[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38752-38808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13808]
[[Page 38751]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 413, et al.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source
Category; Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38752]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471
[FRL-7221-4]
RIN 2040-AB79
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point
Source Category; Notice of Data Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of data availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 3, 2001 (66 FR 424), EPA published a proposal to
establish technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for the metal products and machinery (MP&M)
point source category. The proposal would apply to approximately 10,000
facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal products,
parts, or machines in eight regulatory subcategories. EPA developed the
proposal to address changes in the metal finishing and electroplating
sectors over the last 20 years, including measures that reduce
pollution. The proposal would establish national regulations for some
industry sectors for the first time as well as increasing the degree of
environmental protection from that achieved under the previous rules.
In the proposal, EPA specifically solicited comment on 43 issues in
addition to the general comment solicitation. EPA received comments
from various stakeholders, including State and local regulatory
authorities, environmental groups, individual industrial facilities and
industry groups, and private citizens.
This document presents a summary of data received in comments since
the proposal and additional data collected by EPA and describes how
these data may be used by EPA in developing final MP&M regulations.
EPA is evaluating how the comments and new data may change certain
aspects of the proposal and how this information might affect the
regulatory options considered for the proposal. EPA is also evaluating
the underlying data and methodology that EPA uses to estimate the
costs, pollutant load reductions, and financial impacts associated with
the regulation in light of the comments and new information. The
document describes EPA's current thinking on these subjects and
presents information on how the new data and information received since
proposal would affect the proposed limitations and standards. Today,
EPA is making these data and new information available for public
review and comment. EPA solicits public comment on the issues and
information presented in this notice of data availability and in the
administrative record supporting this document.
DATES: You must submit comments by July 22, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Public comments regarding this document should be submitted
electronically to [email protected]. You also may submit comments by
mail to: Metal Products & Machinery Rule, Office of Water, Engineering
and Analysis Division (4303T), USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460. You should submit hand-deliveries (including
overnight mail) to the Metal Products & Machinery Rule, USEPA, 1201
Constitution Ave, NW, Room 6231G EPA WEST, Washington, DC 20004. Please
submit an original and three copies of your written comments and
enclosures as well as any references cited in your comments. Commenters
who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a
self-addressed, stamped envelope. EPA will not accept facsimiles
(faxes). For additional information on how to submit electronic
comments see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.
The public record for this action and the proposed rulemaking has
been established under docket number W-99-23 and is located in the
Water Docket East Tower Basement, Room EB57, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460. The record is available for inspection from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For
access to the docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an
appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact
Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-1014 or at the following e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How To Submit Comments
Electronic comments must specify docket number W-99-23 and must be
submitted as an ASCII, Microsoft Word 97 file, or Word Perfect 5/6/7/8/
9 file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. EPA will also accept comments and data on disks in any of
the above listed file format. You may file electronic comments on this
action at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business
information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
Contents of This Document
I. Purpose of this Document
II. New Analytical Data and Information
A. EPA Site Visits & Sampling Episodes
B. Industry Submitted Data
C. Analytical Method Validation Study and the Total Organics
Parameter
III. Revisions & Corrections to the Cost & Loadings Model
A. Subcategorization of Facilities and Unit Operations Data
B. Pollutant Specific Revisions to Loadings and Removals
C. Stream Code Corrections
D. Change in Imputed Flows
E. Changes Considered for Methodology for Treatment-In-Place
Credits
F. Revisions to the Cost Modules
G. New Survey Weights
IV. Changes Considered to Applicability, Definitions, and Regulated
Pollutants
A. Changes Considered to Applicability and Definitions
B. Changes Considered to the Pollutants Selected for Regulation
V. New Information and Consideration of Revision to Economic &
Benefit Methodologies
A. Revised Cost Pass-Through and Market Structure Analysis
B. Consideration of Changes to Closure and Financial Stress Test
Methodologies
C. Consideration of Changes to Cash Flow Calculations
D. Updating Survey Data to Current Dollars
E. Adjusting Abnormally High Labor Cost Estimates
F. New Information on POTW Administrative Costs
G. Human Health Benefits from Reduced Exposure to Lead
H. Ohio Case Study
I. Recreational Benefits
J. POTW Characteristics
K. Drinking Water Intakes
L. Extrapolation of Sample-Based Results to the National Level
VI. Consideration of Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
A. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
B. Alternative Approaches Considered to TOP Limitations and
Standards
C. Consistency of Statistical Methodology With Other Recent
Effluent Guidelines
VII. Revised Estimates of Costs, Loadings, Economic Impacts, and
Cost-Effectiveness
A. Revised National Estimates of Economic Impacts
B. Revised National Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness
C. Results for the Sand Filter Option
D. Revised National Estimates of Monetized Benefits
VIII. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
A. Technology Option 2
B. Technology Option 4
C. Technology Option 6
[[Page 38753]]
D. Technology Option 10
IX. Consideration of Alternative Options
A. Consideration of Change in New Source Technology Option for
Metal-Bearing Subcategories
B. General Metals Subcategory
C. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Oily Wastes Subcategory
F. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
G. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
X. Solicitation of Comment
I. Purpose of This Document
Today's document has several purposes. First, EPA is presenting a
summary of new data and information submitted during the public comment
period on the proposed MP&M regulations as well as data collected by
EPA since proposal. Second, EPA discusses major issues raised in
comments on the proposal and revisions in the data analyses resulting
from these comments and the additional data. Third, the document
summarizes EPA's current thinking on how this new information and
suggestions made by commenters affect the analyses of the proposed
rule. The document also summarizes the changes EPA is considering for
the final rule in light of the new material. Finally, the document
includes modified potential effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards as revised to take account of the new data as well as revised
information on the cost and removals associated with various treatment
options.
EPA has incorporated into the data base used for developing the
proposed MP&M effluent limitations and pretreatment standards a
significant amount of new data and corrections to the proposal data.
For a number of the subcategories proposed for regulation, these
modifications have resulted in substantial changes in the estimated
cost and pollutant removals associated with the treatment options
considered at proposal. As a consequence, in several instances, the
economic impact and cost effectiveness of the treatment options are now
much higher than projected at proposal (Note that a ``high'' cost-
effectiveness figure means an option is not very cost effective). In
some cases, the proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards would have impacts greater than EPA has traditionally
determined to be economically achievable. Furthermore, limiting the
effluent limitations and standards to facilities with higher treatment
flows--so-called flow cutoffs--would not appear to mitigate economic
effects in any meaningful way for certain subcategories proposed for
regulation. In light of these new results, EPA is seeking further
comment on the regulatory options considered for the proposal as well
as several other options for reducing the economic impact of the final
rule.
The document includes seven main components:
(1) Discussion of new analytical data and information;
(2) Revisions to EPA's costs and pollutant loading model and
methodologies that incorporate new data;
(3) Possible changes to the applicability of the rule, definitions,
and selection of regulated pollutants for the final rule as a result of
the new information;
(4) New information and revisions that EPA may use for its economic
and benefit methodologies;
(5) New information and revisions that EPA may use for its
statistical methodologies;
(6) Revised estimates of costs, loadings, economic impacts,
benefits, and numerical limitations and standards; and
(7) Discussion of possible alternative options based on new data
and information.
This document addresses these issues related to the proposed MP&M
regulation. To the extent possible, today's document describes new
analyses that may be performed by EPA and describes revisions EPA is
considering to EPA's financial and engineering models, as well as
possible new data or methodologies. By providing this information, it
is EPA's intention to present the clearest picture of its current
thinking about how the proposal may change as a result of the
additional information it has obtained. It is EPA's hope that this
information will encourage effective comment.
This document also contains a discussion of ways that EPA may
reduce impacts and/or enhance flexibility of the regulation, including
options to encourage implementation of environmental management systems
(EMS) or ``no further regulation'' options for certain subcategories.
EPA received comments concerning these matters and in this document
requests further information. The document also outlines potential
changes to the regulatory thresholds (e.g., ``low wastewater flow
cutoff'') that were proposed to reduce impacts.
New data that EPA may use in its cost and economic models include
estimates from EPA and industry wastewater sampling of MP&M unit
operations of pollutant loading in raw wastewater and new information
related to various EPA modeling assumptions. EPA also received more
than 136 new data sets with proposal comments. EPA used 75 of these new
data sets for developing numerical limitations.
Through this notice of data availability, EPA seeks further public
comment on any and all aspects of the specific data and issues it has
identified here. However, EPA is seeking public comment only on these
specific data and issues. Nothing in today's document is intended to
invite further discussion of other issues discussed in the MP&M
proposal or to reopen the proposal in general for additional public
comments. EPA continues to review the comments already submitted on the
proposed rule and will address those comments, along with comments
submitted on the data and issues identified in today's document, in the
final rulemaking.
II. New Analytical Data and Information
There are three general areas of new analytical data: (1) EPA post-
proposal sampling, (2) industry self-sampling, and (3) EPA's analytical
method validation study. First, in response to public comments, EPA has
performed a number of analytical wastewater sampling episodes since the
publication of the proposed rule to collect additional data on raw
wastewater loadings, treatment efficiencies, and treatment variability.
In addition, facilities and industry trade associations submitted a
large quantity of analytical water sampling data (``self-monitoring
data'') along with their written comments on the MP&M proposal to EPA.
Finally, as discussed in the proposed rule (66 FR 529), EPA has
performed a study to validate EPA Analytical Methods 1624B/624 and
1625/625 for several organic pollutants that are part of the proposed
``Total Organics Parameter'' (TOP).
A. EPA Site Visits & Sampling Episodes
During the comment period and at the public meetings on the
proposal, commenters raised concerns over the representativeness of
EPA's database concerning metal finishing ``zinc'' platers, printed
wiring board facilities, and the steel forming and finishing
facilities. Based on these concerns EPA worked with industry trade
associations to identify facilities in these groups that would be good
candidates for EPA's post-proposal wastewater sampling program. EPA
visited 6 metal finishing zinc platers (4 job shops, 2 captive), 8
printed wiring board facilities, 4 steel forming and finishing
facilities, and 2 other MP&M facilities (i.e., metal finishing job
shops that do not specialize in zinc plating). Based on the
[[Page 38754]]
information collected during the site visits, which included
information on a variety of MP&M unit operations being performed,
whether the site was employing technology considered to be ``Best
Available Technology,'' sampling logistics, and production schedule,
EPA selected facilities for analytical wastewater sampling. EPA
performed wastewater sampling at 2 metal finishing zinc platers that
operate as job shops, 3 printed wiring board facilities, and 2 steel
forming and finishing facilities. EPA collected characterization
samples of wastewater from typical MP&M operations and paired influent
and effluent samples from each of these facilities' treatment systems.
In addition, EPA obtained long-term monitoring data from all sampled
sites for use in calculating new variability factors and long-term
averages for revising numerical limits. EPA also obtained long-term
monitoring data from several facilities that EPA visited but did not
sample: two zinc platers that operate as captive facilities, one
printed wiring board facility, and one steel forming and finishing
facility. EPA is using these additional data sets and data used at
proposal for revising numerical limits. Non-confidential versions of
these Site Visit Reports (SVRs) and Sampling Episode Reports (SERs) can
be found in sections 15.2 and 15.3 of the public record for this
document (Docket Number W-99-23).
Although EPA does have survey questionnaires for the facilities in
the Steel Forming & Finishing (SFF) Subcategory, EPA did not sample any
SFF facilities prior to proposal. EPA did solicit data from such
facilities. As explained in the proposal (66 FR 530), EPA is planning
to revise the list of regulated pollutants and the numerical
limitations for the SFF Subcategory based on post-proposal sampling
data. For proposal, EPA based the selection of regulated pollutants and
numerical limits on data from the General Metals subcategory. See
section IV of today's document for a list of pollutants currently under
consideration for regulation (see a memorandum entitled, ``Selection of
Regulated Pollutants for the Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory,''
section 16.2 of the public record, DCN 16876 for a discussion of the
selection of regulated pollutants.)
As described in the proposed rule (66 FR 534), EPA solicited
comment on the appropriate analytical method for analyzing total
sulfide in wastewater from MP&M facilities. When EPA performed
analytical testing on the wastewater samples collected post-proposal,
EPA used three different analytical methods to detect total sulfide:
Method 376.1, a titrimetric method that was used by EPA
for the majority of its sulfide analyses for proposal;
Method 376.2, a colorimetric method suggested by industry
as an alternate choice and used by EPA for one sampling episode for
proposal; and
Method 4500-S-2 (E) from the 18th edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, a
titrimetric method similar to Method 376.1. Method 4500-S-2
(C), a pretreatment procedure, is recommended for reducing
interferences (e.g., thiosulfate, sulfite, and various organic
compounds) and/or concentrating the sample to achieve greater
sensitivity. Method 4500-S-2 (E) was run using this
pretreatment procedure in the post-proposal sampling program.
All three of these methods are currently approved at 40 CFR part
136 for compliance monitoring.
EPA collected sulfide data for 236 samples in seven post-proposal
sampling episodes using all three of these sulfide methods (EPA Episode
numbers 6455, 6456, 6457, 6458, 6461, 6462, and 6463). These samples
were collected from both process wastewaters prior to treatment and
effluent wastewater after treatment. Of those 236 samples, 156 samples
(66%) had no sulfide detected by any of the three methods. The reported
detection limits for the three methods differ as a function of the
analytical techniques, and thus, EPA does not intend to investigate
these results further.
One of the 236 samples had results for all three methods that were
invalidated during the data review process because of extreme
difficulties during the analysis. An additional 79 samples (33%) had
sulfide detected by one or more of the three methods. These 79 samples
will tell us the most about the performance of the methods in the MP&M
wastewaters. Of those, only 12 samples had sulfide detected by all
three methods, while the remaining 67 samples were a mixture of
detected sulfide and non-detect results.
EPA provides a detailed review of these 67 samples with ``mixed
results'' and the 12 samples with detects by all three methods in a
document titled, ``Evaluation of Sulfide Results for Metal Products and
Machinery Samples Analyzed by MCAWW Method 376.1, MCAWW Method 376.2,
and Standard Method 4500-S-2 (E)'' (see section 16.2, DCN
16941).
Because the true concentrations of sulfide in these 236 samples are
not known, it is not possible to state with certainty which of the
three methods used in this study (DCN 16941) performs best overall. The
results for the 236 samples in this study suggest that there are
potential interferences with Method 376.1 that may be better addressed
by either Method 376.2 or SM 4500-S-2 (E) and its associated
sample pretreatment step. The fact that sulfide was not detected by any
of the methods in approximately 66% of all the samples, suggests that
the differences between the methods need to be viewed in the context of
specific samples and sample types.
Of the 26 effluent samples where EPA detected sulfide by one or
more of the three methods, eight samples were detected by all three
methods. These results indicate that the performance of the three
methods can be comparable in the sample type to which these methods are
most often applied (i.e., treated effluents), and in samples whose
sulfide concentrations fall within the range of all three methods. The
data from the other effluent samples and from the influents and unit
process samples suggest that: (1) Method 376.2 may perform better than
SM 4500-S-2 (E); and (2) when the sample pretreatment
procedure in SM 4500-S-2 [C] is employed, SM 4500-
S-2 (E), in turn, may perform better than Method 376.1.
B. Industry Submitted Data
In addition to their written comments, many MP&M facilities and a
few POTWs submitted data to be used in developing the numerical limits
for the final rule. EPA is using over 46 data sets of long-term self-
monitoring compliance data from ``BAT'' facilities that met our
criteria. In addition, EPA is using paired influent/effluent data
received from an additional 37 ``BAT'' facilities and characterization
data for MP&M unit operations (i.e., in-plant raw wastewater) from
three facilities.
EPA extensively reviewed the data submitted as comment to the
proposed rule. EPA reviewed the data for completeness when compared to
the ``Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data'' in the proposed
rule (66 FR 537). EPA contacted facilities to follow up on missing
information when only a few items were not included (e.g., a treatment
flow diagram or identification of sampling points). For the 75 data
sets of the 136 submitted with proposal comments, EPA has been able to
include the data and use them for calculating the revised limits
presented in today's document. Although EPA has used these data, it has
also flagged certain data points to note any discrepancies, such as the
analytical method not being an EPA
[[Page 38755]]
approved method or if there are questions pertaining to the QA/QC data.
These flags may be used in the future to exclude certain data points.
There are additional data submissions that EPA did not use in
calculating today's revised limitations and standards because the
Agency has not completed verifying that such data meets EPA's criteria
for inclusion. Although not used, these data are included in the record
for this document for purposes of public comment. EPA has fully
explained how it will calculate long-term averages and variability
factors for the final limitations and standards so commenters may
determine the effect these data would have if included in the data base
for the final rule. EPA will continue to contact facilities where major
components were missing from the data submittal and will consider
including these additional data sets now available in the record in the
development of the limitations and standards for the final rule to the
extent they meet EPA standards for inclusion.
EPA is using long-term monitoring data (i.e., data used for
compliance monitoring) from 31 General Metals facilities, 1 Metal
Finishing Job Shop, 4 Zinc Platers, 2 Printed Wiring Boards, 3 SFF
facilities, 3 Oily Wastes facilities, and 2 Shipbuilding Dry Docks. EPA
is also using industry-submitted paired influent/effluent data from 26
General Metals facilities, 8 Metal Finishing Job Shops, 2 Zinc Platers,
and one Oily Wastes facility. Data submitted with comments can be found
in section 12.2.2 of the public record.
EPA requested data to aid in characterizing the concentrations of
pollutants in wastewaters from MP&M processes (i.e., unit operations).
In addition to EPA's post-proposal sampling program, described above,
EPA received unit operations sampling data for the following unit
operations:
UP 4: Acid Treatment without Chromium
UP 4R: Acid Treatment without Chromium Rinse
UP 5: Alkaline Cleaning for Oil Removal
UP 5R: Alkaline Cleaning for Oil Removal Rinse
UP 14: Chemical Conversion Coating without Chromium
UP 16: Chromate Conversion Coating
UP 16R: Chromate Conversion Coating Rinse
UP 17: Corrosion Preventative Coating
UP 17R: Corrosion Preventative Coating Rinse
UP 24: Electroplating without Chromium or Cyanide
UP 24R: Electroplating without Chromium or Cyanide Rinse
UP 27: Grinding
UP 33: Painting--Immersion (E-Coat)
UP 83: Acid Pickling Neutralization
UP 93: Iron Phosphate Conversion Coating
UP 93R: Iron Phosphate Conversion Coating Rinse
EPA is using this data for two main purposes. First, EPA is using
this data to supplement unit operations data used to estimate the
pollutant loadings, by subcategory, contained in MP&M wastewaters prior
to treatment. As discussed in section III.A of today's document, EPA is
making every effort to use subcategory-specific unit operations data
instead of estimating loadings by averaging the data by unit operations
across subcategories.
Second, EPA is using this data to better define those operations
which should be included in EPA's definition of ``oily operations''
used to differentiate the Oily Wastes Subcategory from the General
Metals Subcategory. EPA received many comments on certain unit
operations that, as proposed, would cause a facility to fall under the
General Metals Subcategory instead of the Oily Wastes Subcategory.
Commenters concluded that these unit operations are truly ``oily
operations'' generating wastewater that contains little or no metals
and would not be effectively treated using the recommended treatment
for the General Metals Subcategory (i.e., Option 2, which includes
metal removal via chemical precipitation). Using the data that EPA
received and a review of all unit operations data, EPA is considering
incorporating into the definition of ``oily operations'' the following
unit operations and any associated rinses (see section IV.A for a
potential revision to the definition of ``oily operations''):
UP 1: abrasive blasting
UP 7: alkaline treatment without cyanide;
UP 11: assembly/disassembly;
UP 12: tumbling/barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory
finishing;
UP 13: burnishing;
UP 18: electrical discharge machining;
UP 35: polishing;
UP 43: thermal cutting;
UP 44: washing of final products;
UP 45: welding;
UP 46OR: wet air pollution control for organic
constituents;
UP 51: bilge water;
UP 71: adhesive bonding;
UP 72: calibration; and
UP-93: iron phosphate conversion coating.
EPA is considering this revision based on the low levels of metals
and similarity of wastewater characteristics to other ``oily
operations,'' (see section IV of today's document for the potential
revised definition of oily operations).
EPA also received data from the American Association of Railroads
(AAR) which summarized the current permit limits, treatment-in-place
(TIP), and the facilities' measured monthly average and average of
daily maximum values for the last year for all known direct discharge
railroad line maintenance facilities. More recently, this trade
association provided the individual responses to their survey
questionnaire. Each railroad line maintenance facility provided one
year of long-term monitoring data (see section 15.1 of the public
record for the AAR surveys). EPA is reviewing alternative options for
the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory based on this data. See
section IX.F of today's document for this discussion.
C. Analytical Method Validation Study and the Total Organics Parameter
In an effort to provide flexibility, EPA proposed three options for
meeting limits related to organic chemicals. One option focused on the
use of a surrogate parameter, Total Organics Parameter or TOP, to be
used for monitoring organic pollutants in MP&M wastewater. In the
proposal, the ``TOP'' consisted of 48 individual organic pollutants. To
comply with the TOP limit, as proposed, a facility would monitor for
all 48 pollutants (or a lesser number if a waiver was obtained for
pollutants not present) and sum the measured values, using the nominal
quantitation value for non-detects. As discussed in the proposed rule
(66 FR 529), the following TOP analytes 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 do have procedures that have been
validated as attachments to EPA Methods 1625/625. With the exception of
Benzoic Acid, EPA has performed a study to validate EPA Analytical
Methods 1624B/624 and 1625/625 for these organic pollutants. EPA
eliminated benzoic acid because of its low and highly variable recovery
using EPA Methods 625 and 1625. Benzoic acid will be deleted from the
list of organic pollutants that constitute the Total Organics
Parameter.
In order to provide test methods for six additional semivolatile
organic
[[Page 38756]]
pollutants (aniline, 3,6-dimethylphenanthrene, 2-isopropylnaphthalene,
1-methylfluorene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and 1-methylphenanthrene) and
one additional volatile organic pollutant (carbon disulfide) in the
MP&M industry final rule, EPA has developed and validated attachments
to EPA Methods 624 and 1624B and validated revisions to the existing
attachments to EPA Methods 625 and 1625. The attachments and revisions
to the attachments are:
Method 624, Attachment 1: Determination of Additional
Volatile Pollutants, January 2001
Method 625, Attachment 1, Revision A: Determination of
Additional Semivolatile Pollutants, January 2001 (Method 625,
Attachment 1A)
Method 1624B, Attachment 1: Determination of Additional
Volatile Pollutants, January 2001
Method 1625B, Attachment 1, Revision A: Determination of
Additional Semivolatile Pollutants, January 2001 (Method 1625B,
Attachment 1A)
The validation study for each of the above methods attachments
involve analyses of MP&M industry wastewater samples collected by EPA
and sent to three separate laboratories for analyses by Methods 1624B
and 1625B. Apart from the fact that Methods 1624B and 1625B contain
analytes that are not found in Methods 624 and 625, the principal
differences between these 1600 Series methods and their 600 Series
counterparts is that the 1600 Series methods employ isotope dilution
quantitation to determine the concentration of many of the target
analytes. The concentration of the target analytes are determined using
an internal standard quantitation procedure in the corresponding 600
Series methods. As a result, for the purposes of this study, instead of
analyzing a sample once by Method 1624B and again by Method 624, it is
both possible and practical to perform the analysis of a given sample
once for Method 1624B using isotope dilution quantitation and then
reprocess the resulting mass spectrometric data using the internal
standard procedures employed in Method 624. The same situation applies
to Methods 1625B and 625--one analytical run can provide data for both
quantitation approaches.
The results of this validation effort have been used to develop
method performance criteria for the seven new analytes in the
attachments to Methods 1624B, 624, 1625, and 625. These criteria are
specific to the use of these methods to demonstrate compliance with the
MP&M final rule only. The final report for the study provides criteria
for: method sensitivity, calibration linearity, labeled compound
recovery (Methods 1624B and 1625), and matrix spike recovery (Methods
624 and 625). The interlaboratory study results and the revised
attachments are included in the MP&M rulemaking record. See section
VI.B. of today's document for a discussion on alternative approaches to
calculating the TOP limit.
III. Revisions & Corrections to the Cost & Loadings Model
Based on proposal comments, EPA has revised several aspects of the
Cost & Loadings Model used to develop estimates of compliance costs and
pollutant loads. This section discusses the changes in methodology and
corrections to the model and database for this document including: (1)
Subcategorization of unit operations data; (2) pollutant specific
revisions to the loadings and removals; (3) corrections to the coding
in the model; (4) re-imputation of missing wastewater flows; and (5)
several other issues on which EPA is soliciting comment. Section VI of
today's document provides a more detailed discussion of the results of
the re-analysis using the revised Cost & Loadings Model (and the
revised associated input databases).
A. Subcategorization of Facilities and Unit Operations Data
This section discusses changes being considered to EPA's
subcategorization scheme as well as changes to the way in which EPA is
using the data that characterizes MP&M operations (i.e., unit
operations).
1. Changes in EPA's Subcategorization Scheme
In the proposal, EPA solicited comment on the proposed
subcategorization scheme. Based on the comments received, EPA is
considering placing Printed Wiring Board (PWB) facilities and Printed
Wiring Board job shops in the same subcategory: Printed Wiring Board.
At proposal, EPA placed the PWB job shops in the Metal Finishing Job
Shops Subcategory based on the special economic conditions of job
shops. However, information submitted by commenters indicates that PWB
job shops are much more similar to PWB facilities than to metal
finishing job shops when considering their wastewater characteristics
and operations. For all analyses supporting today's document, EPA has
placed the Printed Wiring Board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board
Subcategory.
In addition, based on comments, EPA has reviewed the unit
operations of Printed Wiring Assembly facilities and has determined
that they are most similar to the facilities in the General Metals
Subcategory. Printed wiring assembly facilities do not manufacture
printed circuit boards, but do attach circuit boards to other
structures. Therefore, they do not perform the operations typical of a
printed wiring board facility (e.g., applying photoresist, etching of
the board, or stripping). EPA concluded that most printed wiring
assembly facilities in the MP&M database were placed in the General
Metals Subcategory for proposal. For this document, EPA has confirmed
that all printed wiring assembly facilities are identified as General
Metals facilities. Unless new information leads EPA to reconsider this
determination, EPA will address the codified language for the
applicability of the General Metals Subcategory of the final rule to
reflect the inclusion of the printed wiring assembly facilities in the
subcategory.
EPA received comments concerning the definition for ``oily
operations'' used in the applicability statement of the Oily Wastes
Subcategory. Commenters provided data on several MP&M unit operations
which were not part of the ``oily operations'' definition in the
proposed rule. The data show that there are low levels of metals in
these unit operations. Based on the data received and a review of other
unit operations containing only low concentrations of metals, EPA is
considering whether to revise the proposed definition of ``oily
operations'' used to define the Oily Wastes Subcategory (see sections
II.B and IV.A). This change would result in the reclassification of
several facilities to the Oily Waste Subcategory that were originally
classified in the General Metals Subcategory at proposal (see section
VII of today's document for the number of facilities now estimated in
each subcategory).
Finally, EPA is considering whether to subcategorize or segment
metal finishing zinc platers. EPA uses the term ``zinc platers'' to
describe facilities where over 95% of their wastewaters are generated
from zinc electroplating operations. These facilities typically do not
perform copper, nickel, or chrome electroplating. However, most of
these facilities follow their plating lines with chromium conversion
coating lines. Currently, zinc platers can be found in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops Subcategory (i.e., job shop zinc platers) and the
General Metals Subcategory (i.e., captive shop zinc platers). The
wastewater characteristics of zinc platers are different from other
facilities
[[Page 38757]]
in these two subcategories, particularly with respect to their
concentrations of zinc. Where non-zinc platers may have concentrations
of 10-90 mg/l zinc in their wastewater prior to treatment, zinc platers
have concentrations from 100-800 mg/l zinc in their wastewater prior to
treatment. However, zinc platers have very low concentrations of other
pollutants as compared to non-zinc platers. Therefore, EPA is
considering subcategorizing zinc platers by either creating a separate
subcategory for all zinc platers, or creating a segment within each of
the two affected subcategories. EPA is also considering retaining the
current structure. The use of a segment would allow for a separate
numerical limitation for zinc for zinc platers while providing ease of
implementation as it would allow them to remain in their appropriate
current subcategory (i.e., Metal Finishing Job Shops or General
Metals). EPA is also considering no change to the current
subcategorization scheme but adopting a new zinc limit that represents
zinc levels achievable by zinc platers operating BAT treatment systems.
In this case, EPA would use data from the sampling of zinc platers to
set the zinc limit in the Metal Finishing Job Shops and General Metals
subcateogries. EPA concluded that this approach would cause the least
confusion for permit writers and be the easiest to implement; however,
this approach would allow discharge of additional pounds of zinc to the
environment from non-zinc platers in the current subcategories (see
Table III.A-1). These additional pounds of zinc would have
corresponding low pound-equivalents due to the low toxicity weighting
factor (0.047) for zinc.
Table III.A-1.--Incremental Pounds of Zinc Discharged to the Environment When Using Only Zinc Plater Data for
Setting the Zinc Limits for the Metal Finishing Job Shops and General Metals Subcategories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Pound-
Discharger status Facility type facilities Pounds equivalents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect.................................. General Metals............... 10,787 8,200 385
General Metals (> 1 MGY) \1\. 2,055 7,491 352
Metal Finishing Job Shops.... 1,165 1,895 89
Direct.................................... General Metals............... 1,500 9,754 458
Metal Finishing Job Shops.... 24 101 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: MGY: Million Gallons per Year
EPA solicits comment on whether: (1) Zinc platers should be in
their own subcategory; (2) a segment within existing subcategories; or
(3) no change in subcategorization with a zinc limitation that is
achievable by zinc platers. EPA also solicits comment on the burden to
permit writers and control authorities associated with each approach.
2. Subcategorization of Unit Operation Data
In the Cost & Loadings Model used for the proposed rule, EPA
averaged all data for a specific unit operation (e.g., UP23--
electroplating with cyanide) regardless of the subcategory of the
facility from which the data was collected. Therefore, cyanide
concentrations from a metal finishing job shop's UP23 were averaged
with cyanide concentrations from a printed wiring board's UP23, and
with cyanide concentrations from a general metals facility's UP23. EPA
received many comments demonstrating that the concentrations of cyanide
in electroplating varied greatly between subcategories, and most
importantly between metal finishing job shops and printed wiring
boards. Similarly, EPA received comments that the concentration of
copper and tin differed widely between printed wiring board facilities
and other subcategories. Therefore, for this analysis EPA is applying
concentration data from unit operations by subcategory to the extent
possible.
EPA has segregated the existing unit operations concentration data,
including data used for proposal and newly collected data, by
subcategory. EPA performed post-proposal sampling (see section II.A) of
many printed wiring board unit operations in an effort to distinguish
printed wiring board data from other MP&M subcategories with metal-
bearing wastewater. For example, at proposal EPA used an average
cyanide concentration of 27,959 mg/l for UP23 for all metal-bearing
subcategories; however, EPA has revised the Cost & Loadings Model to
use a cyanide concentration for UP23 of 5,200 mg/l for metal finishing
jobs shops and 430 mg/l for printed wiring boards based on data
obtained from these operations (see section III.B.1).
In addition to segregating the unit operations data by subcategory,
EPA has segregated the unit operations for the ``zinc plater'' segment
of the Metal Finishing Job Shops and General Metals subcategories.
Therefore, the unit operations (raw wastewater) of a model site that is
a zinc plater would be credited with the appropriate level (i.e.,
higher level) of zinc and appropriate levels (i.e., very low or non-
detect) of other pollutants.
EPA has also collected unit operation data that is specific to the
steel forming and finishing subcategory so that modeled pollutant
loadings will better reflect wastewater characteristics at those sites.
Finally, EPA received comment concerning the variability of the
wastewaters sampled to represent the ``testing'' unit operation. EPA
defines the testing unit operation as the application of thermal,
electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, or other energy to determine the
suitability or functionality of a part, assembly or complete unit.
Commenters are concerned that wastewater concentrations from testing of
one type (e.g., automotive radiators) does not represent the same
wastewater characteristics as testing of another type (e.g., aircraft
engines). EPA is considering whether or not to further divide the
testing unit operation, particularly for the General Metals
Subcategory, by industry sector or testing type (e.g., hydrostatic, dye
penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux). EPA data show automotive
radiator testing molybdenum, fluoride, and vanadium concentrations are
774 mg/l, 0 mg/l (not measured) and 0.004 mg/L respectively, while
aircraft parts testing molybdenum, fluoride, and vanadium
concentrations are 0.271 mg/l, 49,000 mg/l, and 215 mg/l respectively.
EPA solicits comment on whether or not to subdivide the testing unit
operation and ways to appropriately divide the Agency's data from this
unit operation.
The methodology for subcategorization of unit operation
concentrations and a discussion of
[[Page 38758]]
remaining data transfers from one subcategory to another are described
in a memorandum in the public record, entitled `` MP&M Pollutant
Loadings Subcategory-Specific Data,'' section 16.7, DCN 16759. EPA
solicits comments on this approach.
B. Pollutant Specific Revisions to Loadings and Removals
EPA received comment on several pollutant-specific issues related
to the pollutant loadings and removals generated by EPA's Cost &
Loadings Model. In some cases, commenters questioned results from a
specific sampling episode. For example some commenters stated that the
misclassification of a cyanide electroplating sampling point led to an
overestimation of cyanide pollutant loadings and removals. In other
cases, commenters raised more general issues, such as the percent
removal value assigned to boron (at proposal boron was set equal to the
long term average (LTA) for boron, not using a percent removal) in the
Cost & Loadings Model. EPA solicits comment on how EPA has tentatively
addressed these issues. EPA is also reviewing several data points that
commenters concluded to be ``outliers.'' In several cases EPA has
addressed these issues and in other cases, due to the need to work with
the facility in question, EPA is working toward resolving them for the
final rule. Below is a discussion of the revisions being considered
regarding the most prominent of the pollutant-specific issues: cyanide,
tin, copper, sulfide, and boron. A detailed summary of all the
pollutant-specific issues under review may be found in a memorandum
entitled, ``MP&M Pollutant Loadings Methodology Changes from Proposal''
in the public record for this document, section 16.7, DCN 16764. EPA
notes that the pollutant loadings and removals for the final rule will
reflect the addition of EPA and appropriate industry submitted unit
operations data to the model. (see section IV of today's document for a
discussion on EPA's current views on possible changes to pollutants
selected for regulation).
1. Cyanide
The major issue regarding cyanide pollutant loadings raised by
commenters involves the misidentification of a single sampling point.
Prior to proposal, EPA sampled at one facility what it concluded was
cyanide electroplating rinse water (i.e., UP23R). For the proposal,
that data was averaged with other cyanide concentrations for the same
unit operation (UP23R) to obtain an average cyanide concentration for
use in the Cost & Loadings Model for that unit operation. Although the
concentration of cyanide was considerably higher than other facility
data for the same unit operation, a check of the site report, which had
been reviewed by the facility, verified that sample point as a rinse
water. Based on comments received and additional follow-up discussion
with the sampled site, EPA now has determined that the actual sample
was taken from a drag-out tank that follows the cyanide electroplating
bath and that the drag-out tank water is recycled. Therefore, the
concentration of cyanide in that tank is not characteristic of cyanide
electroplating rinse water (i.e., UP23R) and EPA has removed this
cyanide concentration (and concentrations of all other pollutants from
that sampling point) from the electroplating with cyanide rinse unit
operation (UP23R) and has reclassified it as a drag-out rinse that is
recycled (UP23RDO). This change has a significant effect on the average
cyanide concentration used for the proposal in the cost and loadings
model for that unit operation and the resulting cyanide pollutant
concentration levels (5,042 mg/l to 3.6 mg/l for general metals).
