[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5464-5506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-47]




[[Page 5463]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 437



_______________________________________________________________________



Centralized Waste Treatment Category, Effluent Limitations Guidelines; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / January, 27, 1995 / Proposed 
Rules   
[[Page 5464]] 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 437

[FRL-5126-9]
RIN 2040-AB78


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards: Centralized Waste Treatment Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed regulation would establish technology-based 
limits for the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the 
United States and into publicly-owned treatment works by existing and 
new facilities that receive industrial waste from off-site for 
treatment or recovery. This regulation will reduce the discharge of 
pollutants by at least 123 million pounds per year, reducing excursions 
of aquatic life and/or human health toxic effect levels in thirty 
waterbodies. As a result of consultation with stakeholders, the 
preamble solicits comments and data not only on issues raised by EPA, 
but also on those raised by State and local governments who will be 
implementing these regulations and by industry representatives who will 
be affected by them.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by April 27, 1995.
    In addition, EPA will conduct a workshop covering this rulemaking, 
in conjunction with a public hearing on the pretreatment standards 
portion of the rule. The workshop will be held on March 24, 1995, from 
8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The public hearing will be conducted from 11 
a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to Ms. Debra DiCianna, 
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 911 East Tower, U.S. EPA, 401 
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. The public record is in the Water 
Docket located in the basement of the EPA Headquarters building, Room 
L102, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number (202) 
260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call for an 
appointment between the hours of 9 am and 3:30 pm, before visiting the 
docket. The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2 provide that a reasonable 
fee may be charged for copying.
    The workshop and public hearing covering the rulemaking will be 
held in the Lake Michigan Conference Room at the U.S. EPA Region V 
Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL. Persons wishing to 
present formal comments at the public hearing should have a written 
copy for submittal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information 
contact Ms. Debra DiCianna at (202) 260-7141. Additional economic 
information may be obtained by contacting Ms. Susan M. Burris at (202) 
260-5379. Background documents supporting the proposed regulations are 
described in the ``Background Documents'' section below. Many of the 
documents are also available from the Office of Water Resource Center, 
RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
(202) 260-7786 for the voice mail publication request line.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

    The preamble describes the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations 
used in this notice; the background documents that support these 
proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of 
the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic 
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This 
preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.

Organization of This Document

Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Background Documents

Legal Authority

I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed Regulation
    A. Background
    B. The Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
    C. Scope
    D. Proposed Limitations and Standards
II. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Summary of Public Participation
    C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
III. Description of the Industry
    A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities
    B. Waste Treatment Processes
IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
    A. EPA Initial Efforts to Develop Guidelines for the Waste 
Treatment Industry
    B. Wastewater Sampling Program
    C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire
    D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
V. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    A. Industry Subcategorization
    B. Characterization of Wastewater
    C. Pollutants Not Regulated
    D. Available Technologies
    E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed Regulations
    F. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation
    G. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Limitations for BPT
    H. Regulatory Implementation
VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative
    A. Costs
    B. Pollutant Reductions
    C. Economic Impact Assessment
    D. Water Quality Analysis
    E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket and Public Record
    B. Clean Water Act Procedural Requirements
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Executive Order 12875
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

    Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Average monthly discharge limitation--The highest allowable average 
of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of 
all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar month divided by 
the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during the month.
    BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as 
described in Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
    BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as 
described in Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
    BOD5--Biochemical oxygen demand--Five Day. A measure of 
biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It is 
determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by microorganisms 
to oxidize the organic contaminants in a water sample under standard 
laboratory conditions of five days and 70  deg.C. BOD5 is not 
related to the oxygen requirements in chemical combustion.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently available, 
as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    Centralized waste treatment facility--Any facility that treats any 
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-site by 
tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, or other forms of 
shipment. A ``centralized waste treatment facility'' includes (1) a 
facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively and (2) a 
facility that [[Page 5465]] treats wastes generated on-site as well as 
waste received from off-site.
    Centralized waste treatment wastewater--Water that comes in contact 
with wastes received from off-site for treatment or recovery or that 
comes in contact with the area in which the off-site wastes are 
received, stored or collected.
    Clarifier--A treatment unit designed to remove suspended materials 
from wastewater--typically by sedimentation.
    COD--Chemical oxygen demand. A bulk parameter that measures the 
oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory organic and inorganic matter 
present in water or wastewater. COD is expressed as the amount of 
oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test.
    Commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site for 
treatment from facilities not under the same ownership as their 
facility.
    Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in Sec. 
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, fecal 
coliform, and pH).
    CWA--Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, by 
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water Quality 
Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4). CWT--Centralized Waste Treatment.
    Daily discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during any 
calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a 
calendar day.
    Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
    Effluent--Wastewater discharges.
    Effluent limitation--Any restriction, including schedules of 
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, 
rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other 
constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable 
waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean. (CWA Sections 
301(b) and 304(b).)
    EIA--Economic Impact Analysis.
    EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated, 
leased or under the control of the same person. The contiguous property 
may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
    Fuel Blending--The process of mixing organic waste for the purpose 
of generating a fuel for reuse.
    Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
    LTA--Long-term average. For purposes of the effluent guidelines, 
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a facility, 
subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in developing the 
limitations and standards in today's proposed regulation.
    Metal-bearing wastes--Wastes that contain metal pollutants from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. 
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following: 
process wastewater, process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills 
and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.
    Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives 
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
    Mixed Commercial/Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept 
some waste from off-site for treatment from facilities not under the 
same ownership, and some waste from off-site for treatment from 
facilities under the same ownership as their facility.
    New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29.
    Non-commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site 
for treatment only from facilities under the same ownership as their 
facility.
    Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR 
Section 401.
    Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported below 
the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be measured by 
the analytical method for the pollutant.
    Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact of 
a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
    NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
authorized under Sec. 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for 
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United 
States.
    NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
    OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 
Manufacturing Effluent Guideline.
    Off-Site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    Oily Wastes--Wastes that contain oil and grease from manufacturing 
or processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes 
may include, but are not limited to, the following: spent lubricants, 
cleaning fluids, process wastewater, process residuals such as tank 
bottoms or stills and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as 
treatment sludges.
    Oligopoly--A market structure with few competitors, in which each 
producer is aware of his competitors' actions and has a significant 
influence on market price and quantity.
    On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
    Organic-bearing Wastes--Wastes that contain organic pollutants from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. 
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, process wastewater, 
process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater 
treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.
    Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which 
a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
    Pipeline--``Pipeline'' means an open or closed conduit used for the 
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube, 
trench or ditch.
    Point source category--A category of sources of water pollutants.
    Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator 
residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, 
chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive materials, 
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and 
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
    POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR 
403.3(0).
    Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial 
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA 
Section 307(b).)
    Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as priority 
in 40 CFR part 423, appendix A.
    Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR 
122.2.
    PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
    PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307 (b) and (c) of the CWA.
    RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) of 1976, 
as amended.
    SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical 
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or group 
of products, produced or distributed, or to services 
[[Page 5466]] rendered by an operating establishment. SIC codes are 
used to group establishments by the economic activities in which they 
are engaged. SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, 
tertiary, etc. economic activities.
    Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than $6 
million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of small 
business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1, Sec. 121.601).
    Solidification--The addition of agents to convert liquid or semi-
liquid hazardous waste to a solid before burial to reduce the leaching 
of the waste material and the possible migration of the waste or its 
constituent from the facility. The process is usually accompanied by 
stabilization.
    Stabilization--A hazardous waste process that decreases the 
mobility of waste constituents by means other than solidification. 
Stabilization techniques include mixing the waste with sorbents such as 
fly ash to remove free liquids. For the purpose of this rule, chemical 
precipitation is not a technique for stabilization.
    TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of particulate 
matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure is obtained by 
filtering a water sample of known volume. The particulate material 
retained on the filter is then dried and weighed.
    Variability factor--The daily variability factor is the ratio of 
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values 
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution of 
the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated 95th 
percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the data 
divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
    Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery. Waters of 
the United States--The same meaning set forth in 40 CFR 122.2.
    Zero discharge--No discharge of pollutants to waters of the United 
States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are discharge of 
pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site 
transfer, and land application.

Background Documents

    The regulations proposed today are supported by several major 
documents. (1) EPA's technical conclusions concerning the wastewater 
regulations are detailed in the ``Development Document for Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry,'' hereafter referred to as the Technical 
Development Document (EPA-821-R-95-006). (2) Detailed documentation of 
the procedure and equations used for costing the technology options is 
included in the ``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry,'' hereafter referred to as the Costing Document 
(EPA-821-R-95-002). (3) The Agency's economic analysis is found in the 
``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' hereafter 
called the Economic Impact Analysis (EPA-821-R-95-001). (4) The 
Agency's assessment of environmental benefits is detailed in the 
``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' hereafter called the 
Environmental Assessment (EPA-821-R-95-003). (5) An analysis of the 
incremental costs and pollutant removals for the effluent regulations 
is presented in ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry,'' hereafter called the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 
(EPA-821-R-95-004). (6) The methodology used for calculating 
limitations is discussed in the ``Statistical Support Document for 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' hereafter referred to as the 
Statistical Support Document (EPA-821-R-95-005).

Legal Authority

    These regulations are being proposed under the authority of 
Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

I. Summary and Scope of the Proposed Regulation

A. Background

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters.'' Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a). To achieve 
this goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
attacks the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. 
Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the 
types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, 
commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which 
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) (Section 307 (b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1317 (b) & (c)). 
National pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or 
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are 
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial 
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, 
POTWs are required to implement local treatment limits applicable to 
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements 
(40 CFR 403.5).
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits; 
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These 
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories 
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that 
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology. 
In addition, pretreatment standards must be established for those 
pollutants which are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs or which 
would interfere with POTW operations (CWA Sections 301(b), 304(b), 306, 
307 (b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and 1317 (b)-(d)).
    Today's proposal represents the Agency's first attempt to develop 
national guidelines that establish effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards for new and existing dischargers from the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. EPA estimates that the regulation 
being proposed today would reduce the discharge of conventional, 
priority, and non-conventional pollutants by at least 123 million 
pounds per year. EPA performed an analysis of the water quality 
benefits that would be derived from this proposal and predicts that 
contributions by centralized waste treatment facilities to current 
excursions of aquatic life and/or human health toxic effect levels 
would be eliminated for twenty streams and reduced for ten others. EPA 
also projects through modeling that eleven of the seventeen POTWs 
expected to experience inhibition of treatment due to 
[[Page 5467]] centralized treatment facilities would no longer 
experience inhibition from these sources.

B. The Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

    The adoption of the increased pollution control measures required 
by CWA and RCRA requirements had a number of ancillary effects, one of 
which has been the formation and development of a waste treatment 
industry. Several factors have contributed to the growth of this 
industry. Thus, for example, in order to comply with CWA discharge 
limits, categorical industries have installed new (or upgraded 
existing) wastewater treatment facilities in order to treat their 
process wastewater. But the wastewater treatment may produce a residual 
sludge which itself may require further treatment before disposal under 
EPA RCRA requirements. Furthermore, many industrial process by-products 
now are either RCRA listed or characteristic hazardous wastes which 
require special handling or treatment before disposal.
    A manufacturing facility's options for managing these wastes 
include on-site treatment with its other wastes or sending them off-
site. Because a large number of operations have chosen to send their 
wastes off-site, specialized facilities have developed whose sole 
commercial operations are the handling of wastewater treatment 
residuals and industrial process by-products. Moreover, some industrial 
operations also have chosen to accept wastes from off-site for 
treatment in their on-site facilities. Further, there are some 
commercial facilities to which wastes are piped for treatment. Other 
wastes go to landfills or incinerators for disposal.
    The waste treatment industry includes facilities which receive both 
hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste. These facilities receive 
a variety of wastes for treatment and recovery of waste components. 
Among these wastes are wastewater treatment sludges, process residuals, 
tank bottoms, off-spec products, and wastes generated from clean-up 
activities. Some facilities may also treat industrial process 
wastewater with these wastes.
    In the early 1990's, this industry experienced a slow down because 
many existing facilities were designed to handle larger quantities than 
the market produced. Reduced economic activity generally in combination 
with pollution prevention measures resulted in a decrease in the amount 
of waste sent off-site for treatment. As a result, competition among 
facilities increased resulting in facilities operating below capacity 
and experiencing economic and financial difficulties. This may be 
changing at the present. Recently, participants in the March 1994 
public meeting for this proposal stated that the industry is 
experiencing new growth due to increasing environmental regulations. 
The Agency solicits information and data on the current size of the 
industry and trends related to the growth or decline in need for the 
services provided by these facilities.

C. Scope

    Today's proposal would establish discharge limitations and 
standards for discharges from those facilities which the rule defines 
as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' The facilities which are 
covered by this guideline include stand-alone waste treatment and 
recovery facilities which treat waste received from off-site. 
``Centralized waste treatment facilities'' also include treatment 
systems which treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes 
received from off-site. However, the rule does not apply to facilities 
which receive wastes from off-site by pipeline from the original source 
of waste generation.
    Centralized waste treatment facilities include the following: (1) 
Commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for treatment 
from facilities not under the same ownership as the treating facility; 
(2) non-commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for 
treatment only from facilities under the same ownership (intra-company 
transfer); or (3) mixed commercial/non-commercial facilities that 
accept some waste from off-site for treatment from facilities not under 
the same ownership and some waste from facilities under the same 
ownership.
    This summary section highlights the technology bases and other key 
aspects of the proposed rule. The technology descriptions in this 
section are presented in abbreviated form; more detailed descriptions 
are included in the Technical Development Document and Section V.E. 
Today's proposal presents the Agency's recommended regulatory approach 
as well as other options considered by EPA. The Agency's recommended 
approach for establishing discharge limitations is based on a detailed 
evaluation of the available data. As indicated below in the discussion 
of the specifics of the proposal, the Agency welcomes comment on all 
options and issues and encourages commenters to submit additional data 
during the comment period. Also, the Agency plans additional 
discussions with interested parties during the comment period to ensure 
that the Agency has the views of all parties and the best possible data 
upon which to base a decision for the final regulation. EPA's final 
regulation may be based upon any technologies, rationale or approaches 
that are a logical outgrowth of this proposal and public comments, 
including any options considered but not selected for today's proposed 
regulation.
    In today's notice, EPA is proposing for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Point Source Category effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards based on BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for new and 
existing facilities that are engaged in the treatment of industrial 
waste from off-site facilities.
    The proposed regulation today applies to the following activities:
     Subcategory A: Discharges from operations which treat, or 
treat and recover metals from, metal-bearing waste received from off-
site,
     Subcategory B: Discharges from operations which treat, or 
treat and recover oil from, oily waste received from off-site, and
     Subcategory C: Discharges from operations which treat, or 
treat and recover organics from, other organic- bearing waste received 
from off-site.
    Facilities subject to the guidelines and standards would include 
facilities whose exclusive operation is the treatment of off-site 
generated industrial waste as well as industrial or manufacturing 
facilities that also accept waste from off-site for centralized 
treatment. A further discussion of the types of waste included in each 
subcategory is included in the Technical Development Document and 
Section III.B. of this notice.
    The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards are 
intended to cover wastewater discharges resulting from treatment of, or 
recovery of components from, hazardous and non- hazardous industrial 
waste received from off-site facilities by tanker truck, trailer/roll-
off bins, drums, barges, or other forms of shipment. Any discharges 
generated from the treatment of wastes received through an open or 
enclosed conduit (e.g., pipeline, channels, ditches, and trenches, 
etc.) from the original source of waste generation are not included in 
the regulation. However, discharges generated from the treatment of CWT 
wastes received by pipeline from a facility acting as an intermediate 
collection point for CWT wastes received from off-site would be subject 
to the proposed requirements. Based on information collected in the 
1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and discussions with 
operators of waste treatment facilities, EPA has concluded that 
facilities which [[Page 5468]] receive all their wastes through a 
pipeline or trench from the original source of waste generation are 
receiving continuous flows of process wastewater with relatively 
consistent pollutant profiles. In the case of these treatment 
facilities, the process wastewater flows in virtually all cases would 
be subject to categorical regulations if discharged from the original 
point of waste generation. However, these companies, instead of 
discharging to a surface water or POTW, discharge process wastewater to 
a ``centralized pipeline'' facility. EPA has concluded that the 
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for centralized waste 
treatment facilities should not apply to such pipeline treatment 
facilities because their wastes differ fundamentally from those 
received at centralized waste treatment facilities. In large part, the 
waste streams received at centralized waste treatment facilities are 
more concentrated and variable, including sludges, tank bottoms, off-
spec products, and process residuals. The limitations and standards 
developed for centralized waste treatment facilities, in turn, reflect 
the types of waste streams being treated and are necessarily different 
from those promulgated for discharges resulting from the treatment of 
process wastewater for categorical industries. However, this proposed 
pipeline exclusion would not apply to facilities which receive waste 
via conduit (i.e., pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from facilities 
that are acting merely as waste collection centers that are not the 
original source of the waste generation.
    In evaluating the current operation and performance of centralized 
waste treatment facilities, the Agency is concerned about the effective 
management of such highly-concentrated waste streams. Due to the 
variability of waste streams, the possibility exists for dilution to 
occur rather than effective treatment. Therefore, the Agency is 
proposing to require monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the 
limitations and standards for the regulated treatment subcategories The 
limitations and standards proposed today are based on treatment systems 
that optimize removals for homogeneous wastes. If a facility commingles 
different subcategories of CWT wastes before treatment or mixes CWT 
wastes with non-CWT waste streams before treatment, the facility must 
demonstrate that its treatment system achieves pollutant limits 
equivalent to the effluent limitations and standards that would be 
achieved if the CWT wastes were treated separately. (In addition, there 
may be circumstances where the mixing of off-site and on-site waste 
streams is necessary to prevent upset of treatment systems, such as 
with biological treatment for organic waste streams.) Equivalent 
treatment is demonstrated when Centralized Waste Treatment Industry 
pollutants of concern are (1) detectable at quantifiable levels prior 
to mixing, (2) are detected at quantifiable levels following mixing, 
and (3) the on-site treatment system is designed to treat the 
pollutants of concern in some manner other than incidental removals by 
partitioning to sludge or air. The Agency believes such an approach is 
necessary to ensure achievement of the pollutant discharge levels which 
the Agency has preliminarily determined may be obtained through proper 
treatment of the CWT wastes. In the absence of such a requirement to 
demonstrate achievable removals, facilities may merely dilute wastes 
with other waste streams to meet the required discharge levels.
    The Agency also solicits comment on including a de minimis quantity 
or percentage of off-site receipts in comparison to the total facility 
flow for which facilities would not be considered in the scope of this 
regulation. According to comments received on the May 1994 proposed 
Effluent Guideline Plan (59 FR 25859), some manufacturing facilities 
may receive a few shipments of waste or off-spec products to be treated 
on-site with wastewater from on-site manufacturing processes, but these 
facilities do not actively accept large quantities of waste from off-
site for the purpose of treatment and disposal. In the 1991 Waste 
Treatment Industry Questionnaire, no facilities were identified with 
intermittent shipments of waste, but the questionnaire mailing list was 
developed on the basis of a facility's regular business. Therefore, 
manufacturing facilities which do not accept off-site waste on a normal 
basis were not included in the mailing list. The EPA is requesting 
information on the amounts of waste received and the reasons the waste 
were accepted to determine if a de minimis quantity should be 
established to limit the applicability of this rulemaking. At present, 
no de minimis quantity has been established for this rulemaking. 
Facilities are included in the scope of this regulation regardless of 
the quantity received for treatment.

