumes that the
pound-equivalents per facility for new facilities with flows below or
equal to 2 MGY would be even lower than the 2 pound-equivalents per
facility for similarly sized existing sources in this subcategory. The
Agency concluded that a similar (or even smaller) amount of pollutant
removal is not justified by the cost of the regulation for new indirect
Oily Waste facilities discharging less than or equal to 2 MGY.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations equivalent to PSES for the
same pollutants that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations
for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which
accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.67. (See Section XII.I.3. for
PSES discussion and see Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. PSNS Analysis
Since EPA is proposing to set PSNS equal to PSES (Option 6) and
this option is determined to be economically achievable for these
facilities under PSES, the Agency concluded that this would not create
a barrier to entry.
M. NSPS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section
IX.G.1.)
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 10, dissolved air flotation plus in-
process flow control and pollution prevention. The Agency determined
that Option 10 is the best available demonstrated technology for the
removal of pollutants in this subcategory and is proposing this option
for the same reasons it selected this option for BPT and BAT. (See
Section IX.G.2).
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to those
proposed for BPT for this subcategory. The NSPS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.76. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
EPA notes that railroad line maintenance facilities do not have
revenue reported at the facility level, and it is therefore not
possible to compare costs as a percent of facility revenue for new and
existing facilities in this subcategory. In addition, EPA is proposing
to set NSPS equal to BAT (Option 10) and has determined this option is
economically achievable for these facilities under BAT, therefore, EPA
concluded that NSPS based on Option 10 would not create a barrier to
entry.
N. PSNS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the
[[Page 476]]
same pollutants that existing sources discharge. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to not establish PSNS for this subcategory for the same
reasons that it did not propose PSES. (See Section XII.J.1).
O. NSPS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section
IX.H.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 10, dissolved air flotation plus in-
process flow control and pollution prevention. The Agency determined
that Option 10 is the best available demonstrated technology for the
removal of pollutants in this subcategory and is proposing this option
for the same reasons it selected this option for BPT. (See Section
IX.H.2).
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations equivalent to those
proposed for BPT for this subcategory. The NSPS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.76. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.)
4. NSPS Analysis
Since EPA is proposing to set NSPS equal to BAT (Option 10) and has
determined that this option is economically achievable for these
facilities under BAT, EPA concluded that NSPS based on Option 10 would
not create a barrier to entry.
P. PSNS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, EPA is proposing to not
establish PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it did
not propose PSES. (See Section XII.K.1)
XIV. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW
Performance
For today's proposal, EPA used its traditional methodology to
determine POTW performance (percent removal) for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. POTW performance is a component of the pass-
through methodology used to identify the pollutants to be regulated for
PSES and PSNS. It is also a component of the analysis to determine net
pollutant reductions (for both total pounds and toxic pound-
equivalents) for various indirect discharge technology options.
However, as discussed in more detail below, EPA is evaluating several
issues related to its traditional methodology for determining POTW
performance and solicits comments a variety of methodological changes.
A. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs
EPA developed the principal pass-through analysis for today's MP&M
proposal by using data from all 50 POTWs that were part of the 50 POTW
Study data base. Some of these POTWs were not operated to meet the
secondary treatment requirements at 40 CFR part 133 for all portions of
their wastestream. Most POTWs today have secondary treatment or better
in place. EPA estimates that as of 1996, POTWs with at least secondary
treatment in place service greater than 90 percent of the indirect
discharging population. If the POTW removal calculations do not reflect
the upgrades and system improvements that have occurred since the time
of the 50 POTW Study, they would tend to under-estimate POTW removals.
This would result in overestimating the pollutant reductions that are
achieved through the regulation of indirect dischargers, thereby making
the regulation appear more cost-effective for indirect dischargers than
it is.
One partial solution to this methodological issue would be to
evaluate individual treatment trains in the 50 POTW Study data base,
and include only those treatment trains that achieved compliance with
40 CFR part 133 in the analysis of POTW pollutant removal rates. There
were 29 treatment trains that achieved BOD5 and TSS effluent
concentrations between 15 mg/l and 45 mg/l during the sampling and
could potentially be considered reflective of secondary treatment
(based on 40 CFR 133.102 limitations of 30 mg/l monthly average and 45
mg/l weekly max for secondary treatment), and an additional 2 treatment
trains were either trickling filters or waste stabilization ponds that
achieved BOD5 and TSS effluent concentrations between 40 mg/
l and 65 mg/l and could potentially be considered equivalent to
secondary treatment pursuant to 40 CFR 133.101(g) (based on 40 CFR
133.105 limitations of 45 mg/l monthly average and 65 mg/l weekly
maximum). In addition, 15 treatment trains achieved BOD5 and
TSS effluent concentrations below 15 mg/l each, and could potentially
be considered greater than secondary treatment.
Using data from these 46 treatment trains only would omit the worst
performers in the 50 POTW Study that are probably not reflective of
current performance. It might not fully correct, however, for
additional upgrades and optimization that may have occurred over the
past two decades.
B. Assessment of Acceptable Data
EPA developed the pass-through analysis that is the basis for
today's proposal using POTW data editing criteria that are generally
consistent with those used for the industry data. Specifically, EPA
included only data from POTWs for which influent concentrations were 10
times the analytical minimum (quantitation) level (10xML) if available.
If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations are at least
10 times the ML, then EPA retained only data from POTWs for which
influent concentrations were 2 times the analytical minimum level.
Because it is difficult to achieve the same pollutant reduction (in
terms of percent) in a dilute wastestream as in a more concentrated
wastestream, EPA believes that a 10 X ML editing criteria may
overestimate the percent removals that are calculated for both industry
and POTWs in the pass-through analysis.
As a general rule, more POTW data than industry data is eliminated
through this editing criteria for the specific pollutants that are
being examined. This is not surprising since the pass-through analysis
would not even be performed on pollutants generally found at less than
10 times the method minimum level in industry since EPA would, in many
cases, not require pretreatment for such low levels of a pollutant. As
a result of this imbalance (pollutant influent levels at POTWs being
less than pollutant influent levels to industrial pretreatment), EPA
believes that it is possible that this editing criteria may bias the
pass-through results by over-estimating POTW removals where influent
concentrations are generally lower. This would result in
underestimating the pollutant reductions that are achieved through the
regulation of indirect dischargers thereby making the rule appear less
cost-effective than it is. On the other hand, there may be little
difference in percent removals across the range of
[[Page 477]]
influent concentrations generally experienced by POTWs.
One potential solution to this methodological question would be to
include data (for both indirect dischargers and POTWs) even if the
influent concentration is not 10 times the analytical minimum level.
This solution needs to be considered in context, however, with data
handling criteria for effluent measurements of ``non-detect'' discussed
below.
C. Assessment of Removals When Effluent Is Below the Analytical Method
Minimum Level
EPA developed the pass-through analysis that is the basis for
today's proposal using the analytical method minimum level as the
effluent value when the pollutant was not detected in the effluent.
This is the approach that is generally used when developing pollutant
reduction estimates for the regulation, performing cost-effectiveness
calculations, and developing effluent limitations. EPA believes that
this methodology may underestimate the performance of the selected
technology option for both directs and indirects. Once again, this
would result in underestimating the removals estimated for direct
dischargers, and thereby making the rule appear less cost-effective
than it is. For indirect dischargers, EPA believes that the overall
effect of using the minimum level for non-detect values for both
industry and POTW data creates a bias for underestimating POTW removals
in comparison to industry removals. This may result in an
overestimation of pollutant removals by indirect dischargers, and may
make the rule appear more cost-effective than it is. [Note that this
problem is minimized by only using data with influent levels exceeding
10 X ML, because a non-detect assures that at least 90 percent of the
pollutant has been removed. It is arguably less important that the true
removal may be greater than 90 percent, rather than exactly 90 percent.
Using a less stringent editing criteria of 2 X ML as discussed above
would exacerbate this problem. If the influent were only 2 X ML, then
removals greater than 50 percent could never be measured.]
One potential alternative would be to assume a value of one half of
the minimum level for effluent values of non-detect. This approach
would have to be applied uniformly for the indirect dischargers as well
as the POTWs in order for the percent removal calculations to be
reasonable.
For a more detailed discussion of alternative approaches to the
POTW pass-through analysis, see the Appendix to Section 7 of the
Technical Development Document. EPA solicits comment on the
significance of each of these methodological issues and the potential
alternatives.
XV. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings
using model sites based on technical questionnaire respondents and a
computerized design and cost model for the MP&M technology options (see
Sections 11 and 12 of the Technical Development Document for a detailed
discussion of EPA's MP&M Design & Cost Model). The Agency estimated
industry-wide costs and pollutant loadings for several technology
options based on technologies designed for each subcategory of model
sites. EPA used these model sites to estimate costs for 63,000 MP&M
wastewater-discharging sites nationwide using statistically calculated
industry weights (i.e., survey sample weights). EPA notes that once the
low flow exclusion is applied, the number of sites expected to incur
costs under the MP&M regulation is 10,300.
There are 890 sites which indicated that they were water
dischargers on their technical questionnaire and provided EPA with
enough data to include them in the cost model. EPA assessed each of the
890 sites selected to determine the unit operations, wastewater
characteristics and treatment technologies currently in place at the
sites.
Based on the information provided by the sites in their
questionnaire responses, follow-up letters, and phone calls, EPA
classified each wastewater stream by the type of unit operation (e.g.,
machining, electroplating, acid treatment, etc.) and base metal type
(e.g., steel, aluminum, zinc, etc.). The Agency used the following
additional questionnaire data to characterize process wastewater
streams: wastewater discharge flow rate, production rate, operating
schedule, and discharge destination. Many of the sites provided these
data for all wastewater streams generated on site. For sites that did
not provide complete data, EPA either estimated the missing data based
on technical considerations specific to the site, or statistically
imputed the data. The Agency modeled the concentration of each
pollutant in each wastewater stream from field sampling of wastewater
discharges from the unit operations at MP&M sites. EPA used
questionnaire responses to identify the following information about
end-of-pipe technologies in place at MP&M sites: the types of treatment
units in place; the unit operations discharging process wastewater to
each treatment unit; and the operating schedule of each treatment unit.
EPA developed a computerized design and cost model to estimate
compliance costs and pollutant loadings for the MP&M technology
options, taking into account each site's level of treatment in place.
As a conservative estimate for estimating baseline (prior to compliance
with these proposed regulations) pollutant loadings, EPA assumed that
all sites with treatment currently in place (including those sites not
currently covered by the Metal Finishing regulations) were currently
meeting the long-term average (LTA) concentrations (i.e., design
concentrations) for the pollutants limited under the Metal Finishing
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433) with the exception of cyanide and
were meeting the LTA concentrations achieved by EPA's sampled MP&M BAT
facilities for cyanide and other pollutants of concern. For sites that
did not report treatment in place, EPA based baseline pollutant
loadings on EPA's unit operation-by-unit operation sampling data for
raw wastewater. The Agency programmed the model with technology-
specific modules which calculated the costs for various combinations of
technologies included in the technology options for each subcategory.
EPA based design and cost data on MP&M site data, literature data, and
vendor data. The Agency developed technology-specific cost modules for
the in-process pollution prevention and water use reduction
technologies and end-of-pipe treatment technologies discussed in
Section VII.A of this notice.
The model provided the following types of information for each
technology designed for a model site: capital costs; operating and
maintenance costs; electricity used and associated cost; sludge
generation and associated disposal costs; waste oil generation and
associated disposal costs; water use reduction and associated cost
credit; chemical usage reduction and associated cost credit; effluent
flow rate; and effluent pollutant concentrations. This data enabled EPA
to develop site by site compliance costs and pollutant reductions for
the costed sites.
If contract hauling of wastewater for off-site treatment and
disposal was less costly than on-site treatment, EPA estimated costs
assuming the model site would contract haul the wastewater. EPA made
this assessment on a technology-specific basis. When estimating costs
for sludge disposal, EPA assumed all sludge to be F006
[[Page 478]]
listed (or other F-listed hazardous waste) hazardous waste under RCRA
(40 CFR 261.31) and would, therefore, be disposed of off-site as
hazardous waste. As a conservative estimate for the model, EPA did not
allow the time for storage of the sludge prior to disposal to exceed 90
days, regardless of the facilities RCRA generator status (i.e., exempt,
small, large). EPA notes that on March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12377), the
Agency published a final regulation in the Federal Register extending
the accumulation time, under RCRA, for certain wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating processes to be held on-site without
requiring a hazardous waste storage permit. Facilities implementing
pollution prevention, recycling and metals recovery meeting certain
requirements can accumulate F006 sludge for up to 180 days for large
quantity generators (or 270 days for small quantity generators).
After estimation of capital and operating and maintenance costs,
EPA calculated the total capital investment (TCI), and the total
annualized cost (TAC). The Agency assumed that facilities meeting local
limitations or national effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment
standards will already incur monitoring costs. EPA solicits comment on
the whether facilities will incur additional monitoring costs to comply
with today's proposal (and how much that monitoring would cost). EPA
has incorporated several options for adding additional flexibility in
regards to monitoring (See Section XXI.C for a discussion on monitoring
flexibility). EPA expects that these proposed flexibilities will
decrease the overall burden and costs of analytical wastewater
monitoring for facilities within the scope of this rule.
XVI. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis
A. Introduction
EPA's economic analyses are presented in the report titled
``Economic, Environmental, & Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Metal
Products & Machinery Rule [EPA-821-B-00-008] (hereafter referred to as
the ``EEBA''). This report presents the social costs and benefits of
the proposed rule and alternatives, and estimates the expected economic
impacts of compliance with the proposed rule in terms of facility
closures and associated losses in employment. Other measures of
economic impact include firm-level impacts, local community impacts,
international trade effects, employment effects, and effects on new
MP&M facilities. An analysis of impacts on small businesses supports
EPA's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).
This section of the preamble summarizes the economic impact and social
cost findings from the EEBA. The reader is referred to the full report
for the details of these analyses.
EPA's determination of economic achievability are based on the
findings reported in the EEBA and discussed below. The options analyzed
consist of combinations of comparable technology options for the
different subcategories. The three options analyzed in the economic
analyses are defined as follows:
Table XVI-1.--Regulatory Options Considered in the Economic Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals....................... Technology option 2; 1 Technology option 2.... Technology option 4.
mgy flow cutoff for
indirect dischargers.
Metal Finishing Job Shop............. Technology option 2.... Technology option 2.... Technology option 4.
Non-Chromium Anodizing............... Technology option 2; no Technology option 2.... Technology option 4.
PSES/PSNS for indirect
dischargers.
Printed Wiring Board................. Technology option 2.... Technology option 2.... Technology option 4.
Steel Forming & Finishing............ Technology option 2.... Technology option 2.... Technology option 4.
Oily Wastes.......................... Technology option 6; 2 Technology option 6.... Technology option 8.
mgy flow cutoff for
indirect dischargers.
Railroad Line Maintenance............ Technology option 10; Technology option 10... Technology option 8.
no PSES/PSNS for
indirect dischargers.
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................ Technology option 10; Technology option 10... Technology option 8.
no PSES/PSNS for
indirect dischargers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options 1 through 10 are described in Section VIII.A. of the preamble.
Technology options 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 (without pollution prevention) were
not further analyzed, because they remove fewer pollutants and cost
more than the comparable technology options with pollution prevention.
The economic impact analyses assess how facilities will be affected
financially by the proposed rule. Key outputs of the facility impact
analysis include expected facility closures in the MP&M industries,
associated losses in employment, and the number of facilities
experiencing financial stress short of closure (``moderate impacts'').
The findings from the facility impact analysis also provide the basis
for the following analyses:
A firm-level analysis, which assesses the impact on the
financial performance and condition of firms owning MP&M facilities;
An employment effects analysis, which assesses the
increase in employment associated with compliance activities, the loss
of employment due to facility closures, and the net effect on overall
employment;
A community impact analysis, which assesses the job losses
caused by facility closures and job gains associated with compliance;
A foreign trade analysis, which assesses the effect of the
proposed rule on the U.S. balance of trade;
A new source impact analysis, which assesses the effect of
effluent guidelines on the costs and financial viability of new
facilities in the MP&M industries; and
The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IFRA), which
assesses the economic and financial impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities.
B. Facility Level Impacts
1. Facility Categories Analyzed
EPA performed economic impact analyses for three categories of
facilities, using different methodologies to evaluate each of the
groups. The three groups are:
Private MP&M Facilities. This group includes privately-
owned facilities that do not perform railroad line maintenance and are
not owned by governments. This major category
[[Page 479]]
includes private businesses in a wide range of sectors or industries,
including. This segment includes facilities that manufacture and
rebuild railroad equipment. Only facilities that repair railroad track
and equipment along the railroad line are not included.
Railroad line maintenance facilities maintain and repair
railroad track, equipment and vehicles.
Government-owned facilities include MP&M facilities
operated by municipalities, State agencies and other public sector
entities such as State universities. Many of these facilities repair,
rebuild, and maintain buses, trucks, cars, utility vehicles (e.g., snow
plows and street cleaners), and light machinery.
The specific methodology used to assess impacts differs for each of
the three types of MP&M facilities. In each case, EPA established
thresholds for measures of financial performance and compared the
facilities' performance before and after compliance with each
regulatory option with these thresholds.
2. Data Sources for the Facility Impact Analysis
The economic analyses rely on data provided by the financial
portion of the detailed questionnaire distributed to MP&M facilities by
EPA under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
(``Section 308 Survey''). (See Section V.B for information on the MP&M
survey questionnaires). The survey was conducted in two phases,
covering different MP&M industries in each phase. The Phase I survey
covered seven industry sectors and reported data for fiscal years 1987
to 1989. The Phase II survey covered an additional ten industry sectors
(all remaining MP&M sectors except Steel Forming and Finishing, which
was the subject of a separate survey) and reported data for fiscal
years 1994 to 1996. The survey financial data were extrapolated to 1999
dollars using the Producer Price Index. The survey financial data
included three years of income statements and balance sheets for the
facility; the composition of revenues by customer type and MP&M
business sector; estimated value of facility assets and liabilities in
liquidation; borrowing costs; ownership of the facility; and total
revenues and employment of the owning entity (if separate from the
facility). The impacts assessed for these sample facilities were
extrapolated to the national level using facility sample weights that
are based on the sample design for the industrial detailed surveys.
Data for facilities in the railroad line maintenance subcategory
came from a modified version of the Phase II survey administered to
railroad operating companies. The questionnaire was modified because
railroad operating companies generally do not monitor financial
performance or collect financial data at the facility level for line
maintenance facilities. The railroad operating companies reported the
number of MP&M facilities in each operating unit, and provided detailed
operating company financial data and technical data for each line
maintenance facility.
Data for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory came from a
1997 Section 308 survey of iron and steel facilities. This survey
requested financial data generally similar to that collected by the
MP&M surveys, including income statements and balance sheets for Fiscal
Years 1995-1997 for the facility and the parent firm.
Government-owned MP&M facilities provided data in response to a
Phase II Section 308 survey of municipal and other government agency
facilities. This survey requested information on fiscal year 1996
sources and amounts of revenue and debt levels for both the government
entity and the MP&M facilities; and demographic data for the population
served by the government entity.
In addition to the survey data, a number of secondary sources
provided data for the analysis. Secondary source data were used to
characterize background economic and financial conditions in the
industries subject to the MP&M effluent guideline. Secondary sources
used in the analysis include:
Department of Commerce economic census and survey data,
including the Censuses of Manufactures, Annual Surveys of Manufactures,
and international trade data;
The Benchmark Input-Output Tables of the United States,
published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of
Commerce;
Price index series from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Department of Labor;
U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook, published by McGraw-Hill
and the U.S. Department of Commerce;
Industry trade publications; and
Financial publications, including the Value Line
Investment Survey and Robert Morris Associates annual data summaries.
3. Methodology and Impact Measures for the Facility Level Analysis
a. Private MP&M Facilities
EPA performed two categories of financial analysis, one to assess
the potential for facility closures and the other to assess the
potential for moderate financial impacts on MP&M facilities. These
analyses considered facility financial condition in the absence of the
rule (under baseline conditions) and changes in financial condition
that would result from the proposed rule.
EPA used two financial tests to estimate closures among general
MP&M facilities:
After-Tax Cash Flow: EPA examined after-tax cash flow
(ATCF) over a three year period to determine the financial condition of
general MP&M facilities.
Net Present Value: EPA also performed a net present value
(NPV) test, which compared the liquidation value of each facility to
the present value of expected future earnings. A business may close if
the value of closing (its liquidation value) exceeds its value as an
ongoing business (calculated as the present value of expected future
earnings).
EPA determined that a facility is subject to severe financial
stress and is a potential closure if ATCF is negative, since businesses
generally cannot sustain negative cash flows for long periods of time.
This test used the average of reported financial data over three fiscal
years. Baseline cash flow is defined as the sum of reported net income
and depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in
evaluating capital investment decisions because both net income and
depreciation (which is an accounting offset against income, but not an
actual cash expenditure) are potentially available to finance future
investment. However, assuming that total baseline cash flow is
available over an extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to
finance investments related to environmental compliance could overstate
a site's ability to comply. In particular, the cost of existing capital
equipment (not associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out
of cash flow, as it is of income through the subtraction of
depreciation. Thus, any costs associated with either replacing existing
capital equipment, or repaying money that was previously borrowed to
pay for it, are omitted from the facility analysis. EPA requests
comment on its use of cash flow as a measure of resources available to
finance environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative
methodologies. (See Section XXII of today's notice.)
Where estimates of liquidation values were available, EPA also
conducted the NPV test. NPV is the present value of expected future
earnings less the
[[Page 480]]
liquidation value (including closure and post-closure costs) of the
facility. If NPV is negative, then a business owner is financially
better off closing the facility and liquidating its assets, rather than
keeping the facility open. EPA estimated the present value of the
facility's expected future earnings by discounting its annual after-tax
cash flow over a fifteen-year period using a 7 percent discount rate.
EPA presumed that a facility was a potential closure if the facility
had an NPV less than zero.
Where liquidation values were available, facilities that failed
both tests under baseline conditions are baseline closures. Facilities
that pass at least one of the two tests in the baseline case but then
fail both tests post-compliance were considered closures due to the
rule. Where liquidation values were not provided by the survey, EPA
applied only the ATCF test to identify baseline and regulatory
closures.
In many past rules, EPA has used only the cash flow test to predict
both baseline and regulatory closures. Using both tests presents a
higher hurdle and thus makes it less likely that a facility
experiencing stress will be projected to close. Due to data
limitations, both tests were used for only 18,913 (approximately a
third) of the 58,421 private MP&M facilities considered in the
analysis. For the remaining two-thirds of the facilities, only the
after-tax cash flow test was used. Table XVI-2 shows the impacts on
estimated closures of using both tests, rather than the cash flow test
alone, to predict closures.
Table XVI-2.--Baseline Closures, Regulatory Closures, and National Estimates of Compliance Costs for Private
MP&M Facilities by Status under Tests for Closures: 18,913 Facilities for Which Both Tests Were Used
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status under proposed option
Facilities -------------------------------
Baseline remaining open Pre-tax
Closure test closures in the Regulatory compliance
baseline closures costs ($1999
million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fail ATCF Only.................................. 3,211 15,766 225 $1,782.6
Fail NPV Only................................... 4,243 14,734 244 1,657.2
Double Test: Fail ATCF and NPV Text............. 2,711 16,266 169 1,793.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the cash test alone had been used, about 500 additional baseline
closures and 56 additional regulatory closures would have been
projected for the proposed rule. Depending on the subcategories in
which these facilities were located, this could have affected EPA's
achievability determinations in some cases. EPA requests comment on its
methodology for estimating facility closures for this rule.
All sellers in an affected market may benefit from higher prices
when prices rise in response to compliance costs, whether or not they
incur compliance costs under the rule. Some facilities that have very
low compliance costs may even gain more from increased prices than they
lose due to increased costs associated with the rule. The analysis
takes into account the effect of price increases that are attributable
to the regulation. The estimated price increases were generally less
than 1 percent and in no case exceeded 2 percent.
EPA also identified private MP&M facilities that are not expected
to close but that might nonetheless experience moderate financial
impacts as a result of the rule. The analysis of moderate financial
impacts examined two financial indicators:
Pre-Tax Return on Assets (PTRA): The ratio of cash
operating income to total assets measures the facility's profitability.
Interest Coverage Ratio (ICR): The ratio of cash operating
income to interest expenses measures the facility's ability to service
its debt and borrow for capital investments.
These two measures are among the criteria that creditors and equity
investors use to determine whether and under what terms to provide
financing to a business. The PTRA and ICR also provide insight into the
ability of a business to generate funds for compliance investments
internally. A business may have some trouble obtaining financing if its
profitability is low and its ability to pay its continuing interest
expenses is uncertain. EPA compared baseline and post-compliance PTRA
to an 8 percent threshold and ICR to a threshold of 4. A facility is
considered subject to incremental moderate impacts attributable to the
proposed regulation if its PTRA and its ICR both pass these thresholds
in the baseline but it fails one or both of the tests after compliance
with the rule. Facilities failing one of the tests in the baseline and
both tests post-compliance were not counted as experiencing moderate
impacts, but this may in some cases be indicative of moderate rule-
related impacts as well.
EPA assumed that MP&M facilities would be able to recover some of
their regulatory costs by raising prices to their customers. An
analysis of the potential for cost recovery considered conditions in
each individual MP&M industrial sector industry (e.g. aircraft,
aerospace, electronic equipment, etc.) Cost pass-through factors were
estimated for each sector. The cost pass-through factor blends findings
from two separate analyses to estimate a composite measure of pass-
through potential:
An econometric analysis of the historical relationship
between output prices and changes in input costs; and
An analysis of indicators of pass-through potential based
on market structure and performance.
Market structure factors include:
Market power based on the degree of horizontal and
vertical integration;
Extent of competition from foreign suppliers (in both
domestic and export markets);
Barriers to competition as indicated by above normal,
risk-adjusted profitability; and
Long term growth trends in the industry.
The analysis of pass-through potential indicates the percentage of
compliance costs that EPA expects firms subject to regulation to
recover from customers through increased prices. The estimated
percentage price increases were very small for the proposed rule,
ranging from 0.02 percent to less than two percent in different
sectors. This analysis can be found in Appendix B of the EEBA.
Table XVI-3 summarizes the measures used to assess impacts for
private MP&M facilities.
[[Page 481]]
Table XVI-3.--Summary of Facility Impact Methodology for Private MP&M Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significance of
Impact category Description Criteria negative finding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Closure..................... Identifies facilities 1. After-tax cash flow Facilities failing both
that are in jeopardy (ATCF) negative? and tests are considered
of financial failure 2. Liquidation value baseline closures and
independent of the exceed going concern excluded from
proposed regulation. value (NPV test)?. subsequent analyses.
Post-Compliance Closure.............. Identifies facilities 1. Post-compliance Facilities failing both
that are likely to after-tax cash flow tests are projected to
close instead of (ATCF) negative? and close as the result of
implementing the 2. Liquidation value regulation--an
pollution prevention exceed post-compliance incremental severe
and treatment systems going concern value?. economic impact.
required to comply
with the rule.
Moderate Financial Impacts........... Identifies facilities 1. Decline in pre-tax Facilities passing both
that may have return on assets tests in the baseline
difficult financing (PTRA) to a level that but failing one or
compliance investments jeopardizes access to both tests post-
or on-going business financing? or compliance are
investments as a 2. Decline in interest considered to
result of the rule. coverage ratio (ICR) experience incremental
to a level that moderate economic
jeopardizes access to impacts attributable
financing?. to the regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Railroad Line Maintenance Facilities
Railroad operators are unlikely to evaluate the financial
performance of repair and maintenance facilities as separate profit
centers, and are therefore not likely to estimate revenues at the
facility level. EPA conducted an analysis of impacts of these
facilities at the railroad operating company level, and assessed
whether the combined impact of compliance costs for the regulated
facilities owned by each operating company would cause a deterioration
in the company's financial performance. The analysis predicted that
railroad line maintenance facilities would close only if the railroad
operating company as a whole was predicted to close, based on the same
closure tests described above for other private MP&M facilities.
Railroad facilities other than the line maintenance facilities perform
the same type of operations as other MP&M facilities and are included
in the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, depending on their
MP&M activities.
c. Government-Owned Facilities
Governments with facilities affected by the proposed rule may take
one of three actions in response to the rule:
Replace one or more MP&M municipal facilities with a non-
municipal provider for services;
Discontinue these services altogether; or
Pay for compliance and continue operations.
EPA assumed that all government-owned facilities would continue
operating under the proposed rule. The economic impact analysis for
these facilities evaluates whether a government entity would incur a
major budgetary burden as a result of complying with the proposed rule.
Like private firms, governments could in some cases minimize the impact
of the proposed rule on their budgets by discontinuing operations at
the regulated facility, rather than paying the costs of compliance.
Unlike the analysis for private sector MP&M facilities, the analysis of
government impacts did not consider potential closures and therefore
may overstate the impacts of the rule on governments that own MP&M
facilities.
EPA evaluated impacts for government-owned facilities by performing
three tests.
Impacts on site-level cost of service: This test assesses
whether facility compliance costs would exceed one or more percent of
the total baseline cost of service at that facility. EPA assumed that
facilities can absorb compliance costs within their current budget if
the costs do not exceed one percent of total costs in the baseline.
Impacts on taxpayers: This test compared compliance costs
to the income of households that are served by the relevant government,
and that may support the government through taxes and fees. (If the
government is a regional transit authority, for example, then the
households included in this analysis are all households in the region
that provides funding for the transit authority, as reported in the
Phase II Section 308 survey.) A government might be expected to
experience impacts if the ratio of total annualized pollution control
costs per household to median household income exceeds one percent
post-compliance. This comparison considered the government entity's
existing pollution control costs plus the compliance costs incurred by
all of its MP&M facilities under this rule. EPA uses this test in its
Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards as a screening measure to
determine when communities would incur ``little economic impact'' from
total pollution control costs. EPA recognizes that most local
governments receive at most a few percent of the income of their tax or
fee base (and some receive much less). Thus, one percent of median
income for pollution control costs alone may be a very significant
share of the local government's total budget.
Impact on government debt levels: This test assessed the
impact of financing the capital costs of compliance on the government's
overall debt burden. The government might be expected to experience
impacts if financing all of the compliance capital investments would
increase its total debt service payments to more than 25 percent of
baseline revenue. This criterion is used in EPA's MUNIPAY model as a
level beyond which debt service costs might adversely affect a
community's credit-worthiness. EPA determined that a government
facility that failed all three tests is likely to suffer severe adverse
impacts as a result of the rule. As shown in Table XVI-12 below, no
governments fail the latter two tests. However, 215 facilities failed
the site-level cost of service test. The governments operating these
facilities could experience some level of impacts as a result of the
rule, if these facilities represent a significant cost to their
budgets. Government owned facilities perform the same type of
operations as other MP&M facilities and are included in the General
Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, depending on their MP&M
activities.
4. Baseline Closure Analysis
The estimated baseline closures for both indirect and direct
discharge facilities are summarized in Table XVI-4. Of the estimated
62,752 discharging facilities, 6.1 percent or 3,829 facilities
[[Page 482]]
were assessed as baseline closures. The 3,829 baseline closures include
3,678 indirect dischargers, or 6.3 percent of indirect dischargers, and
151 direct dischargers, or 3.1 percent of direct dischargers. The
facilities estimated to close in the baseline analysis are in jeopardy
of financial failure independent of the proposed rule. These facilities
were excluded from the post-compliance analysis of regulatory impacts.
Data on facility start-ups and closures from the Census Statistics of
U.S. Businesses indicate that between 6 and 12 percent of facilities in
the major metal products manufacturing industries close in any given
year. EPA's estimate may therefore understate actual baseline closures
somewhat.
Table XVI-4.--Summary of Baseline Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Percent of
Subcategory Total number baseline baseline Operating in
of dischargers closures closures baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.................................. 29,975 3,199 10.7 * 26,776
Metal Finishing Job Shop........................ 1,530 286 18.7 1,244
Non-Chromium Anodizing.......................... 190 40 21.1 150
Printed Wiring Board............................ 635 3 0.5 632
Steel Forming & Finishing....................... 153 6 3.9 147
Oily Wastes..................................... 29,425 295 1.0 29,130
Railroad Line Maintenance....................... 832 0 0.0 832
Shipbuilding Dry Dock........................... 11 0 0.0 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
All Categories.............................. 62,752 3,829 6.1 * 58,922
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes 64 facilities that close under baseline conditions but that are expected to continue operating under
the proposed rule.
Note: may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
Of the facilities closing in the baseline, 64 are projected to
continue operating under the proposed rule because they qualify for the
low flow cutoff (and therefore incur no compliance costs) but benefit
from price increases caused by the rule. These 64 facilities are not
considered in the remainder of the economic impact analysis.
5. Facility Level Costs by Subcategory
The Technical Development Document presents EPA's engineering
estimates of costs that will be incurred by facilities to comply with
the proposed rule and other regulatory options. EPA adjusted the
engineering costs from 1996 to 1999 dollars using the Engineering News-
Record Construction Cost Index (CCI), and adjusted the costs to reflect
the effect of taxes using the maximum Federal income tax rate of 34
percent. The annual equivalent of capital and other one-time costs is
calculated by annualizing costs at a seven percent discount rate over
an estimated 15 year equipment life.
The compliance costs of the rule are the costs paid by those
facilities that continue to operate in compliance with the rule.
Aggregate compliance costs presented in this section differ from the
costs presented in Section IX because they exclude costs for facilities
that are baseline closures or that close due to regulatory
requirements. They therefore represent only the compliance outlays of
facilities that continue to operate. Section H presents EPA's estimates
of social costs, which include costs for regulatory closures. Table
XVI-5 shows the total annualized compliance costs by subcategory for
the 9,577 dischargers (direct and indirect) that are subject to
requirements, make the necessary investments to meet the requirements,
and continue operating under the proposed rule. The table also presents
costs for Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8, but results are discussed for
only the proposed option to reduce the length of this document.
Total annualized costs are the sum of the annual operating and
maintenance costs and the annualized equivalent of capital and other
one-time costs. Annualized after-tax compliance costs are estimated to
be $1,328.9 million ($1.33 billion) \3\ per year under the proposed
rule, of which 13 percent is paid by direct dischargers and 87 percent
is paid by indirect dischargers. A total of 49,147 indirect dischargers
are excluded from regulation by the proposed exclusions and low flow
cutoffs. Total compliance costs would be 36 percent higher under Option
2/6/10 ($1,812 million per year paid by 57,641 facilities) and 120
percent higher under Option 4/8 ($2,918 million per year paid by 55,959
facilities) than under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA notes that pre-tax annualized compliance costs are
estimated to be $1.98 billion (in 1999 dollars).
Table XVI-5.--Total Annualized Facility * Compliance Costs by Subcategory, Discharge Status and Regulatory Option
[After-tax, million $1999]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
Subcategory -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.......................................... $132.3 $969.9 $132.3 $1,295.8 $195.1 $1,885.5
Metal Finishing Job Shop................................ 0.8 80.1 0.8 80.1 1.5 112.1
Non-Chromium Anodizing.................................. .............. 0.0 .............. 17.5 .............. 26.0
Printed Wiring Board.................................... 1.7 93.4 1.7 93.4 3.0 141.2
Steel Forming & Finishing............................... 20.9 14.0 20.9 14.0 22.7 21.8
Oily Wastes............................................. 9.3 4.3 9.3 143.8 50.0 457.4
Railroad Line Maintenance............................... 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.4
[[Page 483]]
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................................... 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.1
All Categories: Annual Costs............................ 167.2 1,161.7 167.2 1,644.9 273.6 2,644.5
All Categories: Number of Regulated Facilities 4,633 4,944 4,633 53,008 4,615 51,344
Continuing to Operate Post-Regulation..................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Industry by Option, Directs + Indirects.. $1,328.9
$1,812.1
$2,918.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table includes facility compliance costs only. Section XVI.H. discusses the social costs of the rule. The estimates in this table exclude
baseline and regulatory closures.
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
6. Facility Level Impacts by Subcategory
The findings from the post-compliance impact analyses are
summarized below, first for the PSES requirements considered for
indirect discharging facilities, and then for the BAT/BPT options
considered for direct discharging facilities. A third section
summarizes the findings for both discharger classes. Impacts are
discussed for only the proposed option, to reduce the length of the
document; however, the tables present the results for Option 2/6/10 and
Option 4/8. Impacts are not presented for Options 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9
(without pollution prevention) because these options remove fewer
pollutants and cost more than the comparable Options 2, 4, 6, 8, and
10.
a. Indirect Dischargers
Of the 54,270 indirect discharging facilities subject to regulation
after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 179 facilities or 0.3
percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed rule,
as shown in Table XVI-6. More than 90 percent of the indirect
dischargers are excluded from the regulation by the low-flow cutoffs
for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories, and the
exclusions for Non-Chromium Anodizers, Railroad Line Maintenance and
Shipbuilding Dry Docks. The employment losses associated with the
facility closures are estimated at 5,738 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions. The estimated losses in employment are probably substantial
overestimates because the analysis does not account for the likelihood
that non-closing facilities will absorb some of the employment lost
from closing facilities. The proposed rule also creates new employment
demand to build, install, maintain and operate compliance equipment,
which offset these job losses. These job gains are discussed in Section
XVI-H.4.
Another 575 facilities, or one percent of the indirect dischargers
operating in the baseline, are expected to experience moderate economic
impacts under the proposed rule, as shown in Table XVI-7. Both closures
and moderate impacts increase substantially for Option 2/6/10 and
Option 4/8, compared to the proposed rule.
Table XVI-6.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Indirect Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facility closures due to the rule
Subcategory Total operating --------------------------------------------------------
in baseline Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals...................... 23,140 24 1,017 2,140
Metal Finishing Job Shops........... 1,231 128 128 393
Non-Chromium Anodizing.............. 150 0 91 91
Printed Wiring Board................ 620 7 7 25
Steel Forming & Finishing........... 105 6 6 6
Oily Wastes......................... 28,219 14 14 271
Railroad Line Maintenance........... 799 0 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock............... 6 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Categories.................. 54,270 179 1,262 2,925
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
Table XVI-7.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Indirect Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities experiencing moderate impacts due
Total operating to the rule
Subcategory in baseline --------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals...................... 23,140 153 1,753 1,737
Metal Finishing Job Shops........... 1,231 117 117 117
Non-Chromium Anodizing.............. 150 0 0 0
Printed Wiring Board................ 620 301 301 315
Steel Forming & Finishing........... 105 4 4 4
Oily Wastes......................... 28,219 0 0 26
Railroad Line Maintenance........... 799 0 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock............... 6 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 484]]
All Categories.................. 54,270 575 2,175 2,199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
Another 575 facilities, or one percent of the indirect dischargers
operating in the baseline, are expected to experience moderate economic
impacts under the proposed rule, as shown in Table XVI-7. Both closures
and moderate impacts increase substantially for Option 2/6/10 and
Option 4/8, compared to the proposed rule.
b. Direct Dischargers
Of the 4,653 direct discharging facilities subject to regulation
after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 20 facilities or 0.4
percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed rule.
These 20 are all General Metals facilities, and represent 0.6 percent
of the 3,636 General Metals Direct Dischargers operating in the
baseline. The employment losses associated with these facility closures
are estimated at 178 FTEs. Again, estimated losses in employment
associated with closures are likely to be overstated, because the
analysis does not account for the likelihood that non-closing
facilities will absorb some of the employment from closing facilities.
In addition, compliance requirements at facilities that continue to
operate will lead to off-setting increases in employment.
Another 41 facilities, or 0.9 percent of the 4,653 direct
dischargers operating in the baseline, would be expected to experience
moderate financial impacts due to the rule, as shown in Table XVI-9.
Table XVI-8.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Direct Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facility closures due to the rule
Subcategory Total in baseline --------------------------------------------------------
operating Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals...................... 3,636 20 20 35
Metal Finishing Job Shops........... 12 0 0 0
Non-Chromium Anodizing *............ ................. ................. ................. .................
Printed Wiring Board................ 11 0 0 0
Steel Forming & Finishing........... 43 0 0 2
Oily Wastes......................... 911 0 0 0
Railroad Line Maintenance........... 34 0 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock............... 6 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Categories.................. 4,653 20 20 37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA estimates that there are no facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory that discharge directly
to surface waters.
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
Table XVI-9.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Direct Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities experiencing moderate impacts due
Total operating to the rule
Subcategory in the baseline --------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals...................... 3,636 34 34 103
Metal Finishing Job Shops........... 12 0 0 0
Non-Chromium Anodizing *............ ................. ................. ................. .................
Printed Wiring Board................ 11 0 0 0
Steel Forming & Finishing........... 43 7 7 7
Oily Wastes......................... 911 0 0 0
Railroad Line Maintenance........... 34 0 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock............... 6 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Categories.................. 4,653 41 41 110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA estimates that there are no facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory that discharge directly
to surface waters.
Note: May not sum to totals due to independent rounding.
c. Summary of Facility Impacts
Table XVI-10 summarizes the results of the economic impact analysis
for all facilities and for all regulatory options analyzed. Closures
and moderate impacts under the proposed option are substantially lower
than in Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8. Of the 616 facilities
experiencing moderate impacts due to the proposed rule, 137 facilities
fell below the threshold for pre-tax return on assets only, 38 fell
below the interest coverage ratio threshold only, and 441 fell below
both thresholds due to the rule. Job losses due to closures are more
than off-set by job gains associated with compliance requirements under
the proposed option. (See Section XVI-H.4 for a discussion of
employment impacts.)
[[Page 485]]
Table XVI-10.--Summary of Incremental Facility Impacts for All Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory option
Subcategory --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Facilities Operating in 58,922................. 58,922................. 58,922.
Baseline.
Number of Closures (severe impacts).. 199.................... 1,282.................. 2,963.
Percent Closing...................... 0.3.................... 2.2.................... 5.0.
Job losses due to closures (FTE- 5,916 (over 3 years)... 16,834 (over 3 years).. 48,070 (over 3 years).
years).
Job gains due to compliance 8,487 (over 15 years).. 12,023 (over 15 years). 27,535 (over 15 years).
requirements (FTE-years).
Number of Additional Facilities with 616.................... 2,216.................. 2,309.
Moderate Impacts.
Percent with Moderate Impacts........ 1.0.................... 3.8.................... 3.9.
Annualized Compliance Costs (pre-tax, $1.98.................. $2.67.................. $4.18.
billion $1999).
Annualized Compliance Costs (after- $1.33.................. $1.81.................. $2.92.
tax, billion $1999).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Firm Level Impacts
EPA examined the impacts of the proposed rule on firms that own
MP&M facilities, as well as on the financial condition of the
facilities themselves. A firm that owns multiple MP&M facilities could
experience adverse financial impacts at the firm level if its
facilities are among those that incur significant impacts at the
facility level. The firm-level analysis is also used to compare impacts
on small versus large firms, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. (RFA/
SBREFA issues are discussed in Section XX.C of this preamble.)