Further, EPA is now considering using unit operations concentration
data on a subcategory-specific basis for the final rule (see section
III.A.2 of today's document). The cyanide data point discussed here was
taken at a general metals facility. Therefore, this data point would no
longer affect the cyanide loadings for the metal finishing job shops,
printed wiring board, non-chromium anodizing, or steel forming and
finishing subcategories for the final rule. Following this approach,
the current estimated cyanide concentrations for cyanide electroplating
rinse (UP23R) are as follows: 58.8 mg/l for metal finishing job shops,
22.02 mg/l for printed wiring board, 22.02 mg/l for non-chromium
anodizing, and 22.02 mg/l for steel forming and finishing. This
document reflects these concentrations. See section VII of today's
document for a discussion on the overall change in pollutant loadings
and removals due to revisions to the Cost & Loadings Model.
2. Tin
The major issue regarding tin concentrations raised by commenters
in the Cost & Loadings model involves the misclassification of a
sampled unit operation containing a large concentration of tin. Prior
to proposal, EPA sampled a unit operation that it classified as UP4R
(acid treatment without chromium rinse). However, based on comment and
subsequent review of the sampling episode report, EPA has concluded
that this unit operation is different from UP4R. This unit operation
involved the use of a catalyst solution for electroless plating
operations and did not fit in any of EPA's current unit operation
descriptions. Therefore, EPA created a new unit operation for
electroless plating catalyst solutions (UP87) and assigned the data for
tin and all other pollutants associated with that particular sampling
point to the new unit operation.
EPA estimated tin concentrations for acid treatment without
chromium rinse (UP4R) across all subcategories in the proposal at 256.2
mg/L. The current estimated tin concentrations for UP4R are as follows:
1.97 mg/l for metal finishing job shops, 0.0204 mg/l for printed wiring
board, 0.0444 mg/L for general metals, and 0.0432 mg/L for zinc
platers. This document reflects these revised concentrations. See
section VII of today's document for a discussion on the overall change
in pollutant loadings and removals due to revisions to the Cost &
Loadings Model.
3. Copper
The factors discussed above related to cyanide and tin also would
result in changes in pollutant loadings for copper. When EPA revised
the cyanide and tin concentrations for those two sampling points, it
also revised the concentrations for all pollutants associated with
those sampling points, including copper. Copper loadings are also
largely affected by the subcategorization of unit operations data and
EPA's post-proposal sampling of three additional printed wiring board
facilities. In EPA's view, the copper loadings for non-printed wiring
board facilities would be reduced through the use of subcategory-
specific unit operations data. Further EPA has concluded that the
copper loadings for printed wiring board facilities would be more
reflective of those facilities due to the incorporation of additional
printed wiring board sampling data.
EPA estimated copper concentrations for acid treatment without
chromium rinse (UP4R) across all subcategories in the proposal at 52.85
mg/L. The current estimated copper concentrations for UP4R are as
follows: 7.97 mg/l for metal finishing job shops, 58.97 mg/l for
printed wiring board, 9.49 mg/L for general metals, and 7.97 mg/L for
zinc platers. This document reflects these revised concentrations. See
section VII of today's document for a discussion on the overall change
in pollutant loadings
[[Page 38759]]
and removals due to revisions to the Cost & Loadings Model.
4. Sulfide
EPA received many comments concerning EPA's estimate of pollutant
removals for total sulfide and EPA's proposal to regulate total
sulfide. Commenters stated that the pollutant removals associated with
total sulfide were inflated due to the analytical method EPA used to
test for total sulfide. Commenters concluded that the method used (EPA
Method 376.1) may yield erroneous results because of matrix
interference (i.e., erroneous analytical results for the pollutant of
concern due to certain substances present in the sample). This may
result in higher reported sulfide concentrations than what is actually
in the wastewater. In addition, many of the data points used for total
sulfide were transferred from data for the Oily Wastes Subcategory to
other subcategories. Therefore, as discussed in section II.A of today's
document, EPA is now using two additional methods (EPA Method 376.2 and
Standard Method 4500-S-\2\[E], 18th edition) to test for
total sulfide. For the purposes of establishing unit operations
concentrations for a specific sampling point for the Cost & Loadings
Model for the NODA analyses, EPA averaged the data from Methods 376.2
and 4500-S--2 (E). For the final rule EPA currently intends
to follow the recommendations in the memorandum titled, ``Evaluation of
Sulfide Results for Metal Products and Machinery Samples Analyzed by
MCAWW Method 376.1, MCAWW Method 376.2, and Standard Method 4500-
S-\2\ (E)'' (see section 16.2, DCN 16941). The memorandum's
recommendations are specific for unit operations, influent, and
effluent concentration data.
EPA is considering the effects of these recommendations on loadings
and solicits comments on this analysis. EPA is also now using
subcategory-specific unit operations data, so that in all cases total
sulfide concentrations would not be transferred from oil-bearing
subcategories to metal-bearing subcategories. If no sulfide
concentration was identified for unit operations within a subcategory,
EPA set the sulfide concentration equal to zero for today's document,
and is considering doing the same in the analysis for the final rule.
5. Boron
Although EPA did not propose to regulate boron, many commenters
expressed concern with EPA's estimates of boron pollutant removals.
Commenters state that boron is not removed in chemical precipitation
systems and any removal is an artifact of the database. EPA has
revisited the analysis regarding the removal of boron in chemical
precipitation systems and has concluded that boron shows widely
variable removals in two BAT treatment systems and is not removed at
all (or has negative removals) in the remaining three BAT treatment
systems (see section 16.7, DCN 16758). EPA has concluded that, in most
cases at MP&M facilities, boron is in the dissolved anionic form (as
borate) and cannot be removed by chemical precipitation.
For the purposes of estimating boron removals for today's document
for subcategories where EPA is using chemical precipitation as the
basis for limitations, EPA has made a change to the methodology. For
today's document, EPA has set the pollutant removals for boron equal to
zero. Therefore, EPA is not claiming any removal for boron from
chemical precipitation systems.
EPA also considered a more site-specific approach where EPA would
apply the boron removal percentage from a particular EPA sampling
episode to all model facilities with similar characteristics to the
sampled facility. For example, commenters stated that one reason EPA's
boron removals were inflated was because removals were based on a
facility that also performs porcelain enameling, where the wastewaters
are commingled for treatment. The commenters stated that the porcelain
frit was the cause for the relatively high boron removals (i.e., the
boron is in solid form and can be removed by gravity separation)
compared to facilities that are not also performing porcelain
enameling. Therefore, in this example, EPA considered applying the
boron removal based on the sampled facility with the porcelain
enameling and MP&M wastewaters only to other model facilities in EPA's
database that also conduct porcelain enameling operations. EPA reviewed
all sites in EPA's questionnaire database and found six survey sites
that reported being covered by the Porcelain Enameling effluent
guidelines. Of these six sites only one site was discharging wastewater
from MP&M and porcelain enameling operations and the percentage of
wastewater from porcelain enameling operations was less than two
percent of their wastewater volume. It is likely that the national
estimate of boron removals using this approach, relative to the
removals for other pollutants, would be close to zero. EPA solicits
comment on the revised results and which approach EPA should use for
the final rule to estimate boron removals.
EPA intends to conduct further review of boron removals in other
treatment systems, such as Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). DAF is
currently the basis for the limitations in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
and Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategories. EPA has data from the MP&M
database as well as data from other previous regulations indicating
positive removals of boron from DAF systems. EPA will review the form
of the boron present in wastewater from these subcategories (e.g.,
dissolved or insoluble) and examine the mechanism for removal.
EPA will also perform an assessment for the final rule
investigating molybdenum removals via chemical precipitation similar to
that used for boron. EPA may determine from this analysis that: (1)
Molybdenum is present in MP&M wastewaters as a dissolved form which is
not removable by chemical precipitation; or (2) there is a low level of
incidental molybdenum removal for use in the Cost & Loads Model. There
may be incidental removals when molybdenum adheres to oily wastewaters
that are removed in the oil water separation step or other treatment
steps (e.g., flocculation). For the analyses performed for today's
document, EPA is using the average effluent concentration achieved for
molybdenum by EPA sampled facilities. (see section IV of today's
document for a discussion on molybdenum as a pollutant selected for
regulation). EPA solicits comment on molybdenum being removed through
oil water separation step or other treatment steps (e.g.,
flocculation).
C. Stream Code Corrections
This section describes how EPA intends to revise several parts of
the computer format of the model and data entry corrections EPA will
make based on comments received regarding the Cost & Loadings Model.
All revisions and corrections discussed in this section, affecting
approximately 5% of the stream codes, have been incorporated into the
analyses supporting today's document.
There were two cases where EPA's Cost & Loadings Model did not
correctly link unit operations (UP) ``extender'' codes in the stream
identification field of the database. Extender codes are used to
indicate a rinse (``R'') or can be used to indicate the presence of
multiple lines. For example, if the facility had 3 different acid
treatment without chromium rinse lines, the lines would be labeled UP
04R-1, 04R-2, 04R-3. When the model did not correctly link
[[Page 38760]]
with these codes it led to the mis-assignment of each stream for the
purposes of determining whether or not the stream should receive credit
for having treatment-in-place (TIP). Therefore, at proposal there were
a number of rinses or multiple lines that were not given proper credit
for TIP.
Another example is where a site's questionnaire indicated that UP04
(acid treatment bath without chromium) goes to treatment, but did not
say whether or not UP04R (acid treatment rinse without chromium) went
to treatment. For the proposal cost and load analysis, TIP credit was
given for UP04, but not for UP04R. EPA has corrected the model used for
today's document. In another example, a site's questionnaire indicated
UP04R goes to treatment, but when multiple lines (UP04R-1, -2, -3) are
present, TIP credit did not get conveyed in the proposal cost and loads
analysis to the streams labeled UP04R-1, -2, -3. EPA notes that less
than three percent of all streams required a change in TIP assignment
due to this error.
Similarly, when converting from numeric to text format for use in
running the Cost & Loadings Model, some streams converted as UP1R-1 and
UP4R-1 instead of UP01R-1 and UP04R-1. This caused a mismatch in the
model databases and those streams were not given proper TIP credit. EPA
has corrected the model used for today's document.
EPA has also identified a few data entry errors that were limited
in scope, but do affect the output of the Cost & Loadings Model. In one
case, the facility completed an erroneous page in their questionnaire
for the treatment unit at their facility (e.g., equalization/
neutralization instead of chemical precipitation). In correcting this
error, the reviewer did not transfer all of the affected unit
operations from the erroneous page to new treatment unit page, and
therefore, some unit operations did not get entered and did not receive
TIP credit. EPA has corrected the model used for today's document.
In another case, the facility completed the unit operation page of
their questionnaire but did not indicate to which treatment unit the
unit operation discharged. Therefore, TIP credit was not given for that
unit operation. Upon further review of these streams and comparison to
treatment diagrams (which indicated to which treatment units these
streams discharged), a correction was made to the data entry and TIP
credit was given. EPA has carefully reviewed questionnaires for all
sites where full or partial TIP credit was not given, and has corrected
the model used for today's document, accordingly (see section III.E).
D. Change in Imputed Flows
EPA uses wastestream-specific flow (not total facility flow) and
production information in the Cost & Loadings Model. A number of
questionnaires were submitted without data for flow or production
related to an individual wastestream. In some instances EPA contacted
the facility to gather the information. If the data was not available
or if EPA did not contact the facility, EPA imputed data using data
from similar facilities in the questionnaire database. The 1,003
facilities in the database had 17,424 different lines (i.e., tanks), of
which EPA imputed values for 6,129 lines at 797 facilities. These
imputed values included production and/or production normalized flows
(PNFs) for most municipality surveys, because the surveys did not
request this information from them. This section describes the changes
in the data and imputed values from the proposal. This section also
describes some changes that EPA is considering for the final rule.
Commenters stated their concerns regarding several large flow
values that were created through imputation. Commenters noted that in
these cases the flow for the wastestream, when added with all other
streams at the facility exceeded the facility's reported total flow
(including non-MP&M process wastewater). Commenters suggested using a
comparison of the summation of a facility's stream flows with the
facility's reported total discharge flow as a ``reality check.'' EPA
has used this ``reality check'' in the imputations for today's
document. Each survey requested the total flow information in different
ways. Phase I surveys required respondents to report on the total
facility flow. Phase II surveys listed three different fields: MP&M
Process Water, Process Water, Total Facility Water Use. EPA used the
MP&M Process Water value if it was given by the facility. If this value
was not given, EPA used the Process Water value. If neither of these
values were reported, EPA used the Total Facility Water Use value.
When EPA examined the data before imputing any values, 10 percent
of the facilities in the database had the sum of their individual
streams exceed the total facility flow. EPA also identified stream
flows that appeared to be incorrect. After identifying these
inconsistencies, EPA reviewed its hard copies of the surveys to look
for any information which would provide more accurate total flows
(e.g., perhaps the site wrote in their own units of measure which need
to be converted). Most occurrences were with Phase I sites that were
surveyed between 1989 and 1990, where previous reviews of the total
flow had not been pursued as vigorously as the stream flow information.
Based upon its findings, EPA revised the individual stream flows and
the total flows in the database. The sum of individual stream flows for
a facility were then compared to the reported total flow. EPA scaled
back the individual stream flows when the sum of the individual stream
flows were greater than the total flow (see memorandum titled
``Revisions to the Technical Portion of the Imputation Methodology,''
section 16.6.1, DCN 27711). EPA also excluded recycle and pollution
prevention streams as a basis for imputed values because the flows are
often quite large, but usually are not completely discharged. In
addition, EPA excluded contract hauling streams from the summation of
individual streams, because they would not be included in the
facility's reported total discharge flow.
After incorporating those changes into its database, EPA imputed
values for individual streams where the flows were unknown. As a check
on the imputed values, EPA then compared the total flow at each
facility to the sum of all flow values (i.e., imputed and others) for
the individual streams at that facility. As a result of these changes,
EPA found only 32 facilities (i.e., less than four percent) where the
summation of the reported and imputed individual flows exceeded the
total reported flows. For these facilities, EPA has either revised the
stream flows based upon engineering review or proportionally decreased
the imputed flows to be less than the reported total flow.
For the final rule, EPA has determined that further improvements in
the imputation strategy may be warranted and solicits comments on its
ideas. In the current strategy, EPA assumes that all missing flows
correspond to operations that discharge water and thus missing flows
have imputed values that are always greater than zero. However, the
surveys identified that some unit operations are frequently dry
operations. For the final rule, EPA may assign some missing flow values
to be zero (i.e., dry).
In addition, while the imputation procedure uses relevant
information from similar operations at the facility when it has some
reported and some missing values, these similar operations may include
several different types of unit operations. In its review of the data,
EPA observed that values were often identical between different lines
(or
[[Page 38761]]
tanks) of the same unit operation and would often differ between unit
operations at that facility. Thus, EPA makes every attempt to use
relevant information from similar operations at the facility when it
has some reported and some missing values, EPA has determined that
placing more emphasis on the unit-level operations may be more
appropriate in the intra-facility imputations for streams.
When intra-facility information could not be used, the imputation
procedure used the median value of all of the lines within a ``unit
grouping.'' Within each unit grouping, EPA combined similar unit
operations based upon water usage characteristics and the number of
lines associated with each operation. EPA then calculated the median
value of the lines for each unit grouping. However, when it examined
summary statistics such as the 10th and 90th percentiles for each unit
grouping, EPA observed that the production-normalized flows and
production were extremely variable within many unit groupings. For the
final rule, EPA intends to investigate the causes for this variability
for the final rule, and possibly re-define the unit groupings to be
more homogeneous.
Also, for the final rule, EPA will consider facility and
subcategory effects on the imputed values. As stated above, EPA noted
that values within a facility tended to be similar. Thus, a facility
with many lines in a particular unit operation would have more
influence on the median value than a facility with fewer lines. For the
final rule, EPA may consider using a single value from each facility
rather than using the values from every line in that unit operation.
Also, because it has observed some differences between subcategories
with the same unit operation, EPA will investigate whether the
imputation procedure should incorporate subcategorization in some way.
In a memorandum in the public record (see section 19.2, DCN 36081),
EPA has described the current strategy, unit groupings, and
assumptions, and indicated the changes that it may incorporate for the
final rule. These changes will probably have little or no impact for
most facilities. For others, it may increase or decrease the flows of
the imputed streams. This may have the effect of lowering pollutant
loadings with the inclusion of zero discharge unit operations. EPA
solicits comment on the approaches outlined in the memorandum.
E. Changes Considered for Methodology for Treatment-In-Place Credits
For the proposed rule, EPA estimated the baseline pollutant
loadings (i.e., pollutant loading prior to compliance with the MP&M
regulations) from model facilities based on actual treatment-in-place
at those sites based on questionnaire responses. If a model site had no
treatment-in-place for their MP&M wastewaters or if a metal-bearing
site only had pH adjustment, neutralization or equalization without any
mechanism for sludge removal, EPA estimated baseline pollutant loadings
based on raw wastewater data from EPA sampling episodes. If a site had
some or all of its MP&M wastewater going through a treatment system
(BAT system, equivalent, or better), EPA estimated baseline pollutant
loadings, for those streams going through the system, based on the
long-term average (LTA) effluent concentrations (i.e., design
concentrations) from the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR
part 433) for pollutants regulated by that regulation (with the
exception of cyanide) and based on treatment system specific effluent
concentration data (i.e., MP&M LTAs) from EPA sampling episodes for
cyanide and the other MP&M pollutants of concern. Commentors raised
questions about whether EPA was providing appropriate treatment-in-
place credits for certain technologies in the proposal, and this
subject is specifically addressed later in this document. In the case
where a facility was treating some MP&M wastewaters using its on-site
treatment system, but not others, EPA estimated the baseline pollutant
loadings for the streams receiving treatment using the treatment-
specific effluent concentrations described above and using the raw
wastewater data for those streams not going through treatment in the
baseline. In the MP&M Costs & Loads Model, such facilities are referred
to as having ``partial treatment-in-place credit.'' The same holds true
for facilities that may have a portion of a BAT system, such as
alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction, but do not perform
further treatment for metals using chemical precipitation and
clarification.
EPA then estimates pollutant loadings for the proposed option for
each model site. When estimating the pollutant loadings for the
proposed option, EPA assumed the site was meeting the long-term average
(LTA) concentrations (i.e., design effluent concentrations) achieved by
EPA's sampled MP&M BAT facilities. If a site is performing better at
baseline (e.g., microfiltration for solids removal) than required by
the MP&M proposed option (e.g., clarification), EPA assumed for the
NODA analysis that the site will continue to operate with the superior
technology for the EPA proposed option.
EPA calculates the pollutant loads removed by the proposed option
as the difference between the pollutant loadings estimated for the
proposed option and the pollutant loadings estimate for the baseline.
This means that for sites which have treatment-in-place at the baseline
that is the same or equivalent to the BAT treatment (i.e., sites with
full TIP credit), EPA is claiming very little, if any, additional
pollutant removal due to the MP&M regulation. EPA notes that the MP&M
regulation may still show significant removals for those facilities
that have equivalent ``end of pipe'' technologies or treatment units
(e.g., metal removal via chemical precipitation) but not the BAT
pollution prevention technologies (e.g., paint water curtain, counter-
current cascade rinsing, machine coolant recycling). For these
facilities, the ``end of pipe'' technologies may be equivalent, but
EPA's modeling drastically increase the efficiencies of their system
with the increased influent concentrations. For sites that have some
MP&M wastewaters receiving treatment in the baseline (i.e., sites with
partial TIP credit), the additional pollutant removal EPA is claiming
is largely from their untreated streams. Finally, sites with no
treatment-in-place or only pH adjustment, neutralization, or
equalization without any mechanism to remove sludge (i.e., sites with
no TIP credit) are the largest source of the pollutant reductions that
EPA estimated for the proposed rule.
The two most prominent issues received in comments regarding
treatment-in-place (TIP) credit (with exception of the stream code
corrections to the Cost & Loadings Model discussed in section III.C
above) dealt with giving TIP credit for alternative technologies,
including ultrafiltration, and with EPA's methodology for calculating
the baseline load for currently regulated facilities (see also section
16.4, DCN 16883).
1. Equivalency of Alternative Technology as BAT
When determining whether or not to provide a site with TIP credit
for an existing treatment system, EPA reviewed the site's questionnaire
for information to determine if the treatment system was equivalent (or
better) than the proposed BAT technology. The proposed BAT technology
for existing facilities in the metal-bearing subcategories consists of
segregation of chelated wastes, hexavalent chromium reduction, when
necessary, cyanide destruction by alkaline chlorination, when
necessary,
[[Page 38762]]
chemical emulsion breaking for oils removals, incorporation of
pollution prevention and water conservation practices, and chemical
precipitation (by sodium hydroxide) followed by a lamella slant-plate
clarifier and sludge removal.
When determining whether a treatment system was ``BAT,''
equivalent, or better than BAT for the purposes of determining
treatment-in-place credit, EPA assumed that facilities that indicated
chemical precipitation systems would also have a clarifier (even when
they did not indicate this) and vice versa. However, EPA assumed that
sites with metal-bearing wastestreams must have some mechanism for
sludge removal to truly be operating a chemical precipitation and
clarification system. EPA also assumed for the proposal and today's
document that: (1) Facilities operating chemical precipitation followed
by microfiltration or membrane to be at least equivalent to BAT; (2)
facilities which indicated membranes for solids removal (i.e.,
microfiltration, reverse osmosis) also had chemical precipitation and
are at least equivalent to BAT; and (3) facilities which indicated on
their surveys ``pH-Adjustment'' followed by solids removal (e.g.,
clarification, membrane, microfiltration but not gravity settling) as
if they were operating a chemical precipitation and clarification
system for metals removal. EPA gave these facilities TIP credit at
least as equivalent to BAT. EPA will investigate for the final rule
which types of ``pH-Adjustment'' with solids removal, including types
and amount of treatment chemicals, should be equated with BAT TIP
credit or better. EPA solicits comment on this issue. For cyanide
destruction systems, at proposal, EPA assumed that BAT was alkaline
chlorination. EPA is considering in-process ion exchange for cyanide
removal to be equivalent to alkaline chlorination for the final rule
(see further discussion below). For sludge removal, EPA assumed that
facilities with sludge thickening or a filter press had both components
in place. In the case of oily wastes, sites with dissolved air
flotation or ultrafiltration were considered to be at least equivalent
to the BAT of chemical emulsion breaking for oil removal; however sites
with only oil skimming were not considered to be BAT for oil removal.
EPA received several comments from facilities that use alternative
treatments for metals removals. For example, many sites use ion
exchange systems to reclaim gold from gold-cyanide wastestreams. Ion
exchange systems have the ability to remove the cyanide from the
wastestream to very low levels. Commenters requested that EPA provide
TIP credit for use of ion exchange for removal of cyanide. At proposal,
EPA did not make this allowance; EPA is considering this change in
methodology for the final rule and has given TIP credit for end-of-pipe
ion exchange systems for cyanide destruction in today's document and is
also considering giving TIP credit for in-process ion exchange for
cyanide destruction in the final rule. EPA is also considering giving
full TIP credit for ion exchange for metals removals. EPA expects that
granting TIP metals credit to plants with ion exchange will lower
pollutant removal estimates from today's pollutant removal estimates.
EPA requests comment on which alternative technologies, in addition to
ion exchange, should be set as equivalent to cyanide destruction and to
chemical precipitation followed by clarification.
2. Pollutant Loadings Baseline
As discussed above, EPA provided credit for achieving the long-term
average concentrations of the Metal Finishing rule and the EPA BAT
long-term average concentrations for facilities that received TIP
credit, regardless of whether or not they are currently covered under
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or Electroplating (40 CFR part
413) effluent guidelines. However, commenters requested that EPA give
baseline part 413 or part 433 limits credit to all facilities currently
covered under these existing effluent guidelines even when their
questionnaires indicate that there is no BAT TIP. Commenters argue that
even without any indication of MP&M BAT TIP, these facilities must be
meeting their limits under the existing regulations or else there would
be large numbers of facilities in violation of their compliance
requirements.
In an effort to address this issue, EPA has performed a sensitivity
analysis on the baseline pollutant loadings (``Baseline 413/433
Analysis'') for today's document. In this analysis, EPA assumed that
all sites currently regulated by part 413 and/or part 433 meet their
existing limits at the point of compliance regardless of the treatment
they have in place. EPA used the monthly average limits from the part
413 and part 433 regulations to estimate site-specific baseline
pollutant loadings. EPA performed this analysis for all direct and
indirect discharging facilities currently regulated by part 413 and/or
part 433 in the following subcategories: General Metals, Metal
Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, and
Zinc Plater. EPA also performed an additional analysis to estimate the
revised baseline for sites that would likely be meeting local limits
equivalent to the part 433 limits. In the first baseline sensitivity
analysis, EPA applied the following rules:
If the facility is currently covered by part 413 and not
by part 433, the effluent wastewater concentrations for cadmium,
cyanide, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc were set equal to the
part 413 monthly average limits and the concentrations for other MP&M
pollutants of concern remain as they were set in the standard Cost &
Loadings Model, described earlier in this section.
If the facility is covered by part 433 or by both part 413
and part 433, the effluent wastewater concentrations for the pollutants
mentioned above (with the additional of silver) were set equal to the
part 433 monthly average limits and the concentrations for other MP&M
pollutants of concern remain as they were set in the standard Cost &
Loadings Model, described earlier in this section.
If the facility is not covered by either part 413 and/or
part 433, the effluent wastewater concentrations remain as they were
set in the standard Cost & Loadings Model, described earlier in this
section.
In the additional baseline sensitivity analysis EPA used the
concentration from the part 433 monthly average limits to estimate the
baseline pollutant removals for cadmium, cyanide, chromium, copper,
nickel, lead and zinc for sites that are in the above mentioned
subcategories that are not currently covered by either part 413 and
part 433 (i.e., sites meeting local limits in the General Metals and
Zinc Plater subcategories) and used the concentrations for other MP&M
pollutants of concern as they were set in the standard Cost & Loadings
Model, described earlier in this section. This way, EPA can evaluate
those facilities that are currently regulated by national effluent
guidelines separately from those that are not.
Table III.E-1 provides EPA's national estimates of facilities that
are solely regulated under the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413)
regulations, or solely regulated under the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part
433) regulations, or regulated by both regulations using the combined
wastestream formula. EPA solicits comments on these estimates.
[[Page 38763]]
Table III.E-1: National Estimates of Facilities Regulated Under the MP&M NODA, Electroplating ELGs (40 CFR Part 413), Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR Part
433), or Both 40 CFR Part 413 and 40 CFR Part 433.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National estimate of National estimate of National estimate of National estimate of
facilities covered facilities covered facilities covered facilities covered
under MP&M NODA only under 40 CFR only under 40 CFR under both 40 CFR
MP&M Subcategory\a\ ---------------------- Part 413 Part 433 Parts 413 and 433
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (GM)\b\, \c\..................................... 1,500 2,055 91\e\ 286 534 3,538 68 395
Metal Finishing Job Shops (MFJS)\d\............................. 24 1,165 0 278 12 444 12 162
Printed Wiring Board............................................ 4 840 0 354 4 122 0 304
Zinc Platers (GM)............................................... 21 332 0 62 9 210 12 0
Zinc Platers (MFJS)............................................. 0 105 0 36 0 12 0 68
Non-Chromium Anodizing.......................................... 35 0 0 0 24 19 0 0
Steel Forming and Finishing..................................... 41 112 0 4 13 23 0 0
Oily Wastes\c\.................................................. 2,749 288 0 6 16 329 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 4,374 4,897 91 1,026 612 4,697 92 929
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA uses the term ``zinc platers'' to describe facilities where over 95% of their wastewaters are generated from zinc electroplating operations (see
section III.A.1)
\b\ These national estimates of General Metals facilities do not include Zinc Platers.
\c\ The MP&M NODA national estimates include the General Metals and Oily Wastes flow cut-offs (1 MGY and 2 MGY, respectively) while the remaining
national estimates for these subcategories do not.
\d\ These national estimates of Metal Finishing Job Shops do not include Zinc Platers.
\e\ These sites have both direct and indirect discharges but indicated coverage under part 413 in their survey response.
The results of the two ``Baseline 413/433 Sensitivity Analyses''
are presented by subcategory in Table III.E-2 below. The results are
presented as pollutant removals in pound-equivalents removed per year
by subcategory. EPA has estimated pollutant loadings/removals but did
not estimate analogous changes in the compliance cost estimates. If
this methodology is incorporated into the Cost & Loads Model for the
final rule, EPA will provide pollutant removals, compliance costs,
cost-effectiveness, economic impacts, and environmental benefits using
this analysis. EPA solicits comment on the Baseline 413/433 Sensitivity
Analyses and any other possible approaches to address the issue of
baseline loadings for facilities currently covered by the Metal
Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines. In addition, EPA
solicits comment on the use of the monthly average limit from part 413
and/or part 433 as opposed to using the long-term average concentration
(see discussion of rationale below as part of the discussion on the low
concentration analysis).
Table III.E-2: Results of ``Baseline 413/433'' Sensitivity Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP&M NODA Removals (lb- Removals with change in Removals with change in
eq/yr) baseline loads (lb-eq/ baseline loads (lb-eq/
MP&M Subcategory -------------------------- year)\1\ year)\2\
---------------------------------------------------
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (GM)............... 996,741 1,240,219 485,495 728,775 431,921 273,234
Metal Finishing Job Shops (MFJS).. 1,652 93,190 1,282 35,550 1,282 32,130
Printed Wiring Board.............. 186 153,653 186 63,227 186 41,832
Zinc Platers...................... 937 123,210 160 19,414 160 19,414
Non-Chromium Anodizing............ 2,392,735 NA 2,387,268 NA 2,387,243 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This analysis only changes the baseline for facilities currently regulated under part 413/433.
\2\ This analysis changes the baseline for all sites, regulated and unregulated. NA--not applicable, EPA did not
propose MP&M regulations for Non-Chromium Anodizing
EPA also received comment regarding facilities with low
concentration raw wastewater characteristics that do not have
treatment-in-place (TIP) for some or all of the their wastewater.
Commenters state that such facilities do not have TIP because the
pollutant loadings in their wastewaters are low enough to meet their
current local limits or the Metal Finishing or Electroplating limits
without end-of-pipe treatment. EPA's sampling program focused on
facilities with TIP and these facilities may have wastewaters with
significantly higher concentrations of pollutants than facilities with
no TIP. EPA is considering segmenting these ``low concentration''
facilities in the Cost & Loadings Model for the final rule so that more
representative raw wastewater concentrations may be applied to those
facilities. Therefore, EPA is soliciting comment on this approach and
concentration data at the unit operation level from these ``low
concentration'' facilities, as well as other possible approaches. EPA
notes that several of these ``low concentration'' facilities may now
fall under the Oily Wastes Subcategory due to the change in the
definition of ``oily operations'' being considered by EPA for the final
rule. Facilities in the Oily Wastes Subcategory are not regulated for
metals and have pollutant loadings that are specific to their
subcategory.
EPA has performed a sensitivity analysis to identify the potential
effect of segmenting the ``low concentration'' facilities in the
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, and Zinc Plater subcategories. In this sensitivity
analysis, EPA substituted the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) or
[[Page 38764]]
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) monthly average limitations, as
appropriate, for unit operation concentrations found in the Cost &
Loadings Model for facilities with no treatment in-place. For
facilities that indicated coverage under the part 413 regulations in
their survey questionnaire, EPA used the limitations from part 413. For
facilities that indicated coverage under the part 433 regulations or
coverage under both part 413 and part 433, EPA used the limitations
from part 433. For facilities that indicated no coverage by a national
effluent guideline or coverage by another category's effluent
guideline, EPA assumed these facilities would have local limitations
equivalent to the limitations of the part 433 regulation and,
therefore, used the limitations from part 433.
EPA used the monthly average limitations instead of the long-term
effluent concentration (i.e., design concentration) because the Agency
concluded that it may be more appropriate as a facility with no
treatment in-place is not targeting a design concentration (i.e., there
is no treatment system to design). EPA concluded that a facility is
likely to use the monthly average as a determining factor in deciding
whether the installation of treatment is necessary at their site. If
the facility's discharge levels fall below the monthly average limit,
EPA concluded that the facility is unlikely to expend the resources to
install treatment. EPA's use of the monthly average limits from the
part 413 and part 433 regulations results in higher estimates of
baseline loadings for this sensitivity analysis than if EPA had used
the part 413 and part 433 LTAs (see section 16.5.1, DCN 17802 for a
comparison of part 413 and part 433 Limits and LTAs). EPA solicits
comment on the use of the monthly average limit in the ``low
concentration'' sensitivity analysis and in the ``Baseline 413/433''
sensitivity analysis discussed earlier in this section.
The results of this ``low concentration'' sensitivity analysis are
given, below, in Table III.E-3. EPA solicits comment on the results of
this sensitivity analysis for both direct and indirect discharge
facilities and if this approach should be applied in the final rule.
EPA also solicits comment on other possible approaches to address those
facilities with low concentration raw wastewater characteristics and do
not have treatment-in-place (TIP) for some or all of the their
wastewater.
Table III.E-3: Results of ``Low Concentration'' Sensitivity Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP&M NODA Removals (lb-eq/yr) Removals using the ``Low
-------------------------------- Concentration'' Analysis (lb-
MP&M Subcategory eq/yr)
Direct Indirect -------------------------------
Direct Indirect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (GM)............................. 996,741 1,240,219 908,473 643,427
Metal Finishing Job Shops (MFJS)................ 1,652 93,190 1,652 54,135
Printed Wiring Board............................ 186 153,653 186 148,742
Zinc Platers.................................... 937 123,210 335 31,286
Non-Chromium Anodizing.......................... 2,392,735 NA 2,387,268 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Revisions to the Cost Modules
In addition to the changes to the Cost & Loadings Model that affect
the estimates of pollutant loadings and reductions, EPA has also
revised several aspects of the costing portion of the model (``cost
modules''). EPA has included explicit costs for increased analytical
monitoring, incorporated the revised long-term average concentrations,
and made several minor corrections to various cost modules. EPA is also
considering the addition of a sand filter to the BAT technology option.
All changes to the cost modules are fully described in a memorandum
entitled, ``Cost Model Changes Incorporated into the MP&M Design and
Cost Model Since Proposal,'' section 16.6.1 of the public record, DCN
16741.
1. Addition of Monitoring Costs
As discussed in the proposal (66 FR 478), EPA assumed that
facilities meeting local limitations or national effluent guidelines
and pretreatment standards will already incur monitoring costs. EPA did
not include monitoring costs in the estimates of operating and
maintenance costs for the proposal and solicited comments on that
approach. EPA received many comments indicating that EPA needed to
include monitoring costs as the proposed MP&M rule regulates several
additional pollutants (e.g., tin, sulfide and lead) than previous
applicable effluent guidelines. EPA is planning to incorporate
monitoring costs into the cost modules for the final rule and has done
so for the analyses presented in today's document. However, EPA
concluded that the estimate used for today's document is conservative
(i.e., potentially over-costed) as it applies an annual monitoring cost
of $13,400 for all model sites; however, sulfide, tin, and/or lead are
not proposed to be regulated in some subcategories (e.g., tin, lead,
and sulfide were not proposed to be regulated for railroad line
maintenance facilities or shipbuilding dry docks and tin and lead were
not proposed for oily wastes facilities). For the final rule, EPA may
apply the pollutant-specific additional monitoring costs to facilities
in subcategories with proposed limits for tin, sulfide, and lead, as
appropriate (e.g., if sulfide is not regulated in the metal-bearing
subcategories, no cost for sulfide monitoring will be included at those
facilities). EPA currently estimates the pollutant-specific additional
annual cost of quick turn-around sample analysis for lead (by graphite
furnace) to be approximately $2,500; for tin to be approximately
$4,700; and for sulfide to be approximately $6,200 (see memorandum
entitled, ``Incremental Monitoring and Analytical Costs at MP&M
Facilities,'' section 16.6.1 of the public record, DCN 16733 for a
discussion on the basis of this cost estimate).