D. Proposed Limitations and Standards

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    The Agency is proposing to set BPT effluent limitations guidelines 
for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry to 
control conventional, priority, and non- conventional pollutants in the 
waste treatment effluent. In the case of metal-bearing wastes that 
include cyanide streams, achievement of BPT limitations requires 
pretreatment for cyanide. Table I.D-1 is a summary of the technology 
basis for the proposed effluent limitations for each subcategory.

       Table I.D-1.--Technology Basis for BPT Effluent Limitations      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Proposed                                                              
   subpart     Name of subcategory             Technology basis         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...........  Metal-Bearing Waste    Selective Metals Precipitation,    
               Treatment and          Pressure Filtration, Secondary    
               Recovery.              Precipitation, Solid-Liquid       
                                      Separation, and Tertiary          
                                      Precipitation.                    
                                     For Metal-Bearing Waste which      
                                      includes concentrated Cyanide     
                                      streams: Pretreatment by Alkaline 
                                      Chlorination at elevated operating
                                      conditions.                       
B...........  Oily Waste Treatment   Ultrafiltration or Ultrafiltration,
               and Recovery.          Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse    
                                      Osmosis.                          
C...........  Organic Waste          Equalization, Air Stripping,       
               Treatment and          Biological Treatment, and         
               Recovery.              Multimedia Filtration.            
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5469]]

    The pollutants controlled and the points of application vary for 
each subcategory and are described in Sections V.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    The EPA is proposing BCT effluent limitations guidelines for Total 
Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and Grease for the Metals and Oils 
Subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. The EPA is 
also proposing to set BCT effluent limitations guidelines for 
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) 
for the Organics Subcategory. The proposed BCT effluent limitations 
guidelines are equal to the proposed BPT limitations for conventional 
pollutants. The development of proposed BCT effluent limitations is 
further explained in Section V.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    The Agency is proposing to set BAT effluent limitations guidelines 
for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. 
These proposed limitations are based on the technologies proposed for 
BPT. The pollutants controlled and the points of application vary for 
each subcategory and are described in Section V.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    EPA is proposing to set NSPS equivalent to the proposed BPT/BCT/BAT 
effluent limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry. NSPS are discussed in more detail in Section V.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs, 
EPA is proposing to set PSES equivalent to the proposed BAT effluent 
limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry. PSES are further discussed in Section V.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
    For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs, 
EPA is proposing to set PSNS equivalent to the proposed NSPS effluent 
limitations for all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry. PSNS are further discussed in Section V.

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

1. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
    As previously discussed, Section 301(a) of the CWA prohibits 
discharges of pollutants to navigable waters except in compliance with 
the statute. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). Section 301(b) requires that direct 
dischargers comply with effluent limitations established by EPA for 
categories of industrial dischargers or in the case of certain 
categories of new dischargers, new source performance standards.
    Section 307 requires indirect dischargers to comply with 
pretreatment standards and Section 306 requires compliance with new 
source performance standards.
    These guidelines and standards are summarized below:
    a. Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)--
Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA. In the guidelines, EPA defines BPT effluent 
limits for conventional, priority,\1\ and non-conventional pollutants. 
In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first 
considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the 
effluent reduction benefits. The Agency next considers: the age of the 
equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any required 
process changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), 
and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate. CWA 
Sec. 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent 
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities 
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common 
characteristic. Where, however, existing performance is uniformly 
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in 
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the 
technology can be practically applied.

    \1\In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts 
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the 
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOB5). However, 
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT 
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water 
Act of 1977 with its requirement for points sources to achieve best 
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic 
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority 
pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to 
include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT)--Sec. 
304(b)(4) of the CWA. The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to 
identify effluent reduction levels for conventional pollutants 
associated with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial 
point sources. In addition to other factors specified in Section 
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after 
consideration of a two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained 
its methodology for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 
FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended 
solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined 
by the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil 
and grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 
FR 44501).
    c. Best available technology economically achievable (BAT)--Sec. 
304(b)(2) of the CWA. In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines 
represent the best economically achievable performance of plants in the 
industrial subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing 
BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. Unlike BPT 
limitations, BAT limitations may be based on effluent reductions 
attainable through changes in a facility's processes and operations. As 
with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may 
require a higher level of performance than is currently being achieved 
based on technology transferred from a different subcategory or 
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls, 
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
    d. New source performance standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA. 
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the best 
available demonstrated treatment technology. New facilities have the 
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes 
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should 
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the 
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants 
(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 
of achieving the [[Page 5470]] effluent reduction and any non-water 
quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
    e. Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) 
of the CWA. PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants 
that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with 
the operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA 
authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that 
pass-through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge 
disposal methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based 
and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found 
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of 
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all 
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
    f. Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of 
the CWA. Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of 
pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise 
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the 
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to 
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated 
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating 
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
2. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
    Section 304(m) of the Act, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
requires EPA, before February 4, 1988, to establish a schedule (1) for 
reviewing and revising existing guidelines and standards and (2) for 
promulgating effluent guidelines for categories of sources of priority 
or nonconventional pollutants for which effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards had not previously been published. The statutory 
deadline for such guidelines is no later four years after February 4, 
1987, for categories identified in the first published plan.
    The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, 
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section 
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of 
effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, new 
source performance standards and pretreatment standards. (NRDC, et al. 
v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.). Under the terms of a consent 
decree dated January 31, 1992, which settled the litigation, EPA 
agreed, among other things, to propose and promulgate 20 new guidelines 
establishing BPT, BCT and BAT limitations and pretreatment standards, 
including guidelines and standards for CWT facilities.

B. Summary of Public Participation

    During the data gathering activities that preceded development of 
the proposed rules, EPA met with representatives from the industry, the 
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, the National Solid Waste Management 
Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Because most of 
the facilities affected by this proposal are indirect dischargers, the 
Agency has made a concerted effort to consult with State and local 
entities that will be responsible for implementing this regulation. EPA 
has met with pretreatment coordinators from around the nation and 
presented our regulatory approach before the Association of 
Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities to solicit feedback on implementation 
issues. Today's proposal solicits comment on many of the issues raised 
by EPA's co-regulators.
    On March 8, 1994, EPA sponsored a public meeting, where the Agency 
shared information about the content and the status of the proposed 
regulation. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register, agendas 
and meeting materials were distributed at the meeting. The public 
meeting also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide 
information, data, and ideas on key issues. EPA's intent in conducting 
the public meeting was to elicit input that would improve the quality 
of the proposed regulations.
    At the public meeting, the Agency clarified that the public meeting 
would not replace the notice-and-comment process, nor would the meeting 
become a mechanism for a negotiated rulemaking. While EPA promised to 
accept information and data at the meeting and make good faith efforts 
to review all information and address all issues discussed at the 
meeting, EPA could not commit to fully assessing and incorporating all 
comments into the proposal. EPA will assess all comments and data 
received at the public meeting prior to promulgation.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
    The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984, 
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once 
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute 
provides only two options for legal land disposal: meet the treatment 
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste 
in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory no 
migration test. A no migration unit is one from which there will be no 
migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains 
hazardous. RCRA Sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5). The treatment standards 
may be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as 
specific methods of treatment. These standards must substantially 
diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the 
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so 
that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the 
environment are minimized. RCRA Section 3004(m)(1). For purposes of the 
restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any 
placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste 
pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, 
salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave.
2. BDAT and Land Disposal Restrictions Standards
    EPA generated a set of hazardous waste treatability data to serve 
as the basis for land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA 
identified Best Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for 
each listed hazardous waste. BDAT was that treatment technology which 
EPA found to be the most effective for that waste and which was also 
readily available to generators and treaters. In some cases EPA 
designated as BDAT for a particular waste stream a treatment technology 
shown to have successfully treated a similar but more difficult to 
treat waste stream. This ensured that the land disposal restrictions 
standards for a listed waste stream were achievable since they always 
reflected the actual treatability of the waste itself or of a more 
refractory waste.
[[Page 5471]]

3. RCRA Phase 2 and the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent 
Guidelines
    The RCRA Phase 2 final rule July 27, 1994, promulgated Universal 
Treatment Standards (UTS) for all constituents regulated by the RCRA 
Land Disposal Restrictions program. The UTS are a series of 
concentration levels for wastewater and nonwastewaters that provide a 
single treatment standard for each constituent regardless of the 
process generating it. Previously, many constituents were regulated 
with several numerical treatment standards depending on the identity of 
the original waste. Comments from generators and treaters supported the 
UTS as a means of simplifying compliance with LDR requirements by 
ensuring that only one treatment standard applies to any constituent in 
any waste residue.
    While the UTS may not apply to those facilities addressed by the 
CWT effluent guidelines (due to the lack of land disposal), both 
involve many of the same wastewater and both are technology-based. 
Consequently, EPA is identifying the major differences between the 
development of the two rules.
4. General Differences in Approaches Between LDR UTS and Centralized 
Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guidelines
    Comparing the effluent guidelines proposed by today's rule for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry with the UTS finalized in July 
1994 shows that the RCRA and CWA approaches are similar in that both 
rules address many of the same waste streams and base treatment 
standards on many of the same wastewater treatment technologies. 
However, the two sets of treatment standards differ both in their 
format and in the numerical values set for each constituent.
    The differences in format between effluent guidelines and LDR's are 
relatively straightforward. The effluent guidelines provide for several 
types of discharge (new vs. existing sources, pretreatment vs. direct 
discharge) while the LDR program makes no distinctions among different 
types of land disposal. While the effluent guidelines address both 
monthly and daily limits, UTS only sets daily limits.
    For many pollutants, there are differences in the numerical values 
of the limits. The differences result from the use of different legal 
criteria for developing the limits and resulting differences in the 
technical and economic criteria and data sets for establishing the 
respective limits. As described above, the LDR UTS establish a single 
numerical standard for each regulated pollutant parameter that applies 
to all waste streams.
    The Clean Water Act pollutant specific numerical effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards (40 CFR Subchapter N) often differ 
not only from the LDR UTS but also from point-source category to point-
source category (e.g., Electroplating, 40 CFR part 413; and Metal 
Finishing, 40 CFR part 433). The effluent guidelines limitations and 
standards are industry-specific, subcategory-specific, and technology-
based. The numerical limits are typically based on different data sets 
that reflect the performance of specific waste water management and 
treatment practices. Differences in the limits reflect differences in 
the statutory factors that the Administrator is required to consider in 
developing technically and economically achievable limitations and 
standards--manufacturing products and processes (which for CWT 
facilities includes types of treatment or waste management services 
performed), raw materials, wastewater characteristics, treatability, 
facility size, geographic location, age of facility and equipment, non-
water quality environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    Limits for CWT's are developed for individual industrial 
subcategories leaving the permit writer with the responsibility of 
assembling the ``building blocks'' into a discharge limit. There is, 
however, only one set of LDR standards, the Universal Treatment 
Standards (UTS) applying to all constituents regardless of the waste 
stream. While there is one set of standards for LDR rules, the limits 
are generally based on BDAT applied to the waste that is most difficult 
to treat.
    A consequence of these differing approaches is that similar or 
identical waste streams are regulated at different levels. Several of 
the effluent guidelines discharge categories reflect pretreatment prior 
to discharge to POTW's where there is further treatment and are 
therefore not directly comparable to LDR wastewater standards. However, 
those categories that represent daily maximum standards for discharge 
of treated wastes are analogous to the LDR wastewater standards, and 
the numerical differences in these standards reflect differences in 
methodology as described above.
    EPA's survey of CWT facilities identified no wastewater discharges 
which would be regulated under the CWT effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards and the Universal Treatment Standards. Because none of 
the 72 CWT discharging CWT facilities discharge wastewater effluent to 
land disposal units, the proposed regulations for the CWT Industry are 
not redundant requirements.