EPA compared compliance costs with revenue at the firm level as a
measure of the relative burden of compliance costs. EPA applied this
analysis only to MP&M facilities owned by private entities. (Section
XVI.D discusses impacts on governments that own MP&M facilities). The
Phase I, Phase II industrial detailed, and Iron & Steel surveys
identified the parent firm that owns each facility that responded to
the survey. In addition, the Phase II industrial detailed survey
requested that respondents provide information on other MP&M facilities
owned by the same firm, on a voluntary basis. EPA estimated firm-level
compliance costs by summing costs for all facilities owned by the same
firm that responded to the survey plus estimated compliance costs for
additional facilities for which respondents submitted information.
The Agency was not able to estimate the national numbers of firms
that own MP&M facilities precisely, because the sample weights based on
the survey design represent numbers of facilities rather than firms.
Most MP&M facilities (43,118 of 54,590, or 80 percent) are single-
facility firms, however. These firms can be analyzed using the survey
weights. In addition, there are 289 firms that own more than one sample
facility. These firms are included in the analysis with a sample weight
of one, since it is not known how many firms these 289 sample firms
represent. EPA's analysis of firm-level impacts is presented in Chapter
9 of the EEBA.
Table XVI-11 shows the results of the firm-level analysis. The
results represent a total of 43,407 MP&M firms (43,118 + 289), owning
54,590 facilities (43,118 owned by single-facility firms + 11,473 owned
by multi-facility firms).
Table XVI-11.--Firm Level Before-Tax Annual Compliance Costs as a Percent of Annual Revenues for Private Small
Businesses: Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number and percent with before-tax annual compliance costs/
annual revenues equal to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Number of firms in the analysis* Less than 1% 1-3% Over 3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43,407........................................ 41,236 95 1,070 2.5 1,101 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Firms whose only MP&M facilities close in the baseline are excluded.
A small percentage (2.5 percent) of the firms in the analysis incur
before-tax compliance costs equal to 3 percent or more of annual
revenues. Ninety-five percent incur compliance costs less than 1
percent of annual revenues, and the remaining 2.5 percent incur costs
between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. Of 2,171 firms in the analysis
that incur costs greater than 1 percent of revenues, 636 are single-
facility small firms that were reported in the facility impact analysis
to close (161 firms) or experience moderate impacts (475 firms) due to
the rule.
This analysis is likely to overstate costs at the firm level for
two reasons. First, it includes compliance costs for facilities that
are projected to close due to the rule. The estimated compliance costs
for these facilities are higher than the true cost to the firm of
shutting down the facility, as illustrated by the detailed facility
impact analysis that projects closures. Second, the analysis does not
take account of actions a multi-facility firm might take to reduce its
compliance costs under the proposed rule. These include transferring
functions among facilities to consolidate wet processes and take
advantage of scale economies in wastewater treatment.
D. Impacts on Governments
The proposed MP&M rule will affect governments in two ways:
Government-owned MP&M facilities may be directly affected
by the MP&M regulation and therefore incur compliance costs; and
[[Page 486]]
Municipalities that own Publically Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) that receive influent from MP&M facilities subject to the
regulation may incur additional costs to implement the proposed rule.
These include costs associated with permitting MP&M facilities that
have not been previously permitted, and with repermitting some MP&M
facilities with existing control mechanisms (e.g., permits) earlier
than would otherwise be required. In addition, POTWs may elect to issue
mass-based control mechanisms to some MP&M facilities that currently
have concentration-based control mechanisms, at an additional cost.
1. Impacts on Government-Owned Facilities
EPA administered a survey (the ``Municipal Survey'') to government-
owned facilities to assess the cost of the regulation on these
facilities and the government entities that own them. (See Section V.B
for a discussion of EPA's data collection efforts.) The survey
requested information that provides the basis for EPA's analysis of the
budgetary impacts of the proposed regulation, including the size and
income of the populations served by the affected government entities;
the government's current revenues by source, taxable property, debt,
pollution control spending and bond rating; and the costs, funding
sources and other characteristics of the MP&M facilities owned by each
government entity.
EPA discusses the methodology for assessing impacts on government-
owned facilities in more detail in Section XVI.B.3.c. In summary, EPA
used three tests to assess whether MP&M facility compliance costs would
impose major budgetary impacts on the governments that own the
facilities: impacts on site-level cost of service, impacts on
taxpayers, and impacts on government debt. The first test assesses
impacts at the facility level and the second two tests assess impacts
at the government level. The Agency judged that a government would
incur major budgetary impacts due to the rule if it failed all three
tests.
The two government-level tests are applied incrementally.
Governments that fail the test in the baseline are not considered to
experience budgetary impacts attributable to the rule.
Table XVI-12 provides national estimates of the number of MP&M
facilities operated by governments that are potentially subject to the
proposed rule, by type and size of government.
Table XVI-12.--Number of Government-Owned Facilities by Type and Size of Government Entity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional
Size of government and status under proposed option Municipal State government County governmental Total
government government authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Governments (population> 50,000)................... 572 366 686 36 1,660
Small Governments (population =50,000)................... 2,191 ................. 481 ................. 2,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Governments...................................... 2,763 366 1,167 36 4,332
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XVI-13 summarizes the status of government-owned facilities
under the various regulatory options, their compliance costs and
measures of impacts on government that own MP&M facilities.
Table XVI-13.--Number of Regulated Government-Owned Facilities, Compliance Costs and Budgetary Impacts by
Regulatory Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Government-Owned Facilities............ 4,332 4,332 4,332
Number of facilities exempted by low-flow cutoff....... 3,603 ................. .................
Number of facilities subject to regulation............. 729 4,332 4,332
Compliance costs ($1999 million)....................... $14.1 $64.8 $224.7
Number of facilities with compliance costs > one 215
percent of baseline cost of service*..................
Number of governments failing the ``impact on 0
taxpayers'' criterion**...............................
Number of governments failing the ``impacts on 0
government debt'' criterion***........................
Number of governments failing all three impacts 0
criteria +............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annualized compliance costs as a percent of total facility costs and expenditures, including operating,
overhead and debt service costs and expenses.
** Based on comparison of compliance costs for all facilities owned by the government to the income of
households that are served by the relevant government. A government is judged to experience impacts if the
proposed rule results in a ratio of total annualized pollution control costs per household to median household
income that exceeds one percent post-compliance. Includes existing pollution control costs plus the compliance
costs due to the MP&M rule.
*** Based on comparison of total debt service costs (including costs to finance MP&M capital costs entirely with
debt) with baseline government revenue. A government is judged to experience impacts if the rule causes its
total debt service payments to exceed 25% of baseline revenue.
+ A government is judged to experience major budgetary impacts if it has one or more facilities with costs of
compliance above 1% of baseline cost of service and fails both the taxpayers impact and government debt impact
tests.
Table XVI-13 shows that the proposed rule substantially reduces
costs and impacts relative to the other options considered for
government-owned facilities, because 3,603 (83 percent) of the
facilities are exempted under the low flow cutoffs (110 General Metals
facilities and 3,492 Oily Wastes facilities.) Compliance costs would be
more than 4\1/2\ times higher under Option 2/6/10 and 16 times higher
under Option 4.
An estimated 215 government-owned facilities (5 percent of the
total) would incur costs under the proposed rule exceeding one percent
of their baseline cost of service. Therefore, 95 percent of the
government-owned facilities either incur no costs or are likely to be
able to absorb the added costs within their existing budgets. None of
the
[[Page 487]]
governments incur costs that cause them to exceed the thresholds for
impacts on taxpayers or for government debt burden. EPA therefore
concludes that the proposed rule will not impose major budgetary
burdens on any of the governments that own MP&M facilities.
2. POTW Administrative Costs
EPA also evaluated the costs incurred by governments to administer
the rule. The rule is not expected to impose any new administrative
costs associated with direct dischargers, which are already permitted
by States. However, control authorities will have to issue control
mechanisms (e.g., permits) for the first time to some indirect
discharging facilities and will have to accelerate repermitting for
some indirect dischargers that currently hold control mechanisms.
The costs of issuing and enforcing permits and control mechanisms
associated with the proposed rule are discussed in Section XVI.H.3 of
this preamble. EPA is able to estimate total costs to POTWs, but is not
able to estimate the costs to any one POTW, since it is not possible to
determine what POTWs receive discharges from MP&M facilities except for
those that responded to the surveys.
EPA estimates that POTWs as a whole will incur incremental average
annualized costs over 15 years of between $115,000 and $912,000 under
the proposed rule. The maximum expenditures by all affected POTWs in
any one year will be between $186,000 and $1,607,000. These costs
include issuing new control mechanisms (e.g., permits) to facilities
that do not currently have permits, issuing mass-based permits to some
facilities that currently have concentration-based permits, and
repermitting some facilities sooner than would otherwise be required to
meet the three-year compliance schedule. On average, a POTW's costs for
the incremental permitting are only $23 to $184 per permitted MP&M
indirect discharger under the proposed rule.
EPA is requiring mass-based permits/control mechanisms only for the
Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory; permits/control mechanisms for
other subcategories may be concentration-based. EPA is encouraging
permit writers and control authorities to issue mass-based permits and
control mechanisms, however, where appropriate and feasible. The
analysis of permitting costs assumes for costing purposes that one-
third of the new or reissued permits/control mechanisms in
subcategories other than Steel Forming & Finishing will be mass-based.
EPA expects that these increases in costs will be partially offset
by reductions in government administrative costs for facilities that
are already permitted under local limits and that will be repermitted
under this rule. The proposed technical guidance provided by EPA as a
part of this rulemaking may reduce the research required by permit
writers/control authorities in developing permits and control
mechanisms based on Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) for industrial
dischargers not previously covered by a categorical standard or a water
quality standard. Further, the establishment of discharge standards may
reduce the frequency of evidentiary hearings. The promulgation of
limitations may also enable EPA and the authorized States to cover more
facilities under general permits. EPA did not estimate these cost
savings to permitting authorities that may result from the rule.
E. Community Level Impacts
EPA considered the potential impacts of changes in employment due
to the proposed rule on the communities where MP&M facilities are
located. Changes in employment due to the rule include both job losses
that occur when facilities close and job gains associated with
facilities' compliance activities. EPA estimated that a total of 5,916
jobs would be lost at the 199 facilities projected to close under the
proposed rule. At the same time, EPA estimated that manufacturing and
installing compliance equipment would lead to 4,488 full-time
equivalent (FTE) positions, and that operating and maintaining
compliance systems would result in another 286 FTEs per year. Over a 15
year analysis period, the net effect of job gains and losses caused by
the rule is an increase of 2,575 FTE-years or an average of 172 FTEs
per year. This estimate assumes that workers that lose their job are
unemployed for an average of one year, and that compliance investments
and closures occur evenly over the first three years after
promulgation. This estimate of employment impacts is likely to
understate the net increase, because it ignores the fact that some
production and employment lost at closing plants is likely to result in
increased production and employment at other MP&M facilities. (EPA's
analysis of employment impacts is discussed in more detail in Section
XVI-H.4 below and in Chapter 6 of the EEBA.)
Given the projected overall increase in employment due to the
proposed rule, EPA does not expect the rule to have significant impacts
at the community level. It is not possible to predict precisely where
the job gains and losses will occur. However, facilities that are
projected to close due to the rule have employment ranging from 2 to
205 FTEs. MP&M facilities tend to be located in industrialized urban
areas, and closures of this size are not likely to have a major impact
on a local economy.
F. Foreign Trade Impacts
U.S. MP&M producers as a group exported products with a value of
$380.3 billion in 1999. Imports to the U.S. of the same products in
1999 totaled $539.1 billion, resulting in an overall net MP&M commodity
trade deficit of $153.8 billion. Some MP&M sectors contribute to a
positive commodity trade balance (e.g. aircraft, with a $37.0 billion
positive balance in 1999). In other sectors, substantially more
products are imported than exported (e.g. motor vehicles, with a net
negative balance of $96.8 billion.) Exports and imports by MP&M sector
are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EEBA.
The proposed rule will have an impact on the balance of trade in
MP&M products to the extent that prices for MP&M products increase and
MP&M facilities reduce production. Imports may increase if domestic
customers switch from domestic suppliers to foreign suppliers of MP&M
products, and exports may decrease if foreign customers switch from
purchasing U.S. exports to other suppliers. On the other hand, business
lost by the regulated MP&M facilities due to their increased costs may
be captured by other domestic producers.
Section XVI.B of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the EEBA describe
EPA's analysis of changes in output that are expected to result from
the proposed rule. EPA assessed the impact of these market-level
changes on the U.S. balance of trade using information provided by the
industrial general surveys on the source of competition in domestic and
foreign markets. This analysis allocates the value of changes in output
for each facility that is projected to close due to the rule to
exports, imports or domestic sales, based on the predominant source of
competition in each market reported in the surveys.
Table XVI-14 shows the results of this analysis. The table compares
the projected changes in exports, imports and balance of trade
(expressed in $1999) to baseline 1999 values for both the MP&M
industries and for the U.S. balance of trade in commodities as a whole.
The projected changes in trade under the proposed rule have a very
[[Page 488]]
small impact on the balance of trade. The total U.S. balance of trade
in commodities would decline by less than 0.01 percent and the balance
of trade in the MP&M industries would decline by 0.01 percent.
Table XVI-14.--Proposed Rule Impacts on Foreign Trade
[Million $1999]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 value of 1999 value of Balance of
exports imports Trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Commodity Trade............................................ 695,797 1,024,618 (328,821)
MP&M Industries................................................. 380,305 534,141 (153,836)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change Due to the Proposed Rule................................. 0 21.1 (21.1)
Percent Change In U.S. Commodity Trade Balance.................. 0% 0.01% 0.01%
Percent Change in MP&M Industries Trade Balance................. 0% 0.01% 0.01%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
G. Impacts on New Facilities
EPA assessed the impacts of the proposed rule on new facilities
based on the characteristics of a model facility in each subcategory
and (in some cases) discharge category (direct and indirect).
Engineering estimates of compliance costs for Option 2/6/10 and Option
4/8 for a representative facility reflect the typical flow size and
other technical characteristics of facilities in each category. (See
the Technical Development Document.) Table XVI-15 lists the compliance
costs and flow size for a representative model facility in each
category, along with the regulatory option considered for each
subcategory.
In absence of the MP&M rule, new sources in the Metal Finishing Job
Shop and Printed Wiring Board subcategories would comply with 40 CFR
part 433 new source requirements, and Steel Forming & Finishing new
sources would comply with 40 CFR part 420 new source requirements.
Therefore, the analysis considers only the incremental costs of
proposed MP&M new source requirements beyond those baseline
requirements.
EPA estimated facility revenues for the model facilities based on
the revenues reported for existing facilities in the Section 308
surveys. The analysis excludes facilities that are projected to close
or to experience moderate economic impacts in the baseline, since the
economic characteristics of these financially-weak facilities are
unlikely to be representative of new facilities. EPA sorted the
existing financially-sound facilities in each subcategory/discharge
status by flow size, and identified facilities in each quartile based
on flow size. The Agency then identified the flow size quartile that
the hypothetical facility would fall into. Finally, EPA calculated the
average revenue for the existing facilities in that same flow size
quartile, and assumed that the hypothetical new facility would have
revenues equal to that average. Table XVI-15 shows the facility revenue
estimated for each model facility.
EPA calculated compliance costs as a percentage of post-compliance
revenues as a measure of impacts. The projected revenues include
estimated prices increases due to the rule. The analysis assumes that
new sources would benefit from the small price increases resulting from
the proposed rule for existing sources, and applies the same percentage
price increase to calculate post-regulation revenues for the new
sources. Table XVI-15 shows before-tax annual compliance costs as a
percent of facility post-regulation revenues.
Finally, Table XVI-15 presents the cost-to-revenue percentage
estimated for new facilities in each subcategory.
Table XVI-15.--New Source Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New source Annualized Facility Revenue
Subcategory Discharge status Existing source options compliance costs \c\ ($1999) New Source ACC as
options proposed considered \a\ \b\ ($1999) % of Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals........................ I 2 4 $393,220 $417,071,318 0.09
General Metals........................ D 2 4 167,342 398,818,659 0.04
Metal Finishing Job Shops............. I 2 4 65,369 1,428,443 4.64
Metal Finishing Job Shops............. D 2 4 70,735 5,089,823 1.41
Non-Chromium Anodizing................ I 2 4 97,108 24,201,166 0.40
Oily Wastes........................... I 6 8 355,874 474,228,616 0.08
Oily Wastes........................... D 6 8 37,815 116,772,943 0.03
Printed Wiring Board.................. I 2 4 70,563 35,930,097 0.20
Printed Wiring Board.................. D 2 4 160,184 1,029,783,596 0.02
Railroad Line Maintenance............. I&D 10 8 184,261 n.a. n.a.
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................. I&D 10 8 220,492 192,018,827 0.11
Steel Forming & Finishing............. I 2 4 114,851 69,640,244 0.17
Steel Forming & Finishing............. D 2 4 46,945 32,759,295 0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Technology Options 1 through 10 are described in Section VIII.A of the preamble.
a EPA is not proposing the new source option considered in this analysis for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. See Section XIII for a discussion on new source options selection.
b Incremental to baseline new source requirements (found in 40 CFR 433 and 420, as applicable) for Metal Finishing Job Shop, Printed Wiring Board and
Steel Forming & Finishing new sources.
c Equal to the average revenues of existing facilities in the same quartile based on flow size of the new source model facility, excluding existing
facilities that close or experience moderate impacts in the baseline. Assumes the same percentage price increases for new as for existing sources
under the proposed option.
d Includes existing facilities in all flow categories that continue operating post-compliance.
[[Page 489]]
New sources in all but the Metal Finishing Job Shop direct
discharger subcategory incur costs that are below one percent of post-
regulation revenues. Cost increases of this magnitude are unlikely to
place new facilities at a competitive disadvantage relative to existing
sources. Moreover, costs as a percentage of revenues are generally
comparable for new sources and existing sources with which they will
compete.
Railroad line maintenance facilities do not have revenue reported
at the facility level, and it is therefore not possible to compare
costs as a percent of facility revenue for new and existing facilities
in this subcategory. The representative new source railroad line
maintenance facility would incur annualized costs ($184,261) that are
somewhat higher than those incurred by existing facilities in this
subcategory (which range from zero to $122,042.)
See Section XIII for a discussion of new source options selection.
EPA notes that it did not select the ``New Source Option Considered''
in Table XVI-15, above, for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Oily Wastes,
Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories, but
rather selected a lower cost option for new sources.
H. Social Costs
1. Components of Social Costs
The social costs of regulatory actions are the opportunity costs to
society of employing scarce resources in pollution control activity.
The largest component of economic costs to society is the cost incurred
by MP&M facilities for the labor, equipment, material, and other
economic resources needed to comply with the proposed rule.
The social costs associated with the proposed MP&M regulation
differ from the compliance costs estimated to assess impacts on the
regulated facilities and firms, because of different treatment of
taxes. Social costs include compliance costs that are considered on a
before-tax basis. Privately-owned facilities are able to deduct the
costs of compliance as business expenses, reduce their tax liability
for a given level of revenue, and thereby share the burden of the costs
with other taxpayers. The burden is shared with other taxpayers because
the Federal government loses the money saved by industry through tax
shields. The cost to society includes the costs borne by industry, as
well as the cost borne by the Federal government through lost tax
revenues. The cost to society, therefore, is higher than the cost to
industry. The annualized lost Federal tax revenues can be calculated as
the difference between the annualized cost before and after tax
shields.
Social costs also include lost producers' and consumers' surplus
that result when the quantity of goods and services produced decreases
as a result of the rule. Lost producers' surplus is measured as the
difference between revenues earned and the cost of production for the
lost production. Lost consumers' surplus is the difference between the
price paid by consumers for the lost production and the maximum amount
they would have been willing to pay for those goods and services.
Calculating lost producers' and consumers' surplus accurately requires
knowledge of the characteristics of market supply and demand for each
affected industry. EPA instead calculated an upper-bound estimate of
social compliance costs using the simplifying assumption that all
facilities continue operating in compliance with the rule, and pay the
associated compliance costs (i.e., assuming that there are no
regulation-related closures.) This provides an upper-bound estimate of
social costs because, for facilities predicted to close, continuing to
operate and incurring compliance costs is more costly than closing the
facility with the lost producers' and consumers' surplus associated
with the closure.
In addition to the resource costs to society associated with
compliance, the estimated social cost includes two other cost elements:
the cost to local governments of implementing the rule and the costs
associated with unemployment that may result from the proposed
regulation. The government administration costs include the costs to
POTWs of permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities. The unemployment-related costs include the cost of
administering unemployment programs for workers who would lose
employment, and an estimate of the amount that workers would be willing
to pay to avoid involuntary unemployment.
2. Resource Cost of Compliance
The resource costs of compliance are the value of society's
productive resources--including labor, equipment, and materials--
expended to achieve the reductions in effluent discharges required by
the proposed rule. The social costs of these resources are higher than
the costs incurred by facilities because facilities are able to deduct
the costs from their taxable income. The costs to society, however, are
the full value of the resources used, whether they are paid for by the
regulated facilities or by all taxpayers in the form of lost tax
revenues. EPA calculated costs at a 7 percent rate. EPA included
facilities predicted to close due to the rule when calculating social
costs.
The estimated after-tax private compliance costs incurred by
facilities, excluding costs for facilities that close, are $1.3
billion. The estimated social value of these compliance costs,
calculated before-tax assuming no regulatory closures, is $2.0 billion.
This represents the value to society of the resources that would be
used to comply with the proposed rule if all facilities continued to
operate rather than some closing due to the rule. This estimate
represents an upper-bound social value of the compliance resources
associated with the proposed rule.
3. Cost of Administering the Proposed Regulation
EPA estimated the cost to governments of administering the proposed
regulation, including the use of labor and material resources to write
permits/control mechanisms under the regulation and to conduct
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
EPA does not expect increases in administrative costs for
facilities that discharge their wastewater directly to surface water,
because the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program requires that these facilities hold permits. POTWs will
incur additional permitting costs for indirect dischargers that do not
already have a control mechanism (e.g., permit) prior to implementation
of the proposed rule.
Information on the baseline number of indirect dischargers with
control mechanisms comes from the industrial detailed facility surveys,
which reported the baseline permit status of each MP&M facility. (See
Section V.B for a description of EPA's survey questionnaires.) EPA
estimated costs and impacts for these facilities. Results of the impact
analysis indicate that of the 58,922 MP&M facilities continuing to
operate in the baseline (including 64 avoided baseline closures), 199
facilities are expected to close rather than comply with the
regulation. Another 49,147 are excluded or fall below the proposed low
flow cut-offs. Of the 9,577 facilities that are expected to continue
operating and comply with the regulation, 4,633 facilities are direct
dischargers and 4,944 are indirect dischargers. EPA estimates that
4,296 of the indirect dischargers already have permits or other control
mechanisms (629 with concentration-based permits and 3,667 with mass-
based permits) and that 648 indirect discharging facilities will be
required to get a permit/control mechanism for the first time.
[[Page 490]]
EPA conducted the POTW survey of 150 POTWs to support analysis of
the administrative burdens imposed by the proposed rule on POTWs that
receive discharges from MP&M facilities. The questionnaire requested
detailed information on the costs of various activities per facility
permitted, including estimated hours required to develop and issue
permits/control mechanisms, provide technical guidance, inspect
facilities, conduct sampling, review compliance reports, take
enforcement actions, and repermit facilities. The survey requested this
information for facilities of different sizes (based on flow). In
addition, the survey requested information on the frequency with which
specific administrative activities are required for activities that are
not required for every permitted facility (such as conducting a public
hearing). EPA used the POTW survey responses to estimate a range of
permitting labor hour burdens and costs per MP&M facility permitted,
with separate estimates for concentration- and mass-based permits/
control mechanisms. This analysis is presented in Appendix C of the
EEBA.
Estimated annualized POTW administrative costs for each facility
issued a new concentration-based control mechanism range from $236 to
$1,890, and from $240 to $1,924 for each facility issued a new mass-
based control mechanism, with the range depending on the complexity of
the facility being permitted. EPA applied these costs per facility to
the estimated number of facilities requiring new control mechanisms or
conversion of a concentration-based to a mass-based control mechanism
each year, to estimate the total administrative cost to permitting
authorities. (See Section XXI.B for a discussion on implementation of
the MP&M limitations and standards.)
EPA is requiring mass-based permits/control mechanisms only for the
Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. For other subcategories,
permit writers and control authorities can determine what type of
permit/control mechanism to issue. EPA is encouraging POTWs to
institute mass-based limits where possible, however. (See Section
XXII.B.) For purposes of estimating costs, EPA assumed that all Steel
Forming and Finishing and one-third of the permits/control mechanisms
issued in other subcategories will be mass-based.
Table XVI-16 summarizes the estimated range of administrative costs
that will be incurred by POTWs under the proposed rule. The estimates
reflect the low and high estimates of permitting cost per facility, and
take account of the need to repermit indirect dischargers with existing
control mechanisms (e.g., permits) within the three year compliance
period rather than on the normal five-year permitting schedule. These
estimates are described in detail in Chapter 7 of the EEBA.
Table XVI-16.--POTW Administrative Costs: Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities permitted:
Converted from existing concentration-based to * 223
mass-based......................................
Issued new concentration-based permit............ * 432
Issued new mass-based permit..................... * 216
Repermitted 1-2 years earlier.................... 4,073
Number of closing facilities with existing permits 143
not requiring repermitting under the proposed rule..
Total POTW Administrative Costs (net present value of $1.407-$8.311
incremental costs over 15 years) (million $1999)....
Total POTW Administrative Costs (annualized over 15 $0.115-$0.912
years @ 7% (million $1999)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assumes that permitting authorities will chose to issue mass-based
control mechanisms (e.g., permits) to \1/3\ of the facilities
requiring new permits, and \1/3\ of the facilities with existing
concentration-based permits, other than Steel Forming & Finishing.
Mass-based permits are assumed for all 20 Steel Forming & Finishing
facilities that currently have a concentration-based permit.
Total estimated government administration costs therefore range
from $0.1 to $0.9 million ($1999) annually. EPA expects that this
increase in costs will be partially offset by reductions in government
administrative costs for facilities that are already permitted under
local limits and that will be repermitted under this rule. The
technical guidance provided by EPA as a part of this rulemaking may
reduce the research required by permit writers and control authorities
in developing Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) permits/control
mechanisms for industrial dischargers not previously covered by a
categorical standard or a water quality standard. Further, the
establishment of discharge standards may reduce the frequency of
evidentiary hearings. The promulgation of limitations may also enable
EPA and the authorized States to cover more facilities under general
permits. EPA did not estimate these cost savings to permitting
authorities that may result from the rule.
4. Social Cost of Unemployment
The loss of jobs associated with facility closures represent a
social cost of the proposed rule. The social cost of unemployment
includes two components: the losses suffered by the workers that
experience involuntary loss of employment, and the cost to the
government of administering the unemployment compensation program for
these workers.
EPA calculated the first cost of worker dislocation based on an
estimate of the value that workers would pay to avoid an involuntary
job loss. The estimate of the amount that workers would pay to avoid
job losses was derived from hedonic studies of the compensation premium
required by workers to accept jobs with a higher probability of
unemployment. This framework has been used in the past to impute a
trade-off between wages and job security (Topel, 1984; Adams, 1985).
This estimate approximates a one-time willingness-to-pay to avoid an
involuntary episode of unemployment and reflects all monetary and non-
monetary impacts of involuntary unemployment incurred by the worker. It
does not include any offsets to the cost of unemployment such as
unemployment compensation or the value of increased leisure time. EPA
estimates that workers would be willing to pay between $90,840 and
$119,900 ($1999) to avoid a case of involuntary employment. Annualized
over 15 years at a discount rate of 7 percent, this willingness to pay
is between $9,974 and $13,164 per lost job. The cost associated with a
projected loss of 5,916 jobs due to facility closures under the
proposed rule therefore has an estimated annual social cost of $59.0
million and $77.9 million.
Unemployment as the result of regulation also imposes costs on
society through the additional administrative burdens placed on the
unemployment system. The cost of unemployment benefits themselves is
not a social cost but instead a transfer payment within society from
taxpayers to unemployed
[[Page 491]]
workers. Administrative costs include the cost of processing
unemployment claims, retraining workers, and placing workers in new
jobs. Data obtained from the Interstate Conference of Employment
Security Agencies indicated that the cost of administering an initial
unemployment claim over the period averaged $119 ($1999). This cost
includes total Federal and State funding for administering unemployment
benefit programs but excludes the value of benefits. Based on these
data, EPA assumed that the cost of administering unemployment programs
for job losses caused by the MP&M regulation would amount to
approximately $120 per job loss. Multiplying this figure by estimated
loss of 5,916 jobs due to facility closures under the proposed
regulation yields an additional $709,920 in social costs. EPA
annualized this value over the 15-year analysis period at the 3 percent
social discount rate to yield an annual cost of $77,945 ($1999).
This estimate of social costs does not take into account the
increased production and employment at MP&M facilities that continue to
operate under the proposed rule. These facilities are likely to gain
business when some facilities close due to the rule. In addition, the
analysis does not reflect the jobs created by facilities' actions to
comply with the rule. The net effect of job losses due to facility
closures and job gains associated with compliance activities is an
increase of 2,575 FTE-years over 15 years. This estimate assumes that
displaced workers remain unemployed for one year on average, and that
all layoffs and compliance related investments occur over the first
three years after promulgation. Table XVI-17 shows the timing of
projected employment impacts, and the net effect on employment over 15
years. (EPA's estimates of the employment effects of the proposed rule
are presented in Chapter 6 of the EEBA.)
Table XVI-17.--Estimated Direct Net Impacts on Employment Over 15 Years, Proposed Rule
[Number of FTEs per year and total FTE-years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-time
manufacturing Net change in
Year and Annual O&M a Closures b employment
installation a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 1,496 95 1,972 (381)
2............................................... 1,496 190 1,972 (286)
3............................................... 1,496 286 1,972 (190)
4............................................... .............. 286 .............. 286
5............................................... .............. 286 .............. 286
6............................................... .............. 286 .............. 286
7............................................... .............. 286 .............. 286
8............................................... .............. 286 .............. 286
9............................................... .............. 286 .............. 286
10.............................................. .............. 286 .............. 286
11.............................................. .............. 286 .............. 286
12.............................................. .............. 286 .............. 286
13.............................................. .............. 286 .............. 286
14.............................................. .............. 286 .............. 286
15.............................................. .............. 286 .............. 286
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total FTE-years over 15 years............... 4,488 4,003 5,916 2,575
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Assumes that one-third of facilities come into compliance in each of 3 years.
b Assumes that one-third of the facilities projected to close do so in each of the first 3 years.
EPA calculated a range of social costs of changes in employment
under the proposed rule, with the lower bound reflecting no net loss of
employment and the upper bound considering only the 5,916 job losses
resulting from closures. The social costs associated with unemployment
were therefore estimated to range from zero to $78.0 million, including
an upper-bound $77.9 million in worker's willingness to pay to avoid
involuntary unemployment and less than $0.1 million in the additional
costs of administering unemployment benefits. The estimated upper-bound
employment-related social cost is likely to be substantially
overstated, since it does not consider the social value of net
increases in employment due to compliance activities and the increases
in production that may occur at MP&M facilities that continue to
operate post-compliance.
5. Total Social Costs
Summing across all social costs results in a total social cost
estimate of $2.0 to $2.1 billion annually ($1999), as shown in Table
XVI-18. This estimate represents an upper bound value of social costs,
since it assumes that all facilities remain open and incur compliance
costs rather than closing in some cases. This assumption is made only
to calculate the resource value of compliance expenditures; closures
are considered in calculating the social cost of unemployment.
Table XVI-18.--Annual Social Costs of the Proposed Rule
[Million $1999, annualized @ 7%]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower bound Upper bound
Social cost category estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Value of Compliance Costs (before-
tax)....................................... $2,033.7
---------------------------
Government Administrative Costs............. $0.1 $0.9
Social Costs of Unemployment................ 0 $78.0
[[Page 492]]
Total Social Costs.......................... $2,033.8 $2,122.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XVII. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A. Methodology
EPA performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the alternative
regulatory options for indirect dischargers (PSES) and direct
dischargers (BAT). Cost-effectiveness analysis is used in the
development of effluent limitations guidelines to evaluate the relative
efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic
pollutants from the effluent discharges to the nation's waters.
The cost-effectiveness of a regulatory option is defined as the
incremental annual cost (in 1981 constant dollars) per incremental
toxic-weighted pollutant removals for that option. This definition
includes the following concepts:
Toxic-weighted removals. Pollutants differ in their
toxicity. Therefore, the estimated reductions in pollution discharges,
or pollutant removals, are adjusted for toxicity by multiplying the
estimated removal quantity for each pollutant by a normalizing toxic
weight (Toxic Weighting Factors). The toxic weight for each pollutant
measures its toxicity relative to copper, with more toxic pollutants
having higher toxic weights. The use of toxic weights allows the
removals of different pollutants to be expressed on a constant toxicity
basis as toxic pound-equivalents (lb-eq). The removal quantities for
the different pollutants may then be summed to yield an aggregate
measure of the reduction in toxicity-normalized pollutant discharges
that is achieved by a regulatory option. The cost-effectiveness
analysis does not address the removal of conventional pollutants (oil
and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids), nor
does it address the removal of bulk parameters, such as COD.
Annual costs. The costs used in the cost-effectiveness
analysis are the estimated annualized before-tax costs to comply with
the alternative regulatory options. The cost to facilities to remove
these pollutants will be less because the costs are tax deductible. The
annual costs include the annual expenses for operating and maintaining
compliance equipment, meeting monitoring requirements, and some
pollution prevention activities. Annualized components include capital
outlays for treatment systems.
Incremental calculations. The incremental values are the
changes in total annual compliance costs and changes in removals from
the next less stringent option, or from the baseline if there is no
less stringent option, where regulatory options are ranked by
increasing levels of toxic-weighted removals. The resulting cost-
effectiveness values for a given option are therefore expressed
relative to another option or, for the least stringent option
considered, relative to the baseline.
The result of the cost-effectiveness calculation represents the
unit cost of removing the next pound-equivalent of pollutants and is
expressed in constant 1981 dollars per toxic pound-equivalent removed
($/lb-eq) to allow comparisons with other options being considered.
Although not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness
analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options that
address toxic pollutants.
EPA performed the cost-effectiveness analysis for the MP&M
regulation separately for indirect dischargers (subject to PSES) and
direct dischargers (subject to BAT). The following sections summarize
the results for the two classes of facilities. EPA notes that for all
subcategories, it is proposing options only BPT or is setting BAT equal
to BPT, as there is no additional technology used at BAT. The Agency
does not use C-E analysis to assess options for BPT. Therefore, the C-E
analysis for direct dischargers is presented only for informational
purposes. See Section IX for a discussion of BPT cost-reasonableness.
B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Indirect Dischargers
Table XVII-1 summarizes the cost-effectiveness analysis for the
PSES regulatory options applicable to indirect dischargers. Annual
compliance costs are shown in 1999 dollars and also in 1981 dollars.
The regulatory options are listed in order of increasing stringency on
the basis of the estimated toxic-weighted pollutant removals. Estimates
of costs and pollutant removals do not include facilities that close in
the baseline. (See Section XVI.B.4 for a discussion on the baseline
closure analysis.)
Table XVII-1.--Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual before-tax compliance costs (excluding Weighted pollutant removals
regulatory closures) -------------------------------- Cost-
------------------------------------------------ effectiveness
Regulatory option Total cost Total cost Incremental Total Incremental ratio ($1981/
(million (million cost (million removals (000 removals (000 lb-eq)
$1999) $1981) $1981) lbs-eq) lbs-eq)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option......................................... 1,730.1 1,009.2 1,009.2 9,372.3 9,372.3 108
Option 2/6/10........................................... 2,421.9 1,412.8 403.6 9,755.5 383.2 1,053
Option 4/8.............................................. 3,795.1 2,213.8 801.0 9,936.9 181.4 4,416
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table XVII-1, the proposed option removes 9.4 million
toxic-weighted pounds. The proposed option is the least stringent of
those considered, and the incremental and average cost-effectiveness is
$108 per pound-equivalent removed.
Option 2/6/10 would remove an additional 0.4 million toxic weighted
pounds, at an incremental cost of $0.38 billion ($1981), for an
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,053 per pound-equivalent
removed. The differences between the proposed option and Option 2/6/10
for indirect dischargers
[[Page 493]]
include the proposed option's one million gallon per year cutoff for
the General Metals subcategory, two million gallon per year cutoff for
the Oily Wastes subcategory, and exclusion of new pretreatment
standards for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. These provisions of the proposed
rule reduce before-tax compliance costs by 40 percent compared with
Option 2/6/10, while losing 4 percent of the pound-equivalents removed.
EPA discussed the rationale for the selected flow cutoffs for each
subcategory in Section XII of today's proposal.
Option 4/8 would remove an additional 0.18 million pound-
equivalents, as compared with Option 2/6/10, at an additional cost of
$0.8 billion ($1981), or $4,416 per pound-equivalent.
Table XVII-2 presents the results of the cost-effectiveness
analysis for indirect dischargers by subcategory.
Table XVII-2.--Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
before-tax Incremental Cost-
Subcategory and regulatory option compliance removals (lbs- effectiveness
cost (million eq) ratio ($1981/
$1981) lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed Wiring Boards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 81.17 1,195,260 68
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 40.87 8,010 5,103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Finishing Job Shops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 68.82 1,766,063 39
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 26.54 62,554 424
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 844.52 6,216,887 136
Option 2/6/10................................................... 279.12 318,594 876
Option 4/8...................................................... 487.21 103,514 4,707
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Chromium Anodizing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. .............. .............. ..............
Option 2/6/10................................................... 15.23 13,598 1,120
Option 4/8...................................................... 7.27 434 16,756
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oily Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 2.52 14,140 178
Option 2/6/10................................................... 109.04 51,008 2,138
Option 4/8...................................................... 232.35 5,885 39,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Line Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. .............. .............. ..............
Option 2/6/10................................................... 0.15 17 8,560
Option 4/8...................................................... 0.13 132 995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding Dry Dock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. .............. .............. ..............
Option 2/6/10................................................... 0.10 0 767,794
Option 4/8...................................................... 0.00 26 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Forming and Finishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 12.19 179,900 68
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 6.63 865 7,659
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed option for indirect dischargers in the Printed Wiring
Board, Metal Finishing Job Shops, and Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategories is the same as Option 2/6/10. The proposed option
includes a flow cutoff of one million and two million gallons per year
for General Metals and Oily Wastes, respectively. Therefore, there are
no proposed pretreatment standards for all indirect dischargers that
fall below those cutoffs. There are also no proposed pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Railroad Line Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. In
developing regulatory options for indirect dischargers, EPA considered
a range of possible exclusions from 1 mgy to 6.25 mgy for all
subcategories. Information of
[[Page 494]]
the cost-effectiveness for each regulatory option under each flow
cutoff by subcategory can be found in ``Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness
by Flow Category'', which is available in the rulemaking docket.
C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct Dischargers
Table XVII-3 summarizes the cost-effectiveness analysis for the BAT
regulatory options applicable to direct dischargers and Table XVII-4
presents the analysis by subcategory. As before, regulatory options are
ranked in order of increasing stringency.
Table XVII-3.--Cost Effectiveness For Direct Dischargers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual before-tax compliance costs (excluding Weighted pollutant removals
regulatory closures) -------------------------------- Cost-
------------------------------------------------ effectiveness
Regulatory option Total cost Total cost Incremental Total Incremental ratio ($1981/
(million (million cost (million removals (000 removals (000 lb-eq)
$1999) $1981) $1981) lbs-eq) lbs-eq)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option......................................... 245.8 143.4 143.4 $1,333.6 1,333.6 107
Option 2/6/10........................................... 245.8 143.4 0.0 1,333.6 0.0 ..............
Option 4/8.............................................. 381.6 222.6 79.2 1366.7 33.1 2,391
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed BAT option for direct dischargers achieves removal of
1.3 million pounds on a toxic-weighted basis, with a cost-effectiveness
of $107 ($1981). Because the only differences between Option 2/6/10 and
the proposed option occur for indirects (i.e. flow cutoffs and no
regulation options), Option 2/6/10 is the same as the proposed option
for direct dischargers.
Option 4/8 would remove an additional 33,000 pound-equivalents, as
compared with the proposed option, at an additional cost of $80 million
($1981), or $2,391 per pound-equivalent.
Table XVII-4 presents the results of the cost-effectiveness
analysis for direct dischargers by subcategory.
Table XVII-4.--Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
before-tax Incremental Cost-
Subcategory and regulatory option compliance removals (lbs- effectiveness
cost (million eq) ratio ($1981/
$1981) lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed Wiring Boards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 1.42 64,573 22
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 1.14 2,270 501
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Finishing Job Shops
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 0.69 14,194 49
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 0.52 265 1,968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 114.54 899,372 127
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 52.20 21,620 2,414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Chromium Anodizing *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. NA NA ..............
Option 2/6/10................................................... NA NA ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... NA NA ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oily Wastes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4/8...................................................... ** ** **
Proposed Option................................................. 6.42 16,069 399
Option 2/6/10................................................... 0.00 0 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Line Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 0.67 174 3,831
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 0.05 23 2,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding Dry Dock
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 1.24 111 11,179
[[Page 495]]
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... *** -0.91 *** 335 *** -2,728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steeling Forming and Finishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option................................................. 18.39 339,147 54
Option 2/6/10................................................... .............. .............. ..............
Option 4/8...................................................... 1.28 8,977 143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPA estimates that there are no direct discharging Non-Chromium Anodizing facilities.
** Option 4/8 removes 15,703 lbs equivalent at a cost of $31.34 million. The proposed option removes more lbs
equivalent at a lower cost. The proposed option therefore dominates Option 4/8, and results are not shown here
for Option 4/8.
*** Option 4/8 removes more lb-eq. than the proposed option at a lower cost. See Section XVII-D for a discussion
of the impacts of the proposed option on conventional pollutant removals. Option 4/8 removes 446 lbs-
equivalent at a cost of $0.33 million at an average cost-effectiveness incremental to baseline of $740/lb-eq.
The proposed option is more stringent than Option 4/8 for the Oily
Wastes subcategory, in that it removes more toxic-weighted pounds of
pollutants and costs less than Option 4/8. It therefore dominates
Option 4/8 from the perspective of toxic pollutant removals, and has an
average cost per pound-equivalent removed of $399 ($1981). Again, EPA
is proposing options only for BPT or is setting BAT equal to BPT for
all subcategories, as there is no additional technology used at BAT.