2. Other Costing Changes
As discussed in section III of today's document, EPA is using over
82 new sets of additional data (7 new sets from EPA's sampling program
and 75 new sets from industry submitted data) to revise the target
effluent concentrations used for the MP&M Cost & Loadings Model.
Facilities use target effluent concentrations (or Long Term Averages
(LTAs)) for designing a wastewater treatment system. The revised LTAs
used in the Cost & Loadings Model for today's document and the
methodology to develop those LTAs can be found in a memorandum
entitled, ``Cost Model LTA: Cost Model Procedure for Calculation Long
Term Averages (LTAs)
[[Page 38765]]
for the MP&M Cost Model,'' section 16.5.1, DCN 16742.
In addition, EPA has reviewed the equations used for various
pollution prevention cost modules (i.e., paint water curtain, counter-
current cascade rinsing, machine coolant recycling) and has made
several minor corrections. For example, EPA corrected an error in the
equation to calculate labor and electrical costs in the machine coolant
recycling cost module.
EPA is also reviewing data received in comments to enhance the
pollution prevention cost modules to incorporate reductions associated
with the practices of the Pollution Prevention Alternative for metal
finishing job shops discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (66
FR 512). EPA has also prepared a report summarizing the findings of
several case studies and information from additional research on
pollution prevention in the metal finishing industry. If EPA
incorporates the Pollution Prevention Alternative into the final rule,
EPA will use the data in this report and the data submitted by
commenters to develop more comprehensive pollution prevention cost
modules. See section 16.4 of the public record, DCN 16865 for the
report entitled, ``Evaluation of the MP&M P2 Alternatives.''
3. Consideration of Additional Treatment to Existing Source BAT (Sand
Filter)
EPA is considering the addition of a sand filter to follow the
clarifier as BAT treatment technology for metal-bearing subcategories.
EPA received many comments that the proposed limits were not
consistently achievable by the proposed BAT technology. EPA has
addressed this issue in several ways, including the collection of
additional data and changes to the statistical methodology used for
calculating numerical limits (see section VI of today's document for a
discussion of revisions to the statistical methodologies). Commenters
also suggested the use of a sand filter to further ensure that minor
disruptions (or ``burps'') in the treatment system would not result in
violation of the limits.
When sampling BAT treatment systems in the MP&M Phase I and Phase
II sampling programs, EPA collected data for treatment efficiency of
sand filters. EPA found that the concentrations of pollutants of
concern exiting the clarifier and entering the sand filter were often
below treatable levels or below detection. EPA concluded that this
occurred due to the fact that the clarifiers at these facilities were
performing exceedingly well. EPA has found that when there are
treatable levels of pollutants in the sand filter influent, the sand
filter has good treatment efficiency. Therefore, although the addition
of a sand filter is not likely to have much effect, if any, on the
achievable long-term average effluent concentrations, with the possible
exception of total suspended solids, it would ensure consistent
effluent quality. If EPA does add a sand filter for the final rule, EPA
will also calculate the loadings reduced for both direct and indirect
facilities.
EPA notes that such an addition would also increase the compliance
cost for the rule. To add a sand filter to the existing treatment
train, EPA has developed a cost module for sand filtration. See the
Multimedia Filtration Cost Module (DCN 15823) in the public record for
detailed information on the sand filtration cost module. EPA has
estimated national costs for the proposed Option 2 technology plus the
addition of a sand filter for each of the metal-bearing subcategories.
In general the cost of the ``Option 2 + Sand Filter'' represents a 32%
increase over the revised Option 2 cost presented in section VII.A of
today's document (see a document entitled, ``Summary of Sand Filter
Option Costs,'' in section 6.7.1 of the public record, DCN 15823). EPA
solicits comment on the addition of a sand filter to the BAT proposed
technology option for metal-bearing subcategories in order to
consistently meet the MP&M limits and standards, and on the cost module
and national cost estimates.
G. New Survey Weights
EPA has revised the survey weights used to generate national
estimates for some Phase I sites used in the Cost & Loadings Model and
is considering using these for the final rule. The proposal weights
contributed 14,769 Phase 1 facilities to EPA's estimate of the total
number of MP&M facilities; in contrast, the revised weights contribute
11,865 to the total. The revised sample weights adjust for additional
zero dischargers, remove the overestimate bias for non-zero
dischargers, and exclude ineligible facilities. Additional information
is provided in DCN 36086, section 19.5 of the public record. The
revisions to the Phase I estimates are partly based upon imputed flows.
For the final rule, if the imputed flows are substantially different as
a result of using the revised imputation strategy described in section
III.D, EPA also may decide to revise the sample weights for the Phase I
facilities.
IV. Changes Considered to Applicability, Definitions, and Regulated
Pollutants
A. Changes Considered to Applicability and Definitions
EPA received comment on several aspects of the applicability of the
proposed rule. This section discusses changes EPA is considering for
the final rule including: (1) The definition of ``oily operations'' for
the Oily Wastes Subcategory; (2) clarification of differences between
the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories; (3) clarification of
applicability language as it pertains to printed wiring board job shops
and printed wiring assembly facilities; and (4) clarification to the
definition of new sources and the ``grandfather'' clause for facilities
currently regulated as new sources under 40 CFR part 433 or 420.
As discussed in section III.A.1 of today's document, EPA is
considering revising the applicability of the Oily Wastes Subcategory
based on changes to the proposed definition for ``oily operations.''
EPA notes that such a revision would also affect the applicability of
the General Metals Subcategory. EPA received comments concerning the
definition of ``oily operations'' used in the applicability statement
of the Oily Wastes Subcategory. Commenters provided data on several
MP&M unit operations which were not part of the ``oily operations''
definition in the proposed rule. The data demonstrate low levels of
metals in these unit operations that would not require treatment for
metals removal. Based on the data received and a review of other unit
operations containing only low concentrations of metals, EPA is
currently considering a revision of the definition to read as follows:
Oily operations means one or more of the following: alkaline
cleaning for oil removal, aqueous or solvent degreasing, corrosion
preventative coating (as specified in Sec. 438.61(b)); floor
cleaning; grinding; heat treating; deformation by impact or
pressure; machining; painting (spray or brush); steam cleaning; and
testing (such as hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic
flux); iron phosphate conversion coating; abrasive blasting,
alkaline treatment without cyanide; assembly/disassembly; tumbling/
barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory finishing; burnishing;
electrical discharge machining; polishing, thermal cutting; washing
of final products; welding; wet air pollution control for organic
constituents; bilge water; adhesive bonding; and calibration.
EPA notes that iron phosphate conversion coating should be
distinguished from zinc, manganese, or nickel phoshate conversion
coating based on the constituents of the bath.
[[Page 38766]]
Manganese, nickel, or zinc phosphate conversion coating baths contain
metals in addition to what may be added from the substrate. EPA
solicits comment on the following definition: ``Iron phosphate
conversion coating baths consist of a phosphoric acid solution
containing no metals. Any metal concentrations in the bath are from the
substrate.''
EPA notes that in addition to adding several low metal
concentration unit operations to the definition under consideration,
the Agency is also considering the removal of ``laundering'' from the
definition. EPA does not consider wastewater discharges from laundering
(uniforms, etc.) at MP&M facilities to be process wastewater under the
MP&M rule. The inclusion of laundering in the proposed definition of
oily operations was an oversight which the Agency intends to correct
for the final rule.
EPA did not include sampling data from paint stripping and
electrolytic cleaning due to the elevated levels of metal constituents
from these sources. For this notice, EPA did not include these unit
operations in the definition of oily operations. However, EPA solicits
comment on whether paint stripping for non-lead based paints should be
included in the definition of oily operations. EPA solicits comment on
the definition of iron phosphate conversion coating as an oily wastes
operation to distinguish it from other phosphate conversion coating
operations such as zinc or manganese phosphatizing. EPA also solicits
comment on the need for a definition of ``wet air pollution control for
organic constituents'' to distinguish it from ``wet air pollution
control for metals or fumes or dust.''
EPA is also clarifying the determination for placing a facility in
the Oily Wastes or General Metals Subcategory. EPA notes that the
determination for the Oily Wastes Subcategory depends on whether the
facility discharges wastewater from only those operations considered as
``oily operations,'' as defined above. With the exception of mixed-use
facilities, as proposed, a MP&M facility would fall under only one
subcategory. If a facility is discharging wastewater from only ``oily
operations,'' as defined above, then it would be in the Oily Wastes
Subcategory. If a facility is discharging wastewater from oily
operations and other MP&M operations, it would not be covered in the
Oily Wastes Subcategory. If this facility is not a printed wiring board
facility, metal finishing job shop, non-chromium anodizer, or steel
forming & finishing facility, then it would be regulated under the
General Metals Subcategory. If a facility was discharging wastewater
from oily operations and performed, but did not discharge wastewater
from, other MP&M operations, it would still be considered in the Oily
Wastes Subcategory.
EPA received comment requesting clarification of whether or not
wastewaters from MP&M-like operations, such as gravure cylinder and
metallic platemaking, conducted within or for printing and publishing
facilities were covered by the MP&M regulation. EPA excluded such
facilities from the Electroplating (40 CFR 413.01(c)) and Metal
Finishing (40 CFR 433.10(c)(1)) effluent guidelines. However, in the
proposed MP&M rule, EPA did not discuss the applicability to these
facilities. EPA did not include these facilities in the data collection
efforts for the proposed regulation, and therefore, EPA's current
intent is that the final rule would not apply to these facilities.
As discussed in section III.A of today's document, EPA has made
some revision to the subcategorization of certain facilities. As
discussed, EPA received comments that indicated that PWB job shops are
more similar to PWB facilities than metal finishing shops and are
therefore not properly categorized with the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory. EPA also reviewed the operations of Printed Wiring
Assembly facilities to determine whether it properly categorized these
for proposal. As a result, EPA is considering a number of changes for
the final rule in the categorization of such facilities. EPA's
rationale for these changes is discussed in further detail in section
III.A. EPA would place printed wiring board job shops in the Printed
Wiring Board Subcategory instead of the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory and would place printed wiring assembly facilities in the
General Metals Subcategory.
EPA solicits comment on these intended revisions and whether or not
EPA should include a definition to identify printed wiring assembly
facilities in the General Metals Subcategory applicability statement.
Commenters have suggested the following definition for Printed Wiring
Assembly or Electronic Manufacturing Services facilities in the General
Metals Subcategory:
Contract electronics design and assembly, also known as
electronics manufacturing service (EMS) facilities provide some or
all of the following services: electronics design, electronics
assembly, electronics testing, and product assembly for other
company's electronics products. Electronics assembly is the practice
of building up the electronic product by inserting electronic
components onto/into a bare circuit board, soldering the components
to the board, and in some cases applying a conformal coating and/or
cleaning the completed assembly. Other manufacturing functions
include testing, ``burn-in'' of the components, and box build. Bare
boards are, along with electronics components, an input to the
assembly process. The manufacture of bare circuit boards is not part
of the assembly or EMS process.
As described in the proposed MP&M rule (66 FR 506), both indirect
and direct dischargers would be ``new source'' under the new rule if
construction commences following 60 days after publication of the final
rule. EPA recognizes that, for indirect dischargers, this may be
different from what was done in past effluent guidelines, where the
proposal date was used to determine a new source.
In addition, EPA received comments regarding the confusion of the
``grandfather'' clause for facilities that are currently subject to new
sources limitations and pretreatment standards under either 40 CFR part
433 or 40 CFR part 420. EPA included language in the proposal to
provide a protection period for facilities currently subject to ``new
source'' regulation. This language may be found in the codified portion
of the proposal under the NSPS and PSNS (new source) sections for the
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shop, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories.
EPA's intent was to include language to protect facilities that are
currently regulated as new sources under other regulations from a
requirement to comply with the Metal Products and Machinery limitations
and standards for a period not greater than 10 years from the date of
completion of the new source construction. Section 306(d) of the CWA
provides that any point source which is constructed to meet new source
performance standards shall not be subject to any more stringent
standards of performance during a 10-year period beginning on the date
of completion of such construction or another statutorily defined
period whichever ends first. 33 U.S.C. 1316(d).
At the suggestion of some commenters, EPA is considering moving the
grandfathering language it had proposed to the existing source
provisions (BPT, BAT, PSES) of each relevant subcategory for the final
rule. For example in the General Metals Subcategory proposed
Secs. 438.12 (BPT) and 438.14 (BAT) this change could appear as
follows:
(d) If a point source meets the applicability criteria in
Sec. 438.10, and construction was
[[Page 38767]]
commenced on that point source after [insert date 10 years prior to
the date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final
rule] but before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication
date of the final rule], and it was subject to the provisions of 40
CFR 433.16, then the point source must continue to achieve the
applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 433.16 until 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 this section.
Section 438.15 would be amended to add paragraph (e) as follows:
(e) If a source meets the applicability criteria in section
438.10, and construction was commenced on that source after [insert
date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 days after the
publication date of the final rule] but before [insert date that is
60 days after the publication date of the final rule], and it was
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 433.17, then the source must
continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR
433.17 for ten years beginning on the date the source commenced
discharge, or for the period of depreciation or amortization of the
facility for the purposes of section 167 or 169 (or both) of the
Internal Revenue Code, whichever is shorter. Thereafter, the source
must achieve the applicable standards specified in this section.
Sections 438.16 (NSPS) and 438.17 (PSNS) would be amended by removing
paragraph (a) and renumbering the remaining paragraphs. If EPA were to
make this change for the final rule, it would make the appropriate
changes for all effected subcategories. Finally, EPA has received
comment regarding the transfer of certain operations from the existing
Iron & Steel effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420) to the proposed MP&M
effluent guidelines. In the proposed MP&M rule, EPA refers to
facilities with these operations as the Steel Forming & Finishing
Subcategory. Specifically, EPA proposed to move the following
operations from Iron & Steel to MP&M: surface finishing or cold forming
of steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch electroplating on steel;
continuous electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products
(e.g. wire, rod, bar); batch hot dip coating of steel; and steel wire
drawing. These operations produce finished products such as bars, wire,
pipe and tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope. The Agency
proposed to move these operations into the MP&M rule from stand-alone
facilities, as well as from facilities that also have other operations
that are currently regulated by the Iron & Steel effluent guidelines
(i.e., facilities that are making steel and producing wire and wire
products and are subject to both ELGs and the combined wastestream
formula).
Since proposal, EPA revisited the record of the representative iron
and steel finishing operations and compared the associated wastewater
characteristics to those from the wire drawing facilities that were
sampled under the MP&M rulemaking effort. EPA confirmed that the
wastewater characteristics of the proposed transferred operations more
closely resemble those from MP&M operations than those from
representative iron and steel finishing operations. For instance, the
average lead and zinc concentrations in wastewaters from the
transferred wire drawing facilities are one to three orders of
magnitude higher than those from representative iron and steel
facilities. On the other hand, the concentrations for these pollutants
are within the range of pollutant concentrations found in similar MP&M
operations. Furthermore, most of the unit operations present in
facilities being considered for transfer are the same as those found in
the MP&M facilities, while only approximately 30% of these operations
are the same as those found in the iron and steel facilities. EPA
performed a comparison of flow rates between the transferred facilities
and the proposed iron and steel finishing subcategory. The average flow
rate from the proposed Iron & Steel Finishing subcategory is
approximately half billion gallons per year, while the average flow
rate from the transferred facilities is less than 30 million gallons
per year (see Iron & Steel ELG record, Docket Number W-00-25, section
14.2, DCN #IS10740). EPA also notes that the average flow rate from the
General Metals Subcategory of the MP&M rule is of the same order of
magnitude as that from the transferred facilities. As a result of the
above evaluations, EPA continues to conclude that the transferred
operations would be more appropriately regulated under part 438, the
MP&M effluent limitations guidelines and standards, in the Steel
Forming & Finishing Subcategory. If EPA finalizes limitations and
standards for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory of the MP&M
regulation, EPA will also amend the applicability section of the iron
and steel rulemaking to reflect this change. Until then, these
operations continue to be regulated under part 420.
EPA also proposed moving certain electroplating operations
currently subject to the Metal Finishing part 433 effluent limitations
guidelines and standards into the revised part 420. Commenters on the
Iron & Steel proposed rule strongly opposed the incorporation of the
continuous electroplating of flat steel products (e.g., sheet, strip,
plate) into part 420, indicating the preference for electroplating
operations of all types to be considered as a whole (e.g., under the
part 433 regulations or eventually the MP&M regulations). EPA proposed
to regulate similar operations in the MP&M proposal in a number of
subcategories. EPA decided not to include wastewater discharges from
continuous electroplating of flat steel products in the final Iron &
Steel regulations (signed on April 30, 2002). Wastewater discharges
from these operations are currently subject to part 433 and EPA's
present intention would be to include these in the Steel Forming &
Finishing Subcategory of the final MP&M regulations. EPA will include
these facilities in its analyses for the final rule. All non-
confidential items pertaining to these facilities can be found in the
public record for this document.
B. Changes Considered to the Pollutants Selected for Regulation
EPA received comments on several of the pollutants that were
selected for regulation in the proposed rule. Based on new data from
industry sources and EPA's data collection effort, EPA is considering
whether to revise the list of pollutants selected for regulation. For
example, EPA has also collected analytical data specific to the Steel
Forming & Finishing Subcategory after proposal and is including this
data in its analyses and in the MP&M rulemaking record.
1. Tin
EPA received comments regarding EPA's selection of tin as a
regulated pollutant for metal-bearing subcategories. Many of the
comments revolved around whether or not tin can be precipitated using
EPA's proposed BAT technology that includes hydroxide precipitation. Of
the 25 sites having tin data, 20 show tin removals greater than or
equal to 95 percent. EPA's sampling data show a median removal of tin
in BAT treatment systems of 98.6 percent. Analysis of the treatment
systems employed by these sites shows that all but two use chemical
precipitation followed by solids removal with either a clarifier or
membrane filter. The two sites not using chemical precipitation list
ultrafiltration, presumably for removal of oil and suspended solids, as
their treatment technology.
Unlike other priority pollutant metals, tin does not readily form
insoluble metal hydroxides in the chemical precipitation process. Based
on information provided in the CRC
[[Page 38768]]
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (68th Edition), there are two
possible insoluble forms of tin that are produced during treatment of
MP&M wastewater: tin sulfide (SnS) and tin phosphate
(Sn3(PO4)2). The CRC lists the
solubility of tin sulfide at 0.02 mg/L. The CRC lists tin phosphate as
insoluble, but provides no maximum concentration. According to another
reference (Freeman, H.M., ``Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal, 1989), tin in metal-bearing wastewater is often
found complexed with other constituents such as chelating agents
present in electroless plating wastewater or cleaning solutions.
Removal of the tin complex requires pH adjustment to break the tin-
chelant bond followed by the reduction of tin to its elemental form.
Based on the information provided in the literature and gathered
from the MP&M sampling episodes, no conclusions can be drawn regarding
the excellent tin removals by the chemical precipitation systems
sampled by EPA. The mechanism of tin removal is likely dependant on the
chemistry of the influent wastewater, and involves a combination of
sulfide precipitation, phosphate precipitation, and co-precipitation
with other metals such as iron. EPA currently intends to retain tin as
a regulated pollutant. EPA will reevaluate this intention if additional
data received in comment indicates chemical precipitation followed by
gravity settling will not meet the proposed effluent limit.
2. Total Sulfide
EPA also received many comments on its proposal to regulate total
sulfide for many of the proposed subcategories. Commenters in the
metal-bearing subcategories (i.e., general metals, metal finishing job
shops, printed wiring boards, steel forming & finishing, and non-
chromium anodizing) were concerned that regulation of sulfide would
limit their ability to use sulfide-based chemistries in their treatment
systems. Commenters pointed to other chemicals that EPA chose to not
regulate based on their use as treatment chemicals (e.g., aluminum,
iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, sulfate, chloride, ziram). Based on
its use as a treatment chemical in the metal-bearing subcategories EPA
intends to not regulate total sulfide for the metal-bearing
subcategories in the final rule. EPA solicits comment on this change.
3. Molybdenum
EPA received comments regarding the selection of molybdenum as a
regulated pollutant. Similar to the comments on tin, the comments
revolved around whether or not molybdenum can be precipitated using
hydroxide precipitation as is used in EPA's proposed BAT technology.
EPA has reviewed literature to find out whether or not molybdenum will
precipitate using either hydroxide or sulfide precipitation. and has
found that molybdenum does not form metal hydroxide precipitates (see
memorandum titled ``Molybdenum,'' section 16.2, DCN 17754). Molybdenum
was observed at detectable concentrations in 283 of 1306 treatment
system samples representing all 111 sampling episodes. The molybdenum
raw waste concentrations ranged from 0.0007 to 40.3 mg/l. Effluent
concentrations ranged from 0.0007 to 3.22 mg/L. Treatment effectiveness
calculations of the chemical precipitation systems ranged from a
negative 249% to a positive 71% removals (see memorandum titled
``Molybdenum,'' section 16.2, DCN 17754).
The sampled hydroxide precipitation treatment systems did not show
a consistent ability to remove molybdenum from waste water. Molybdenum
is, however, present is waste waters as described above and is removed
incidentally in waste treatment systems. These removals may occur when
molybdenum adheres to oily wastewaters that are removed in the oil
water separation step or other treatment steps such as flocculation.
EPA is reviewing these removal mechanisms for molybdenum. In addition
to EPA's sampling data, airline industry submitted data demonstrates
removals of molybdenum from BAT treatment systems with supplementary
chemical additives between a negative 4% to a positive 85%. Therefore,
EPA has included molybdenum removals in its estimates of pollutant
reduction for the MP&M NODA. However, based on its inability to be
treated by EPA's proposed hydroxide chemical precipitation technology,
EPA is considering not regulating molybdenum in the final rule. EPA
solicits comment on this change.
4. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
As discussed in section II of today's document, EPA did not sample
any BAT Steel Forming & Finishing facilities prior to proposal and
solicited data from such facilities. Based on post-proposal sampling
data collected for the Steel Forming & Finishing (SFF) Subcategory, EPA
is considering the following pollutants for regulation of direct
dischargers for this subcategory: chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc,
manganese, molybdenum, tin, oil and grease (as HEM), and total
suspended solids. EPA is considering the same pollutants as above for
indirect dischargers except for oil and grease (as HEM) and total
suspended solids. At proposal, EPA based the selection of pollutants
for regulation for this subcategory on data transfers from the General
Metals Subcategory. Of the pollutants proposed for regulation for the
Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory, EPA is considering to no longer
regulate cadmium, cyanide, silver, total sulfide, organics (e.g., TOP,
TOC) as these pollutants are not found in SFF wastewater at treatable
levels.
V. New Information and Consideration of Revision to Economic &
Benefit Methodologies
A. Revised Cost Pass-Through and Market Structure Analysis
As discussed in Chapter 5 of the document titled, ``Economic,
Environmental, and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Metal Products &
Machinery Rule,'' (EEBA) (EPA-821-B-00-008), and in response to
comments received on the proposal economic impact analysis, EPA revised
the analysis of cost pass-through potential for the 19 MP&M sectors.
This analysis estimates how much of compliance-related cost increases a
sector can be expected to pass on to its customers in higher prices.
The analysis consists of two parts:
An econometric analysis of the historical relationship of
output prices to changes in input costs, and
An analysis of market structure characteristics.
These two analyses together provide a cost pass-through coefficient
for each sector. This analysis refines the methodology developed for
the Phase 1 and proposal MP&M analyses in several places, and updates
the data used through 1996, the base year of the regulatory analyses.
Changes to reporting by NAICS codes for the Census economic data but
not for price indices in 1997 prevented use of later years' data in
this analysis. Today's document provides a summary of the revised
analysis. More complete documentation is provided in section 17.2.1,
DCN 35250, of the public record.
1. Econometric Analysis
EPA performed an econometric analysis of input costs and output
prices to estimate cost pass-through elasticities for 18 of the 19
Phase I and Phase II MP&M Sectors. These elasticities indicate the
changes in output prices by
[[Page 38769]]
sector that have occurred historically in relation to changes in the
cost of production inputs.
EPA estimated the cost elasticity of price by regressing annual
output price indices on annual input price indices. Use of historical
data took into account the full range of possible mechanisms by which
input costs affect output prices, including technical changes,
substitution, non-competitive pricing mechanisms, imperfect
information, and any other shifts or irregularities in the supply and
demand functions.
The 19 MP&M industry sectors encompass 224 different SIC codes. EPA
was able to estimate the cost elasticity of price based on historical
data for only 170 manufacturing SIC codes. EPA could not estimate the
cost elasticity of price for Aerospace and all non-manufacturing
industries due to data limitations. The Agency assigned a cost pass-
through coefficient to the aerospace sector based on the market
structure analysis. EPA assumed zero cost pass-through for non-
manufacturing industries because these industries tend to be more
competitive due to lower entry barriers than in manufacturing
industries.
The estimated parameters show that 16 of the 18 MP&M industrial
sectors have been able to increase selling prices between 0.39 percent
and 1.2 percent for every one percent increase in input costs. This
means that some industrial sectors exhibit a potential for recovering
only a fraction of the input price increase through an increase in the
output price while other sectors have the ability to raise their output
prices in excess of input price increases. The estimated input cost
coefficients are negative for two industrial sectors: Printed Circuit
Boards and Office Machines. In both of these sectors, output prices
decreased as input costs increased. This negative relationship
indicates that significant competition in these sectors combined with
technological innovation have yielded market conditions with declining
output prices regardless of the change in production input costs. Based
on these findings, EPA assumes that the Printed Wiring Board and Office
Machine sectors have zero cost pass-through ability. Estimated
regression coefficients for the 18 industrial sectors are presented in
section 17.2.1, DCN 35250, of the public record.
EPA assigned MP&M sectors to low, average, and high cost pass-
through categories based on the results of the regression analysis. EPA
then compared the classifications with the results of the market
structure model.
2. Market Structure Analysis
EPA assessed the market structure characteristics of each MP&M
sector, in order to validate the values for cost pass-through potential
estimated in the regression analysis. How much of a cost increase a
firm can pass on through higher prices depends on the relative market
power of the firm and its customers. The market structure analysis
assesses the relative market power enjoyed by firms in each MP&M sector
and provides ordinal rankings that were used to validate the cost pass-
through coefficients estimated by the econometric analysis. EPA
analyzed five indicators of market power: concentration, import
competition, export competition, long term growth, and barriers to
entry and exit. Section 17.2.1, DCN 35250, of the public record
provides detailed descriptions of the rationale for using these
measures and the metrics and data sources EPA used to evaluate each
measure. EPA only considered manufacturing firms; it excluded non-
manufacturing firms due to data limitations. As noted above, EPA
assigned zero cost pass-through ability to non-manufacturing firms.
EPA again assigned each sector to high, medium and low cost pass-
through categories based on the results of the market structure
analysis, and compared the results of this classification with the
classification based on the regression analysis.
The two analyses classified 13 of the 19 sectors in the same cost
pass-through (CPT) category (high, medium or low). For these sectors,
the market structure analysis appears to validate the cost pass-through
coefficient derived using the econometric analysis. No econometric
estimate is available for the aerospace sector. EPA categorized this
sector in the high CPT category based on the market structure analysis
only and estimated its cost pass-through coefficient as the average CPT
value for all sectors classified in the high category based on the
regression analysis (excluding Mobile Industrial Equipment whose CPT
coefficient was also revised based on the market structure analysis).
For the remaining five sectors; however, the two analyses assign
sectors to different cost pass-through categories. EPA undertook a more
detailed analysis of these sectors' market structures to validate their
cost pass-through coefficient. EPA based the choice of a cost pass-
through coefficient for this document on this more detailed analysis
for the following sectors: Job Shops, Other Metal Products, Aircraft,
Motor Vehicle, and Mobile Industrial Equipment. In 4 cases (Job Shops,
Other Metal Products, Motor Vehicle, and Aircraft), the more detailed
market structure analysis confirmed the regression estimates of the
econometric analysis, and in one case (Mobile Industrial Equipment) EPA
rejected the classification based on the econometric analysis.
EPA assigned the Mobile Industrial Equipment sector to the high
category by the econometric analysis and the average category by the
market structure analysis. EPA concluded that this sector is more
appropriately characterized by average cost pass-through because the
sector has witnessed trends in recent years suggesting that firms in
this sector lack strong ability to pass through cost increases.
Specifically, growth rates in the construction industry and in the farm
and machinery equipment industries began leveling or even declining in
recent years after a sustained period of growth. These declining trends
are not fully represented in the regression analysis because the last
year of data for the analysis is 1996. EPA therefore revised the cost
pass-through coefficient for this sector to equal the average cost
pass-through value for all sectors classified in the average category
based on the regression analysis.
Section 17.2.1, DCN 35250, of the public record provides the choice
of a cost pass-through coefficient for this document selected for each
sector. The specific values selected for each sector (high, average and
low) are the regression elasticities for the 17 sectors where the
regression results were confirmed by the market structure analysis
(including the detailed analysis), and the average of the regression
coefficients in the appropriate category (high, average or low) for the
sector that was re-classified based on the market structure analysis
(Mobile Industrial Equipment) and for Aerospace. The revised cost pass-
through analysis resulted in a significantly lower cost pass-through
coefficient of 0.57 for Job Shops than was used in the proposed rule
analysis, and zero cost pass-through for Printed Wiring Boards, Office
Machines, and all non-manufacturing facilities. In the analysis for
proposal, EPA assumed that non-manufacturing facilities in a given
sector had the same cost pass-through potential as manufacturing
facilities in the same sector.
The estimated cost pass-through coefficients reflect sector-level
cost pass-through potential. Cost increases that affect all facilities
in an industry are more likely to be recovered through industry-wide
price increases, whereas cases where only some facilities in an
[[Page 38770]]
industry incur cost increases are less likely to result in price
increases. To account for the likelihood that cost pass-through ability
will vary with the extent to which regulation-induced cost increases
apply generally over production in a sector, the analysis adjusts the
estimated cost pass-through potential for the estimated extent of
industry coverage. Specifically, the analysis adjusts the cost pass-
through potential by multiplying the estimated sector-wide cost pass-
through coefficient by the fraction of a sector's production value that
is expected to incur compliance costs.
Findings from the revised cost pass-through analysis in general are
consistent with findings from the cost pass-through analysis reported
by the industry associations, including Printed Wiring Board and Metal
Finishers. Specifically, facilities belonging to the Printed Wiring
Board subcategory were found to have zero cost pass-through potential.
The Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory was found to have a low cost
pass-through potential. EPA estimated new cost pass-through
coefficients and adjusted them by the fraction of the sector's
production value that is expected to incur compliance costs. The effect
of these two changes decreased the cost pass-through coefficient
assigned to the Job Shop subcategory from 0.91 at proposal to 0.25.
The estimated cost pass-through coefficients reflect industry-wide
cost pass-through potential. Under conditions of perfect competition--
including product homogeneity (i.e., products produced by one firm are
perfect substitutes for products produced by other firms), and
homogeneity of production technology and cost across firms--the price
response to a general industry-wide change in production costs is
likely to be industry-wide and similar across all firms. However, for a
number of reasons, markets in modern manufacturing industry generally
diverge to some degree from these perfect competition conditions.
Example reasons include: variation in product quality; imperfectly
competitive markets (e.g., markets in which individual firms possess
different degrees of market power); and segmented markets (e.g.,
geographically segmented markets). In the presence of such
imperfections, individual firms will very likely respond differently in
their ability to pass on cost increases in higher output prices even
when the production cost increase applies to all, or a substantial
fraction, of an industry's production. To assess the sensitivity of the
economic impact analysis results to the sector-wide cost pass-through
estimates, EPA also conducted the economic impact analysis based on the
assumption that no cost increases can be recovered through price
increases. The Agency found that results for 17 of the 19 MP&M
industrial sectors do not significantly vary when the zero cost pass-
through assumption is used instead of the estimated cost pass-through
capabilities. The only exceptions are the Metal Finishing Job Shop and
Iron and Steel sectors. Assuming a zero cost pass-through coefficient
for these sectors resulted in an increase in the number of severe
impacts from 520 to 565 and 17 to 21, respectively, under the NODA
option with methodology changes. Detailed results using zero cost pass-
through assumption can be found in section 17.1.5, DCN 35060, of the
public record. EPA solicits comment on these changes to the methodology
for cost pass-through.
B. Consideration of Changes to Closure and Financial Stress Test
Methodologies
1. Sector-Specific Thresholds for Evaluating Moderate Impacts
For the proposed rule analysis, EPA evaluated moderate impacts
based on two measures of financial health: pre-tax return on assets
(PTRA) and the interest coverage ratio (ICR). PTRA is a measure of
profitability and measures the firm's ability to provide returns
adequate to attract external capital or to justify reinvestment of the
firm's own resources. ICR is a measure of the firm's ability to pay
fixed interest costs, and affects the firm's ability to obtain debt
financing. EPA used a single threshold for each measure (8 percent for
PTRA and 4 for the ICR) to determine when a firm might experience
financial stress in the proposed rule analysis. Commenters questioned
this approach because a single threshold measure does not account for
differences in the rates of return required to attract investment in
different industries. For the final rule analysis, EPA is considering
using sector-specific thresholds for these measures. Use of thresholds
specific to each sector will account for industry differences in the
factors that contribute to financial distress, such as the volatility
of their earnings, and will improve the reliability of the analysis.
For the analyses presented in section VII.A.3 of today's document, EPA
has incorporated these changes into the methodology.
Risk Management Associates (RMA, formerly Robert Morris Associates)
provides information on the distribution of selected financial ratios
for specific industries, defined by SIC codes. The RMA data come from
credit data submitted by RMA-member lending institutions. As a result,
the RMA data may not include the most vulnerable firms in each
industry, which are unlikely to be applying for loans. EPA used as a
threshold the lowest fourth-quartile value for two financial
indicators: (1) Pre-tax return on sales (PTRS) and (2) interest
coverage ratio. EPA substituted PTRS for the pre-tax return on assets
ratio used in the analysis for the proposed rule. In theory, return on
assets is a more appropriate measure of financial performance as viewed
by investors. RMA notes, however, that firms with heavily depreciated
plant, large intangible assets, and unusual income or expense items can
lead to distortions in the return-on-asset ratios. While the return-on-
sales ratio can also be distorted by unusual income or expense items,
it is not subject to distortions based on reported assets. EPA
therefore chose the sales-based ratio as a more reliable comparison of
financial performance within sectors. The twenty-fifth percentile is
the value below which the lowest quarter of firms in each industry
fall. It is important to note that these thresholds may indicate
financial distress, but are not a reliable measure of potential
closure. A quarter of the firms in each industry report values below
the thresholds, many of which may continue to operate comfortably with
those financial characteristics. The thresholds used are likely to
overstate moderate impacts for the following reasons: (1) The RMA
database may not include the most vulnerable firms in each industry;
and (2) having values in the lowest fourth quartile may be adequate to
support continued trouble-free operation for some firms.
EPA developed thresholds by weighting the RMA lowest quartile value
for each SIC in a sector by the 1997 value of shipments for that SIC
relative to the total 1997 sector value of shipments. The calculations
were done separately for manufacturing and non-manufacturing SICs in
those sectors that have both. The thresholds were weighted using 1997
value of shipments because data are available from the Census for all
SICs for that year, while data for between-Census years are only
reported for manufacturing SICs. EPA assumed that the value of shipment
weights for 1997 would be similar to the weights for 1996, if 1996
value of shipments data were available for all SICs. The PTRS and ICR
sector-specific thresholds can be found in section 17.5.1, DCN 35450,
of the public record.