III. Description of the Industry

A. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities

    Presented below is a brief summary description of the Centralized 
Waste Treatment Industry for which EPA is today proposing guidelines.
    Based upon responses to EPA's 1991 Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire (see discussion below), the Agency estimates that there 
are approximately 85 centralized waste treatment facilities in 31 
States of the type for which EPA is proposing limitations and 
standards. These include both stand-alone treatment facilities as well 
as facilities which treat their own process wastewater and treatment or 
process residuals as well as wastes received from off-site. The major 
concentration of centralized waste treatment facilities in the U.S. are 
found in the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest regions, due to the 
proximity of the industries generating the wastes undergoing treatment.
    As previously noted, centralized waste treatment facilities accept 
a variety of different wastes for treatment. Before these facilities 
accept a waste for treatment, the waste generally undergoes a rigorous 
screening for compatibility with other wastes being treated at the 
facility. Waste generators initially furnish the treatment facility 
with a sample of the waste stream to be treated. The sample is analyzed 
to characterize the level of pollutants in the sample and bench-scale 
treatability tests are performed to determine what treatment is 
necessary to treat the waste stream effectively. After all analysis and 
tests are performed, the treatment facility determines the cost for 
treating the waste stream. If the waste generator accepts the cost of 
treatment, shipments of the waste stream to the treatment facility will 
begin. For each truck load of waste received for treatment, the 
treatment facility collects a sample from the shipment and analyzes the 
sample to determine if it is similar to the initial sample tested. If 
the sample is similar, the shipment of waste will be treated. If the 
sample is not similar but falls within an allowable range as determined 
by the treatment facility, the treatment facility will reevaluate the 
estimated cost of treatment for the shipment. Then, the waste generator 
decides if the waste will remain at the treatment facility for 
treatment. If the sample is not similar [[Page 5472]] and does not fall 
within an allowable range, the treatment facility will decline the 
shipment for treatment.
    Treatment facilities and waste generators complete extensive 
amounts of paperwork during the waste acceptance process. Most of the 
paperwork is required by Federal, State, and local regulations. The 
amount of paperwork necessary for accepting a waste stream emphasizes 
the difficulty of operating Centralized Waste Treatment facilities.
    In its information and data-gathering effort, EPA also looked at 
how these facilities handle wastes after they are accepted for 
treatment. Even though a waste must surmount a number of hurdles before 
being accepted for treatment at a facility, many facilities do not 
devote the same level of attention to the process of managing and 
treating wastes for optimal removals. Thus, EPA's data show that 
approximately half of the facilities in the industry 1) accept wastes 
for treatment in more than one of the waste categories (metal-bearing, 
oily or organic-bearing) being considered here or 2) operate other 
industrial processes that generate wastes at the same site. In most 
cases, the waste streams from these various sources are mixed prior to 
treatment or after minimal pretreatment.
    The problems associated with the mixing of the different types of 
wastes and wastewater treated at centralized waste treatment facilities 
or mixing with other industrial wastewater and non-contaminated 
stormwater exacerbated the difficulty of evaluating adequate treatment 
performance. EPA concluded that mixing waste streams adversely affects 
pollutant removal in the discharge water. Rather than treating to 
remove pollutants, the facilities were diluting their streams to 
achieve required effluent levels. Therefore, EPA has concluded 
reasonable further progress to the goal of reducing discharges requires 
achievement of discharge levels associated with treatment of segregated 
wastestreams. Consequently, as explained above, the Agency is proposing 
to establish effluent limitations which reflect achievable effluent 
reductions for unmixed wastes.

B. Waste Treatment Processes

    As the Agency learned from data and information collected as a 
result of the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, CWTs accept 
many types of hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste for 
treatment in liquid or solid form. In 1989, approximately 1.1 billion 
gallons of industrial waste were accepted for treatment of which 53 
percent were hazardous and 47 percent were non-hazardous.
1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment or Recovery
    In 1989, 709 million gallons of metal-bearing wastes were accepted 
for treatment by 56 facilities. This metal-bearing waste comprised the 
largest portion of the waste treated by the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry. The typical treatment process used for metal-bearing wastes 
was precipitation with lime or caustic followed by filtration. The 
sludge generated was then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill 
depending upon its content. A small fraction of facilities recovered 
metals from the waste using selective metals precipitation or 
electrolytic metals recovery processes. Most facilities that recovered 
metals did not generate a sludge that required disposal, instead, the 
sludges were sold for the metal content.
2. Oily Waste Treatment or Recovery
    Approximately 223 million gallons of oily waste were accepted for 
treatment by 35 facilities in 1989. A wide range of oily wastes were 
accepted for treatment and the on-site treatment scheme was determined 
by the type of oily waste accepted. The oily waste accepted for 
treatment could typically be classified as either: (1) stable oil-water 
emulsions, such as coolants and lubricants; or (2) unstable oil-water 
emulsions, such as bilge water. Stable oil-water emulsions are more 
difficult to treat because the droplets of the dispersed phase are so 
small that separation of the oil and water phases by settling would 
occur very slowly or not at all and required a chemical process to 
break the emulsion to adequately treat the waste. From the data 
collected in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, chemical 
emulsion breaking processes were the most widely-used treatment 
technology at the 29 oil recovery facilities, and, therefore, EPA 
believes that these facilities primarily accept for treatment stable 
oil-water emulsions. The wastewater effluent resulting from the 
emulsion-breaking process was typically mixed with wastewater from 
other CWT subcategories or stormwater for further treatment prior to 
discharge. Six facilities did not operate oil recovery processes and 
used only dissolved air flotation (DAF), a technique used to separate 
oil and suspended solids from water by skimming, to treat the oily 
waste receipts. Consequently, EPA concluded that these facilities were 
receiving for treatment less stable oil-water emulsions that were 
amenable to gravity separation or dissolved air flotation, and did not 
require chemical emulsion breaking treatment processes. EPA's sampling 
program focused on facilities that treated the more concentrated and 
more difficult to treat stable oil-water emulsions as reported by waste 
manifest forms and facility records. In August 1994, EPA conducted 
additional sampling at an oily waste treatment facility to further 
characterize the types of oils accepted for treatment and the 
technologies used. The data has not been reviewed at the time of this 
proposal, but the data is included in the rulemaking record and will be 
evaluated prior to promulgation. EPA solicits comments with detailed 
information and data on the concentrations of pollutants and type of 
oily wastes accepted for treatment by these facilities so that EPA can 
develop a more thorough understanding of the facility operations. Any 
new information used to establish the basis for the final regulation 
will be made available for public comment.
3. Organic Waste Treatment or Recovery
    In 1989, 22 facilities accepted 147 million gallons of organic 
wastewater for treatment. Most facilities with treatment on-site used 
some form of biological treatment to handle the wastewater. Most of the 
facilities in the Organics Subcategory have other industrial operations 
as well, and the CWT wastes are mixed with these wastewater prior to 
treatment. The relatively constant on-site wastewater can support the 
operation of conventional, continuous biological treatment processes, 
which otherwise could be upset by the variability of the off-site waste 
receipts.

IV. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

A. EPA's Initial Efforts to Develop a Guideline for the Waste Treatment 
Industry

    In 1986, the Agency initiated a study of waste treatment facilities 
which receive waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or disposal. 
The Agency looked at various segments of the waste management industry 
including centralized waste treatment facilities, landfills, 
incinerators, fuel blending operations, and waste solidification/
stabilization processes (Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous 
Waste Treatment Industry, EPA 1989). EPA conducted a separate study of 
the Solvent Recycling Industry (Preliminary Data Summary for the 
Solvent Recycling Industry, EPA 1989). [[Page 5473]] 
    Development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
this industry began in 1989. EPA originally studied centralized waste 
treatment facilities, fuel blending operations and waste 
solidification/stabilization facilities. EPA has decided not to propose 
nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
fuel blending and stabilization operations because, even though these 
operations are integral to a facility's waste management practices, 
wastewater generation and disposal practices are not similar to the 
operations of centralized waste treatment operations. Most fuel 
blending and stabilization processes are ``dry,'' i.e., they generate 
no wastewater. Therefore, EPA decided to limit this phase of the 
proposed rulemaking to the development of regulations for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.

B. Wastewater Sampling Program

    In the sampling program for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry 
Study, twelve facilities were sampled to characterize the wastes 
received and the on-site treatment technology performance at 
incinerators, landfills, and hazardous waste treatment facilities. 
Since all of the facilities samples had more than one on-site 
operation, the data collected can not be used for this project because 
data were collected for mixed waste streams and the waste 
characteristics and treatment technology performance for the hazardous 
waste treatment facilities cannot be differentiated.
    Between 1989 and 1993, EPA visited 26 of the 85 centralized waste 
treatment facilities. During each visit, EPA gathered information on 
waste receipts, waste and wastewater treatment, and disposal practices. 
Based on these data and the responses to the 1991 Waste Treatment 
Industry Questionnaire, EPA selected eight of the 26 facilities for the 
wastewater sampling program in order to collect data to characterize 
discharges and the performance of their treatment system. Using data 
supplied by the facilities, EPA applied four criteria in initially 
choosing which facilities to sample. The criteria were as follows: 
whether the wastewater treatment system (1) was effective in removing 
pollutants; (2) treated wastes received from a variety of sources, (3) 
employed either novel treatment technologies or applied traditional 
treatment technologies in a novel manner, and (4) applied waste 
management practices that increased the effectiveness of the treatment 
unit. An additional facility was sampled to characterize the wastes 
received and treatment processes of a facility that treated only non-
hazardous waste. From the data collected at the non-hazardous waste 
treatment facility, waste stream characteristics were similar to that 
of a facility that treats hazardous waste. The other 17 facilities 
visited were not sampled, because they did not meet these criteria.
    During each sampling episode, facility influent and effluent 
streams were sampled. Samples were also taken at intermediate points to 
assess the performance of individual treatment units. This information 
is summarized in the Technical Development Document. In the first two 
sampling episodes, streams were analyzed for over 480 pollutants to 
identify the range of pollutants possible at these facilities. After 
the analytical data were reviewed for the first two sampling episodes, 
the number of pollutants analyzed were reduced to approximately 180 
that were detected in the initial sampling efforts.
    In 1994, an additional four facilities were visited that are not 
included in the 85 Centralized Waste Treatment facilities identified in 
1989. These facilities were not in business at the time the 
questionnaire was mailed. These facilities specialized in the treatment 
of bilge waters and unstable oil-water mixtures. From these site 
visits, one facility was chosen to be sampled based on the on-site 
treatment and type of oily waste accepted for treatment. As previously 
discussed, the data has not been reviewed at the time of this proposal, 
but the data is included in the regulatory record and will be evaluated 
prior to promulgation.
1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
    From the ten sampling episodes completed from 1989 to 1994, only 
six sampling episodes contained data which were used to characterize 
this subcategory's waste streams and treatment technology performance. 
All of the facilities used some form of precipitation for treatment of 
the metal-bearing waste streams. Only one facility was a direct 
discharger and was therefore designed to effectively treat the 
conventional pollutants important for this subcategory, TSS and Oil and 
Grease.
2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
    From the sampling data collected between 1989 and 1994, five 
sampling episodes contained data which are applicable to the treatment 
of oily wastes. Data for the remaining five sampling episodes could not 
be used because the facilities did not accept oily waste for treatment 
or recovery. Identification of facilities to be sampled was difficult 
because most facilities in the oily waste treatment subcategory had 
other centralized waste treatment processes on-site. Three of the four 
facilities had other on-site Centralized Waste Treatment processes. The 
oily wastewater after emulsion-breaking was commingled with other 
subcategory waste streams prior to further treatment of the oily waste 
stream. In all three cases most of the pollutants of concern that were 
detected prior to commingling were at a non-detect level after 
commingling. Therefore, dilution resulted from the mixing and no 
further treatment may have occurred. Data from the three facilities 
could be used only to characterize the untreated waste streams after 
emulsion-breaking. Data from one of the facilities could not be 
evaluated prior to this proposal but is included in the public record. 
Therefore, data from only one facility could be used to assess 
treatment performance at the facilities in this subcategory.
3. Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
    Similar to the case with the Oily Waste Subcategory, identification 
of facilities for assessing waste streams and treatment technology 
performance was difficult, because most organic waste treatment 
facilities had other industrial operations on-site. The centralized 
waste treatment waste streams were small in comparison to the overall 
site flow. Two facilities were identified and sampled which treated a 
significant portion of off-site generated organic waste streams. Data 
from one of the facilities could not be used when developing technology 
options for proposal because the treatment system performance was not 
optimal at the time of sampling, but data from this facility was used 
to characterize the raw waste streams.
    Therefore, sampling data from one facility was used to determine 
the treatment technology basis for this subcategory.

C. 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire (Census of the Industry)

    Under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA sent 
a questionnaire in 1991 to 455 facilities that the Agency had 
identified as possible Centralized Waste Treatment facilities. Since 
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry is not represented by a SIC 
code, identification of facilities was difficult. Directories of 
treatment facilities, Agency information, and telephone directories 
were used to identify the 455 facilities to which the questionnaires 
were mailed. The [[Page 5474]] responses from 416 facilities indicated 
that 89 facilities treated, or recovered material from, industrial 
waste from off-site in 1989 and the remaining 327 facilities did not 
treat, or recover materials from, industrial waste from off-site. Out 
of the 89 facilities that received industrial waste from off-site for 
treatment, four facilities received all of the off-site waste via 
pipeline. For the reasons discussed previously, this proposed 
regulation does not cover waste transferred from the original source of 
generation by pipeline. Therefore, based on this data base, 85 
facilities are currently in the scope of this regulation. The 
questionnaire specifically requested information on: (1) the type of 
wastes accepted for treatment; (2) the industrial waste management 
practices used; (3) the quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater 
generated during industrial waste management; (4) available analytical 
monitoring data on wastewater treatment; (5) the degree of co-treatment 
(treatment of centralized waste treatment wastewater with wastewater 
from other industrial operations at the facility); and (6) the extent 
of wastewater recycling and/or reuse at the facility. Information was 
also obtained through follow-up telephone calls and written requests 
for clarification of questionnaire responses. Information obtained by 
the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire is summarized in the 
Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.

D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (Follow-Up Questionnaire to a 
Subset of the Industry)

    EPA also requested a subset of centralized waste treatment 
facilities to submit wastewater monitoring data in the form of 
individual data points rather than monthly aggregates. These wastewater 
monitoring data included information on pollutant concentrations and 
waste receipt data for a six week period. The waste receipt data were 
collected to provide information about the types of wastes treated and 
the influent waste characteristics due to the absence of influent 
wastewater monitoring data. Data were requested from 19 facilities.

V. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Industry Subcategorization

1. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme
    For today's proposal, EPA considered whether a single set of 
effluent limitations and standards should be established for this 
industry or whether different limitations and standards were 
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. In its preliminary 
decision that subcategorization is required and in developing the 
subcategories set forth in this rulemaking, EPA took into account all 
the information it collected and developed with respect to the 
following factors: waste type received; treatment process; nature of 
wastewater generated; facility size, age, and location; non-water 
quality impact characteristics; and treatment technologies and costs. 
In this industry, a wide variety of wastes are treated at a typical 
facility. Facilities employ different waste treatment technologies 
tailored to the specific type of waste being treated in a given day.
    EPA concluded a number of factors did not provide an appropriate 
basis for subcategorization. The Agency concluded that the age of a 
facility should not be a basis for subcategorization because many older 
facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their treatment 
process over time. Facility size is also not a useful basis for 
subcategorization for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry because 
wastes can be treated to the same level regardless of the facility 
size. Likewise, facility location is not a good basis for 
subcategorization; no consistent differences in wastewater treatment 
performance or costs exist because of geographical location. Although 
non-water quality characteristics (solid waste and air emission 
effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did not 
constitute a basis for subcategorization. Environmental impacts from 
solid waste disposal and from the transport of potentially hazardous 
wastewater are a result of individual facility practices and do not 
reflect a trend that pertains to different segments of the industry. 
Treatment costs do not appear to be a basis for subcategorization 
because costs will vary and are dependent on the following waste stream 
variables: flow rates, wastewater quality, and pollutant loadings. 
Therefore, treatment costs were not used as a factor in determining 
subcategories.
    EPA identified only one factor with primary significance for 
subcategorizing the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry: the type of 
waste received for treatment or recovery. This factor encompasses many 
of the other subcategorization factors. The type of treatment processes 
used, nature of wastewater generated, solids generated, and potential 
air emissions directly correlate to the type of wastes received for 
treatment or recovery. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the type of 
waste received for treatment or recovery is the appropriate basis for 
subcategorization of this industry. EPA invites comment on whether the 
specific subcategories proposed today should be further subdivided into 
smaller subcategories or whether an alternative basis for 
categorization should be adopted.
2. Proposed Subcategories
    Based on the type of wastes accepted for treatment or recovery, EPA 
has determined that there are three subcategories appropriate for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.
     Subcategory A: Facilities which treat, or treat and 
recover metal from, metal-bearing waste received from off-site,
     Subcategory B: Facilities which treat, or treat and 
recover oil from, oily waste received from off-site, and
     Subcategory C: Facilities which treat, or treat and 
recover organics from, other organic waste received from off-site.
    a. Discharges from metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery 
operations. Metal-bearing wastes represent the largest volume of wastes 
treated at the facilities which are the subject of this guidelines 
development effort. Included within this subcategory are facilities 
which treat metal-bearing wastes received from off-site as well as 
facilities which recover metals from off-site metal-bearing waste 
streams. Currently, EPA has identified 56 facilities as treating metal-
bearing wastes. A small percentage of these facilities recover metals 
from the wastes for sale in commerce or for return to industrial 
processes. EPA proposes to establish limitations and standards for 
those conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants 
discharged in this subcategory. Among the metal-bearing wastes 
typically treated at the facilities in this subcategory are, in some 
cases, highly-concentrated, complex cyanide waste streams. In the case 
of CWTs that treat complex cyanides, based on the results of its site 
visits and data sampling effort, EPA has initially concluded that 
without first achieving a given level of cyanide reduction prior to 
metals treatment, the presence of cyanide will interfere with 
subsequent metals treatment, thus jeopardizing achievement of 
attainable effluent metals removals.
    b. Discharges from oily waste treatment and recovery operations. 
EPA identified 35 facilities that currently discharge wastewater from 
treatment and recovery operations for oily wastes. EPA proposes to 
regulate conventional, priority, and non-conventional 
[[Page 5475]] pollutants in wastewater discharged from this 
subcategory.
    c. Discharges from organic waste treatment operations. EPA 
identified 22 facilities that currently discharge wastewater from the 
treatment of organic wastes that are received at the facility from off-
site for treatment. As explained previously, wastewater discharges from 
organic recovery process operations, such as solvent recovery, are not 
included within the scope of this regulation. EPA proposes to regulate 
the conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants wastewater 
discharges from this subcategory.