The Agency does not use C-E analysis to assess options for BPT.
Therefore, the C-E analysis for direct dischargers is presented only
for informational purposes.
Table XVII-4 shows a high cost-effectiveness for the Railroad Line
Maintenance and the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories. EPA is not
proposing BAT limitations for these subcategories because of the small
quantities of toxic pollutants in the wastewater from facilities in
these subcategories. (See Section XI.) However, EPA is proposing BPT
limitations for these subcategories in order to control the discharge
of conventional pollutants. See Section IX for a discussion of BPT
options selection and the results of the BPT cost-reasonableness
analysis.
XVIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements)
associated with effluent limitations guidelines and standards. In
accordance with these requirements, EPA has considered the potential
impact of the proposed regulation on energy consumption, air emissions,
and solid waste generation.
While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts across all
media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the impacts
identified below are justified by the benefits associated with
compliance with the limitations and standards (see Sections XIX and XX
for a discussion on the environmental benefits associated with this
proposed regulation).
A. Air Pollution
The Agency believes that the in-process and end-of-pipe
technologies included in the technology options for this regulation do
not generate air emissions. (See Section VIII for a discussion of the
technology options.)
The use of halogenated hazardous air pollutant solvent (methylene
chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride and chloroform) for cleaning in the MP&M industry
can create hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Agency believes this
regulation will not affect the use of halogenated hazardous air
pollutant solvent in the MP&M industry. This regulation neither
requires nor discourages the use of aqueous cleaners in lieu of
halogenated hazardous air pollutant solvent.
The Agency is developing National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
to address air emissions of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed
in Title III of the CAA Amendments of 1990. Below, EPA lists the
current and upcoming NESHAPs that may potentially affect HAP emitting
activities at MP&M facilities:
Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks;
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning;
Aerospace Manufacturing;
Shipbuilding and ship repair (Surface Coating);
Large appliances (Surface Coating);
Metal Furniture (Surface Coating);
Automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing (Surface
Coating); and
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Surface Coating).
B. Solid Waste
Solid waste generation includes hazardous and nonhazardous
wastewater treatment sludge as well as waste oil removed in wastewater
treatment. EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will
result in a decrease in wastewater treatment sludge and an increase in
waste oil generated at MP&M facilities.
According to EPA's detailed questionnaires, the Agency estimates
that MP&M facilities generate 267 million gallons (4 million cubic
yards) of wastewater treatment sludge and 805 million gallons of waste
oil from the treatment of wastewater. In Table XVIII.B-1, EPA presents
the amount of wastewater treatment sludge and waste oil expected to be
generated at the selected technology option. The table also shows the
amount of wastewater treatment sludge and waste oil that would be
generated by the selected technology option if EPA had not included
pollution prevention as part of its selected technology option.
[[Page 496]]
Table XVIII.B-1.--Waste Treatment Sludge and Oil Generation by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater
treatment Waste oil
sludge generated
Option generated (million
(million gallons/
gallons/ year)
year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline\1\................................... 267 805
Proposed Options without water conservation 207 2,000
and P2.......................................
Proposed Options with water conservation and 206 1,600
P2...........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.
As shown in Table XVII.B-1, wastewater treatment sludge generation
decreased from baseline to the selected option without in-process flow
control. EPA attributes the net decrease to the fact that this option
includes sludge dewatering, which may result in a significant decrease
in sludge generation for sites that have chemical precipitation and
settling technologies without sludge dewatering in place at baseline.
The Agency did not estimate additional sludge reduction at facilities
which already have sludge dewatering in place at baseline. EPA does
expect an increase of sludge production at MP&M facilities which do not
have treatment in place and must install treatment as a result of the
MP&M rule.
Table XVIII.B-1 shows that the water conservation and pollution
prevention technologies included in the proposed options further reduce
the amount of sludge generated. EPA expects these technologies to
result in sludge reduction for the following reasons:
--Recycling of coolants and recycling of paint curtains reduce the mass
of pollutants in treatment system influent streams, which in turn
reduces the amount of sludge generated during metals removal;
--Bath maintenance practices, including good operational practices
regarding drag out in plating processes, included in the proposed
options, reduce the mass of metal pollutants discharged to treatment,
which in turn reduces the amount of sludge generated during metals
removal; and
--Water conservation technologies included in the proposed options
reduces the discharge mass of metals present in the source water to a
site (e.g., calcium, sodium), which in turn reduces the amount of
sludge generated during removal of these metals.
EPA classifies many of the sludges generated at MP&M facilities as
either a listed or characteristic hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) based on the following
information:
--If the facility performs electroplating operations, EPA classifies
the resulting sludge as an EPA hazardous waste number F006 (40 CFR
261.31). If the facility mixes the wastewater from these electroplating
operations with other non-electroplating wastewater for treatment, then
EPA still considers all of the sludge generated from the treatment of
this commingled wastestream to be a listed hazardous waste F006, or
--If the sludge or waste oil from wastewater treatment exceeds the
standards for the Toxicity Characteristic (i.e., is hazardous), or
exhibits other RCRA-defined hazardous characteristics (i.e., reactive,
corrosive, or flammable), EPA considers it a characteristic hazardous
waste (40 CFR 261.24.)
It is also important to note that EPA does not include chemical
conversion coating, electroless plating, and printing circuit board
manufacturing under the F006 listing (51 FR 43351, December 2, 1986).
And if the facility performs certain chemical conversion coating
operations on aluminum, EPA classifies the resulting sludge as EPA
hazardous waste number F019.
Additional federal, state, and local regulations may result in MP&M
sludges being classified as hazardous wastes. Facilities should check
with the applicable authorized (State or EPA Regional) authority to
determine if other regulations apply.
Based on information collected during site visits and sampling
episodes, the Agency believes that some of the solid waste generated
would not be classified as hazardous. However, for purposes of
compliance cost estimation, the Agency assumed that all solid waste
generated as a result of the technology options would be hazardous.
As stated above in Section XV, EPA expects that the rule will
reduce metal contaminants in the sludges generated by POTWs and will
allow POTWs to dispense of the lower metal content sludge by more
environmentally beneficial methods.
EPA attributes the increase in waste oil generation from baseline
to the proposed option to the removal of oil from MP&M wastewater prior
to discharge to POTWs or surface waters. MP&M facilities usually either
recycle waste oil on site or off site, or contract haul it for disposal
as either a hazardous or nonhazardous waste. The estimated increase of
waste oil generation as a result of the MP&M proposed rule reflects a
better removal of oil and grease by the proposed technology options
than that being achieved at baseline and does not reflect an increase
in overall oil generation at MP&M facilities. For the purpose of
compliance cost estimation, EPA assumed that all MP&M facilities
contract hauled waste oil for disposal; however, EPA expects that some
facilities may recycle waste oil either on site or off site.
Table XVIII.B-1 shows that the inclusion of water conservation and
pollution prevention in the proposed option results in the generation
of less waste oil. EPA attributes this decrease in waste oil generation
to the 80 percent reduction of coolant discharge using the recycling
technology included in the proposed technology train. This system
recovers and recycles oil-bearing machining coolants at the source,
reducing the generation of spent coolant.
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will result in a
net increase in energy consumption at MP&M facilities. EPA presents the
estimates of increased energy usage for the selected option in Table
XVIII.C-1. The table also shows the amount of energy that would be
required by the selected technology option if EPA had not included
pollution prevention as part of its selected technology option. The in-
process flow control and recycling technologies included in
[[Page 497]]
EPA's proposed options reduce the amount of water use and in doing so
also require energy. Therefore, the amount of energy required for the
selected option incorporating pollution prevention and water
conservation was slightly greater than the proposed option without
pollution prevention and water conservation techniques.
Table XVIII.C-1.--Energy Requirements by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
required
Option (million
kilowatt
hrs/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline \1\............................................... 248
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2......... 347
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2......... 364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.
By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 3,123
billion kilowatt hours of electric power in the United States in 1997
(The Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998
Volume 1, Table A1). Additional energy requirements for EPA's proposed
options correspond to approximately 0.01 percent of national
requirements. The increase in energy requirements due to the
implementation of MP&M technologies will in turn cause an air emissions
impact from the electric power generation facilities. The increase in
air emissions is expected to be proportional to the increase in energy
requirements or approximately 0.01 percent.
Table XVIII.C-1.--Energy Requirements by Option
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy
required
Option (million
kilowatt
hrs/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline \1\............................................... 248
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2......... 347
Proposed Options without water conservation and P2......... 364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ EPA calculated the baseline sludge and waste oil generation using
responses to the 1989 MP&M Phase I Questionnaire and the 1996 MP&M
Phase II Detailed Questionnaires.
By comparison, electric power generation facilities generated 3123
billion kilowatt hours of electric power in the United States in 1997
(The Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998
Volume 1, Table A1). Additional energy requirements for EPA's proposed
options correspond to approximately 0.01 percent of national
requirements. The increase in energy requirements due to the
implementation of MP&M technologies will in turn cause an air emissions
impact from the electric power generation facilities. The increase in
air emissions is expected to be proportional to the increase in energy
requirements or approximately 0.01 percent.
XIX. Water Quality, Sewage Sludge, and Other Environmental Impacts
A. Introduction
MP&M facilities nationwide currently discharge an estimated 5,025
million pounds of pollutants per year to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) and approximately 410 million pounds of pollutants directly to
surface waters. MP&M facility effluents contain 42 priority or toxic
pollutants, 86 nonconventional pollutants, and three conventional
pollutants (biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), and oil and grease (O&G)).
The release of these pollutants to our nation's surface water
degrades aquatic environments, alters aquatic habitats, and affects the
diversity and abundance of aquatic life. It can also increase the risks
to the health of humans who ingest contaminated surface waters or eat
contaminated fish and shellfish. A number of the pollutants commonly
found in MP&M effluents also inhibit biological wastewater treatment
systems or accumulate in sewage sludge.
Metals are a particular concern because of their prevalence in MP&M
effluents. Metals are inorganic compounds that are generally non-
volatile (with the notable exception of mercury) and are not broken
down by biodegradation processes. Metals can accumulate in biological
tissues, sequester into POTW sewage sludge, and contaminate soils and
sediments when released to the environment. Some metals are quite toxic
even when present at relatively low levels.
Of the 131 MP&M pollutants of concern for which loadings were
estimated, 35 exhibit moderate to high toxicity to aquatic life; 77 are
human non-cancer toxicants; 13 are classified as known or probable
human carcinogens; 46 bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in
the environment, and 35 are hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). HAPs are
compounds which EPA believes may represent an unacceptable risk to
human health if present in the air.
B. Beneficial Impacts of the MP&M Proposed Rule
Changes under the proposed rule include:
Water quality changes;
Reduced aquatic life impacts;
Reduced POTW inhibitions;
Reduced costs for sewage sludge disposal; and
Reduced human health impacts.
The first three changes due to the proposed rule are discussed in
this section, and the last two are discussed in Section XX. EPA
estimated these changes for three options. This section presents
results for the proposed option, Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8. See
Section VIII for a description of the options. Results are discussed
for only the proposed option, however, to reduce the length of the
document. Benefits were not estimated for Options 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9
(options without pollution prevention) because these options remove
fewer pollutants and cost more than Option 2/6/10 and Option 4/8.
1. Water Quality Changes
EPA estimates that the proposed rule would substantially reduce
pollutant discharges to the waters of the U.S. as shown by the loadings
estimates in Table XIX-1 for five categories of pollutants. The
regulation would result in total pollutant removals of 3,872 million
pounds per year. These removals include a 30 million pound per-year
reduction in eight sewage sludge contaminants and a 703 million pound
per-year reduction in 89 pollutants causing inhibition of biological
activity of sewage sludge. The regulation would reduce discharges of 35
HAPs by about one million pounds per-year. Discharges of pollutants
that are known to be related to adverse acute and chronic effects on
aquatic life would be reduced by 823 and 1,035 million pounds per year,
respectively. These reductions result from increased wastewater
treatment, pollution prevention, and regulatory closures. EPA estimated
impacts of MP&M discharges on the quality of receiving waters using a
model of the in-stream pollutant mixing and dilution process. A first
order pollutant degradation model was used in the analysis of source
water concentrations at the drinking water intake points. This model
estimates in-stream concentrations for the initial discharge reach
(i.e., waterway) and for downstream reaches, taking into account
dilution, adsorption, volatilization, and hydrolysis.
This analysis uses discharge information from 885 sample MP&M
[[Page 498]]
facilities (excluding two sample facilities in Puerto Rico) that
discharge directly or indirectly to 627 receiving waterways (544
rivers/streams, 55 bays/estuaries, and 28 lakes). Four of the 55 marine
reaches were excluded from the in-stream water quality analysis due to
data limitations.
EPA extrapolated the environmental assessment results for the
sample facilities to the entire population of MP&M facilities
nationwide. This extrapolation uses sample facility weights developed
as part of the sampling plan. For additional information on sample
weights see the Statistical Summary for the Metal Products & Machinery
Industry Surveys in the Administrative record for today's rule.
EPA evaluated the national environmental impacts of reducing
pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities to the nation's waterbodies
for the proposed rule and for two alternative regulatory options. EPA
considered only pollutant loadings from MP&M facilities to particular
waterbodies and did not take background loadings from other sources
into account, with one exception. The analysis of sewage sludge
(biosolids) quality took background metal loadings into account. EPA
used information from the POTW survey to estimate total metal loadings
to a POTW of a given size (i.e., small, medium, and large). See Section
V.B for a description of the POTW survey. This estimate was based on
the average number of small, medium, and large MP&M facilities
discharging to a POTW in each size category and the percent
contribution of total metal loadings discharged from MP&M facilities.
2. Reduced POTW Impacts
EPA evaluated whether MP&M pollutants may interfere with publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs). Pollutants may impair POTW treatment
effectiveness by inhibiting the biological activity of activated
sludge. POTW inhibition and sludge values come from guidance published
by EPA and other sources. The Agency also evaluated the reduced costs
for managing and disposing of sewage sludge containing fewer pollutants
or lower concentrations of pollutants. This is discussed in Section
XX.D of today's proposal.
EPA estimated inhibition of POTW operations by comparing predicted
POTW influent concentrations to available inhibition levels for 89
pollutants. At baseline discharge levels, EPA estimates that
concentrations of 18 pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities exceed
biological inhibition criteria at 515 POTWs nationwide. The proposed
regulation would eliminate potential inhibition problems at 306 POTWs
and reduce occurrence of pollutant concentrations in excess of
inhibition criteria at 82 POTWs. POTWs may impose local limits to
prevent inhibitions. If local limits are in place, the estimated
reduction in potential inhibition problems at the affected POTWs is
overstated. In this case, however, the estimated social cost of the
MP&M regulation is also overstated.
3. Reduced Aquatic Life Impacts
EPA assessed the effect of baseline and post-compliance MP&M
facility discharges on affected waterways by estimating the cases in
which in-waterway pollutant concentrations resulting from those
discharges would exceed recommended acute and chronic Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) that protect aquatic life. Acute toxicity
assesses the impacts of a pollutant from relatively short exposures,
typically 48 and 96 hours for invertebrates and fish, respectively.
Mortality is the endpoint of concern. Chronic toxicity assesses the
impact of a pollutant after a longer exposure, typically from one week
to several months. The endpoints of concern are one or more sublethal
responses, such as changes in reproduction or growth in the affected
organisms. Pollutant concentrations in excess of acute and chronic AWQC
values indicate potential impacts to aquatic life.
The analysis compared baseline and post-compliance exceedences of
aquatic life AWQC to determine the effects of the rule. These
exceedences were modeled based on the estimated discharges from MP&M
facilities and 7Q10 stream flow rates (7Q10 refers to the lowest
consecutive seven day average with a recurrence interval of 10 years).
Results show that baseline pollutant concentrations exceed acute AWQC
in 878 reaches and chronic AWQC in 2,466 reaches nationally at baseline
discharge levels. EPA estimates that the proposed option will eliminate
concentrations in excess of acute and chronic criteria in 775 and 1,029
reaches, respectively. Results also show that an additional 903
receiving reaches will experience partial water quality improvements
from reduced occurrence of some pollutant concentrations in excess of
acute and/or chronic AWQC limits for protection of aquatic life.
Table XIX.1.--National Estimates of MP&M Facility Discharges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP&M discharges with potential POTW MP&M discharges
impacts exhibiting toxicity
----------------------------------------- Aquatic Life
Category Activated -------------------------
sludge Biosolids HAP
inhibition contaminants Acute Chronic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Loadings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Pollutants......................... 89 8 35 107 116
Million lbs/yr............................... 1,031 31.7 2.1 1,252 1,759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining With the Proposed Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million lbs/yr............................... 328 1.61 1.11 430 723
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining With Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million lbs/yr............................... 266 0.54 0.89 364 647
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining With Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million lbs/yr............................... 484 0.43 1.05 595 895
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 499]]
Table XIX-2.--National Estimates of MP&M Pollutants, Exceedences & Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option 2/6/
Baseline option 10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POTW Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of POTWs with Inhibition Problems (18 pollutants > 515 209 123 123
inhibition criteria).......................................
Biosolids Contamination (8 pollutants):
Number of POTWs......................................... 6,953 6,889 5,575 5,575
Non-qualifying Sewage Sludge (mill. of dry metric tons). 53.7 52.5 47.6 47.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receiving Water Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Streams with Human Health AWQC Exceedences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of pollutants:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and organisms a................................... 18 11 11 13
Organisms only b........................................ 6 5 5 5
Number of streams > AWQC for water and organisms............ 10,310 9,205 4,151 4,160
Number of streams > AWQC for organisms only................. 192 71 71 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Streams with Aquatic Life AWQC Exceedences
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of pollutants:
Chronic................................................. 31 25 21 17
Acute................................................... 10 11 8 6
Number of streams > AWQC chronic............................ 2,466 1,437 1,394 1,310
Number of streams > AWQC acute.............................. 878 103 61 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Both drinking water and organism consumption are considered in developing these AWQC exceedences.
b Only consumption of aquatic organisms is considered in these AWQC exceedences.
XX. Benefit Analysis
A. Overview of Benefits
This section presents EPA's estimates of the national environmental
benefits of the proposed MP&M effluent guidelines. The benefits occur
due to the reduction in facility discharges described in the preceding
section. EPA's complete benefit assessment can be found in ``Economic,
Environmental, and Benefit Assessment of Proposed Metal Products and
Machinery (MP&M) Rule.''
Benefits analyses for past effluent guidelines have been limited in
the range of benefits addressed, which has hindered EPA's ability to
compare the benefits and costs of rules comprehensively. The Agency is
working to improve its benefits analyses, including applying
methodologies that have now become well established in the natural
resources valuation field, but have not been used previously in the
effluent guidelines program. EPA was particularly interested in
expanding its benefits analyses for this rule to include water-based
recreational activities other than fishing. The proposed MP&M rule
addresses an industry with a large number of facilities located
throughout the United States. These facilities are largely concentrated
near large population centers and recreational sites.
Individuals in the U.S. are known to participate in a wide range of
water-based recreational activities including fishing, swimming,
boating, and near water activities such as wildlife viewing.
Participation rates in each activity vary significantly from state to
state depending on the availability and quality of water resources
suitable for recreation, climate, and demographic characteristics of
the user population. Wildlife viewing is most popular type of water-
based recreation followed by fishing and swimming. The 1996 U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service survey showed that 62 million Americans enjoy
wildlife viewing nationwide. In addition, 35 to 43 million people
participate in recreational fishing and 34 million people take boating
trips.
EPA has therefore expanded upon its traditional methodologies in
the benefits analyses for the proposed MP&M rule. Past effluent
guidelines analyses have included human health benefits, economic
productivity benefits such as reduced costs for POTW sludge disposal,
recreational benefits for fishing, and nonuse values. The additional
analyses expands on the traditional analyses by estimating benefits to
participants in boating, swimming and viewing (i.e., near-water
recreation.) EPA used a benefit transfer approach based on four studies
to estimate the increase in value to individuals who boat and
participate in viewing or near-water recreation at the national level.
Three of these studies have been published in established economic
journals, the other study is new and specific to the MP&M guideline.
For this rule, EPA also conducted an original travel cost study in the
State of Ohio, using the National Recreational Demand Survey (NDS) and
a Random Utility Model (RUM) of recreational behavior, to estimate the
changes in consumer valuation of water resources that would result from
improvements in water quality. This study is presented in detail in
Chapter 21 of the EEBA. A preliminary application of the travel cost
study was reviewed by experts in the field of natural resource
valuation, and the study has been presented at two professional
meetings and will be subjected to a formal peer review in the coming
year. The results of the previous review are available in the docket.
Because EPA has not yet resolved some anomalies in the
extrapolation of these analyses to the national level, the monetized
benefits for these new categories are not included in the summary
statements of benefits for the proposed rule. EPA is including these
analyses in the EEBA, however, to present the new methodologies and
their results as applied to the MP&M rule for public comment,
concurrent with seeking peer review of the travel cost study.
[[Page 500]]
The new analyses projects benefits of $500-$900 million for
enhanced wildlife viewing, $265-$672 million for recreational boating,
and $191 to $1,066 million in additional non-use benefits (calculated
as \1/4\ to \2/3\ of the additional recreational use benefits.) EPA
notes that the methodology used results in projected benefits for 57
million wildlife viewers taking an average of 10 trips per year. This
estimate (567 viewing days) is essentially the total number of single
day trips as estimated by the national recreational demand survey
(NDS). The methodology also predicts that 33 million individuals will
each take an average 9 boating trips per year to sites benefiting from
the rule. This amounts to 296 million boating days which is essentially
all of the single day boating days nationally estimated from the NDS.
Even though only about 5% of total reaches nationally are projected to
benefit from the rule, 90% of the benefitting reaches are located in
densely populated areas in the U..S, which is where the majority of the
U.S. population and recreational users are located, though not
necessarily where they recreate. Although EPA is confident in the
sample based results, EPA believes that the large numbers of viewers
and boaters projected to benefit from the rule at the national level
may indicate a need to revise its procedures for scaling up from
sampled facilities to the national level. The simple extrapolation
technique used in both the cost and benefit analyses, may have the
unintended effect of overcounting the number of benefitting boaters and
wildlife viewers. EPA is also specifically soliciting comment on
several other methodological approaches used in new analyses including
the benefits transfer of values from studies that did not specifically
address boating and wildlife viewing to these activities, the extent to
which activities such as recreational boating, and wildlife viewing are
applicable to children, and the effect of omitting other non-MP&M
sources of impairment on affected reaches from the analyses.
EPA may include additional categories of monetized benefits
estimates based on these new methodologies, as revised based on comment
and peer review, in its economic analyses of the final rule.
Table XX.1 summarizes the benefits categories associated with the
regulation and notes which categories EPA was able to quantify and
monetize. The benefits include three broad classes: Human health,
ecological, and economic productivity benefits. Within these three
broad classes, EPA was able to assess benefits with varying degrees of
completeness and rigor. Where possible, EPA quantified the expected
effects and estimated monetary values. Data limitations and limited
understanding of how society values certain water quality changes
prevented monetizing some benefit categories. This section also
presents a case study for the State of Ohio which provides more
detailed analyses of the regulation's expected benefits.
Table XX-1.--Benefit Categories Associated With Water Quality Improvements Resulting From the Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Guideline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonquantified
Benefit category Quantified and Quantified and and
monetized nonmonetized nonmonetized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced cancer risk due to ingestion of chemically- X
contaminated fish and unregulated pollutants in drinking
water.......................................................
Reduced systemic health hazards (e.g., reproductive, ............... X
immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory
toxicity) due to ingestion of chemically-contaminated fish
and unregulated pollutants in drinking water................
Reduced systemic health hazards from exposure to lead from X
consumption of chemically-contaminated fish.................
Reduced cancer risk and health hazards from exposure to ............... ............... X
unregulated pollutants in chemically-contaminated sewage
sludge......................................................
Reduced health hazards from exposure to contaminants in ............... ............... X
waters used recreationally (e.g., swimming).................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecological Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced risk to aquatic life................................. ............... X
Enhanced water-based recreation including fishing............ X
Enhanced water-based recreation including near-water or X
viewing and boating......................................... In expanded
analyses
Other enhanced water-based recreation such as swimming, ............... ............... X
waterskiing and white water rafting.........................
Increased aesthetic benefits such as enhancement of adjoining ............... ............... X
site amenities (e.g. residing, working, traveling, and
owning property near the water).............................
Nonuser value (i.e., existence, option, and bequest value)... X
Reduced contamination of sediments........................... ............... ............... X
Reduced non-point source nitrogen contamination of water if ............... ............... X
sewage sludge is used as a substitute for chemical
fertilizer on agricultural land.............................
Satisfaction of a public preference for beneficial use of ............... ............... X
sewage sludge *.............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Productivity Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced sewage sludge disposal costs......................... X
Reduced management practice and record-keeping costs for ............... ............... X
users of sewage sludge that meets exceptional quality
criteria....................................................
Reduced interference with POTW operations.................... ............... X
Benefits to tourism industries from increased participation ............... ............... X
in water-based recreation...................................
[[Page 501]]
Improved commercial fisheries yields......................... ............... ............... X
Addition of fertilizer to crops (nitrogen content of sewage ............... ............... X
sludge is available as a fertilizer when sludge is land
applied) *..................................................
Improved crop yield (the organic matter in land-applied ............... ............... X
sewage sludge increases soil's water retention) *...........
Avoidance of costly siting processes for more controversial ............... ............... X
sewage sludge disposal methods (e.g., incinerators) because
of greater use of land application..........................
Reduced water treatment costs for municipal drinking water, ............... ............... X
irrigation water, and industrial process and cooling water..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Some of these benefit categories are accounted for and quantified under the ``reduced sewage sludge disposal
costs.''
B. Reduced Human Health Risk
Reduced pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities generate human
health benefits by a number of pathways. The most important human
health benefits stem from reduced risk of illness from consumption of
contaminated fish, aquatic organisms other than fish, and water. EPA
analyzed human health benefits by estimating the change in the expected
number of adverse human health events in the populations exposed to
MP&M discharges. While some health effects such as cancer are
relatively well understood and can be quantified and monetized in a
benefits analyses, others such as systemic health effects are less well
understood and may not be assessed with the same rigor or at all. (See
Table XX-1.)
EPA analyzed the following measures of health-related benefits:
reduced cancer risk from fish and water consumption; reduced risk of
non-cancer toxic effects from fish and water consumption; lead-related
health effects to children and adults; and reduced occurrence of in-
waterway pollutant concentrations in excess of levels of concern. The
levels of concern include human health-based ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC) or documented toxic effect levels for those chemicals
not covered by water quality criteria. The Agency monetized only two of
these health benefits: (1) Changes in the incidence of cancer from fish
and water consumption, and (2) changes in adverse health effects to
children and adults from reduced lead exposure. The following
discussion includes results only for the proposed option; however, the
tables present the results for all options evaluated.
EPA estimates that the proposed option would eliminate
approximately 2.29 cancer cases associated with consumption of MP&M
pollutants in fish tissue and drinking water. The regulation would also
result in the removal of 0.86 million pounds (1.9 toxic lb-eq.) per
year of lead. In addition, there will be a 142 million pound reduction
in 77 pollutants that are known to be related to a wide range of human
health endpoints not quantified or monetized for this benefits
analyses. Monetized health benefits are expected to result in $41.3
million (1999 $) in benefits due to decreased human health risks under
the proposed option.
The analyses of changes in human health risk described in this and
the following sections ignore the potential for joint effects of more
than one pollutant. Each pollutant is dealt with in isolation and the
individual effects are summed. Therefore, this approach does not
account for the possibility that several pollutants may combine in a
synergistic fashion to yield more or less adverse effects to human
health than indicated by the simple sum of their individual effects.
1. Benefits from Reduced Incidence of Cancer Cases
EPA estimated aggregate cancer risk from contaminated drinking
water for populations served by drinking water intakes on waterbodies
to which MP&M facilities discharge. This analyses is based on seven
carcinogenic pollutants for which no published drinking water criteria
are currently available. This analyses excludes six carcinogens for
which drinking water criteria are available. EPA assumed that public
drinking water treatment systems will remove these pollutants from the
public water supply. To the extent that treatment for these six
pollutants may cause incidental removals of the chemicals without
criteria, the analyses may overstate cancer related benefits.
Calculated in-stream concentrations serve as a basis for estimating
changes in cancer risk for populations served by affected drinking
water intakes. EPA estimates that the proposed regulation would
eliminate annually 2.24 cancer cases associated with consumption of
contaminated drinking water, or 44 percent of the cancer cases
associated with baseline MP&M discharges.
EPA valued the reduced cancer cases using estimated willingness-to-
pay values for avoiding premature mortality. The values used in this
analyses are based on a range of values identified in the EPA Office of
Policy Analysis' review of available studies. The mean value of
avoiding one statistical death is estimated to be $5.8 million. This
estimate does not include estimates of morbidity prior to death.
EPA also estimated aggregate cancer risk from consuming
contaminated fish for recreational and subsistence anglers and their
families. This analyses is based on thirteen carcinogenic pollutants
found in MP&M effluent discharges. Estimated contaminants in fish
tissue reflect predicted in-stream pollutant concentrations and
biological uptake factors. EPA used data on numbers of licensed
fishermen by State and county, presence of fish consumption advisories,
fishing activity rates, and average household size to estimate the
affected population of recreational and subsistence anglers and their
families. The analyses uses different fish consumption rates for
recreational and subsistence anglers to estimate the change in cancer
risk among these populations.
The proposed rule eliminates an estimated 0.05 cancer cases per
year for combined recreational and subsistence angler populations,
representing a reduction of about 36 percent from a baseline of about
0.13 cases. This translates into $0.3 million (1999$) in annual
benefits due to reduced cancer risk from consumption of contaminated
fish by these populations.
Total benefits from reduced incidence of cancer cases, including
both drinking water and fish exposures are $13.3 million (1999$)
annually (see Table XX-2).
[[Page 502]]
Table XX-2.--Estimated Annual Benefits from Avoided Cancer Cases from Fish and Drinking Water Consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking Water Fish Consumption Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit Benefit Benefit
Regulatory status Annual value Annual value Annual value
cancer (million cancer (million cancer (million
cases 1999$) cases 1999$) cases 1999$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 5.10 1 N/A 0.126 N/A 5.23 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cases/Value............. 2.86 $13.0 0.081 $0.3 2.94 $13.3
Percent Reduction................. 43.9% N/A 35.7% N/A 43.9% N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cases/Value............. 2.73 $13.7 0.081 $0.3 2.81 $14.0
Percent Reduction................. 46.5% N/A 35.7% N/A 46.1% N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Cases/Value............. 2.73 $13.8 0.062 $0.4 2.79 $14.2
Percent Reduction................. 46.5% N/A 49.2% N/A 46.5% N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
\1\ Not Applicable.
2. Reductions in Systemic Health Effects
EPA expects that the proposed rule would also generate a wide range
of non-cancer health benefits (e.g., systemic effects, reproductive
toxicity, and developmental toxicity) from reduced contamination of
fish tissue and drinking water sources. The change in exposure to
pollutants through fish and water consumption relative to pollutant-
specific health effects thresholds yields an additional measure of the
human health benefits that are likely to result from the proposed
regulation. EPA compared estimated in-stream pollutant concentrations
for 77 systemic toxicants with risk reference doses to calculate a
hazard score. The systemic hazard score is the sum of the ratios of
pollutant quantities ingested to the daily reference dose for each
pollutant. Values above or near one indicate the potential for health
non-cancer hazards. The hazard score assumes that the combined effect
of ingesting multiple pollutants is proportional to the sum of their
effects individually.
The distribution of hazard scores was calculated for drinking water
and fish consumption populations for baseline and post-compliance
exposures. The results show movement in populations from higher risk
values to lower risk values for both the fish and drinking water
analyses. Substantial increases in the percentage of the exposed
populations that would be exposed to no risk of systemic health hazards
occur in both analyses.
3. Benefits from Reduced Exposure to Lead
EPA performed a separate analyses of benefits from reduced exposure
to lead. This analyses differs from the analyses of systemic health
risk from exposure to other MP&M pollutants because it is based on
dose-response functions tied to specific health endpoints to which
monetary values can be applied.
Many lead-related adverse health effects are relatively common and
are chronic in nature. These effects include but are not limited to
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and impaired cognitive function.
Lead is harmful to any exposed individual, and the effects of lead on
children are of particular concern. Children's rapid rate of
development makes them more susceptible to neurobehavioral deficits
resulting from lead exposure. The neurobehavioral effects on children
from lead exposure include hyperactivity, behavioral and attention
difficulties, delayed mental development, and motor and perceptual
skill deficits.
This analyses assessed benefits of reduced lead exposure from
consumption of contaminated fish tissue to three sensitive populations:
(1) Preschool age children, (2) pregnant women, and (3) adult men and
women. This analyses uses blood-lead levels as a biomarker of lead
exposure. EPA estimated baseline and post-compliance blood lead levels
in the exposed populations and then used changes in these levels to
estimate benefits in the form of avoided health damages.
EPA assessed neurobehavioral effects on children based on a dose-
response relationship for IQ decrements. Avoided neurological and
cognitive damages are expressed as changes in overall IQ levels,
including reduced incidence of extremely low IQ scores (70, or two
standard deviations below the mean) and reduced incidence of blood-lead
levels above 20 mg/dL. The analyses uses the value of compensatory
education that an individual would otherwise need and the impact an
additional IQ point on individuals' future earnings to value the
avoided neurological and cognitive damages. EPA estimated that
implementation of the proposed rule would result in avoided IQ loss of
489 points across all exposed children. The estimated monetary value of
avoided IQ loss is $4.9 million (1999$). In addition, reduced
occurrences of extremely low IQ scores (70) and reduced incidence of
blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL would result in a decrease in the
annual cost of compensatory education for children with learning
disabilities of $0.1 million (1999$).
Prenatal exposure to lead is an important route of exposure. Fetal
exposure to lead in utero due to maternal blood-lead levels may result
in several adverse health effects, including
[[Page 503]]
decreased gestational age, reduced birth weight, late fetal death,
neurobehavioral deficits in infants, and increased infant mortality. To
assess benefits to pregnant women, EPA estimated changes in the risk of
infant mortality due to changes in maternal blood-lead levels during
pregnancy. This analyses used the estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) to
avoid a mortality to estimate the monetary benefit associated with
reducing risks of neonatal mortality. The estimated monetary value of
benefits from reduced neonatal mortality is $9.33 million (1999$).
Lead exposure has been shown to have adverse effects on the health
of adults as well as children. The health effects in adults that EPA
was able to quantify all relate to lead's effects on blood pressure.
Quantified health effects include increased incidence of hypertension
(estimated for males only), initial coronary heart disease (CHD),
strokes (initial cerebrovascular accidents and atherothrombotic brain
infarctions), and premature mortality. This analyses does not include
other health effects associated with elevated blood pressure, and other
adult health effects of lead including nervous system disorders in
adults, anemia, and possible cancer effects. EPA used cost of illness
estimates (i.e., medical costs and lost work time) to estimate monetary
value of reduced incidence of hypertension, initial CHD, and strokes.
EPA then used the value of a statistical life saved to estimate changes
in risk of premature mortality. The estimated monetary value of health
benefits to adults is $13.6 million (1999$) (see Table XX-3).
Total benefits from reduced exposure to lead, including both
children and adults are $28.0 million (1999$) annually under the
proposed option.
Table XX-3.--National Adult Lead Benefits
[Millions of 1999$ per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Reduced Monetary Reduced Monetary Reduced Monetary
cases value cases value Cases value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypertension...................... 959.85 $1.00 991.41 $1.04 992.20 $1.04
CHD............................... 1.24 $0.09 1.29 $0.09 1.29 $0.09
CBA............................... 0.52 $0.14 0.53 $0.14 0.53 $0.14
BI................................ 0.29 $0.08 0.30 $0.08 0.30 $0.08
Mortality......................... 1.7 $9.85 1.76 $10.19 1.76 $10.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHD............................... 0.39 $0.03 0.40 $0.03 0.40 $0.03
CBA............................... 0.17 $0.03 0.18 $0.04 0.18 $0.04
BI................................ 0.10 $0.02 0.11 $0.02 0.11 $0.02
Mortality......................... 0.41 $2.38 0.42 $2.46 0.42 $2.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits................ ........... $13.6 ........... $14.08 ........... $14.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Level Exposed Population:
(1) Hypertension: 428,363 men ages 20 to 74;
(2) Coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular accidents, brain infarction, and mortality: 173,386 men and
192,091 women ages 45-74.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Exceedences of Health-Based AWQC
EPA also estimated the effect of MP&M facility discharges by
comparing pollutant concentrations in affected waterways to ambient
water criteria for protection of human health. This analysis compares
the estimated baseline and post-compliance in-stream pollutant
concentrations with ambient water quality criteria (AWQC). The
comparison included AWQC for protection of human health through
consumption of organisms and for consumption of organisms and water.
Pollutant concentrations in excess of these values indicate potential
risks to human health. EPA modeling results show that baseline in-
stream concentrations of 18 pollutants are estimated to exceed human
health criteria for consumption of water and organisms in 10,310
receiving reaches nationwide. The proposed rule eliminates
concentrations in excess of the criteria for consumption of water and
organisms on 1,105 of these reaches. EPA also estimates that the
proposed rule eliminates the occurrence of concentrations in excess of
human health criteria for consumption of organisms only on 121 of the
192 reaches on which baseline discharges are estimated to cause
concentrations in excess of AWQC values. Results also show that 382
receiving reaches will experience partial water quality improvements
from reduced occurrence of some pollutant concentrations in excess of
AWQC limits for consumption of water and organisms.
C. Ecological, Recreational and Nonuser Benefits
EPA expects the proposed regulation to provide ecological benefits
by improving the habitats or ecosystems (aquatic and terrestrial)
affected by the MP&M industry's effluent discharges. Benefits
associated with changes in aquatic life include: restoration of
sensitive species: Recovery of diseased species: changes in taste- and
odor-producing algae; changes in dissolved oxygen (DO); increased
assimilative capacity of affected waterways; and improved related
recreational activities. These activities include swimming, fishing,
boating and wildlife observation that may be enhanced when risks to
aquatic life are reduced. Among these ecological benefits, EPA was able
to estimate dollar values for improved recreational opportunities and
for nonuser benefits.
EPA expects the MP&M rule to improve aquatic species habitats by
reducing concentrations of toxic and conventional contaminants in
water. These improvements should enhance the quality and value of
water-based recreation, such as fishing, swimming,
[[Page 504]]
wildlife viewing, camping, waterfowl hunting, and boating. The benefits
from improved water-based recreation would be seen as increases in the
increased value participants derive from a day of recreation or the
increased number of days that consumers of water-based recreation
choose to visit the cleaner waterways. This analysis measures the
economic benefit to society from water quality improvements based on
the increased monetary value of recreational opportunities resulting
from those improvements.
EPA assessed recreational benefits of reduced occurrence of
pollutant concentrations exceeding aquatic life and/or human health
AWQC values. This analysis combined the findings from the aquatic life
benefits analysis and the human health AWQC exceedence analysis
described previously. These analyses found that 10,443 stream reaches
exceed chronic or acute aquatic life AWQC and/or human health AWQC
values at the baseline discharge levels (see Table XIII-4). The
proposed rule is expected to eliminate exceedences on 1,185 of these
discharge reaches, leaving 9,258 reaches with concentrations of one or
more pollutants that exceed AWQC limits. Of these 9,258 reaches, 1,837
reaches will experience partial water quality improvements from reduced
occurrence of some pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC limits.
Table XX-4.--Estimated MP&M Discharge Reaches with MP&M Pollutant Concentrations in Excess of AWQC Limits for
Protection of Human Health or Aquatic Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of benefitting reaches
reaches with -------------------------------
MP&M pollutant
Regulatory status concentrations All AWQC Number of AWQC
exceeding AWQC exceedences exceedences
limits eliminated reduced
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................................ 10,443 .............. ..............
Proposed option................................................. 9,258 1,185 1,837
Option 2/6/10................................................... 4,217 6,226 1,894
Option 4/8...................................................... 4,226 6,217 1,866
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA attached a monetary value to these reduced exceedences based on
increased values for recreational fishing and for nonuser values. Since
the benefiting reaches are close to densely populated areas potential
recreational users may also benefit from reduced visit ``price'' to
these sites (i.e., lower travel costs to good recreational sites). EPA
applied a benefits transfer approach to estimate the total willingness
to pay (WTP), including both use and non-use values, for improvements
in surface water quality. This approach builds upon a review and
analysis of the surface water valuation literature.
EPA first estimated the baseline value of water-based recreation
for the benefitting reaches based on estimated annual person-days of
recreational fishing. The baseline per-day values of water-based
recreation are based on studies by Walsh et. al (1992) and Bergstrom
and Cordell (1991). The studies provide values per recreation day for a
wide range of water-based activities, including fishing, boating,
wildlife viewing, waterfowl hunting, camping, and picnicking. The mean
value per recreational fishing day used in this analyses is $39.62.
EPA then applied the percentage change in the recreational fishing
value of water resources implied by surface water valuation studies to
estimate changes in values for all MP&M reaches in which the regulation
eliminates AWQC exceedences by one or more MP&M pollutants. The Agency
selected eight of the most comparable studies and calculated the
changes in recreational fishing values from water quality improvements
(as percentage of the baseline) implied by those studies. Sources of
estimates included Lyke (1993), Jakus et al. (1997), Montgomery and
Needleman (1997), Paneuf et al. (1998), Desvousges et al. (1987), Lant
and Roberts (1990), Farber and Griner (2000), and Tudor et al. (2000).
EPA took a simple mean of point estimates from all applicable studies
to derive a central tendency value for percentage change in the water
resource values due to water quality improvements.
This approach uses all possible applicable valuation studies, makes
unit values more likely to be nationally representative, and avoids the
potential bias inherent in using a single study to make estimates at
the national level. These studies yielded estimates of increased
recreational fishing value from water quality improvements expected
from reduced MP&M discharges of 10 to 15 percent. The estimated
national recreational benefits of the proposed rule (1999$) are
provided in Table XIII-5 below. Note that the benefits transfer
approach used in this analyses is based on eight studies as opposed to
one used in the previous rule.
The resulting average changes in participants' valuation of water
resources per year resulting from the MP&M rule is modest ($18.12 per
angler per year). EPA applied these estimates to the portion of the
population residing in each county that is traversed by (i.e., is
adjacent to) a water body that benefits from the proposed MP&M rule.
The portion of the anglers adjacent to the reach is calculated based on
the number of fishing licenses sold in the relevant counties and the
ratio of the benefiting reach length to the number of total reach miles
in the county. The results were then extrapolated to the national level
based on facility sample weights.