[[Page 38771]]
2. Use of Single Net Present Value Test To Assess Potential for
Closures
For the proposed rule analysis, EPA estimated the potential for
facility closures due to the regulation using two tests: negative Net
Present Value (NPV) (based on going concern value minus liquidation
value) for facilities that provided information on liquidation values
(most Phase I facilities and Phase II facilities with flows greater
than 1 million gallons per year), and negative After-Tax Cash Flow
(ATCF). Facilities that failed both tests under baseline or post-
compliance conditions are baseline or post-compliance closures,
respectively. For facilities that did not provide liquidation values,
EPA used only the ATCF test. Commenters questioned this use of a two-
test approach for estimating closures in facilities for which it can be
done both ways. For the final rule, EPA is considering using a single
test for closures, based on the NPV of the facility.
NPV including liquidation values is conceptually an appropriate
measure of long-term viability, for two reasons. First, a firm can have
positive cash flow but still not be making a return sufficient to
retain investment over time. The net present value test takes into
account the return required for a facility to continue to attract
sufficient investment to continue operating. Second, a firm's decision
to close a facility can be influenced by the extent to which the
facility's assets can be sold or put to other uses. In addition, firms
consider the direct costs of closing the facility, which may include
the costs of cleaning up contaminated sites, state requirements to
treat contaminated sediments, legal fees, lease obligations, employee
termination costs, and the like, when deciding whether to close a site.
Both industry- and site-specific factors influence the value of a
site's assets for other uses, including the transferability of fixed
assets to other uses and current market demand for products in
inventory.
Where estimates of liquidation value are available the most
reasonable way to assess the potential for site closures is to compare
the value of the site if it continues to operate (the net present value
of the business as a ``going-concern'') with its value if it is closed
(the liquidation value.) Net liquidation values (proceeds from closing
less the costs of closing) can be either positive or negative.
Facilities will be more likely to close, other things being equal, the
higher their liquidation values and the lower their post-closure costs.
EPA requested information on site liquidation values in its Phase 2
economic surveys. Of the 938 sample MP&M facilities, 219 provided
liquidation values in the survey. EPA attempted to estimate liquidation
values where they were not reported but concluded that predicting
liquidation values based on the facility-specific information provided
by the surveys would add substantial uncertainty to the analysis.
Estimates of liquidation value are available only for 23 percent of the
sample facilities. Given EPA's belief that liquidation value estimates
are substantially speculative and subject to considerable error, EPA
intends for the final rule analysis, to calculate net present value
based solely on the facility's value as a going concern and to not
account for liquidation value as part of the net present value test.
The Agency recognizes that assessing closures based only on going
concern value may overstate the likelihood of closure where liquidation
value is negative and understate the likelihood of closure where
liquidation value is positive. EPA seeks comment on this approach.
Analyses presented in section VII.A.3 of today's document include the
use of a single test based on NPV excluding consideration of
liquidation values.
To assess the sensitivity of the economic impact analysis results
to the inclusion or exclusion of liquidation values, EPA also conducted
its analysis including liquidation values in the NPV test for
facilities that reported liquidation values. The Agency found that
including liquidation values in the NPV test resulted in a decrease in
the number of severe impacts for the Metal Finishing Job Shop, General
Metals, and Oily Wastes subcategories from 520 to 348 and from 111 to
96 and from 1 to none, respectively. On the other hand, including
liquidation values in the NPV test resulted in an increase in the
number of severe impacts in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory from
55 to 83 under the NODA option. Other subcategories were not sensitive
to inclusion of liquidation values in the NPV test. Detailed results
using available liquidation values can be found in section 17.1.3, DCN
35050, of the public record.
3. Evaluation of Altman Z' as an Alternative Test for Moderate Impacts
Based on comments received, EPA is evaluating use of the Altman Z'
test as an alternative to the PTRA and ICR tests for moderate impacts
for the final rule. This test has been used in other ELGs, and it is
commonly used as a predictor of bankruptcies. The Altman Z' test
predicts firm bankruptcies based on a weighted set of firm financial
ratios. The ratios and weights were developed in a multiple
discriminant analysis of 33 publicly-traded firms that declared
bankruptcy between 1945 and 1965 and another 33 non-bankrupt publicly-
traded firms. The original model was later re-estimated to allow its
use for privately-held firms, although the analysis was based on the
same sample firms and financial data. The resulting model calculates a
``Z'' score as a combination of five financial ratios: working capital/
total assets, retained earnings/total assets, earnings before interest
and taxes (EBIT)/total assets, book value of net worth/total
liabilities, and sales/total assets. ``Z'' scores of less than 1.23
indicate high potential for bankruptcy, scores above 2.90 indicate low
potential for bankruptcy, and scores in between are indeterminate.
C. Consideration of Changes to Cash Flow Calculations
EPA received a number of comments on the calculation of cash flows
used to assess the potential for closures and moderate impacts as a
result of the rule. EPA is considering a number of changes to the
calculation of cash flow to address these comments. These include
incorporating a measure of normal capital outlays in baseline cash
flow, limiting the recognition of tax shields associated with
compliance costs, updating survey financial data to current dollars
using sector-specific price indices, and adjusting the methods used to
recognize the cost of financing compliance capital costs. EPA solicits
comment on these issues.
1. Baseline Capital Outlays
Commenters expressed the view that EPA's economic impact analyses
should take account of MP&M firms' regular need to replace and update
their pollution control and other capital equipment. The commenters
suggested using accounting depreciation data provided in the MP&M
surveys as a proxy to include these expenditures in estimated cash
flows.
EPA recognizes that cash outlays for capital replacement and
additions are required for a firm to remain in business, and should be
reflected in the cash flows used to assess economic impacts. However,
the Agency does not conclude that accounting depreciation provides a
reliable proxy for these continuing capital expenditures. Reported
depreciation is a periodic accounting charge for capital assets
acquired in the past, and may be either larger or smaller than annual
future capital expenditures for several reasons.
[[Page 38772]]
Depreciation is based on historical cost, which may not equal the
replacement cost of capital assets. In addition, reported depreciation
is based on various accounting and tax reporting conventions that may
bear little resemblance to the actual economic life and consumption of
capital assets. Finally, a firm's capital outlay decisions are
influenced by the quality of its investment opportunities, the
financial health of the enterprise, and by general business conditions,
which vary over time.
As an alternative approach, EPA developed a regression model of
capital outlays that relates capital expenditures to a firm's financial
characteristics and the general business environment. Specifically, the
model relates a firm's historical capital expenditures to: firm-
specific revenues, capital turnover rate, and capital intensity;
capacity utilization in the relevant industry; and the economy-wide
cost of debt capital and rate of change in the price of capital goods.
This model can be used to estimate baseline continuing capital outlays
for each MP&M facility, which can then be included in the discounted
cash flow analyses used to assess facility economic impacts. EPA's goal
is to estimate baseline cash flow for the business as it is (under
steady-state conditions). EPA therefore estimated the model using data
for a 10-year period that reflected a range of economic conditions. The
Agency would use the estimated model in conjunction with MP&M facility
characteristics and indicators of the general business environment for
the relevant years to estimate facility capital expenditures. The
analyses presented in section VII.A.3 of today's document include
baseline capital outlays based on the regression model discussed above.
EPA seeks comment on the regression model and its use to calculate
baseline capital expenditures. The regression model is described in
detail in section 17.3.1, DCN 35350, of the public record.
2. Consideration of Tax Effects
Compliance costs are tax deductible for income tax purposes. Firms
incurring these costs will therefore pay fewer taxes than they
otherwise would pay, which partially offsets the negative impact of the
compliance costs on firms' income. The proposed rule analysis assumed
that firms would benefit by the full amount of tax shields on
compliance costs, based on a standard assumed 34 percent marginal tax
rate. Some commenters expressed concerns about MP&M firms' ability to
make use of the full tax shield from compliance costs. In particular,
firms may not be paying sufficient taxes in the baseline to take
advantage of the tax shields in the year compliance costs are incurred.
Some firms with lower net income may also be paying less than the
assumed 34 percent marginal tax rate. While firms may be able to carry
forward losses to reduce taxes in later years, EPA recognizes that the
methods used in the proposed rule analysis to calculate tax benefits
may overstate those benefits in some cases. This is more likely to be
true for single-facility firms, whereas parent companies with multiple
facilities might take current advantage of tax benefits from losses at
individual facilities.
To address this issue, EPA is considering limiting the calculation
of tax shields to no greater than the amount of tax paid by facilities
in the baseline. For the purposes of the analyses presented in today's
document, EPA has incorporated this change in methodology. As a result,
the analysis assumes that facilities will not be able to offset an
implicit negative tax liability against positive tax liability
elsewhere in the firm's operations or to carry forward (or back) the
negative income and its implicit negative tax liability to other
positive income/positive tax liability operating periods. On average,
this approach will overstate impacts on facilities, because some MP&M
firms may be able to use tax shields that exceed baseline taxes at the
affected facility, especially if the facility is owned by a multiple-
site firm. EPA is also considering applying this limitation on tax
benefits only to single-facility MP&M firms. The Agency seeks comments
on this issue.
D. Updating Survey Data to Current Dollars
For the proposed rule analysis, EPA used the Producers Price Index
(PPI) for all industrial goods to update Phase II MP&M survey data to
1996 values. Since that analysis was completed, EPA has compiled
sector-specific PPI values and intends to use these values to update
the survey data for the final rule analysis. The analyses presented in
section VII.A.3 of today's document include the use of sector-specific
price indexes. Detailed information on the methods used to calculated
sector-specific PPIs and the results are provided in section 17.5.2,
DCN 35460, of the public record.
E. Adjusting Abnormally High Labor Cost Estimates
Since proposal EPA found that the per-employee labor costs for
certain privately held facilities are materially higher than the
average over all facilities in the same subcategory. Labor costs for
these facilities thus appear to be overstated and include ``excess
owner compensation'' that, under a more precise accounting regime,
would be recorded as facility profit. Including the excess owner
compensation in the labor cost account reduces the apparent
profitability of these facilities and increases the likelihood that
they will fail the post-compliance closure test (if they passed the
baseline closure test). To illustrate, one facility, a Job Shop,
reported per employee labor cost of $71,000 that is nearly triple the
average of other facilities in this industrial sector and its labor
costs as a percent of reported total operating costs are also extremely
high. This per-employee level of labor costs indicates that the owner
of the facility may have reported the business' net income in
compensation expense (i.e., as compensation to the owner that exceeds
the fair market value of management services) instead of facility
profit.
The Agency found that about two percent of the sample facilities
report abnormally high labor costs. To estimate more accurately the
profits for facilities that appear to overstate their labor cost, the
Agency is considering adjusting reported facility labor costs based on
Economic Census data. This adjustment involves the following steps.
First, the Agency estimated average per-employee labor cost by
establishment size for the MP&M sectors based on Economic Census data.
Second, EPA identified facilities reporting per employee labor costs in
excess of 1.5 times the average per employee labor cost, estimated for
facilities in that sector and of that establishment size. For
facilities with per-employee costs exceeding the 1.5-multiple-of-
average threshold, the Agency revised the calculation of facility net
present value based on the adjusted labor costs and used the revised
facility value in the facility closure test. For the analyses presented
in section VII.A.3 of today's document, EPA has incorporated these
changes into the methodology. Section 17.5.3, DCN 35470, of the public
record summarizes average per employee labor cost by establishment size
for the MP&M sectors based on Economic Census data. EPA solicits
comment on this approach and on the extent to which ``excess owner
compensation'' occurs within various MP&M sectors.
F. New Information on POTW Administrative Costs
EPA received comments regarding the use of EPA's 1997 POTW survey.
Commenters stated that EPA underestimated the administration costs
[[Page 38773]]
to POTWs to implement this rule. Commenters provided new information on
POTW characteristics which EPA will use to refine its analysis of POTW
administrative costs and benefits for the final rule. The Association
of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA) conducted a survey of the 150
POTWs included in EPA's 1997 POTW survey. Responses to the AMSA survey
were received from 70 sewerage authorities representing 177 POTWs. The
177 POTWs responded to the AMSA survey correspond to 77 POTWs included
in the EPA survey. In addition, the North Carolina Pretreatment
Consortium conducted a survey of POTWs in that state. EPA is evaluating
the results of these surveys, and will use the results as appropriate
to verify and supplement information from the previous MP&M POTW survey
on loadings, number of MP&M facilities served, and administrative
costs. The AMSA and North Carolina Pretreatment Consortium surveys can
be found in section 17.6 of the public record.
G. Human Health Benefits From Reduced Exposure to Lead
For the proposed rule analysis, EPA assessed benefits of reduced
lead exposure from consumption of contaminated fish tissue to three
population groups: (1) Preschool age children, (2) pregnant women, and
(3) adult men and women. The quantified health effects in children
included neurological effects to preschool children and neonatal
mortality. The quantified health effects in adults all related to
lead's affect on blood pressure (BP) and included incidence of
hypertension in adult men, initial non-fatal coronary heart disease
(CHD), non-fatal strokes (cerebrovascular accidents (CBA) and
atherothrombotic brain infarctions (BI)), and premature mortality.
The health effect quantified for the proposed rule presented only a
portion of the spectrum of adverse health effects potentially caused by
exposure to lead, even at relatively low doses. Health effects related
to lead that were not valued in the benefits calculations of the
proposal include cancer, cognitive and behavioral effects in older
children and adults, infertility in men and women, decreased physical
growth in children, hematological and kidney effects, and peripheral
nervous system effects. EPA continues to evaluate the available
information to determine whether there is sufficient data to support a
dose-response function for one or more of these additional lead effects
on human health.
Since the proposed rule analysis was completed, EPA analyzed the
data available on the carcinogenic effects of lead. EPA classified lead
as a B2-probable human carcinogen based on ``sufficient'' animal
evidence in its evaluation in 1989 and reported its findings in the
IRIS file (IRIS 2002; see section 17.7.7, DCN 35740). Kidney tumors
linked to lead exposure were the most common tumor type reported at
statistically significant levels by EPA. EPA examined the supporting
evidence for lead carcinogeneity (e.g., animal assays and human
epidemiological studies) and calculated a cancer potency value for
lead. This value can be used when evaluating oral exposure to lead
associated with consumption of contaminated food. EPA obtained the
cancer potency value based on a study by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB, 1997), which is supported by EPA in its IRIS file. The
estimated cancer potency value for lead is 8.5 x 10-3 (mg/
kg/day)-1. A discussion of derivation of the lead cancer
potency factor by the CARB appears in section 17.7.7, DCN 35740, of the
public record. Based on the cancer potency factor of
8.5 x 10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 the regulatory options
presented in the NODA would reduce the number of cancer cases
associated with exposure to lead by 0.009 cases and result in annual
monetized benefits of $0.06 million (1999$).
EPA also revised the analysis of neurological effects in preschool
age children. Avoided neurological and cognitive damages from reduced
exposure to lead 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 analysis of neurological effects in
children relies on blood lead concentrations as a biomarker of lead
exposure and a dose-response relationship between blood lead level and
IQ decrements determined by Schwartz (Schwartz, 1994). For this
rulemaking, we are using EPA's Integrated Exposure, Uptake, and
Biokinetics (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children to obtain both baseline
and post-compliance distribution of blood levels in the population of
exposed children. In estimating blood lead levels in the population of
exposed children for the proposed rule analysis, EPA assumed that
children are most sensitive to lead exposure up to age 7 (i.e., through
age 6 or from 0 to 72 months) and that infants are introduced to fish
at 11 months. EPA revised these assumptions for the NODA analysis based
on recommendations from Dr. Mark Maddaloni, member of the EPA technical
review workgroup for lead (see section 17.7.7, DCN 35741). First, for
the final rule analysis, the Agency is considering a revised assumption
that children are at risk from exposure to lead from 0 to 84 months.
Second, since the proposed rule analysis, the Agency reviewed
recommendations on infants' diets and found that children may be
introduced to fish earlier than 11 months. Various child care
organizations, including the National Network for Child Care (http://www.nncc.org), recommend introducing infants to fish between 6 and 12
months (see section 17.7.7, DCN 35742). Children from recreational and,
in particular, subsistence fishing families may therefore start eating
fish at an age earlier than 11 months. EPA is considering using the
assumption for the final rule analysis that children of recreational
and subsistence anglers are introduced to fish at 9 months. Finally for
the proposed rule analysis, the Agency assumed that the bioavailability
of lead in food is three percent. EPA based this assumption on
recommendations made for the analysis of adult health effects (see
section 17.7.7, DCN 35743). Using the bioavailability factor developed
for adults in the analysis of children's health effects was incorrect
because lead absorption rates are different in children and adults. As
a result of this error, the estimated benefits from reduced exposure to
lead were biased downward (see section VII). EPA is considering the use
of the standard IEUBK assumption regarding lead bioavailability in food
for the final rule analysis. According to the standard IEUBK
assumptions, the bioavailability factor used in calculating blood lead
levels in the population of exposed children changes from 0.03 to 0.5
for the NODA analysis. EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriateness
of using the revised assumptions in the analysis of neurological
effects in preschool age children.
H. Ohio Case Study
For the proposed rule, EPA 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. The case study
supplements the national level analysis performed for the proposed MP&M
regulation analysis by using additional
[[Page 38774]]
data on MP&M facilities, non-MP&M dischargers, and the baseline water
quality in Ohio and methods to determine MP&M pollutant discharges from
both MP&M facilities and other sources, and by estimating a state-
specific model of recreational behavior for four water-based recreation
activities (including fishing, boating, swimming, and wildlife
viewing). The RUM used in the analysis estimates the effects of the
specific water quality characteristics analyzed for the proposed MP&M
regulation (i.e., the presence of ambient water quality criteria (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 analysis aimed at reducing uncertainty in benefit estimates and
to make the analysis of recreational benefits more robust. Chapter 21
of the proposed rule EEBA presents this study in detail.
After the proposal, EPA submitted its RUM analysis for an official
peer review using EPA's official peer review process. To review the
analysis, EPA's contractor selected four well-respected resource
economists with extensive experience in developing RUM models for
valuing the effects of improving environmental quality on recreational
decisions as shown by their publication in the Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, Land Economics, and the American Journal of
Agricultural Economics or related journals. These individuals are
(listed in alphabetical order):
Dr. Michael W. Hanemann, Chancellor's Professor,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Goldman School
of Public Policy, University of California;
Dr. Daniel Hellerstein, USDA/ERS;
Dr. John B. Loomis, Professor, Department of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, CO; and
Dr. I. E. Strand Jr., Professor Department of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
The peer review concluded that EPA had done a competent job,
especially given that the available data and that the methodology of
the linked trip and RUM model is ``nearly the state of the art for the
problem of estimating recreational benefits'' (J. Loomis, 2001; see DCN
35660). The reviewers also noted that EPA was quite conservative in its
analysis and may have understated the recreation benefits of the
environmental improvements due to the omission of multiple-day trips.
As requested by the Agency, peer reviewers provided suggestions for
further improvements in the analysis. Since the proposed rule analysis,
the Agency made changes to the Ohio model and conducted additional
sensitivity analyses suggested by the reviewers. The peer review report
appears in section 17.7.3, DCN 35660, of the public record. EPA's
response to peer reviewers' comments along with the revised model
appears in section 17.7.3, DCN 35661, of the public record.
I. Recreational Benefits
For the proposed rule national analysis, EPA assessed recreational
and non-use benefits from reduced effluent discharges and improved
habitats or ecosystems for three water-based recreation activities: (1)
Recreational fishing, (2) recreational boating, and (3) wildlife
viewing. EPA used the National Demand Study data to estimate the number
of person-days of boating and wildlife viewing in counties affected by
MP&M discharges. EPA used county level fishing license data to estimate
the number of recreational fishermen.
When estimating the percentage of state populations participating
in recreational boating and wildlife viewing for the proposed rule, EPA
considered only those persons who made single-day trips during the
period specified in the survey. Accordingly, when estimating the
average number of recreation days per person per year for each
activity, EPA used the survey responses of only those individuals whose
last trip for the activity was a single-day trip. EPA excluded
multiple-day trips from the proposed rule analysis because these trips
generally involve longer travel distances from a participant's home. In
effect, EPA assumed that participants would be less aware of reductions
in concentrations of MP&M pollutants in these farther-located water
bodies.
Since completion of the proposed rule, EPA has revised its
methodology for estimating person-days of recreational boating and
wildlife viewing. EPA no longer restricts its analysis to single-day
activities; instead, it considers all participants who took a single-
or multiple-day trip close to their home. EPA made this change in
response to peer reviewers' comments on the Ohio case study analysis.
The peer review report appears in section 17.7.3, DCN 35660, of the
public record. The revised analysis includes multiple-day trips that
were within 120 miles one-way from a participant's home. The Agency
concluded that participants will be sufficiently aware of improvements
in the water quality of water bodies located within this distance to
justify their inclusion in the benefits analysis for the final MP&M
rule. EPA included multiple-day trips for an activity for only those
participants whose last trip was within 120 miles one-way from their
homes. EPA assumes that other multiple-day trips taken earlier in the
year by these participants for the same activity were also within the
120-mile threshold and includes these trip days in the benefits
analysis. For participants whose last multiple-day trip for an activity
took them more than 120 miles from their homes, EPA assumes that all
their prior multiple-day trips for this activity were also more than
120 miles from their homes and thus excludes them from the benefits
analysis. Excluding from the analysis those recreational users who take
multiple day trips farther than 120 miles from their homes may
underestimate the total number of recreational users benefitting from
water quality improvements if a site is a nationally important
recreational area (e.g., Great Lakes). However, the analysis could
overstate the total number of recreational users by including all
multiple day trips taken by residents of the counties affected by MP&M
discharges because some of these trips can be taken to remote
destinations.
The methodology revisions have increased the national estimates for
total person-days of recreational boating and wildlife viewing. For
reference purposes, an analysis of various characteristics of the
National Demand Study data appears in section 17.7.4, DCN 35680, of the
public record.
EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of including
recreational users who took multiple day trips in the vicinity of their
home to assess the total number of recreational users benefitting from
water quality changes associated with the MP&M rule.
J. POTW Characteristics
For the proposed rule analysis, EPA obtained information on
characteristics of POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP&M
facilities from the EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database. POTW
characteristics that serve as input data into the environmental
assessment analyses include POTW flow, location, and the receiving
water body name and identification number. The PCS database, however,
does not often provide POTW flow information if a POTW is classified as
a minor discharger (i.e., if a POTW discharges less than two million
gallons of wastewater per day). For the proposed
[[Page 38775]]
rule analysis, EPA set the POTW flow rate equal to the arithmetic mean
flow among POTWs associated with the sample MP&M facilities in the
absence of data on POTW flow rates in PCS. The estimated arithmetic
mean flow for POTWs associated with the sample MP&M facilities for
which flow information is provided in the PCS database is 61.4 million
gallons per day (MGD). In response to comments received on the
environmental assessment analysis, EPA has revised its approach to
assigning a POTW flow value in the absence of data on POTW flow in PCS.
Because all POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP&M facilities
for which flow data are not available in the PCS databases are
classified as minor dischargers in the PCS database, EPA calculated an
arithmetic mean flow for minor POTWs for which either actual or design
flow information is available. The estimated mean flow for POTWs that
are classified as minor dischargers is 1 MGD. EPA will use this
estimate for all POTWs that receive discharges from the sample MP&M
facilities in the absence of flow data in PCS. Results of the POTW flow
analysis are provided in section 17.6.2, DCN 35553, of the public
record.
K. Drinking Water Intakes
EPA revised the database of drinking water intakes that it uses for
estimating human health effects associated with consumption of
contaminated drinking water. The proposed rule used drinking water
intakes data derived from EPA's software BASINS 1.0, which was released
in May 1996. For the NODA analysis, EPA replaced the older BASINS 1.0
data with information on drinking water intakes from the Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS). SDWIS is being updated on a
continuous basis and provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date
information on drinking water intake structures, including latitude/
longitude data and the number of individuals served by a given drinking
water system. This resulted in the reduction of the total number of
drinking water supply systems from 6,603 facilities to 6,048
facilities. However, correcting the latitude/longitude information for
drinking water intakes changed the receiving reach and the number of
households served by each drinking water intake based on the data
provided in SDWIS. These changes resulted in a significant increase of
the total number of individuals served by some public water supply
systems located downstream from MP&M facilities. EPA presents the
number of individuals served by public water supply systems affected by
MP&M dischargers by reach ID in section 17.7.7, DCN 35744, of the
public record.
L. Extrapolation of Sample-Based Results to the National Level
As discussed in the Executive Summary of the proposal EEBA, EPA
historically extrapolates baseline conditions, costs, economic impacts,
and benefits associated with sample facilities to the total industry
population using sample facility weights. The weights are derived as
part of the stratification process involved in developing the
questionnaire. The sample weights are based on the stratification of
the facility population using known variables such as facility size and
SIC code or industry sector. Due to the lack of data on non-facility
characteristic variables (e.g., receiving water body type and size and
size of the affected population), stratification generally does not
reflect variables related to these characteristics, even though they
may influence the occurrence and magnitude of the expected benefits.
The national-level analysis therefore assumes that facilities
represented by the sample facility not only have the same technical and
economic/financial characteristics but also have the same benefit
characteristics. These assumptions may introduce a larger than desired
uncertainty in both economic impact and benefits analyses and even
cause anomalies in the results.
As discussed in the proposal (66 FR 536), the Agency is currently
working on alternative methods to extrapolate the MP&M facility sample
to address this issue, and expects to complete this effort as part of
the analysis for the final regulation.
One method to extrapolate benefits to the national level is to use
post-stratification. Post-stratification would require classifying all
sample facilities into several classes or groups called secondary
strata. If, for example, occurrence or the size of benefits differs
markedly among facilities discharging to different water body types or
sizes, then post-stratification of the MP&M sample using such strata
would be helpful in improving the precision of benefits estimates. The
Agency identified secondary strata and determined the impacts of those
characteristics on both benefit occurrence and magnitude. EPA
identified the following secondary strata: water body type (i.e., bay,
ocean, Great Lakes, lakes, and streams), water body size (as defined by
reach flow), and population size in the vicinity of the affected reach.
This analysis was performed based on the input data used for the
proposed rule analyses because new loading estimates were not available
at the time when this analysis was performed. A summary of this
analysis appears in section 17.7.5, DCN 35700, of the public record.
EPA is seeking comment on the appropriateness of using the listed
secondary strata such as water body type, stream flow, and population
size in post-stratifying of the MP&M sample.
EPA is also considering use of the Ohio case study results to
develop an alternative estimate of the monetary value of national
benefits. Specifically, the Agency is considering making a national
extrapolation of the Ohio case study results, based on two key factors
that affect the occurrence and magnitude of benefits: (1) The estimated
change in the MP&M pollutant loadings; and (2) the level of
recreational activities on the reaches affected by MP&M discharges. The
first factor--the estimated change in total pollutant loadings
(measured as toxic pounds removed)--reflects the potential for
improvements in surface water quality. Note that changes in total
pollutant loadings can be also measured as total suspended solids (TSS)
or chemical oxygen demand (COD) removed. The three different measures
can be used to develop a range of benefit estimates. The second
factor--the level of recreational activity in the relevant geographic
areas (i.e., counties where MP&M facilities are located)--reflects the
degree to which there is a demand by local residents to use water
resources that are likely to be affected by MP&M discharges. Another
important factor that impacts the magnitude of benefits is the type and
significance of water resources affected by MP&M dischargers. The State
of Ohio includes a wide variety of water body types affected by MP&M
dischargers, including freshwater streams, large rivers, and the Lake
Erie. Therefore the estimated state level benefits may be
representative of benefits associated with the majority of water bodies
types affected by MP&M discharges. The two variables can be used to
develop a range of national level benefits based on the Ohio study
results.
The first step in applying this alternative extrapolation method is
to develop a measure of benefits per toxic pounds removed. This measure
can be developed by simply dividing the state-level benefit estimates
by the total number of toxic pounds removed in the state of Ohio ($ per
toxic pound removed). Both values are readily available from the Ohio
case study. Multiplying the estimated per toxic pound values by the
total number of
[[Page 38776]]
toxic pounds removed extrapolates the state level benefits to the
national level. EPA was unable to apply this methodology to estimating
national benefits for the NODA option because new pollutant loading
estimates have not been estimated for the MP&M facilities that
completed the Ohio case study questionnaire.
The second factor, the number of recreational angling, boating, and
wildlife viewing days, can be used to scale up or down the national
level estimates developed based on the total number of toxic pounds
removed. The appropriate adjustment factor is the ratio of the number
of recreational users per reach mile at the national level to the
number of recreational users per reach mile in Ohio. Accounting for
differences between Ohio and the nation in recreational intensity is
necessary because the total user value of water quality improvements is
a function of the number of users associated with a particular reach.
EPA will also examine recreation valuation literature to determine
whether willingness to pay (WTP) for water quality improvements in Ohio
is likely to be different compared to other states. If necessary, EPA
will develop adjustment factors to reflect variations in the WTP values
in different states or regions.
This alternative extrapolation method can be used to determine
state-level benefits in addition to the total national benefits. First,
the state level analysis would first estimate the state-level number of
toxic pounds removed by apportioning the national estimate of toxic
pounds removed to each state based on the level of MP&M business
activity in a given state (e.g., total revenues associated with MP&M
sectors in a given state). Multiplying the estimated per toxic pound
benefits by the total number of toxic pounds removed in a given state
yields the estimate of state-level benefits. The estimated state level
benefits can be adjusted up or down based on the level of recreational
activity per reach mile in a given state compared to the level of
recreational activity in Ohio. The state-based approach would produce
more precise results than a national analysis because some states may
have fewer MP&M facilities and a large number of water bodies suitable
for recreation, while other states may have a relatively large number
of MP&M facilities and fewer water bodies suitable for recreation.
EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of using the
alternative approach to assess the national level benefits, based on
extrapolating the Ohio case study results.
VI. Consideration of Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
This section describes how EPA developed limitations and standards
presented in Section VIII of today's document. The first subsection,
VI.A, discusses the limitations and standards; EPA's evaluation of the
achievability of these limitations and standards; and its evaluation of
factors that commenters suggested would influence the values EPA
calculated for the long-term averages. The second subsection, VI.B,
describes EPA's consideration of alternatives to the limitations and
standards for the total organic pollutants (TOP) parameter. The third
subsection, VI.C, describes minor revisions to the statistical
methodologies that EPA is considering in developing numerical
limitations and standards for the MP&M industry. For the most part,
these revisions are consistent with the methodology used in recent
effluent limitations guidelines rulemakings for other industries.
This section uses slightly different terminology from that used in
the statistical support document and the technical development document
(TDD) for the proposal. Rather than using the term ``facility-
specific'' for long-term averages and variability factors calculated
using each episode data set, this section refers to these as ``episode
long-term averages'' and ``episode variability factors.'' As explained
in section VI.C, in developing the long-term averages and variability
factors, EPA may have used data from more than one episode at a
particular facility. In these cases, EPA has calculated separate values
for each episode. EPA also has changed the terms ``pollutant-specific
long-term average'' and ``pollutant-specific variability factor'' to
``option long-term average'' and ``option variability factor'' to refer
to estimates for long-term averages and variability factors for each
pollutant in an option for a subcategory.
In section VIII of today's document, EPA is presenting limitations
and standards in units of concentration (i.e., milligrams per liter)
for all subcategories except steel forming and finishing (SFF). For
this subcategory, EPA has expressed the limitations and standards as
lb/1000 lb (pounds per 1000 pounds of production). To obtain these
production-normalized values, EPA used the concentration-based
limitations and standards in section VIII, the production values in
Table 14-7 of the proposal TDD, and the appropriate conversion factor
as described in the proposal statistical support document. However, in
its evaluations described in this section VI, EPA used the
concentration-based long-term averages, variability factors, and
limitations and standards for all subcategories, including the SFF
subcategory. The discussion in this Section would not be altered if EPA
had used production-normalized data rather than the concentration data
in its evaluations of the SFF subcategory data.
Section 19 of the record section contains the documents for the
DCNs cited in this section of the NODA. In addition to the hardcopy
version of each document, DCN 36092 in section 19.4 contains the
electronic files for the public version of those documents.
A. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In this section, EPA distinguishes between the numerical
limitations and standards which it proposed in January, 2001
(``proposed limitations and standards''), the numerical limitations
and standards calculated using the NODA episode data base (``revised
limitations and standards'') and the numerical limitations and
standards which, for a particular pollutant, represent the greater
of the revised limitations and standards or the proposed limitations
and standards (``preliminary revised limitations and standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the proposed limitations and standards, EPA used only
data from EPA sampling episodes. Commenters on the proposal asserted
that facilities that were currently operating the BAT model technology
could not achieve the levels mandated by the proposed limitations and
standards for certain subcategories. This section describes the
approach that EPA is considering to address this issue in the final
rule. This section also describes EPA's evaluation of factors that
commenters suggested would influence the values EPA calculated for the
option long-term averages.
1. Approach
This section describes the revised limitations and standards based
upon the NODA episodes and EPA's approach for determining the
preliminary revised limitations and standards presented in Section VIII
of today's document. In general, the preliminary revised daily maximum
limitations and standards shown in today's document are the greater
(i.e., less stringent) of either the revised daily maximum limitations
calculated using the NODA episodes or the daily maximum limitations
previously proposed. (Section VI.A.1.d describes the calculation of the
long-term average and monthly average limitations and standards.) EPA
requests comment on this approach that EPA has used to develop the
preliminary revised limitations and standards presented in section VIII
of today's document.
[[Page 38777]]
a. Revised Limitations and Standards (Based on NODA Episodes)
In its statistical analyses subsequent to the proposal, EPA used a
combination of the data from the proposal, additional EPA sampling
data, and industry supplied data. The combined episodes are referred to
as ``the NODA episodes'' in this Section (see section II of today's
document for a summary of the more than 70 new data sets). These data
are listed in DCN 36000 in section 19.1. The electronic version (in
both Excel and SAS formats) is provided by DCN 36091 in section 19.6.
In today's document, EPA's use of the term ``revised limitations''
refers to limitations calculated using the NODA episodes and the
modifications to the statistical methodology described in section VI.C.
In most cases, the revised limitations and standards were lower than
those in the proposal (see DCN 36001, section 19.1). This result was
contrary to comments on the proposal that had asserted that the values
of the proposed limitations and standards were too low and therefore
could not be achieved by facilities currently operating the BAT
technology. Instead, the additional data submissions from industry
generally supported the achievability of the proposed values. Because
of industry's concerns about the proposed limitations and standards,
EPA performed additional evaluations on the revised limitations and
standards.
b. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Limitations and Standards
EPA compared the data from the NODA episodes to the revised
limitations and standards (see DCN 36002, section 19.1). Although the
NODA data were generally supportive of the achievability of the revised
limitations and standards, the evaluation showed that some facilities
in the NODA episodes data base might have difficulty in achieving some
of the revised values. Thus, as described in the next section, EPA
reevaluated the proposed limitations and standards in terms of the NODA
episodes. The NODA data were generally supportive of the achievability
of the proposed limitations and standards.
c. Determination of Values for Preliminary Revised Limitations and
Standards
Based upon its evaluations of the revised and proposed limitations
and standards, EPA is considering selecting the greater of the proposed
value and the revised value as the limitation/standard in the final
rule (see section VIII for these preliminary revised limitations and
standards). In developing these preliminary revised limitations, EPA
first compared the two values of the proposed and revised daily maximum
limitations and selected the one with the greater value. In order to
have a single long-term average basis for the limitations and standards
presented in section VIII of today's document, EPA then selected the
long-term average and monthly average limitation corresponding to the
daily maximum limitation/standard that had been selected. For a few
cases, the proposed and revised daily maximum limitations/standards had
the same value, but the proposed and revised monthly average
limitations/standards had different values (see DCN 36050, section
19.2). In these few cases, EPA selected the greater value of the
proposed and revised monthly average limitation/standard and the
corresponding long-term average. (The Costs & Loadings model used long-
term averages based upon the NODA episodes only, not the greater of the
two proposed and revised values.)
The term `preliminary revised limitations' refers to the
limitations selected as a result of these comparisons and the following
exceptions.