B. Characterization of Wastewater

    This section describes current water use and wastewater 
characterization at the 85 centralized waste treatment facilities in 
the U.S. All waste treatment processes covered by this regulation 
typically involve the use of water; however, specifics for any facility 
depend on the facility's waste receipts and treatment processes.
1. Water and Sources of Wastewater
    Approximately 2.0 billion gallons of wastewater are generated 
annually at centralized waste treatment facilities. It is difficult to 
determine the quantity of wastes attributable to different sources 
because generally facilities mix the wastewater prior to treatment. EPA 
has, as a general matter, however, identified the sources described 
below as contributing to wastewater discharges at centralized waste 
treatment operations that would be subject to the proposed effluent 
limitations and standards.
    a. Waste receipts. Most of the waste received from customers comes 
in a liquid form and constitutes a large portion of the wastewater 
treated at a facility. Other wastewater sources include wastewater from 
contact with the waste at receipt or during subsequent handling.
    b. Solubilization water. A portion of waste receipts are in a solid 
form. Water may be added to the waste to render it treatable.
    c. Waste oil emulsion-breaking wastewater. The emulsion breaking 
process separates difficult water-oil emulsions and generates a 
``bottom'' or water phase. Approximately 99.2 million gallons of 
wastewater were generated from emulsion-breaking processes in 1989.
    d. Tanker truck/drum/roll-off box washes. Water is used to clean 
the equipment used for transporting wastes. The amount of wastewater 
generated was difficult to assess because the wash water is normally 
added to the wastes or used as solubilization water.
    e. Equipment washes. Water is used to clean waste treatment 
equipment during unit shut downs or in between batches of waste.
    f. Air pollution control scrubber blow-down. Water or acidic or 
basic solution is used in air emission control scrubbers to control 
fumes from treatment tanks, storage tanks, and other treatment 
equipment.
    g. Laboratory-derived wastewater. Water is used in on-site 
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
    h. Contaminated stormwater. This is stormwater which comes in 
direct contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas. 
(Stormwater which does not come into contact with the wastes would not 
be subject to today's proposed limitations and standards.)
2. Wastewater Discharge
    Approximately 3 billion gallons of wastewater were discharged at 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry operations in 1989. In general, 
the primary source of wastewater discharges from these facilities are: 
waste receipts, solubilization wastewater, tanker truck/drums/roll-off 
box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-down, 
laboratory-derived wastewater, and contaminated stormwater. Centralized 
waste treatment facilities do not generate a ``process wastewater'' in 
the traditional sense of this term.\2\ As a service industry, there is 
no manufacturing or commercial ``process'' which is generating water. 
Because there are no ``manufacturing processes'' or ``products'' for 
this industry, ``process'' wastewater for this industry will include 
any wastes received for treatment (``waste receipt'') as well as water 
which comes into contact with the waste received or waste processing 
area. The wastewater resulting from contact with the wastes or waste 
processing area is referred to by the short-hand term ``centralized 
waste treatment wastewater.''

    \2\Process wastewater is defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as ``any water 
which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact 
with or results from the production or use of any raw material, by-
product, intermediate product, finished product, or waste product.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 85 facilities identified by the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire can also be characterized by their type of wastewater 
discharge. Sixteen facilities discharge wastewater directly into a 
receiving stream or body of water. Another 56 facilities discharge 
wastewater indirectly, i.e., discharge to a publicly-owned treatment 
works (POTW).
    Thirteen facilities do not dispose of wastewater directly to 
surface waters or indirectly to POTWs. At these facilities, (1) 
wastewater is disposed of by alternate means such as on-site or off-
site deep well injection or incineration (four facilities); (2) 
wastewater is sent off-site for treatment (six facilities); (3) the 
process does not generate wastewater (one facility); and (4) wastewater 
is evaporated (two facilities). One facility discharges wastewater 
directly as well as on-site deep well injection.
    This regulation applies to direct and indirect discharges only.
3. Wastewater Characterization
    The Agency's sampling program for this industry detected over 100 
pollutants (conventional, priority, and non-conventional) in waste 
streams at treatable levels. The quantity of pollutants currently being 
discharged is difficult to assess due to the lack of monitoring data 
available from facilities for the list of pollutants identified from 
the Agency's sampling program prior to commingling of the wastewater 
with non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial wastewater before 
discharge. Methodologies were developed to estimate current performance 
for each subcategory by assessing performance of on-site treatment 
technologies, wastewater permit information, and monitoring data 
supplied in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and the 
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. For the Metals Subcategory, a ``non-
process wastewater'' factor was used to quantify the amount of non-
contaminated stormwater and other industrial process water in a 
facility's discharge. A facility's current discharge of treated 
Centralized Waste Treatment wastewater was calculated using the 
monitoring data supplied multiplied by the ``non-process wastewater'' 
factor. For the Oils Subcategory, present treatment schemes were 
studied. Most facilities mixed oily wastewater with other CWT or 
industrial wastewater or stormwater. This generally resulted in 
inadequate treatment of oily waste because the pollutants detected in 
oily wastewater were typically not detected in the untreated mixed 
streams due to dilution. Therefore, current performance was estimated 
at the point prior to mixing different types of wastewater. For the 
Organics Subcategory, current performance could not be estimated from 
the discharge monitoring data submitted by the facilities due to the 
[[Page 5476]] presence of other industrial wastewater in the discharge. 
Current performance was estimated by projecting the removal of 
pollutants resulting from the technologies used on-site. The Agency is 
soliciting comments on the approaches used to calculate the current 
performance as well as requesting any monitoring data available before 
the addition of non-contaminated stormwater or other industrial 
wastewater.

C. Pollutants Not Regulated

    EPA is not proposing effluent limitations or standards for all 
conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants in this 
proposed regulation. Among the reasons EPA may have decided not to 
propose effluent limitations for a pollutant are the following:
    (a) The pollutant is deemed not present in Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry wastewater, because it was not detected in the 
influent during the Agency's sampling/data gathering efforts with the 
use of analytical methods promulgated pursuant to Section 304(h) of the 
Clean Water Act or with other state-of-the-art methods.
    (b) The pollutant is present only in trace amounts and is neither 
causing nor likely to cause toxic effects.
    (c) The pollutant was detected in the effluent from only one or a 
small number of samples and the pollutant's presence could not be 
confirmed.
    (d) The pollutant was effectively controlled by the technologies 
used as a basis for limitations on other pollutants, including those 
limitations proposed today, and therefore regulated by the limitations 
for the indicator pollutants or (e) Insufficient data are available to 
establish effluent limitations.

D. Available Technologies

    The treatment technologies presently employed by the industry 
represent the range of wastewater treatment systems observed at 
categorical industrial operations. All 85 centralized waste treatment 
facilities operate wastewater treatment systems. The technologies used 
include physical-chemical treatment, biological treatment, and advanced 
wastewater treatment. Based on information obtained from the 1991 Waste 
Treatment Industry Questionnaire and site visits, EPA has concluded 
that a significant number of these treatment systems need to be 
upgraded to improve effectiveness and to remove additional pollutants.
    Physical-chemical treatment technologies in use are:
     Precipitation/Filtration, which converts soluble metal 
salts to insoluble metal oxides which are then removed by filtration;
     Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF), which separates solid or 
liquid particles from a liquid phase by introducing air bubbles into 
the liquid phase. The bubbles attach to the particles and rise to the 
top of the mixture;
     Activated Carbon, which removes pollutants from wastewater 
by adsorbing them onto carbon particles;
     Multi-media/Sand Filtration, which removes solids from 
wastewater by passing it through a porous medium. Biological treatment 
technologies in use are:
     Sequential Batch Reactor, which uses microorganisms to 
degrade organic material in a batch process;
     Activated Sludge, which uses microorganisms suspended in 
well-aerated wastewater to degrade organic material;
     PACT System, a patented process in which powder 
activated carbon is added to an activated sludge system; and
     Coagulation/Flocculation, which is used to assist 
clarification of biological treatment effluent.
    Advanced wastewater treatment technologies in use are:
     Ultrafiltration, which is used to remove organic 
pollutants from wastewater according to the organic molecule size; and
     Reverse osmosis, which relies on differences in dissolved 
solids concentrations to remove inorganic pollutants from wastewater.
    The typical treatment sequence for a facility depends upon the type 
of waste accepted for treatment. Most facilities treating metal-bearing 
wastes use precipitation/filtration to remove metals. Those that treat 
oily wastes relied on dissolved air flotation largely to remove oil and 
grease, but this technology is typically ineffective in removing the 
metal pollutants that are in many cases also present in these 
wastewater. Aerobic batch processes and types of conventional activated 
sludge systems were the most widely-found treatment technology for the 
organic-bearing wastes.