Removing water quality impairments would increase services provided
by water resources to recreational users. Potential recreational users
are expected to benefit from improved recreational opportunities,
including an increased number of available choices of recreational
sites. For example, some of the streams that were not usable for
recreation under the baseline discharge conditions may be newly
included in the site choice set for recreational users from nearby
counties. Streams that have been used for recreation under the baseline
conditions can become more attractive for users making recreational
trips more enjoyable. Individuals may also take trips more frequently
if they enjoy their recreational activities more.
EPA estimated that 20.2 million anglers will benefit from improved
recreational opportunities because they live in counties that are
traversed by reaches expected to benefit from the MP&M regulation. The
results show that roughly half of the nation's recreational
[[Page 505]]
anglers will benefit from the proposed rule. These results partially
stem from the concentration of MP&M facilities in all heavily populated
areas. However, EPA recognizes that extrapolating from sample facility
to national results introduces uncertainty in the analyses, and is
continuing to explore ways to reduce this uncertainty. The Agency is
requesting comment on the methods used to extrapolate sample results to
national benefit estimates. The extrapolation method used is described
in detail in chapters 5 and 15 and appendix F of the EEBA.
EPA also estimated non-market nonuser benefits. These non-market
nonuser benefits are not associated with current use of the affected
ecosystem or habitat; instead, they arise from the value society places
on improved water quality independent of planned uses or based on
expected future use. Past studies have shown that nonuser values are a
sizable component of the total economic value of water resources. EPA
estimated average changes in nonuser value to equal one-half of the
recreational fishing benefits. The estimated increase in nonuser value
is $182.7 million (1999$).
Table XX-5.--Estimated Recreational Fishing and Non-Use Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges
[Million 1999$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Benefit Type option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recreational Fishing............................................ $365.4 $960.3 $962.1
Nonuse Benefit (1/2 of Recreational Fishing).................... 182.7 480.2 481.1
-----------------------------------------------
Total Recreational Benefits................................. 548.1 1,440.5 1,443.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Categories may not sum to totals due to rounding of individual estimates for presentation purposes.
EPA calculated the total value of enhanced water-based recreation
opportunities by summing recreational fishing and nonuser value. The
resulting increase in value of water resources to recreational anglers
and nonusers is $548.1 million, with an upper and lower bound range of
$294 to $941 million (1999$) annually.
D. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
EPA evaluated two productivity measures associated with MP&M
pollutants. The first measure was the pollutant interference at
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) which were quantified but not
monetized in Section XII. The second measure is pass-through of
pollutants into the sludge which limits options for disposing of their
sewage sludge. EPA quantified the reduced costs for managing and
disposing of sewage sludge. This analyses relied on data from 147 POTW
surveys. The survey provided information on sewage sludge use and
disposal costs and practices, total metal loadings to the POTW,
percentage of total metal loadings contributed by MP&M facilities, and
the number of known MP&M dischargers to the POTW The survey also
provided information on the percentage of qualifying sludge that is not
land applied and reasons for not land applying qualifying sludge.
EPA has promulgated regulations establishing standards for sewage
sludge when it is applied to the land, disposed of at dedicated sites
(surface disposal), and incinerated (40 CFR part 503). In addition, EPA
has also established standards for sewage sludge when it is disposed of
in municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR part 258). Disposing of
sewage sludge containing lower levels of pollutants is less expensive
than disposing of more contaminated sewage because these regulations
restrict disposal options based on sludge pollutant levels. The POTW
survey indicated that the costs of alternative use/disposal practices
follow a consistent ordinal relationship. That is, certain use/disposal
practices (e.g., incinerating sludge) are generally more expensive than
other practices (e.g., land application).
EPA estimated baseline and post-compliance sludge concentrations of
eight metals for POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP&M
facilities. EPA compared these concentrations with the relevant metal
concentration limits for land application and surface disposal. In the
baseline case, EPA estimated that concentrations of one or more metals
at 6,953 POTWs would fail the land application limits.
EPA estimates that 62 POTWs will be able to select the lower-cost
land application disposal based on estimated reductions in sludge
contamination. An estimated 1.7 million dry metric tons (DMT) of sewage
sludge would newly qualify for land application annually. EPA also
estimated that 21 POTWs that previously met only the land application
pollutant limit would, as a result of regulation, meet the more
stringent land application concentration limits. EPA expects these
POTWs to benefit through reduced record-keeping requirements and
exemption from certain sludge management practices. The annual
estimated cost savings for the POTWs expected to upgrade their sludge
disposal practices are $61.3 million (1999$).
This analyses includes an adjustment to the estimate of national
sludge use/disposal cost benefits for POTWs located at cost-prohibitive
distances from agricultural, forest, or disturbed lands suitable for
sludge application. EPA assumed that 46 percent of sludge generated in
the United States is generated by POTWs located too far from sites
suitable for application sewage sludge to make these practices
economical.
E. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
EPA estimates that total benefits for the five categories for which
monetary estimates were possible are $0.651 billion (1999$) annually.
EPA characterized uncertainty inherent in the benefits analyses by
bounding benefit estimates. The low and upper bound benefit estimates
of the proposed option are $0.347 and $1,144 billion (1999$) annually.
EPA's complete benefit assessment can be found in Economic,
Environmental, and Benefit Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations
and Guidelines for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry. The
monetized benefits of the rule underestimate the total benefits of the
rule because it omits various sources of benefits to society may from
reduced MP&M effluent discharges. Examples of benefit categories not
reflected in this estimate include: non-cancer health benefits other
than benefits from reduced exposure to lead, other water dependent
recreational benefits such as swimming, boating, wildlife viewing, and
waterskiing, and reduced cost of
[[Page 506]]
drinking water treatment for the pollutants with drinking water
criteria.
Table XX-6.--Estimated Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges
[Annual Benefits--Million 1999$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Benefit category option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduced Cancer Risk:
Fish Consumption............................................ $0.3 $0.3 $0.4
Water Consumption........................................... 13.0 13.7 13.8
2. Reduced Risk from Exposure to Lead:
Children.................................................... 14.4 14.8 14.9
Adults...................................................... 13.6 14.1 14.1
3. Avoided Sewage Sludge Disposal Costs......................... 61.3 68.5 127.4
4. Enhanced Fishing............................................. 365.4 960.7 962.7
5. Nonuse benefits (\1/2\ of Recreational Use Benefits)......... 182.7 480.4 481.3
-----------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits.................................. 650.6 1,553.5 1,614.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, the EEBA includes national estimates for
benefits in two other categories, enhanced boating and wildlife
viewing. In addition, it also includes estimates from a travel cost
analyses of recreational benefits from enhanced fishing, swimming,
boating and wildlife viewing performed for the state of Ohio. The case
study analyses supplements the national level analyses performed for
the proposed MP&M regulation by using improved data and methods to
determine MP&M pollutant discharges from both MP&M facilities and other
sources and by estimating swimming, fishing, boating, and near-water
activities. The random utility model (RUM) used in the analyses
estimates the effects of the specific water quality characteristics
analyzed for the proposed MP&M regulation (i.e., the presence of AWQC
exceedances and concentrations of the nonconventional nutrient Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen.) The direct link between the water quality
characteristics analyzed for the rule and the characteristics valued in
the RUM analyses reduces uncertainty in benefit estimates and makes the
analyses of recreational benefits more robust. This analyses is
presented in Chapters 20, 21, and 22 of the EEBA.
F. Benefit-Cost Comparison
EPA cannot perform a complete benefit-cost comparison because not
all of the benefits resulting from the proposed regulatory alternative
can be valued in dollar terms. A comparison of costs and benefits is
thus limited by the lack of a comprehensive benefits valuation and also
by some uncertainties in the estimates. Nonetheless, EPA presents the
following summary comparison of costs and benefits for the proposed
rule. The social cost of the proposed rule is $2.1 billion annually
(1999$). The total benefits that can be valued in dollar terms in the
categories traditionally analyzed for effluent guidelines range from
$0.4 billion to $1.1 billion annually (1999$). EPA believes that the
benefits of the proposed regulation justify the social costs.
XXI. Regulatory Implementation
A. Compliance Dates
As discussed in Section XII of this notice, EPA is proposing to
establish a three-year deadline (from the date of publication of the
final MP&M rule) for compliance with the MP&M pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES). EPA is proposing a three-year deadline
because design and construction of systems adequate for compliance with
PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites. In
addition, control authorities (e.g., POTWs) will need the time to
develop the permits or other control mechanisms for their industrial
users.
Once EPA finalizes the MP&M rule, these limitations will be
reflected in NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers.
New sources must comply with the new source standards and
limitations (PSNS and NSPS) of the MP&M rule (once it is finalized) at
the time they commence discharging MP&M process wastewater. Because the
final rule is not expected within 120 days of the proposed rule, the
Agency considers a discharger a new source if its construction
commences following promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR 122.2; 40
CFR 403.3). In addition, today's notice fully replaces the MP&M Phase I
proposal, published on May 30, 1995. Therefore, compliance deadlines in
that proposal would obviously no longer apply.
B. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
1. Concentration-Based Limitations and Standards
As discussed in Section II.D, EPA is proposing concentration-based
limits for all subcategories except the Steel Forming & Finishing
Subcategory for which EPA is proposing production-based limits (see
Section XXI.B.2, below, for a discussion on the Steel Forming &
Finishing Subcategory). Unlike the Phase I proposal, EPA is not
proposing to require permit writers or control authorities (e.g.,
POTWs) to implement the limits on a mass basis for dischargers. Instead
EPA is proposing to authorize permit writers and control authorities to
use their best professional judgement to decide when it is most
appropriate to implement mass-based limits. The NPDES regulations (40
CFR 122.45(f)) require permit writers to implement mass-based
limitations for direct dischargers, but allows an exception when the
limits are expressed in terms of other units of measurement (e.g.,
concentration) and the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.6(d))
provides that the control authority may impose mass limitations on
industrial users which are using dilution to meet applicable
pretreatment requirements or where mass limitations are appropriate.
EPA believes that this approach will reduce implementation burden on
POTWs associated with implementing mass-based limits at all of their
MP&M industrial users, but will still result in increased use of water
conservation practices at the facilities where POTWs determine it is
most appropriate. EPA believes that MP&M facilities that have been
using the best pollution prevention and water conservation practices
may also request that the permit writer or POTW use
[[Page 507]]
mass-based limits in their permits or control mechanism. The Agency is
providing detailed information on water use levels for specific unit
operations in Section 15 of the Technical Development Document for
today's proposal. EPA believes this information will be useful to
permit writers and control authorities in those instances where they
deem it appropriate to set mass-based limits.
2. Mass-Based Limitations and Standards
a. Background
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS proposed today for the Steel Forming and Finishing
Subcategory are expressed as mass limitations in pounds/1,000 pounds of
product. The mass limitation is derived by multiplying an effluent
concentration (determined from the analyses of treatment system
performance) by an appropriate wastewater volume (``production-
normalized flow'') determined for each forming or finishing operation
expressed in gallons/ton of product. EPA developed the production
normalized flows used to develop the limits in the proposed rule from
survey questionnaire responses from steel forming and finishing
facilities. (The production-normalized flows are provided in the
Technical Development Document.) However, EPA did not collect
analytical wastewater samples from Steel Forming & Finishing facilities
that used the Option 2 treatment technology (see Section VIII for a
description of the technology options). EPA transferred the effluent
concentrations used to develop the proposed Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory limitations and standards from those used for the General
Metals subcategory. EPA believes that the wastewater characteristics of
the General Metals subcategory closely resemble those of the Steel
Forming & Finishing subcategory. The concentration-based limitations
and standards for the General Metals subcategory are provided in
Subpart A of the proposed codified regulation that accompanies this
preamble. EPA will conduct analytical wastewater sampling of well-
operated chemical precipitation and clarification systems at steel
forming and finishing facilities post-proposal. EPA intends on
developing limitations and standards for this subcategory for the final
rule that would be based on the steel forming and finishing facilities
in this subcategory.
A facility subject to today's proposed regulation can use a
combination of various treatment alternatives and/or water conservation
practices to achieve a particular effluent limitation or standard. The
model treatment systems (i.e., Option 2 for BPT, BAT, BCT, and PSES and
Option 4 for NSPS and PSNS, as described in Section VIII) illustrate at
least one means available to achieve the proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.
As discussed above in Section XXI.B.1, both the NPDES permit
regulations and the General Pretreatment Regulations discuss the use of
mass-based limitations and standards. In order to convert the proposed
effluent limitations and standards expressed as pounds/1,000 pounds of
product to a monthly average or daily maximum permit limit, the
permitting or control authority would use a production rate with units
of tons/day. The NPDES permit regulations (Part 122.45(b)(2)) require
that NPDES permit limits be based on a ``* * * reasonable measure of
actual production.'' A similar requirement is found in the General
Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403.6(c)(3)). As discussed in Section
VI, facilities in the proposed MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory, are currently covered under the Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category regulations (40 CFR part 420). The production
rates used for NPDES permitting for the iron and steel industry under
40 CFR part 420 have commonly been the highest annual average
production from the prior five year period prorated to a daily basis,
or the highest monthly production over the prior five years prorated to
a daily basis. Stakeholders involved in EPA's proposed revision of the
Iron and Steel effluent limitations guidelines and standards (which is
being proposed under a separate notice) have indicated that (1) EPA
should include the method used to determine appropriate production
rates for calculating allowable mass loadings into the regulation for
consistency, so that the permit writers can all use the same basis; and
(2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as maximum monthly
production over the previous five year period or maximum design
production, in order to ensure that a facility will not be out of
compliance during periods of high production.
Both the NPDES and General Pretreatment regulations require that,
for existing sources, production-based effluent limitations guidelines
and standards be based not on production capacity, but on a
``reasonable measure of actual production.'' The current iron and steel
regulation at 40 CFR 420.04 requires that the mass-based pretreatment
requirements be based on a reasonable measure of actual production.
That regulation provides two examples of what may constitute a
reasonable measure of actual production: (1) the monthly average for
the highest of the previous five years, or (2) the high month of the
previous year. Both values are converted to a daily basis (i.e., tons/
day) for purposes of calculating monthly average and daily maximum
mass-based permit effluent limitations.
Each of the above regulations requires that effluent limitations
and pretreatment standards for new sources must be based on projected
production. That approach is carried forward in this proposed
regulation.
EPA believes that production rates used in some permits and control
mechanisms have been derived in a manner that is not consistent with
the term ``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at 40
CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum
production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment
system were determined from different years or months, which may
provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's
view, this unrealistic estimate of production would occur if the
different process units could not reasonably produce at these high
rates simultaneously.
The ideal situation for the application of production-based
effluent limitations and standards is where production is relatively
constant from day-to-day or month-to-month. In this case, the
production rate used for purposes of calculating the permit limitations
would then be the average rate. However, in the case of the steel
forming and finishing industry, production rates are not constant and
vary significantly based on factors such as fluctuations in market
demand for domestic products, maintenance, product changes, equipment
failures, and facility modifications. As such, the typical production
rate for individual facilities vary significantly over time, especially
over the customary five-year life of a permit or control mechanism.
Although permits and control mechanisms can be modified, if
necessary, during the five-year life of a permit or control mechanism,
re-opening a permit can be very burdensome on the regulator and the
facility. Therefore, the objective in determining a production estimate
for a facility is to develop a reasonable measure of production which
can reasonably be expected to prevail during
[[Page 508]]
the next term of the permit or control mechanism. The production
estimate is used in combination with the production-based limitations
to establish a maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each
day and month. However, if the permit or control mechanism production
rate is based on the maximum month, then the permit could allow
excessive discharges of pollutants during significant portions of the
life of the permit/control mechanism. These excessive allowances may
discourage facilities from ensuring optimal waste management, water
conservation, and wastewater treatment practices during lower
production periods. On the other hand, if the average production rate
is based on an average derived from the highest year of production over
the past five years, then facilities may have trouble ensuring that
their waste management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment
practices can accommodate shorter periods of higher production. This
might require facilities to target a more stringent treatment level
than that on which the limits and standards were based during these
periods of high production. To accomplish this, facilities would likely
have to develop more efficient treatment systems, greater hydraulic
surge capacity, and better water conservation and waste management
practices, or they may have to contract haul a portion of their
wastewater to off-site disposal during these periods.
b. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations and
Standards
EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative approaches that
may result in more stringent mass-based permits/control mechanisms for
some facilities with better protection of the environment for the
entire life of a permit/control mechanism and may result in higher
costs. Each alternative requires that production from unit operations
that do not generate or discharge process wastewater shall not be
included in the calculation of operating rates.
Alternative A: This is the basis for today's proposed limits. It
retains the essential requirements of the rule that EPA currently
regulates Steel Forming and Finishing facilities under (40 CFR 420.04).
However, today's proposal provides additional instructions for avoiding
approaches that result in unrealistically high estimates of actual
production by only considering production from all production units
that could occur simultaneously (see Sec. 438.58(b)). This may result
in higher costs for those facilities with current permit or control
mechanism conditions based on production levels that are higher than
levels that could occur simultaneously at multiple process units.
In determining the production rate for the Steel Forming and
Finishing subcategory, EPA is proposing to require permit writers and
control authorities to use the following protocols:
(1) For similar, multiple production lines with process waters
treated in the same wastewater treatment system, the reasonable measure
of production shall be determined from the combined production of the
similar production lines during the same time period.
(2) For process wastewater treatment systems where wastewater from
two or more different production lines are commingled in the same
wastewater treatment system, the reasonable measure of production shall
be determined separately for each production line (or combination of
similar production lines) during the same time period.
Alternative B: The Agency is considering including in the rule a
requirement for the permit writer/control authority to establish multi-
tiered limits and pretreatment standards. Permit writers and control
authorities currently use their best professional judgment for
establishing multi-tiered permits. The Agency has issued guidance for
use in considering multi-tiered permits (see chapter 5 of the ``U.S.
EPA NPDES Permit Writers'' Manual,'' (EPA-833-8-96-003, December 1996)
and chapter 7 of the ``Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual,''
(EPA 833/R-89-001, September 29, 1989)).
In situations where a single set of effluent limitations or
standards are not appropriate for the permit's (or control mechanism's)
entire period, a tiered permit/control mechanism may be established.
One set of limits would apply for periods of average production along
with other sets which take effect when there are significant changes in
the average production rate. The guidance notes that a 10 to 15 percent
deviation above or below the long-term average production rate is
within the range of normal variability. Predictable changes in the
long-term production higher than this range would warrant consideration
of a tiered or multi-tiered permit/control mechanism. Based on EPA's
limited data, the facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory may have a variable production rate where the permit/
control mechanism modification process is not fast enough to respond to
the need for higher or lower equivalent limits.
Alternative C: To provide a basis for deriving a permit/control
mechanism production rate that is consistent with the term reasonable
measure of actual production and that can be applied consistently for
facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory, EPA is also
considering including a definition of ``production'' specific to this
subcategory in the rule. The modified definition for use in developing
the permit/control mechanism production basis would be the average
daily operating rate for the year with the highest annual production
over the past five years, taking into account the annual hours of
operation of the production unit and the typical operating schedule of
the production unit, as illustrated by the following example:
Highest annual production from previous five years: 3,570,000 tons.
Operating hours: 8,400 hours.
Hourly operating rate: 425 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (24 hour day): 10,200 tons/day.
The above example is for a process unit that is operated typically
24 hours per day with short-term outages for maintenance on a weekly or
monthly basis. For facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory that are operated typically less than 24 hours per day, the
average daily operating rate must be determined based on the typical
operating schedule (e.g., 8 hours per day for a facility operated one
8-hour turn (or shift) per day; 16 hours per day for a facility
operated for two 8-hour turns per day). For example:
Highest annual production from previous five years: 980,000 tons.
Operating hours: 4,160 hours.
Hourly operating rate: 235.6 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (16 hour day): 3,769 tons/day.
In this example, EPA recognizes that the approach could cause
problems for a facility that was operated 16 hours/day at the time the
permit was issued and then wished to change to 24 hours/day based on
unforseen changes in market conditions. To address this issue, the
approach could be combined with the tiered permit approach discussed
above.
For multiple similar process units discharging to the same
wastewater treatment system with one compliance point (e.g., two
electroplating lines operated with one treatment system for process
waters), the year with the highest annual production over the previous
five years under Alternative C would be determined on the basis of the
[[Page 509]]
sum of annual production for both electroplating lines. Then, based on
this year's average daily operating rate, the daily production rates
would be calculated as above independently for each electroplating line
using total annual production and annual operating hours for each line.
The daily production values would be summed to calculate the average
daily operating rate for the combination of the two lines. For example,
consider the following production data:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electroplating Electroplating
Year line A (tons) line B (tons) Total (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 1,859,000 1,305,000 3,155,000
1996............................................................ 1,675,000 1,425,000 3,100,000
1997............................................................ 1,760,000 1,406,000 3,166,000
1998............................................................ 1,580,000 1,328,000 2,908,000
1999............................................................ 1,825,000 1,380,000 3,205,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual maximum production rates for each electroplating line and
the combination of the two lines are italicized. In this example, 1999
was the maximum production year for the combination of the
electroplating lines and the data from each line that year would be
used to calculate the average daily operating rates. Had the 1995 data
from Electroplating Line A and the 1996 data from Electroplating Line B
been used in combination (3,275,000 tons), an unrealistic measure of
actual production might have resulted if the two electroplating lines
could not produce at these high levels concurrently.
In contrast to the previous example, for multiple process units
that are not similar, but have process wastewater commingled prior to
treatment in one central wastewater treatment system with one
compliance point, the year with the highest production over the
previous five years would be determined separately for each production
unit (or combination of similar and different production units) with
the highest annual production. For example, consider a situation where
process wastewater for an electroplating line, a pressure deformation
operation, and an acid pickling operation are discharged through one
compliance point. Consider the following example:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure
Year Electroplating deformation Acid pickling
(tons) (tons) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................ 575,000 650,000 900,000
1996............................................................ 650,000 700,000 1,000,000
1997............................................................ 675,000 850,000 950,000
1998............................................................ 750,000 825,000 1,125,000
1999............................................................ 700,000 600,000 900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this example, 1998 production data for the electroplating line,
1997 data from the pressure deformation operation, and 1998 data for
the acid pickling operation would be used to develop the effluent
limitations or pretreatment standards used in the permit/control
mechanism.
Alternative D: The Agency is considering establishing production-
based maximum monthly average effluent limitations and standards in
combination with daily-maximum concentration-based effluent limitations
and standards. Under this alternative, the maximum monthly average
NPDES permit and pretreatment control mechanism mass basis requirements
would be determined using the part 438 subpart E production-based
standards in combination with a reasonable measure of actual
production, such as Alternative C above. However, the daily-maximum
requirements would be in the form of effluent concentrations that would
be included in part 438 subpart E in lieu of the daily-maximum
production-based mass effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
These daily maximum concentrations set out as effluent limitations
guidelines and standards would be based on the long-term averages and
variability factors derived from EPA sampling conducted post-proposal
at steel forming and finishing facilities representative of BAT.
The Agency believes this approach would effectively address the
potential issue cited above regarding short-term peaks in production
under most circumstances. There would be no additional burden on the
industry and permitting or control authorities for applying for and
writing NPDES permits or pretreatment control mechanisms. Permitting
and control authorities may need to revise their automated compliance
tracking systems to account for both mass and concentration limitations
at the same outfall, which is a common feature in many NPDES permits
and pretreatment control mechanisms issued prior to this proposal.
EPA solicits comments on these alternatives to the proposed
production bases for calculating effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards used in NPDES permits or control mechanisms. In particular,
the Agency solicits comments on related costs and any technical
difficulties that steel forming and finishing facilities might have in
meeting limits during short periods of high production. EPA also
solicits other options for consideration.
C. Monitoring Flexibility
1. Monitoring Waiver
EPA's Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel encouraged EPA to
``explore options for allowing certification in lieu of monitoring
where an operator can determine, based on knowledge of the facility and
its processes, that certain pollutants are not likely to be present or
are adequately controlled.'' (See Section XXII.C for a discussion on
the recommendations of the SBAR Panel). Other stakeholders expressed
similar requests during public meetings with the Agency. Therefore, in
an effort to reduce monitoring burden on facilities, EPA is proposing
to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to
[[Page 510]]
apply for a waiver that would allow them to reduce their monitoring
burden (EPA discusses existing monitoring waivers available for direct
dischargers later in this section). In order for a facility to receive
a monitoring waiver, the facility would need to certify in writing to
the control authority (e.g., POTW) that the facility does not use, nor
generate in any way, a pollutant (or pollutants) at its site and that
the pollutant (or pollutants) is present only at background levels from
intake water and without any increase in the pollutant due to
activities of the discharger. The facility would need to base this
certification on sampling data or other technical factors. The
certification would not be a waiver from the pollutant numerical limit
in the control mechanism (i.e., permit). It would only be a waiver from
the monitoring requirements. In addition, EPA would still require the
industrial user to monitor for the specified pollutants as part of the
Baseline Monitoring Report (Sec. 403.12(b)) and the 90-day Compliance
Report (Sec. 403.12(d)). EPA believes control authorities can use the
sampling data generated from the Baseline Monitoring Report and the 90-
day Compliance Report in conjunction with technical information on the
raw materials and chemical processes used at the facility to determine
whether there is sufficient reason to allow the monitoring waiver for
any of the MP&M limited pollutants. Although EPA expects this
monitoring waiver to reduce burden overall, the Agency estimates the
burden associated with preparing the certification statement and
related documentation as required by the Paper Reduction Act (see
Section XXII.A for burden estimates).
EPA is proposing that the certification statement be submitted at
the same time indirect discharging MP&M facilities submit ``periodic
reports on continued compliance'' as directed by the General
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.12(e)). Indirect dischargers submit
such reports twice per year (typically June and December). In addition,
the certification would need to be signed by the same individual that
is authorized to sign the periodic reports as described in the General
Pretreatment Standards 403.12(l). This monitoring waiver would be
similar to the waiver in the Proposed ``Streamlining the General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution,''
64 FR 39564; July 22, 1999 (commonly referred to as ``Pretreatment
Streamlining''). If EPA promulgates the final Pretreatment Streamlining
regulations prior to the final MP&M effluent guidelines and those
regulations contain a similar provision then a waiver specific to MP&M
facilities would be unnecessary.
EPA recently promulgated a regulation to streamline the NPDES
regulations (``Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Program Regulations: Round Two'' (65 FR
30886; May 15, 2000)). These revisions include a similar monitoring
waiver for direct dischargers subject to effluent guidelines. Direct
discharge facilities may forego sampling of a guideline-limited
pollutant if that discharger ``has demonstrated through sampling and
other technical factors that the pollutant is not present in the
discharge or is present only at background levels from intake water and
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the
discharger.'' (65 FR 30908. 40 CFR 122.44). EPA noted, in the preamble
to the final NPDES Streamlining rule, that it is providing a waiver
from monitoring requirements, but not a waiver from the limit. In
addition, the revision does not waive monitoring for any pollutants for
which there are limits based on water quality standards. The waiver for
direct dischargers lasts for the term of the NPDES permit and is not
available during the term of the first permit issued to a discharger.
Any request for this waiver under these revisions to the NPDES
regulations must be submitted when applying for a reissued permit or
modification of a reissued permit. Therefore, EPA is not proposing a
monitoring waiver in the MP&M regulations for direct dischargers. When
authorized by their permit writer, direct discharge facilities covered
by any effluent guidelines (including MP&M) will be able to use the
monitoring waiver contained in the NPDES streamlining final rule.
2. Monitoring Flexibility for Organic Pollutants
In an effort to reduce burden on MP&M facilities, EPA proposes
three alternatives to allow for maximum flexibility while ensuring
reductions in the amount of organic pollutants discharged from MP&M
facilities. EPA is proposing to require MP&M facilities within the
scope of this rule to either: (1) Meet a numerical limit for the total
sum of a list of specific organic pollutants (similar to the Total
Toxic Organics or TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing Effluent
Guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for TOC as an indicator
parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of an organic
pollutant management plan.
As discussed in section II.D, EPA proposed using an organic
pollutant indicator parameter in the 1995 Phase I MP&M proposal. At
that time, however, the Agency did not provide the alternative of
monitoring for individual organic pollutants. In an effort to provide
such an alternative, EPA reviewed the sampling data to identify
individual organic pollutants for which the Agency could develop
individual limits. Due to the variety of organic pollutants used across
MP&M facilities, EPA determined that it would be burdensome to
facilities and permit writers to have to determine which limits to
apply to a facility. Instead, EPA is proposing an approach similar to
the one used in the Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part
433). EPA developed a list of organic pollutants, called the Total
Organics Parameter (TOP), using the list of organic priority pollutants
and other nonconventional organic pollutants that met EPA's ``pollutant
of concern'' criteria for this rule (see Section VII for a discussion
on the selection of the MP&M pollutants of concern). Of the non-
conventional organic chemicals on the MP&M pollutant of concern list,
EPA included only those that were removed in appreciable quantities by
the selected technology option (based on toxic weighted pound-
equivalents) in two or more subcategories. See appendix B to part 438
of the proposed rule accompanying this notice for a list of organic
pollutants that comprise the proposed Total Organics Parameter (TOP).
EPA has derived the numerical limit for TOP based on the contribution
of each of the organic pollutants on the list in Appendix B using the
data collected during sampling and determined its limitation using the
same statistical methodology used for other limits developed for this
proposal (see Section VIII.B). In any case where the data for these
pollutants indicated a level below the minimum level (i.e., below
quantitation), EPA used the minimum level for the specific pollutant in
the summation of the total organics parameter limit. Facilities will
only have to monitor for those TOP chemicals that are reasonably
present (see XXI.C.1 for a discussion on monitoring waivers). Note that
the TOP limit shall not be adjusted for those pollutants that are not
reasonably present. EPA solicits comment on this methodology. For
compliance purposes, pollutants that have been given a waiver (because
they are not reasonably present) will be counted as zero in the TOP
limit. For remaining pollutants, the reported value, when above the
detection limit, shall be used in the TOP calculation. When a pollutant
is
[[Page 511]]
reported as a ``non-detect'' (i.e., not found above the nominal
quatitation value listed in appendix B of the proposed rule), the
nominal quantitation value shall be used in the TOP calculation.
EPA considered using the same list of organic chemicals as in the
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines Total Toxic Organics (TTO) list (40
CFR 433.11(e)), but rejected this approach. EPA did not include all
parameters from the Metal Finishing TTO list because: (1) EPA did not
find many of the TTO parameters in the wastewater sampled for the MP&M
rule; (2) many of the listed organics are pesticides that are no longer
manufactured (e.g., DDT) and would not be used in MP&M operations; and
(3) most facilities subject to the Metal Finishing TTO limits switched
to the use of solvents (or aqueous cleaners) that do not contain the
organic chemicals on the Metal Finishing TTO list.
As discussed above, EPA is also proposing to allow the use of an
indicator parameter to measure the presence of organic pollutants in
MP&M process wastewater. Facilities can monitor for the organic
pollutants specified in the total organics parameter list (as discussed
above) to demonstrate compliance with the TOP limit or they can monitor
for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and meet the TOC limit. EPA chose TOC as
an indicator parameter because of its ability to measure all types of
organic pollutants. EPA solicits comment on the use of TOC as an
indicator pollutant for the organic pollutants typically found in
wastewater discharges from MP&M facilities. EPA also requests comment
on whether the Agency should allow facilities to choose an indicator
pollutant from a given set of choices (e.g., COD, Oil & Grease (as
HEM), TOC, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM)). EPA found TOC to
be the best general indicator parameter for measuring the sum of
organic compounds in a wastestream. EPA notes, however, that to
determine the best indicator parameter for a particular wastestream, a
facility would need to consider the specific organic components found
in its wastestreams.
Finally, EPA is proposing a third alternative to reduce monitoring
burden--the use of an organic pollutant management plan. The organic
pollutant management plan would need to specify, to the satisfaction of
the permitting authority or control authority, the toxic and non-
conventional organic constituents used at the facility; the disposal
method used; the procedures in place for ensuring that organic
pollutants do not routinely spill or leak into the wastewater or that
minimize the amount of organic pollutants used in the process; the
procedures in place to manage the oxidation reduction potential (ORP)
during cyanide destruction to control the formation of chlorinated
organic byproducts; and the procedures to prevent the over dosage of
dithiocarbamates when treating chelated wastewater. Facilities choosing
to develop an organic pollutant management plan would need to certify
that the procedures described in the plan are being implemented at the
facility. Based on the current data base, EPA is concerned that
wastewater generated by facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory may
require end-of-pipe treatment to reduce the concentrations of organic
pollutants and that an organic management plan alone may not adequately
control organic-bearing wastewater at facilities containing significant
quantities of oil-bearing wastewater. Although EPA is proposing the use
of the organics management plan be offered to Oily Wastes facilities,
EPA solicits comment on whether sites with significant amounts of oil-
bearing wastewater (for example, a facility in the Oily Waste
subcategory) should be eligible for the use of an organic pollutant
management plan in lieu of monitoring for TOP (Total Organics
Parameter) or TOC (as an indicator).
3. Monitoring for Cyanide
For the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shop, Printed Wiring
Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories, EPA is proposing
to set a total cyanide limit. The point of compliance would be based on
monitoring for total cyanide directly after cyanide treatment, before
combining the cyanide treated effluent with other wastestreams. EPA is
also proposing an alternative where a facility may take samples of
final effluent, in order to meet the total cyanide limit, if the
control authority adjusts the permit limits based on the dilution ratio
of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow.
In addition, EPA has selected alkaline chlorination using sodium
hypochlorite as the best available economically achievable technology
for treating cyanide bearing wastewater from MP&M facilities. Not all
cyanide however is amenable to alkaline chlorination due to
``unavoidable'' complexing with other compounds at the process source
of the cyanide-bearing wastestreams. EPA believes that for some
facilities it may be more accurate to monitor for the portion of
cyanide in their wastewater that is amenable to alkaline chlorination
than to measure total cyanide which may include cyanide complexes that
this technology is not likely to treat. Therefore, EPA is also
proposing an alternative ``amenable cyanide'' limit for each of these
subcategories which a facility may use directly after cyanide treatment
(e.g., before combining the cyanide treated effluent with other
wastestreams). The Agency proposes to allow the use of this limit upon
the agreement of the facility and its permit writer or control
authority (e.g., POTW). However, when segregated cyanide treatment is
in place as a preliminary step prior to commingling wastewater for
chemical precipitation, EPA would allow the amenable cyanide
alternative limit to be measured at the end-of-pipe (i.e., final
effluent) if the control authority adjusts the permit limits based on
the dilution ratio of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent
flow. If facilities are not using cyanide destruction treatment on
cyanide-bearing wastestreams prior to commingling with metal-bearing
streams, additional complexing can occur. This additional complexing
would render the cyanide ``non-amenable'' when it would otherwise be
amenable to alkaline chlorination. EPA considers such complexing to be
``avoidable'' and would not allow the use of end-of-pipe monitoring for
amenable cyanide when in-process cyanide destruction is not performed.
(See the final Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines for a discussion on non-
amenable versus amenable cyanide; 57 FR 41836; September 11, 1992).
D. Pollution Prevention Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory
EPA is soliciting comment on a compliance alternative that the
Agency is considering for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory of
this proposed regulation (See Section VI.C.3. of this preamble for a
description of this subcategory). The purpose of a pollution prevention
compliance alternative (``P2 Alternative'') is to reduce economic
impacts on the facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
and to take into consideration the activities and achievements of this
Common Sense Initiative (``CSI'') sector to test innovative approaches
to environmental protection, which has culminated in the National Metal
Finishing Strategic Goals Program.
The National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program (``SGP'') was
[[Page 512]]
developed out of EPA's sector based Common Sense Initiative. In 1994,
EPA launched the CSI to promote ``cleaner, cheaper, and smarter''
environmental performance, using a non-adversarial, stakeholder
consensus process to test innovative ideas and approaches. The SGP is a
cooperative effort that involves all stakeholders (e.g., industry,
regulators, environmental/citizen groups) to define a fundamentally
different approach to environmental and public health protection by
exploring a more flexible, cost-effective and environmentally
protective solutions tailored to specific industry needs. The Metal
Finishing SGP is a performance-based, voluntary program which includes
commitments by the industry to meet multimedia environmental targets
substantially reducing pollution from their operations beyond what is
required by law. These goals will conserve water, energy and metals,
and reduce hazardous emissions. The other stakeholders in this process
(EPA, State and local regulators, and environmental/community groups)
have also committed to working with the industry participants to help
them meet their goals through compliance, technical, and financial
assistance, removing regulatory and policy barriers, offering
incentives, and an open dialogue as issues arise. (See http://www.strategicgoals.org for more information about the SGP and the
Common Sense Initiative).
The SGP represents a long-term strategic vision for improved
environmental protection by the entire metal finishing industry. The
metal finishing industry's tangible commitment to work with the Agency
lays the foundation for this pollution prevention (P2) compliance
alternative.
The Agency is considering allowing indirect discharge facilities in
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, with approval by their
control authority (e.g., POTW), to demonstrate compliance with
specified pollution prevention and water conservation practices (in
addition to maintaining compliance with the existing Metal Finishing
and Electroplating Effluent Guidelines or approved local water quality-
based limits, whichever is more stringent) in lieu of meeting the
requirements of the MP&M regulation. Facilities in the Metal Finishing
Job Shops subcategory that do not wish to use the compliance
alternative would need to meet the full requirements of the MP&M
regulation as specified in today's proposed rule.
EPA solicits comment on whether to allow all facilities in the
Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory to comply with the P2 Alternative
or whether the P2 Alternative should only be available to facilities
below a specified wastewater discharge volume. EPA has proposed low
flow exclusions for indirect dischargers in the General Metals (1 MGY)
and Oily Wastes (2 MGY) subcategories due to potential permitting
burden on POTWs (see Sections II.D, VI.C and XII for a discussion on
low flow exclusions).
One way that EPA is considering to specify pollution prevention and
water conservation practices, without stifling innovation and advances,
is to require facilities to choose practices from a larger list (or
menu) of categories of specified practices (see below). EPA is
considering requiring practices in all ten categories. The following is
an example of the format and potential pollution prevention practices
that EPA is considering for incorporation into the final MP&M rule:
Category 1. Must Use Practices That Reduce and/or Recover Drag-Out
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must implement three or
more drag-out reduction practices or use at least one drag-out recovery
(i.e., chemical recovery) technology listed below on all electroplating
or surface finishing lines.
Drag-out Reduction Practices
Lower process solution viscosity and/or surface tension by
lowering chemical concentration, increasing bath temperature, or use
wetting agents.
Reduce drag-out volume by modifying rack/barrel design and
perform rack maintenance to avoid solution trapping under insulation.
Position parts on racks in a manner that avoids trapping
solution.
Reduce speed of rack/barrel withdraw from process solution
and/or increase dwell time over process tank.
Rotate barrels over process tank to improve drainage.
Use spray/fog rinsing over the process tank (limited
applicability).
Use drip boards and return process solution to the process
tank.
Use drag-out tanks, where applicable, and return solution
to the process tank.
Work with customers to ensure that part design maximizes
drainage
Drag-out Recovery
Use a chemical recovery technology to recover drag-out from
wastewater.
Evaporators
Ion exchange
Electrowinning
Electrodialysis
Reverse osmosis
Category 2. Must Use Good Rinse System Design for Water Conservation
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must implement three or
more elements of good rinse system design listed below on all
electroplating or surface finishing lines:
Select the minimum size rinse tank in which the parts can
be rinsed and use the same size for the entire plating line, where
practical.
Locate the water inlet and discharge points of the tank at
opposite positions in the tank to avoid short-circuiting or use a flow
distributor to feed the rinse water evenly.
Use air agitation, mechanical mixing or other means of
turbulence.
Use spray/fog rinsing (less effective with hidden
surfaces).
Use multiple rinse tanks in a counter-flow configuration
(i.e., counter-current cascade rinsing).
Reuse rinse water multiple times in different rinse tanks
for succeeding less critical rinsing
Category 3. Must Use Water Flow Control for Water Conservation
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must implement at least one
effective method of water use control on all electroplating or surface
finishing lines. Effective water use controls include, but are not
limited to:
Flow restrictors (Flow restrictors as a stand alone method
of rinse water control are only effective with plating lines that have
constant production rates, such as automatic plating machines. For
other operations, there must also be a mechanism or procedure for
stopping water flow during idle periods.)
Conductivity controls
Timer rinse controls
Production activated control (e.g., spray systems
activated when a rack or barrel enters/exits a rinse station)
Category 4. Must Segregate Non-Process Water From Process Water
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must not combine non-
process water such as non-contact cooling water with process wastewater
prior to wastewater treatment.
Category 5. Must Use Water Conservation Practices With Air Pollution
Control Devices
To satisfy this requirement, facilities operating air pollution
control devices with wet scrubbers must recirculate the scrubber water
as appropriate (periodic blowdown is allowed, as needed). Where
feasible, reuse scrubber water in process baths.
[[Page 513]]
Category 6. Must Practice Good Housekeeping
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must demonstrate compliance
with each of the requirements listed below:
Perform preventative maintenance on all valves and
fittings (i.e., check for leaks and damage) and repair leaky valves and
fittings in a timely manner.
Inspect tanks and liners and repair or replace equipment
as necessary to prevent ruptures and leaks. Use tank and liner
materials that are appropriate for associated process solutions.
Perform quick cleanup of leaks and spills in chemical
storage and process areas.
Remove metal buildup from racks and fixtures.
Category 7. Minimize the Entry of Oil Into Rinse Systems
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must do at least one of the
practices listed below:
Minimize the entry of oil into cleaning baths or use oil
skimmers or other oil removal devices in cleaning baths when needed to
prevent oil from entering rinse tanks.
Work with customers to degrease parts prior to shipment to
the plating facility to minimize the amount of oils on incoming
materials.
Category 8. Must Sweep or Vacuum Dry Production Areas Prior to Rinsing
With Water
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must sweep or vacuum dry
production area floors prior to rinsing with water.
Category 9. Must Reuse Drum/Shipping Container Rinsate Directly in
Process Tanks
To satisfy this requirement, when performing rinsing of raw
material drums, storage drums, and/or shipping containers that contain
pollutants regulated under the MP&M regulation, facilities must reuse
the rinsate directly into process tanks or save for use in future
production.
Category 10. Must Implement Environmental Management and Record Keeping
System
To satisfy this requirement, facilities must meet the requirements
listed below:
Implement an environmental management program that
includes, but is not limited to, the following elements:
Pollution prevention policy statement,
Environmental performance goals,
Pollution prevention assessment,
Pollution prevention plan,
Environmental tracking and record keeping system,
Procedures to optimize control parameter settings (e.g.,
ORP set point in cyanide destruction systems, optimum pH for chemical
precipitation systems, etc.), and
Statement delineating minimum training levels for
wastewater treatment operators.