The first exception to using the greater of the two values is for
the case where EPA transferred the option long-term average and/or
option variability factors in order to calculate the proposed
limitations and standards. At proposal, these transfers were necessary
because data were unavailable for some pollutants in some
subcategories. Rather than retain these proposed transfers, EPA is
considering an approach where the final limitations and standards would
be based upon the available data and only using the data transfers
described in section VI.C.
The second exception to using the maximum value is for the total
organic parameter (TOP). Here, EPA is considering several other methods
as discussed in section VI.B and has presented the results from one of
these methods as the preliminary revised limitations and standards for
TOP in section VIII of today's document.
2. Assessment of Achievability
In order to be responsive to the many comments about the
achievability of its proposed limitations and standards for certain
subcategories, EPA evaluated the preliminary revised limitations. As
explained in the following sections, in evaluating the preliminary
revised limitations and standards in this NODA, EPA compared those
preliminary revised values to the effluent data from the model
technology, effluent from more sophisticated technologies (`BAT+'), and
the data excluded because information about influent levels were
unavailable (as explained in section VI.C.6). EPA performed this
comparison for all subcategories and pollutants (except TOP), not just
those corresponding to specific comments.
a. Effluent Data From Model Technology (NODA Episodes)
EPA compared the preliminary revised daily maximum limitations to
the effluent data that had influent at treatable levels and used the
model technology. As previously explained, the data from these ``NODA
episodes'' were a combination of the episodes used in the proposal,
more recent EPA sampling episodes, and industry submitted information.
In this evaluation, EPA performed a check of the preliminary
revised limitations and standards similar to that discussed in the
proposal (66 FR 431). For the nonchromium anodizer and railroad line
maintenance subcategories, none of the data from the NODA episodes
exceeded the preliminary revised daily maximum limitations. For the
other subcategories, EPA found that some values were greater than the
preliminary revised daily maximum limitations (see DCN 36051, section
19.2). The following paragraphs describes EPA's review of two
pollutants and its plans for further review of all regulated
pollutants.
For amenable and total cyanides that EPA has proposed to regulate
for several subcategories, while ten to fifteen percent of the values
are greater than the preliminary revised limitations and standards, EPA
notes that some facilities operate the cyanide destruction system
better than others. EPA has observed these differences in the operation
of cyanide destruction system over many years of evaluating treatment
systems for this and other industries. In addition, as described in the
proposal, facilities with cyanide treatment would be able to select one
of the two cyanides to monitor with approval by the permitting
authority. Thus, while EPA intends further evaluation of these data
before the final rule, EPA may consider today's preliminary revised
limitations and standards to be achievable by facilities that properly
operate their cyanide destruction systems (e.g., sufficient detention
time for alkaline chlorination).
For TOC, which had about ten and twenty-five percent of the values
greater than the preliminary revised limitations and standards for the
Oily Wastes and General Metals subcategories,
[[Page 38778]]
respectively, EPA notes that treatment systems are not primarily
targeting this pollutant. Further, monitoring TOC is only one of
several options for monitoring organic pollutants (see section VI.B)
and facilities may select a different option. Thus, while EPA intends
further evaluation of these data before the final rule, EPA may
determine that today's preliminary revised limitations and standards to
be achievable by facilities that select this option.
For all regulated pollutants in the final rule, EPA plans an
engineering review of its data to verify that the limitations and
standards are reasonable based upon the design and expected operation
of the control technologies and the facility process conditions. As
part of that review, EPA plans to examine the range of performance
represented by the episode data sets with the model technology. Some
episode data sets will demonstrate performance reflecting the best
available technology and an effluent quality meeting the limitations.
Other episode data sets may demonstrate performance from the same
technology, but not reflect the best design and/or operating conditions
for that technology. For these facilities, EPA will evaluate the degree
to which the facility can upgrade its design, operating, and
maintenance conditions to meet the limitations or standards. If such
upgrades are not possible, then the limitations and standards would be
modified to reflect the lowest levels that the technologies can
reasonably be expected to achieve. Even though some individual values
may be greater than the final limitations and standards, EPA may
determine that they adequately reflect the treatment capabilities of
the model technologies. In the following paragraphs, EPA presents three
examples and possible considerations for the final rule. These examples
are not meant to be exhaustive, but rather provide examples of the
types of evaluations and potential outcomes that EPA may consider. EPA
solicits comment on these evaluation approaches and additional
approaches that could be used.
In the first example, EPA would evaluate limitations where a few
episodes contribute a large majority of the values greater than the
preliminary revised limitation for a pollutant. In the General Metals
subcategory, 78 of the 93 values greater than the copper limitation are
all from the same episode (4737D). For the final rule, in its
evaluation of cases like this example, EPA will evaluate whether this
facility needs to make improvements to optimize its treatment
performance. Based upon this review, EPA also may consider the
possibility of excluding the data from developing the limitations and
standards because they probably reflect less than optimal performance.
EPA may also consider retaining the data as a conservative approach in
developing the limitations and standards. As an alternative, EPA may
consider using only those data to develop the final limitations and
standards.
In the second example, EPA would evaluate the analytical methods.
In the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory, all the values greater than
the HEM limitation are from one episode of self-monitoring data
provided by industry (4892D). As explained in section VI.C.8, EPA has
excluded all oil and grease data measured by chemical analytical
methods that use freon. In cases like this, in addition to evaluating
the treatment performance, EPA may investigate whether the analytical
method has been incorrectly identified in its database.
In the third example, EPA would evaluate the effect of influent
levels on treatment performance. For the oily subcategory, the HEM
values greater than the preliminary revised limitation are from two
(4872, 4876) of the five episodes. These two episodes are associated
with the highest influent values. In examples like this, EPA may
investigate the impact on the performance of the technology due to the
influent levels.
b. Effluent Data From ``BAT+'' Technology
Because many commentors asserted that some facilities were unable
to achieve the low concentration even with more sophisticated
technology (``BAT+'') than the option model technology, EPA compared
``BAT+'' data to the preliminary revised daily limitations and
standards (see DCN 36052, section 19.2). EPA considered data from two
types of technology as being ``BAT+ data.'' The first technology,
``CPTF'', is chemical precipitation with clarification using a
clarifier followed by additional treatment such as a sand filter which
is an additional treatment step following the proposed BAT model
technology. The second technology is chemical precipitation with
clarification using microfiltration or ultrafiltration (CHUM).
In general, in comparison to the BAT data, EPA found smaller or
relatively the same percentages of the BAT+ data had values greater
than the preliminary daily maximum limitations. EPA also noted that
some episodes, but at different sample points, were considered in both
the BAT and BAT+ comparisons. For some of these episodes, if the BAT
data were greater than the preliminary revised limitations, then the
BAT+ data also were greater than the preliminary revised limitations.
EPA does not consider this to be a surprising result. As explained in
section VII, addition of a sand filter is not expected to provide much
additional removal for the pollutants when clarifiers are operating
properly.
For nickel in the General Metals subcategory, EPA notes that, on a
percentage basis, more BAT+ values than BAT values were greater than
the preliminary revised limitations. EPA intends to investigate this
result further before the final rule.
c. Effluent Data Without Influent Information
As another evaluation of the preliminary revised daily limitations
and standards, EPA compared the preliminary revised limitations and
standards to the self-monitoring data that it had excluded because of
the unavailability of information about the influent levels at the
facility (see section VI.C.6). In general, in comparison to the BAT
data, EPA found smaller, or relatively the same, percentages of data
with values greater than the preliminary daily maximum limitations (see
DCNs 36053 and 36054, section 19.2). EPA expects that detailed review
of these self-monitoring data will not be possible. However, if any
extreme differences are identified, EPA is likely to contact the
facilities for more information.
3. Evaluation of Option Long-Term Averages
In addition to comparing the data values to the preliminary revised
limitations and standards, EPA has evaluated factors (e.g., influent
pollutant concentrations, multiple metals) that the comments assert
would affect the achievability of the limitations and standards. EPA
specifically focused its attention on the option long-term averages for
the metals pollutants, because EPA expects facilities to target their
treatment systems to achieve the option long-term averages used to
calculate the limitations and standards and because comments indicated
that achievability of those pollutants were of primary concern. In
these evaluations, EPA used the NODA episodes (i.e., effluent data from
the episodes used in the proposal, more recent EPA sampling episodes,
and industry submitted data, where the facilities had influent at
treatable levels and used the model technology). However, EPA did not
find
[[Page 38779]]
evidence of dramatic impacts on the option long-term averages. EPA
solicits comment on the factors that it evaluated and its analyses
described below.
a. Influent
Some commentors stated that the relative concentration levels in
the influent would affect the concentration levels in the effluent. In
particular, commentors asserted that facilities with more concentrated
influents would have more concentrated effluents and would be unable to
achieve the proposed limitations and standards that were developed in
part using data from facilities with less concentrated influents. EPA
notes that, in calculating the proposed limitations and standards, it
had already excluded effluent data corresponding to low levels in the
influent. EPA's purpose in excluding these effluent data sets was to
ensure that the effluent concentrations resulted from treatment and not
simply the absence or extremely low levels of that pollutant passing
through a treatment system. EPA is still using this criterion in
selecting the data used to develop the revised limitations and
standards based on the NODA episodes. This type of data editing is
explained further in section VI.C.6.a.
To determine whether the remaining effluent concentrations for the
metal pollutants could still be affected by varying levels of influent,
EPA reviewed graphical displays of the paired influent and effluent
values and compared the values of option long-term averages for three
subsets of the NODA episodes based upon the averages of their influent
values. Because the results are inconclusive and sometimes inconsistent
with other results as described in the following sections, EPA is not
currently planning any modifications to the limitations and standards
that would incorporate varying levels of influent concentrations within
a subcategory. EPA solicits comment on the conclusions that should be
drawn from these analyses and if any other evaluations of the data
should be performed for the final rule.
i. Graphical Displays
For each metal pollutant in each subcategory, the graphical display
(see DCN 36003, section 19.1) shows both the influent long-term
averages (where available) and the corresponding effluent long-term
averages for the NODA episodes. (Some influent long-term averages are
missing because EPA used other information to determine that the
influent was at treatable levels.) DCN 36004 in section 19.1 lists the
influent and effluent long-term averages plotted in these graphical
displays. EPA would expect to see upward trends for both the influent
and effluent long-term averages if more concentrated influent is
associated with more concentrated effluent.
In general, EPA did not find any evidence of such trends or any
patterns in the influent. Rather, EPA notes that both low and high
influent values were often associated with the lowest effluent values.
EPA also notedsthat some facilities (such as episode 7038P) with
relatively high influent concentrations had relatively low effluent
values of that particular pollutant and also had relatively low
effluent levels of other pollutants. Thus, the facility's treatment
system did not appear to be targeting a single pollutant, but rather,
was able to simultaneously treat different metal pollutants to low
levels. EPA concludes from these data that some facilities have been
successful in treating concentrated wastes. For the final rule, EPA is
considering further evaluation of these facilities to ascertain whether
the facility operations are different from other ``BAT'' facilities.
EPA also notes that the industry-supplied data appear to be evenly
distributed across the range of effluent concentrations which was not
consistent with industry comments which stated that industry-supplied
data would have higher effluent concentrations than EPA sampling data.
ii. Three Subsets Based on Influent Concentrations
For each pollutant, EPA grouped the NODA episodes into three
subsets based on the relative levels of the influent concentrations.
The first subset contained the NODA episodes with the lowest 50 percent
of the influent averages. The second subset contained the NODA episodes
with the highest 50 percent of the influent concentrations. The third
subset contained the NODA episodes without any influent data but for
which EPA had other information (e.g., production information)
indicating treatable levels in the influent.
For each subset, EPA calculated an option long-term average of the
effluent data using the median of the episode long-term averages. As
the following paragraphs explain, the comparisons were inconclusive and
inconsistent for the two subsets with the lowest and highest influent
averages (see DCN 36005, section 19.1).
EPA noted that the subset with the lowest influent averages did not
always correspond to the lowest option long-term average for the
effluent data and the subset with the highest influent averages did not
always have the highest option long-term average for the effluent data.
The pattern of influent and effluent relationships was not consistent
for all pollutants within a particular subcategory, nor consistent
between subcategories for a particular pollutant.
For some pollutants in some subcategories, there appeared to be a
substantial difference between the option long-term averages of the
effluent data for the different subsets. For example, for copper in the
General Metals subcategory, there was an order of magnitude difference
in the option long-term averages of the effluent data for the subsets
with the lowest and highest influent averages. In contrast, for other
pollutants in some subcategories, the results appeared to be about the
same for the three subsets. For example, for nickel in the General
Metals subcategory, the option long-term average for the effluent data
was approximately 0.2 mg/L for all three subsets.
Contrary to comments received on the proposal, EPA found from these
data that lead in the General Metals subcategory had a higher option
long-term average for the effluent data from the subset with the lowest
influent averages than the option long-term average for the effluent
data from the subset with the highest influent averages.
EPA also noted that the results were sometimes inconsistent between
subcategories. For example, for the copper effluent data in the General
Metals subcategory, there was substantial difference in the option
long-term averages for the effluent data for the subsets with the
lowest and highest influent values. However, for those two subsets in
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, the option long-term
averages for the copper effluent data were similar. While EPA considers
the wastestreams to be different between the two subcategories, the
range between the minimum and maximum episode long-term averages for
copper are similar (see DCNs 36006 and 36007, section 19.1).
The third subset (i.e., the subset without any influent data) did
not have results that were consistently like either of the other two
subsets which made it difficult to evaluate. For the final rule, EPA
will consider whether it has enough information to assume that those
episodes should be assigned to either of the other subsets for its
evaluation.
b. Industry Supplied Data
Some commentors stated that EPA sampling data were responsible for
the
[[Page 38780]]
low values of the proposed limitations and standards. To evaluate these
comments, EPA calculated the option long-term averages using only the
industry supplied effluent data (i.e., the paired influent/effluent
data and the self-monitoring data) from the NODA episodes. Again, the
option long-term averages were lower than those calculated using all of
the NODA episodes. Because the paired influent/effluent data were not
collected in order to demonstrate compliance, EPA used just only the
self-monitoring (compliance) data and still obtained option long-term
averages that were generally lower than the values using all of the
NODA episodes. Generally, as shown in DCN 36008 in section 19.1, the
highest option long-term averages resulted from using only the EPA
sampling episode data.
c. Optimum pH
Some commenters reported that different metals pollutants are
associated with different optimal pH values and that it was not
possible to achieve the low levels of the limitations and standards
simultaneously using a single-stage chemical precipitation system.
Ideally, in order to remove a particular pollutant, a facility would
target its pH to the optimum pH level for chemically precipitating that
metal. For example, cadmium has an optimum pH of about 11.4, while
chromium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc have optimum pH of about 9
to 9.5. If optimum pH were a factor in achieving low levels, a facility
that targeted its system at a pH of 9 would be expected to have
relatively lower effluent levels of chromium, copper, lead, manganese,
and zinc than a facility that targeted a pH of 11.4 to treat cadmium,
but also had these other metals present at treatable levels.
EPA examined the target pH values for the facilities that supplied
that information (see DCN 36009, section 19.1). Most facilities target
their systems in the pH range of 8.5 to 10.5. For some facilities
(generally those that EPA sampled), EPA had the pH values targeted by
the facility and the actual operational pH values during the EPA
sampling episode. EPA identified several facilities where the target pH
range did not overlap its operational range (see DCN 36010, section
19.1). Thus, EPA questions the reliability of the reported target pH
ranges. However, the target pH ranges were the best information
available, because few facilities had supplied the operational ranges
corresponding to the influent data. EPA compared the midpoint of the
target pH ranges to the episode long-term averages from the NODA
facilities. In reviewing the midpoint pH targets to the long-term
averages (see DCN 36011, section 19.1), EPA notes that for a given pH
target, the episode long-term averages vary substantially. Contrary to
comments received on the proposal, EPA found that the highest episode
long-term averages are sometimes associated with facilities that target
the optimum pH for the pollutant (see DCN 36012, section 19.1). In
addition, EPA notes that facilities where the midpoint, of their target
pH values, were outside the accepted range for some pollutants had the
lowest long-term averages for those pollutants. In a further analysis,
EPA calculated option long-term averages using only episodes associated
with target pH ranges of 9.0 to 9.5. By excluding episodes outside this
pH range and episodes where pH was unavailable, EPA generally had lower
option long-term averages than those calculated with all the NODA
episodes. Thus, EPA has not modified its criteria to consider pH in
selecting the data for the preliminary revised limitations and
standards.
d. Minimum Solubility
In addition to evaluating the available pH targets at the
facilities, EPA also considered the minimum solubility points
associated with a single-stage chemical precipitation system. These
theoretical values were identified in ``Engineering and Design--
Precipitation/ Coagulation/ Flocculation'' (see (1) www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-1-4012/chap2.pdf, and (2) DCN 36013,
section 19.1) and is the theoretical solubility in a pure solution at
standard temperature. EPA compared these theoretical solubilities to
the values that were used in determining treatable levels of influent.
As explained in section VI.C.6.a, EPA defined its treatable levels of
influent as ten times the minimum levels in EPA Method 1620.
For cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and tin, the theoretical
solubilities were less than the treatable levels. Thus, for those
metals, the effluent data used in EPA's analyses were associated with
influent levels that were greater than the theoretical solubilities,
and therefore, the metals theoretically should precipitate.
For lead, manganese, silver, and zinc, the theoretical solubilities
are greater than the treatable levels. Lead, manganese, and zinc have
approximately the same optimal pH of 9.5 while silver has an optimal pH
of 13+. All four metals have relatively high theoretical solubilities:
2.1 mg/L (lead), 1.2 mg/L (manganese), 13.3 mg/L (silver), and 1.1 mg/L
(zinc). For zinc, as explained in section III.A, EPA is considering
using data from the sampling of zinc platers to set the zinc
limitations and standards. If EPA determines that this approach is
appropriate, the final limitations and standards will be more than
double the theoretical solubility and similar to those for the metal
finishing industry in 40 CFR part 433. The solubilities for lead and
silver are substantially greater than the daily maximum limitations of
0.69 mg/L (lead) and 0.43 mg/L (silver) that EPA established for the
metal finishing industry in 40 CFR part 433. The industry has
successfully complied with the daily maximum limitations for zinc,
lead, and silver since they were promulgated in the 1980s. EPA
concludes that EPA's model technology is not completely reliant on the
theoretical solubilities as other mechanisms (e.g., co-precipitation,
mixed metals, and sulfides) may help to lower the concentration in the
dissolved phase. Further, as explained in section VI.A.1, EPA evaluated
the achievability of the limitations by comparing several types of data
to the preliminary revised limitations and standards. As a result of
that comparison, manganese was one of the pollutants with the greatest
difference between the daily maximum limitation/standard and the daily
values. EPA is considering whether manganese should be regulated. Based
on this analysis, EPA has not adjusted its criteria to consider
theoretical solubilities in developing the preliminary revised
limitations and standards.
e. Sample Size
EPA also evaluated comments that stated that episode data sets with
smaller sample sizes were associated with lower effluent concentrations
and lower variability. While this was true for some smaller episode
data sets, other episode data sets of similar size had the highest
concentrations and highest variability. Also, the largest data sets
were sometimes associated with the lowest concentrations and lowest
variability. Thus, EPA has not modified its criteria to consider sample
size.
f. Relationship to Total Suspended Solids
As previously stated in the proposal, 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
[[Page 38781]]
total suspended solids (TSS) and had effluent TSS concentrations
greater than 50 milligrams per liter. However, indirect dischargers may
not target TSS as effectively as direct dischargers as indirect
dischargers do not have TSS standards. For this reason, EPA excluded
some episode data sets where the average effluent TSS concentrations
did not fall below 50 mg/L. In other cases, EPA did not exclude such
TSS data because the facility was achieving effective removal of
targeted metals. While EPA compared the episode long-term averages of
TSS and the metal pollutants, it did not find any trends indicating
that TSS was a factor in the effluent. For the final rule, EPA may
consider a more thorough analysis of the relationship between TSS and
metals removal and solicits comment on this issue.
g. Other Factors
Before the final rule, EPA intends to review its sampling episode
reports to determine if there are any other common factors that should
be considered in developing the final limitations and standards. Some
factors that EPA may evaluate are treatment chemicals, flocculants,
whether any special polymers were used, capacity including whether the
system was over-designed, and clarifier overflow rates. EPA solicits
comment on evaluating these and other factors.
B. Alternative Approaches Considered to TOP Limitations and Standards
In today's document, EPA solicits comment, especially from permit
writers and control authorities, as to whether a limitation/standard
for the Total Organic Parameter (TOP) is necessary in the final rule.
The following sections describe EPA's concerns about adequate
characterization of the organic compounds; possible alternatives to the
TOP limitations and standards; and three methods of calculating the TOP
limitations and standards that EPA is considering for the final rule.
To reduce the burden associated with monitoring for organic
pollutants, EPA proposed three alternatives to allow for maximum
flexibility while ensuring reductions in the amount of organic
pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities. A facility would be
required to: (1) Meet a numerical limit for the total sum of a list of
specific organic pollutants called ``Total Organics parameter'' or
``TOP'' (similar to the TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing
effluent guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for total organic
carbon (TOC) as an indicator parameter; or (3) develop and certify the
implementation of an organics management plan.
1. Concerns About Adequate Characterization of Organic Compounds
EPA is concerned that TOP limitations and standards may not be
adequately characterizing the organic compounds present at facilities
in different subcategories. Therefore, EPA is considering whether it
should eliminate the option of the TOP limitations and standards in
controlling organic discharges. Today's preliminary revised limitations
and standards for TOP are based upon all effluent data associated with
the options 2, 6, and 10 technologies, regardless of subcategory.
Although it has used data corresponding to the option 10 model
technology, EPA has not proposed TOP limitations and standards for any
option 10 subcategory (i.e., the shipbuilding dry dock and railroad
line maintenance subcategories).
Although EPA evaluated organics data from 118 episodes, it only
used data from 15 episodes because they were the only episodes with
detectable concentrations of one or more of the 47 organic pollutants
in the influent. EPA did not have influent data for one of the 15
episodes (7007P). Further, EPA's database contained measurable levels
(i.e., were detected) in the effluent for only 10 of the 47 pollutants
(see DCN 36039, section 19.1). (Note: The proposed limitations and
standards were based upon 48 organic pollutants, but EPA has excluded
benzoic acid from further consideration as explained in section II.C.)
Because of the variability in the type of organic pollutants found
at different facilities, EPA is concerned that a thorough evaluation of
the TOP limitations and standards may not be possible. For example, EPA
notes that the TOP preliminary revised limitations and standards have
fairly large values, partly because data from different subcategories
and options are combined and partly because the data are combined from
different episodes. EPA considers the values of the preliminary revised
limitations and standards to be ``large'' because they account for the
concentration levels of 47 pollutants, when the episodes had at most 25
of the 47 pollutants at measurable concentrations in the influent, and
at most 7 of the 47 pollutants at measurable concentrations in the
effluent (this occurred for episode 4851). In other words, although the
preliminary revised limitations and standards allows for concentration
levels for 47 pollutants, EPA did not find any episode data set which
contained all 47 organic constituents in either the influent or
effluent. Thus, EPA is considering whether these large values are
sufficiently protective of the environment. Conversely, facilities tend
to be fairly unique in the types of organic compounds that they
generate in the influent. Thus, EPA may not have provided adequate
allowance for the discharge of organic constituents from some unique
facilities.
2. Consideration of Alternative to TOP Limitations and Standards
Instead of a limit for TOP, EPA is considering another alternative
where EPA would provide guidance on developing limitations and
standards for the specific organics that would be present in the
influent at a particular facility. These limits would be the
alternative, instead of TOP limits, to the other two proposed
alternatives (i.e., meeting a limit for total organic carbon or
implementing the best management plan). EPA solicits comment on this
approach.
From those facilities that would prefer to retain the final MP&M
TOP limitations and standards, EPA solicits comment from facilities on
when they would choose to monitor for the TOP list of pollutants
(alternative (1)) rather than meet the TOC limitation (alternative (2))
or develop an organics management plan (alternative (3)). EPA also
solicits comment on whether monitoring for TOP, for which each organic
compound present in the wastestream must be measured, would be more
cost-effective than monitoring for TOC which requires a single
measurement. Additionally, EPA solicits comment from permit writers and
control authorities on which alternative is preferable and least
burdensome to implement.
3. Consideration of Three Methods of Calculating TOP Limitations and
Standards
EPA is considering three methods for calculating the TOP
limitations and standards. In Method A, EPA would follow the same
approach that was used at proposal to calculate the limitations and
standards, and incorporate EPA sampling data from the NODA episodes and
information from the validation study. By using this method, EPA would
calculate the TOP limitations and standards based on an allowance for
organic pollutants that were not detected in the effluent in addition
to those pollutants that were detected. In addition, EPA would exclude
the data for benzoic acid in developing the
[[Page 38782]]
limitations and standards for TOP based on the results of the
validation study.
In Method B, EPA would calculate the TOP limitations and standards
using data only from the organic pollutants detected in the effluent
(i.e., not provide an allowance for those not detected). For Method B,
EPA also would use the sampling data from the NODA episodes and exclude
benzoic acid in developing the limitations and standards for TOP.
By using Method C, as a slight variation on Method B, EPA would
include industry self-monitoring data in addition to the EPA sampling
data in the NODA episodes. (The self-monitoring data include very few
organic constituents.) EPA found little difference in the results from
applying the three different methods to develop the preliminary revised
limitations and standards (see DCN 36014, section 19.1).
Today's preliminary revised limitations and standards correspond to
results from the third method, which includes the industry self-
monitoring data. EPA notes that this method resulted in somewhat larger
values than the other two methods. If the TOP limitations and standards
are retained in the final rule, EPA also intends to modify the minimum
level for carbon disulfide from 10 ug/L to 5 ug/L to be consistent with
the results of the validation study described in section II.C. Thus,
these changes will result in slightly lower values for the TOP
limitations and standards in the final rule, regardless of which of the
three methods is selected for the final rule. EPA solicits comment on
the three methods that are being considered in today's document.
C. Consistency of Statistical Methodology With Other Recent Effluent
Guidelines
EPA received comments concerning the consistency of the statistical
methodology used for the MP&M proposal with that used for other recent
effluent guidelines (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment, Iron and
Steel).
As explained in section VI.A.1, the preliminary revised limitations
and standards in today's document are the greater of the values of the
proposed and revised limitations and standards.
This section discusses other features of the methodology for
calculating revised limitations and standards that are consistent with
EPA's approach in recent effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs). This
section also identifies changes from the proposal that EPA has used in
calculating the revised limitations and standards, and that are being
considered for the final rule.
In today's document, EPA has used the episode long-term averages
and variability factors in the same manner as for the proposal. The
option long-term average for a pollutant is the median of the episode
long-term averages from the BAT facilities in a particular subcategory.
The option daily (or monthly) variability factor is the arithmetic mean
of the episode daily (or monthly) variability factors. The daily
maximum limitation (or standard) is the product of the option long-term
average and the option daily variability factor. The monthly average
limitation (or standard) is the product of the option long-term average
and the option monthly variability factor. The episode long-term
averages and episode variability factors from the NODA episodes are
listed in DCN 36015 in section 19.1. The option long-term averages and
option variability factors based upon these NODA episodes are listed in
DCN 36016 in section 19.1.
1. Variability Factors
In calculating the variability factors, commenters requested that
EPA use more of the available data. This section describes the types of
additional data sets that EPA considered in developing the revised
limitations and standards. The minor changes in calculating the
variability factors described in this section are consistent with other
recent guidelines and EPA considers them to be appropriate for the MP&M
final rule.
To calculate the variability factors for the proposal, EPA used
data sets that contained four or more data points. Commenters noted
that the minimum of four data points was higher than the three data
points that EPA had specified as the minimum sample size in developing
the limitations and standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment and
the Iron and Steel rules. Commenters also expressed a preference for a
minimum of three data points. Most of the data sets contain more than
four values, so changing the minimum sample size from four to three
values has limited impact on the values of the option variability
factors. However, by specifying a minimum of three data points, a few
more data sets have been used into calculations of the option
variability factors. EPA is considering this change for the final rule
and has used it in developing the revised limitations and standards.
DCN 36017 in section 19.1 lists the data sets that have been included
as a result of this change.
As a result of its evaluation of the variability factors for
today's document, EPA intends to investigate whether variability
factors for an episode data set should be included if all noncensored
values were less than the minimum detection limit in that data set. For
the proposal and today's document, EPA has excluded such data sets in
calculating the variability factors (see DCN 36018, section 19.1 to
identify today's exclusions). As there are a limited number of these
data sets, it is likely that their inclusion would have minimal impacts
on the values of the option variability factors. However, to include as
much data as possible in calculating the option variability factors
(which is consistent with requests by commenters and EPA's objectives
when the data are appropriate), EPA is considering the inclusion of
these data sets for the final rule.
EPA also performed an additional review of the episode variability
factors to ensure that all values were greater than 1.0 (i.e., the
upper percentile is greater than the long-term average) and that the
daily variability factor had a greater value than the corresponding
monthly variability factor (i.e., the resulting limitations/standards
would be greater for a single daily measurement than for an average of
measurements collected throughout the month where one high value can be
counterbalanced by lower values). If an episode variability factor
failed this review, then EPA excluded both the daily and monthly
variability factors calculated from that episode data set in developing
the revised limitations and standards.
EPA also reviewed the episode data in greater detail when the
lowest and/or highest daily variability factor for a particular
pollutant seemed substantially different from the daily variability
factors for other episodes. EPA's review of such episode data sets will
continue after the NODA.
2. Long-Term Averages
In calculating the option long-term averages for the NODA, EPA has
made two changes. As explained below, the first change was to use the
delta-lognormal distribution for episode long-term averages. The second
change was to compare the option long-term averages to the minimum
level in Method 1620 for the metals pollutants. EPA also considered the
use of the mean instead of the median for option long-term averages.
a. Use of Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
In calculating the long-term averages for each episode data set for
the proposal, EPA used arithmetic averages. For the NODA, EPA has used
the modified delta-lognormal distribution to
[[Page 38783]]
calculate the episode long-term averages. As in the proposal, EPA then
calculated the option long-term average as the median of the episode
long-term averages. Generally, as shown in DCN 36020 in section 19.1,
the resulting option long-term averages have similar or higher values
when the episode long-term averages are based on the modified delta-
lognormal distribution rather than arithmetic averages. Using the
modified delta-lognormal distribution to calculate the episode long-
term averages is: (1) Consistent with the regulation for the iron and
steel industry and other ELGs; and (2) appears to be appropriate to use
in calculating the limitations and standards for the MP&M industry.
b. Comparison to Minimum Levels in Analytical Methods for Metals
For the NODA, EPA has ensured that the option long-term average
concentrations (and limitations) do not fall below the specific minimum
level in EPA Method 1620 for each metal pollutant. If the option long-
term average fell below the minimum level, it was raised to the value
of the minimum level in Method 1620, which was used for EPA's sampling
of metal pollutants (see DCN 36021, section 19.1 which refers to the
minimum levels as ``baseline values''). EPA has determined that some
laboratories, under certain conditions, can measure to levels lower
than those specified in some of the methods. EPA has concluded that
these results are quantitatively reliable, and therefore can be used to
calculate long-term averages and variability factors. However, EPA also
recognizes that not all laboratories consistently measure to these
lower levels. To ensure the revised limits reflect ``typical''
laboratory reporting levels for approved methods, EPA established the
option long-term averages at values equal to or greater than the
minimum levels specified in Method 1620. However, EPA made one
exception to these minimum levels by adjusting the minimum level for
lead upward to 0.05 mg/L from 0.005 mg/L to correspond to levels
achievable by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission (ICP)
spectroscopy. This comparison of the option long-term averages to the
minimum level in Method 1620 is consistent with other recent effluent
guidelines and EPA considers this comparison to be appropriate for the
MP&M rulemaking.
c. Mean Versus Median
EPA considered comments that recommended the use of the mean rather
than the median in calculating the option long-term average. EPA's use
of the median is consistent with other recent guidelines. The median is
the value at which half of the episode long-term averages will be above
and half will be below. Using the mean would allow a single facility
with a much higher or much lower long-term average to significantly
influence the option long-term average. Thus, EPA considers that the
median is appropriate to use in developing the limitations and
standards for the MP&M industry.
3. Autocorrelation
For the final rule, EPA intends to investigate whether
autocorrelation is likely to be present in the effluent data. When data
are said to be positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements
taken at specific time intervals (such as 1 day or 2 days apart) are
related. For example, positive autocorrelation would be present in the
data if the final effluent concentration of lead was relatively high
one day and was likely to remain at similar high values the next and
possibly succeeding days. In some industries, measurements in final
effluent are likely to be similar from one day to the next because of
the consistency from day-to-day in the production processes and in
final effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of
wastewater in basins, holding tanks, and other components of wastewater
treatment systems. To determine if autocorrelation exists in the data,
a statistical evaluation is necessary and will be considered before the
final rule. To estimate autocorrelation in the data, many measurements
for each pollutant would be required with values for equally spaced
intervals over an extended period of time. If such data are available
for the final rule, EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of
autocorrelation and if necessary, provide any adjustments to the
limitations and standards. This adjustment would increase the values of
the variance and monthly variability factor. However, the estimate of
the long-term average and the daily variability factor are generally
only slightly affected by autocorrelation. The adjustment for
autocorrelation is consistent with EPA's assumption for some pollutants
in the Iron and Steel effluent limitations guidelines. If EPA
determines that autocorrelation is present and that adjustments to
estimates using the data from the NODA episodes will result in higher
limitations and standards than the preliminary revised limitations and
standards in this NODA, EPA is likely to incorporate those adjustments
into the final limitations and standards.
4. Continuous and Batch Flow Systems
For each influent and effluent sample point of interest, EPA
determined whether wastewater flows were ``continuous'' or ``batch.''
The distinction between flow systems is consistent with the assumptions
used for EPA's rule for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry which
also had data from some batch flow systems. While this same assumption
was used in developing the proposed MP&M limitations and standards, the
following explanation further clarifies that assumption.
At sample points associated with continuous flow processes, EPA
collected composite samples for all analytes except for hexane
extractable material (HEM) for which the analytical method specifies
grab samples. Also, if EPA field composited samples of batches for each
day at a batch flow system, the statistical analyses used the data as
if they were from continuous flow systems. For each sample point
associated with a continuous flow process, EPA aggregated all
measurements within a day to obtain one value for the day. This daily
value was then used in the calculations of long-term averages,
variability factors, and limitations and standards.
At sample points associated with batch flow processes, EPA usually
collected grab samples of different batches. For each sample point
associated with a batch flow process, EPA aggregated the measurements
to obtain one value for each batch. This batch value was then used as
if it were a daily value.