E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed Regulations

    To determine the technology basis and performance level for the 
proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of daily 
effluent data collected from the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire and 
the EPA Wastewater Sampling Program. This database is used to support 
the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and 
standards proposed today.
1. BPT
    a. Introduction. EPA today is proposing BPT effluent limitations 
for the three discharge subcategories for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today would 
control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional 
pollutants when discharged from CWT facilities.
    b. Rationale for BPT limitations by subcategory. As previously 
noted, the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry receives for treatment 
large quantities of concentrated hazardous and non-hazardous industrial 
waste which results in discharges of a significant quantity of 
pollutants. The EPA estimates that 176.8 million pounds per year of 
pollutants are currently being discharged directly or indirectly.
    As previously discussed, Section 304(b)(1)(A) requires EPA to 
identify effluent reductions attainable through the application of 
``best practicable control technology currently available for classes 
and categories of point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 1972 
amendments to the CWA explained how EPA must establish BPT effluent 
reduction levels. Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent levels based 
upon the average of the best existing performances by plants of various 
sizes, ages, and unit processes within each industrial category or 
subcategory. In industrial categories where present practices are 
uniformly inadequate, however, EPA may determine that BPT requires 
higher levels of control than any currently in place if the technology 
to achieve those levels can be practicably applied. A Legislative 
History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 
p. 1468.
    In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost effectiveness 
assessment for BPT limitations. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad 
discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are achievable with available 
technology unless the required additional reductions are ``wholly out 
of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of 
reduction.'' A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972, p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the 
Agency to quantify benefits in monetary terms. See e.g. American Iron 
and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).
    In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA 
considers the volume and nature of expected [[Page 5477]] discharges 
after application of BPT, the general environmental effects of 
pollutants, and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of 
pollution control. In developing guidelines, the Act does not require 
or permit consideration of water quality problems attributable to 
particular point sources, or water quality improvements in particular 
bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these factors in 
developing the limitations being proposed today. See Weyerhaeuser 
Company v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    EPA concluded that the wastewater treatment performance of the 
facilities it surveyed was, with very limited exceptions, uniformly 
poor. Under these circumstances, for each subcategory, EPA has 
preliminarily concluded that only one treatment system meets the 
statutory test for best practicable, currently available technology. 
EPA has determined that the performance of facilities which mix 
different types of highly concentrated CWT wastes with non-CWT waste 
streams or with stormwater are not providing BPT treatment. The mass of 
pollutants being discharged is unacceptably high, given the 
demonstrated removal capacity of treatment systems that the Agency 
reviewed. Thus, comparison of EPA sampling data and CWT industry-
supplied monitoring information establishes that, in the case of metal-
bearing waste streams, virtually all the facilities are discharging 
large total quantities of heavy metals. As measured by total suspended 
solids (TSS) levels following treatment, TSS concentrations are 
substantially in excess of levels observed at facilities in other 
industry categories employing the same treatment technology--10 to 20 
times greater than observed for other point source categories.
    In the case of oil discharges, most facilities are achieving low 
removal of oils and grease relative to the performance required for 
other point source categories. Further, facilities treating organic 
wastes, while successfully removing organic pollutants through 
biological treatment, fail to remove metals associated with these 
organic wastes.
    The poor pollutant removal performance observed generally for 
discharging CWT facilities is not unexpected. As pointed out 
previously, these facilities are treating highly concentrated wastes 
that, in many cases, are process residuals and sludges from other point 
source categories. EPA's review of permit limitations for the direct 
dischargers show that, in most cases, the dischargers are subject to 
``best professional judgment'' concentration limitations which were 
developed from guidelines for facilities treating and discharging much 
more dilute waste streams. EPA has concluded that treatment performance 
in the industry is widely inadequate and that the mass of pollutants 
being discharged is unacceptably high, given the demonstrated removal 
capability of treatment operations that the Agency reviewed.
    (i) Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory. The Agency is today 
proposing BPT limitations for the Metals Subcategory for 22 pollutants. 
EPA considered three regulatory options to reduce the discharge of 
pollutants by centralized waste treatment facilities. For a more 
detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies 
selected see the Technical Development Document.
    The three currently available treatment systems for which the EPA 
assessed performance for the Metals Subcategory BPT are:
     Option 1--Chemical Precipitation, Liquid-Solid Separation, 
and Sludge Dewatering. Under Option 1, BPT limitations would be based 
upon chemical precipitation with a lime/caustic solution followed by 
some form of separation and sludge dewatering to control the discharge 
of pollutants in wastewater. The data reviewed for this option showed 
that settling/clarification followed by pressure filtration of sludge 
yields removals equivalent to pressure filtration. In some cases, BPT 
limitations would require the current treatment technologies in-place 
to be improved by use of increased quantities of treatment chemicals 
and additional monitoring of batch processes. For metals streams which 
contain concentrated cyanide complexes, BPT limitations under Option 1 
are based on alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions 
prior to metals treatment. As previously noted, without treatment of 
the cyanide streams prior to metals treatment, metals removal are 
significantly reduced.
     Option 2--Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure 
Filtration, Secondary Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation. The 
second option evaluated for BPT for centralized waste treatment 
facilities would be based on the use of numerous treatment tanks and 
personnel to handle incoming waste streams, and use of greater 
quantities of caustic in the treatment chemical mixture. (Caustic 
sludge is easier to recycle.) Option 2 is based on additional tanks and 
personnel to segregate incoming waste streams and to monitor the batch 
treatment processes to maximize the precipitation of specific metals in 
order to generate a metal-rich filter cake. The metal-rich filter cake 
could possibly be sold to metal smelters to incorporate into metal 
products. Like Option 1, for metals streams which contain concentrated 
cyanide complexes, under Option 2, BPT limitations are also based on 
alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions prior to metals 
treatment.
     Option 3--Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure 
Filtration, Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and 
Tertiary Precipitation. The technology basis for Option 3 is the same 
as Option 2 except an additional precipitation step at the end of 
treatment is added. For metals streams which contain concentrated 
cyanide complexes, like Options 1 and 2, for Option 3, alkaline 
chlorination at specific operating conditions would also be the basis 
for BPT limitations.
    The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on 
Option 3 for the Metals Subcategory. These limitations were developed 
based on an engineering evaluation of the average of the best 
demonstrated methods to control the discharges of the regulated 
pollutants in this Subcategory.
    EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option 3 treatment 
reflects primarily an evaluation of three factors: the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable, the total cost of the proposed treatment 
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved, and 
potential non-water quality benefits. In assessing BPT, EPA considered 
the age, size, process, other engineering factors, and non-water 
quality impacts pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this 
subcategory. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT 
limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. 
Neither the age nor the size of the CWT facility will directly 
significantly affect either the character or treatability of the CWT 
wastes or the cost of treatment. Further, the treatment process and 
engineering aspects of the technologies considered have a relatively 
insignificant effect because in most cases they represent fine tuning 
or add-ons to treatment technology already in use. These factors 
consequently did not weigh heavily in the development of these 
guidelines. For a service industry whose service is wastewater 
treatment, the most pertinent factors for establishing the limitations 
are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions obtainable, 
and non-water quality effects.
    Generally, for purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA 
looks at the performance of the best operated [[Page 5478]] treatment 
system and calculates limitations from some level of average 
performance of these ``best'' facilities. For example, in the BPT 
limitations for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 
Point Source Category, EPA identified ``best'' facilities on a BOD 
performance criteria of achieving a 95 percent BOD removal or a BOD 
effluent level of 40 mg/l. 52 FR 42535 (November 5, 1987). For this 
industry, as previously explained, EPA concluded that treatment 
performance is, in virtually all cases, poor. Without separation of 
metal-bearing streams for selective precipitation, metal removal levels 
are uniformly inadequate across the industry. Consequently, BPT 
performance levels are based on data from the one well-operated system 
using selective metals precipitation that was sampled by EPA.
    The demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through the Option 
3 control technology represent the BPT performance attainable through 
the application of demonstrated treatment measures currently in 
operation in this industry. The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT 
limitations based on the removal performance of the Option 3 treatment 
system for the following reasons. First, these removals are 
demonstrated by a facility in this subcategory and can readily be 
applied to all facilities in the subcategory. The adoption of this 
level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants 
discharged into the environment.
    Second, the Agency assessed the total cost of water pollution 
controls likely to be incurred for Option 3 in relation to the effluent 
reduction benefits and determined these costs were economically 
reasonable.
    Third, adoption of these BPT limits could promote the non-water 
quality objectives of the CWA. Use of the Option 3 treatment regime--
which generates a metal-rich filter cake that may be recovered and 
smelted--could reduce the quantity of waste which are being disposed of 
in landfills.
    The Agency proposes to reject Option 1 because, as discussed above, 
EPA concluded that mixing disparate metal-bearing waste streams is not 
the best practicable treatment technology currently in operation for 
this subcategory of the industry. Consequently, effluent levels 
associated with this treatment option would not represent BPT 
performance levels. Option 2 was rejected, although similar to Option 
3, because the greater removals obtained through addition of tertiary 
precipitation at Option 3 were obtained at a relatively insignificant 
increase in costs over Option 2.
    See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to 
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
    (ii). Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory. The Agency is today 
proposing BPT limitations for the Oils Subcategory for 33 pollutants. 
EPA identified four regulatory options for consideration in 
establishing BPT effluent reduction levels for this subcategory of the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. For a more detailed discussion of 
the basis for the limitations and standards selected see the Technical 
Development Document.
    The four technology options considered for the Oils Subcategory BPT 
are:
     Option 1--Emulsion-Breaking. Under Option 1, BPT 
limitations would be based on present performance of emulsion-breaking 
processes using acid and heat to separate oil-water emulsions. At 
present, most facilities have this technology in-place unless less 
stable oil-water mixtures are accepted for treatment. Stable oil-water 
emulsions require some emulsion- breaking treatment because gravity or 
flotation alone is inadequate to break down the oil/water stream.
     Option 2--Ultrafiltration. Under Option 2, BPT limitations 
would be based on the use of ultrafiltration for treatment of less 
concentrated, stable oily waste receipts or for the additional 
treatment of wastewater from the emulsion-breaking process.
     Option 3--Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, and Reverse 
Osmosis. The Option 3 BPT effluent limitations are based on the use of 
carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis in addition to the Option 2 
technology. The reverse osmosis unit removes metal compounds found at 
significant levels for this subcategory. Inclusion of a carbon 
adsorption unit is necessary in order to protect the reverse osmosis 
unit by filtering out large particles which may damage the reverse 
osmosis unit or decrease membrane performance.
     Option 4--Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, Reverse 
Osmosis, and Carbon Adsorption. Option 4 is similar to Option 3 except 
for the additional carbon adsorption unit for final effluent polishing.
    The Agency is proposing BPT effluent limitations for the Oily Waste 
Subcategory based on Option 3 as well as Option 2 treatment systems. 
EPA has preliminarily concluded that both options represent best 
practicable control technologies. The technologies are in-use in the 
industry and the data collected by the Agency show that the limitations 
are being achieved. In assessing BPT, EPA considered age, size, 
process, other engineering factors, and non-water quality impacts 
pertinent to the facilities treating wastes in this subcategory. No 
basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on 
age, size, process or other engineering factors for the reasons 
previously discussed. For a service industry whose service is 
wastewater treatment, the pertinent factors here for establishing the 
limitations are costs of treatment, the level of effluent reductions 
obtainable, and non-water quality effects.
    Among the options considered by the Agency, both Options 2 and 3 
would provide for significant reductions in regulated pollutants 
discharged into the environment over current practice in the industry 
represented by Option 1. EPA is nonetheless, concerned about the cost 
of Option 3 because it is substantially more expensive than Option 2. 
However, EPA's economic assessment indicates, that Options 2 and 3 are 
economically reasonable.
    As noted, the Agency is proposing Option 2 because it is a 
currently available and cost-effective treatment option. However, the 
BPT pollutant removal performance required for a number of specific 
pollutants (particularly oil and grease and metals) is less stringent 
than current BPT effluent limitations guidelines promulgated for other 
industries. EPA is concerned about the potential for encouraging off-
site shipment of oily waste now being treated on-site if the 
limitations for this subcategory are significantly different from those 
other BPT effluent limitations currently in effect.
    EPA is proposing both options for comment because the Agency is 
concerned that, while both Options 2 and 3 are proven treatment 
technologies currently available to this industry, the additional 
effluent reductions associated with Option 3 are very expensive. EPA 
has preliminarily concluded that, even though the cost of Option 3 is 
significantly greater than Option 2 (because of installation, 
operation, and maintenance of reverse osmosis equipment), the costs are 
not unreasonable, given other factors. EPA is asking for comment on 
whether the effluent reduction benefits of Option 3 outweigh the high 
cost of the additional removal obtained through reverse osmosis. The 
Agency is particularly interested in comments on the ancillary effects 
of the less stringent Option 2 limitations. [[Page 5479]] 
    As previously discussed, the Agency will be re-estimating the 
current performance at facilities that treat oily waste based on 
comments received and information collected in the August 1994 sampling 
episode and re-calculating the cost and impacts of Options 2 and 3. The 
data from the August 1994 sampling episode is included in the record 
for this proposal, but was not incorporated into calculations because 
it was not received with sufficient time to review and incorporate.
    The Agency proposes to reject Option 1, because the technology does 
not provide for adequate control of the regulated pollutants. The 
Agency also proposes to reject Option 4 because Option 4 treatment 
technology results in a lower level of pollutant reductions in 
comparison to Option 3. Theoretically, Option 4 should provide for the 
maximum reduction of pollutants discharged due to the addition of 
carbon adsorption units, but specific pollutant concentrations increase 
across the carbon adsorption unit according to the analytical data 
collected.
    Even though, as previously explained, BPT limitations are generally 
defined by the average effluent reduction performance of the best 
existing treatment systems, here, as was the case with the BPT metal-
bearing wastes limitations, the options being proposed as the basis for 
BPT effluent limitations are based upon the treatment performance at a 
single facility. EPA concluded that existing performance at the other 
facilities is uniformly inadequate because many facilities that will be 
subject to the limitations for the Oily Waste Subcategory now commingle 
the oily wastewater with other wastes prior to treatment. The Agency 
has determined that the practice of mixing waste streams before 
treatment results in inadequate removal of the regulated pollutants of 
concern for the Oils Subcategory. Oily wastewater contains significant 
levels of organic and metals compounds. If the oily wastewater is mixed 
with other CWT wastewater, these organic and metals compounds are often 
found at non-detectable levels prior to treatment because the oily 
wastewater is effectively diluted by the other wastewater to the point 
that the compounds are no longer detectible. The treatment system on 
which the Options 2 through 4 effluent limitations are based was 
designed specifically for the treatment of segregated oily wastewater.
    See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to 
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
    (iii) Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory. The Agency is today 
proposing BPT limitations for the Organics Subcategory for 39 
pollutants. EPA identified two regulatory options for consideration in 
establishing BPT effluent reduction levels for this subcategory of the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. For a more detailed discussion of 
the basis for the limitations and technologies selected see the 
Technical Development Document.
    The two technology options considered for the Organics Subcategory 
BPT are:
     Option 1--Equalization, Air-Stripping, Biological 
Treatment, and Multi-media Filtration. BPT Option 1 effluent 
limitations are based on the following treatment system: equalization, 
two air-strippers in series equipped with a carbon adsorption unit for 
control of air emissions, biological treatment in the form of a 
sequential batch reactor (which is operated on a batch basis,) and 
finally multi-media filtration units for control of solids.
     Option 2--Equalization, Air-Stripping, Biological 
Treatment, Multi-Filtration, and Carbon Adsorption. Option 2 is the 
same as Option 1 except for the addition of carbon adsorption units.
    The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on 
the Option 1 technology for the Organics Subcategory. The demonstrated 
effluent reductions attainable through Option 1 control technology 
represent the best practicable performance attainable through the 
application of currently available treatment measures. EPA's decision 
to propose effluent limitations defined by the removal performance of 
the Option 1 treatment systems is based primarily on consideration of 
several factors: the effluent reductions attainable, the economic 
achievability of the option and non-water quality environmental 
benefits. Once again, the age and size of the facilities, processes and 
other engineering factors were not considered pertinent to 
establishment of BPT limitations for this subcategory.
    The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on the 
removal performance of the Option 1 treatment system for the following 
reasons. First, the cost of achieving the pollutant discharge levels 
associated with the Option 1 treatment system is reasonable. The 
annualized costs for treatment are low.
    According to the data collected, the Option 1 treatment system 
provides a greater effluent pollutant reduction level than the more 
expensive Option 2. Theoretically, Option 2 should provide for the 
maximum reduction of pollutants discharged due to the addition of 
carbon adsorption units, but specific pollutants of concern increased 
across the carbon adsorption unit according to the analytical data 
collected. Due to the poor performance of carbon adsorption in EPA's 
database for this industry, Option 2 is rejected. The poor performance 
may be a result of pH fluctuations in the carbon adsorption unit 
resulting in the solubilization of metals. Similar trends have been 
found for all of the data collected on carbon adsorption units in this 
industry. The EPA is soliciting comments, additional information, and 
performance data on carbon adsorption units used within the industry.
    The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the 
OCPSF regulation to establish direct discharge limitations for 
BOD5 and TSS, because the facility from which Option 1 and 2 
limitations were derived is an indirect discharger and the treatment 
system is not operated to optimize removal of conventional pollutants. 
EPA has concluded that the transfer of this data is appropriate given 
the absence of adequate treatment technology for these pollutants at 
the only otherwise well- operated BPT CWT facility. Given the treatment 
of similar wastes at both OCPSF and centralized waste treatment 
facilities, use of the data is warranted. Moreover, EPA has every 
reason to believe that the same treatment systems will perform 
similarly when treating the wastes in this subcategory.
    Once again, the selected BPT option is based on the performance of 
a single facility. Many facilities that are treating wastes that will 
be subject to effluent limitations for the Organic-Bearing Waste 
Subcategory also operate other industrial processes that generate much 
larger amounts of wastewater than the quantity of off-site generated 
organic waste receipts. The off-site generated organic waste receipts 
are directly mixed with the wastewater from the other industrial 
processes for treatment. Therefore, identifying facilities to sample 
for limitations development was difficult because the waste receipts 
and treatment unit effectiveness could not be properly characterized 
for off-site generated waste. The treatment system for which Options 1 
and 2 was based upon was one of the few facilities identified which 
treated organic waste receipts separately from other on-site industrial 
wastewater.
    See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to 
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation. [[Page 5480]] 
2. BCT
    In today's rule, EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional 
pollutants covered under BPT. In developing BCT limits, EPA considered 
whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of 
conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those 
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. In all 
three subcategories, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve 
greater removals of conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT that 
are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test, and accordingly EPA 
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards.
    EPA may also decide to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on 
treatment technologies less stringent than the Regulatory Options that 
are the basis for today's proposal. Consequently, EPA has also 
evaluated the cost-reasonableness of BCT limits if EPA were to adopt 
BPT limitations based on less stringent technologies. For all three 
categories, this assessment does not support the adoption of BCT 
limitations for conventional pollutants that are more stringent than 
BPT limitations based on a reduced level of treatment.
3. BAT
    EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for all 
subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry based on the 
same technologies selected for BPT for each subcategory. The BAT 
effluent limitations proposed today would control identified priority 
and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities.
    EPA has not identified any more stringent treatment technology 
option which it considered to represent BAT level of control applicable 
to facilities in this industry for the metals, oils, and organics 
subcategories, EPA identified an add-on treatment technology--carbon 
adsorption--that should have further increased removals of pollutants 
of concern. However, as explained above, EPA's data show increases 
rather than decreases in concentrations of specific pollutants of 
concern.
    In the case for the Oily Waste Subcategory, EPA is co-proposing two 
options for BAT: Options 2 and 3. EPA seeks comment on whether it 
should adopt BAT limitations based on Oils Option 3 or Oils Option 4 if 
the Agency decides to adopt Option 3 for BPT limitations for this 
Subcategory. Both the Options 3 and 4 treatment systems achieve 
increasingly greater levels of pollutant removal than Option 2. Both 
represent demonstrated technologies currently in use in the industry. 
However, the total costs for the industry over Option 2 are high. Given 
the statutory injunction for the Agency to develop BAT effluent 
limitations that reflect the best control measure economically 
achievable, EPA believes BAT limitations which reflect these more 
stringent effluent pollutant reduction levels may be appropriate. This 
is particularly true if the additional treatment results in significant 
reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment and thus 
reasonable further progress towards the goal of the Act--elimination of 
the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters. The Agency welcomes 
comment on this issue.
    EPA's data show that the costs of both Option 3 and Option 4 ($8.4 
million and $10.0 million, respectively) are significantly greater than 
Option 2 ($0.87 million). Nevertheless, the cost of per-pound removals, 
$0.38 and $0.44, respectively, are reasonable. In addition, both 
Options 3 and 4 are economically achievable because there would be not 
change in the industry profitability status as a result of the adoption 
of either Option. As stated earlier, the impact of limitations based on 
either Option 1, 2, 3, or 4 is a decrease in profitability for one 
direct discharger with increased profitability for three others. 
However, adoption of BAT limits based on Oil Option 3 would provide 
approximately 150,000 pounds of additional removals of pollutants over 
Option 2 while BAT limitations based on costlier Option 4 would remove 
fewer pollutants. In the circumstances, EPA has preliminarily 
determined that is should not adopt Option 4 as the basis for BAT 
limits if it decides to base BPT on Option 2.
    As with BPT limitations, EPA is proposing to require monitoring for 
compliance with the limitations at a point after treatment but prior to 
combining the CWT process wastewater with other wastewater. Many 
facilities operate other processes and the addition of this wastewater 
to CWT wastewater may result in dilution due to the difference in 
concentration of waste streams. Also, if a facility discharges non-
contaminated stormwater, the proposed regulation is requiring 
monitoring of the CWT discharge prior to the addition of non-
contaminated stormwater.
    As with BPT, monitoring for compliance with the regulation for the 
Total Cyanide limitation at facilities in the Metals Subcategory which 
treat concentrated cyanide-bearing metal waste is after cyanide 
pretreatment and prior to metal treatment. This ensures that cyanide 
will not interfere with metals treatment.
    See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to 
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
4. New Source Performance Standards
    As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, new industrial 
direct dischargers must comply with standards which reflect the 
greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of 
the best available demonstrated control technologies. Congress 
envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than 
existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most 
efficient processes and treatment systems into plant design. Therefore, 
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process 
changes, in-plant controls, operating methods and end-of-pipe treatment 
technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
    EPA is proposing NSPS that would control the same conventional, 
priority, and non-conventional pollutants proposed for control by the 
BPT effluent limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants 
at existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities. 
Furthermore, EPA has not identified any technologies or combinations of 
technologies that are demonstrated for new sources that are different 
from those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing sources. 
Therefore, EPA is establishing NSPS subcategories similar to the 
subcategories for existing facilities and proposing NSPS limitations 
that are identical to those proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT. Again, the Agency 
is requesting comments to provide information and data on other 
treatment systems that may be pertinent to the development of standards 
for this industry.
    EPA is specifically considering whether it should adopt NSPS for 
the Oil Subcategory which reflect either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment 
technologies. EPA does not believe there would be any barriers to entry 
in this industry associated with adoption of Option 3 or 4. One 
currently operating facility has demonstrated the performance of these 
control technologies--EPA is assessing whether or not to adopt NSPS for 
the Oil Subcategory that reflects this more stringent level of control. 
EPA is soliciting comments on this issue. [[Page 5481]] 
    See Section V.F. for further information regarding Monitoring to 
Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
    Indirect dischargers in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry, 
like the direct dischargers, accept for treatment wastes containing 
many priority and non-conventional pollutants. As in the case of direct 
dischargers, indirect dischargers may be expected to discharge many of 
these pollutants to POTWs at significant mass and concentration levels. 
EPA estimates that indirect dischargers annually discharge 
approximately 85 million pounds of pollutants.
    Section 307(b) requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards to 
prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs to waters of the U.S. or 
to prevent pollutants from interfering with the operation of POTWs. EPA 
is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-through of the 
same pollutants controlled by BAT from POTWs to waters of the U.S.
    a. Pass-through analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards, 
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry 
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge 
disposal practices. In determining whether pollutants pass through a 
POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by 
POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging 
facilities applying BAT. A pollutant is deemed to pass through the POTW 
when the average percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs 
(those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the 
percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent 
limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
    This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two 
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect 
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers and (2) 
that the treatment capability and performance of the POTW be recognized 
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from 
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of 
pollutants discharged by the POTW with the mass or concentration of 
pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA compares the percentage of 
the pollutants removed by the plant with the POTW removal. EPA takes 
this approach because a comparison of mass or concentration of 
pollutants in a POTW effluent with pollutants in a BAT facility's 
effluent would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged 
to the POTW from non-industrial sources nor the dilution of the 
pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations from the 
addition of large amounts of non- industrial wastewater. The volatile 
override test is the last step in determining is a pollutant will 
``pass-through.'' If a pollutant has a Henry's Law Constant greater 
than 2.4 x 10-5 atm-m\3\/mole, or 10-3mg/m\3\/mg/m\3\, it is 
determined to ``pass-through'' and will be regulated by PSES regardless 
of the percent removal data.
    For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 well-operated POTWs was 
used for the pass-through analysis. Because the data collected for 
evaluating POTW removals included influent levels of pollutants that 
were close to the detection limit, the POTW data were edited to 
eliminate influent levels less than 10 times the minimum level and the 
corresponding effluent values, except in the cases where none of the 
influent concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum level. In the 
latter case, where no influent data exceeded 10 times the minimum 
level, the data were edited to eliminate influent values less than 20 
g/l and the corresponding effluent values. These editing rules 
were used to allow for the possibility that low POTW removal simply 
reflected the low influent levels.
    EPA then averaged the remaining influent data and also averaged the 
remaining effluent data from the 50 POTW database. The percent removals 
achieved for each pollutant was determined from these averaged influent 
and effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to the 
percent removal for the BAT option treatment technology. Due to the 
large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional 
data from the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database was 
used to augment the POTW database for the pollutants for which the 50 
POTW Study did not cover. Based on this analysis, 78 of the 87 
pollutants regulated under Regulatory Option 1 (the combinations of 
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and 51 of the 87 
pollutants regulated under Regulatory Option 2 (the combinations of 
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) for BAT passed 
through POTWs and are proposed for regulation for PSES. The pollutants 
determined not to ``pass-through'' are listed in Table V.E-1.