(EPA notes that it has developed a template for a metal finishing
facility-specific Environmental Management System that is being used in
conjunction with the SGP in EPA's Region 9 in California--see http://www.strategicgoals.org/tools/home.htm for information on this
template).
The first two categories listed above involve practices and
techniques for reducing drag-out. Drag-out is the film of chemical
solution covering parts and fixtures as they exit process solutions.
For many metal finishing operations, drag-out and the subsequent
contamination of rinse waters is the major pollution control challenge.
Reducing the formation of drag-out, minimizing the introduction of
drag-out to rinse systems, and recovering drag-out are important
pollution prevention measures. EPA believes that drag-out reduction and
recovery may prevent a substantial pollutant loading of metals from
being discharged to the POTW. However, EPA did not have sufficient
information on the pollutant reductions, capital costs, and operating
and maintenance costs associated with installation and operation of
drag-out reduction and recovery technologies to include such equipment
explicitly into the model that EPA uses to develop national estimates
of compliance costs and pollutant reductions. Some aspects of drag-out
reduction are captured in the flow rinse reduction modules of the cost
and loadings model (see the Technical Development Document for a
detailed discussion of the cost and loadings model). Good rinse design
can reduce contamination of rinse water as well as reduce the volume of
fresh water needed to perform the necessary rinsing. It also reduces
the volume of wastewater requiring treatment, which in turn reduces
costs and the volume of wastewater treatment sludge requiring disposal.
EPA specifically solicits data on the pollutant reductions, capital
costs, and operating and maintenance costs associated with installation
and operation of drag-out reduction and recovery technologies.
EPA is considering allowing facilities complying with the P2
Alternative to substitute another pollution prevention practice for one
listed above provided that the facility provides adequate justification
for the modification in a written request submitted to the control
authority. Facility owners must certify compliance with the pollution
prevention requirements twice per year and maintain records at the
facility indicating how each category requirement has been satisfied.
Facilities choosing the P2 Alternative would also need to agree to make
the practices enforceable. Reporting would occur in conjunction with
their twice annual periodic reports on continued compliance under the
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403.12(e)).
EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the Pollution Prevention
Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory including the
list of practices as well as the possible format for the alternative.
More specifically, EPA requests comment on whether there are additional
practices that should be listed, the costs of implementing this
compliance alternative, the pollutant reduction associated with this
alternative, and whether EPA should offer this alternative to other
subcategories (even those not currently regulated by the Metal
Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines). EPA also requests
comments from local regulators on the implementation burden, the
required documentation, and on the ability to enforce a P2 Alternative.
E. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of the streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and Sec. 403.17.
F. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of effluent limitations established
pursuant to section 301 or 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
the national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
for categories of existing sources for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants.
[[Page 514]]
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual discharging
facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered
in establishing the limitation of 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 the FDF modifications
from the BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants and BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA
provided for modifications from pretreatment standards. FDF variances
for toxic pollutants were challenged judicially and ultimately
sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers Assn 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 modifications 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 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 must 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 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 EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other 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 indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The conditions for
approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment standards and
factors considered are the same as those for direct dischargers.
The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
2. Economic Variances
Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise
applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due
to economic factors. The request for a variance from effluent
limitations developed from BAT guidelines must normally be filed by the
discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other
filing time periods may apply, as specified in 40 CFR 122.21(1)(2).
Specific guidance for this type of variance is available from EPA's
Office of Wastewater Management.
3. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized
environment factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, color,
iron, and total phenols.
4. 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 modification that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modifications, 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.
G. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment Standards to
NPDES Permits and Local Limits
Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards act as a primary
mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States. These limitations and standards are applied to
individual facilities through NPDES permits and local limits developed
for POTWs issued by EPA or authorized States under section 402 of the
Act and local pretreatment programs under section 307 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial
category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority or control
authority (e.g., local POTW) may elect to establish technology-based
permit limits or local limits for pollutants not covered by this
regulation. In addition, if State water quality standards or other
provisions of State or Federal law require limits on pollutants not
covered by this regulation (or require more stringent limits or
standards on covered pollutants to achieve compliance), the permitting
or control authority must apply those limitations or standards.
[[Page 515]]
H. Best Management Practices
Sections 304(e) and 402(a) of the Act authorize the Administrator
to prescribe ``best management practices'' (BMPs). (See 40 CFR
122.44(k)). EPA may develop BMPs that apply to all industrial sites or
to a designated industrial category and may offer guidance to permit
authorities in establishing management practices required by unique
circumstances at a given plant. Dikes, curbs, and other control
measures are being used at some MP&M sites to contain leaks and spills
as part of good ``housekeeping'' practices. However, on a facility-by-
facility basis a permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the
permit. See section 8 of the Technical Development Document for this
proposed rule for a detailed discussion of pollution prevention and
best management practices used in the MP&M industry.
XXII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1980.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
There are five areas for which EPA is proposing, or considering to
collect information from, or requiring reporting or record keeping by
MP&M facilities. In all cases, EPA believes the collection of
information, reporting, or record keeping is an alternative (i.e.,
voluntary) that will allow a reduction in overall burden to facilities
since EPA intends for these activities to reduce or eliminate effluent
sampling and analysis costs. EPA solicits comment on all estimates
discussed below.
First, EPA is proposing to allow indirect discharging MP&M
facilities (upon agreement with the control authority) to reduce their
analytical monitoring burden for specified pollutants by filing a
statement that certifies that those pollutants are not present in the
discharge or are present only at background levels from intake water
and without any increase in the pollutants due to activities of the
discharger (See Sec. 438.4(e) and Section XXI.C.1 for a discussion of
the monitoring waiver). EPA estimates the burden for reviewing
analytical sampling data and other technical information required to
make the certification (e.g., raw material inventory logs, production
information, product chemistry, and reports on source water) and for
preparing the certification statement one time per permit cycle (i.e.,
every 5 years) to be 24 hours. In developing the technical basis for
the waiver, EPA is allowing the use of historical sampling data as well
as sampling data generated for compliance reports required by the
General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403.12). Therefore, EPA does not
anticipate additional monitoring burden associated with this waiver,
particularly in comparison to the periodic compliance monitoring that
is being replaced by this waiver. In addition, certification to receive
a monitoring waiver under this proposed rule is voluntary. MP&M
facilities may choose not to avail themselves of this optional
reduction in monitoring. EPA estimates that 5,250 facilities will
choose the monitoring waiver for some pollutants.
Second, EPA is proposing to allow facilities to implement an
organic pollutant management plan as one alternative to meeting organic
pollutant limits (or organic indicator limits). (See 438.4(b)). The
organic pollutant management plan must specify, to the satisfaction of
the permitting authority or control authority, the toxic and non-
conventional organic constituents used at the facility; the disposal
method used; the procedures in place for ensuring that organic
pollutants do not routinely spill or leak into the wastewater or that
minimize the amount of organic constituents used in the process; the
procedures in place to manage the oxidation reduction potential (ORP)
during cyanide destruction to control the formation of chlorinated
organic byproducts; and the procedures to prevent the over dosage of
dithiocarbamates when treating chelated wastewater. Facilities choosing
to develop an organic pollutant management plan must certify that the
procedures described in the plan are being implemented at the facility.
EPA estimates the burden associated with preparing an organic pollutant
management plan and an accompanying certification statement to be 50
hours. After the initial plan is approved, EPA estimates one additional
hour of burden (once per year for direct dischargers and twice per year
for indirect dischargers) for facilities to verify that the plan is
being implemented and to prepare the certification statement. However,
EPA believes that facilities that are already regulated by the Metal
Finishing Effluent Guidelines (40 CFR part 433) and that have a solvent
management plan in place under those regulations will only require 20
hours to update their plan for the initial submittal. EPA estimates
7,200 facilties will choose to implement an organics management plan in
lieu of monitoring.
Third, EPA is considering an alternate approach to the use of an
organic indicator parameter (see Section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on
the proposed organic indicator). EPA notes that this alternate approach
is not being proposed in today's notice, but is being considered for
the final rule. In this case, there would be some additional reporting
and record keeping. MP&M facilities could choose an indicator pollutant
parameter from a given set of choices. EPA would require facilities to
demonstrate a correlation between the chosen indicator parameter and
the regulated organic pollutants (i.e., the TOP organic pollutants)
found in their wastewater. EPA is soliciting comment on this approach
and has estimated the burden of performing testing, analyzing
analytical results, and keeping records that demonstrate a correlation
between the regulated organic pollutants and the selected indicator
parameter to be between 70 and 100 hours per facility once per permit
cycle (i.e., 5 years). If no major changes in processes or raw
materials occur during that period, the demonstration would not have to
be repeated for the next permit cycle. The Agency notes that the choice
of an option would be voluntary. EPA has estimated less burden for
direct dischargers than for indirect dischargers (i.e, 70 hours versus
100 hours) because the direct dischargers typically have more advanced
treatment in place and permit writers typically require them to monitor
for the types of parameters that EPA is considering as indicators
(e.g., COD, Oil & Grease, TOC, TPH), and therefore, may have data
available that demonstrates a correlation to the regulated organic
pollutants. EPA estimates that given the choice, approximately 515
facilities would choose to demonstrate and use a site-specific organic
pollutant indicator.
Fourth, EPA is considering whether to allow certain facilities in
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory to demonstrate compliance
with specified pollution prevention and water conservation practices
(in addition to
[[Page 516]]
maintaining compliance with the existing Metal Finishing and
Electroplating Effluent Guidelines) in lieu of meeting the requirements
of the MP&M regulation. EPA notes that this alternate approach is not
being proposed in today's notice, but is being considered for the final
rule. Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory that do
not wish to use the compliance alternative would need to meet the full
requirements of the MP&M regulation as specified in today's proposed
rule (see section XXI.D for a discussion of the Pollution Prevention
Alternative). EPA has estimated the burden associated with preparing
the associated certification statements to be 30 minutes each.
Facilities would submit certification statements one time initially (by
the compliance deadline) and twice per year thereafter for indirect
dischargers, or once per year for direct dischargers. In addition, EPA
estimates the burden associated with record keeping and reporting for
the other related compliance paperwork to be 40 hours one time for the
period of the permit or control mechanism (i.e., five years). EPA is
also soliciting comment on whether facilities in other subcategories
should have a similar alternative. EPA estimates that if the Pollution
Prevention Alternative were available to facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops Subcategory, 1,360 facilities would choose this
alternative. In addition, EPA estimates that there would be 550
additional respondents if a limited number of other subcategories were
able to choose this compliance alternative.
Finally, EPA is proposing to set numerical limitations on the
discharge of Total Sulfide from facilities in several subcategories. In
an effort to reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA is
considering (but not proposing) to allow a waiver for the monitoring of
total sulfide (even when present), at the discretion of the POTW, when
a facility demonstrates that the sulfides will not generate acidic or
corrosive conditions and will not create conditions that enhance
opportunities for release of hydrogen sulfide gas in the sewer/
interceptor collection system or at the receiving POTW or otherwise
interfere with the operation of the POTW EPA estimates the burden
associated to make such a demonstration is 100 hours. EPA would require
this only one time per permit cycle and if no major changes in
processes or raw materials occur during that period, the demonstration
would not have to be repeated for the next permit cycle. EPA estimates
that 4,420 facilities would be respondents under the total sulfide
waiver if it were available.
The total burden for the two areas which are being proposed today
is 437,070 hours for approximately 7,200 facilities [Note:
approximately 5,200 facilities are expected to be respondents in both
areas]. In addition, for the three areas that EPA is not proposing but
is considering for the final rule, EPA estimates 565,595 hours for
6,845 respondents (some facilities may be respondents in more than one
of the three areas). Labor costs are accounted for within the estimated
burden hours. EPA estimates that there are no capital costs associated
with these potential reporting and record keeping requirements. EPA
estimates a reduction in the capital and operating and maintenance
costs associated with monitoring to demonstrate compliance with
numerical limits, particularly for the proposed monitoring waiver for
indirect dischargers and the organics management plan.
In the cases discussed above, the data and information required by
the proposed or considered information collection, reporting, or record
keeping requirements can be claimed as confidential business
information according to the regulations found in 40 CFR part 2.
However, as specified at 40 CFR 2.302, effluent data submitted in
response to these information and data requests can not be claimed as
confidential.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The Agency requests comments on its need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 3, 2001, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by February
2, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
1. UMRA Requirements
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 EPA did
not adopt that alternative. 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
[[Page 517]]
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.
Estimated total annualized before-tax costs of compliance for the
proposed rule are $2,034 million ($1999). Of this total, $2,020 million
is incurred by the private sector and $14 million is incurred by State
and local governments that perform MP&M activities. Permitting
authorities incur an additional $0.115 to $0.912 million to administer
the rule, including labor costs to write permits and to conduct
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. Thus, EPA has
determined that this rule contains 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.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement which is summarized below.
2. Analysis of Impacts on Government Entities
Although the costs of implementation (and compliance for
government-owned facilities) are approximately $15 million annually
(i.e., below the threshold specified in section 202) MP&M is a large
industrial category and EPA fully analyzed the impacts on State and
local governments. The proposed MP&M Rule will affect governments in
two ways:
Government-owned MP&M facilities may be directly affected
by the MP&M regulation and therefore incur compliance costs; and
Municipalities that own Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) that receive influent from MP&M facilities subject to the
regulation may incur additional costs to implement the proposed rule.
These include costs associated with permitting MP&M facilities that
have not been previously permitted, and with repermitting some MP&M
facilities earlier than would otherwise be required. In addition, POTWs
may elect to issue mass-based permits to some MP&M facilities that
currently have concentration-based permits, at an additional cost.
a. Compliance Costs for Government-Owned MP&M Facilities
EPA administered a survey (the ``Municipal Survey'') to government-
owned facilities to assess the cost of the regulation on these
facilities and the government entities that own them. (See Section V.B
for a discussion of EPA's data collection efforts.) The survey
responses provide the basis for EPA's analysis of the budgetary impacts
of the proposed regulation, including the size and income of the
populations served by the affected government entities; the
government's current revenues by source, taxable property, debt,
pollution control spending, and bond rating; and the costs, funding
sources, and other characteristics of the MP&M facilities owned by each
government entity. Table XXII.B-1 provides national estimates of the
government entities that operate MP&M facilities potentially subject to
the proposed rule. Table XXII.B-2 summarizes the annualized compliance
costs incurred by government entities by regulatory option.
Table XXII.B-1.--Number of Government-Owned Facilities by Type and Size of Government Entity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional
Size of government and Status Municipal State County governmental Total
under proposed option government government government authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Governments (population > 50,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of government entities > 60 183 77 0 319
flow cutoff....................
Number of government entities 512 183 610 36 1,341
flow cutoff........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Governments (population = 50,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of government entities > 410 .............. .............. .............. 410
flow cutoff....................
Number of government entities 1,781 .............. 481 .............. 2,262
flow cutoff........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Governments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of government entities > 470 183 77 0 729
flow cutoff....................
Number of government entities 2,293 183 1,091 36 3,603
flow cutoff........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,763 366 1,167 36 4,332
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XXII.B-2.--Number of Regulated Government-Owned Facilities and Compliance Costs by Size of Government and Regulatory Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Compliance Number of Number of
facilities costs facilities Compliance facilities Compliance
subject to (million subject to costs (million subject to costs (million
regulation 1999$) regulation 1999$) regulation 1999$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Owned by Large Governments................... 319 $11.3 1,660 31.5 1,660 $101.3
Facilities Owned by Small Governments................... 410 2.6 2,672 33.3 2,672 123.4
All Government-Owned Facilities......................... 729 13.9 4,332 64.8 4,332 224.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs incurred by government-owned facilities, particularly for
facilities owned by small governments, are substantially lower under
the proposed rule than under the other two options considered. The
lower costs result from
[[Page 518]]
the exclusion of a large number of government-owned facilities under
the proposed low flow cutoff.
b. Small Government Impacts
EPA's analysis also considered whether the proposed rule may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Section XVI.B.3.c
of today's notice describes the methodology used to assess budgetary
impacts on governments. Briefly, EPA examined three measures to assess
the affordability of new requirements. These three criteria incorporate
measures of compliance costs (impacts on site-level cost of service),
impacts on taxpayers, and impact on government debt levels.
EPA estimates that there are 2,672 facilities owned by small
governments (i.e., governments with a population of less than 50,000).
The low flow exclusion in today's proposed rule will exclude 2,262
small government-owned MP&M facilities. Thus, the proposed rule covers
410 small government-owned facilities. Of these facilities, 140 incur
no compliance costs under the proposed option, and the remaining 270
incur annualized costs that average less than $10,000 per facility. The
total compliance cost for all the small government-owned facilities
incurring costs under today's proposed rule is $2.6 million. Only 140
of the 270 facilities have costs greater than 1 percent of baseline
cost of service (measured as total facility costs and expenditures,
including operating, overhead and debt service costs and expenses). EPA
estimated no significant impacts for any of the governments owning
these facilities, based on the three budgetary criteria mentioned
above. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. None of the affected governments are expected to incur
significant budgetary impacts as a result of the proposed rule, and
consequently, that the proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Nonetheless, EPA did consult with small
governments (see discussions on consultation in sections XXII.B.7 and
XXII.C).
c. POTW Administrative Costs
EPA also analyzed the administrative costs incurred by local
governments to implement the proposed rule. The results of this
analysis are presented in section XVI.H.3. In summary, EPA estimates
that POTWs will incur incremental average annualized costs over 15
years of between $115,000 and $912,000 under the proposed rule. The
maximum expenditures by all affected POTWs in any one year will be
between $186,000 and $1,607,000. These costs include issuing new
permits to facilities that do not currently have permits, issuing mass-
based permits to some facilities that currently have concentration-
based permits, and repermitting some facilities sooner than would
otherwise be required to meet the three-year compliance schedule. On
average, a POTW's costs for the incremental permitting are only $23 to
$184 for the 4,944 MP&M facilities permitted under the proposed rule.
EPA expects that these increases in costs will be partially offset by
reductions in government administrative costs for facilities that are
already permitted under local limits and that will be repermitted under
this rule.
3. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rulemaking is as follows: Sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub L. 101-508,
November 5, 1990. A consent decree with the Natural Resources Defense
Council established a deadline of October 2000 for EPA to propose
effluent limitations for this industry.
4. Costs and Benefits
The assessment of costs and benefits for this rule, including the
assessment of costs to State, local, and Tribal governments and to the
private sector, is discussed above and in Sections XVI (costs), XX
(benefits) of this preamble. EPA prepared an extensive analysis of
costs and benefits for private facilities and for governments,
including analysis by size and by subcategory. In the most summarized
form, EPA estimates the social cost of the proposed rule (which
includes facility compliance costs) at $2.0 to $2.1 billion annually
($1999). The total value of benefits that can be expressed in dollar
terms ranges from $0.4 billion to $1.1 billion. As discussed in Section
XX, EPA solicits comment on several expansions to these benefit
estimates. In particular, EPA includes in the public record for today's
proposal, an extensive analysis of additional categories of benefits,
such as boating and wildlife viewing. EPA also estimated values for
these new categories, but pending public comment and peer review, did
not incorporate the results from the new methodologies into the total
monetized benefits of the proposed rule.
The Federal resources (i.e., water pollution control grants) which
are generally available for financial assistance to States are included
in section 106 of the Clean Water Act. There are no Federal funds
available to defray the costs of this rule on local governments.
5. Future Costs and Disproportionate Costs
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that EPA estimate, where
accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs
imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. EPA's
estimates of the future compliance costs of this rule are discussed in
detail in Section XVI.G of the preamble. Briefly, new sources in all
but the Metal Finishing Job Shop direct discharger subcategory incur
costs that are below one percent of post-regulation revenues, and costs
for the Metal Finishing Job Shop indirect dischargers are less than
three percent of estimated facility revenues. Cost increases of this
magnitude are unlikely to place new facilities at a competitive
disadvantage relative to existing sources. Moreover, costs as a
percentage of revenues are generally comparable for new sources and
existing sources with which they will compete.
EPA does not expect that the rule will have disproportionate
budgetary effects on any particular areas of the country, particular
governments or types of communities. The affected population of MP&M
facilities is distributed throughout the country in settings from urban
to rural, with more facilities likely to be located in larger urban
areas. EPA therefore expects that the burden on governments to permit
facilities under the rule, and the loss of employment due to closures
caused by the rule, will be dispersed rather than concentrated in any
specific area. Moreover, the proposed rule is expected to result in a
net increase in employment over 15 years, when the employment
associated with compliance activities is considered. A discussion of
community impacts is included in Section XVI.
6. Effects on National Economy
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that EPA estimate the
effect of this rule on the national economy where (1) accurate
estimates are feasible and (2) the rule will have a ``material'' effect
on the economy. EPA's estimates of the impact of this proposal on the
national economy are described in Section XVI of this preamble and in
the EEBA. The proposed rule is projected to result in closures or
moderate financial impacts on a very small percentage of all MP&M
[[Page 519]]
facilities, to result in only limited price increases in any MP&M
sector, and to have a negligible impact on the U.S. balance of trade.
7. Consultation
In addition to private industry, our stakeholders include State and
local government regulators. We consulted with all of these stakeholder
groups on topics such as options development, cost models, pollutants
to be regulated, cost of the regulation, and compliance alternatives.
Some of the stakeholders provided helpful comments on the cost models,
technology options, pollution prevention techniques, and monitoring
alternatives.
Because many facilities affected by this proposal are indirect
dischargers, the Agency involved POTWs as they will have to implement
the rule. EPA consulted with POTWs individually and through the
Association of Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). In addition, EPA
consulted with pretreatment coordinators and State and local
regulators.
The Agency collaborated with POTWs in selecting BAT facilities for
EPA wastewater sampling and, in several cases, POTWs performed
wastewater sampling and submitted the data to EPA for use in developing
the rule. As described above and in Section V.B, EPA conducted the POTW
survey to obtain estimates of POTW permitting costs and sludge disposal
practices and costs. EPA assessed whether any impacts of the regulatory
requirements in the rule might significantly or uniquely affect POTWs,
especially small POTWs, and determined the degree to which POTWs would
benefit from the regulation by having more options for sewage sludge
disposal and decreased costs of disposing of the sludge.
EPA consulted with State and local regulators during three
different public meetings. Their main comments focused on: (1) The
potential burden on them to issue permits/control mechanisms for a
large number of facilities that have not been permitted under effluent
guidelines prior to this rule; (2) request for additional monitoring
flexibilities; and (3) request to allow them to use concentration-based
standards in the MP&M rule for those subcategories where it is
difficult to obtain production or flow information at the process-
level. EPA has incorporated many of their suggestions and addressed
these concerns throughout today's preamble (see Sections II.D, XII.C,
and XXI ).
8. Alternatives Considered
EPA believes that the proposed rule is the least burdensome and
most cost-effective of the regulatory alternatives considered that
still meets the objectives of the rule. EPA acknowledges that the rule
will impose some burden, but EPA believes that the additional costs are
justified due to the additional pollutant removals. The proposed low-
flow cutoffs and subcategory exemptions reduce the number of facilities
that require permitting by over 90 percent. Section XVI.H presents
EPA's analysis of the facility impacts of the proposed rule, which
shows that facility compliance costs would be 36 percent higher under
Option 2/6/10 than under the proposed rule and 120 percent higher under
Option 4/8. Section XVII presents EPA's analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of the regulatory options, which shows that the proposed
option is the most cost-effective of these three options.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act or any other statute, unless the Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental organizations.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as (1) A small business according to
the Regulations of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR
121.201, which define small businesses for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes; (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) small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
In accordance with Section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities, along with regulatory alternatives
that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the
public record (as Chapter 10 in the Economic, Environmental, and
Benefits Analysis) and is summarized below.
1. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
a. Rationale, Objectives, and Legal Basis for Proposal
EPA's ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery Manufacturing
and Rebuilding Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/106) identified the Metal
Products and Machinery (MP&M) industry as one that is discharging
wastestreams containing toxic pollutants to publicly owned treatment
works and directly into the nation's surface waters. The volume and
characteristics of these wastestreams are described more fully in
Section VII of this notice. Due to the water quality, human health, and
environmental concerns associated with these discharges, EPA selected
the MP&M industry for the development of a new effluent guidelines
regulation in 1990. The Agency develops categorical effluent
limitations under authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.). Section I of this notice discusses the legal basis for the
proposed rule in more detail. Briefly, the Clean Water Act directs the
Agency to reduce discharges of pollutants into the Nation's water and
into publicly-owned treatment works. The objective of today's proposed
rule is to reduce those discharges from the class of point sources in
the MP&M industry.
b. Number and Type of Small Entities
A large number of the 63,000 MP&M facilities nationwide are owned
by small entities. The small entities covered by this proposed rule are
small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions. Table XXII.C-1
shows the total number of facilities operating in the baseline and the
number owned by small entities. Overall, approximately 80 percent of
all MP&M facilities are owned by small entities. However, it should be
noted that the low flow exclusions in the proposed rule will exclude
approximately 85 percent of the facilities owned by small entities.
[[Page 520]]
Table XXII.C-1.--Percent of MP&M facilities Owned by Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Percent of
facilities facilities facilities
Type of Facility operating in owned by small owned by small
baseline entities entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private MP&M *.................................................. 54,591 44,773 82%
Government-Owned................................................ 4,332 2,672 62%
-----------------------------------------------
Total *..................................................... 58,923 47,445 81%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes baseline closures.
The SBA definitions for small business use either employment-based
or revenue-based standards, depending on the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code. The manufacturing sectors generally use
employment-based standards, and most non-manufacturing sectors use
revenue-based standards. MP&M facilities perform a wide variety of
activities, represented by over 200 SIC codes. To assess the impacts of
the rule on small entities, for analytical purposes, these SIC codes
were organized into 18 industry sectors, with some further distinctions
by type of activity (i.e., manufacturing or maintenance/repair). To
select a small business definition for each sector, EPA chose the SBA
standard that was common to the most SIC Codes (i.e., the mode of the
distribution of SBA definitions) in a particular sector (or activity).
Table XXII.C-2 lists the definitions by sector used in the impact
assessment.
Table XXII.C-2.--Small Business Definitions for Analyzing MP&M Sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small business definition using the
Sector and activity most common SBA standard for the SIC
codes in each sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardware......................... 500 Employees.
Aircraft--Manufacturing.......... 1,000 Employees.
Aircraft-Maintenance/Repair...... $5 Million.
Electronic Equipment............. 750 Employees.
Stationary Industrial Equip.-- 500 Employees.
Manufacturing.
Stationary Industrial Equip.-- $5 Million.
Maint/Repair.
Ordnance......................... 1,000 Employees.
Aerospace........................ 1,000 Employees.
Mobile Industrial Equip.......... 500 Employees.
Instruments--Manufacturing....... 500 Employees.
Instruments--Maintenance/Repair.. $5 Million.
Precious Metals/Jewelry-- 500 Employees.
Manufacturing.
Precious Metals/Jewelry-- $5 Million.
Maintenance/Repair.
Ship--Manufacturing.............. 1,000 Employees.
Ship--Maintenance/Repair......... 500 Employees.
Ship--Maintenance/Repair (SIC $5 Million.
449) \1\.
Household Equip.--Manufacturing.. 500 Employees.
Household Equip.--Maintenance/ $5 Million.
Repair.
Railroad--Manufacturing.......... 1,000 Employees.
Railroad--Maintenance/Repair..... 1,500 Employees.
Motor Vehicle--Manufacturing..... 500 Employees.
Motor Vehicle--Maintenance/Repair $5 Million.
Motor Vehicle--Maintenance/Repair 100 Employees.
(SIC 5013) \2\.
Bus & Truck--Manufacturing....... 500 Employees.
Bus & Truck--Maintenance/Repair.. $5 Million.
Office Machines--Manufacturing... 1,000 Employees.
Office Machines--Maintenance/ $18 Million.
Repair.
Steel Forming & Finishing........ 1,000 Employees.
Printed Circuit Boards........... 500 Employees.
Metal Finishing & Electroplating 500 Employees.
Job Shops.
Other Metal Products-- 500 Employees.
Manufacturing.
Other Metal Products--Maintenance/ $5 Million.
Repair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ SIC Code 449--Includes 4491 (Marine Cargo), 4492 (Towing & tugboat
service), 4493 (Marinas), and 4499 (Water Transportation Services,
nec).
\2\ SIC Code 5013--Wholesale distribution of motor vehicle supplies,
tools and equipment; and new motor vehicle parts.
c. Impacts on Small Entities
For small businesses, EPA drew on the firm and facility impact
analyses discussed in Section XVI of this notice to assess impacts on
small entities. The analysis compared compliance costs to revenues for
the small entities at the firm level. EPA also examined the facility
impact analysis results for facilities owned by small firms. The
facility impact analysis estimated facility closures and other adverse
[[Page 521]]
changes to financial conditions (denoted here as ``moderate impacts'').
See Section XVI.B of this notice for details on how EPA determines
closures and moderate impacts for private businesses. The results from
these analyses are discussed in more detail in the following
paragraphs. Briefly, these analyses indicated that 941 of the small
entities may incur costs equal to 3 percent or more of annual revenues,
181 facilities owned by small entities might close as a result of the
proposed rule, and 492 facilities owned by small entities are likely to
experience moderate financial impacts. The181 small entity facility
closures represent less than one-half of one percent of the facilities
owned by small entities that are operating in the baseline. Although
the percentage of small facilities projected to incur impacts is quite
small, the number, in absolute terms, was large enough for the Agency
to conclude that a small business analysis was appropriate. After EPA
considers comments and data received in response to this proposed
rulemaking, especially with regard to the IRFA, the Panel's
recommendations, and alternatives that would reduce small entity
impacts, EPA will adjust the rule as appropriate and it is possible
that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Consequently, there is a
possibility that the Agency may not prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis and would certify the final rule.
i. Compliance Costs as a Percent of Firm Revenue
EPA compared compliance costs to revenues at the firm level as a
measure of the relative burden of compliance costs. Table XXII.C-3
shows the results of this comparison. The Agency was not able to
estimate national numbers of firms that own MP&M facilities precisely,
because the sample weights based on the survey design represent numbers
of facilities rather than firms. The results in Table XXII.C-3 are
reasonable approximations, however, in that 95 percent of the
facilities owned by small firms are single-facility firms, for which
sample weights could be used.
Table XXII.C-3.--Firm Level Before-Tax Annual Compliance Costs as a Percent of Annual Revenues for Private Small Businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number and percent with before-tax annual compliance costs annual revenues equal to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of small firms in the analysis Less than 1% 1-3% Over 3%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42,509.................................................. 40,560 95.4% 1,008 2.4% 941 2.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 85 percent of the small entities are not projected to
incur any costs to comply with the proposed rule because they are among
the facilities covered by the low flow exclusions (See Section XII for
discussion of the low flow exclusions). Even so, the IRFA includes a
cost analysis for all small facilities. The results reported here
account for the exclusions. More than 95 percent of small entities
incur compliance costs less than 1 percent of annual revenues. A small
percentage (2 percent) of the small businesses in the analysis incur
costs equal to 3 percent or more of annual revenues. (Results of the
cost-to-sales ratios are presented in the EEBA.) Of the small firms
that incur costs greater than 1 percent of revenues, 612 firms are
projected by the facility impact analysis to close or experience
moderate impacts.
ii. Facility Closures and Moderate Impacts
Table XXII.C-4 summarizes the results from the facility closure
analysis for the proposed option for private facilities owned by small
entities, by discharge status. Table XXII.C-4 also shows the number of
facilities owned by small businesses that experience moderate impacts.
Table XXII.C-4.--Closures and Moderate Impacts for Private Facilities Owned by Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Direct
All facilities dischargers dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities operating in the baseline.................. 44,773 41,536 3,237
Number of closures.............................................. 181 161 20
Percent closing................................................. 0.40% 0.39% 0.62%
Number of facilities with moderate impacts...................... 492 454 38
Percent with moderate impacts................................... 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, approximately 85 percent of the facilities owned by small
entities are not projected to incur any costs to comply with the
proposed rule because they are among the facilities covered by the low
flow exclusions. (See Section XII for discussion of the low flow
exclusions.) The projected number of closures is very small compared to
the large number of facilities owned by small entities. Less than one-
half of one percent of the facilities owned by small entities that are
operating in the baseline are projected to close. The percentage of
small entities experiencing moderate impacts is also low, at one
percent. In regard to the baseline closure analysis, to put this
information in context, data on facility start-ups and closures from
the Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses indicate that between 6 and 12
percent of facilities in the major metal products manufacturing
industries close in any given year. (See discussion in Chapter 5 of the
Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis.)
iii. Impacts on Small Governments
For small governments, EPA relied on the analysis described in
Section XVI.B.3.c. EPA estimates that there are 2,672 facilities owned
by small governments. The low flow exclusion in today's proposed rule
will exclude 2,262 of these small government-owned
[[Page 522]]
MP&M facilities. Thus, the proposed rule covers 410 small government-
owned facilities. Of these facilities, only 270 incur costs, and the
average cost per facility is less than $10,000. The total compliance
cost for all the small government-owned facilities incurring costs
under today's proposed rule is $2.7 million. Only 140 of the 270
facilities have costs greater than 1 percent of baseline cost of
service (measured as total facility costs and expenditures, including
operating, overhead and debt service costs and expenses). EPA estimated
no significant impacts for any of these facilities, based on three
budgetary criteria (i.e., impacts on site-level cost of service,
impacts on taxpayers, and impact on government debt levels) as
described in Section XVI.B.3.c . Thus, EPA concluded that none of the
affected governments are expected to incur significant budgetary
impacts as a result of the proposed rule.
d. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
EPA sought from the outset to design a regulation that would not
unreasonably burden small entities. In particular, EPA considered a
number of regulatory alternatives for indirect and direct dischargers,
and conducted extensive analysis of wastewater flow exclusions. As
detailed in Section XII of this notice, EPA selected a regulatory
alternative that incorporates low flow exclusions for several
subcategories. The primary alternatives to the proposal, while
providing additional pollutant reductions, also increased the number of
small entities covered. These alternatives would have resulted in
additional small entity impacts. The results from the closure analysis
and the cost-to-revenue analysis for these alternatives are included in
the IRFA, but are not summarized in this section of today's notice. As
a result of selecting the low flow exclusions, the proposed rule
imposes substantially lower impacts on small entities than the other
options. In particular, the low flow exclusion for indirect discharging
facilities in two subcategories--the General Metals subcategory and the
Oily Wastes subcategory--played a significant role in minimizing small
business impacts. EPA estimates that there are over 26,000 facilities
in the General Metals subcategory and over 28,000 in the Oily Wastes
subcategory operating in the baseline, and that small entities comprise
a large portion of these subcategories. The low flow exclusion for both
of these subcategories will largely reduce the number of small entities
affected by the MP&M proposed rule. For the General Metals subcategory,
EPA is proposing a 1 MGY flow cutoff for the reasons explained in
Section XII.D. This low flow exclusion reduces the number of regulated
facilities in this subcategory by 75 percent. The facilities that
comprise the 75 percent are mostly small entities and represent only 6
percent of the total pollutants discharged by the facilities in this
subcategory. For the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY
flow cutoff for the reasons explained in Section XII. This low flow
exclusion reduces the number of regulated facilities in this
subcategory by 96 percent. The facilities that comprise the 96 percent
are mostly small entities and represent 39 percent of the total
pollutant discharged by the facilities in this subcategory. In Section
XII, EPA presented its rationale for concluding that national
pretreatment standards were not warranted for facilities discharging
less than 2 MGY in this subcategory.
EPA considered and incorporated other types of alternatives, such
as monitoring alternatives. These are summarized below and discussed
more fully in Sections XXI.C and XXI.D of today's notice.
e. Reporting, Record Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements
There are five areas for which EPA is proposing to require, or
considering requiring, reporting or record keeping by MP&M facilities:
(1) Certification to waive monitoring for pollutants that are not
present; (2) certification and implementation of an organic chemicals
management plan in lieu of monitoring for organic pollutants; (3)
demonstration of a correlation to a site-specific organic pollutant
indicator parameter; (4) certification of a total sulfide monitoring
waiver for indirect dischargers; and (5) demonstration of specified
pollution prevention practices and compliance with existing regulations
in lieu of compliance with the MP&M effluent guidelines for facilities
in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory and some facilities in
other subcategories. In all cases, EPA believes the collection of
information, reporting, or record keeping is an alternative (i.e.,
voluntary) that will allow a reduction in overall burden to facilities
since EPA intends for these activities to reduce or eliminate effluent
sampling and analysis costs. Each of these five areas is briefly
described below and is described in detail in section XXI, and the
associated burden is discussed in section XXII.A.
Briefly, for the certification to waive monitoring for pollutants
that are not present, EPA expects that facilities will need to review
analytical sampling data and other technical information required to
make the certification (e.g., raw material inventory logs, production
information, product chemistry, and reports on source water). There is
some additional effort required to prepare the certification statement
one time per permit cycle (i.e., every 5 years). EPA is allowing the
use of historical sampling data as well as sampling data generated for
compliance reports required by the General Pretreatment Standards (40
CFR 403.12) in the development of the certification statement.
Therefore, EPA does not anticipate additional monitoring burden
associated with this waiver, particularly in comparison to the periodic
compliance monitoring that is being replaced by this waiver. A
wastewater treatment operator or other qualified facility personnel who
is familiar with the facility's processes, products and analytical
monitoring reports can make the determination.
In terms of the certification and implementation of an organic
chemicals management plan in lieu of monitoring for organic pollutants,
facilities choosing to develop an organic pollutant management plan
must certify that the procedures described in the plan are being
implemented at the facility. EPA notes that development and
implementation of the plan would likely require the attention of the
wastewater treatment operator or plant manager. EPA believes that
facilities covered by the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR
part 433) with a solvent management plan in place under those
regulations will only have to update their plan.
EPA is considering (but is not proposing) allowing the
demonstration of a correlation to a site-specific organic pollutant
indicator parameter as an alternate approach to the use of an organic
indicator parameter (see section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on the
proposed organic indicator). In this case, there would be some
additional reporting and record keeping. Facilities would need to
perform testing, analyze analytical results, and keep records that
demonstrate a correlation between the regulated organic pollutants and
the selected indicator parameter. EPA notes that direct dischargers may
incur less burden than indirect dischargers because they typically have
more advanced treatment in place and permit writers typically require
them to monitor for the types of parameters that EPA is considering as
indicators (e.g., COD, Oil & Grease, TOC, and TPH); therefore, they may
already have data available that demonstrates a correlation to the
regulated organic pollutants. A wastewater treatment operator or other
qualified facility personnel who is
[[Page 523]]
familiar with the facility's processes, products, and analytical
monitoring reports should be able to make the determination. Some
facilities may prefer consultation with an analytical chemist.
EPA is proposing to set numerical limitations on the discharge of
total sulfide from facilities in several subcategories. In an effort to
reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA is considering
(but not proposing) to allow a waiver for the monitoring of total
sulfide (even when present). EPA would require this demonstration one
time per permit cycle and if no major changes in processes or raw
materials change during that period, the demonstration would not have
to be repeated for the next permit cycle. A wastewater treatment
operator or other qualified facility personnel who is familiar with the
facility's processes, products, and analytical monitoring reports can
make the determination.
Finally, EPA is considering, but not proposing, whether to allow
certain facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory to
demonstrate compliance with specified pollution prevention and water
conservation practices (in addition to maintaining compliance with the
existing Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines) in
lieu of meeting the requirements of the MP&M regulation. Facilities
would submit certification statements one time initially (by the
compliance deadline) and twice per year thereafter for indirect
dischargers, or once per year for direct dischargers. The compliance
paperwork necessary to implement this alternative would likely require
the attention of the wastewater treatment operator or plant manager.
f. Overlapping Federal Rules
EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen
industrial categories which may perform operations that are sometimes
found in MP&M facilities. These effluent guidelines are:
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);
Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420);
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 421);
Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR part 424);
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);
Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
Metal Molding and Casting (40 CFR part 464);
Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469);
and
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (40 CFR part
471).
In 1986, the Agency reviewed coverage of these regulations and
identified a significant number of metals processing facilities
discharging wastewater that these 13 regulations did not cover. As
discussed above, EPA's ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery
Manufacturing and Rebuilding Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/106) identified
the MP&M industry as one that is discharging hazardous wastes to
publicly owned treatment works and directly into the nation's surface
waters.
EPA recognizes that in some cases, unit operations performed in
industries covered by the existing effluent guidelines are the same as
unit operations performed at MP&M facilities. In general, when unit
operations and their associated wastewater discharges are already
covered by an existing effluent guideline, they will remain covered
under that effluent guideline. However, for the existing Electroplating
(40 CFR part 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent
guidelines most facilities will be covered by this proposal. EPA is
proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) and
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M
regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory,
all facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory, and for
direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizers
subcategory. (See Section VI.C for a discussion of subcategory-specific
applicability).
When a facility covered by an existing metals effluent guidelines
(other than Electroplating or Metal Finishing) discharges wastewater
from unit operations not covered under that existing metals guideline
but covered under MP&M, the facility will need to comply with both
regulations. In those cases, the permit writer or control authority
(e.g., Publicly Owned Treatment Works) will combine the limitations
using an approach that proportions the limitations based on the
different in-scope production levels (for production-based standards)
or wastewater flows. POTWs refer to this approach as the ``combined
wastestream formula'' (40 CFR 403.6(e)), while NPDES permit writers
refer to it as the ``building block approach.'' Permit writers and
local control authorities currently issue permits and control
mechanisms for many facilities in other effluent guidelines categories
where overlaps with more than one effluent limitation guidelines
regulation occur (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers; Pesticide Manufacturing; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and
Repackaging; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing). See Section III.D of
this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.
2. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject
to the rule's requirements. The Panel consisted of representatives from
three Federal agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the
Office of Management and Budget. The Panel reviewed materials EPA
prepared in connection with the IRFA, and collected the advice and
recommendations of small entity representatives. For this proposed
rule, the small entity representatives included nine small MP&M
facility owner/operators, one small municipality, and the following six
trade associations representing different sectors of the industry:
National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF)/Association of
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF)/MP&M Coalition; the
Association Connecting Electronics Industries (also known as IPC);
Porcelain Enamel Institute; American Association of Shortline Railroads
(ASLRA); Electronics Industry Association (EIA); and the American Wire
Producers Association (AWPA). Prior to and following the convening of
the Panel, EPA and the other members of the Panel sought to gather
advice and recommendations by meeting and consulting with the small
entity representatives listed above. On September 16, 1999 and October
5, 1999, EPA held pre-Panel meetings with the potential small entity
representatives to provide background information on the MP&M
regulation and EPA's regulatory process and to provide detailed
information on the elements of the IRFA including possible regulatory
alternatives. After EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chair convened the
Panel on December 8, 1999, the Panel provided over 300 pages of
background information and analysis to the small entity representatives
and met with the representatives on
[[Page 524]]
December 17, 1999 and January 7, 2000. The Panel asked the small entity
representatives to submit written comment on the MP&M rulemaking in
relation to the elements of the IRFA. The Panel carefully considered
these comments when developing its recommendations.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
the elements of the IRFA and prepared a report. The report summarizes
the Panel's outreach efforts to small entities and the comments
submitted by the small entity representatives. The Panel's report also
presents their findings on issues related to the elements of an IRFA
and recommendations regarding the rulemaking. EPA included a copy of
the Panel report in the docket for this proposed rule.