5. Different Episodes at a Facility
In general, each episode identifier corresponds to a unique
facility. For those facilities associated with multiple episodes, EPA
has treated each episode as if it were a separate facility in the
statistical analysis. While there were few facilities with multiple
episodes used for the proposal, the NODA episodes include data from
more facilities with multiple episodes. Thus, to provide another
opportunity for public comment, the following sections provide EPA's
rationale for treating the episodes separately in its analyses. As
described in the following sections, these multiple episodes were from
different EPA sampling episodes, different treatment trains, paired
influent and effluent data from industry, and other industry submitted
compliance data.
a. EPA Sampling Episodes
If EPA collected samples from a facility over two or more distinct
time
[[Page 38784]]
periods, EPA analyzed the data from each time period separately. (All
episode numbers that have no letter designation or end with an ``A''
are EPA sampling episodes.) In the documentation, EPA identifies each
time period with a distinct ``facility'' identifier. For example,
episodes 4805 and 4815 are actually a single facility in the Dry Dock
subcategory, but the data from the two episodes are from two time
periods. Three other facilities are associated with multiple EPA
sampling episodes and they are all in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory (see DCN 36022, section 19.1). In effluent guidelines for
other industrial categories including Centralized Waste Treatment, EPA
has made similar assumptions for such data, because data from different
time periods generally characterize different operating conditions due
to changes such as management, personnel, and procedures.
b. Different Treatment Trains
If a facility had entirely separate process and treatment trains
which EPA sampled separately, EPA has treated the data as if they were
collected from two different facilities because the two trains are
operated independently with different wastestreams. In the
documentation, the episode identifier is appended with an ``A'' to
indicate that the data are from the second treatment train. EPA's
assumption for these data is consistent with the Centralized Waste
Treatment rule.
c. Paired Influent and Effluent Sampling
EPA received self-monitoring data along with proposal comments from
industry with influent and effluent paired concentration data. These
data were specifically collected in response to the proposal and
generally adhered to EPA's guidelines for collecting such data. Because
the sampling and chemical analysis may have been somewhat different
from other industry self-monitoring data, EPA has treated these data as
separate episodes from the EPA sampling data and industry self-
monitoring data. In the documentation, the industry paired data have a
``P'' following the 4-digit episode identifier.
d. Compliance Monitoring Data
In comments on the proposal and from other sources, EPA received
compliance monitoring data from industry. These data are sometimes
referred to as ``Discharge Monitoring Report'' (DMR) or self-monitoring
data. In the documentation, self-monitoring data are indicated by a
``D'' appended to the 4-digit episode identifier. At a specific
facility, this 4-digit episode identifier is the same as the 4-digit
identifier used for EPA sampling data or the paired industry data. In
the statistical analyses, the self-monitoring data are treated
separately from the EPA sampling data and the paired data. This
practice is consistent with other guidelines and is used because the
data tend to be associated with different time periods and/or
analytical methods than EPA sampling data.
For facilities that submitted self-monitoring data over an extended
period, if there are substantial differences between certain time
intervals, EPA will reevaluate whether the data should be assumed to be
associated with different episodes in the final rule. EPA will consider
using DMR data in the development of the final limitations and
standards.
6. Inclusion of Effluent Data Based Upon Influent Values
Before including effluent data in the statistical analyses for the
limitations and standards, EPA evaluated whether the influent
concentrations were at treatable levels and whether the treatment
system had efficient removal capability. While this same assumption was
used in developing the proposed limitations and standards, EPA is
including this discussion because many comments addressed the
relationship between influent and effluent concentrations.
a. Evaluation of Treatable Levels
As in the proposal, the effluent data were used if EPA had some
information indicating that the influent data were at the ``treatable''
level for the pollutant. As shown in DCN 36023 in section 19.1, this
treatable level was defined as ten times the nominal quantitation limit
that generally was associated with the analytical method most
frequently used to measure samples collected during EPA's sampling
episodes. (The nominal quantitation limit is the smallest quantity of
an analyte that can be reliably measured with a particular method. The
record items in section 19 generally refer to the `nominal quantitation
limit' as the ``baseline value.'') If the influent data were below the
treatable level or just slightly above, EPA excluded the effluent data
from the analyses for the limitations and standards.
If influent data corresponding to the same time period as the
effluent data were unavailable, EPA used different assumptions
depending upon the availability of other data about the facility. If
influent data from a different time period were available and were at
treatable levels, EPA included the effluent data in its analyses. If
influent data were unavailable but EPA determined from other
information about that facility that it generated the pollutants at
treatable levels in the influent (for example, some automakers), then
EPA included the effluent data in its analyses.
For the remaining episodes for which information about influent
data were unavailable, EPA excluded their data in developing the option
long-term averages and option variability factors. The episode long-
term averages and variability factors for these episodes are located at
DCN 36024 in section 19.1. Although EPA excluded these data from those
analyses, EPA has included them in its evaluation of the preliminary
revised limitations and standards. This comparison is described in
section VI.A.1.c.
EPA applies this concept of ``treatability'' to the influent
concentrations so that it selects effluent concentrations resulting
from some treatment, rather than the absence, or relatively low levels,
of the pollutant in the influent. Although EPA has used the term
``treatability levels,'' it does not mean to imply that lower levels
cannot be treated by the model technologies. However, the lower levels
may need less treatment than concentrations above the treatability
levels that EPA has used in developing today's preliminary revised
limitations and standards.
b. Removals
EPA also considered whether the treatment at the facility resulted
in negative removals (i.e., the concentrations in the effluent were
higher than the concentrations in the influent before treatment).
Generally, EPA has excluded data that have negative removals.
Exceptions are generally for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) or for removals
that are close to zero. EPA requests comment on this approach. These
exceptions are listed in DCN 36025 in section 19.1.
7. Minimum Data Values
For organic pollutants and hexane extractable material (HEM) which
are measured by Methods 1624B/1625 and 1664 that use the minimum level
(ML) concept, EPA has substituted the value of the minimum level for
any detected concentration or sample-specific detection limit reported
below the minimum level. EPA substituted the minimum level for these
values because when an ML is published in a method, the Agency has
demonstrated that at least one well-operated laboratory can achieve the
ML, and when that laboratory or another laboratory uses
[[Page 38785]]
that method, the laboratory is required to demonstrate, through
calibration of the instrument or analytical system, that it can make
measurements at the ML (defined as the lowest level at which the entire
analytical system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable
calibration point for the analyte). In its statistical models, EPA
assumes that these substitutions are non-detected concentrations. These
substitutions also are consistent with other recent guidelines. EPA
considers these substitutions to be appropriate as well for the MP&M
industry. Therefore, EPA has incorporated them into calculations of the
revised limitations and standards.
8. Oil and Grease
In general, for the proposal and today's document, EPA used self-
monitoring data when they were measured by analytical methods specified
in or approved under 40 CFR part 136 that facilities are required to
use for compliance monitoring. One exception was EPA's exclusion of all
self-monitoring data for oil and grease measured by methods that
require freon, an ozone-depleting agent, as an extraction solvent.
Although EPA excluded oil and grease data from freon-based methods from
the proposal, it had done so for other reasons (which are documented
elsewhere) than the type of analytical method that was used. However,
EPA is excluding some self-monitoring data from the NODA episodes
because these data were determined by analytical methods that use
freon. The following provides EPA's rationale for these exclusions.
Instead of using data measured by methods that require freon, EPA
used only data from its sampling episodes and the self-monitoring data
from a more recent method, Method 1664, which uses normal hexane (n-
hexane) as the extraction solvent and measures oil and grease hexane
extractable material. While developing Method 1664, EPA received
comments about potentially differing results using the new method that
could bring a permittee into noncompliance under certain circumstances
(see DCNs 36026 and 36027, section 19.1). Although EPA has determined
that the methods are comparable and that direct replacement of the new
method is warranted, EPA expects that facilities will choose to use
Method 1664 rather than the freon methods as freon becomes more
expensive and difficult to obtain. Further, EPA has determined that it
collected sufficient data to establish the oil and grease limitations
using only the HEM data. Thus, EPA has chosen to develop the oil and
grease limitations solely on the HEM measurements from Method 1664.
In evaluating the oil and grease data for today's document, EPA
determined that its own sampling data in Phase 1 had been analyzed by
EPA Method 413.2, a method utilizing freon. In addition to other
reasons for excluding the data (i.e., due to its analytical method and
other reasons documented elsewhere), EPA has determined that the data
should be excluded because the method was unlikely to produce
comparable results to methods approved under 40 CFR part 136 (such as
EPA Method 413.1).
9. Data Aggregation
In reviewing its documentation after the proposal, EPA determined
that it had incorrectly summarized the data aggregation procedure that
EPA used for duplicates and grab samples in the statistical support
document for the proposal. EPA determined that it had, in fact, used
the same aggregation procedure used in developing its regulations for
the Centralized Waste Treatment and the Iron & Steel industries. This
procedure averages the values and assumes that the result is
noncensored if one or more of the samples in the average has detected
concentrations of the pollutant. In addition to using this procedure
for the proposed MP&M limitations and standards, EPA has used this
aggregation procedure in developing the revised limitations and
standards from the NODA episodes.
10. Significant Digits
In presenting the preliminary revised limitations and standard in
section VIII of today's document, EPA has rounded the results to three
significant digits to conform with its usual procedure for presenting
effluent limitations guidelines. The rounding procedure used for
today's document rounds up values of five and above, and rounds down
values of four and below, and is the same as that used in presenting
the regulations for the Iron and Steel industry. This rounding
procedure has minor differences from the procedure used at the proposal
(see DCN 16385, section 10.0).
One exception is with reporting HEM results. Section 14.3 of EPA
method 1664A requires reporting of results for HEM below 10mg/L to two
significant digits. In section VIII, EPA has presented the limitations
and standards for HEM with two significant digits when the
corresponding concentration-based limitations were less than
10mg/L.
11. Data Transfers
For the proposal, EPA noted that it had transferred some option
long-term averages and variability factors from one subcategory to
another in order to calculate some limitations and standards (see
section 5.3 and appendix C of the proposal statistical support
document). Because new data were made available after the proposal, EPA
is considering using these data wherever possible rather than
transferring the option long-term averages and variability factors from
the proposal. Thus, the preliminary revised limitations and standards
incorporate these data to the extent possible.
For some subcategories, even with the additional data from the NODA
episodes, EPA was unable to calculate the option long-term average and/
or the option variability factors (see DCN 36028, section 19.1). This
could occur for a pollutant in an option where no data were available
or the episode data sets had too few noncensored measurements (i.e.,
the pollutant was not detected at measurable levels). For example, if a
pollutant had all noncensored values for all of the episodes in an
option, then it was not possible to calculate the option variability
factors. The availability of more data allows for more choices in
transferring option long-term averages and variability factors,
therefore, EPA is considering some different transfers than it used for
the proposal. In general, EPA has transferred option long-term averages
and variability factors from one subcategory to another with the same
model technology. The following describes the transfers that EPA used
for today's preliminary revised limitations and standards and those
that were used for the proposed limitations and standards.
For oil and grease (as HEM), in the subcategories with the option 2
model technology, only the General Metals (GENL) subcategory had both
an option long-term average and option variability factors. For NSPS,
EPA transferred those to the Non-Chromium Anodizers (ANO) and Printed
Wiring Boards (PWB) subcategories which are also associated with the
option 2 model technology. EPA was able to calculate an option long-
term average for HEM in the Steel Forming and Finishing (SFF)
subcategory (another option 2 subcategory), so only the option
variability factors from the GENL subcategory for NSPS were
transferred. In the proposal, EPA transferred both the option long-term
average and variability factors for all four subcategories.
[[Page 38786]]
For total sulfide, the MFJ subcategory is the only subcategory with
the option 2 technology that had both an option long-term average and
option variability factors. Thus, these values were transferred to the
GENL and SFF subcategories. For the PWB subcategory, because EPA was
able to calculate an option long-term average, EPA transferred only the
option variability factors from the MFJ subcategory for total sulfide.
EPA notes that it may not regulate total sulfide in these subcategories
for the final rule (see section IV.B.2). Since these subcategories all
have the same technology basis, EPA has determined that these transfers
are more appropriate than the transfers used for the proposal which
were from the Oily Wastes subcategory, which uses a different
technology basis.
For the SFF subcategory, EPA also was unable to calculate
limitations and standards for cadmium and silver. Because the model
technology is the same and the concentrations of these pollutants would
be most similar to the GENL subcategory, EPA transferred the option
long-term averages and option variability factors from this
subcategory. EPA notes that as discussed in section IV.B, EPA is
considering not regulating cadmium or silver for the SFF subcategory in
the final rule. Because EPA transferred the GENL option long-term
average and variability factors before the GENL proposed limitations
and standards were compared against the revised limitations and
standards, the SFF preliminary revised limitations and standards have
values that are less than those for the GENL subcategory. This is
because the proposed values for the GENL subcategory had greater values
than the revised limitations and standards, and thus, EPA selected the
proposed limitations and standards as the preliminary revised
limitations for the GENL subcategory. However, EPA did not perform this
same comparison for the SFF subcategory. For the final rule, EPA is
considering whether the SFF subcategory should have the same
limitations and standards as the GENL subcategory.
For the ANO subcategory, EPA was unable to calculate limitations
and standards for manganese, nickel, and zinc due to insufficient data.
Because the model technology is the same, EPA transferred the option
long-term averages and option variability factors to the ANO
subcategory from the GENL subcategory. These transfers were consistent
with EPA's transfers for the proposal. EPA solicits comment on the
approach used for data transfers.
12. Transfers of BPT Limitations from Other Rulemakings
For those subcategories for which EPA previously promulgated BPT/
BCT limitations for TSS, O&G, and pH under other categorical
guidelines, EPA proposed to transfer those values to the rule for the
MP&M industry.
In particular, EPA proposed transferring the BPT/BCT limitations
for oil and grease (O&G), TSS, and pH from the Metal Finishing effluent
guidelines (see 40 CFR part 433.13) to the ANO, PWB, and MFJ
subcategories. These are summarized in DCN 36060 in section 19.2. .
For the SFF subcategory, EPA proposed the same BPT/BCT limitations
for O&G, TSS, and pH as it had proposed for the General Metals
subcategory. EPA is now considering whether it should promulgate the
less stringent BPT/BCT limitations for O&G, TSS, and pH from the Iron
and Steel guidelines (see 40 CFR part 420) for this subcategory. These
are summarized in DCN 36059 in section 19.2.
For NSPS for TSS and O&G, EPA intends to use the values calculated
from its database except for the TSS NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job
Shops (MFJ) subcategory. Because the TSS standards calculated from its
database were greater than the BPT limitations, EPA is considering
transferring the BPT limitations to NSPS. EPA also intends to review
its database to determine if changes should be made to the data
selection for TSS.
For the final rule, EPA intends to identify O&G limitations and
standards calculated from the NODA episodes as ``O&G (HEM)' to indicate
that the parameter should be measured as hexane extractable material
(HEM). In contrast, EPA intends to retain the previous notation of
``O&G'' for the existing BPT/BCT limitations, and intends to include
footnotes or definitions in the final rule that indicate it can be
measured as HEM. EPA intends to use the two different notations because
the existing BPT/BCT limitations and the limitations/standards
calculated using the MP&M database were based upon analytical testing
methods that used two different extraction solvents: freon and n-
hexane, respectively. EPA has determined that the two methods are
comparable (see DCNs 36026 and 36027 in section 19.2). Because freon is
an ozone-depleting agent and becoming more expensive, EPA believes that
facilities will prefer to measure oil and grease as HEM for the
existing BPT limitations.
Except for the BPT/BCT limitations that it transferred, EPA notes
that it assumed a weekly monitoring frequency in developing the
proposed and preliminary revised limitations and standards. For the
Metal Finishing guidelines, EPA assumed a monitoring frequency of 10
times a month in developing the BPT/BCT limitations. For the Iron and
Steel guidelines, EPA assumed a daily monitoring frequency. These
assumed monitoring frequencies are accounted for in the associated
costs in assessing economic achievability of each rule. In general, the
actual monitoring requirements will be determined by the permitting
authority and compliance with the monthly average limitations and
standards will be required in the final rule regardless of the number
of samples analyzed and averaged. While the assumed monitoring
frequency does not affect the calculated values of the option long-term
average and the daily maximum limitation, it does affect the value of
the monthly average limitation/standard.
13. Data Review for Final Rule
While EPA has reviewed the data for the NODA, EPA will conduct a
more detailed engineering and statistical review of the data before the
final rule, similar to that performed for other rules. The following
paragraphs identify specific data reviews that EPA typically performs
before promulgating a final rule.
For the proposal and NODA, EPA assigned various qualifiers to some
data. These qualifiers are briefly explained in DCN 36029 in section
19.1 and most are described in section 10 of the proposal TDD. EPA
excluded some data associated with some qualifiers (such as effluent
associated with extremely low influent values). For the final rule, EPA
intends to review the data exclusions as a result of the qualifiers.
EPA also intends to reevaluate which data qualifiers justify data
exclusions.
Comments on the proposal asserted that sample-specific detection
limits were inflated for the influent data. EPA has conducted a brief
review of the sample-specific detection limits and found that most
appear to be the same as the nominal quantitation limits identified in
the analytical methods (see DCN 36030, section 19.1). For the final
rule, EPA will review the consequences of assuming that the
concentration values are equal to the sample-specific detection limits
for the few influent sample-specific detection limits that are
elevated.
For the final rule, EPA intends to review graphical displays of the
daily measurements in the larger episode data sets to evaluate patterns
in the data, such as steadily increasing or decreasing
[[Page 38787]]
values over time or during certain time intervals. The plots may also
indicate data values that should be reviewed further and possibly
excluded because they appear to be outliers (i.e., values that stand
out as being extremely lower or higher than the others).
EPA also intends to review summary statistics for each episode (see
DCNs 36031 and 36032, section 19.1). EPA may further review episodes
with patterns such as minimum and maximum values far apart or extreme
ranges in sample-specific detection limits. EPA will also evaluate
whether some episodes appear to have data in ranges different from most
other episodes in the same subcategory.
EPA also will review multiple grab measurements taken on the same
day and field duplicates for extreme discrepancies between values.
These measurements are listed in DCNs 36033 and 36034 in section 19.1.
In addition, EPA will review its data listings of daily values (see DCN
36000, section 19.1). Where both influent and effluent are available,
EPA will evaluate extreme discrepancies between influent and effluent
at particular episodes. EPA also intends to review the EPA sampling
data to verify that each sample day is listed for a particular
pollutant unless otherwise specifically excluded. EPA will review the
data for consistency and any unusual patterns (such as all values being
associated with the same noncensored value over a period of time which
can indicate nondetected values rather than measured values, lack of
sensitivity in the laboratory procedures, or other causes).
VII. Revised Estimates of Costs, Loadings, Economic Impacts, and
Cost-Effectiveness
A. Revised National Estimates of Economic Impacts
EPA is providing the results of its preliminary economic analysis
results based on revised costs and selected changes in methodologies
discussed above in section V. All analyses presented in this section
incorporate new the costs and loadings and reflect use of the revised
imputation methods and sample weights previously discussed in this
document. To separate the effects of changes (i.e., revised costs,
baseline loadings, removals, sample weights and imputation methods)
from changes to the economic analysis, this section first presents a
version of the analysis that applies the same economic impact
methodologies used at proposal. The second analysis presents results
using the revised cost pass-through coefficients discussed in section
V.A of this document. The third analysis presents results based on a
number of further changes in economic impact methodologies discussed in
section V of this document. All other aspects of the economic analysis
methodology remain as described in the proposal EEBA. The final part of
this section presents economic impact analysis results for the Sand
Filter Option described in section III of this document.
All results presented here remain in 1999 dollars, for purpose of
comparison with the results of the proposed rule analysis. The analysis
EPA will prepare for the final rule will be presented in 2001 dollars.
1. Results Using the Economic Impact Analysis Methodologies Used at
Proposal
This section presents economic impact results using revised
technical inputs (i.e., costs, baseline loadings, removals, imputation
methods and sample weights), but applying the same economic impact
analysis methodologies used at proposal. The analysis includes a larger
number of facilities than in the proposed rule analysis (63,909 sample
weighted facilities vs 62,752 at proposal). The revised imputation
methods for flows allow analysis of additional facilities. In addition,
some facilities were reclassified into different subcategories and a
new Zinc Platers subcategory is being considered, as described in
section III.A.1 of this document. Table VII.A-1 shows the number of
facilities in each subcategory assessed as closures under baseline
conditions. The differences in the totals between the two analyses
reflects the larger number of facilities analyzed, the revised sample
weights, and the reclassification of some facilities in different
subcategories.
Table VII.A-1.--Summary of Changes in the Total Number of Dischargers and Baseline Closures Due to Changes in
Costs, Weights and Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of Number of baseline
dischargers closuresa
---------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Proposed Proposed
rule NODA rule NODA
analysis analysis analysis analysisb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.............................................. 29,975 12,287 3,199 758
Metal Finishing Job Shop.................................... 1,530 1,189 286 60
Non-Chromium Anodizing...................................... 190 178 40 29
Printed Wiring Board........................................ 635 844 3 236
Steel Forming & Finishing................................... 153 153 6 6
Oily Wastes................................................. 29,425 47,956 295 2,347
Railroad Line Maintenance................................... 832 832 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock....................................... 11 11 0 3
Zinc Platers................................................ NA 458 NA 8
All Categories.............................................. 62,762 63,909 3,829 3,447
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
exclusions.
\b\ Changes in the number of facilities and closures are largely due to changes in the different subcategories
and the facilities within them. For details see section III of this document.
The results of the post-compliance impact analyses are presented
first for the PSES requirements considered for indirect discharging
facilities, and then for the BAT/BPT options considered for direct
discharging facilities. The comparisons are based on the Proposed
Option and the NODA Option, both of which incorporate the low-flow
cutoffs and exclusions of the Proposed Option. The differences in
results are therefore due to the revised costs, loads and imputation
methods, rather than to any changes in the regulatory option being
analyzed. Similar comparisons excluding the proposed flow cut-offs and
exclusions are available in section 17.1.1, DCN 35020, of the public
record.
[[Page 38788]]
Table VII.A-2 presents economic impacts for indirect dischargers.
Of the 56,169 indirect discharging facilities potentially subject to
regulation after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 329 facilities
or 0.6 percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed
rule, based on revised technical inputs. This compares with 179
facility closures or 0.3 percent predicted by the proposal analysis.
Table VII. A-2.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Indirect Dischargers Due to Changes in Costs,
Weights and Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating in Number of facility
baseline closures due to the
-------------------------- rule\a\
Subcategory -------------------------
Proposed NODA Proposed
rule analysis rule NODA
analysis analysis analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.............................................. 23,140 10,115 24 93
Metal Finishing Job Shops................................... 1,231 1,105 128 164
Non-Chromium Anodizing...................................... 150 113 0 0
Printed Wiring Board........................................ 620 604 7 25
Steel Forming & Finishing................................... 105 106 6 6
Oily Wastes................................................. 28,219 42,891 14 17
Railroad Line Maintenance................................... 799 802 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock....................................... 6 3 0 0
Zinc Platers................................................ NA 429 NA 24
All Categories.............................................. 54,270 56,169 179 329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
exclusions.
Another 627 facilities, or one percent of the indirect dischargers
operating in the baseline, would experience moderate economic impacts
under the proposed rule based on the revised costs, as shown in Table
VII.A-3.
Table VII.A-3.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Indirect Dischargers Due to Changes in Costs, Weights and
Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating in Number of facilities
baseline experiencing moderate
-------------------------- impacts due to the
rule\a\
Subcategory Proosed -------------------------
rule NODA Proosed
analysis analysis rule NODA
analysis analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.............................................. 23,140 10,115 153 121
Metal Finishing Job Shops................................... 1,231 1,105 117 150
Non-Chromium Anodizing...................................... 150 113 0 24
Printed Wiring Board........................................ 620 604 301 293
Steel Forming & Finishing................................... 105 106 4 14
Oily Wastes................................................. 28,219 42,891 0 9
Railroad Line Maintenance................................... 799 802 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock....................................... 6 3 0 0
Zinc Platers................................................ NA 429 NA 16
All Categories.............................................. 54,270 56,169 575 627
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA anaysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and exclusions.
Governments own 5,005 of the 56,169 indirect discharging facilities
in the revised analysis. Of these, 43 incur compliance costs above one
percent under the proposed rule, but none of the affected governments
experience significant impacts as a result.
Table VII.A-4 presents the results of the same analyses for direct
discharging facilities. Of the 4,293 direct dischargers subject to
regulation after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 27 facilities or
0.6 percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed
rule.
Table VII.A-4.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Direct Dischargers Due to Changes in Costs,
Weights and Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating in Number of facility
baseline closures due to the
-------------------------- rule\a\
Subcategory -------------------------
Proposed NODA Proposed
rule analysis rule NODA
analysis analysis analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.............................................. 3,636 1,444 20 13
Metal Finishing Job Shops................................... 12 24 0 0
Non-Chromum Anodizing....................................... ........... 35 ........... 0
Printed Wiring Board........................................ 11 4 0 0
[[Page 38789]]
Steel Forming & Finishing................................... 43 41 0 0
Oily Wastes................................................. 911 2,688 0 13
Railroad Line Maintenance................................... 34 31 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock....................................... 6 6 0 0
Zinc Platers................................................ NA 21 NA 0
All Categories.............................................. 4,653 4,293 20 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
exclusions.
Another 46 facilities, or one percent of the direct dischargers
operating in the baseline, are expected to experience moderate economic
impacts under the proposed rule, as shown in Table VII.A-5.
Table VII.A-5.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Direct Dischargers: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating in Number of facility
baseline experiencing moderate
-------------------------- impacts due to the rule
rule\a\
Subcategory Proposed -------------------------
rule NODA Proposed
analysis analysis rule NODA
analysis analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.............................................. 3,636 1,741 34 15
Metal Finishing Job Shops................................... 12 24 0 0
Non-Chromum Anodizing....................................... ........... 35 ........... 24
Printed Wiring Board........................................ 11 4 0 0
Steel Forming & Finishing................................... 43 41 7 7
Oily Wastes................................................. 911 2,391 ........... ...........
Railroad Line Maintenance................................... 34 31 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock....................................... 6 6 0 0
Zinc Platers................................................ NA 21 NA 0
All Categories.............................................. 4,653 4,293 41 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
exclusions.
Governments own 722 of the 4,293 direct discharging facilities in
the revised analysis. Of these, 236 (or 33 percent) incur compliance
costs above one percent of their baseline cost of service under the
proposed rule, but none of the affected governments experience
significant impacts as a result.
2. Results With Revised Cost Pass-Through Coefficients
Table VII.A-6 presents economic impacts using the revised cost
pass-through coefficients described in section V.A of this document.
Table VII.A-6.--Incremental Closures and Moderate Impacts for NODA Option: Original CPT versus Revised CPT \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental closures Incremental moderate
Total -------------------------- impacts
Subcategory operating -------------------------
in baseline CPT used at Revised CPT CPT used at
proposal proposal Revised CPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals................................. 11,559 107 110 121 127
Metal Finishing Job Shops...................... 1,129 164 245 150 150
Non-Chromum Anodizing.......................... 148 0 0 24 24
Printed Wiring Board........................... 608 25 28 293 346
Steel Forming & Finishing...................... 148 6 6 14 14
Oily Wastes.................................... 45,579 31 31 9 9
Railroad Line Maintenance...................... 832 0 0 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.......................... 9 0 0 0 0
Zinc Platers................................... 450 24 81 16 16
All Categories................................. 60,462 356 500 627 686
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
exclusions. These analyses include new costs, weights, and number of facilities.
[[Page 38790]]
Use of the revised cost pass-through coefficients result in an
additional 144 closures and 59 moderate impacts.
Table VII.A-7 shows the estimated percentage price increases that
result from use of the revised cost pass-through coefficients, by
sector. These estimated percentage price increases are estimated for,
and apply only to, the segment of the industry sectors that is
estimated to incur costs as a result of the MP&M regulation. In all
cases, the price increases are less than one percent.
Table VII.A-7.--Sector Percentage Price Increases Predicted by New Cost
Pass-Through Coefficients (NODA Analysis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
sector
Sector price
increase a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace.................................................. 0.04
Aircraft................................................... 0.03
Bus & Truck................................................ 0.06
Electronic Equipment....................................... 0.04
Hardware................................................... 0.08
Household Equipment........................................ 0.02
Instruments................................................ 0.08
Iron & Steel............................................... 0.20
Metal Finishing Job Shops.................................. 0.60
Mobile Industrial Equipment................................ 0.17
Motor Vehicle.............................................. 0.07
Office Machines............................................ 0.00
Ordnance................................................... 0.12
Other Metal Products....................................... 0.04
Precious & Non-Precious Metals............................. 0.03
Printed Wiring Board....................................... 0.00
Railroad................................................... 0.01
Ships & Boats.............................................. 0.03
Stationary Industrial Equipment............................ 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Based on an analysis including revised costs and weights, financial
data updated using sector-specific producer price indices, and new
cost-pass-through coefficients. This analysis does not include other
methodology changes discussed in the NODA.
3. Results Based on Revised Economic Impact Methodologies
Section V of this document discusses a number of changes EPA is
considering making to the economic impact methodologies. This section
presents economic impact analysis results based on a number of these
changes, including:
Use of sector-specific thresholds for the moderate impact
analysis tests (pre-tax return on sales (PTRS) and interest coverage
ratio (ICR);
Use of a single test, based on net present value, to
assess the potential for closures; this test excludes consideration of
liquidation values for all MP&M facilities, including the 219
facilities that reported them in their response to the MP&M survey;
Including baseline capital outlays in the calculation of
cash flow;
Updating survey data using sector-specific price indices;
Adjusting labor costs for facilities that report
abnormally high labor costs; and
Limiting post-compliance tax shields to no greater than
reported baseline taxes.
These results also include revised costs, imputation methods, and
sample weights, and use the revised cost pass-through coefficients.
Table VII.A-8 shows the effects of these methodology changes in
combination, compared with results based on the proposal economic
impact methodologies combined with revised cost pass-through
coefficients.
Table VII.A-8.--Baseline Closures and Incremental Closures and Moderate Impacts for the Proposed Rule, With and
Without Changes in Economic Impact Analysis Methodologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total operating in Incremental closures Incremental moderate
baseline a -------------------------- impacts
Subcategory -------------------------- -------------------------
Without With Without With Without With
changes b changes c changes b changes c changes b changes c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.................... 11,559 11,435 110 111 127 151
Metal Finishing Job Shops......... 1,129 1,139 245 520 150 36
Non-Chromium Anodizing............ 148 148 0 0 24 0
Printed Wiring Board.............. 608 605 28 55 346 56
Steel Forming & Finishing......... 148 148 6 17 14 17
Oily Wastes....................... 45,579 46,286 31 1 9 0
Railroad Line Maintenance......... 832 832 0 0 0 0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock............. 9 9 0 0 0 0
Zinc Platers...................... 450 435 81 93 16 0
All Categories.................... 60,462 61,036 500 797 686 260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a See Table VII.A-1 for baseline closures.
b Results of revised cost pass-through analysis as reported in Table VII.A-6 are included in the ``Without
Changes'' columns.
c The results based on revised EIA methodologies also include the revised cost pass-through coefficients.
Use of the new economic impact analysis methodologies results in an
increase in estimated closures for the General Metals, Metal Finishing
Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Steel Forming and Finishing, and Zinc
Plater subcategories and in a decrease in estimated closures for the
Oily Waste subcategory. This result primarily reflects the recognition
of ongoing capital expenditures in the cash flow analysis and use of a
single test for closures.
The difference in estimated moderate impacts reflect the lower
sector-specific PTRA and ICR thresholds estimated based on industry
data. These lower thresholds affected both baseline and moderate
impacts, with a net decrease in impacts attributed to the proposed
rule. EPA concluded that the revised thresholds provide a more
realistic measure of financial distress. As noted by commenters, the
thresholds used in the proposal analysis resulted in substantial
portions of the MP&M facilities being classified as experiencing
financial distress even under baseline conditions. The sector-specific
thresholds result in a more reasonable characterization of baseline
conditions and of the incremental impacts of the proposed rule on
financial stress.
[[Page 38791]]
B. Revised National Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness
EPA performed a revised cost-effectiveness analysis based on the
revised estimates of costs, loadings and removals described previously.
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 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.
For the proposal, EPA based BPT and BAT limitations on the same
technology for all subcategories. Because the Agency does not evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of BPT technology (see relevant discussion in
the Centralized Waste Treatment ELG Proposal; 64 FR 2306) and EPA
proposed BAT limitations that are equivalent to BPT limitation, EPA is
only providing the cost-effectiveness analysis for indirect
dischargers.
Table VII.B-1 summarizes the total cost-effectiveness analysis for
the PSES regulatory option applicable to indirect dischargers, by
subcategory. This analysis reflects the flow cutoffs and exclusions of
the proposed rule, and includes all revised inputs. Estimates of costs
and pollutant removals do not include facilities that close in the
baseline.
Table VII.B-1.--Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA
incremental Cost-
before-tax NODA NODA cost- effectiveness
Subcategory compliance incremental effectiveness ratio,
cost removals ratio ($1981/ proposal
(million (lbs-eq) lb-eq) analysis
$1981) ($1981/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.......................................... 300.56 683,305 440 136
Metal Finishing Job Shops............................... 45.14 64,199 703 39
Non-Chromium Anodizing.................................. ........... ........... ............. .............
Oily Wastes............................................. 50.58 8,989 5,627 178
Printed Wiring Boards................................... 76.08 138,458 549 68
Railroad Line Maintenance............................... ........... ........... ............. .............
Shipbuilding Dry Dock................................... ........... ........... ............. .............
Steel Forming & Finishing............................... 9.69 63,368 153 68
Zinc Platers a.......................................... 38.13 97,304 392 NA
All Indirect Dischargers................................ 520.18 1,055,623 493 108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Assuming no flow cutoff.
C. Results for the Sand Filter Option
EPA is considering a Sand Filter Option for the metal-discharging
subcategories, as described in section III of this document. Table
VII.C-1 presents economic analysis results for this option. This
analysis is based on all revised inputs, revised cost pass-through
coefficients, and new economic impact analysis methodologies.
Table VII.C-1.--Economic Impact Analysis Results and Cost-Effectiveness for the Sand Filter Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental
Number of before-tax Cost-
facilities Incremental Incremental compliance Increment. effect.
Subcategory operating closures moderate costs removals ratio
in the impacts (million (lbs-eq) ($1981/lb-
baseline $1981) eq) a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Dischargers with Metal-Bearing Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.................... 11,435 1,025 1,323 1,615.19 3,612,966 NA
Metal Finishing Job Shops......... 1,139 565 47 46.27 94,586 NA
Non-Chromium Anodizing............ 148 91 0 26.91 2,445,414 NA
Printed Wiring Boards............. 605 80 56 85.94 161,618 NA
Steel Forming & Finishing......... 148 19 15 29.12 180,814 NA
Zinc Platers b.................... 435 93 0 52.97 164,137 NA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 13,910 1,872 1,442 1,856.40 6,659,535 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Indirect Dischargers with Metal-Bearing Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.................... 11,316 1,028 1,498 1,072.14 1,985,066 540
Metal Finishing Job Shops......... 1,115 577 36 44.65 92,575 482
Non-Chromium Anodizing............ 113 91 0 6.07 5,622 1,081
Printed Wiring Boards............. 600 84 60 85.66 161,586 530
Steel Forming & Finishing......... 106 17 11 13.83 64,136 216
[[Page 38792]]
Zinc Platers b.................... 414 93 12 49.90 163,200 306
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 13,664 1,889 1,616 1,272.26 2,472,185 515
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Cost-Effectiveness is applicable to indirect dischargers only.
b Assuming no flow cutoff.
D. Revised National Estimates of Monetized Benefits
EPA is providing preliminary environmental assessment and benefits
analysis results based on revised pollutant loadings. All analyses
presented in this section incorporate changes to technical inputs
including pollutant loadings, sample weights, a larger number of sample
MP&M facilities, and reclassification of some facilities into different
discharge categories as described in section III.G of today's document.
To separate the effects of the revised pollutant loadings and sample
weights from benefits analysis changes, EPA first presents a version of
the analysis that applies the same benefit analysis methodologies used
at proposal. The proposal EEBA describes all aspects of the
environmental assessment and benefits analysis methodologies. The
second analysis presents benefits results using the revised
methodologies and data discussed in section V of today's document but
does not incorporate changes in the environmental assessment and
benefits analysis methodologies. The third benefits results reflect all
changes documented in today's document (e.g., changes in loadings,
environmental assessment, and benefits analysis methodologies).
Like the revised estimates of economic impacts, the benefits
results presented here use 1999 dollars to enable comparison with the
results of the proposed rule analysis. The benefit analysis EPA
prepares to accompany the final rule will be presented in 2001 dollars.
Benefits results apply to the NODA option only ( i.e., benefits were
only estimated for Options 2, 6, and 10 with the proposed flow cut-offs
and exclusions). The NODA option includes the same exclusions and flow
cutoffs as the proposed option thus benefits were not estimated for the
basic and advanced treatment options without flow cutoffs.