     Table V.E-1.--Pollutants That Do Not Pass-through POTWs for the    
                  Centralized Waste Treatment Industry                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                           Pollutant             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals subcategory.................  Barium.                            
Oils Subcategory--Option 2.........  Nickel, Zinc, Tripropyleneglycol   
                                      Methyl Ether.                     
Organics Subcategory...............  Phenol, 2-Propanone, Lead,         
                                      Pyridine, Zinc.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Options considered. The Agency today is proposing to establish 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the same 
technologies as proposed for BPT and BAT for 78 of the 87 priority and 
non-conventional pollutants regulated under BAT for Regulatory Option 1 
(the combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics 
Option 1) and 81 of the 87 priority pollutants regulated under BAT for 
Regulatory Option 2 (the combinations of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 
3, and Organics Option 1) . These standards would apply to existing 
facilities in all subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry that discharge wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs). These limitations were developed based on the same 
technologies as proposed today for BPT/BAT, as applicable to each of 
the affected subcategories. PSES set at these points would prevent 
pass-through of pollutants, help control sludge contamination and 
reduce air emissions.
    EPA estimated the cost and economic impact of installing BPT/BAT 
PSES technologies at the indirect discharging facilities. The total 
estimated annualized cost in 1993 for all the subcategories is 
approximately $22.9 million (if PSES is Oils Option 3) and 
approximately $2.78 million (if PSES is Oils Option 2). EPA concluded 
the cost of installation of these control technologies, in the case of 
metal-bearing and organic-bearing waste streams, is clearly 
economically achievable. EPA's assessment shows none of the indirect 
discharging facilities in these subcategories go from a profitable to 
unprofitable status as a result of the installation of the necessary 
technology.
    EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Oils Option 3 
as PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are approximately 
ten times greater than Option 2. EPA is particularly interested in 
comments on whether Option 3 is economically achievable, given the EPA 
economic assessment showing that despite its high [[Page 5482]] cost, 
it results only in a slight increase in the number of facilities going 
from a profitable to unprofitable status. In the case of Oils Option 2, 
four of 31 indirect dischargers would go from a profitable to 
unprofitable status and for Option 3, six would experience a change 
from a profitable to unprofitable status. Additional information is 
provided in the Economic Impact Analysis.
    The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering 
factors, and non-water quality environmental impacts pertinent to 
facilities in developing PSES. The Agency did not identify any basis 
for establishing different PSES limitations based on age, size, 
processes, or other engineering factors. As previously explained for 
BPT, adoption of standards based on the proposed technologies for 
metal-bearing wastes and organic-bearing wastes would have important 
non-water quality effects. The metals standards should reduce landfill 
disposal of metals treatment residuals and the organic waste streams 
would reduce volatilization of organic compounds.
    c. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation. See 
Section V.F.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
    Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time it promulgates new 
source performance standards (NSPS). New indirect discharging 
facilities, like new direct discharging facilities, have the 
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated 
technologies, including process changes, in-facility controls, and end-
of-pipe treatment technologies.
    As set forth in Section VIII.E.4(a) of this preamble, EPA 
determined that a broad range of pollutants discharged by Centralized 
Waste Treatment Industry facilities pass-through POTWs. The same 
technologies discussed previously for BAT, NSPS, and PSES are available 
as the basis for PSNS.
    EPA is proposing that pretreatment standards for new sources be set 
equal to NSPS for priority and non-conventional pollutants for all 
subcategories. The Agency is proposing to establish PSNS for the same 
priority and non-conventional pollutants as are being proposed for 
NSPS. In addition, given the potential for dilution and the consequent 
impracticality of monitoring at the point of discharge, EPA is again 
proposing that monitoring to demonstrate compliance with these 
standards be required immediately following treatment of the regulated 
streams.
    EPA considered the cost of the proposed PSNS technology for new 
facilities. EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to 
present a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently 
operating facilities are using these technologies. Again, EPA is 
requesting comment on whether it should adopt PSNS for the Oily Waste 
Subcategory that reflects effluent reduction levels achievable through 
either Option 3 or Option 4 treatment systems. The Agency considered 
energy requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts 
and found no basis for any different standards than the selected PSNS.

F. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With the Regulation

    The effluent limitations EPA is proposing today apply only to 
discharges resulting from treatment of the subcategory wastes and not 
to mixtures of subcategory wastes with other wastes or mixtures of 
different subcategory wastes. In addition, these effluent limitations 
do not apply to discharges from the treatment of subcategory wastes 
that are mixed prior to or after treatment with other wastewater 
streams prior to discharge. EPA has concluded that it is impractical 
and infeasible to set limits for the pollutants proposed to be 
regulated in this category at the point of discharge for mixed waste 
streams, given the potential for mixing to avoid achievement of the 
required effluent reductions.
    Thus, many facilities in this industry may operate other processes 
which generate wastes requiring treatment and may add these wastes to 
CWT wastes before treatment and discharge. This may result in dilution 
rather than required treatment of CWT wastes due to the difference in 
concentration of waste streams. In addition, if a facility discharges 
its non-contaminated stormwater, implementation of this proposal 
requires a facility to monitor the CWT discharge prior to the addition 
of non-contaminated stormwater. Similarly, for facilities which treat 
concentrated cyanide-bearing metal wastes, the limitations for Total 
Cyanide are based on cyanide levels that are demonstrated to be 
achieved after cyanide pretreatment and prior to metals precipitation. 
Separate pretreatment of cyanide in metal-bearing waste streams is 
necessary in order to ensure that cyanide will not interfere with 
metals treatment. Consequently, EPA has preliminarily determined that 
it will require compliance monitoring immediately following treatment 
of subcategory waste streams (e.g., metal-bearing, oily, or organic-
bearing, as appropriate) unless the facility can demonstrate that it is 
achieving the required effluent reduction associated with separate 
treatment of the waste streams in a mixed waste treatment system. (See 
further discussion of this issue below at Section VIII.)

G. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Limitations for BPT

    The proposed effluent limitations and standards in today's notice 
are based upon statistical procedures that estimate long-term averages 
and variability factors. The following sections describe the 
statistical methodology used to develop long-term averages, variability 
factors, and limitations for BPT. The limitations for BCT, BAT, NSPS, 
PSES, and PSNS are based upon the limitations for BPT for all 
pollutants.
    The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as 
presented in today's notice, are provided as daily maximums and 
maximums for monthly averages. In most cases, the daily maximum 
limitation for a pollutant in an option is the product of the pollutant 
long-term average and the group daily variability factor. In most 
cases, the maximum for monthly average limitation for a pollutant for 
an option is the product of the pollutant long-term average and the 
group monthly variability factor. The procedures used to estimate the 
pollutant long-term averages and group variability factors are briefly 
described below. A more detailed explanation is provided in the 
statistical support document.
    The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were 
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from two sources: EPA 
sampling episodes and the 1991 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire. These 
data sources are described in Sections IV.B. and IV.D. (Data from the 
same facility but from different sources were analyzed as though each 
source provided information about a different facility.)
    The long-term average for each pollutant was calculated for each 
facility by arithmetically averaging the pollutant concentrations. The 
pollutant long-term average for an option was the median of the long-
term averages from selected facilities with the BPT technology basis 
for the option.
    The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is 
the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the 
daily pollutant concentration values divided by the 
[[Page 5483]] expected value, or mean, of the distribution of the daily 
values. The monthly variability factor for each pollutant at each 
facility is the estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of 
monthly averages of the daily concentration values divided by the 
expected value of the monthly averages. The number of measurements used 
to calculate the monthly averages corresponds to the number of days 
that the pollutant is assumed to be monitored during the month. For 
example, the volatile organic compounds are expected to be monitored 
once a week (which is approximately four times a month); therefore, the 
monthly variability factor was based upon the distribution of four-day 
averages. Certain pollutants such as BOD5 are expected to be 
monitored daily; therefore, the monthly variability factor was based 
upon the distribution of 20-day averages (most facilities operate only 
on weekdays of which there are approximately 20 in each month). The 
assumed monitoring frequency of each pollutant is identified in Table 
V.G-1.

      Table V.G-1.--Monitoring Frequencies Used To Estimate Monthly     
                           Variability Factors                          
                                                                        
                                                                        
                   Assumed Daily Monitoring Frequency                   
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum                              Manganese.                        
Antimony                              Mercury.                          
Arsenic                               Molybdenum.                       
Barium                                Nickel.                           
BOD5                                  Oil and Grease.                   
Cadmium                               Silver.                           
Chromium                              Tin.                              
Cobalt                                Titanium.                         
Copper                                TOC.                              
Iron                                  Total Cyanide.                    
Lead                                  TSS.                              
Magnesium                             Zinc.                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Assumed Weekly Monitoring Frequency                  
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hexavalent Chromium                   Methylene Chloride.               
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane             m-Xylene.                         
1,1,1-Trichloroethane                 n-Decane.                         
1,1,2-Trichloroethane                 n-Docosane.                       
1,1-Dichloroethane                    n-Dodecane.                       
1,2,3-Trichloropropane                n-Eicosane.                       
1,2-Dibromoethane                     n-Hexacosane.                     
1,2-Dichloroethane                    n-Hexadecane.                     
trans-1,2-dichloroethene              n-Octadecane.                     
2,3-Dichloroaniline                   n-Tetradecane.                    
2-Propanone                           o&p-Xylene.                       
4-chloro-3-methyl phenol              o-Cresol.                         
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone                  Phenol.                           
Acetophenone                          Pyridine.                         
Benzene                               p-Cresol.                         
Benzoic Acid                          Tetrachloroethene.                
Butanone                              Tetrachloromethane.               
Carbon Disulfide                      Toluene.                          
Chloroform                            Trichloroethene.                  
Diethyl ether                         Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether.  
Hexanoic Acid                                                           
Ethylbenzene                          Vinyl Chloride.                   

    The variability factors for each option were developed for groups 
of pollutants in three steps. These steps are described here for the 
daily variability factors. Similar steps were used to develop monthly 
variability factors. The first step was to develop a daily variability 
factor for each pollutant at each facility by fitting a modified delta-
lognormal distribution to the daily pollutant concentration values from 
each facility. (For monthly variability factors, the modified delta-
lognormal distribution was fit to the monthly averages.) The second 
step was to develop one daily variability factor for each pollutant for 
each option by averaging the daily variability factors for the selected 
facilities with the technology basis for the option. The third step was 
to develop ``group'' daily variability factors for each option. Each 
group contained pollutants that were chemically similar. The daily 
variability factor for each group was the median of the daily 
variability factors obtained in the second step for the pollutants in 
the group and option. In some cases, none of the daily variability 
factors for the pollutants within a group could be estimated. In some 
of these cases, the daily variability factor for the group was 
transferred from the other groups in the option that used the same 
fraction in the chemical analysis. This transferred group daily 
variability factor was the median of the daily variability factors from 
the other groups. In the remaining cases where the group daily 
variability factors could not be estimated, the group daily variability 
factors were transferred from chemically similar pollutants or from 
other options within the subcategory. The development of daily and 
monthly variability factors is described further in the statistical 
support document.
    Because EPA is assuming that some pollutants (BOD5, TSS, oil 
and grease, metals, total cyanide, and TOC) will be monitored daily, 
the 20-day variability factors were based on the distribution of 20-day 
averages. If concentrations measured on consecutive days are positively 
correlated, then autocorrelation would have an effect on the 20-day 
variability factors (long-term averages are not affected by 
autocorrelation). However, the centralized waste treatment data used to 
calculate the 20-day variability factors were, in most cases, not 
consecutive daily measurements. Therefore, at this time, EPA does not 
have sufficient data to examine in detail and incorporate (if 
statistically significant) any autocorrelation between concentrations 
measured on adjacent days. Furthermore, EPA believes that 
autocorrelation may not be present in daily measurements from 
wastewater from this industry. Unlike other industries, where the 
industrial processes are expected to produce the same type of 
wastewater from one day to the next, the wastewater from Centralized 
Waste Treatment Industry is generated from treating wastes from 
different sources and industrial processes. The wastes treated on a 
given day will often be different than the waste treated on the 
following day. Because of this, autocorrelation would not be expected 
to be present in measurements of wastewater from the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry. In Section VIII.B.7, EPA requests additional 
wastewater monitoring data. EPA will use these data to further evaluate 
autocorrelation in the data for the pollutants that will be monitored 
daily.