In the area of potential reporting, record keeping and compliance
requirements, the Panel recommended that EPA consider reduced
monitoring schemes for small entities including incorporating several
concepts of the proposed EPA NPDES Streamlining regulations
(``Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program Regulations: Round 2; Proposed Rule'' 61 FR
65268; December 11, 1996). For example, the Panel ``encourages EPA to
explore options for allowing certification in lieu of monitoring where
an operator can determine, based on knowledge of the facility and its
processes, that certain pollutants are not likely to be present or are
adequately controlled.'' Based on the Panel's recommendations, EPA is
proposing to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to apply for a
waiver that will allow them to reduce their monitoring burden. In order
for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the facility must submit
a certification statement in writing to the control authority (e.g.,
POTW) stating that the facility does not use nor generate in any way a
pollutant (or pollutants) at their site or that the pollutant (or
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the
discharger. EPA notes that the NPDES streamlining for direct
dischargers, which includes a similar provision, was finalized on May
15, 2000 (65 FR 30886).
The Panel also recommended that EPA give serious consideration to
allowing the use of best management practices (BMPs) instead of
numerical limitations, at least for some pollutants and/or
subcategories of facilities. In response to this recommendation, EPA is
soliciting comment and data on a ``Pollution Prevention Alternative for
the Metal Finishing Job Shop Subcategory.'' This alternative would
allow facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory to
implement a set of pollution prevention measures in lieu of monitoring
for a set of regulated parameters. The Agency is also soliciting
comment on allowing facilities in other subcategories to comply with
this pollution prevention alternative. EPA fully describes this
potential alternative in Section XXI.D.
In relation to proposing an indicator for toxic organic
constituents to reduce the burden of monitoring for specific organic
pollutants, the Panel recommended that EPA attempt to identify an
appropriate organic indicator if it turns out that limitations for
organic pollutants are appropriate for one or more subcategories.
However, the Panel also recommended that if organic pollutant removals
by subcategory are not higher than levels in the preliminary analysis
provided to the Panel, then EPA should give serious consideration to
not proposing pretreatment standards for those pollutants in those
subcategories. In response to this recommendation, the Agency is
proposing several alternatives for organic pollutant monitoring. EPA is
proposing to allow the use of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as an
indicator parameter for organic pollutants found in the wastewater
discharges at MP&M facilities. The indicator is an alternative limit.
If facilities do not wish to use TOC as an indicator, EPA is proposing
two other alternatives. The second alternative allows facilities to
monitor for a list of organic pollutants (i.e., total organics
parameter (TOP) list) and to meet a limit which would equate to the
summation of all quantifiable values of the listed organic pollutants.
The third alternative allows facilities to develop and certify the
implementation of an ``organic chemical management plan.'' The Agency
further discusses these organic monitoring alternatives in Section
XXI.C.
The Panel also recommended that EPA not regulate TSS, pH, iron, or
aluminum for indirect dischargers. The Agency is not proposing
pretreatment standards for any of these parameters.
In the area of overlap with other Federal rules, the Panel
recommended that EPA attempt to minimize the potential for MP&M
facilities to be covered by more than one effluent guideline and that
EPA clarify in the preamble how it plans to regulate facilities that
have operations covered by more than one effluent guideline. In
response to this recommendation, EPA has made an effort to clearly
define the applicability of the proposed MP&M rule. In addition, EPA is
replacing the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40
CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for a large number of facilities.
Therefore, these facilities will only be covered by the MP&M rule.
The Panel recommended that EPA consider regulatory alternatives,
including a ``no regulation'' option, to reduce any significant
economic impacts that are not justified by environmental improvements
and to improve the cost-effectiveness of the regulation. In response to
these recommendations, the Agency is proposing low flow exclusions for
two subcategories and is proposing not to establish pretreatment
standards for three other subcategories based on low levels of
pollutants discharged. EPA discusses these issues throughout this
notice (see Sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for detailed discussions of
the proposed flow cutoff (or no regulation) by subcategory).
Additionally, as recommended by the Panel, EPA has solicited data
and comment on the following topics discussed in the Panel report: the
cost savings to Control Authorities and dischargers of BMPs in lieu of
numerical limitations; in-process versus end-of-pipe monitoring for
cyanide; inclusion of the steel wire producers in the proposed rule;
costs for contract hauling; certain methodological issues, including
costs and adequacy of operational changes or treatment enhancements for
BAT facilities to consistently and reliably achieve full compliance
with proposed limitations; the POTW removals methodology; and the
revision to the Toxic Weighting Factors. EPA invites comments on all
aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities (see Section
XXIII for a specific request for comment on each of these issues).
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or
[[Page 525]]
State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule establishes effluent
limitations imposing requirements that apply to metal product and
machinery facilities, as defined by this preamble, when they discharge
wastewater. The rule applies to States and localities when they own and
operate an in-scope MP&M facility. EPA estimates 4,300 MP&M facilities
are owned and operated by State and local governments. Only 730 of
these 4,300 facilities discharge MP&M process wastewater at levels
above the flow exclusions for the General Metals and Oily Wastes
subcategories (1 MGY and 2 MGY, respectively).
In addition, this proposed rule will affect State and local
governments when they are administering CWA permitting programs. The
proposed rule, at most, imposes minimal administrative costs on States
that have an authorized NPDES program. (These States must incorporate
the new limitations and standards in new and reissued NPDES permits).
In an effort to minimize this administrative burden, EPA has
incorporated a low flow cutoff for indirect dischargers in the two
largest subcategories (i.e., General Metals and Oily Waste) to reduce
permitting burden on POTWs related to permitting the smallest MP&M
facilities (see Sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for discussions on the
proposed low flow exclusion). The total cost of today's proposal to
governments (including regulated MP&M government-owned facilities and
regulators) is less than $15 million. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule. See Section XXII.B for a discussion of the
administrative costs to State and local governments.
Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did
consult with State and local government representatives in developing
this proposal. EPA developed and administered a survey questionnaire to
collect information from POTWs on the burden of implementing permits
for MP&M facilities (see Section V.B.5 for a information on the POTW
survey questionnaire). In addition, EPA attended several industry and
professional meetings such as the National Metal Finishing Strategic
Goals Summit and the annual meetings of the Association of Municipal
Sewerage Authorities (AMSA) to talk to States and local governments
(and other stakeholders) about the MP&M proposed rule including several
possible alternative options for monitoring. States and local
government representatives were also present at EPA's public meetings
on the MP&M proposed rule (see Section V.E of this notice for a
discussion on public outreach efforts). Section II.D summarizes many of
the major concerns expressed by MP&M stakeholders (including State and
local governments) during the development of this proposal.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
1. E.O. 12898 Requirements
Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. E.O. 12898
provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs, policies,
and activities that substantially affect human health or the
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including
populations) from participation in, denying persons (including
populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including
populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and
activities because of their race, color, or national origin.
2. Environmental Justice Analysis
EPA examined whether the proposed regulation will promote
environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M discharges. This
analysis first examines whether the proposed rule specifically reduces
risks to disadvantaged populations. EPA then examined whether MP&M
discharges have a disproportionally high environmental impact on
minority populations based on the demographic characteristics of the
populations residing in the counties affected by MP&M discharges.
a. Changes in Health Risk for Subsistence Anglers
Subsistence anglers include low-income and minority populations
that rely heavily on subsistence fishing in their food supply.
Subsistence anglers are likely to be at disproportionally high risk
from consumption of contaminated fish because of heavy reliance on fish
caught in local waters in their diets. EPA's analysis of changes in
adverse health effects from the proposed rule show that benefits to
subsistence anglers substantially exceed benefits to recreational
anglers.
EPA used the same methodology for estimating cancer and systemic
health risk used in the national human health benefits analysis to
estimate changes in health risk to subsistence anglers. EPA's estimates
show that subsistence anglers face significantly higher cancer risk
from fish consumption than recreational anglers at the baseline
discharge levels. The estimated average lifetime cancer risk in the
baseline for subsistence and recreational anglers is 20.3 in a million
and 8.08 in a million, respectively. The estimated reduction in average
lifetime cancer risk for subsistence anglers is more than double the
reduction in risk for sport anglers (i.e., 7.70 in a million vs. 3.77
in a million) (see Table XXII.F-1).
[[Page 526]]
Table XXII.F-1.--Estimated Changes in Lifetime Cancer Risk to Subsistence vs. Recreational Anglers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average lifetime cancer risk per individual Estimated changes in individual lifetime cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------------- risk
Exposed population category --------------------------------------------------
Baseline Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8 Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsistence Anglers............ 20.3E-06 12.6E-06 12.4E-06 12.8E-06 7.7E-06 7.9E-06 7.5E-06
Recreational Anglers........... 8.1E-06 4.3E-06 4.3E-06 4.5E-06 3.8E-06 3.8E-06 3.6E-06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed changes in systemic health risk from fish
consumption to subsistence anglers. This analysis is performed at the
sample level only. The results from this analysis show that
approximately 7,000 subsistence anglers (two percent) in reaches near
sample facilities are estimated to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates
sufficient to pose a significant risk of health effects at the baseline
discharge levels. The proposed regulation reduces the number of
subsistence anglers at risk of developing deleterious health effects by
4,616 (66 percent) (see Table XXII.F-2.).
Table XXII.F-2.--Changes in Systemic Health Risk to Subsistence Anglers (Sample Basis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsistence anglers exposed to Subsistence anglers
hazard ratio >1 a benefitting from the MP&M rule
Total exposed ---------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory status subsistence Percent of
anglers Number of total exposed Number of Percent of
individuals individuals individuals baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 320,366 6,971 2.18 .............. ..............
Proposed option................. 320,366 2,355 0.74 4,616 66
Option 2/6/10................... 320,366 2,355 0.74 4,616 66
Option 4/8...................... 320,366 2,355 0.74 4,616 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Hazard ratio is a ratio of the estimated ingestion rate of a pollutant to the reference dose (RfD) value for
the pollutant. The RfD is an estimate of the maximum daily ingestion rate in mg/kg per day that is likely to
be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. A hazard ratio greater than one
indicates that individuals would be expected to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates sufficient to pose a
significant risk of systemic health effects.
b. Demographic Characteristics of the Populations Residing in the
Counties Affected by MP&M Discharges
EPA assessed whether adverse environmental, human health, or
economic effects associated with MP&M facility discharges are more
likely to be borne by minorities and low-income populations. This
analysis is based on information on the race, national origin, and
income level of populations residing in the counties traversed by
reaches receiving discharges from 885 sample MP&M facilities. The
analysis was not done at the national level. The 885 sample facilities
are located in 643 counties in 46 States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii,
Nevada, and Wyoming). Two sample facilities that are located in Puerto
Rico were excluded from this analysis due to insufficient data.
EPA compared demographic data on the counties traversed by sample
MP&M reaches with the corresponding state-level indicators. The results
of this analysis show that counties affected by MP&M discharges tend to
have a larger proportion of African-American population than the State
average in 41 States. In five States, the proportion of African-
Americans in MP&M counties corresponds to the State averages (District
of Columbia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and West
Virginia). Other socioeconomic characteristics of the populations
residing in the counties abutting reaches affected by MP&M discharges
reflect the corresponding State averages.
3. Findings
Findings from the EPA's analysis show that this proposed rule is
expected to promote environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M
discharges. EPA's analysis of changes in adverse health effects from
the proposed rule indicate that health benefits to 3.8 million
subsistence anglers substantially exceed benefits to recreational
anglers. The estimated reduction in annual cancer risk is an order of
magnitude greater for subsistence than for sport anglers (i.e., 0.5 in
one hundred million vs 0.5 in one billion). The proportion of
subsistence anglers that face a hazard ratio of greater than one under
the baseline conditions (2.2 percent) declines by 1.5 percent due to
the proposed rule (see Table XXII.F-2). [Note: the hazard ratio is a
ratio of the estimated ingestion rate of a pollutant to the reference
dose (RfD) value point. A hazard ratio greater than one indicates that
individuals would be expected to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates
sufficient to pose a significant risk of systemic health effects.] A
much smaller proportion of recreational anglers (0.15 percent) is
expected to suffer from systemic health risk effects under the baseline
conditions. The percentage of recreational anglers facing a hazard
ratio of one drops to 0.05 percent under the post-compliance. Higher
representation of African-American households in the areas where most
MP&M sample facilities are located and their effluents are released
indicates that the disadvantaged populations will receive a relatively
larger share of the benefits from the MP&M rule, though they may also
bear a disproportionate share of costs if the MP&M facilities that
close are in their community (e.g., lost jobs).
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
1. E.O. 13045 Requirements
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
[[Page 527]]
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is subject to the Executive Order because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. It
is expected to reduce numerous pollutants, including lead, in fish
tissue and drinking water that exceed human health criteria for
consumption of water and organisms and organisms only. Therefore, EPA
has performed an analysis of children's health impacts reduced by this
proposed rule.
2. Analysis of Children's Health Impacts
EPA expects that the proposed regulation will benefit children in
many ways, including reducing health risk from exposure to MP&M
pollutants from consumption of contaminated fish tissue and drinking
water and improving recreational opportunities. The Agency was able to
quantify only one category of benefits to children, however--avoided
health damages to pre-school age children from reduced exposure to
lead. This analysis considered several measures of children's health
benefits associated with lead exposure for children up to age six.
Avoided neurological and cognitive damages were expressed as changes in
three metrics: (1) Overall IQ levels, (2) the incidence of low IQ
scores (70), and (3) the incidence of blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL.
The Agency also assessed changes in incidence of neonatal mortality
from reduced maternal exposure to lead. EPA's methodology for assessing
benefits to children and adults is presented in Section XX.B.3.c. This
analysis showed that the proposed rule is expected to yield $14.4
million (1999$) in annual benefits to children from reduced
neurological and cognitive damages and reduced incidence of neonatal
mortality.
The Agency also examined whether lead discharges from MP&M
facilities are likely to have a disproportionate impact on children in
subsistence anglers' families. Children in subsistence fishing families
face a greater risk of adverse health effects from exposure to lead-
contaminated fish due to high proportion of fish from local waters in
their diet. EPA's analysis showed that the beneficial outcome of the
MP&M rule favor children from subsistence fishing families. The average
estimated health risk reduction per child for each of the four lead-
related health effects was much larger for children from subsistence
fishing families. This finding is also supported by the monetary
estimates of benefits per child in each population category. EPA
estimated that the monetary value of benefits to a child from a
subsistence fishing family is $781.2 (1999$) per year, as compared to
$82.6 (1999$) for a child from a recreational fishing family. These
benefits comprise a much larger portion of subsistence fishing families
income compared to the benefits received by a recreational fishing
because subsistence fishing families (e.g., Native American families)
have on average a lower household income. EPA estimated that the
monetary value of benefits from reduced cognitive damages to children
for a subsistence household is about 2.9 percent of their current
household income, while benefits for a recreational fishing family is
0.2 percent of their household income. This analysis uses average
household income in Native American families and average household
income of all households in the United States. Table XXII.G-1
summarizes estimated changes in health risk and the monetary value of
benefits to children from recreational and subsistence fishing
families.
Table XXII.G-1.--Estimated Benefits to Pre-School Children From Reduced Exposure to Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated monetary value of
Reduction in avoided health damages to
Population Number of the number of children (1999$)--mean
Benefit category category children adverse health estimates
(ages 0 to 1) effect cases -------------------------------
Total Per child
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality........... Recreation...... .............. 0.92 $5,536,000 $47
Subsistence..... .............. 0.69 $4,002,000 $609
Avoided IQ Loss............... Recreation...... .............. 390.43 $3,934,410 $30
Subsistence..... .............. 98.65 $994,104 $151
Reduced IQ 70................. Recreation...... .............. 0.02 $101,311 $1
Subsistence..... .............. 0.09 $25,079 $4
Reduced PbB >20............... Recreation...... .............. 0.03 $686 (\1\)
Subsistence..... .............. 0.06 $60 (\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... Recreation...... 131,511 .............. $9,372,407 $83
Subsistence..... 6,576 .............. $5,021,243 $764
All Children.... 138,087 .............. $14,393,650 $120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality........... Recreation...... .............. 0.95 $5,510,000 $49
Subsistence..... .............. 0.71 $4,118,000 $626
Avoided IQ Loss............... Recreation...... .............. 402.75 $4,058,465 $31
Subsistence..... .............. 101.74 $1,025,276 $156
Reduced IQ 70................. Recreation...... .............. 0.02 $104,529 $1
Subsistence..... .............. 0.09 $25,866 $4
Reduced PbB >20............... Recreation...... .............. 0.03 $609 (\1\)
Subsistence..... .............. 0.04 $36 (\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... Recreation...... 131,511 .............. $9,546,407 $84
Subsistence..... 6,576 .............. $5,013,243 $781
[[Page 528]]
All Children.... 138,087 .............. $14,683,650 $122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality........... Recreation...... .............. 0.95 $5,510,000 $49
Subsistence..... .............. 0.71 $4,118,000 $626
Avoided IQ Loss............... Recreation...... .............. 402.75 $4,058,465 $31
Subsistence..... .............. 101.74 $1,025,276 $156
Reduced IQ 70................. Recreation...... .............. 0.02 $104,529 $1
Subsistence..... .............. 0.09 $25,866 $4
Reduced PbB >20............... Recreation...... .............. 0.03 $609 (\1\)
Subsistence..... .............. 0.04 $36 (\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... Recreation...... 131,511 .............. $9,673,603 $85
Subsistence..... 6,576 .............. $5,169,178 $786
All Children.... 138,087 .............. $14,842,781 $124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negligible.
Children over age six are also likely to benefit from reduced
neurological and cognitive damages due to reduced exposure to lead.
Recent research on brain development among 10-to 18-year-old children
shows unanticipated and substantial growth in brain development, mainly
in the early teenage years (Giedd et al., 1999). This research suggests
that older children may be hypersensitive to lead exposure, as are
children aged 0 to 6.
Additional benefits to children from reduced exposure to lead not
quantified in this analysis may include prevention of the following
adverse health effects: slowed or delayed growth, delinquent and anti-
social behavior, metabolic effects, impaired heme synthesis, anemia,
impaired hearing, and cancer.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Based on the information
collection efforts for this industry category, EPA does not expect any
Indian Tribal governments to own or operate in-scope MP&M facilities.
In addition, given the proposed applicability thresholds (i.e., low
flow exclusions for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories),
EPA estimates that few, if any, new facilities subject to the rule will
be owned by Tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. 104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, 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.
Although today's proposed rule does not establish new analytical
methods, it does require dischargers to monitor for TSS, O&G (as HEM),
Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Aluminum, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper,
Cyanide (T), Cyanide (A), Lead, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silver,
Sulfide (as S), Tin, and Zinc. (EPA notes that the pollutants listed
may not be regulated for all subcategories). All of these analytes can
be measured by EPA methods and many using consensus standards that are
specified in the tables at 40 CFR part 136.3. EPA is also proposing a
limit for Total Organics Parameter (TOP), as part of an organic
monitoring alternative. (See Section XXI.C.2). EPA developed the TOP
list of organic pollutants using the list of organic priority
pollutants and other non-conventional organic pollutants that met EPA's
``pollutant of concern'' criteria for this rule (see section VII for a
discussion on the selection of the MP&M pollutants of concern). Of the
nonconventional organic chemicals on the MP&M pollutant of concern
list, EPA included only those that were removed in appreciable
quantities (based on toxic weighted pound-equivalents) in two or more
subcategories. See appendix B to part 438 in the proposed rule
accompanying
[[Page 529]]
this notice for a list of organic pollutants that comprise the proposed
Total Organics Parameter (TOP). The following analytes that EPA is
proposing to comprise the TOP do not have approved EPA methods: Benzoic
acid, carbon disulfide, 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene, 2-
Isopropylnaphthalene, 1-Methylfluorene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene. In
addition, aniline and 1-Methylphenanthrene do not have procedures
approved in 40 CFR part 136, but have procedures that have been
validated as attachments to EPA Methods 1625/625. EPA plans to
promulgate methods or validate the procedures for these analytes prior
to the promulgation of the MP&M rule. EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public
to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Plain Language Directive
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to
understand. For example, have we organized the material to suit your
needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule
contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? Would a
different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more (but
shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables,
lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
1. E.O. 13158 Requirements
Executive Order 13158 has been established to ``help protect the
significant natural and cultural resources within the marine
environment for the benefit of present and future generations by
strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of marine protected
areas (MPAs).'' MPAs include areas of coastal and ocean waters, the
Great Lakes and their connecting waters that have been reserved by laws
or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of their
natural resources. The list of MPAs defined for the purposes of this
Executive Order will be published and maintained by the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior.
This order aims at further enhancing and strengthening protection
of the existing MPAs and establishing new or expanded MPAs. The order
provides EPA with the ability to propose new science-based regulations,
as necessary, to ensure better protection for beaches, coasts, and the
marine environment from pollution.
2. Impacts on Marine Resources
The proposed regulation is expected to enhance protection of MPAs
by improving the quality of marine waters receiving discharges from
MP&M facilities. Although the list of MPAs affected by this order has
not yet been published, may include waterbodies currently protected
under the National Estuaries Program (NEP), wildlife refugees, and
other significant natural and cultural resources in marine
environments. EPA compared sample MP&M facility discharge locations
with the list of the 28 waterbodies under the NEP and the Chesapeake
Bay to assess potential impacts of the regulation on significant marine
resources. Sample MP&M facilities included in this analysis discharge
directly or indirectly to 627 receiving waterways, of which, 544 are
rivers/streams, 55 are bays or estuaries, and 28 are lakes, including
the Great Lakes. This analysis showed that several of the NEP
waterbodies currently receive discharges from the sample facilities,
including Long Island Sound (NY/CT), Buzzards Bay (MA), Narragansett
Bay (RI), and Puget Sound (WA). Most of the other protected estuaries
receive effluents from the sample MP&M facilities via connecting
waters. For example, discharges to the Connecticut River enter Long
Island Sound (NY/CT), and discharges to the Hudson River enter the New
York-New Jersey Harbor.
The absence of the current MPA list makes it difficult to determine
the extent of benefits to MPAs from the proposed rule. The breadth of
this regulation, however, ensures that some MPAs are likely to benefit
from reduced pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities.
L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
Congress enacted Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) in 1990 to address the problem of
nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. Section 6217 of CZARA
requires all States/tribes with federally approved coastal zone
management programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution
control programs. The EPA and NOAA administer the Section 6217 program
and have developed guidance to assist States in implementing the
coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. States may choose the
specific practice or combination of practices that will achieve the
goals of controlling nonpoint source pollution and of protecting
coastal waters.
Section 6217 of CZARA differs from the previous Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 in that it is a mandatory program. Under
CZMA the participation by States in coastal resource management was
voluntary. CZARA requires coastal States/tribes to submit a coastal
nonpoint pollution program to the EPA and NOAA within 30 months of the
technical guidance issuance by EPA and NOAA (by July 1995).
The technical guidance provided by EPA and NOAA identifies five
categories of nonpoint sources affecting coastal waters: Agriculture;
forestry; urban runoff; marinas and recreational boating; and
hydromodification. For each category, the technical guidance specifies
management measures and practices to control nonpoint pollution.
Management measures are defined in CZARA as economically achievable
measures that reflect the best available technology to control the
addition of pollutants to coastal waters.
Although today's proposed rule does not affect nonpoint sources
directly, it may contribute to nonpoint source pollution control in
coastal areas by improving the quality of sewage sludge. EPA estimates
that 1.7 million dry metric tons of sewage sludge would be newly
qualified for land application as a result of the proposed rule. Sewage
sludge is a valuable source of fertilizer and can be applied to
agricultural land, golf courses, sod farms, forests, and residential
gardens. Compared to nitrogen in most chemical fertilizers, nitrogen in
sewage sludge is relatively insoluble in water. If sewage sludge is
used as a substitute for chemical fertilizers on agricultural land
nonpoint source contamination of surface water can be reduced.
XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data where possible. See Section XXIV for guidelines for
submittal of data.
EPA particularly requests comments and information on the following
issues:
[[Page 530]]
1. Steel Forming & Finishing Facilities. EPA solicits comments on
the choice to include the Steel Forming & Finishing facilities in
today's proposed MP&M regulation. Facilities in this subcategory
predominantly process steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. EPA
previously regulated these sites under the 1982 Iron & Steel
Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420). However, based on
the information gathered during the data collection effort for the
Agency's proposed revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing
regulations, EPA has determined that these facilities are more
appropriately regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. (See Section VI.C.5
for a discussion of the proposed applicability of the Steel Forming &
Finishing Subcategory). EPA is also interested in analytical sampling
data to help better identify the raw wastewater characteristics and
treatment performance of facilities in the proposed Steel Forming &
Finishing subcategory. Please note the requirements for submitting
paired influent and effluent data, as described in section XXIV.A.
In addition, for facilities that perform operations that fall
within the proposed scope of both the MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory and the proposed Iron & Steel regulations (i.e., a facility
that performs manufacturing and batch electroplating of steel), EPA is
soliciting comment on whether both regulations should cover these
facilities (using the combined waste stream formula for indirect
dischargers or building block approach for direct dischargers) or
whether EPA should allow facilities that would fall under the scope of
both regulations to be regulated only by the Iron & Steel Manufacturing
rule. EPA notes that both the proposed regulations discussed here set
mass-based limits for these facilities. If the Agency were to choose
the later option, it would need to incorporate a wastewater flow
allowance for the steel forming and finishing operations into the mass-
based limits of the Iron & Steel regulation, where applicable. EPA is
particularly interested in comments from permit writers and control
authorities concerning the burden of permitting an Iron & Steel
facility under two effluent guidelines (using the building block
approach or combined waste stream formula) versus the expected
complexity of interpreting the applicability statements when two
regulations cover the same operations. In addition, EPA is interested
in better understanding the potential economic advantage (or
disadvantage) this might create between stand-alone steel forming &
finishing facilities and steel manufacturing facilities where steel
forming & finishing operations occur.
2. P2 Alternative for Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA
solicits comment on all aspects of the Pollution Prevention Alternative
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory including the list of
practices as well as the possible format for the alternative (see
Section XXI.D for a discussion of the P2 Alternative). More
specifically, EPA requests comment on whether there are additional or
different practices that should be listed, the number of practices that
should be required in each category, the reasons why any of the
practices may not be applicable to specific facilities or processes,
the costs of implementing this compliance alternative, the pollutant
reduction associated with this alternative, and whether EPA should
offer this alternative to direct discharging facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory, only to facilities discharging below a
specified wastewater discharge flow, other subcategories such as
General Metals (even those not currently regulated by the Metal
Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines), or at certain
facilities in other subcategories (e.g., captive metal finishing and
electroplating shops).
EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should (if the P2
Alternative is incorporated in the final rule) require all facilities
that choose the P2 Alternative to also meet the pretreatment standards
for the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433). That is,
should facilities that are currently covered by the Electroplating
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 413) have to meet the pretreatment
standards for the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines or for the
Electroplating effluent guidelines when choosing to comply with the P2
Alternative in lieu of the MP&M pretreatment standards? EPA is
interested in receiving information on the additional costs that would
be incurred by facilities currently covered by the Electroplating
effluent guidelines in order to meet the pretreatment standards of the
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines.
3. Monitoring Flexibility--Monitoring Waiver for Pollutants Not
Present. In an effort to reduce monitoring burden on facilities, EPA is
proposing to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to apply for a
waiver that will allow them to reduce their monitoring burden. In order
for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the facility must submit
a certification statement in writing to the control authority (e.g.,
POTW) stating that the facility does not use, nor generate in any way,
a pollutant (or pollutants) at their site and that the pollutant (or
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the
discharger. The facility must base this certification on sampling data
or other technical factors and is not a waiver from including the
numerical limit in the control mechanism (i.e., permit) (see Section
XXI.C.1 for a discussion on this monitoring waiver). EPA solicits
comment on the language proposed for the monitoring waiver for MP&M
indirect dischargers. EPA is also interested in receiving comment on
the Agency's estimate of burden related to preparing and filing such a
certification and the reduction in monitoring burden and associated
cost savings that a facility would expect (see section XXII.A. for a
discussion on the estimated burden).
4. Monitoring Flexibility--Organic Pollutant Monitoring. As
discussed in Section XXI.C, EPA is proposing to allow the use of Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) as an indicator parameter for organic pollutants
found in the wastewater discharges at MP&M facilities. The indicator is
an alternative limit. If facilities do not wish to use TOC as an
indicator, EPA is proposing two other alternatives. The second
alternative allows facilities to monitor for a list of organic
pollutants (i.e., total organics parameter (TOP) list) and to meet a
limit which would equate to the summation of all quantifiable values of
the listed organic pollutants. In any case where the data for these
pollutants indicated a level below the minimum level (i.e., below
quantitation), EPA used the minimum level for the specific pollutant in
the summation of the total organics parameter limit. Facilities will
only have to monitor for those TOP chemicals that are reasonably
present. The third alternative allows facilities to develop and certify
the implementation of an ``organic chemical management plan.''
EPA solicits comment on the three alternatives being proposed for
reducing the burden associated with monitoring for organic pollutants.
EPA specifically solicits comment on the use of TOC as an indicator
pollutant for the broad spectrum of organic pollutants found in MP&M
process wastewater and whether EPA should require facilities that are
not using the Agency's selected BAT technology to demonstrate a
correlation between removal of TOC and removal of organic pollutants in
their MP&M process wastewater.
[[Page 531]]
EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should allow
facilities to choose an indicator pollutant from a given set of choices
(e.g., COD, Oil & Grease (as HEM), TOC, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(as SGT-HEM), etc.) instead of specifying TOC as the only allowable
indicator parameter. Facilities would be required to demonstrate that
the reductions in the chosen indicator parameter are equivalent to the
reduction in the organic constituents required by the limit that EPA is
proposing for the ``Total Organics Parameter'' (TOP). EPA is also
interested in receiving comment on the Agency's estimate of burden
related to preparing an organic chemicals management plan and the
reduction in monitoring burden and associated cost savings that a
facility would expect in each of these suggested alternatives as
compared to monitoring for the TOP list (see section XXII.A. for a
discussion on the estimated burden).
5. Monitoring Flexibility--Total Sulfide Waiver. EPA is proposing
to set numerical limitations on the discharge of Total Sulfide from
facilities in the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Board, Steel Forming & Finishing, and Oily Waste subcategories.
In an effort to reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA
is considering to allow a waiver for the monitoring of total sulfide
(even when present), at the discretion of the POTW, when a facility
demonstrates that the sulfides will not generate acidic or corrosive
conditions and will not create conditions that enhance opportunities
for release of hydrogen sulfide gas in the sewer/interceptor collection
system or at the receiving POTW or otherwise interfere with the
operation of the POTW. EPA solicits comment on this alternative and the
burden associated with demonstrating that it meets the specified
conditions.
6. Oily Operations Wastewater. Facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory must only discharge wastewater from one or more of the
following MP&M unit operations: alkaline cleaning for oil removal,
aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive coating, floor cleaning,
grinding, heat treating, impact deformation, machining, painting,
pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (e.g., hydrostatic,
dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), steam cleaning, and
laundering. If they discharge wastewater from any of the above listed
operations but also discharge wastewater from other MP&M operations,
they do not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory.
Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or
maintenance and repair shops. Similarly, EPA is proposing to define the
applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory using the
same set of ``oily'' unit operations with the addition of ``washing of
final product'' at facilities that perform routine cleaning and light
maintenance on railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar
structures. EPA solicits comment on the list of ``oily'' unit
operations and whether commenters prefer the use of a list of unit
operations to define the applicability or a definition (related to low
metals content of the wastewater). EPA also requests comment on whether
there are additional MP&M unit operations that should be included in
this list.
7. Possible Addition of Other Regulated Parameters. The list of
parameters which EPA proposes to regulate under today's proposal are
listed in the proposed codified rule that accompanies this preamble.
EPA is soliciting comments and data on additional parameters that
should be considered for regulation. There are two additional chemicals
that EPA is considering for regulation under the MP&M rule:
dithiocarbamates and carbon disulfide. Dithiocarbamates is a chemical
structural group that refers to a set of chemicals, including sodium
dimethyldithiocarbamate, that are used by facilities in the MP&M
industry for treatment of chelated metals wastewater (often referred to
as ``DTC''). It can also be used as a reducing agent. Carbon disulfide
can be formed during chelation breaking and other treatment steps.
Although these chemicals are not used in the MP&M processes, they can
be used/generated by the treatment of MP&M wastewater and may cause
environmental impacts. EPA is specifically interested in data on the
treatment of dithiocarbamates and carbon disulfide (including treatment
effectiveness, treatment costs, costs of contract hauling of these
wastewater) and on the environmental impacts that these chemicals may
pose to aquatic life, human health, and POTWs.
In addition, EPA solicits comment on proper management practices
for using dithiocarbamates (DTC) at MP&M facilities. EPA also requests
information on alternative chemicals (e.g., hydrazine, sodium
borohydride) or technologies for use in chelation breaking as reducing
or precipitation agents and the associated costs and environmental
impacts.
8. Possible Deletion of Regulated Parameters. The list of
parameters which EPA proposes to regulate in today's proposal are
listed in the proposed codified rule that accompanies this preamble.
EPA is soliciting comments and data on parameters that should be
deleted from consideration for regulation.
9. Additional Technology Data. The Agency solicits additional data
on the use of ultrafiltration systems for the removal of oily wastes
and organic pollutants and on microfiltration systems for the removal
of metal pollutants and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in relation to
process wastewater in the MP&M category. The Agency is particularly
interested in receiving data on: (1) Technology performance, including
pollutant reduction/elimination; (2) economics, including initial
capital investment, operation and maintenance costs, payback period,
waste disposal savings, material input savings, and other savings; (3)
overall energy use; (4) sludge generation, including metals
recoverability and the ability of sludge to be recycled on or off-site;
(5) waste oil generation, including oil recovery and the ability of the
oil to be recycled on or off-site; (6) air quality impacts and
emissions. In addition, as some technologies eliminate or reduce
discharges to water, but not to other media, the Agency solicits
comments on the environmental impacts and regulatory costs associated
with each technology's impact on other environmental media. The Agency
particularly welcomes comments on technology performance and cost from
MP&M facilities currently using these systems and from technology
vendors and developers.
10. Costs of Contract Hauling MP&M Wastewater and Sludge. EPA's
cost model costs facilities to contract haul small volumes of process
wastewater when the cost is estimated to be less than installing and
operating a wastewater treatment system. EPA used data from the
detailed surveys (see Section V for a discussion of the Detailed
Surveys) to estimate costs associated with contract hauling MP&M
process wastewater and wastewater treatment sludge. EPA solicits
comment on the total cost of contract hauling small volumes of
untreated MP&M process wastewater and how much those costs differ based
on the type of wastewater (i.e., oily wastewater, hexavalent chromium-
bearing wastewater, concentrated metal-bearing wastewater, chelated
wastewater). EPA also solicits comment on the cost to haul hazardous
wastewater treatment sludge.
11. Ultrasonic Cleaning. EPA solicits comment on non-chemical
cleaning methods, such as ultrasonic cleaning.
[[Page 532]]
Prior to performing surface finishing operations, facilities must clean
the metal surface to remove dirt, grit, grease or other surface
contaminants that may interfere with the finish. Currently, the most
common method for cleaning metal parts prior to surface finishing
operations is using an alkaline cleaning bath, which may be followed by
electrolytic cleaning and rinsing steps, and then an acid bath followed
by another rinse step. Recently, some facilities have started to use
ultrasonic cleaning (i.e., the use of sound waves) to clean metal
surfaces prior to electroplating (or other surface finishing
operations). Ultrasonic cleaning generates a wastewater that does not
contain acid or alkaline cleaning agents. EPA solicits data and
information on ultrasonic cleaning including the capital and operation
and maintenance costs, feasibility of this method versus more
traditional methods, characterization of the wastewater generated, size
of the ultrasonic cleaning unit, and the limitations on its use (e.g.,
is it only available for parts of a certain size or shape?).
12. Mixed-Use Facility Definition and Determination. As discussed
in Section III, EPA is proposing to cover MP&M process wastewater at
mixed-use facilities (i.e., any municipal, private, U.S. military or
federal facility which contains both industrial and commercial/
administrative buildings at which one or more industrial sites conduct
operations within the facility's boundaries). However, unlike the
typical industrial facility, such as an aircraft or electronic
equipment manufacturing plant with one primary manufacturing activity,
the majority of military installations are mixed-use facilities and
more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other
operations within their boundaries. EPA is proposing to allow
wastewater generated at different sites within a mixed-use facility to
be dealt with as separate discharges for the purpose of applying the
appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). EPA is proposing to
allow the control authority to use its discretion in determining which
wastewater discharges can be considered separate discharges for the
purposes of applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable).
The determination would likely be based on the degree of proximity
between industrial operations and a practical application of the
requirements for applicable MP&M subcategories.
EPA seeks information from facilities (both military and non-
military) that believe they would fall within this mixed-use facility
category. In addition, EPA seeks comments on the choice to allow
control authorities to make this determination and the factors for
making such a decision as well as alternative ways to divide a mixed-
use facility.
13. Subcategorization of Metal Finishing Job Shops. EPA is
proposing to create a subcategory called ``Metal Finishing Job Shops.''
This subcategory would only include facilities that are job shops by
definition (i.e., they own less than 50 percent of the parts that they
process on-site) and are performing one of the six identifying
operations in the existing Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent
guidelines. As discussed in Section VI.A, EPA chose to subcategorize
these facilities as separate from facilities in the General Metals
subcategory (which includes captive metal finishing and electroplating
shops) based on the variability of their wastewater and on economics.
Although, the facilities in both subcategories are performing many of
the same operations and require the same wastewater treatment
technologies. EPA requests comment on whether to combine the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory with the General Metals subcategory (or
a portion of the General Metals subcategory). This would also include
combining the data sets from which EPA sets the numerical limits for
the rule.
In addition, the Agency notes that today's proposal sets a low flow
exclusion for the indirect dischargers in the General Metals
subcategory to reduce permitting burden, but does not set a low flow
exclusion for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, as those
facilities already have permits under existing effluent guidelines (see
sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for discussions on the low flow
exclusion). However, EPA notes that the proposed limits and standards
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory are somewhat less
stringent than those being proposed for the General Metals subcategory.
EPA solicits comment on whether the use of the low flow exclusion for
indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory versus no
exclusion for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
would cause a shift away from the use of job shops or whether the
difference in numeric limitations would prevent such a shift.
14. Printed Wiring Board Job Shops. EPA solicits comment on the
best placement, in terms of subcategorization, for printed wiring board
``job shops.'' EPA has identified a small number of facilities that
perform some steps in the printed wiring board manufacturing process.
For example, a printed wiring board manufacturer may contract out the
tin/lead soldering operations to a printed wiring board job shop. Such
a facility never performs all the steps necessary for manufacturing
printed wiring boards. EPA is proposing to include these facilities in
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory due to their similarity in
economics (due to the ``job shop'' nature of their work). However, EPA
is soliciting comment on whether it is more appropriate to include
these printed wiring board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory. More specifically, EPA requests data on the
characterization of the wastewater from printed wiring board job shops,
the variability of their raw materials, and the variability of the
wastewater they generate.
15. BMPs in Lieu of Numerical Limitations. EPA solicits comment on
allowing MP&M facilities to demonstrate compliance through installation
of well-operated and maintained treatment systems. For example, instead
of meeting a cyanide limit, the facility would demonstrate and keep
records of the installation and ongoing use of a well-operated and
maintained cyanide destruction unit that monitors oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP). EPA is particularly interested in comments on how to
define ``well-operated and maintained'' and estimates of the burden (in
labor hours and dollars) required to keep records sufficient for
demonstrating compliance and prepare a related certification statement.
EPA also solicits comment from control and permitting authorities
on whether such an approach would increase or decrease their burden
related to determining compliance and by how much (in labor hours and
dollars). Comments should account for maintaining certifications and
conducting inspections. EPA also requests comment on whether such an
approach would be protective of the environment.
16. Applicability to Facilities With Ancillary MP&M Operations. EPA
solicits comment on the language used to define applicability in
regards to facilities that are not manufacturing, maintaining or
rebuilding metal parts, products or machines for use in the 18
industrial sectors and that only perform MP&M operations (e.g.,
maintenance and repair of metal parts and machines) as ancillary
activities. For example, as discussed in Section III, EPA does not
intend for the MP&M proposal to include process wastewater discharges
from an on-site machine or maintenance shop at a facility engaged in
the
[[Page 533]]
manufacture of organic chemicals when the facility operates that shop
to maintain the equipment related to manufacturing their products
(i.e., organic chemicals). EPA solicits comment on the clarity of this
statement and specifically requests comment on alternative language.
For example, EPA could use the following language instead: ``facilities
that perform on-site maintenance and repair of equipment used to
produce a product or perform an operation (e.g., manufacturing of
organic chemicals) where the wastewater generated is already covered by
effluent guidelines for another point source category (with the
exception of the Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines)
are excluded from the applicability of the MP&M regulation.''
17. Non-Chromium Anodizing. EPA is proposing to exclude wastewater
from indirect discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities (that also
do not use dichromate sealants) from the MP&M categorical pretreatment
standards. Such facilities would still need to comply with the
pretreatment standards of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433)
effluent guidelines for their non-chromium anodizing wastewater and the
general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 403. EPA is proposing
limits for direct dischargers in this subcategory. EPA solicits comment
on whether the applicable standards for indirect discharging non-
chromium anodizers should be transferred from 40 CFR part 433 to the
MP&M regulation in order to include all non-chromium anodizers under
one regulation. Because today's proposal includes a monitoring waiver
for pollutants that are not present (see section XXI.C.1 for a
discussion on the monitoring waiver), the Agency believes that
transferring the pretreatment standards for these facilities to the
MP&M regulation would allow non-chromium anodizing indirect dischargers
to reduce the number of parameters for which they have to monitor.
In addition, EPA solicits comment and data on the chromium content
of sulfuric acid anodizing baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other
wastewater from sulfuric acid anodizing. EPA is especially interested
in data that provides measurement of hexavalent chromium separate from
that of trivalent chromium or total chromium.