1. Human Health Benefits
EPA used revised pollutant loading estimates to analyze 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.
1.a Reduced incidence of cancer cases
Table VII.D-1 presents revised total benefits from reduced
incidence of cancer cases, including both drinking water and fish
exposures.
Table VII.D-1.--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$) cases 1999$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 5.10 N/A\1\ 0.13 N/A 5.23 N/A
# Cases/Value..................... 2.86 $13.01 0.08 $0.26 2.94 $13.27
Percent Reduction................. 43.9 N/A 35.7 N/A 43.9 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 0.45 N/A 0.53 N/A 0.98 N/A
# Cases/Value..................... 0.22 $1.34 0.17 $2.10 0.39 $3.45
Percent Reduction................. 51.5 N/A 67.8 N/A 60.4 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option With All Changes in Today's Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 4.82 N/A 0.69 N/A 5.51 N/A
# Cases/Value..................... 1.87 $18.00 0.21 $2.96 2.08 $20.95
Percent Reduction................. 61.2 N/A 69.9 N/A 62.3 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not Applicable.
\2\ The NODA Option analysis (including the NODA option with technical input changes only (e.g., changes in
loadings methodology) and the NODA option with all changes in today's Document) does not include cancer
effects associated with exposure to lead.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
[[Page 38793]]
EPA introduced two methodology changes that affect the estimated
incidence of cancer cases. First, EPA corrected the POTW flow assigned
to small receiving POTWs with missing flow information. Second, EPA
updated the list of drinking water intake sites used for estimating
cancer cases from drinking water. These changes are discussed in
section V of this document.
EPA estimates that cancer cases under the NODA option with all
changes in today's Notice and revised pollutant loadings will decrease
from annual baseline levels of 4.82 to 1.87 for drinking water cancer
cases and from 0.69 to 0.21 for fish consumption cancer cases, and will
result in monetary benefits of $18.00 million and $2.96 million
(1999$), respectively, for drinking water and fish consumption cancer
cases.
Total benefits from reduced exposure to carcinogens are $20.95
million (1999$) annually under the NODA option with all changes in
today's document.
1.b Reductions in Systemic Health Effects
The change in exposure to pollutants through fish and water
consumption results in improvements in human health and well-being. One
way of measuring these effects is to compare the reduction in pollutant
exposure to pollutant-specific health effects thresholds. The Agency
used the revised pollutant loading estimates to calculate in-stream
pollutant concentrations for 77 pollutants that are toxic to body
systems. EPA then compared estimated in-stream pollutant concentrations
with risk reference doses to calculate a hazard score. The Agency
calculated the distribution of hazard scores for drinking water and
fish consumption populations for baseline and post-compliance
exposures. The results for the proposed rule showed a movement in
populations from higher risk values to lower risk values for both the
fish and drinking water analyses. Both analyses show substantial
increases in the percentage of the exposed populations that would be
exposed to ``no risk of systemic health hazards.'' Results for all
options show similar movements in populations from higher risk values
to lower risk values for both drinking water and fish consumption
populations (see section 17.7.1, DCN 35561 and section 17.7.2, DCN
35611).
1.c Benefits From Reduced Exposure to Lead
Table VII.D-2 presents revised benefit estimates associated with
reduced exposure to lead. The analysis 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.
Table VII.D-2: National Lead-Related Benefits
[Millions of 1999 $ per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children Adult Men Adult Women Total
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits Category Reduced Monetary Reduced Monetary Reduced Monetary Reduced Monetary
Cases Value Cases Value Cases Value Cases Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonatal Mortality.............................. 1.6 $9.33 ........... ........... ........... ........... 1.6 $9.33
Avoided IQ loss................................. 489.1 $4.93 ........... ........... ........... ........... 489.1 $4.93
Reduced IQ70.................................... 1.7 $0.13 ........... ........... ........... ........... 1.7 $0.13
Reduced Pb>20 mg/L.............................. 0.1 $0.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.1 $0.00
Hypertension.................................... ........... ........... 959.8 $1.01 N/A N/A 959.8 $1.01
CHD............................................. ........... ........... 1.2 $0.09 0.4 $0.03 1.6 $0.11
CBA............................................. ........... ........... 0.5 $0.14 0.2 $0.03 0.7 $0.17
BI.............................................. ........... ........... 0.3 $0.08 0.1 $0.02 0.4 $0.10
Mortality....................................... ........... ........... 1.7 $9.85 0.4 $2.38 2.1 $12.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonatal Mortality.............................. 0.8 $4.48 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.8 $4.48
Avoided IQ loss................................. 229.4 $2.31 ........... ........... ........... ........... 229.4 $2.31
Reduced IQ70.................................... 0.8 $0.06 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.8 $0.06
Reduced Pb>20 mg/L.............................. 0.0 $0.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.0 $0.00
Hypertension.................................... ........... ........... 468.0 $0.49 N/A N/A 468.0 $0.49
CHD............................................. ........... ........... 0.6 $0.04 0.2 $0.01 0.8 $0.06
CBA............................................. ........... ........... 0.3 $0.07 0.1 $0.02 0.3 $0.08
BI.............................................. ........... ........... 0.1 $0.04 0.1 $0.01 0.2 $0.05
Mortality....................................... ........... ........... 0.8 $4.88 0.2 $1.17 1.0 $6.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option With all Changes in Today's Document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonatal Mortality.............................. 0.8 $5.10 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.8 $5.10
Avoided IQ loss................................. 3,345.6 $33.71 ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,345.6 $33.71
Reduced IQ70.................................... 11.4 $0.83 ........... ........... ........... ........... 11.4 $0.83
Reduced Pb>20 mg/L.............................. 0.9 $0.02 ........... ........... ........... ........... 0.9 $0.02
Hypertension.................................... ........... ........... 507.9 $0.53 N/A N/A 507.9 $0.53
CHD............................................. ........... ........... 0.7 $0.05 0.2 $0.01 0.9 $0.06
CBA............................................. ........... ........... 0.3 $0.07 0.1 $0.02 0.4 $0.09
BI.............................................. ........... ........... 0.2 $0.04 0.1 $0.01 0.2 $0.05
Mortality....................................... ........... ........... 0.9 $5.59 0.2 $1.34 1.1 $6.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[[Page 38794]]
EPA estimates that the NODA option with all changes in today's
document, including the changes in methodology for estimating lead
benefits for children discussed in section V of this document, results
in an avoided IQ loss of 3,346 points and an accompanying monetary
benefit of $33.71 million (1999$) across all children. In addition, EPA
estimates that reduced occurrences of extremely low IQ scores (70) and
reduced incidence of blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL will reduce the
annual cost of compensatory education for children with learning
disabilities by $0.85 million (1999$). EPA also estimates a reduced
incidence of neonatal mortality by 0.8 case annually. The estimated
monetary value of benefits from reduced neonatal mortality is $5.10
million (1999$).
Quantified adult health effects include increased incidence of
hypertension (estimated for males only), initial coronary heart disease
(CHD), strokes (cerebrovascular accidents (CBA) and atherothrombotic
brain infarctions (BI)), and premature mortality.
EPA estimates that the NODA option with all changes in today's
document reduces hypertension by an estimated 508 cases annually among
males, resulting in benefits of approximately $0.53 million (1999$).
Reducing the incidence of initial CHD, strokes, and premature mortality
results in estimated benefits of $0.06, $0.14, and $6.93 million
(1999$), respectively. Overall, adult lead-related benefits are $7.67
million annually (1999$).
Total benefits from reduced exposure to lead, including both
children and adults, are $47.33 million (1999$) annually under the NODA
option with all changes in today's document. 1.d Exceedances of Human
Health-Based AWQC for Consumption of Water and Organisms
EPA also estimated the effect of MP&M facility discharges by
comparing pollutant concentrations in affected waterways to ambient
water criteria for the protection of human health. Table VII.D-3
presents results of this analysis.
Table VII.D-3.--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 Reaches With Number of Benefitting Reaches
MP&M Pollutant ---------------------------------------------------
Concentrations Exceeding All AWQC Exceedances Number of AWQC
Human Health-based AWQC Eliminated Exceedances Reduced
Limits ---------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Status --------------------------
For For For For For For
Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption
of Water of of Water of of Water of
and Organisms and Organisms and Organisms
Organisms Only Organisms Only Organisms Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 10,310 192 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Proposed Option................... 9,205 71 1,105 121 382 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 4,611 185 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NODA Option....................... 3,667 119 944 66 196 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option With all Changes in Today's Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................... 5,994 209 N/A N/A N/A N/A
NODA Option....................... 4,827 124 1,167 85 233 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA estimates that the NODA option with all changes in today's
document eliminates the occurrence of concentrations in excess of human
health criteria for consumption of water and organisms on 1,167 of the
5,994 reaches on which baseline discharges are estimated to cause
concentrations in excess of AWQC values. Likewise, EPA estimates that
under this option the rule eliminates the occurrence of concentrations
in excess of human health criteria for consumption of only organisms on
85 of the 209 reaches on which baseline discharges are estimated to
cause concentrations in excess of AWQC limits. In addition, EPA expects
that partial water quality improvements from reduced occurrence of some
pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC limits will occur at 233 and
19 receiving reaches, respectively, for consumption of water and
organisms and for consumption of organisms only.
2. Ecological, Recreational, and Nonuser Benefits
This analysis combines the findings from the aquatic life benefits
analysis and the human health AWQC exceedance analysis described
previously. Table VII.D-4 presents estimated changes in occurrences of
pollutant concentrations exceeding aquatic life and/or human health
AWQC values based on the pollutant loading estimates used for the
proposed rule analysis and the revised pollutant loading estimates. EPA
expects that 6,051 stream reaches will exceed chronic or acute aquatic
life AWQC and/or human health AWQC values at the baseline discharge
levels based on the NODA analysis. The NODA option with all changes in
today's document is expected to eliminate AWQC exceedances on 1,179 of
these reaches. Of the remaining 4,872 reaches with concentrations of
one or more pollutants that exceed AWQC limits in the baseline, EPA
expects that 592 of these reaches will experience partial water quality
improvements from reduced occurrence of some pollutant
[[Page 38795]]
concentrations in excess of AWQC limits.
Table VII.D-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 Benefitting
Number of Reaches
Reaches With -------------------------
Regulatory Status MP&M Pollutant Number of
Concentrations All AWQC AWQC
Exceeding AWQC Exceedances Exceedances
Limits Eliminated Reduced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... 10, 443 N/A N/A
Post Compliance............... 9,258 1,185 1,837
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... 4,663 N/A N/A
Post Compliance............... 3,702 960 555
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA Option With all Changes in Today's Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... 6,051 N/A N/A
Post Compliance............... 4,872 1,179 592
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA attached a monetary value to these reduced exceedances based on
increased values for recreational fishing. The NODA analysis excludes
monetized estimates for additional benefits categories, specifically
recreational boating and near-water recreation, and higher estimates
for non-use benefits based on these additional benefits categories. EPA
was unable to update boating and near-water analysis for the NODA
option because valuation of these additional benefits categories is
partially based on results from the Ohio case study analysis. As noted
in the preceding sections of this document, because of the timing of
the NODA, new pollutant loading estimates have not been estimated for
the MP&M facilities that completed the Ohio case study questionnaire.
The Agency will estimate these additional benefits categories in the
final rule analysis. A detailed discussion of the recreational benefits
analysis methodology appears in the proposal EEBA. Table VII.D-5
presents the estimated national recreational benefits of the proposed
rule, the NODA option with the technical inputs, and the NODA option
with all changes in today's document.
EPA estimated recreational fishing benefits of $365.36 million
(1999$) for the proposed rule. Based on the revised pollutant loadings,
the increased number of MP&M sample facility locations ( i.e., use of
additional questionnaires), and corrections in POTW flows. EPA
estimates recreational fishing benefits of $346.11 million (1999$) for
the NODA option with all changes in today's document.
5. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
Under the proposed rule, EPA estimated that 62 POTWs would be able
to select the land application disposal based on estimated reductions
in sludge contamination. An estimated 1.17 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 estimated
$61.3 million (1999$) in annual cost savings for the POTWs expected to
upgrade their sludge disposal practices.
Based on the revised loadings and changes in the estimated flow for
small POTW facilities, EPA estimates that 39 POTWs would be able to
select the lower-cost land application disposal method under the NODA
option with all changes in today's document. Only 0.11 million dry
metric tons (DMT) of sewage sludge is expected to newly qualify for
land application annually under the NODA option with all changes in
today's Notice. The annual estimated cost savings for the POTWs
expected to upgrade their sludge disposal practices decreases to $5.59
million (1999$) under the NODA option with all changes in today's
document. EPA estimates that an additional 28 POTWs that previously met
only the land application pollutant limit will be able to meet the more
stringent land application concentration limits under the NODA option
with all changes in today's document. Commenters raised concerns with
EPA's analysis of POTW cost savings and the ability of some POTWs to
upgrade their sludge disposal practices. As noted earlier, AMSA
recently surveyed the same POTWs as EPA did for the 1997 POTW survey,
including asking about disposal practices. EPA is in the process of
evaluating this new information. For the final rule, the Agency will
consider changes to the POTW benefits analysis based on the new data.
6. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
EPA estimated that partial benefits under the NODA option for the
four categories for which monetary estimates were possible at this time
(Categories 1-4 in Table VII.D-5). The benefits for these four
categories are $419.97 million (1999$) annually. Enhanced boating and
viewing benefits will be estimated for the final rule based on the
changes in technical inputs and the methodology changes discussed
earlier. Nonuse benefits will be estimated based on \1/2\ recreational
benefits.
Estimates detailed in the NODA omit three categories of benefits
(Categories 5-7 in Table VII.D-5) that will be
[[Page 38796]]
estimated for the final rule, and therefore underestimate the total
benefits of the rule. As in the proposal, the NODA results also omit
additional benefits to society that may result from reduced MP&M
effluent discharges such as swimming; non-cancer health benefits (other
than benefits from reduced exposure to lead); and the reduced cost of
drinking water treatment for the pollutants with drinking water
criteria.
Table VII.D-5.--Estimated Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges (Annual Benefits--Million $ 1999) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODA option (changes to technical NODA option with all changes in
Benefit category inputs only) today's document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduced Cancer Risk:...............
Fish Consumption.................. $2.10.............................. $2.96
Water Consumption................. $1.34.............................. $18.00
2. Reduced Risk from Exposure to Lead:
Children.......................... $6.85.............................. $39.66
Adults............................ $6.73.............................. $7.67
3. Avoided Sewage Sludge Disposal $7.68.............................. $5.59
Costs.
4. Enhanced Fishing................... $328.33............................ $346.11
5. Enhanced Boating................... Not Estimated...................... To Be Estimated
6. Enhanced Viewing................... Not Estimated...................... To Be Estimated
7. Nonuse benefits (\1/2\ of Not Estimated...................... To Be Estimated
Recreational Use.
Total Monetized Benefits \1\.......... Not Estimated...................... To Be Estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also Chapter 19 of the proposal EEBA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
VIII. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
A. Technology Option 2
Technology Option 2 includes 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.
At proposal EPA based the BPT, BCT, and BAT proposed effluent
limitations guidelines on Option 2 for existing direct dischargers in
the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategories.
EPA also based the proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources
(PSES) on Option 2 for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops,
Printed Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategories.
EPA did not propose PSES nor pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory. EPA proposed new
source performance standards (NSPS) for new direct dischargers in the
Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory based on Option 2. Additionally, at
proposal, EPA did not calculate new BPT limitations for TSS or oil and
grease for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, and
Printed Wiring Board subcategories. Instead, EPA set them at the same
level as in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (see 40 CFR
433.13). EPA is again not calculating new BPT limitations for TSS or
oil and grease in today's document for these subcategories.
Table VIII.A-1 presents the concentration-based preliminary revised
limitations and standards for Option 2. However, in the final rule, EPA
intends to promulgate limitations and standards in terms of pounds per
1000 pounds of production for the different types of operations in this
subcategory. EPA has converted the concentration-based preliminary
revised limitations and standards to mass units using the production
values in Table 14-7 of the proposal TDD. These Mass based limits for
the Steel Forming & Finishing based on Option 2 are presented in the
record (see section 19.2, DCNs 36056 and 36059).
Table VIII.A-1.--Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards (mg/L) for Technology Option 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENL GENL MFJ MFJ PWB PWB ANO ANO SFF SFF ZINC ZINC
Analyte Daily Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Monthly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALUMINUM........................ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 8.20 4.00 ........ ........ ........ ........
AMENABLE CYANIDE................ 0.140 0.0700 0.140 0.0700 0.140 0.0700 ........ ........ 0.140 0.0700 ........ ........
CADMIUM......................... 0.140 0.0900 0.210 0.0900 ........ ........ ........ ........ 0.0447 0.0274 ........ ........
CHROMIUM........................ 0.250 0.140 2.80 0.905 0.0795 0.0330 ........ ........ 0.0315 0.0151 1.44 0.492
COPPER.......................... 0.550 0.280 1.30 0.570 2.15 1.01 ........ ........ 0.111 0.0463 ........ ........
CYANIDE......................... 0.362 0.170 0.362 0.170 0.362 0.170 ........ ........ 0.362 0.170 ........ ........
LEAD............................ 0.189 0.0853 0.156 0.0945 0.432 0.208 ........ ........ 0.803 0.273 ........ ........
MANGANESE....................... 0.475 0.255 0.250 0.100 1.30 0.640 0.475 0.255 0.305 0.216 ........ ........
MOLYBDENUM...................... 0.790 0.490 0.100 0.0829 ........ ........ ........ ........ 0.0687 0.0590 ........ ........
NICKEL.......................... 0.636 0.339 1.50 0.640 0.411 0.187 0.636 0.339 0.0983 0.0658 ........ ........
OIL AND GREASE (AS HEM) 23.3 14.4 23.3 14.4 23.3 14.4 23.3 14.4 12.4 7.7 ........ ........
SILVER.......................... 0.220 0.0900 0.252 0.0845 ........ ........ ........ ........ 0.111 0.0443 ........ ........
TIN............................. 1.40 0.670 1.80 1.40 0.310 0.140 ........ ........ 0.0838 0.0444 ........ ........
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)...... 87.0 50.0 78.0 59.0 101.0 67.0 ........ ........ 47.0 37.7 ........ ........
TOTAL ORGANICS PARAMETER........ 6.65 3.24 6.65 3.24 6.65 3.24 ........ ........ 6.65 3.24
TOTAL SULFIDE................... 0.676 0.475 0.676 0.475 6.52 4.58 ........ ........ 0.676 0.475 ........ ........
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS . 42.2 21.2 33.2 16.9 83.1 35.9 56.0 23.3 37.4 24.0 ........ ........
ZINC............................ 0.748 0.352 0.677 0.323 0.0364 0.0269 0.748 0.352 1.45 0.582 2.52 1.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: GENL = General Metals, MFJ = Metal Finishing Job Shops, PWB = Printed Wiring Board, ANO = non-chromium anodizing, SFF = Steel Forming & Finishing,
Zinc = Zinc Platers
[[Page 38797]]
The values for Oil and Grease (as HEM) were calculated from the NODA episodes. See discussion on BPT limitations and NSPS for these pollutants
in section VI.C.12.
B. Technology Option 4
Technology Option 4 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.
At proposal EPA based the NSPS and PSNS (new source standards) on
Option 4 for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategories. EPA is
currently reviewing whether to promulgate final limits based on the
proposed technology option (Option 4) for new sources in the metal-
bearing subcategories (see section IX.A) or whether Option 2 is
sufficient. EPA is not presenting preliminary revised limitations and
standards for Option 4 in today's document.
C. Technology Option 6
Technology Option 6 includes in-process flow control, pollution
prevention, and oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking. At
proposal EPA based the BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards on Option 6 for the
Oily Wastes Subcategory. Option 6 includes in-process flow control,
pollution prevention, and oil-water separation by chemical emulsion
breaking. Table VIII.C-1 presents the preliminary revised limitations
and standards for Option 6.
Table VIII.C-1.--Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards (mg/L)
for Technology Option 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OILY
Analyte OILY daily monthly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIL AND GREASE (AS HEM)....................... 45.9 26.0
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC).................... 633.0 378.0
TOTAL ORGANICS PARAMETER...................... 6.65 3.24
TOTAL SULFIDE................................. 31.3 13.3
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS........................ 63.0 31.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: OILY = Oily Wastes
D. Technology Option 10
Technology Option 10 includes in-process flow control, pollution
prevention, and oil-water separation by dissolved air flotation. At
proposal EPA based the BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock and
Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategories on Option 10. EPA did not
propose pretreatment standards for new or existing sources in the
Shipbuilding Dry Dock and Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategories.
Table VIII.D-1 presents the preliminary revised limitations and
standards for Option 10.
EPA proposed limitations and standards for biochemical oxygen
demand measured as 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5).
In examining its data, EPA determined that it had used biochemical
oxygen demand data measured as 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD5). In some cases, BOD5 will have
higher concentration values than CBOD5. Thus, in today's
document, EPA is clarifying which form of biochemical oxygen demand it
proposed to regulated (i.e., CBOD5).
Table VIII.D-1.--Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards (mg/L) for Technology Option 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRYD RRL
Analyte DRYD daily monthly RRL daily monthly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5-DAY (CARBONACEOUS).................................... ........... ........... 7.20 5.83
OIL AND GREASE (AS HEM)..................................... 34.3 17.5 8.4 6.9
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS...................................... 81.0 44.0 20.5 13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: DRYD = Shipbuilding Dry Dock, RRL = Railroad Line Maintenance
IX. Consideration of Alternative Options
Based on the data received with comments, data corrections, and
changes to certain methodologies for the proposed rule, EPA is
presenting cost, pollutant reduction, and economic impact estimates
(see section VII of today's document). EPA will consider these revised
results in its decisions for the final rule. In the sections below, EPA
discusses in detail the options for the General Metals, Metal Finishing
Job Shop, Printed Wiring Board, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance,
and Steel Forming & Finishing.
Commenters requested that EPA consider alternatives to the
preferred options selected for the proposal for certain subcategories.
As a result of additional data and comments, EPA is reconsidering: (1)
the options for BPT/BAT limitations for specified subcategories; and
(2) the proposed option for new sources for the metal-bearing
subcategories. EPA is also considering: (1) the use of an Environmental
Management System for the General Metals Subcategory; (2) a variety of
options to reduce economic impacts in several subcategories; and (3) a
change in the proposed technology option for the Railroad Line
Maintenance Subcategory. These alternatives are discussed in more
detail below. In addition, as recommended by the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel for the proposed rule (66 FR 524), EPA may
consider a ``no regulation'' option or change in the low wastewater
flow exclusions in the final rule for several subcategories ``to reduce
any significant economic impacts that are not justified by
environmental improvements and to improve the cost-effectiveness of the
regulation.'' EPA is also considering the ``no further regulation''
option in the final rule for several subcategories.
A. Consideration of Change in New Source Technology Option for Metal-
Bearing Subcategories
EPA is reviewing whether to promulgate final limits based on the
proposed technology option for new sources in the metal-bearing
subcategories. EPA proposed new source standards for the General
Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel
Forming & Finishing subcategories. EPA proposed standards based on the
following treatment technology: segregation of chelated wastes,
hexavalent chromium reduction (when necessary), cyanide destruction
(when necessary), ultrafiltration for oils removals,
[[Page 38798]]
incorporation of pollution prevention and water conservation practices,
chemical precipitation (by sodium hydroxide), and solids separation by
a microfilter (``Option 4''). EPA proposed existing source limits based
on ``Option 2''--a similar treatment train except chemical emulsion
breaking is used for preliminary treatment of oily wastes and the
microfilter is replaced by a lamella slant plate clarifier. EPA notes
that it proposed setting new source limits equal to existing source
limits for Non-Chromium Anodizing, the other metal-bearing subcategory.
EPA solicited comment and data on two alternative options for new
sources in those metal-bearing subcategories (66 FR 534, solicitation
26; 66 FR 536, solicitation 39). The first alternative would establish
new source limits for these subcategories based on Option 2 technology
with an ultrafilter substituting for chemical emulsion breaking and
oil/water separator. The second alternative would establish new source
limits completely based on Option 2 with the corresponding new source
limits equal to the existing source limits.
EPA received many comments requesting that EPA not set new sources
limits based on Option 4 technology. Commenters stated that EPA had
under-costed Option 4 technology and that it would be a barrier to
entry for new facilities. In addition, commenters questioned the
completeness of EPA's database on microfiltration. Commenters noted
that EPA transferred limits for several pollutants from Option 2
technology, based on lack of data. EPA did not receive additional
sampling data for microfiltration. Therefore, EPA is considering for
the final rule, as discussed in the proposal, setting new source
limitations and pretreatment standards based on Option 2 technology.
This means the final limits would be equal for existing sources and new
sources in the subcategories discussed in this section. EPA again
solicits comment on basing the new source technology option on Option
2.
B. General Metals Subcategory
In the proposed rule EPA proposed numerical limitations and
pretreatment standards for the General Metals Subcategory based on
Option 2 technology (see section IX.A above for description of Option
2). EPA selected Option 2 technology based on the national estimates of
costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and environmental benefits
as determined at the time of the proposal. These estimates have changed
based on public comments as described in previous sections of today's
document. Therefore, EPA is reconsidering alternative options to reduce
the economic impact, and solicits comment on potential approaches. EPA
is also considering promulgating pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources as equivalent to 40 CFR part 433 for the General
Metals Subcategory.
EPA notes that zinc platers in the General Metals Subcategory are
not considered in the following analyses but are analyzed separately
(see section 17.5, DCN 17761). EPA is considering the same General
Metals Subcategory options for this potential new zinc plater
subcategory (see section III.A.1).
1. Consideration of an Environmental Management System Based
Alternative for the General Metals Subcategory
In the preamble for the proposal (66 FR 513), EPA solicited comment
on offering a pollution prevention alternative with an environmental
management system (EMS) component to the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory as well as other subcategories, including the General
Metals Subcategory. In response to the solicitation, EPA received a
suggestion for an EMS-based alternative for the General Metals
subcategory from an industry group formed by several facilities and
industry trade associations representing the General Metals
Subcategory. The following explains what an EMS is and explains the
suggested alternative.
EMSs provide organizations of all types with a structured approach
for managing environmental and regulatory responsibilities to improve
overall environmental performance, including areas not subject to
regulation. EMSs can also help organizations better integrate the full
scope of environmental considerations and get better results, by
establishing a continuous process of checking to make sure
environmental goals are met. EMS implementation ensures that procedures
are in place for taking remedial action if problems occur. From a
business perspective, benefits may include cost savings, increased
operational efficiency and competitiveness, risk reduction, improved
internal communication, and improved relations with external parties.
EMSs typically incorporate a feedback mechanism that supports
measurement of performance against a set of measurable objectives and
provides a mechanism for correction or preventive action. EMSs do not
replace the need for regulatory and enforcement programs, but they can
complement them.
A strong EMS does not just set rules for employees: it tracks
performance, fosters proactive identification and correction of
problems, and provides a mechanism to prevent problems from recurring.
Many organizations are adopting EMSs as a management tool. EPA
encourages the use of EMSs because these tools have the potential to
improve compliance rates and environmental performance.
In its comments to EPA, an industry group suggested that EPA
consider an EMS-based alternative to the final part 438 (MP&M) effluent
limits for facilities in the General Metals subcategory (see section
16.4, DCN 17793). The alternative would authorize certain facilities to
continue to be subject to part 433 under the circumstances discussed
below. Table IX.B-1 provides the conditions for the EMS-based
alternative proposed by an industry group.
Table IX.B-1.--EMS-Based Alternative Proposed by an Industry Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facility has BAT technology (or its equivalent) in place and shall
certify at the time of each permit renewal that it has installed and
operates, at a minimum, the equivalent of Best Available Technology
used to set BAT/PSES limitations in 40 CFR part 438 Rule and
implementation of the following practices:
Ensure that the wastewater treatment system has established pH
set points to optimize metal removal efficiencies and a pH monitoring
system;
Have a system to monitor tank levels or wastewater flow;
As requested, provide documentation of applicable preventive
maintenance of the treatment systems and calibration schedules;
Maintain for a period of one year and, as requested, provide
wastewater treatment system operations logs;
Maintain for a period of one year and, as requested, provide
documentation of wastewater treatment system procedures or protocols;
Compliance with part 433 monthly average PSNS or NSPS
limitations, as appropriate; and
ISO 14001 Certification or Employment of an Environmental
Management System (EMS).
The industry group also suggest the following forfeiture criteria:
A facility would forfeit the right to participate in this EMS-based
alternative, if:
[[Page 38799]]
BAT is removed, not operational, or not operated in accordance
with the procedures noted above;
monthly average PSNS or NSPS part 433 limitations are exceeded;
or
ISO 14001Certification is withdrawn and an EMS program is
demonstrated to be inadequate.
The industry group suggested that if any of the forfeiture criteria is
met, then the permitting authority may find that the facility has
forfeited the right to employ the EMS-based alternative, and require
that such facility come into compliance with 40 CFR part 438 BAT or
PSES limitations no later than six months after such right is
withdrawn, with the exception that a longer period of time may be
provided to facilities at which construction beyond BAT is required to
meet the 40 CFR part 438 BAT or PSES limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section 16.4, DCN 17793 of the public record.
If EPA were to include such an EMS-based alternative in the final
rule, the Agency would consider making the following changes to the
industry's suggested plan. First, EPA would consider amending the
condition that reads ``ISO 14001 Certification or Employment of an
Environmental Management System (EMS)'' to read ``ISO 14001
Certification.'' EPA has some concerns that ``third-party
certification'' without some form of accreditation, as required by ISO,
may not provide the level of assurance EPA, state, and local agencies
would need to allow for this alternative. Second, EPA would consider
amending the forfeiture criteria to read as follows:
``A facility would forfeit the right to participate in this EMS-
based alternative, if:
BAT is removed, not operational, or not operated in
accordance with the procedures noted above; or
monthly average PSNS or NSPS Part 433 limitations are
exceeded.''
EPA is also considering and solicits comments on the following
amendments to the industry plan (see Table IX.B-1).
(1) Requiring the permitting authority to determine whether the
facility has installed and is operating the equivalent of BAT;
(2) Requiring compliance with the industry plan through the
facility's permit;
(3) Requiring facilities to maintain records for a period of at
least three years and, as requested, provide documentation of
applicable preventive maintenance of the treatment systems and
calibration schedules;
(4) Requiring facilities to certify that they have implemented and
will continue to comply with the industry plan; and
(5) Requiring facilities to monitor tank levels, in accordance with
a system approved by the permitting authority, in addition to having a
system to do so.
Additionally, under the industry proposal, the permitting authority
would be authorized to find that a facility had forfeited the right to
participate in the EMS-based alternative, in one of three circumstances
(e.g., ``monthly average PSNS or NSPS part 433 limitations are
exceeded). If the permitting authority find that a facility has
forfeited the right to participate, the facility would have up to 6
months to come into compliance with 40 CFR part 438 BAT or PSES
limitations, with the possibility of an extension. As drafted, this
alternative may place an unreasonable resource burden on the permitting
authority to make a forfeiture determination before the facility is
required to meet the part 438 limitations. In addition, the facility
will not have certainty as to the consequences of its failure to meet
the EMS-based requirements. To address these concerns, EPA seeks
comment on requiring, as part of a permit, that a facility come into
compliance with 40 CFR part 438 BAT or PSES limitation within 6 months
of failing to meet one or more of three forfeiture conditions
identified by industry (see Table IX.B-1) or as otherwise determined by
the permitting agency. In the absence of such a provision, the facility
may be out of compliance for an extended period.
EPA also seeks comment on the extent to which exceedances of
monthly average PSNS or NSPS part 433 limitations should require that
the facility come into compliance with 40 CFR part 438. In the absence
of a clear standard, there will be no firm basis upon which to require
that the facility meet 40 CFR part 438.
EPA also seeks comment on the following issues:
Requiring facilities that forfeit the right to participate
in this EMS-based alternative to comply with the new source limits of
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) regulations instead of limits
established under 40 CFR part 438.
Ways in which EPA can ensure compliance with the part 433
limits and standards, as well as compliance with a facility's EMS, if
this option were chosen for the final rule.
What is the frequency of self and third-party auditing?
Also, should the regulation requires that the results of all third-
party audits must be submitted to the regulatory authority in a timely
manner and available to the public upon request?
What qualifications and certification should the
regulation require for the use of third-party auditors?
To what extent should data on the facility's environmental
performance be communicated to the public?
Should the participating facility provide an opportunity
for the public to comment on its environmental aspects, impacts,
objectives and targets when developing the EMS?
Beyond EPA's amendment to the industry-based plan what
specific circumstances of noncompliance would trigger a return to 40
CFR part 438?
EPA recognizes that developing an EMS would cause a facility to
incur certain costs. Therefore, in addition to soliciting overall
comments on this EMS-based alternative, EPA would like to receive any
information on the existing costs of EMS implementation for General
Metals operations, both on a per-facility and firm basis. Types of
costs that could be relevant include staff and consultant costs,
certification, documentation and recordkeeping, and costs of upgrading
operations to make them conform to the EMS elements ( i.e., statement
of environmental compliance policy, monitoring and measurement targets,
corrective action plan, self-assessment procedure, and personnel
trained in accordance with EMS).
EPA is concerned that such an option may only be achievable by
larger facilities that currently have or are working toward ISO 14001
Certification. EPA solicits comment on whether small and medium size
facilities can or would use an EMS alternative as described above, and
whether formal guidance and assistance from the Agency would be
necessary to utilize this alternative. EPA also solicits comment from
state and local regulators on their need for formal guidance from the
Agency to implement this alternative and on the implementation burden,
cost, and enforceability of this alternative. EPA also solicits comment
on what modifications to a formal ISO 14001 process would be needed to
[[Page 38800]]
accommodate small and medium size businesses.
2. No Regulation or No Further Regulation
EPA estimated at proposal that 26 percent of the facilities in the
General Metals Subcategory are regulated by existing ELGs. EPA received
many comments from industry and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
that these facilities are adequately regulated under the current ELGs
or that local limits can address water quality concerns in sensitive
water bodies. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and
pollutant loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule,
once corrected for errors, would clearly demonstrate that the costs and
impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would not be justified.
Section VII of today's document reports the revised estimates of
costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts. Briefly, EPA
estimates that compliance with the revised limitations and standards
would result in facility closures for 91 of 2,055 (4.4%) indirect
dischargers. The revised estimates of cost-effectiveness for indirect
dischargers increased to $440/pound-equivalent removed. Based on EPA's
revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts and
benefits discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA is again
considering an option of no regulation or no further regulation for
indirect dischargers in this subcategory for the final rule. EPA
solicits comment on this option.
3. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
EPA is considering an increase in the 1 million gallon per year
(MGY) low flow cutoff used at proposal for indirectly discharging
General Metals facilities. As discussed in section VII of today's
document, EPA's current estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and
economic impacts differ from those calculated for the proposal.
Therefore, EPA is considering increasing the low flow cutoff at various
levels or other regulatory thresholds (e.g., based on facility size
such as employment, production, or revenue) to provide relief to
indirect dischargers in this subcategory from significant economic
impacts.
Table IX.B-2 below shows the national estimates of compliance costs
(1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic
impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981$/pound-equivalent removed) for
varying levels of flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the
General Metals Subcategory.
Table IX.B-2.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the General Metals Subcategory (Zinc
Platers Not Included)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe
Industry economic Cost-
Number of compliance Pollutant impacts effectiveness
Flow cutoff sites cost reductions (facility (1991$/
(1999$) (lb-eq.) closures, lb.eq.)
(millions) %)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 MGY........................................ 2,055 636 1,240,219 91 (4%) 440
2 MGY........................................ 1,455 549 1,066,154 91 (6%) 436
3 MGY........................................ 1,187 505 1,016,616 79 (7%) 441
6.25 MGY..................................... 725 397 634,312 55 (8%) 893
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that
close in the baseline and use all NODA changes in economic methodologies.