H. Regulatory Implementation

    1. Applicability
    The regulation proposed today is just that--a proposed regulation. 
While today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time, the 
effluent limitations and standards may still change based on additional 
information or data submitted by commenters or developed by the Agency. 
Consequently, the permit writer should consider the proposed limits in 
developing permit limits. Although the information provided in the 
Development Document may provide useful information and guidance to 
permit writers in determining best professional judgment permit limits, 
the permit writer will still need to justify any permit limits based on 
the conditions at the individual facility.
    2. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and 
(n).
[[Page 5484]]

3. Variances and Modifications
    The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations 
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of 
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the 
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in 
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established 
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the 
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority, 
conventional and non- conventional pollutants.
    a. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances. EPA will develop 
effluent limitations or standards different from the otherwise 
applicable requirements if an individual existing discharging facility 
is fundamentally different with respect to factors considered in 
establishing the limitation or standards applicable to the individual 
facility. Such a modification is known as a ``fundamentally different 
factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants 
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF 
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF 
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and 
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n 
v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under EPA may establish alternative 
requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for approval of FDF 
variance must be based solely on 1) information submitted during the 
rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different or 2) 
information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The 
alternate limitation or standard must be no less stringent than 
justified by the difference and not result in markedly more adverse 
non-water quality environmental impacts than the national limitation or 
standard.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the 
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and 
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF 
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, 
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in 
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must 
determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the 
facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and 
factors considered by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable 
effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors 
(e.g., infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a 
discharger's ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF 
variance. In addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for 
limitations less stringent than the national limitation may be approved 
only if compliance with the national limitations would result in either 
(a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost 
considered during development of the national limitations, or (b) a 
non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) 
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during 
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF 
variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The 
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment 
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct 
dischargers.
    The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSES.
    b. Economic Variances. Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a 
variance from the otherwise applicable BAT effluent guidelines for non-
conventional pollutants due to economic factors. The request for a 
variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guidelines must 
normally be filed by the discharger during the public notice period for 
the draft permit. Other filing time periods may apply, as specified in 
40 CFR 122.21(l)(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is 
available from EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.
    c. Water Quality Variances. Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a 
variance from BAT effluent guidelines for certain nonconventional 
pollutants due to localized environmental factors. These pollutants 
include ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.
    d. Permit modifications. Even after EPA (or an authorized State) 
has issued a final permit to a direct discharger, the permit may still 
be modified under certain conditions. (When a permit modification is 
under consideration, however, all other permit conditions remain in 
effect.) A permit modification may be triggered in several 
circumstances. These could include a regulatory inspection or 
information submitted by the permittee that reveals the need for 
modification. Any interested person may request modification of a 
permit modification be made. There are two classifications of 
modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they 
differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major 
modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not. 
Virtually any modifications that results in less stringent conditions 
is treated as a major modification, with provisions for public notice 
and comment. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of 
a permit are described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are 
generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor 
modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
    e. Removal credits. As described previously, many industrial 
facilities discharge large quantities of pollutants to POTWs where 
their wastewater mix with wastewater from other sources, domestic 
sewage from private residences and run-off from various sources prior 
to treatment and discharge by the POTW. Industrial discharges 
frequently contain pollutants that are generally not removed as 
effectively by treatment at the POTWs as by the industries themselves.
    The introduction of pollutants to a POTW from industrial discharges 
may pose several problems. These include potential interference with 
the POTW's operation or pass-through of pollutants [[Page 5485]] if 
inadequately treated. As discussed, Congress, in Section 307(b) of the 
Act, directed EPA to establish pretreatment standards to prevent these 
potential problems. Congress also recognized that, in certain 
instances, POTWs could provide some or all of the treatment of an 
industrial user's wastewater that would be required pursuant to the 
pretreatment standard. Consequently, Congress established a 
discretionary program for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their 
indirect dischargers. The credit, in the form of a less stringent 
pretreatment standard, allows an increased concentration of a pollutant 
in the flow from the indirect discharger's facility to the POTW.
    Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes a three-part test for 
obtaining removal credit authority for a given pollutant. Removal 
credits may be authorized only if (1) the POTW ``removes all or any 
part of such toxic pollutant,'' (2) the POTW's ultimate discharge would 
``not violate that effluent limitation, or standard which would be 
applicable to that toxic pollutant if it were discharged'' directly 
rather than through a POTW and (3) the POTW's discharge would ``not 
prevent sludge use and disposal by such [POTW] in accordance with 
Section [405]. . . .'' Section 307(b).
    EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations in 40 CFR 403.7. The 
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has interpreted 
the statute to require EPA to promulgate comprehensive sewage sludge 
regulations before any removal credits could be authorized. NRDC v. 
EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert. denied. 479 U.S. 1084 
(1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water Quality Act of 1987 
which provided that EPA could not authorize any removal credits until 
it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal regulations required by 
Section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii).
    Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate regulations that 
establish standards for sewage sludge when used or disposed for various 
purposes. These standards must include sewage sludge management 
standards as well as numerical limits for pollutants that may be 
present in sewage sludge in concentrations which may adversely affect 
public health and the environment. Section 405 requires EPA to develop 
these standards in two phases. On November 25, 1992, EPA promulgated 
the Round One sewage sludge regulations establishing standards, 
including numerical pollutant limits, for the use or disposal of sewage 
sludge. 58 FR 9248. EPA established pollutant limits for ten metals 
when sewage sludge is applied to land, for three metals when it is 
disposed of on a surface disposal site and for seven metals and a total 
hydrocarbon operational standard, a surrogate for organic pollutant 
emissions, when sewage sludge is incinerated. These requirements are 
codified at 40 CFR Part 503.
    The Phase One regulations partially fulfilled the Agency's 
commitment under the terms of a consent decree that settled a citizens 
suit to compel issuance of the sludge regulations. Gearhart, et al. v. 
Reilly, Civil No. 89-6266-JO (D. Ore). Under the terms of that decree, 
EPA must propose and take final action on the Round Two sewage sludge 
regulations by December 15, 2001.
    At the same time EPA promulgated the Round One regulations, EPA 
also amended its pretreatment regulations to provide that removal 
credits would be available for certain pollutants regulated in the 
sewage sludge regulations. See 58 FR 9386. The amendments to Part 403 
provide that removal credits may be made potentially available for the 
following pollutants:
    (1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial 
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it, 
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal 
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements 
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits 
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a 
surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three 
metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be 
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants. See 40 CFR 
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A).
    (2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of 
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be 
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the 
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established 
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may 
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When 
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal 
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic 
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may 
be available for three other metals. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid 
waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258 (MSWLF), 
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage 
sludge. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C). Thus, given compliance with the 
requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,\3\ following 
promulgation of the pretreatment standards being proposed here, removal 
credits may be authorized for any pollutant subject to pretreatment 
standards if the applying POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF 
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the POTW uses or 
disposes of its sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or 
incineration, removal credits may be available for the following metal 
pollutants (depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic, 
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, 
selenium and zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits 
may be available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the 
method of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage 
sludge: benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene, 
methylene chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 
1,1,2-trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.

    \3\Under Section 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal 
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for, 
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director 
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a 
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment 
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(I), (ii) and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit 
authorization for other pollutants being considered for regulation in 
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not 
otherwise be available under Part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of 
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines 
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges 
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect 
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the 
preamble to amendment to the Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-83), EPA 
has interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a 
pollutant only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be 
authorized for any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA has 
established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA 
has determined will not threaten human health and the environment when 
used or disposed of in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in 
paragraphs (1)-(3) above [[Page 5486]] include all those pollutants 
that EPA either specifically regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for 
regulation and determined would not adversely affect sludge use and 
disposal.
    Consequently, in the case of a pollutant for which EPA did not 
perform a risk assessment in developing the Phase One sewage sludge 
regulations, removal credit for pollutants will only be available when 
the Agency determines either a safe level for the pollutant in sewage 
sludge or that regulation of the pollutant is unnecessary to protect 
public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated 
adverse effects of such a pollutant.\4\ Therefore, any person seeking 
to add additional categorical pollutants to the list for which removal 
credits are now available would need to submit information to the 
Agency to support such a determination. The basis for such a 
determination may include information showing the absence of risks for 
the pollutant (generally established through an environmental pathway 
risk assessment such as EPA used for Phase One) or data establishing 
the pollutant's presence in sewage sludge at low levels relative to 
risk levels or both. Parties, however, may submit whatever information 
they conclude is sufficient to establish either the absence of any 
potential for harm from the presence of the pollutant in sewage sludge 
or data demonstrating a ``safe'' level for the pollutant in sludge. 
Following submission of such a demonstration, EPA will review the data 
and determine whether or not it should propose to amend the list of 
pollutants for which removal credits would be available.

    \4\In the Round One sewage sludge regulation, EPA concluded, on 
the basis of risk assessments, that certain pollutants (see Appendix 
G to Part 403) did not pose an unreasonable risk to human health and 
the environment and did not require the establishment of sewage 
sludge pollutant limits. As discussed above, so long as the 
concentration of these pollutants in sewage sludge are lower than a 
prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such 
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has already begun the process of evaluating a number of 
pollutants for adverse potential to human health and the environment 
when present in sewage sludge. In May, 1993, pursuant to the terms of 
the consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United 
States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the 
information then available at that time, it intended to propose 31 
pollutants for regulation in the Round Two sewage sludge regulations. 
These are acetic acid (2,4-dichlorophenoxy), aluminum, antimony, 
asbestos, barium, beryllium, boron, butanone, carbon disulfide, cresol 
(p-), cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), dioxins/dibenzofurans 
(all monochloro to octochloro congeners), endsulfan-II, fluoride, 
manganese, methylene chloride, nitrate, nitrite, pentachloro-
nitrobenzene, phenol, phthalate (bis-2-ethylhexyl), polychlorinated 
biphenyls (co-planar), propanone (2-), silver, thallium, tin, titanium, 
toluene, trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4, 5-), 
trichlorphenoxypropionic acid ([2--(2, 4, 5-)], and vanadium.
    The Round Two regulations are not scheduled for proposal until 
December, 1999 and promulgation in December 2001. However, given the 
necessary factual showing, as detailed above, EPA could conclude before 
the contemplated proposal and promulgation dates that regulation of 
some of these pollutants is not necessary. In those circumstances, EPA 
could propose that removal credits should be authorized for such 
pollutants before promulgation of the Round Two sewage sludge 
regulations. However, given the Agency's commitment to promulgation of 
effluent limitations and guidelines under court-supervised deadlines, 
it may not be possible to complete review of removal credit 
authorization requests by the time EPA must promulgate these guidelines 
and standards.
4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring 
Requirements
    Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the 
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These 
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits 
issued by the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
    The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this 
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial 
category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect 
to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered 
by this proposed regulation. In addition, if State water quality 
standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on 
pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent 
limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must apply 
those limitations.
    For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple 
categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are applied using 
a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline for each 
category or subcategory. Where a facility treats a CWT waste stream and 
process wastewater from other industrial operations, the effluent 
guidelines would be applied by using a flow-weighted combination of the 
BPT/BAT/PSES limit for the CWT subcategory and the other industrial 
operations to derive the appropriate limitations. However, as stated 
above, if State water quality standards or other provisions of State or 
Federal Law require limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation 
(or require more stringent limits on covered pollutants), the 
permitting authority must apply those limitations regardless of the 
limitation derived using the flow-weighted combinations.
    Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the 
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of 
the monitoring conditions is the point at a facility must monitor to 
demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can 
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. 
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in 
order to assure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams 
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(I)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Today's proposed 
integrated rule establishes several internal monitoring points to 
ensure compliance with the effluent guideline limitations. Permit 
writers may establish additional internal monitoring points to the 
extent consistent with EPA's regulations.
5. Implementation for Facilities with Operations in Multiple 
Subcategories
    According to the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, 
thirty percent of facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry have been identified as accepting waste that is included in 
two or more of the subcategories being proposed for regulation here. In 
other words, the facilities actively accept a variety of waste types. 
This is not to be confused with the fact that metal-bearing waste 
streams may include low level organics or that oily wastes may include 
metals due to the origin of the waste stream accepted for treatment.
    The limitations and standards EPA is today proposing are based on 
treatment of wastes that have not been commingled for treatment without 
the appropriate pretreatment. EPA's sampling program and other data in 
the record demonstrate that mixing of wastes before treatment does not 
provide appropriate pollutant removals but may merely mask the absence 
of removal through dilution. Consequently, the proposal required 
monitoring immediately following the treatment of the regulated waste 
stream to demonstrate compliance. Wastes [[Page 5487]] treated in the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have been characterized as 
concentrated, difficult to treat wastewater, sludges, off-spec 
products, etc. and are often unlike waste streams found at other 
categorical industries. Therefore, special attention should be taken 
when facilities determine which waste streams are accepted for 
treatment.
    If a facility accepts for treatment a mixture of waste types, it is 
still subject to limitations and standards (and monitoring to 
demonstrate compliance) that reflect the treatment performance 
achievable for the unmixed streams. In other words, if a facility 
accepts for treatment metal-bearing and oily waste, the facility must 
comply with the limitations and standards based on a treatment system 
which employs emulsion-breaking, ultrafiltration, and carbon adsorption 
to ``adequately treat'' the oily waste for the oils and organics 
constituents. Similarly, discharges from the metal-bearing stream must 
comply with the limitations and standards defined by a treatment system 
employing selective metals precipitation. Compliance with the 
limitations and standards must be demonstrated following treatment. EPA 
has concluded that if oily wastes that have not been pretreated are 
mixed with the metal-bearing waste stream for selective metals 
precipitation, the unit will not meet the required performance level 
for metals.
    The effluent guideline would be applied by using a flow-weighted 
combination of BPT/BAT/PSES limitations for the subcategories of 
concern to derive the facility limit. The permit writer may establish 
limitations and standards based on separate treatment for each 
subcategory's operation.
    Mixing of dissimilar waste streams may result in dilution of 
pollutants because the waste streams do not contain the same pollutants 
or may result in dilution of the stream to the point that pollutants 
are non-detectible. For waste streams which contain the same pollutants 
at similar concentration, pretreatment may not be necessary.
    The Agency attempted to establish one set of limitations for 
facilities in all subcategories, but due to the fact that performances 
levels and the pollutants of concern are not the same for all 
subcategories, this task could not be done. The Agency solicits comment 
on its approach to multiple subcategory facilities. EPA is requesting 
commenters to supply additional data which they may have that would aid 
in characterizing the efficiency of waste treatment systems for 
facilities which commingle waste from multiple subcategories prior to 
treatment.
    EPA considered and rejected another approach which did not require 
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with CWT limitations and standards 
in the case of facilities which mixed categorical waste streams with 
CWT wastes. Rather, for such facilities, permit writers would require 
the facility to identify the sources of the CWT wastestreams and then 
develop facility limits applying the combined waste stream formula, 
using the applicable guidelines and limitations for the CWT waste 
source. If CWT wastes were treated separately at such a facility, then 
the permit writer would just apply the CWT limitations and standards in 
developing the limits. EPA is asking for comment on whether to 
reconsider such an approach.

VI. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives

A. Costs

     The Agency estimated the cost for CWT facilities to achieve each 
of the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. These 
estimated costs are summarized in this section and discussed in more 
detail in the Technical Development Document. All cost estimates in 
this section are expressed in terms of 1993 dollars. The cost 
components reported in this section represent estimates of the 
investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual 
operating and maintenance costs associated with that equipment, 
additional costs for discharge monitoring, and costs for facilities to 
modify existing RCRA permits. In Sections VI.B., costs are expressed in 
terms of a different cost component, total annualized cost. The total 
annualized cost, which is used to estimate economic impacts, better 
describes the actual compliance cost that a company will incur, 
allowing for interest, depreciation, and taxes. A summary of the 
economic impact analysis for the proposed regulation is contained in 
Section VI.B. of today's notice. See also the economic impact analysis.
1. BPT Costs
    The Agency estimated the cost of implementing the proposed BPT 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards by calculating the 
engineering costs of meeting the required effluent reductions for each 
direct discharging CWT. This facility-specific engineering cost 
assessment for BPT began with a review of present waste treatment 
technologies. For facilities without treatment technology in-place 
equivalent to the BPT technology, EPA estimated the cost to upgrade its 
treatment technology, to use additional treatment chemicals to achieve 
the new discharge standards, and to employ additional personnel, where 
applicable for the option. The only facilities given no cost for 
compliance were facilities with the treatment-in-place prescribed for 
that option. The Agency believes that this approach overestimates the 
costs to achieve the proposed BPT because many facilities can achieve 
BPT level discharges without using all of the components of the 
technology basis described in Section V.E. The Agency solicits comment 
on these costing assumptions. Table VI.A-1 summarizes, by subcategory, 
the capital expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT. 
Costs are presented for Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals 
Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 
(the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 
1). The capital expenditures for the process change component of BPT 
are estimated to be $17.7 million with annual O&M costs of $14.3 
million for Regulatory Option 1 and $20.6 million with annual O&M costs 
of $21.7 million for Regulatory Option 2.

                                                                        
[[Page 5488]]                                                           
           Table VI.A-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations          
                      [In millions of 1993 dollars]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       No. of       Capital   Annual O&M
           Subcategory             facilities\1\     costs       costs  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery....            12         15.4        10.5
Oils Treatment and Recovery--                                           
 Regulatory Option 1.............             4         1.02       0.779
Oils Treatment and Recovery--                                           
 Regulatory Option 2.............             4         3.84        8.15
Organics Treatment...............             6         1.32        3.06
                                                                        
Regulatory Option 1..............            16         17.7        14.3
Regulatory Option 2..............            16         20.6       21.7 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are 16 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers     
  include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the       
  facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total   
  number of facilities.                                                 

2. BCT/BAT Costs
    The Agency estimated that there would be no cost of compliance for 
implementing BCT/BAT, because the technology is identical to BPT and 
the costs are included with BPT.
3. PSES Costs
    The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES with the same 
assumptions and methodology used to estimate cost of implementing BAT. 
Table VI.A-2 summarizes, by subcategory, the capital expenditures and 
annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. Costs are presented for 
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, 
and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of 
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1). The capital 
expenditures for the process change component of PSES are estimated to 
be $43.8 million with annual O&M costs of $26.8 million for Regulatory 
Option 1 and $52.6 million with annual O&M costs of $45.9 million for 
Regulatory Option 2.