18. Cyanide Monitoring. EPA is proposing to allow facilities, in
subcategories with limits and standards for cyanide, to also monitor
for amenable cyanide when they have alkaline chlorination treatment in
place prior to commingling their wastewater (see detailed discussion in
section XXI.C.3). The point of compliance is based on monitoring for
total cyanide (or amenable cyanide) directly after cyanide treatment,
before combining the cyanide treated effluent with other wastestreams.
EPA is also proposing an alternative where a facility may take samples
of final effluent, in order to meet the total cyanide limit, if the
control authority adjusts the permit limits based on the dilution ratio
of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow. EPA is proposing
to allow end-of-pipe alternative sampling point for amenable cyanide as
well; however, in addition to adjusting the permit limits based on the
dilution ratio, facilities must have alkaline chlorination treatment in
place prior to the commingling of their cyanide-bearing wastewater with
other process wastewater. The Agency notes this is very similar to the
language used in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part
433). EPA solicits comment on this approach.
19. Compliance Cost for BAT Facilities. EPA has based the numeric
limitations for today's proposed rule on wastewater sampling analytical
data from facilities that the Agency believes to be operating ``best
available technology.'' This includes pollution prevention and water
conservation practices as well as wastewater treatment systems.
However, because EPA uses more than one facility to determine the
achievable long-term average concentrations and variability factors
(see Section VIII.B for a discussion on calculation of limits), not all
model facilities are achieving the long-term average concentrations for
all pollutants in their wastewater at all times. Therefore, EPA has
included compliance costs to enhance these model BAT facilities to meet
the proposed long-term average concentrations for all regulated
pollutants. For example, model BAT facilities may incur costs for
additional operational controls or for additional equipment or chemical
additives that will allow them to target more than one metal type in
their wastewater treatment system. EPA solicits comment on this
approach and the adequacy of operational changes and treatment
enhancements for BAT facilities to consistently and reliably achieve
full compliance with proposed limitations. EPA also solicits comment
and data on additional costs that model BAT facilities may incur that
EPA has not included in the cost model for this proposal.
20. Space Limitations. EPA solicits comment on the extent to which
a MP&M facility can install or upgrade its current treatment system to
meet the proposed limits within the space they currently occupy. More
specifically, when facilities are located in urban areas with little
space for expansion, can facilities still install the treatment
necessary (consider the inclusion of pollution prevention and water
conservation practices) to meet the proposed limits. If not, can such
facilities use pollution prevention and water conservation practices
and install microfiltration systems instead of installing or enlarging
their existing clarifiers within the space they currently occupy?
21. Segregation of Waste Streams. EPA solicits comment and
information on the problems/ issues with segregation of waste streams
for performing preliminary treatment steps as described in section
VIII. EPA is especially interested in data on the costs associated with
retrofitting equipment to segregate waste streams.
22. Revision to POTW Removals. EPA uses the pollutant by pollutant
percent removals achieved by POTWs (national average of well-operated
POTWs with secondary treatment) to give credit to the pretreatment
system and to conduct the ``Pass Through'' analysis for selecting
regulated parameters for pretreatment standards.
In calculating the pollutant removals achieved by the selected
technology option for today's proposed rule (for wastewater generated
by indirect dischargers), EPA does not take ``credit'' for removing the
portion of pollutant loadings that are currently removed by the POTWs.
In addition, EPA performs a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant
removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by
discharging facilities applying EPA's selected technology option (BAT).
In most cases, (particularly for metals and non-volatile organics) EPA
has concluded that a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median
percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting
secondary treatment requirements) is less than the median percentage
removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for that pollutant. EPA notes that the Pass Through Analysis
uses a different standard for ``pass through'' than that used by POTWs
to determine compliance with the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR
part 403).
Recently, EPA has revisited the databases used (see Section XII.A
for a discussion of the databases and the editing criteria used) to
determine the
[[Page 534]]
percent removal of pollutants achieved by the national average of well-
operated POTWs. Previously, EPA edited data at or near the minimum
level for POTW performance based on the editing criteria used to
calculate BAT limitations. EPA is considering revising the POTW data
editing criteria. Given the range of analytical minimum levels and
their influence on calculated percent removals, EPA is considering
several editing alternatives, detailed in section XIV. The Agency
solicits comments on potential revisions to the pass-through
methodology.
23. Toxic Weighting Factors. EPA has developed Toxic Weighting
Factors (TWFs) using a combination of toxicity data on human health and
aquatic life. EPA develops TWFs relative to the toxicity of copper.
(See section XVII or the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this
proposed rule for a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting
factors). TWFs are multipliers that are applied to the mass of
pollutants discharged (or removed) to generate toxic-weighted pound-
equivalents. EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of
toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic life
relative to other pollutants. Conventional pollutants such as BOD, TSS,
Oil & Grease (as HEM) and other bulk parameters do not have toxic
weighting factors. As scientists and researchers develop and publish
new human health and aquatic toxicity data for various pollutants, EPA
must revise the TWFs. EPA has documented the changes to TWFs in the
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis document for this proposed rule. EPA
solicits comment on these changes.
24. Phosphoric Acid Cleaning. In regards to the applicability of
the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is soliciting comment on the
differences in metals content of wastewater generated from ``light''
phosphoric acid operations (such as some phosphoric acid etching
operations and cleaning operations using phosphoric acid solutions) and
from phosphate conversion coating. EPA is considering including
phosphoric acid etching and cleaning using phosphoric acid solutions in
the definition of ``oily operations'' discussed in section VI.C.6.
However, the Agency is not considering the inclusion of phosphate
conversion coating as one of the ``oily operations.'' Based on EPA's
database for this proposal, EPA believes that wastewater generated from
phosphate conversion coating operations contains high levels of zinc
and manganese. EPA is especially interested in analytical data from
sampling wastewater that is representative of either of these
operations.
25. Organics Management Plan for Oily Wastes Subcategory. EPA
solicits comment on whether sites with significant amounts of oil-
bearing wastewater (for example, a facility in the Oily Wastes
subcategory) should be eligible for the use of an organic pollutant
management plan as described Section XXI.C.2. Based on the current data
base, EPA believes that wastewater generated by facilities in the Oily
Wastes subcategory require end-of-pipe treatment to reduce the
concentrations of organic pollutants and that an organic management
plan alone may not adequately control organic-bearing wastewater at
facilities containing significant quantities of oil-bearing wastewater.
26. NSPS and PSNS Technology Option. EPA is proposing NSPS and PSNS
for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring
Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories based on BAT
Option 4. This proposed option includes in-process flow control and
pollution prevention, segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary
treatment steps as necessary (including oils removal by
ultrafiltration), chemical precipitation using lime or sodium
hydroxide, and solids separation using a microfilter. The Agency also
strongly considered proposing NSPS and PSNS for these subcategories
based on ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal.
This option is equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator
replaced by an ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data
on this option for NSPS and PSNS for the final rule.
27. Total Sulfide. EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriate
analytical method for analyzing total sulfide in wastewater from MP&M
facilities, specifically in regard to interferences from reducing
agents or organic chemicals present in the wastewater. The Agency used
EPA Method 376.1 for seven wastewater sampling episodes, EPA Method
376.2 at one episode, and Standard Method 4500-S2 for three sampling
episodes that were performed for EPA by a local POTW. Stakeholders have
suggested that presence of reducing agents and organic chemicals can
interfere with EPA Method 376.1, leading to over estimates of total
sulfide.
EPA performed matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries as
part of its QA/QC procedures on these samples. If the matrix spike is
recovered quantitatively (e.g., 75-125%), it is unlikely that an
interference is present. The data narratives for these samples did not
cite any QA/QC outliers. However, some interferences could still be
present. (The data narratives can be found in section 5.2 of the public
record.) EPA intends to perform additional sampling for total sulfide
following this proposal using both EPA Method 376.1 and 376.2. EPA
notes that it collected the data used for estimating total sulfide
pollutant loadings in raw wastewater (i.e., in wastewater from MP&M
unit operations) at sampling points located prior to treatment
technologies which introduce reducing agents (i.e., chelation
breaking). In addition, the data that EPA used to develop the numerical
limitation for total sulfide was from a site that did not add reducing
agents to treat its wastewater.
EPA solicits comment on the various sulfide methods and whether
these methods are appropriate for analytical wastewater sampling at
MP&M facilities. EPA also solicits raw wastewater and treatment
performance data for total sulfide.
28. Limits for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory. EPA is
soliciting comment on two issues relating to the proposed limitations
for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. These two issues are
discussed below.
EPA is proposing an effluent limitation for aluminum applicable to
existing and new direct dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. Because EPA does not have data from any direct discharging
non-chromium anodizers, it based the proposed aluminum limitation on
two indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers. However, the Agency
does not believe that these indirect discharging facilities were
achieving effluent levels of aluminum that reflect BAT. Because
aluminum assists in the flocculation of wastewater at POTWs prior to
sedimentation, many POTWs do not set stringent pretreatment standards
for aluminum from non-chromium anodizers. EPA is not proposing
pretreatment standards for aluminum in today's proposal for that
reason. In addition, neither the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) nor
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent guidelines contain
pretreatment standards for aluminum. Therefore, the Agency does not
believe that these two facilities targeted aluminum in their wastewater
treatment operations. EPA believes that a non-chromium anodizer
employing Option 2 technologies can achieve effluent concentrations of
aluminum much lower than those proposed today. Therefore, EPA is
soliciting data and
[[Page 535]]
comment on effective removal of aluminum from non-chromium anodizing
wastestreams. See section XXIV for guidelines for submitting analytical
data.
EPA is proposing effluent limitations for new and existing direct
dischargers for manganese, nickel and zinc for facilities in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The Agency based these effluent
limitations on facilities in the General Metals subcategory employing
the Option 2 treatment technology because it did not have adequate
wastewater treatment information on these metals from non-chromium
anodizing facilities. EPA solicits data and comment on the treatment of
manganese, nickel, and zinc from non-chromium anodizing facilities
employing Option 2 treatment. See section XXIV for guidelines for
submitting analytical data.
29. Limits for the Printed Wiring Subcategory. EPA is proposing
effluent limitations for chromium, copper, lead, and zinc for existing
facilities in the Printed Wiring Boards subcategory. The Agency based
these effluent limitations on facilities in the General Metals
subcategory employing the Option 2 treatment technology because it did
not have adequate wastewater treatment information on these metals from
printed wiring board facilities employing Option 2 treatment. EPA
solicits data and comment on the treatment of chromium, copper, lead,
and zinc at printed wiring board facilities employing Option 2
treatment. See section XXIV for guidelines for submitting analytical
data.
30. Cyanide Loadings and Removals. EPA solicits comment and data
(at the point directly following cyanide destruction treatment) on
achievable effluent concentrations of cyanide (or amenable cyanide)
from MP&M facilities that are currently regulated under the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433). EPA's Design & Cost
Model for the MP&M rule estimates pollutant loadings for the industry
before and after compliance with the proposed regulation. For the
purposes of estimating baseline loadings (i.e., current discharges) for
model facilities (i.e., survey sites) currently covered by the Metal
Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines that indicated in their
survey questionnaire that they both generate wastewater from cyanide-
bearing operations and have cyanide treatment in place, EPA assumed
that these sites were achieving the LTA concentrations achieved by
EPA's sampled MP&M BAT facilities (sampled at the point directly
following cyanide destruction treatment).
For model sites currently covered by the Metal Finishing or
Electroplating effluent guidelines that indicated in their survey
questionnaire that they generate wastewater from cyanide-bearing
operations but did not indicate that they have cyanide treatment in
place, EPA used information from EPA sampling of cyanide bearing units
operations (i.e., raw wastewater loads) to estimate baseline loads
prior to implementing the technology option under consideration (note
that cyanide loadings were not analyzed separately by subcategory). On
a national basis, EPA estimates that 65% (2,315) of MP&M facilities
discharging cyanide-bearing wastewater do not have treatment in place
for cyanide destruction. EPA based this national estimate on responses
to survey questionnaires. This methodology implicitly assumes that many
of these facilities may not be achieving the cyanide removals that were
projected for the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent
guidelines. In addition to the request for data above, EPA also
requests comment on its method for determining baseline cyanide
loadings. (See Section 6.5 of the public record for a memorandum that
includes a table of the comparison of cyanide using sites versus
cyanide treating sites.)
31. Subcategorization. EPA explains its rationale for its proposed
subcategorization scheme in section VI. EPA is proposing to subdivide
the MP&M industrial category into the following 8 subcategories:
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and Finishing, Oily Wastes,
Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock. The Agency
believes its proposed subcategories make sense, but requests comment on
other possible subcategories. Commenters should include data to support
their suggestions where possible.
32. Cost Savings Associated with Pollution Prevention and Water
Conservation. As discussed in section VIII, EPA's proposed technology
options include the incorporation of water conservation techniques and
pollution prevention technologies. In all cases, EPA's options that
incorporated these technologies and practices costed less and removed
more pollutants than those options that did not. EPA requests comment
on its determination that pollution prevention, recycle, and water
conservation result in net cost savings to facilities, and examples of
any specific situations where this may not be true.
33. Assessment of Treatment System Performance. As discussed in
section VIII, EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and
clarification systems at which the concentration of most of the metals
present in the influent stream did not decrease, indicating poor
treatment. Although EPA believes this is an appropriate practice, in
order to focus on facilities with well-run treatment systems, it also
introduces a risk of biasing estimates of treatment effectiveness
upwards with respect to identifying pollutant removals on a national
basis. If a particular metal is not able to be effectively removed by a
particular treatment train, but its concentration fluctuates randomly
over time in both the influent and the effluent, then retaining only
data showing positive ``removals'' may give a misleading impression of
effectiveness of that treatment technology nationally. Some commenters
have raised this issue in the past particularly with respect to boron,
which those commenters believe is not effectively removed by certain
treatment trains where EPA's data (edited to include only decreases)
appears to show removals. EPA is continuing to assess this concern both
with regards to metals in general and with regards to boron in
particular. EPA requests comment on this issue and suggestions for
addressing it.
34. Flow Cutoff Level for the General Metals Subcategory. As
explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is proposing a 1 MGY flow
cutoff for existing and new indirect discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory. EPA requests comment on the 1 MGY flow
cutoff and whether a higher or lower cutoff would be appropriate. EPA
also requests comment on whether the flow cutoff should be different
for facilities currently covered under 40 CFR Part 413 or 433 and
whether or not that would create an unfair economic advantage for those
facilities (e.g., captive electroplating shops in General Metals
remaining regulated under 40 CFR Part 433 but Metal Finishing Job Shops
being regulated under the proposed MP&M rule).
35. Flow Cutoff Level for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory. As explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not
proposing a flow cutoff for existing or new indirect discharging
facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. The Agency
concluded that the pollutant reductions associated with the proposed
option (Option 2) were feasible and achievable and the economic impacts
were not substantially mitigated under the 1 MGY flow cutoff. EPA
requests
[[Page 536]]
comment on the use of a flow cutoff for this subcategory.
36. Flow Cutoff Level for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory. As
explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff
for existing or new indirect discharging facilities in the Printed
Wiring Board subcategory. The Agency concluded that the pollutant
reductions associated with the proposed option (Option 2) were feasible
and achievable and the economic impacts were not mitigated at a 1 MGY
flow cutoff for this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments on a 1
MGY flow cutoff. Under this scenario, existing regulation would
continue to apply. EPA solicits comment on the implementation and
market consequences of this option.
37. Flow Cutoff Level for the Steel Forming and Finishing
Subcategory. As explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not
proposing a flow cutoff for existing or new indirect discharging
facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. However, EPA
solicits comment on flow cutoffs at the 1, 2, and 3 MGY levels. Under
these flow cutoff scenarios, existing regulations would continue to
apply. EPA solicits comment on implementation and market consequences
of these options.
38. Flow Cutoff Level for the Oily Wastes Subcategory. As explained
in sections XII and XIII, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff for
existing and new indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory. It is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff primarily to reduce
the burden on POTWs, and solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff.
39. For the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories, EPA is
proposing new source performance standards and pretreatment standards
for new sources based on Option 4. EPA noted in section IX in the
discussion of its consideration of this technology for BPT/BAT for each
of these subcategories that it is not being proposed for BPT because
the additional removals, while large when considered across the entire
population of existing facilities, were not significant on a per
facility basis, and because of concerns with potential increased
loadings (relative to Option 2) of COD and organic pollutants. EPA
requests comment on basing NSPS on Option 2 for the above subcategories
for the same reasons it is proposing to base BPT/BAT on Option 2.
40. Monitoring Costs. In estimating annual monitoring costs for
model facilities in EPA's MP&M Design and Cost Model, the Agency
assumed that facilities meeting local limitations or national effluent
limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards will already incur
monitoring costs. EPA solicits comment on whether the facilities will
incur additional monitoring costs to comply with today's proposal (and
how much that monitoring would cost). EPA has incorporated several
options for adding additional flexibility in regards to monitoring (See
Section XXI.C for a discussion on monitoring flexibility). EPA expects
that these proposed flexibilities will decrease the overall burden and
costs of analytical wastewater monitoring for facilities within the
scope of this rule.
41. Cash Flow Assumption. As discussed in Section XVI, baseline
cash flow is defined as the sum of reported net income and
depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in evaluating
capital investment decisions because both net income and depreciation
(which is an accounting offset against income, but not an actual cash
expenditure) are potentially available to finance future investment.
However, assuming that total baseline cash flow is available over an
extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to finance investments
related to environmental compliance could overstate a site's ability to
comply. In particular, the cost of existing capital equipment (not
associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out of cash flow,
as it is of income through the subtraction of depreciation. Thus, any
costs associated with either replacing existing capital equipment, or
repaying money that was previously borrowed to pay for it, are omitted
from the facility analysis. EPA requests comment on its use of cash
flow as a measure of resources available to finance environmental
compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies. (See Section
XXII of today's notice.)
42. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations and
Standards for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. As discussed
in Section XXI.B, EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative
approaches for the development of mass-based limitations for the Steel
Forming and Finishing subcategory. These approaches may result in more
stringent mass-based permits/control mechanisms for some facilities
with better protection of the environment for the entire life of a
permit/control mechanism and may result in higher costs. Each
alternative requires that production from unit operations that do not
generate or discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the
calculation of operating rates. EPA solicits comments on these
alternatives to the proposed production basis for calculating effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards used in NPDES permits or control
mechanisms. In particular, the Agency solicits comments on related
costs and any technical difficulties that steel forming and finishing
facilities might have in meeting limits during short periods of high
production. EPA also solicits other options for consideration including
whether to allow concentration-based limits for this subcategory and
any rationale for doing so.
43. Benefit Analysis. As explained in Section XX, benefits analyses
for past effluent guidelines have been limited in the range of benefits
addressed which has hindered EPA's ability to compare the benefits and
costs of rules comprehensively. The Agency is working to improve its
benefits analyses, including applying methodologies that have now
become well established in the natural resources valuation field, but
have not been used previously in the effluent guidelines program. EPA
was particularly interested in expanding its benefits analysis for this
rule to include water-based recreational activities other than fishing.
EPA has therefore expanded upon its traditional methodologies in the
benefits analysis for the proposed MP&M rule. Past effluent guidelines
analyses have included human health benefits, economic productivity
benefits such as reduced costs for POTW sludge disposal, recreational
benefits for fishing, and nonuse values. The additional analysis
contained in this rule expands on the traditional analysis by adding
benefits to participants in boating, swimming, and viewing (i.e., near-
water recreation). Because EPA has not yet resolved some anomalies in
the extrapolation of the analysis to the national level, the monetized
benefits for these new categories are not included in the summary
statements of benefits for the proposed rule. However, EPA is including
these analyses in the EEBA to present the new methodologies and their
results as applied to the MP&M rule for public comment.
Although EPA is confident in the sample-based results, EPA believes
that the large number of viewers and boaters projected to benefit from
the rule at the national level may indicate a need to revise its
procedures for scaling up from sampled facilities to the national
level. This simple extrapolation technique used in both the cost and
benefit analyses may bias both estimates and may have the unintended
effect of overcounting the number of benefitting
[[Page 537]]
boaters and wildlife viewers. EPA recognizes that extrapolating from
sample facility to national results introduces uncertainty in the
analysis and is continuing to explore ways to reduce this uncertainty.
The Agency is requesting comment on the methods used to extrapolate
sample results to national benefit estimates. EPA is also specifically
soliciting comment on several of the other methodological approaches
used in the new analysis including the benefits transfer of values from
studies that did not specifically address boating and wildlife viewing
to these activities, and the extent to which activities such as
recreational boating and wildlife viewing are applicable to children.
EPA may include additional categories of monetized benefits estimates
based on these new methodologies, as revised based on comment and peer
review, in its economic analysis for the final rule.
XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
EPA requests that commenters to today's proposed rule submit
analytical, flow, and production data to supplement data collected by
the Agency during the regulatory development process. To ensure that
commenter data may be effectively evaluated by the Agency, EPA has
developed the following guidelines for submission of data.
A. Types of Data Requested
1. EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for
each of the technologies identified in the technology options
(especially in cases where paired data will be helpful in assessing
variability), as well as any additional technologies applicable to the
treatment of MP&M wastewater. This includes end-of-pipe treatment
technologies and in-process treatment, recycling, water reuse, or metal
recovery technologies. Submission of effluent data only is not
sufficient for full analysis; the corresponding influent data must be
provided.
For submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data, a
minimum of four days of data are required for EPA to assess
variability. Submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data
should include: a process diagram of the treatment system; treatment
chemical addition rates; sampling point locations; sample collection
dates; influent and effluent flow rates for each treatment unit during
the sampling period; sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief
discussion of the treatment technology sampled; and a list of unit
operations contributing to the sampled wastestream. EPA requests data
for systems that are treating only process wastewater. Systems treating
non-process wastewater (e.g., sanitary wastewater or non-contact
cooling water) will not be evaluated by EPA. In addition to data for
the analytes discussed below, data for total suspended solids (TSS) and
pH must be included with submissions of treatment data. If available,
information on capital cost, annual (operation and maintenance) cost,
and treatment capacity should be included for each treatment unit
within the system.
2. EPA also requests flow, production, and analytical data from
MP&M unit operations, rinses, and wet air pollution control devices.
Submissions of analytical data for MP&M unit operations and rinses
should include a process diagram of the unit operation; a description
of the purpose and performance of the operation; production data
associated with the sampling period; flow rates associated with the
sampling period (i.e., continuous discharge flow rates, intermittent
discharge rates and frequencies, or volume of bath and time of last
discharge for stagnant baths); sample type (grab or composite);
temperature and pH of each sample; sample collection dates; known
process bath constituents; sampling point locations; and, the volume,
discharge frequency, and destination of all process wastewater, waste
oil, or sludge generated by the unit operation.
Associated production data should be provided in the following
units: mass of metal removed (for abrasive jet machining, electrical
discharge machining, grinding, machining, and plasma arc machining
operations), in standard cubic feet of air flow (for wet air pollution
control operations), or surface area of parts processed (for all other
unit operations). Flow, production, and analytical data should all
correspond to the same period of time. When applicable, a description
of any pollution prevention technologies used at the site for the unit
operations, including cost savings and pollution reduction estimates
should be provided.
B. Analytes Requested
EPA considered metal, organic, conventional, and other
nonconventional pollutant parameters for regulation under the MP&M
Category. Based on analytical data collected, the Agency initially
identified 132 pollutant parameters as MP&M ``pollutants of concern.''
Complete lists of pollutant parameters considered for regulation and
pollutants of concern (as well as the criteria used to identify each of
these pollutant parameters) are briefly discussed in Section VII and
fully discussed the Technical Development Document for this proposal.
The Agency requests analytical data for any of the 132 pollutants of
concern and for any other pollutant parameters which commentors believe
are of concern in the MP&M industry. TSS and pH data are requested for
all samples. Table XXIV-1 presents the EPA analytical methods for these
pollutants. Commentors should use these methods or equivalent methods
for analyses, and should document the method used for all data
submissions.
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
EPA based today's proposed regulations on analytical data collected
by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks. These QA/QC checks include
procedures specified in each of the analytical methods, as well as
procedures used for the MP&M sampling program in accordance with EPA
sampling and analysis protocols. The Agency requests that submissions
of analytical data include documentation of QA/QC procedures.
EPA followed the QA/QC procedures specified in the analytical
methods listed in Table XXIV-1. These QA/QC procedures include sample
preservation and the use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike
duplicates, laboratory duplicate samples, and Q standard checks (e.g.,
continuing calibration blanks). EPA requests that sites provide
detection limits for all non-detected pollutants. EPA also requests
that composite samples be collected for all flowing wastewater streams
(except for analyses requiring grab samples, such as oil and grease),
sites collect and analyze 10 percent field duplicate samples to assess
sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment blanks for
volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are used to
collect samples.
Table XXIV-1.--EPA Analytical Methods for Use With MP&M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA
Parameter method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidity...................................................... 305.1
Alkalinity................................................... 310.1
Ammonia as Nitrogen.......................................... 350.1
BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous)..................................... 405.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)................................. 410.1
410.2
Chloride..................................................... 325.3
Cyanide, Total............................................... 335.2
Cyanide, Amenable............................................ 335.1
Fluoride..................................................... 340.2
Metals....................................................... 1620
[[Page 538]]
Volatile Organics............................................ 1624
Semivolatile Organics........................................ 1625
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl..................................... 351.2
Oil and Grease............................................... 413.2
Oil and Grease (as HEM)...................................... 1664
pH........................................................... 150.1
Phenolics, Total Recoverable................................. 420.2
Phosphorus, Total............................................ 365.4
Sulfate...................................................... 375.4
Sulfide, Total............................................... 376.2
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)................................. 160.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)................................... 415.1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM).................... 1664
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)................................. 160.2
Weak-Acid Dissociable Cyanide................................ 1677
Ziram........................................................ 630.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A to the Preamble--Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other
Terms Used in This Document
Act--The Clean Water Act
Agency--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AWQC--Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BAT--Best available technology economically achievable, as defined
by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
BCT--Best conventional pollutant control technology, as defined by
section 304(b)(4) of the Act.
BMP--Best management practices, as defined by section 304(e) of the
Act.
BPT--Best practicable control technology currently available, as
defined by section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
CAA--Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq., as amended)
CBI--Confidential Business Information
Clean Water Act--(33 U.S.C 1251 et. seq., as amended)
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as determined by
section 304(a)(4) of the Act and the regulations thereunder 40 CFR
401.16, including pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
CE--Cost Effectiveness
DAF--Dissolved Air Flotation
Direct Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater to a water of the United States with or without treatment
by the discharger.
EEA--Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products
& Machinery Industry. This document presents the methodology
employed to assess economic and environmental impacts of the
proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
Effluent Limitation--A maximum amount, per unit of time, production,
volume or other unit, of each specific constituent of the effluent
from an existing point source that is subject to limitation.
Effluent limitations may be expressed as a mass loading or as a
concentration in milligrams of pollutant per liter discharged.
End-of-Pipe Treatment--Refers to those processes that treat a plant
waste stream for pollutant removal prior to discharge.
FTE--Full Time Equivalents (related to the number of employees)
HAP--Hazardous Air Pollutant
HEM--Hexane Extractable Material refers to an analytical method (EPA
Method 1664) for determining the level of oil and grease that does
not use Freon extraction.
Indirect Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works.
MP&M--Metal Products and Machinery point source category
NCEPI--EPA's National Center for Environmental Publications
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRMRL--EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (formerly
RREL--EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology (applicable to NESHAPs)
Nonconventional Pollutants--Pollutants that have not been designated
as either conventional pollutants or priority pollutants.
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, a Federal
Program requiring industry dischargers, including municipalities, to
obtain permits to discharge pollutants to the nation's water, under
section 402 of the Act.
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 414).
ORP--Oxidation-Reduction Potential
POTW--Publicly owned treatment works.
Priority Pollutants--The 126 pollutants listed in 40 CFR part 423,
appendix A.
PPA--Pollutant Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.
L. 101-508, November 5, 1990)
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307(b) of the Act.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect discharges,
under sections 307 (b) and (c) of the Act.
SIC--Standards Industrial Classification, a numerical categorization
scheme used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to denote segments of
industry.
SGP--EPA's National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program.
SGT-HEM--Silica Gel Treated--Hexane Extractable Material refers to
the freon-free oil and grease method (EPA Method 1664) used to
measure the portion of oil and grease that is similar to total
petroleum hydrocarbons.
SIU--Significant Industrial User as defined in the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403)
Technical Development Document (TDD)--Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products
and Machinery Point Source Category.
TOC--Total Organic Carbon (EPA method 415.1)
TOP--Total Organics Parameter
TRI--Toxic Release Inventory
TTO--Total Toxic Organics as defined in the Metal Finishing effluent
guidelines (40 CFR part 433).
TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 413
Environmental protection, Electroplating, Metals, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
40 CFR Part 433
Environmental protection, Metals, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 438
Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 463
Environmental protection, Plastics materials and synthetics, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 464
Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 467
Environmental protection, Aluminum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 471
Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
Dated: October 31, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 413--ELECTROPLATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
1. The authority citation for Part 413 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.
2. Section 413.01 is amended by revising the first and last
sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
[[Page 539]]
Sec. 413.01 Applicability and compliance dates.
(a) As defined more specifically in each subpart, this part applies
to discharges resulting from electroplating operations in which a metal
is electroplated on any basis material and to related metal finishing
operations as set forth in the various subparts, whether such
operations are conducted in conjunction with electroplating,
independently, or as part of some other operation. * * * This part does
not apply to any facility that must achieve the standards or
limitations in 40 CFR 433.15 (Metal Finishing PSES) or 40 CFR part 438
(Metal Products & Machinery).
* * * * *
PART 433--METAL FINISHING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
3. The authority citation for Part 433 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.
4. Section 433.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 433.10 Applicability; description of the metal finishing point
source category.
* * * * *
(b) In some cases, effluent limitations and standards for other
industrial categories may be applicable to wastewater discharges from
the metal finishing operations listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
In such cases, the effluent limitations and standards for this part do
not apply and the metal finishing operations are subject to the
provisions of one of the following categories:
Iron and Steel (40 CFR part 420);
Nonferrous Metals Smelting and Refining (40 CFR part 421);
Metal Products and Machinery (40 CFR part 438);
Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
Plastic Molding and Forming (40 CFR part 463);
Metal Casting Foundries (40 CFR part 464);
Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469); and
Nonferrous Metals Forming (40 CFR part 471).
* * * * *
5. A new part 438 is proposed to be added to read as follows:
PART 438--METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Sec.
438.1 General applicability.
438.2 General definitions.
438.3 General pretreatment standards.
438.4 Monitoring requirements.
438.5 Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart A--General Metals
438.10 Applicability.
438.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.13 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.14 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.16 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Metal Finishing Job Shops
438.20 Applicability.
438.21 Special definitions.
438.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.23 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.24 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.26 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Non-Chromium Anodizing
438.30 Applicability.
438.31 Special definitions.
438.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.33 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.34 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.36 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart D--Printed Wiring Boards
438.40 Applicability.
438.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.43 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.46 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Steel Forming and Finishing
438.50 Applicability.
438.51 Special definitions.
438.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.53 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.54 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.56 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
438.58 Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent
limitations.
Subpart F--Oily Wastes
438.60 Applicability.
438.61 Special definitions.
438.62 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.63 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.64 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.66 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart G--Railroad Line Maintenance
438.70 Applicability.
438.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.73 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.76 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart H--Shipbuilding Dry Docks
438.80 Applicability.
438.81 Special definitions.
438.82 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable
[[Page 540]]
control technology currently available (BPT).
438.83 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.86 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Appendix A to Part 438--Typical Products In Metal Products & Machinery
Sectors
Appendix B to Part 438--TOP Pollutants List
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
Sec. 438.1 General applicability.
(a)(1) As defined more specifically in each subpart, except as
provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this
section, this part applies to process wastewater discharges from
existing or new industrial sites (including facilities owned and
operated by federal, state, or local governments) engaged in
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or
machines for use in the Metal Product & Machinery (MP&M) industrial
sectors listed in this section. A list of typical products found in
each of the 18 industrial sectors is provided in Appendix A to this
part. The MP&M Industrial Sectors consist of the following:
Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Bus and Truck;
Electronic Equipment;
Hardware;
Household Equipment;
Instruments;
Job Shops;
Mobile Industrial Equipment;
Motor Vehicle;
Office Machine;
Ordnance;
Precious Metals and Jewelry;
Printed Wiring Boards;
Railroad;
Ships and Boats;
Stationary Industrial Equipment; or
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
(2) This part also applies to mixed-use facilities, as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(b) The regulations in this part do not apply to wastewater
discharges which are subject to the limitations and standards of one or
more of the following categories:
(1) Iron and steel manufacturing (40 CFR part 420).
(2) Nonferrous metals manufacturing (40 CFR part 421).
(3) Ferroalloy manufacturing (40 CFR part 424).
(4) Battery manufacturing (40 CFR part 461).
(5) Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR part 463).
(6) Metal molding and casting (40 CFR part 464).
(7) Coil coating (40 CFR part 465).
(8) Porcelain enameling (40 CFR part 466).
(9) Aluminum forming (40 CFR part 467).
(10) Copper forming (40 CFR part 468).
(11) Electrical and electronic components (40 CFR part 469).
(12) Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders (40 CFR part 271).
(c) When a facility discharges process wastewater that is subject
to the general applicability of this part and the facility discharges
other wastewater that is subject to the limitations and standards of
one or more of the categories listed in paragraph (b) of this section,
the facility must comply with both the provisions of this part and
other parts, as applicable.
(d) Facilities other than those reasonably included in the 18 MP&M
industrial sectors specified in paragraph (a) of this section are not
subject to this part when discharges from the maintenance or repair of
metal parts or machines at the facility are performed only as ancillary
activities.
(e) Wastewater discharges generated from electroplating during
semi-conductor wafer manufacturing in a ``clean room'' environment are
not subject to this part. Wastewater discharges from electroplating
during semiconductor final wafer assembly are subject to this part.
(f) Wastewater discharges resulting from the washing of cars,
aircraft or other vehicles, when performed as a preparatory step prior
to one or more successive manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance
operations, are subject to this part.
(g) Process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair
activities at gasoline service stations, passenger car rental
facilities, or utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental
facilities are not subject to this part.
(h) When this part is applied to wastewater discharges generated at
different industrial sites (industrial buildings as well as outdoor
locations where manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance occur as
specified in Sec. 438.1) within a mixed-use facility (as defined in
Sec. 438.2(c)), the control authority may consider these discharges to
be separate for the purpose of applying the applicable low flow
exemption to a pretreatment standard. The control authority must
determine which wastewater discharges can be considered separate for
this purpose.
Sec. 438.2 General definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401
shall apply.
(b) The regulated parameters are listed with approved methods of
analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, and are defined as follows:
(1) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
(2) Cadmium means total cadmium.
(3) Chromium means total chromium.
(4) Copper means total copper.
(5) Cyanide (T) means total cyanide.
(6) Cyanide (A) means those cyanides which are amenable to alkaline
chlorination.
(7) Lead means total lead.
(8) Manganese means total manganese.
(9) Molybdenum means total molybdenum.
(10) Nickel means total nickel.
(11) O&G (as HEM) means total recoverable oil and grease as hexane
extractable material.
(12) Silver means total silver.
(13) Sulfide (as S) means total sulfide.
(14) Tin means total tin.
(15) TSS means total suspended solids.
(16) Zinc means total zinc.
(c) Mixed-Use Facility means any privately-owned or state, local,
or federal government-owned facility which contains both industrial and
commercial/administrative buildings (such as military bases and
airports) at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations
(including at least one that discharges wastewater subject to this
part) within the facility's boundaries.
(d) Non-process wastewater means sanitary wastewater, non-contact
cooling water, and storm water. In relation to a mixed-use facility, as
defined in this part, non-process wastewater for this part also
includes wastewater discharges from non-industrial sources such as
residential housing, schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping
centers as well as wastewater discharges from gas stations, utility
plants, hospitals, and similar sources.
(e) Process wastewater means wastewater as defined in 40 CFR parts
122 and 401, and includes wastewater from non-contact, nondestructive
testing (e.g., photographic wastewater from nondestructive X-ray
examination of parts) performed at facilities subject to this part and
includes wastewater from air pollution control devices.
(f) TOP (total organics parameter) means a parameter which is
calculated as the sum of all quantifiable concentration values greater
than the nominal quantitation value of the organic pollutants listed in
the Appendix B to this part. These organic chemicals are defined as
parameters at 40 CFR 136.3 in Table 1C, which also cites the approved
methods of analysis
[[Page 541]]
or have procedures that have been validated as attachments to EPA
Methods 1624/624 or 1625/625.
(g) TOC (as indicator) means total organic carbon used as an
indicator for the organic pollutants listed in the Appendix B to this
part.
Sec. 438.3 General pretreatment standards.
Any source subject to this part that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
Sec. 438.4 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Monitoring options. All subcategories with limitations or
standards for the TOP or TOC (as indicator) parameters must choose one
of three monitoring options:
(1) Achieve the limitation or standard specified for the TOP
parameter;
(2) Achieve a limitation or standard specified for the TOC (as
indicator) parameter; or
(3) Develop and certify the implementation of a management plan for
organic chemicals.
(b) Management plan for organic chemicals. (1) The management plan
for organic chemicals must specify to the satisfaction of the
permitting authority (or the control authority for discharges to a
POTW) all organic chemicals that are in use at the facility; the
method(s) used for disposal of these chemicals; the procedures in place
for ensuring that organic chemicals do not routinely spill or leak into
the wastewater, or that reduce to a minimum the amount of organic
chemicals that are used in the process; the procedures in place to
manage the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of process wastewater
during cyanide destruction to control the formation of chlorinated
organic by-products; and the procedures employed to prevent an
excessive dosage of dithiocarbamates when treating wastewater
containing chelated metals. Facilities choosing to develop a management
plan for organic chemicals must certify that the procedures described
in the plan are being implemented at the facility. A mixed-use
facility, as defined in Sec. 438.2(c), may develop, certify, and
implement one or more management plans for organic chemicals when
multiple industrial sites are subject to this part within their
facility boundaries.
(2) In lieu of monitoring for individual organic chemicals
specified collectively as TOP in Appendix B of this part or in lieu of
monitoring for TOC (as an indicator), the permitting authority (or the
control authority for dischargers to a POTW) may allow dischargers to
make the following certification: ``Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons directly responsible for managing compliance with the
provisions of the Metal Products and Machinery regulation, I certify
that, to the best of my knowledge, this facility is implementing the
management plan for organic chemicals which was submitted to the
permitting (or control) authority.'' For dischargers to surface waters,
this statement is to be included as a comment on the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) required by 40 CFR 122.44(i). For indirect
dischargers, the statement is to be included as a comment to the
periodic reports required by 40 CFR 403.12(e).
(c) TOP monitoring. In monitoring to measure compliance with the
TOP standard, the industrial discharger need analyze only for those TOP
organic chemicals which would reasonably be expected to be present.
Facilities may apply for a monitoring waiver for any individual TOP
organic chemical(s) as described in paragraph (e) of this section for
indirect dischargers and 40 CFR 122.44 for direct dischargers. See
Sec. 438.2(f) for definition of TOP.
(d) Cyanide monitoring. Self-monitoring for cyanide must be
conducted after cyanide treatment and before dilution with other
wastewater streams. Alternatively, samples of the final effluent may be
taken, if the plant limitations are adjusted based on the following
dilution ratio: Cyanide-bearing wastewater flow divided by the final
effluent flow.
(e) Monitoring waivers for certain pollutants. (1) The control
authority may authorize a discharger subject to pretreatment standards
in this part to forego sampling of a pollutant if the discharger has
demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors, as described
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, that the pollutant is not used or
generated on-site or is present only at background levels from intake
water and without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of
the discharger.
(2) Sampling or other technical information, including, but not
limited to, information generated during the monitoring for the
baseline monitoring report (40 CFR 403.12(b)) or the 90-day compliance
report (40 CFR 403.12(d)), must be used to demonstrate that the
pollutant is not used or generated on-site or is present only at
background levels from intake water and without any increase in the
pollutant due to activities of the discharger.
(3) Any grant of the monitoring waiver must be included in the
control mechanism as an express condition and the reasons supporting
the grant must be documented in the fact sheet or similar supporting
documentation.
Sec. 438.5 Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Any existing source subject to pretreatment standards in this part
must be in compliance no later than [DATE 3 years after date of
PUBLICATION of FINAL RULE].
Subpart A--General Metals
Sec. 438.10 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to process wastewater discharges from
facilities (as specified in Sec. 438.1(a)) other than those subject to
subparts B, C, D, E, F, G, or H of this part.
(b) Facilities introducing process wastewater into a POTW at a rate
that does not exceed 1 million gallons per year are not subject to
Sec. 438.15 or Sec. 438.17.
Sec. 438.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT.
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed
the following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS......................................... 34 18
2. O&G (as HEM)................................ 15 12
3. TOC (as indicator).......................... 87 50
4. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Cadmium..................................... 0.14 0.09
6. Chromium.................................... 0.25 0.14
7. Copper...................................... 0.55 0.28
8. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
9. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
10. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
11. Manganese................................... 0.13 0.09
12. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
13 Nickel....................................... 0.50 0.31
14. Silver...................................... 0.22 0.09
15. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
16. Tin......................................... 1.4 0.67
17. Zinc........................................ 0.38 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving
[[Page 542]]
the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.13 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.12.
Sec. 438.14 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver,
sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.12.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, and except at
facilities where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not
exceed 1 million gallons per year, any existing source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator).......................... 87 50
2. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Cadmium..................................... 0.14 0.09
4. Chromium.................................... 0.25 0.14
5. Copper...................................... 0.55 0.28
6. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
7. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
8. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
9. Manganese................................... 0.13 0.09
10. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
11. Nickel...................................... 0.50 0.31
12. Silver...................................... 0.22 0.09
13. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
14. Tin......................................... 1.4 0.67
15. Zinc........................................ 0.38 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(d) A POTW has the option of imposing mass-based standards in place
of the concentration-based standards. To convert to mass-based
standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based standard times
the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged by the source
into the POTW.
Sec. 438.16 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section
and currently subject to the provisions of 433.16 that commenced
discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date that is
60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must continue to
achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 433.16. Those
standards shall not apply after the expiration of the applicable time
period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must
achieve the applicable standards specified in Sec. 438.12 and
Sec. 438.14.