4. 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
As recommended by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel for the
proposed rule (66 FR 524), EPA is considering regulatory alternatives
which reduce significant economic impacts. EPA considers the ``413 to
433 Upgrade Option'' to be an alternative regulatory option. The 413 to
433 Upgrade Option would bring into alignment those facilities
currently required to meet the standards of the Electroplating effluent
limitations guidelines (ELGs) (40 CFR part 413) with those required to
meet the limitations and standards of the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR
part 433), rather than promulgating the MP&M limitations and standards
provided in today's document. EPA expects such an option (``413 to 433
Upgrade Option'') would significantly reduce EPA's estimate of economic
impacts while achieving some environmental improvements over current
conditions.
Currently, the only facilities that are still completely covered by
the Electroplating ELGs are indirect discharging facilities that were
in existence prior to 1982 and have not significantly upgraded their
operations. If a facility modified its operations significantly, this
would trigger new source standards and the facility would be subject to
the Metal Finishing ELGs, which are more stringent than the
Electroplating ELGs. In EPA's view most facilities are likely to either
be completely covered by the Metal Finishing ELGs or by a combination
of the two ELGs to account for new operations in their permit (see
Table III.E-1 for national estimates).
In the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option, EPA would set limits for all
facilities in the General Metals Subcategory that are currently
regulated under part 413 equivalent to those in the Metal Finishing
ELGs (40 CFR part 433). If EPA determines that the revised MP&M numeric
limitations and standards, based on best available control technology,
are not economically achievable, EPA may determine that the technology
in-place at facilities currently complying with the Metal Finishing
ELGs is the best available technology economically achievable. In that
case, the limits and standards developed using the technology basis
used for the Metal Finishing regulations (i.e., the limits in part 433)
would be based on the best available technology economically
achievable. In addition, this option may reduce burden on POTWs by
clarifying several points of confusion relating to the Metal Finishing
regulations that have required significant review over the past 20
years (e.g., when is an operation acid etching versus acid cleaning).
EPA estimates a total annual compliance cost of $7.2 million
(1999$) for the 286 indirect General Metals facilities currently
covered only by the Electroplating regulations (see Table III.E-1 for
national estimates) to comply with the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option (see
section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). Of the 286 General Metals facilities
regulated by part 413, EPA estimates that there
[[Page 38801]]
would be 18 baseline closures and 31 regulatory closures due to the 413
to 433 Upgrade Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). These compliance
costs are on average less than $31,000/year for each General Metals
facility that will upgrade from part 413 to 433. EPA also estimates
annual reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of approximately
35,000 pound-equivalents (approximately 148 PE-removed/facility-year).
This would result in an approximate cost-effectiveness number of $120/
pound-equivalent removed (1981$). EPA solicits comment on this option,
including the difficulty in interpreting part 413 and 433
applicability, cost of upgrading treatment systems, facility space
constraints, possible POTW burden, improvements to sludge quality, and
economic impacts.
EPA also notes that there was a group of facilities identified in
the original Electroplating effluent guidelines that received a reduced
set of limitations (i.e., fewer parameters and different controls on
cyanide) based on economic impacts (these facilities discharge less
than 10,000 gallons per day). EPA will assess the economic impact on
these facilities to determine if there is a need to reduce the economic
burden associated with this option, if chosen for the final regulation.
Table IX.B-3 provides EPA's national estimate of facilities that are
currently covered under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part
413) that discharge less than 10,000 gallons per day.
Table IX.B-3.--National Estimate of Facilities Discharging Less Than 10,000 Gallons per Day That Are Currently
Covered Under the Electroplating ELGs (40 CFR Part 413)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming facility Assuming facility
operation 250 days/year operation 360 days/year
MP&M subcategory ---------------------------------------------------
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
discharges discharges discharges discharges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.............................................. 50b (None 363c (29 78b (None 384c (29
are Zinc are Zinc are Zinc are Zinc
Platers) Platers) Platers) Platers)
Metal Finishing Job Shops................................... 0 148c (None 0 217c (12
are Zinc are Zinc
Platers) Platers)
Printed Wiring Board........................................ 0 524 0 531
Oily Waste.................................................. 0 7 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a These national estimates include facilities that are regulated under 40 CFR part 413, 40 CFR parts 413 and
433, and 40 CFR parts 413, 433, and other ELGs.
b These sites have both direct and indirect discharges but indicated coverage under Part 413 in their survey
response.
c These national estimates also include ``Zinc Platers'' (see section III.A.1).
EPA solicits comment on these national estimates of facilities and
their economic condition.
C. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
In the proposed rule EPA proposed numerical limitations and
pretreatment standards for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
based on Option 2 technology (see section IX.A above for description of
Option 2). EPA selected Option 2 technology based on the national
estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and
environmental benefits as determined at the time of the proposal. These
estimates have changed based on public comments as described in
previous sections of today's document. Therefore, EPA solicits comment
on the following alternative options. In addition, EPA will continue to
consider the Pollution Prevention Alternative described in the proposal
(66 FR 512).
EPA notes that zinc platers in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory are not considered in the following analyses but are
analyzed separately (see section 17.5, DCN 17761). EPA is considering
the same Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory options for this
potential new zinc plater subcategory (see section III.A.1).
1. No Further Regulation
One option considered in the proposed rule was no further
regulation for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory. All
facilities in this subcategory are currently regulated under the
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) or Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433)
regulations. EPA received many comments from industry and Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that metal finishing job shops are
adequately regulated under the current regulations and that local
limitations can address water quality concerns in sensitive water
bodies, including monitoring for pollutants not covered by federal
standards. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and
pollutant loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule,
once corrected for errors, would clearly demonstrate that the costs and
impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would not be justified.
As discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current
estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ
from those calculated for the proposal. Briefly, EPA estimates that
compliance with the revised limitations and standards would result in
facility closures for 12 of 24 (50%) direct dischargers and for 508 of
1165 (44%) indirect dischargers. In addition, EPA performed a
sensitivity analysis to determine the economic effects of the proposal
if facilities could pass zero percent of compliance costs to customers.
This would increase closures for indirect dischargers in this
subcategory by 15%. The revised estimates of cost-effectiveness for
indirect dischargers increased to $500/pound-equivalent removed.
Based on EPA's revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals,
economic impacts and benefits discussed in section VII of today's
document, EPA is again considering an option of no further regulation
for this subcategory for the final rule. An EPA decision not to
promulgate further regulations would based on a determination that the
regulations were not economically achievable. EPA solicits comment on
this option.
2. 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
As described in section IX.B.4, EPA is considering an upgrade
option (``413 to 433 Upgrade Option'') which would bring into alignment
those facilities
[[Page 38802]]
currently required to meet the standards of the Electroplating effluent
limitations guidelines (ELGs) (40 CFR part 413) with those required to
meet the limitations and standards of the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR
part 433), rather than promulgating the MP&M limitations and standards
provided in today's document. EPA expects the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
would significantly reduce EPA's estimate of economic impacts while
achieving some environmental improvements over current conditions.
EPA estimates a total annual compliance cost of $1.4 million
(1999$) for the 278 indirect Metal Finishing Job Shop facilities
currently covered only by the Electroplating regulations (see Table
III.E-1 for national estimates) to comply with the 413 to 433 Upgrade
Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). Of the 278 Metal Finishing Job
Shop facilities regulated by part 413, EPA estimates that there would
be no baseline closures and 24 regulatory closures due to the 413 to
433 Upgrade Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). These compliance
costs are on average less than $5,600/year for each Metal Finishing Job
Shop facility that will upgrade from part 413 to 433. EPA also
estimates annual reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of
approximately 35,000 pound-equivalents (approximately 138 PE-removed/
facility-year). This would result in an approximate cost-effectiveness
number of $23/pound-equivalent removed (1981$). EPA solicits comment on
this option, including the difficulty in interpreting parts 413 and 433
applicability, cost of upgrading treatment systems, facility space
constraints, possible POTW burden, improvements to sludge quality, and
economic impacts.
EPA also notes that there was a group of facilities identified in
the original Electroplating effluent guidelines that received a reduced
set of limitations (i.e., fewer parameters and different controls on
cyanide) based on economic impacts (these facilities discharge less
than 10,000 gallons per day). EPA will assess the economic impact on
these facilities to determine if there is a need to reduce the economic
burden associated with this option, if chosen for the final regulation.
Table IX.B-3 provides EPA's national estimate of facilities that are
currently covered under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part
413) that discharge less than 10,000 gallons per day. EPA solicits
comment on these national estimates of facilities and their economic
condition.
3. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
EPA is reconsidering the use of a low flow cutoff for indirectly
discharging Metal Finishing Job Shops. In the proposal, EPA discussed
the use of a 1 million gallon per year low flow exclusion for these
sites (66 FR 466). However, at the time of proposal EPA did not select
this alternative because, based on the cost, pollutant reductions, and
economic impact estimates at the time, ``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.'' As discussed in section VII of today's
document, EPA's current estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and
economic impacts differ from those calculated for the proposal.
Therefore, EPA is reconsidering the use of a low flow cutoff at various
levels or other regulatory threshold (e.g., based on facility size such
as employment, production, or revenue) to provide relief to facilities
in this subcategory from significant economic impacts.
Table IX.C-1 below shows the national estimates of compliance costs
(1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic
impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981$/pound-equivalent removed) for
varying levels of flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the
Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory.
Table IX.C-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory (Not Including Zinc Platers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Severe
compliance Pollution economic Cost-
Flow cutoff Number of cost reductions impacts effectiveness
sites (1999$) (lb-eq) (facility (1981$/
(millions) closurs, %) lb.eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cutoff.................................... 1,165 151 93,190 508 (44%) 500
1 MGY........................................ 547 94 77,644 278 (51%) 383
2 MGY........................................ 421 80 73,324 176 (42%) 316
3 MGY........................................ 235 56 50,090 176 (75%) 282
6.25 MGY..................................... 142 43 47,953 117 186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that
close in the baseline and use all NODA changes in economic methodologies.
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
In the proposed rule, EPA set numerical limits and pretreatment
standards for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory based on Option 2
technology (see section IX.A above for description of Option 2). EPA
selected Option 2 based on the national estimates of costs, pollutant
removals, economic impacts, and environmental benefits as estimated at
the time of the proposal. These estimates have changed based on public
comments as described in previous sections of today's document.
Therefore, EPA is considering alternative options to reduce the
economic impact, and solicits comment on potential approaches.
1. No Further Regulation
EPA is considering the same types of alternative options for the
Printed Wiring Board Subcategory as it is for the Metal Finishing Job
Shops Subcategory. That is, EPA is considering a ``No Further
Regulation'' option and an option that would include the use of a low
flow cutoff (or other regulatory threshold) to reduce the economic
impacts estimated for this subcategory. EPA is also considering
clarifying the part 433 regulations to reduce the burden on permit
writers and upgrading all sites to meet the part 433 regulations.
EPA received many comments from industry and Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) that indirect discharging printed wiring board
sites are adequately regulated under the current regulations and that
local limitations can address water quality concerns in sensitive water
bodies. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and
pollutant
[[Page 38803]]
loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule, once
corrected for errors, would clearly demonstrate that the costs and
impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would not be justified.
As shown in section VII of today's document, EPA estimates severe
economic impacts (facility closures) for 62 of 840 (7%) indirect
dischargers (or when baseline closures are included, EPA estimates 10%
closures). EPA notes that the revised estimates of cost-effectiveness
for indirect dischargers are high as well ($455/pound-equivalent
removed). Based on EPA's revised estimates of costs, pollutant
removals, economic impacts and benefits discussed in section VII of
today's document, EPA is considering an option of no further regulation
for indirect dischargers in this subcategory for the final rule. EPA
solicits comment on this option.
2. 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
As described in Section IX.B.4, EPA is considering an upgrade
option (``413 to 433 Upgrade Option'') which would bring into alignment
those facilities currently required to meet the standards of the
Electroplating effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) (40 CFR part 413)
with those required to meet the limitations and standards of the Metal
Finishing ELGs (40 CFR part 433), rather than promulgating the MP&M
limitations and standards provided in today's document. EPA expects the
413 to 433 Upgrade Option would significantly reduce EPA's estimate of
economic impacts while achieving some environmental improvements over
current conditions.
EPA estimates a total annual compliance cost of $0.33 million
(1999$) for the 354 indirect Printed Wiring Board facilities currently
covered only by the Electroplating regulations (see Table III.E-1 for
national estimates) to comply with the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option (see
section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). Of the 354 Printed Wiring Board facilities
regulated by Part 413, EPA estimates that there would be three baseline
closures and 18 regulatory closures due to the 413 to 433 Upgrade
Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). These compliance costs are on
average less than $1,000/year for each Printed Wiring Board facility
that will upgrade from Part 413 to 433. EPA also estimates annual
reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of approximately 35,000
pound-equivalents (approximately 105 PE-removed/facility-year). This
would result in an approximate cost-effectiveness number of $6/pound-
equivalent removed (1981$). EPA solicits comment on this option,
including the difficulty in interpreting parts 413 and 433
applicability, cost of upgrading treatment systems, facility space
constraints, possible POTW burden, improvements to sludge quality, and
economic impacts.
EPA also notes that there was a group of facilities identified in
the original Electroplating effluent guidelines that received a reduced
set of limitations (i.e., fewer parameters and different controls on
cyanide) based on economic impacts (these facilities discharge less
than 10,000 gallons per day). EPA will assess the economic impact on
these facilities to determine if there is a need to reduce the economic
burden associated with this option, if chosen for the final regulation.
Table IX.B-3 provides EPA's national estimate of facilities that are
currently covered under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part
413) that discharge less than 10,000 gallons per day. EPA solicits
comment on these national estimates of facilities and their economic
condition.
3. Printed Wiring Board Direct Dischargers
In addition, EPA estimates no facility closures for direct
dischargers in this subcategory associated with estimated MP&M
compliance costs, however, based on today's revised analysis EPA
currently estimates only four direct discharge printed wiring board
facilities nationwide. Based on this revised estimate and the low level
of estimated pollutant removals for these sites (i.e., approximately
536 pounds of O&G and TSS, 12,000 pounds of COD, and 39 pounds of
toxics and non-conventional pollutants), EPA is considering whether or
not revised nationally-applicable regulations are necessary at this
time because of the small number of facilities in this subcategory. The
Agency concluded that the current limitations and the addition of
water-quality based local limits established for individual NPDES
permits may more appropriately address individual conventional, toxic
and nonconventional pollutants that may be present at these four
facilities.
4. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
As discussed in section IX.C above, EPA may also consider the use
of a low flow exclusion or other regulatory threshold to reduce
significant economic impacts; however, the Agency notes that based on
the analyses presented in today's document, the low flow cutoff does
not reduce the economic impacts to these sites. Table IX.D-1 below
summarizes the national estimates of compliance costs (1999$),
pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic impacts,
and cost-effectiveness (1981 $/pound-equivalent removed) for varying
levels of low flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the
Printed Wiring Board Subcategory.
Table IX.D-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe
economic
Number of Industry compliance Pollution reductions impacts Cost-
Flow cutoff sites cost (1999$) (millions) (lb-eq.) (facility effectiveness
closures, (1981$/lb.eq)
%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cutoff.................................................... 840 175 153,653 62 (7%) 455
1 MGY........................................................ 352 123 152,163 62 (18%) 447
2 MGY........................................................ 263 111 143,464 62 (24%) 439
3 MGY........................................................ 213 103 138,152 37 (17%) 364
6.25 MGY..................................................... 173 94 129,813 31 (18%) 337
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that close in the baseline and use all NODA
changes in economic methodologies.
[[Page 38804]]
E. Oily Wastes Subcategory
In the proposed rule, EPA set numerical limits and pretreatment
standards for the Oily Wastes Subcategory based on Option 6 technology,
including a low flow exclusion of 2 million gallons per year (MGY) or
less for indirect discharging facilities. EPA based Option 6 on in-
process flow control, pollution prevention, and oil-water separation by
chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity separation and oil
skimming. EPA selected Option 6 limitations and standards based on the
national estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and
environmental benefits estimated at the time of the proposal. These
estimates have changed based on public comments as described in
previous sections of today's document. In addition, as discussed in
section III.A.1 of today's document, the number of Oily Wastes
facilities, prior to a low flow exclusion, has increased from
approximately 29,000 facilities to nearly 44,000 facilities due to the
change in EPA's subcategorization scheme and the change to the
definition of ``oily operations'' (see section IV.A for the revised
definition). EPA is considering alternative options to reduce the
burden on POTWs. EPA solicits comment on the following potential
approaches.
1. No Regulation or No Further Regulation
EPA estimated at proposal that less than 1 percent of the
facilities in the Oily Wastes Subcategory are regulated by existing
ELGs. EPA received many comments from industry and Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) that these facilities are adequately regulated
under the current ELGs or that local limits can address water quality
concerns in sensitive water bodies. Commenters concluded that the
environmental impacts and pollutant loading reductions that would be
achieved by the MP&M rule, once corrected for errors, would clearly
demonstrate that the costs and impacts associated with the MP&M
regulation would not be justified.
As discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current
estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ
from those calculated for the proposal. Briefly, EPA estimates that
compliance with the revised limitations and standards would result in
facility closures for 1 of 288 (0.3%) indirect dischargers. The revised
estimates cost-effectiveness for indirect dischargers increased to
$2,963/pound-equivalent removed. Based on EPA's revised estimates of
costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts and benefits discussed in
section VII of today's document, EPA is again considering an option of
no regulation or no further regulation for indirect dischargers in this
subcategory for the final rule. EPA solicits comment on this option.
2. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
EPA proposed a low flow exclusion for indirect discharge facilities
in the Oily Wastes Subcategory based on the large burden to permit
writers and the small number of pound-equivalents that would be removed
by facilities with annual wastewater flows of less than or equal to 2
MGY (66 FR 470). For the final rule, based on these same
considerations, EPA is considering whether it either should not
establish pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers or limit the
applicability of the standard by increasing the flow cutoff. EPA notes
that for all levels of low flow exclusions presented in today's
document for these sites, the pollutant reductions (in pound-
equivalents) per facility per year are low. Specifically, the 6.25 MGY
flow cut-off results in 13 pound-equivalents/facility-yr, which is
lower than those projected for the Industrial Laundries ELG and the
Landfills ELG, for which EPA determined national regulations were not
warranted. These low pollutant reductions per facility per year may not
justify the additional permitting burden associated with these
facilities. POTWs commenting on the proposed rule have stated that even
with a low flow exclusion they would still incur increased burden when
trying to identify those facilities above and below the low flow
cutoff. In addition, POTWs can set local limits to control the small
quantity of pollutants being discharged from the oily wastes facilities
in their jurisdiction. EPA solicits comment on this option.
Table IX.E-1 below summarizes the national estimates of compliance
costs (1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year),
economic impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981 $/pound-equivalent
removed) for varying levels of low flow cutoff for indirect discharge
facilities in the Oily Wastes Subcategory.
Table IX.E-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for Indirect Dischargers in the Oily Wastes Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
Number of Industry compliance Pollutant reductions Severe economic impacts effectiveness
Flow cutoff sites cost (1999$) (millions) (lb-eq.) (facility closures) (1981 $/
lb.eq.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 MGY............................................ 288 85 14,385 1 2,963
3 MGY............................................ 233 45 7,941 0 2,781
6.25 MGY......................................... 146 23 1,903 0 2,037
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that close in the baseline and use all NODA
changes in economic methodologies.
F. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
In the proposed rule, EPA set numerical limitations and standards
for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory based on Option 10
technology. EPA based Option 10 on the end-of-pipe treatment
technologies included in Option 9 (chemical emulsion breaking followed
by DAF) plus in-process flow control and pollution prevention
technologies, which allow for recovery and reuse of materials along
with water conservation. EPA selected Option 10 limitations and
standards based on the national estimates of costs, pollutant removals,
economic impacts, and environmental benefits estimated at the time of
the proposal. These estimates have changed based on public comments as
described in previous sections of today's document. Therefore, EPA is
considering alternative options to reduce the burden on POTWs. EPA
solicits comment on the following potential approaches.
1. Options for Changing BPT and BAT Technologies
As discussed in section II.B of today's document, EPA received
comment and data from the American Association of
[[Page 38805]]
Railroads (AAR) on the direct discharge railroad line maintenance
facilities (see section 15.1 of the public record for the AAR surveys).
EPA is reviewing alternative options for these facilities in the
Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory based on this data. In the
proposal (66 FR 458), EPA estimated that 91 percent of the estimated 34
direct discharge railroad line maintenance facilities utilized
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) at their sites. Therefore, EPA based the
BPT and BAT limitations on DAF technology plus in-process pollution
prevention techniques. However, commentors provided data confirming 28
direct discharging railroad line maintenance sites (27 sites from the
AAR survey and one site from EPA's sampling program (Episode 6179)), of
which only five are currently employing DAF technology. According to
this data, the prevalent technology at these sites is oil-water
separation. Therefore, in light of this new data, EPA is considering
changing the basis of the BPT and BAT limitations to oil-water
separation technology such as chemical emulsion breaking followed by
oil skimming (i.e., proposed technology Option 6). This is the
technology that EPA proposed for the Oily Wastes Subcategory.
EPA intends to analyze Option 6 for the direct discharge facilities
in the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory for the final rule. Once
EPA has estimated costs of compliance, pollutant reductions achieved,
economic impacts, cost-effectiveness, and environmental benefits
associated with this option for the final rule, the Agency will then
determine if this option is economically achievable and if the costs
are justified by the environmental improvements.
2. Railroad Overhaul/Rebuilding Operations Facilities
EPA noted in the proposal that the Railroad Line Maintenance
Subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing operations or
railroad overhaul/rebuilding facilities (66 FR 442). EPA identified 5
facilities in the General Metals Subcategory and 11 facilities in the
Oily Waste Subcategory as definitely performing railroad overhaul/
rebuilding operations. EPA also identified 111 other facilities that
may be performing railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations (see section
16.1, DCN 17755). EPA solicits comment on EPA's estimate of facilities
performing railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations and an appropriate
definition for ``railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations.'' AAR
concluded that there are fewer than 10 of these facilities performing
railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations in the United States and that
all are indirect dischargers. AAR further states that these facilities
are already sufficiently regulated by their respective POTWs (see
section 15.1, DCN 30300.A3; section 12.4.3, DCN 17785).
If in the final rule EPA were to agree with the AAR estimate of
facilities performing railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations, EPA may
consider whether or not revised nationally-applicable regulations are
necessary at this time for facilities performing railroad overhaul/
rebuilding operations because of the small number of these facilities
(i.e., AAR estimate is less than 10). EPA solicits comment on whether
current limitations, standards, and POTW local controls with the
addition of water-quality based local limits established for individual
NPDES permits (either for the POTWs accepting indirect discharges from
these facilities or for any direct dischargers) may more appropriately
address individual conventional, toxic and nonconventional pollutants
that may be present at these facilities.
G. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
In the proposed rule EPA proposed numerical limitations and
pretreatment standards for the Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
based on Option 2 technology (see section IX.A above for description of
Option 2). EPA selected Option 2 technology based on the national
estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and
environmental benefits as determined at the time of the proposal. These
estimates have changed based on public comments and additional data
collection as described in previous sections of today's document.
Therefore, EPA is considering alternative options to reduce the
economic impact, and solicits comment on potential approaches.
1. No Further Regulation
EPA estimated at proposal that all facilities in this subcategory
have permits or other control mechanisms under the existing Iron and
Steel Manufacturing regulation (40 CFR part 420). EPA received many
comments from industry and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that
these facilities are adequately regulated under the current ELGs or
that local limits can address water quality concerns in sensitive water
bodies. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and
pollutant loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule,
once based on data from sampling SFF sites, would clearly demonstrate
that the costs and impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would
not be justified.
As discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current
estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ
from those calculated for the proposal. Briefly, EPA estimates that
compliance with the revised limitations and standards would result in
facility closures for 7 of 41 (17%) direct dischargers and for 10 of
112 (9%) indirect dischargers. The revised estimates of cost-
effectiveness for indirect dischargers increased to $153/pound-
equivalent removed. The estimate of cost-reasonableness for direct
dischargers is $28/pound-conventional pollutants (O&G + TSS). Based on
EPA's revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts
and benefits discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA is again
considering an option of no further regulation for direct and indirect
dischargers in this subcategory for the final rule. An EPA decision not
to promulgate further regulations would be based on a determination
that the regulations were not economically achievable. If EPA were to
select the ``no further regulation'' option, the facilities in this
subcategory would continue to be regulated by the Iron and Steel ELGs
(40 CFR part 420). EPA solicits comment on this option.
3. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
EPA is reconsidering the use of a low flow cutoff used for
indirectly discharging Steel Forming & Finishing facilities. As
discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current estimates
of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ from those
calculated for the proposal. Therefore, EPA is reconsidering the use of
a low flow cutoff at various levels or other regulatory threshold
(e.g., based on facility size such as employment, production, or
revenue) to provide relief to indirect dischargers in this subcategory
from significant economic impacts.
Table IX.G-1 below shows the national estimates of compliance costs
(1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic
impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981$/pound-equivalent removed) for
varying levels of flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the
Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory.
[[Page 38806]]
Table IX.G-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
Number of Industry compliance Pollutant reductions Severe economic effectiveness
Flow cutoff sites cost (1999$) (millions) (lb-eq.) impacts (facility (1981$/
closures, %) lb.eq.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cutoff........................................ 112 22.1 61,015 10 (9%) 153
1 MGY............................................ 90 20.9 60,733 10 (11%) 141
2 MGY............................................ 77 19.1 59,418 10 (13%) 131
3 MGY............................................ 74 19.0 59,383 7 (9%) 126
6.25 MGY......................................... 54 16.0 47,671 7 (13%) 117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that close in the baseline and use all NODA
changes in economic methodologies.
X. Solicitation of Comment
The following discussion summarizes those issues raised by new
information and comments on the proposal for which EPA is requesting
comment.
1. Zinc Platers. EPA solicits comment on whether EPA should: (1)
Establish a separate subcategory for zinc platers; (2) further
subcategorize the proposed subcategories to provide a segment for zinc
platers; or (3) retain the proposed subcategorization scheme but
establish a zinc limitation based on data specific to zinc platers. EPA
also solicits comment on the burden to permit writers and control
authorities associated with each approach.
2. Subcategorization of Unit Operations. EPA solicits comment on
the methodology for subcategorization of unit operation concentrations
used for today's document.
3. Boron Removals. EPA solicits comment on the approach used to
estimate boron removals.
4. Molybdenum Removals. EPA received comments regarding the
selection of molybdenum as a regulated pollutant. Similar to the
comments on tin, the comments revolved around whether or not molybdenum
can be precipitated using hydroxide precipitation as is used in EPA's
proposed BAT technology. EPA has reviewed literature to find out
whether or not molybdenum will precipitate using either hydroxide or
sulfide precipitation, and has found that molybdenum does not form
metal hydroxide precipitates (see memorandum titled ``Molybdenum,''
section 16.2, DCN 17754). The sampled hydroxide precipitation treatment
systems did not show a consistent ability to remove molybdenum from
waste water. Molybdenum is, however, present in waste waters as
described above and is removed incidentally in waste treatment systems.
EPA is reviewing the removal mechanisms for molybdenum. EPA is
considering not regulating molybdenum in the final rule but is
considering taking credit for incidental removals. EPA solicits comment
on this change.
5. EPA solicits comment on EPA's current method for imputing
missing flow and production.
6. EPA Sensitivity Analyses. EPA is soliciting comment on the
sensitivity analyses described in Section III.E. These sensitivity
analysis examine baseline pollutant loadings and facilities that do not
report treatment-in-place and may have low concentration raw wastewater
characteristics.
7. Numbers of facilities currently regulated. EPA solicits comment
on its estimates of the numbers of facilities currently regulated by
the part 413, part 433, or both regulations (see Table III.E-1).
8. Low Concentration Facilities. EPA is soliciting data at the unit
operation level from ``low concentration'' facilities that do not
currently have treatment for metal-bearing wastewaters on-site. In
addition, EPA is soliciting comment on how to address these facilities
in the analysis of pollutant loadings and reductions.
9. Monitoring Costs. EPA is using a cost of $13,400 per facility to
incorporate monitoring costs for the pollutants not already regulated
under the Metal Finishing regulations. EPA solicits comment on the
Agency's cost estimates for compliance monitoring used in today's
document.
10. Addition of a Sand Filter for Metal-Bearing Subcategories. EPA
solicits comment on the addition of a sand filter to the BAT proposed
technology option for metal-bearing subcategories and on the sand
filter cost module and national cost estimates for Option 2 + Sand
Filter. EPA also solicits comments on whether the addition of a sand
filter is necessary for facilities to achieve the revised limits
consistently and the economic achievability of this option.
11. Oily Operations Definition. EPA solicits comment on the
intended additions to the definition of oily operations. Also, EPA did
not include paint stripping due to the elevated levels of metal
constituents from these sources that are contained in EPA's sampling
data. However, EPA solicits comment on whether paint stripping for non-
lead based paints should be included in the definition of oily
operations. EPA also solicits comment on the definition for iron
phosphate conversion coating and on the need for a definition for ``wet
air pollution control for organic constituents'' to distinguish it from
wet air pollution control for metals or particulates.
12. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory--Changes to Applicability. EPA
solicits comment on these intended revisions to the codified
applicability language used to include printed wiring board job shops
and whether EPA should include a definition to identify printed wiring
assembly facilities in the General Metals Subcategory applicability
statement.
13. Treatability of Tin, Molybdenum, Manganese. EPA solicits
comment and data on the removal of tin, molybdenum, and manganese
through chemical precipitation and other possible removal mechanisms.
EPA also solicits on EPA's intention to possibly exclude these
pollutants from regulation.
14. Total Sulfide. EPA solicits comment on the intention to not
regulate total sulfide for the metal-bearing subcategories. EPA also
solicits comment on the most appropriate analytical method for total
sulfide.
15. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory. EPA solicits comment on
the pollutants selected for regulation for the Steel Forming &
Finishing Subcategory. EPA also solicits comment on the inclusion of
the continuous electroplating operations on steel sheet and strip into
the MP&M regulation.
16. Calculation of the Total Organics Parameter. EPA solicits
comment on alternative approaches the Agency is considering for
calculating the Total Organics Parameter (TOP). EPA also
[[Page 38807]]
solicits comment from facilities as to when they would choose to
monitor for the TOP list of pollutants rather than design and implement
a best management plan for their organic chemicals. Finally, EPA
solicits comment, especially from permit writers and control
authorities, on whether the Agency should provide guidance to permit
writers on how to develop a facility-specific TOP limit for facilities
that choose the TOP limit as their method for complying (as opposed to
meeting a limit for total organic carbon or implementing the best
management plan).
17. Validation Study for Seven Organic Pollutants. EPA is
soliciting comment on the validation studies for six semivolatile
organic pollutants (aniline, 3,6-dimethylphenanthrene, 2-
isopropylnaphthalene, 1-methylfluorene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and 1-
methylphenanthrene) and one volatile organic pollutant (carbon
disulfide) to EPA Methods 624 and 1624B and EPA Methods 625 and 1625.
18. New Source Limits Set Equal to Existing Source Limits. EPA
solicits comment on basing the new source standards (NSPS and PSNS) for
the metal-bearing subcategories for the final rule on the same
technology option as used for the existing source limits and standards
( i.e., Option 2). EPA notes that after the compliance deadline has
passed, having new source limitations equal to existing source
limitations will reduce the need for new source determinations by
permit writers and control authorities.
19. EMS Alternative for General Metals Facilities. EPA solicits
comment on the industry suggested EMS Alternative and EPA's amendments
(see section IX.B).
20. No Regulation Options. EPA solicits comment on the ``no further
regulation'' option considered for indirect discharge Metal Finishing
Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, General Metals, Zinc Platers, and
Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories. EPA solicits comment on the
option that would bring into alignment those facilities in the
previously mentioned subcategories (including General Metals), direct
or indirect, which are currently unregulated or required to meet the
standards of the Electroplating effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs)
(40 CFR part 413) with those required to meet the limitations and
standards of the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR part 433), without
requiring the MP&M limitations and standards provided in today's
document. EPA also solicits comment on whether this would better
clarify implementation issues for control authorities. EPA solicits
comment on the estimate of sites currently regulated under the part 413
regulations with less than 10,000 gallons per day of process wastewater
flow and the economic condition of these facilities. In addition, EPA
solicits comment on a ``no regulation'' option for indirect discharge
sites in the Oily Wastes Subcategory.
21. Inclusion or Change to the Low Flow Cutoff. EPA solicits
comment on the possible changes discussed to include a low flow cutoff
for indirect discharge sites in the Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories and to change
the level of the proposed low flow cutoff for the indirect discharge
sites in the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories. EPA is also
requesting comment on other possible types of regulatory threshold that
could be used to reduce economic impacts on these facilities and on the
ability of permit writers and control authorities to implement other
thresholds.
22. Commentors on the MP&M proposal stated that many source water
suppliers have recently begun adding chemicals to the water to reduce
corrosion and leaching of metals from piping into the water, which may
increase concentrations of other metals in the raw water. For example,
many water suppliers now add zinc phosphate compounds to reduce
leaching of copper and lead from piping. If the comments were correct
in their assertions that more concentrated influent is associated with
higher effluent levels, EPA would expect to see upward trends for both
the influent and effluent long-term averages. In general, EPA did not
find any evidence of such trends or any patterns in the influent.
Rather, EPA noted that the lowest and highest influent values were
associated with the lowest effluent values. EPA modeling currently
predicts that a slightly higher metal influent concentrations should
not affect effluent metal concentrations for properly operated BAT
metals treatment systems. EPA solicits comment on whether or not EPA
needs to account for elevated metals concentrations in source water and
possible ways to account for this source water concentrations in its
analysis. EPA also solicits comment on its proposal to allow MP&M
indirect discharge facilities to apply for a waiver that would allow
them to reduce their monitoring burden (see 66 FR 509). EPA proposed
that 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.
23. EPA is considering a revised methodology that will take into
account both the hexavalent chromium converted in chrome reduction
treatment and the trivalent chromium removed end-of-pipe in future
estimates of chromium toxic pound-equivalents removed. For this
methodology, the hexavalent chromium toxic weighting factor (TWF), not
the trivalent chromium TWF, will be applied to the amount of hexavalent
chromium that is converted to trivalent chromium in chrome reduction
treatment. The toxic pound-equivalents removed by the chrome reduction
treatment system will be equal to the toxic pound-equivalents of
hexavalent chromium converted, minus the toxic-pound equivalents of
trivalent chromium formed. The toxic pound-equivalents removed by the
end-of-pipe treatment system will be equal to the toxic pound-
equivalents of trivalent chromium removed in the end-of pipe treatment
system. The total toxic-pound equivalents of chromium removed in
treatment will be equal to the toxic-pound equivalents converted by
chrome reduction treatment plus the toxic-pound equivalents removed by
the end-of pipe treatment system. EPA is considering similar
methodology changes in cyanide treatment for total and amenable
cyanide. EPA solicits comments on these possible changes in
methodologies for the final rule.
24. EPA solicits comment on the revised number of direct
dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. At proposal EPA
estimated no direct dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. After re-analysis of the wastewater disposal methods
reported in survey questionnaires, EPA now estimates 35 direct
dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
25. EPA solicits comment on how it enumerates direct and indirect
discharging facilities. Currently, EPA labels facilities as direct
dischargers if any of their wastewater effluent is discharged directly
to surface waters of the United States. In particular, EPA solicits
comments on how to handle facilities that are both indirect and direct
dischargers.
26. EPA solicits comment on EPA's approach for the development of
preliminary revised limitations and standards presented in section VIII
of today's document.
[[Page 38808]]
Dated: May 24, 2002.
Diane C. Regas,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-13808 Filed 6-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P