(b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:
Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS......................................... 28 18
2. O&G (as HEM)................................ 15 12
3. TOC (as indicator).......................... 87 50
4. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Cadmium..................................... 0.02 0.01
6. Chromium.................................... 0.17 0.07
7. Copper...................................... 0.44 0.16
8. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
9. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
10. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
11. Manganese................................... 0.29 0.18
12. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
13. Nickel...................................... 1.9 0.75
14. Silver...................................... 0.05 0.03
15. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
16. Tin......................................... 0.03 0.03
17. Zinc........................................ 0.08 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section and
currently subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 433.17 that commenced
discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date that is
60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must continue to
achieve the standards specified in 40 CFR 433.17 for ten years
beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during the
period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever comes
first, after which the source must achieve the standards specified in
Sec. 438.15.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, and except at facilities
where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not exceed 1
million gallons per year, the following standards apply with respect to
each new source that commences discharge after [date
[[Page 543]]
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator).......................... 87 50
2. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Cadmium..................................... 0.02 0.01
4. Chromium.................................... 0.17 0.07
5. Copper...................................... 0.44 0.16
6. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
7. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
8. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
9. Manganese................................... 0.29 0.18
10. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
11. Nickel...................................... 1.9 0.75
12. Silver...................................... 0.05 0.03
13. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
14. Tin 0.03 0.03............................... 0.03 0.03
15. Zinc........................................ 0.08 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(e) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Subpart B--Metal Finishing Job Shops
Sec. 438.20 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to process wastewater discharges from
facilities, as specified in Sec. 438.1(a), that operate as a metal
finishing job shop (as defined in Sec. 438.21) and perform one or more
of the following six operations: electroplating; electroless plating;
anodizing; coating (chromating, phosphating, passivating, and
coloring); chemical etching and milling; or the manufacture of printed
circuit boards (printed wiring boards).
(b) Metal finishing job shops that only perform anodizing without
the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants are not subject to this
subpart, but may be subject to subpart C of this part.
(c) Facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain printed
wiring boards and do not operate as a job shop (as defined in
Sec. 438.21) are not subject to this subpart, but are subject to
subpart D of this part.
Sec. 438.21 Special definitions.
As used in this subpart, metal finishing job shop means a facility
that owns 50 percent or less (based on metal surface area processed per
year) of the materials undergoing metal finishing within the boundaries
of a facility.
Sec. 438.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT.
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed
the following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS......................................... 60 31
2. O&G (as HEM)................................ 52 26
3. TOC (as indicator).......................... 78 59
4. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Cadmium..................................... 0.21 0.09
6. Chromium.................................... 1.3 0.55
7. Copper...................................... 1.3 0.57
8. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
9. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
10. Lead........................................ 0.12 0.09
11. Manganese................................... 0.25 0.10
12. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
13. Nickel...................................... 1.5 0.64
14. Silver...................................... 0.15 0.06
15. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
16. Tin......................................... 1.8 1.4
17. Zinc........................................ 0.35 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.23 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.22.
Sec. 438.24 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver,
sulfide (as S), tin and zinc are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.22.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated Parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator).......................... 78 59
2. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Cadmium..................................... 0.21 0.09
4. Chromium.................................... 1.3 0.55
5. Copper...................................... 1.3 0.57
6. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
7. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
8. Lead........................................ 0.12 0.09
9. Manganese................................... 0.25 0.10
10. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
11. Nickel...................................... 1.5 0.64
12. Silver...................................... 0.15 0.06
13. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
14. Tin......................................... 1.8 1.4
15. Zinc........................................ 0.35 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to
[[Page 544]]
monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for organic
chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(d) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Sec. 438.26 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]
must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR
433.16. Those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter,
the source must achieve the applicable standards specified in
Sec. 438.22 and Sec. 438.24.
(b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:
Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated Parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS......................................... 28 18
2. O&G (as HEM)................................ 15 12
3. TOC (as indicator........................... 78 59
4. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Cadmium..................................... 0.02 0.01
6. Chromium.................................... 0.17 0.07
7. Copper...................................... 0.44 0.16
8. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
9. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
10. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
11. Manganese................................... 0.29 0.18
12. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
13. Nickel...................................... 1.9 0.75
14. Silver...................................... 0.05 0.03
15. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
16. Tin......................................... 0.03 0.03
17. Zinc........................................ 0.08 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60
days after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must
continue to achieve the standards specified in 40 CFR 433.17 for ten
years beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during
the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever
comes first, after which the source must achieve the standards
specified in Sec. 438.25.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences discharge after
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator).......................... 78 59
2. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Cadmium..................................... 0.02 0.01
4. Chromium.................................... 0.17 0.07
5. Copper...................................... 0.44 0.16
6. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
7. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
8. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
9. Manganese................................... 0.29 0.18
10. Molybdenum.................................. 0.79 0.49
11. Nickel...................................... 1.9 0.75
12. Silver...................................... 0.05 0.03
13. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
14. Tin......................................... 0.03 0.03
15. Zinc........................................ 0.08 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(e) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Subpart C--Non-Chromium Anodizing
Sec. 438.30 Applicability.
(a) Except for facilities that discharge to a POTW, this subpart
applies to discharges of process wastewater resulting from non-chromium
anodizing, as defined in Sec. 438.31.
(b) Facilities which commingle wastewater from non-chromium
anodizing with wastewater subject to subparts A, B, or D of this part
are not subject to this subpart but are subject to subparts A, B, or D
of this part, as applicable.
(c) Facilities that discharge to a POTW and perform anodizing
without the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants are subject to
40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433, as applicable.
Sec. 438.31 Special definitions.
As used in this subpart, non-chromium anodizing means anodizing
without the use of chromic acid or dichromate sealants.
Sec. 438.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. Discharges
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the
following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS.......................................... 60 31
2. O&G (as HEM)................................. 52 26
3. Aluminum..................................... 8.2 4.0
4. Manganese.................................... 0.13 0.09
5. Nickel....................................... 0.50 0.31
6. Zinc......................................... 0.38 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
[[Page 545]]
Sec. 438.33 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.32.
Sec. 438.34 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 limitation representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for aluminum, manganese, nickel and zinc are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.32.
Sec. 438.36 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]
must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR
433.16. Those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter,
the source must achieve the applicable standards specified in
Sec. 438.32 and Sec. 438.34.
(b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:
Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS.......................................... 52 22
2. O&G (as HEM)................................. 15 12
3. Aluminum..................................... 8.2 4.0
4. Manganese.................................... 0.13 0.09
5. Nickel....................................... 0.50 0.31
6. Zinc......................................... 0.38 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
Subpart D--Printed Wiring Boards
Sec. 438.40 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater
resulting from the manufacture, maintenance and repair of printed
wiring boards (printed circuit boards).
(b) Printed wiring board operations conducted at a metal finishing
job shop (as defined in Sec. 438.21) are not subject to this subpart.
Sec. 438.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT.
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed
the following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS......................................... 60 31
2. O&G (as HEM)................................ 52 26
3. TOC (as indicator).......................... 101 67
4. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Chromium.................................... 0.25 0.14
6. Copper...................................... 0.55 0.28
7. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
8. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
9. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
10. Manganese................................... 1.3 0.64
11. Nickel...................................... 0.30 0.14
12. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
13. Tin......................................... 0.31 0.14
14. Zinc........................................ 0.38 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.43 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.42.
Sec. 438.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, chromium, copper, cyanide (T),
cyanide (A), lead, manganese, nickel, sulfide (as S), tin and zinc are
the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.42.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment
standards:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum Monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator).......................... 101 67
2. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Chromium.................................... 0.25 0.14
4. Copper...................................... 0.55 0.28
5. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
6. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
7. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
8. Manganese................................... 1.3 0.64
9. Nickel...................................... 0.30 0.14
10. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
11. Tin......................................... 0.31 0.14
12. Zinc........................................ 0.38 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(d) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
[[Page 546]]
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Sec. 438.46 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]
must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR
433.16. Those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the
applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter,
the source must achieve the applicable standards specified in
Sec. 438.42 and Sec. 438.44.
(b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:
Performance Standards
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS......................................... 28 18
2. O&G (as HEM)................................ 15 12
3. TOC (as indicator).......................... 101 67
4. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Chromium.................................... 0.17 0.07
6. Copper...................................... 0.01 0.01
7. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
8. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
9. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
10. Manganese................................... 0.29 0.18
11. Nickel...................................... 1.9 0.75
12. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
13. Tin......................................... 0.09 0.07
14. Zinc........................................ 0.08 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60
days after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must
continue to achieve the standards specified in 40 CFR 433.17 for ten
years beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during
the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever
comes first, after which the source must achieve the standards
specified in Sec. 438.45.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences discharge after
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSNS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator).......................... 101 67
2. TOP......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Chromium.................................... 0.17 0.07
4. Copper...................................... 0.01 0.01
5. Cyanide (T)................................. 0.21 0.13
6. Cyanide (A)................................. 0.14 0.07
7. Lead........................................ 0.04 0.03
8. Manganese................................... 0.29 0.18
9. Nickel...................................... 1.9 0.75
10. Sulfide (as S).............................. 31 13
11. Tin......................................... 0.09 0.07
12. Zinc........................................ 0.08 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(e) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Subpart E--Steel Forming and Finishing
Sec. 438.50 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater from
surface finishing or cold forming operations on steel wire, rod, bar,
pipe or tubing. This subpart does not apply to process wastewater from
these same operations when they are performed on base materials other
than steel.
(b) Wastewater discharges from the following operations on steel
are not subject to this subpart: any hot forming operation; and cold
forming, continuous electroplating, or continuous hot dip coating of
sheets, strips or plates. Wastewater discharges from performing these
operations on steel are subject to 40 CFR part 420.
Sec. 438.51 Special definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Acid pickling means the removal of scale and/or oxide from
steel surfaces using acid solutions. The mass-based limitations for
acid pickling operations include wastewater flow volumes from acid
treatment with and without chromium, acid pickling neutralization,
annealing, alkaline cleaning, electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling,
and salt bath descaling.
(b) Alkaline cleaning means the application of solutions containing
caustic soda, soda ash, alkaline silicates, or alkaline phosphates to a
metal surface primarily for removing mineral deposits, animal fats, and
oils. The mass-based limitations for alkaline cleaning operations
include wastewater flow volumes from alkaline cleaning for oil removal,
alkaline treatment without cyanide, aqueous degreasing, annealing, and
electrolytic cleaning operations.
(c) Cold forming means operations conducted on unheated steel for
purposes of imparting desired mechanical properties and surface
qualities (density, smoothness) to the steel. The mass-based
limitations for cold forming operations are based on zero wastewater
discharge from welding operations.
(d) Continuous Annealing means a heat treatment process in which
steel is exposed to an elevated temperature in a controlled atmosphere
for an extended period of time and then cooled. The mass-based
limitations for continuous annealing operations include wastewater flow
volumes from heat treating operations.
(e) Electroplating means the application of metal coatings
including,
[[Page 547]]
but not limited to, chromium, copper, nickel, tin, zinc, and
combinations thereof, on steel products using an electro-chemical
process. The mass-based limitations for electroplating operations
includes wastewater flow volumes from acid pickling, annealing,
alkaline cleaning, electroplating without chromium or cyanide, and
electroless plating operations.
(f) Hot Dip Coating means the coating of pre-cleaned steel parts by
immersion in a molten metal bath. The mass-based limitations for hot
dip coating operations includes wastewater flow volumes from acid
pickling, annealing, alkaline cleaning, chemical conversion coating
without chromium, chromate conversion coating, galvanizing, and hot dip
coating operations.
(g) Lubrication means the process of applying a substance to the
surface of the steel in order to reduce friction or corrosion. The
mass-based limitations for lubrication operations includes wastewater
flow volumes from corrosion preventive coating operations as defined in
Sec. 438.61(b).
(h) Mechanical Descaling means the process of removing scale by
mechanical or physical means from the surface of steel. The mass-based
limitations for mechanical descaling operations includes wastewater
flow volumes from abrasive blasting, burnishing, grinding, impact
deformation, machining, and testing operations.
(i) Painting means applying an organic coating to a steel bar, rod,
wire, pipe, or tube. The mass-based limitations for painting operations
includes wastewater flow volumes from spray or brush painting and
immersion painting.
(j) Pressure Deformation means applying force (other than impact
force) to permanently deform or shape a steel bar, rod, wire, pipe, or
tube. The mass-based limitations for pressure deformation operations
includes wastewater flow volumes from forging operations and extrusion
operations.
Sec. 438.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT.
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed
the following:
Effluent Limitations [BPT]
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant TSS O&G (as HEM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.0709 0.0369 0.0312 0.0239
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.0709 0.0369 0.0312 0.0239
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00355 0.00184 0.00156 0.00120
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.142 0.0737 0.0623 0.0478
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0206 0.0107 0.00903 0.00693
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00170 0.000884 0.000748 0.000574
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.000284 0.000148 0.000125 0.0000956
(i) Painting.................................... 0.00922 0.00479 0.00405 0.00311
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00355 0.00184 0.00156 0.00120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant TOC TOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.181 0.103 0.0188 0.00896
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.181 0.103 0.0188 0.00896
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00901 0.00514 0.000937 0.000448
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.361 0.206 0.0375 0.0180
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0523 0.0300 0.00543 0.00260
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.000433 0.00247 0.000450 0.000215
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.000721 0.000411 0.0000750 0.0000359
(i) Painting.................................... 0.0235 0.0134 0.00244 0.00117
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00901 0.00514 0.000937 0.000448
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Cadmium Chromium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.000292 0.000188 0.000509 0.000277
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.000292 0.000188 0.000509 0.000277
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
[[Page 548]]
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.0000146 0.00000938 0.0000255 0.0000139
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.000583 0.000376 0.00102 0.000553
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0000845 0.0000545 0.000148 0.0000801
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00000699 0.00000450 0.0000123 0.00000663
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000116 0.00000075 0.00000204 0.00000110
(i) Painting.................................... 0.0000379 0.0000244 0.0000662 0.0000359
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.0000146 0.00000938 0.0000255 0.0000139
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Copper Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.00114 0.000565 0.0000737 0.0000522
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.00114 0.000565 0.0000737 0.0000522
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.0000570 0.0000283 0.00000368 0.00000261
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.00228 0.00113 0.000148 0.000105
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.000331 0.000164 0.0000214 0.0000152
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.0000274 0.0000136 0.00000177 0.00000125
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000455 0.00000226 0.00000029 0.00000021
(i) Painting.................................... 0.000148 0.0000734 0.00000957 0.00000678
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.0000570 0.0000283 0.00000368 0.00000261
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Manganese Molybdenum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.000269 0.000183 0.00164 0.00103
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.000269 0.000183 0.00164 0.00103
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.0000135 0.00000914 0.0000820 0.0000511
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.000537 0.000366 0.00328 0.00205
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0000779 0.0000531 0.000476 0.000297
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00000644 0.00000439 0.0000394 0.0000246
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000107 0.00000073 0.00000656 0.00000409
(i) Painting.................................... 0.0000350 0.0000238 0.000214 0.000133
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.0000135 0.00000914 0.0000820 0.0000511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Nickel Silver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.00104 0.000642 0.000456 0.000187
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.00104 0.000642 0.000456 0.000187
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.0000520 0.0000321 0.0000228 0.00000934
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.00208 0.00129 0.000912 0.000374
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.000302 0.000186 0.000133 0.0000542
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.0000250 0.0000154 0.0000110 0.00000448
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000415 0.00000257 0.00000182 0.00000075
(i) Painting.................................... 0.000135 0.0000834 0.0000593 0.0000243
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.0000520 0.0000321 0.0000228 0.00000934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
[[Page 549]]
Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Sulfide (as S) Tin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.0630 0.0267 0.00274 0.00139
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.0630 0.0267 0.00274 0.00139
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00315 0.00134 0.000137 0.0000694
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.126 0.0534 0.00547 0.00278
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0183 0.00774 0.000793 0.000403
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00151 0.000641 0.0000656 0.0000333
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.000252 0.000107 0.0000110 0.00000555
(i) Painting.................................... 0.00818 0.00347 0.000356 0.000181
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00315 0.00134 0.000137 0.0000694
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Zinc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling....................... 0.000793 0.000456
(b) Alkaline Cleaning................... 0.000793 0.000456
(c) Cold Forming........................ 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing................ 0.0000397 0.0000228
(e) Electroplating...................... 0.00159 0.000912
(f) Hot Dip Coating..................... 0.000230 0.000133
(g) Lubrication......................... 0.0000191 0.0000110
(h) Mechanical Descaling................ 0.00000317 0.00000182
(i) Painting............................ 0.000103 0.0000593
(j) Pressure Deformation................ 0.0000397 0.0000228
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Cyanide (T) Cyanide (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.000865 0.000513 0.000580 0.000282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a). (d) Permit limitations
must be established in accordance with Sec. 438.58.
Sec. 438.53 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM), and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.52.
Sec. 438.54 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver,
sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.52.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment
standards: Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium,
copper, cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel,
silver, sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.52.
[[Page 550]]
(b) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(d) Pretreatment standards must be established in accordance with
Sec. 438.58.
Sec. 438.56 New source performance standards (NSPS).
New point sources subject to this subpart must achieve the
following new source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
(a) Any new point source subject to the provisions of this section
that commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that
is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and before
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]
must continue to achieve the applicable new source standards specified
in 40 CFR part 420. Those standards shall not apply after the
expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable
standards specified in Secs. 438.52 and 438.54.
(b) The following performance standards apply with respect to each
new point source that commences discharge after [date that is 60 days
after the publication date of the final rule]. Discharges must remain
within the pH range of 6 to 9 and must not exceed the following:
Performance Standards [NSPS]
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant TSS O&G (as HEM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.0571 0.0358 0.0312 0.0239
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.0571 0.0358 0.0312 0.0239
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00286 0.00179 0.00156 0.00120
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.115 0.0716 0.0623 0.00478
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0166 0.0104 0.00903 0.00693
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00137 0.000859 0.000748 0.000574
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.000229 0.000144 0.000125 0.0000956
(i) Painting.................................... 0.00743 0.00466 0.00405 0.00311
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00286 0.00179 0.00156 0.00120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant TOC TOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly avg. Maximum daily monthly
\1\ \1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.181 0.103 0.0188 0.00896
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.181 0.103 0.0188 0.00896
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00901 0.00514 0.000937 0.000448
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.361 0.206 0.0375 0.0180
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0523 0.0298 0.00543 0.00260
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00433 0.00247 0.000450 0.000215
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.000721 0.000411 0.0000750 0.0000359
(i) Painting.................................... 0.0235 0.0134 0.00244 0.00117
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00901 0.00514 0.000937 0.000448
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Cadmium Chromium
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.0000267 0.0000184 0.000355 0.000143
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.0000267 0.0000184 0.000355 0.000143
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00000133 0.00000092 0.0000178 0.00000714
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.0000534 0.0000368 0.000710 0.000286
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.00000773 0.00000533 0.000103 0.0000415
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00000064 0.00000044 0.00000851 0.00000343
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000011 0.00000007 0.00000142 0.00000057
(i) Painting.................................... 0.00000347 0.00000239 0.0000461 0.0000186
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00000133 0.00000092 0.0000178 0.00000714
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
[[Page 551]]
Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Copper Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.000898 0.000327 0.0000692 0.0000517
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.000898 0.000327 0.0000692 0.0000517
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.0000449 0.0000164 0.00000346 0.00000258
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.00180 0.000654 0.000139 0.000104
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.000261 0.0000949 0.0000201 0.0000150
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.0000216 0.00000785 0.00000166 0.00000124
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000359 0.00000131 0.00000028 0.00000021
(i) Painting.................................... 0.000117 0.0000425 0.00000899 0.00000671
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.0000449 0.0000164 0.00000346 0.00000258
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Manganese Molybdenum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.000600 0.000364 0.00164 0.00103
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.000600 0.000364 0.00164 0.00103
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.0000300 0.0000182 0.0000820 0.0000511
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.00120 0.000728 0.00328 0.00205
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.000174 0.000106 0.000476 0.000297
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.0000144 0.00000873 0.0000394 0.0000246
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.00000240 0.00000146 0.00000656 0.00000409
(i) Painting.................................... 0.0000780 0.0000473 0.000214 0.000133
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.0000300 0.0000182 0.0000820 0.0000511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Nickel Silver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.00391 0.00156 0.0000955 0.0000582
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.00391 0.00156 0.0000955 0.0000582
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.000196 0.0000779 0.00000477 0.00000291
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.00782 0.00312 0.000191 0.000117
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.00114 0.000452 0.0000277 0.0000169
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.0000939 0.0000374 0.00000229 0.00000140
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.0000157 0.00000623 0.00000038 0.00000023
(i) Painting.................................... 0.000509 0.000203 0.0000125 0.00000756
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.000196 0.0000779 0.00000477 0.00000291
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Sulfide (as S) Tin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling............................... 0.0630 0.0267 0.0000606 0.0000453
(b) Alkaline Cleaning........................... 0.0630 0.0267 0.0000606 0.0000453
(c) Cold Forming................................ 0 0 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing........................ 0.00315 0.00134 0.00000303 0.00000226
(e) Electroplating.............................. 0.126 0.0534 0.000122 0.0000905
(f) Hot Dip Coating............................. 0.0183 0.00774 0.0000176 0.0000132
(g) Lubrication................................. 0.00151 0.000641 0.00000145 0.00000109
(h) Mechanical Descaling........................ 0.000252 0.000107 0.00000024 0.00000018
(i) Painting.................................... 0.00818 0.00347 0.00000788 0.00000588
[[Page 552]]
(j) Pressure Deformation........................ 0.00315 0.00134 0.00000303 0.00000226
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Zinc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Acid Pickling....................... 0.000163 0.000111
(b) Alkaline Cleaning................... 0.000163 0.000111
(c) Cold Forming........................ 0 0
(d) Continuous Annealing................ 0.00000811 0.00000553
(e) Electroplating...................... 0.000325 0.000222
(f) Hot Dip Coating..................... 0.0000471 0.0000321
(g) Lubrication......................... 0.00000389 0.00000265
(h) Mechanical Descaling................ 0.00000065 0.00000044
(i) Painting............................ 0.0000211 0.0000144
(j) Pressure Deformation................ 0.00000811 0.00000553
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
Table 9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Cyanide (T) Cyanide (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
Forming/finishing operation Maximum daily monthly Maximum daily monthly
\1\ avg.\1\ \1\ avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Electroplating.............................. 0.000865 0.000513 0.000580 0.000282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per 1000 lbs. (gm/kg) of product.
(c) Upon agreement with the permitting authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(e) Performance standards must be established in accordance with
Sec. 438.58.
Sec. 438.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
(a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that
commenced discharging after [date 10 years prior to the date that is 60
days after the publication date of the final rule] and before [date
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] must
continue to achieve the applicable new source standards specified in 40
CFR part 420 for ten years beginning on the date the source commenced
discharge or during the period of depreciation or amortization of the
facility, whichever comes first, after which the source must achieve
the standards specified in Sec. 438.55.
(b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards
apply with respect to each new source that commences discharge after
[date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule]:
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP, cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide (T), cyanide (A), lead, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silver,
sulfide (as S), tin, and zinc are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.56.
(c) Upon agreement with the control authority and pursuant to
Sec. 438.4(d), facilities with cyanide treatment have the option of
achieving the limitation for either cyanide (T) or cyanide (A).
(d) Upon agreement with the control authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(e) Pretreatment standards must be established in accordance with
Sec. 438.58.
Sec. 438.58 Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent
limitations.
(a) Production-based limitations in NPDES permits must comply with
40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i). The average rate of production reported by the
owner or operator in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(b)(3) shall be based
not upon the design production capacity but rather upon a reasonable
measure of actual production of the facility, such as the production
during the high month of the previous year, or the monthly average for
the highest of the previous five years. For new sources or new
dischargers, actual production shall be estimated using projected
production.
(b) The following protocols shall be used when calculating the
operating rate for Subpart E:
(1) For similar, multiple production lines with process waters
treated in the same wastewater treatment system, the reasonable measure
of production (the daily operating rate) shall be determined from the
combined production of the similar production lines during the same
time period.
(2) For process wastewater treatment systems where wastewater from
two or more different production lines are
[[Page 553]]
commingled in the same wastewater treatment system, the reasonable
measure of production (the daily operating rate) shall be determined
separately for each production line (or combination of similar
production lines) during the same time period.
(c) Mass effluent limitations and pretreatment requirements for
each forming/finishing operation shall be computed by multiplying the
average daily operating rate (or other reasonable measure of
production), as determined in accordance with Sec. 438.58(b), by the
respective effluent limitations guidelines or standards. The mass
effluent limitations or pretreatment requirements applicable at a given
NPDES or pretreatment compliance monitoring point shall be the sum of
the mass effluent limitations or pretreatment requirements for each
regulated pollutant parameter within each applicable forming/finishing
operation with process wastewater discharging to that compliance
monitoring point.
(d) Mass NPDES permit effluent limitations or pretreatment
requirements derived from this part shall remain in effect for the term
of the NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism, except:
(1) When the permit is modified in accordance with Sec. 122.62 of
this chapter or local POTW permit modification provisions; or
(2) Where the NPDES permit authorizes alternate effluent
limitations for increased or decreased production levels in accordance
with Sec. 122.45(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this chapter.
(e) Production from unit operations that do not generate or
discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the calculation
of the operating rate.
Subpart F--Oily Wastes
Sec. 438.60 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to process wastewater from facilities
specified in Sec. 438.1(a) that discharge wastewater exclusively from
oily operations (as defined in Sec. 438.61) and are not otherwise
subject to subparts G or H of this part.
(b) Facilities introducing process wastewater into a POTW at a rate
that does not exceed 2 million gallons per year are not subject to the
pretreatment standards (Secs. 438.65 and 438.67) of this subpart.
Sec. 438.61 Special definitions.
(a) As used in this subpart, oily operations means one or more of
the following: Alkaline cleaning for oil removal; aqueous or solvent
degreasing; corrosion preventive coating (as specified in
Sec. 438.61(b)); floor cleaning; grinding; heat treating; deformation
by impact or pressure; machining; painting; steam cleaning; laundering;
and testing (such as, hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic
flux).
(b) Corrosion preventive coating means the application of removable
oily or organic solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive
environments. Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not
limited to: petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds,
solvent-cutback petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing
polar compounds, and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion
preventive coating does not include electroplating, or chemical
conversion coating (including phosphate conversion coating) operations.
Sec. 438.62 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT.
Discharges must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed
the following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS.......................................... 63 31
2. O&G (as HEM)................................. 27 20
3. TOC (as indicator)........................... 633 378
4. TOP.......................................... 9.0 4.3
5. Sulfide (as S)............................... 31 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.63 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.62.
Sec. 438.64 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitation representing the application of BAT:
Limitations for TOC (as indicator), TOP and sulfide (as S) are the same
as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.62.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, and except at
facilities where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not
exceed 2 million gallons per year, any existing source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards:
Pretreatment Standards
[PSES]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TOC (as indicator)........................... 633 378
2. TOP.......................................... 9.0 4.3
3. Sulfide (as S)............................... 31 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(c) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Sec. 438.66 New source performance standards (NSPS).
(a) Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve
performance standards for TSS, O&G (as HEM), TOC (as indicator), TOP,
sulfide (as S) and pH, which are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.62.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
[[Page 554]]
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
Sec. 438.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, or except at facilities
where the process wastewater introduced into a POTW does not exceed 2
million gallons per year, any existing source subject to this subpart
must achieve pretreatment standards for TOC (as indicator), TOP and
sulfide (as S), which are the same as the corresponding standard
specified in Sec. 438.65.
(b) Upon agreement with the permitting authority, facilities must
choose to monitor for TOP or TOC, or implement a management plan for
organic chemicals as specified in Sec. 438.4(a).
(c) The control authority has the option of imposing mass-based
standards in place of the concentration-based standards. To convert to
mass-based standards, multiply each parameter's concentration-based
standard times the average daily flow of process wastewater discharged
by the source into the POTW.
Subpart G--Railroad Line Maintenance
Sec. 438.70 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater from
facilities that perform routine cleaning and light maintenance on
railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks, or similar parts or machines,
and discharge wastewater exclusively from oily operations (as defined
in Sec. 438.61(a)) or from washing of the final product.
(b) Facilities engaged in the manufacture, overhaul or heavy
maintenance of railroad engines, cars, car-wheel trucks, or similar
parts or machines are not subject to this subpart. These facilities may
be subject to Subpart A or F of this part.
Sec. 438.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT. Discharges
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the
following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BOD5........................................... 34 12
2. TSS............................................ 30 16
3. O&G (as HEM)................................... 11 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
Sec. 438.73 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.72.
Sec. 438.76 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve
performance standards for BOD5, TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH,
which are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in
Sec. 438.72.
Subpart H--Shipbuilding Dry Docks
Sec. 438.80 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to discharges of process wastewater
generated in or on dry docks and similar structures, such as graving
docks, building ways, marine railways and lift barges at shipbuilding
facilities (or shipyards). This subpart applies to the following when
generated by operations from within a dry dock or similar structure:
process wastewater generated inside and outside the vessel (including
bilge water) and wastewater generated from barnacle removal conducted
as preparation for ship maintenance, rebuilding or repair.
(b) The following wastewater discharges are not subject to this
subpart:
(1) Wastewater from ``on-shore'' operations (that is, other than
dry docks and similar structures) at a shipyard.
(2) Wastewater generated on board ships and boats when they are
afloat (that is, not in dry docks or similar structures). Wastewater
generated on U.S. military ships and boats afloat in U.S. waters are
subject to the Uniform Discharge Standards (UNDS) at 40 CFR part 1700.
(3) Flooding water (as defined in Sec. 438.81(a)), dry dock ballast
water (as defined in Sec. 438.81(b)), and storm water.
Sec. 438.81 Special definitions.
As used in this subpart:
(a) Flooding water means water that is used to float ships or boats
into the dry dock or similar structure and is discharged prior to
performing any MP&M operations, or water that is used to float ships or
boats out of the dry dock or similar structure after all MP&M
operations have ceased.
(b) Dry dock ballast water means water that enters and exits the
dry dock or similar structure for the purpose of sinking or raising the
dry dock.
Sec. 438.82 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. Discharges
must remain within the pH range 6 to 9 and must not exceed the
following:
Effluent Limitations
[BPT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. TSS............................................ 81 44
2. O&G (as HEM)................................... 16 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
Sec. 438.83 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitation representing the application of BCT: Limitations
for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 438.82.
Sec. 438.86 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve
performance standards for TSS, O&G (as HEM) and pH, which are the same
as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 438.82.
[[Page 555]]
Appendix A to Part 483--Typical Products in Metal Products & Machinery Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEROSPACE AIRCRAFT BUS & TRUCK
Guided Missiles & Space Vehicle Aircraft Engines & Engine Parts Bus Terminal & Service Facilities
Guided Missile & Space Vehicle Prop. Aircraft Frames Manufacturing Courier Services, Except by Air
Other Space Vehicle & Missile Parts Aircraft Parts & Equipment Freight Truck Terminals, W/ or W/O
Airports, Flying Fields, & Services Maintenance
Intercity & Rural Highways
(Buslines)
.................................... Local & Suburban Transit (Bus &
subway)
.................................... Local Passenger. Trans. (Lim., Amb.,
Sight See)
.................................... Local Trucking With Storage
.................................... Local Trucking Without Storage
.................................... Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
.................................... School Buses
.................................... Trucking
.................................... Truck & Bus Bodies
.................................... Truck Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT HARDWARE HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT
Communications Equipment Architectural & Ornamental Metal Commercial, Ind. & Inst. Elec.
Connectors for Electronic Work Lighting Fixtures
Applications Bolts, Nuts, Screws, Rivets & Current-Carrying Wiring Devices
Electric Lamps Washers Electric Housewares & Fans
Electron Tubes Crowns & Closures Electric Lamps
Electronic Capacitors Cutlery Farm Freezers
Electronic Coils & Transformers Fabricated Metal Products Household Appliances
Electronic Components Fabricated Pipe & Fabricated Pipe Household Cooking Equipment
Radio & TV Communications Equipment Fittings Household Refrig. & Home & Farm
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus Fabricated Plate Work (Boiler Shops) Freezers
Fabricated Structural Metal Household Laundry Equipment
Fasteners, Buttons, Needles & Pins
Fluid Power Valves & Hose Fittings
Hand & Edge Tools
Hand Saws & Saw Blades Household Vacuum Cleaners
Hardware Lighting Equipment
Heating Equipment, Except Electric Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Devices
Industrial Furnaces & Ovens Radio & Television Repair Shops
Iron & Steel Forgings Radio & Television Sets Except
Machine Tool Accessories & Measuring Commn. Types
Devices Refrig. & Air Cond. Serv. & Repair
Machine Tools, Metal Cutting Types Shops
Machine Tools, Metal Forming Types Residential Electrical Lighting
Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums Kegs, Fixtures
Pails
Metal Stampings
Power Driven Hand Tools
Prefabricated Metal Buildings &
Components
Screw Machine Products
Sheet Metal Work
Special Dies & Tools, Die Sets,
Jigs, Etc
Steel Springs
Valves & Pipe Fittings
Wire Springs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSTRUMENTS JOB SHOP MOBILE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Analytical Instruments Perform Work on Products for Use In Construction Machinery & Equipment
Automatic Environmental Controls Any MP&M Sector But Owns Less Than Farm Machinery & Equipment
Coating, Engraving, & Allied 50% of the Products On-Site (e.g., Garden Tractors & Lawn & Garden
Services Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Equipment
Dental Equipment & Supplies Anodizing, and Coloring) Hoist, Industrial Cranes & Monorails
Ophthalmic Goods Industrial Trucks, Tractors,
Fluid Meters & Counting Devices Trailers, Tanks & Tank Components
Instruments to Measure Electricity Mining Machinery & Equipment, Except
Laboratory Apparatus & Furniture Oil Field
Manufacturing Industries
Measuring & Controlling Devices
Optical Instruments & Lenses
Orthopedic, Prosthetic, & Surgical
Supplies
Pens, Mechanical Pencils, & Parts
Process Control Instruments
Search & Navigation Equipment
Surgical & Medical Instruments &
Apparatus
Watches, Clocks, Associated Devices
& Parts
MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICE MACHINE ORDNANCE
Auto Exhaust System Repair Shops Calculating & Accounting Equipment Ammunition
Automobile Dealers (new & used) Computer Maintenance & Repair Ordinance & Accessories
Auto. Dealers (Dunebuggy, Go-Cart, Computer Peripheral Equipment Small Arms
Snowmobile) Computer Related Services Small Arms Ammunition
Automovile Service (includes Diag. & Computer Rental & Leasing
Insp. Cntrs.) Computer Storage Devices
Automotive Equipment Computer Terminals
Automotive Glass Replacement Shops Electrical & Electronic Repair
Automotive Repairs Shops Electronic Computers
Automotive Stampings Office Machines
Automotive Transmission Repair Shops Photographic Equipment & Supplies
Carburetors, Pistons Rings, Valves
Electrical Equipment for Motor
General Automotive Repair Shops
Mobile Homes
Motor Vehicle & Automotive Bodies
Motor Vehicle Parts & Accessories
Motorcycle Dealers
Motorcycles
[[Page 556]]
Passenger Car Leasing
Recreational & Utility Trailer
Dealers
Taxicabs
Top & Body Repair & Paint Shops
Travel Trailers & Campers
Vehicles
Vehicular Lighting Equipment
Welding Shops (includes Automotive)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRECIOUS METALS & JEWELRY PRINTED WIRING BOARD RAILROAD
Costume Jewelry Printed Circuit Boards Line-Haul Railroads
Jewelers' Materials & Lapidary Work Printed Circuit Boards for Railcars, Railway Systems
Jewelry, Precious Metal Television and Radio Switching & Terminal Stations
Musical Instruments Wiring Boards
Silverware, Plated Ware, & Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIPS AND BOATS STATIONARY INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT STEEL FORMING & FINISHING
Boat Building & Repairing Air & Gas Compressors Cold-Finished Steel Bars
Deep Sea Domestic Transportation of Automatic Vending Machines Steel Pipe and Tubes
Freight Ball & Roller Bearings Steel Wiredrawing and Steel Nails
Deep Sea Passenger Transportation, Blowers & Exhaust & Ventilation Fans and Spikes
Except by Ferry Commercial Laundry Equipment Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire
Freight Transportation on the Great Conveyors & Conveying Equipment Products (e.g., steel wire rope,
Lakes Electric Industrial Apparatus cable, netting)
Marinas Elevators & Moving Stairways
Ship Building & Repairing Equipment Rental & Leasing
Towing & Tugboat Service Food Product Machinery
Water Passenger Transportation Fluid Power Cylinders & Actuators
Ferries Fluid Power Pumps & Motors
Water Transportation of Freight General Industrial Machinery
Water Transportation Services Heavy Construction Equipment Rental
Industrial Machinery
Industrial Patterns
Industrial Process Furnaces & Ovens
Internal Combustion Engines
Measuring & Dispensing Pumps
Mechanical Power Transmission
Equipment
Metal Working Machinery
Motors & Generators
Oil Field Machinery & Equipment
Packaging Machinery
Paper Industries Machinery
Printing Trades Machinery &
Equipment
Pumps & Pumping Equipment
Refrigeration & Air & Heating
Equipment
Relays & Industrial Controls
Rolling Mill Machinery & Equipment
Scales & Balances, Except Laboratory
Service Industry Machines
Special Industry Machinery
Spped Changers, High Speed Drivers &
Gears
Steam, Gas, Hydraulic Turbines,
Generator Units
Switchgear & Switchboard Apparatus
Textile Machinery
Transformers
Welding Apparatus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PRODUCTS
Miscellaneous Fabricated Wire
Products
Miscellaneous Metal Work
Miscellaneous Repair Shops & Related
Services
Miscellaneous Transportation
Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to Part 438--TOP Pollutants List
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal
Total organics parameter pollutants CAS number quantitation
value (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acrolein............................ 107-02-8 0.05
2. Benzoic acid........................ 62-85-0 0.05
3. Carbon disulfide.................... 75-15-0 0.01
4. Dibenzofuran........................ 132-64-9 0.01
5. Dibenzothiophene.................... 132-65-0 0.01
6. Isophorone.......................... 78-59-1 0.01
7. n-Hexadecane........................ 544-76-3 0.01
8. n-Tetradecane....................... 929-59-4 0.01
9. Aniline............................. 62-53-3 0.01
10. Chloroform (trichloromethane)....... 67-66-3 0.01
11. Methylene chloride (dichloromethane) 75-09-2 0.01
12. Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)....... 75-00-3 0.05
13. 1,1-Dichloroethane.................. 75-34-3 0.01
[[Page 557]]
14. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.01
(methylchloroform).....................
15. Tetrachloroethene................... 127-18-4 0.01
16. 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene 75-35-4 0.01
chloride)..............................
17. Trichloroethylene................... 79-01-6 0.01
18. Biphenyl............................ 92-52-4 0.01
19. p-Cymene............................ 99-87-6 0.01
20. Ethylbenzene........................ 100-41-4 0.01
21. Toluene............................. 108-88-3 0.01
22. N-Nitrosodimethylamine.............. 62-75-9 0.05
23. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine.............. 86-30-6 0.02
24. Chlorobenzene....................... 108-90-7 0.01
25. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene.................. 606-20-2 0.01
26. Phenol.............................. 108-95-2 0.01
27. 4-Chloro-m-cresol 59-50-7 0.01
(parachlorometacresol or 4-chloro-3-
methylphenol)..........................
28. 2,4-Dinitrophenol................... 51-28-5 0.05
29. 2,4-Dimethylphenol.................. 105-67-9 0.01
30. 2-Nitrophenol (o-nitrophenol)....... 88-75-5 0.02
31. 4-Nitrophenol (p-nitrophenol)....... 100-02-7 0.05
32. Acenaphthene........................ 83-32-9 0.01
33. Anthracene.......................... 120-12-7 0.01
34. 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene............ 1576-67-6 0.01
35. Fluorene............................ 86-73-7 0.01
36. Fluoranthene........................ 206-44-0 0.01
37. 2-Isopropylnaphthalene.............. 2027-17-0 0.01
38. 1-Methylfluorene.................... 1730-37-6 0.01
39. 2-Methylnaphthalene................. 91-57-6 0.01
40. 1-Methylphenanthrene................ 832-69-9 0.01
41. Naphthalene......................... 91-20-3 0.01
42. Phenanthrene........................ 85-01-8 0.01
43. Pyrene.............................. 129-00-0 0.01
44. Benzyl butyl phthalate.............. 85-68-7 0.01
45. Dimethyl phthalate.................. 131-11-3 0.01
46. Di-n-butyl phthalate................ 84-74-2 0.01
47. Di-n-octyl phthalate................ 117-84-0 0.01
48. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate......... 117-81-7 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 463--PLASTICS MOLDING AND FORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
6. The authority citation for part 463 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
7. Section 463.1 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 463.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) Processes that coat a plastic material onto a substrate may
fall within the Electroplating, Metal Finishing, or Metal Products and
Machinery provisions of 40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438, as applicable.
These coating processes are excluded from the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the electroplating, metal finishing, and
metal products and machinery point source categories and are subject to
the plastics molding and forming regulation in this part.
* * * * *
PART 464--METAL MOLDING AND CASTING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
8. The authority citation for part 464 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
9. Section 464.02 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 464.02 General definitions.
(a) * * * Processing operations following the cooling of castings
not covered under aluminum forming, except for grinding scrubber
operations which are covered here, are covered under the
electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products and machinery point
source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438), as applicable.
(b) * * * Except for grinding scrubber operations which are covered
here, processing operations following the cooling of castings are
covered under the electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products
and machinery point source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438),
as applicable.
(c) * * * Except for grinding scrubber operations which are covered
here, processing operations following the cooling of castings are
covered under the electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products
and machinery point source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438),
as applicable.
(d) * * * Processing operations following the cooling of castings
not covered under nonferrous metals forming are covered under the
electroplating, metal finishing, and metal products and machinery point
source categories (40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438), as applicable.
* * * * *
PART 467--ALUMINUM FORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
10. The authority citation for Part 467 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
11. Section 467.01 is amended by revising the fourth sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 467.01 Applicability.
(a) * * * For the purposes of this part, surface treatment of
aluminum is considered to be an integral part of aluminum forming
whenever it is performed at the same plant site at which aluminum is
formed and such operations are not considered for regulation under the
Electroplating, Metal Finishing, or Metal Products and
[[Page 558]]
Machinery provisions of 40 CFR parts 413, 433, and 438, as applicable.
* * *
* * * * *
PART 471--NONFERROUS METAL FORMING AND METAL POWDERS POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
12. The authority citation for Part 471 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
13. Section 471.01 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 471.01 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) Surface treatment includes any chemical or electrochemical
treatment applied to the surface of the metal. For the purposes of this
regulation, surface treatment of metals is considered to be an integral
part of the forming of metals whenever it is performed at the same
plant site at which the metals are formed. Such surface treatment
operations are not regulated under Electroplating, Metal Finishing, or
Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category regulations, 40 CFR
parts 413, 433, and 438, respectively.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-33 Filed 1-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P