          Table VI.A-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations          
                      [In millions of 1993 dollars]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      No. of       Capital    Annual O&M
           Subcategory            facilities\1\     costs       costs   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...            44         28.5        23.0 
Oils Treatment and Recovery--                                           
 Regulatory Option 1............            31         4.21         2.37
Oils Treatment and Recovery--                                           
 Regulatory Option 2............            31         13.0        21.5 
Organics Treatment..............            16         11.1         1.41
                                                                        
Regulatory Option 1.............            56         43.8        26.8 
Regulatory Option 2.............            56         52.6        45.9 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are 16 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers     
  include operations in more than one subcategory, the sum of the       
  facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total   
  number of facilities.                                                 

B. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that 
would be discharged from CWT facilities after the implementation of the 
regulations being proposed today.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    EPA has calculated how much adoption of the proposed BPT/BCT 
limitations would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants 
that are discharged. To do this, for each subcategory, the Agency 
developed an estimate of the long- term average loading (LTA) of 
BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease that would be discharged after the 
implementation of BPT. Next, these BPT/BCT LTAs for BOD5, TSS, and 
Oil and Grease were multiplied by 1989 wastewater flows for each direct 
discharging facility in the subcategory to calculate BPT/BCT mass 
discharge loadings for BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease for each 
facility. The BPT/BCT mass discharge loadings were subtracted from the 
estimated current loadings to calculate the pollutant reductions for 
each facility. Each subcategory's BPT/BCT pollutant reduction was 
summed to estimate the total facility's pollutant reduction for those 
facilities treating wastes in multiple subcategories. Subcategory 
reductions, obviously, were obtained by summing individual subcategory 
results. The Agency estimates that the proposed regulations will reduce 
BOD5 discharges by approximately 34.5 million pounds per year for 
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, 
and Organics Option 1) and 36.9 million pounds per year for Regulatory 
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and 
Organics Option 1); TSS discharges by approximately 30.3 million pounds 
per year for both Regulatory Options; and Oil and Grease discharges by 
approximately 52.4 million pounds per year for Regulatory Option 1 (the 
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) 
and 56.9 million pounds per year for Regulatory Option 2 (the 
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1).
2. Priority and Nonconventional Pollutant Reductions
    a. Methodology. Today's proposal, if promulgated, will also reduce 
discharges of priority and non-conventional pollutants. Applying the 
same methodology used to estimate conventional pollutant reductions 
attributable to application of BPT/BCT control technology, EPA has also 
estimated priority and non-conventional pollutant reductions for each 
facility by subcategory. Because EPA has proposed BAT limitations 
equivalent to BPT, there are obviously no further pollutant reductions 
associated with BAT limitations. [[Page 5489]] 
    Current loadings were estimated by using data collected by the 
Agency in the field sampling program and from the questionnaire data 
supplied by the industry. For many facilities, data were not available 
for all pollutants of concern or without the addition of other non-CWT 
wastewater. Therefore, methodologies were developed to estimate current 
performance for each subcategory assessing performance of on-site 
treatment technologies, by using wastewater permit information and 
monitoring data supplied in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire and the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire as described in 
Section V.B.
    b. Direct Facility Discharges (BPT/BAT) The estimated reductions in 
pollutants directly discharged in treated final effluent resulting from 
implementation of BPT/BAT are listed in Table VI.B-1. Pollutant 
reductions are presented for Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of 
Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory 
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and 
Organics Option 1). The Agency estimates that proposed BPT/BAT 
regulations will reduce direct facility discharges of priority, and 
non-conventional pollutants by 5.0 million pounds per year for 
Regulatory Option 1 and 8.0 million pounds per year for Regulatory 
Option 2.

      Table VI.B-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and      
 Nonconventional Pollutants After Implementation of BPT/BAT Regulations 
                            [Units=lbs/year]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Metal      Organic 
                   Subcategory                     compounds   compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...................     871,832     245,525
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 1     294,543     556,627
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 2     319,847     610,937
Organics Treatment..............................   3,065,679        \1\0
                                                                        
Regulatory Option 1.............................   4,232,054     802,153
Regulatory Option 2.............................   7,617,580  1,413,091 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The organic compounds pollutant reduction for the Organics           
  Subcategory was estimated to be 0, because all facilities had the     
  treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.                  

    c. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. The estimated reductions in 
pollutants indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation 
of PSES are listed in Table VI.B-2. Pollutant reductions are presented 
for Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils 
Option 2, and Organics Option 1) and Regulatory Option 2 (the 
combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1). 
The Agency estimates that proposed PSES regulations will reduce 
indirect facility discharge to POTWs by 6.5 million pounds per year for 
Regulatory Option 1 and 12 million pounds per year for Regulatory 
Option 2.

     Table VI.B-2.--Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and     
   Nonconventional Pollutants After Implementation of PSES Regulations  
                            [Units=lbs/year]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Metal      Organic 
                   Subcategory                     compounds   compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...................     428,040     120,545
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 1     709,834   1,341,439
Oils Treatment and Recovery--Regulatory Option 2     771,668   1,474,708
Organics Treatment..............................     415,812   3,521,560
                                                                        
Regulatory Option 1.............................   1,553,686   4,983,544
Regulatory Option 2.............................   2,741,166   9,979,812
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Economic Impact Assessment

1. Introduction
    EPA's economic impact assessment is set forth in a report titled 
``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' 
(hereinafter ``EIA''). This report estimates the economic and financial 
effects of compliance with the proposed regulation in terms of facility 
and company profitability and assesses the economic effect of 
compliance on six regional markets. Community impacts and the effects 
on local communities and new centralized waste treatment (CWT) 
facilities are also presented. The EIA also includes a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis detailing the effects on small businesses for this 
industry.
    As discussed previously, a total of 85 Centralized Waste Treatment 
facilities owned and operated by 57 companies are potentially subject 
to the proposed regulation. EPA has projected that 72 of these 
facilities will incur costs as a result of this regulation. The 
economic impact on each of the 72 direct and indirect dischargers was 
calculated based on the cost of compliance with the required effluent 
discharge levels for the appropriate subcategory. Impacts on direct 
dischargers were calculated for compliance with the proposed BPT/BCT/
BAT; impacts on indirect dischargers were calculated for compliance 
with PSES.
    Because two options are being proposed for the Oils Subcategory, 
EPA calculated the cost of compliance with each option. Regulatory 
Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, and 
Organics Option 1) is estimated to have a total annualized cost of 
$49.1 million, and Regulatory Option 2 (the combination of Metals 
Option 3, Oils Option 3, and Organics Option 1) is estimated to have a 
total annualized cost of $76.8 million. In Table VI.C-1, the total 
annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES are presented in 1993 
dollars.

          Table VI.C-1.-- Total Annualized Costs (10\6\ $1993)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   BPT/                 
                     Option                        BCT/    PSES    Total
                                                    BAT                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................    14.2    34.9    49.1
Option 2........................................    21.8    55.0    76.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the 
alternative treatment technology options considered by the Agency. The 
results of this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of 
the incremental costs per pound of toxic-equivalent removed. Toxic-
equivalents weights are used to account for the differences in toxicity 
among the pollutants removed. The number of pounds of a pollutant 
removed by each option is multiplied by a toxic weighting factor. The 
toxic weighting factor is derived using ambient water quality criteria 
and toxicity values. The toxic weighting factors are standardized by 
relating them to copper. Cost-effectiveness is calculated as the ratio 
of incremental annualized costs of an option to the incremental pounds-
equivalent removed by that option. The report, ``Cost-Effectiveness of 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (hereinafter, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Report''), is included in the record of this rulemaking. 
[[Page 5490]] 
    The Agency recognizes that its data base, which represents 
conditions in 1989, may not precisely reflect current conditions in the 
industry today. EPA recognizes that the questionnaire data were 
obtained several years ago and thus may not precisely mirror present 
conditions at every facilities. Nevertheless, EPA concluded that the 
data provide a sound and reasonable basis for assessing the overall 
ability of the industry to achieve compliance with the regulations. The 
purpose of the impact analysis is to characterize the impact of the 
proposed regulation for the industry as a whole and for major groupings 
within the industry.
2. Baseline Industry Analysis
    Of the 85 Centralized Waste Treatment facilities, 53 facilities are 
strictly commercial, accepting waste generated by other for treatment 
and management for a fee. Fourteen facilities are non-commercial, 
``captive'' facilities that accept waste from off-site for treatment 
exclusively from facilities under the same ownership. The remaining 16 
are mixed commercial/non-commercial facilities. They manage their own 
company's wastes and accept some waste from other sources for a fee. 
For the purposes of this analysis, 15 mixed commercial/non-commercial 
facilities have been included with the commercial facilities because a 
majority of their operations are commercial. The one remaining mixed 
commercial/non-commercial facility has been included with the non-
commercial facilities because most of the operations are non-
commercial.
     The companies that own CWT facilities range from large, multi-
facility manufacturing companies to small companies that own only a 
single facility (see Table VI.C-2). Of these 57 companies, 13 are small 
businesses (i.e., companies with less than $6 million in annual 
revenues). For the commercial facilities, the ability of companies to 
continue to support unprofitable operations will depend on company 
size, as well as baseline financial status.
     The baseline economic analysis (presented in Table VI.C-2) 
evaluated each facility's financial operating condition prior to 
incurring compliance costs for this regulation. In 1989, about 20 
percent of the commercial CWT facilities were unprofitable. Several 
others were only marginally profitable. The industry had expanded 
capacity during the 1980s, but since the late 1980s, there has been a 
reduction in demand for these services perhaps due to pollution 
prevention efforts by industrial waste generators. EPA staff learned in 
conversations with personnel at a number of these facilities that, 
while some of these facilities were now profitable, most of the 
remaining unprofitable facilities were still in operation three years 
after the questionnaire. The continued operation of such a large share 
of unprofitable facilities in the industry raises a significant issue. 
It suggests that the traditional tools of economic analysis used to 
project potential closures in an industry due to the costs of 
compliance may not accurately predict real world behavior in a market 
where owners have historically demonstrated a willingness to continue 
operating unprofitable facilities.

                             Table VI.C-2.--Baseline Conditions in the CWT Industry                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Number of CWT Facilities by Commercial and Discharge
                                                                              Status Commercial                 
                     Discharge status                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                                             Profit >0    Profit <0   Noncommercial     Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct....................................................            5            2             9            16
Indirect..................................................           35           15             6            56
Zero......................................................            8            5             0            13
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................           48           22            15            85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Companies Owning CWT Facilities                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of    Number of 
                                                 companies    facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Companies (sales < $6 million)..........           13           13
All Other Companies (sales > $6 million)......           44           72
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Likelihood of Company Bankruptcya                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Small      All other              
                                                                            companies    companies      Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely...................................................................            1            5            6
Indeterminate............................................................            3           13           16
Unlikely.................................................................            8           18           26
                                                                          --------------------------------------
                                                                                    12           36          48 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aBankruptcy prediction is based on Z-score and Z''-score. Nine companies had insufficient data to compute these 
  scores.                                                                                                       

     Several reasons may explain why unprofitable facilities remain in 
operation rather than being closed by their owners. First, most 
facilities are regulated under RCRA. Closure of a RCRA facility 
requires that the site undergo RCRA clean-up procedure prior to 
closure, which would entail expensive long-term monitoring and possibly 
clean-up of the site. According to information received from 
facilities, owners may find it less costly to keep unprofitable 
facilities in operation rather than incurring the costs of RCRA 
closure. Second, many facilities stay in business hoping that new 
environmental regulation, such as the upcoming RCRA Phase 3 rule, may 
[[Page 5491]] create more business for facilities. Finally, some 
facilities perform a service for the rest of their company, such as 
generating a metal-rich sludge which may be incorporated into the 
parent companies smelting processes.
    For these reasons and because of the captive nature of many 
facilities, company-level impacts are a more appropriate indicator of 
economic achievability, as they measure the decision making process of 
companies and the resources available to achieve compliance. Facility-
level changes in revenues where applicable and costs are computed as 
inputs to the company level analysis.
3. Economic Impact Methodology
    Standard economic and financial analysis methods are used to assess 
the economic effects of the proposed regulation. These methods 
incorporate an integrated view of Centralized Waste Treatment 
facilities, the companies that own these facilities, the markets the 
facilities serve, and the communities where they are located.
    Faced with increased costs of the proposed regulation, owners of 
CWT facilities have three choices: (1) Comply with the guidelines and 
incur the costs, (2) if a facility has operations in more than one 
subcategory, close the most affected operation, or (3) close the 
facility. Conventional economic reasoning argues that companies will 
make their decision based on an assessment of the benefits and costs of 
the facility to the company.
    For commercial CWT facilities, the cost and benefits are readily 
observable--benefits to the company are the total revenues received; 
costs to the company include the payments made to the factors of 
production (labor, materials, etc.) plus the opportunity costs of self-
owned resources (e.g., the land and capital equipment). As previously 
discussed, the cost associated with closure of a RCRA facility have 
caused facilities to remain open even when experiencing economic and 
financial difficulties.
    For captive facilities, there is no quantifiable measure of 
benefits to the company of having the capacity to manage the wastes in 
a facility owned by the company because there is no easily defined 
relationship between the wastes and the products that generate the 
wastes. Clearly, however, companies do weigh the benefits and costs of 
operating a CWT facility, and the benefits in this case may include 
lower expected future liability costs, more control over the costs and 
scheduling of treatment, and certainty that treatment capacity exists 
for their wastes.
    According to conversations with captive facilities, most are in 
business solely for the purpose of lower liability costs associated 
with the self-management of hazardous wastes.
    Changes in the costs of treatment in CWT facilities may be expected 
to result in an increase in the price of services, which will feed back 
to the revenue side of commercial facilities. Overall, as long as 
generators have alternatives to commercial treatment (e.g., on site 
treatment, pollution prevention) the quantity of services traded may be 
expected to fall as a result of the guidelines and standards. But for 
some services, such as cyanide treatment or treatment of concentrated 
metals sludges, there are no other alternatives to commercial 
treatment.
    Changes in the economic conditions in the CWT industry may impact 
the viability of the companies that own CWTs. Specifically, some 
companies that are already marginal or that operate a single 
unprofitable facility may go out of business either by simply 
liquidating their assets, or by declaring bankruptcy.
    Finally, the communities where the CWT facilities are located may 
be impacted. Obviously, if facilities cut back operations, employment 
and income may fall sending ripple effects throughout the local 
community. On the other hand, there may be increased employment 
associated with operating the pollution controls associated with the 
regulation resulting in increased community employment and income. At 
the same time, for the communities in which CWTs are located, water 
quality may be expected to improve.
4. Application of the Market Analysis
    For the market analysis, EPA characterized each facility 
individually based on the quantity of each type of waste treatment 
service they provide, their revenues and costs, employment, market 
share for each type of service provided, ownership, releases, and 
location in terms of the community where they are located and the 
regional market they serve. Six regional markets are defined.
    Costs of CWT facilities include both those that vary with the 
quantity of CWT services provided (variable costs) and those whose 
value is fixed. Per-gallon variable costs are assumed constant to the 
capacity output rate. Revenues from CWT operations are estimated by 
multiplying the market price of the CWT service by the quantity of 
waste treated in the CWT service. Most CWT facilities also have 
revenues from other sources, which are treated as exogenous.
    The demand for CWT services is characterized based on the 
responsiveness of quantity demanded to price. CWT services are 
intermediate goods demanded because they are inputs to production of 
other goods and services. The sensitivity of quantity demanded to price 
for an intermediate good depends on the demand characteristics 
(elasticity) of the good or service it is used to produce, the share of 
manufacturing costs represented by CWT costs, and the availability of 
substitutes for CWT services. The elasticity of demand for manufactured 
products varies widely. CWT services costs as a share of manufacturing 
costs is generally quite small. Substitutes for CWT services include 
other types of off-site waste management such as underground injection, 
on-site treatment, or pollution prevention. Overall, the change in 
quantity demanded for CWT services is assumed to be approximately 
proportional to any price change (e.g., a one percent increase in the 
price of a CWT service is expected to reduce the quantity demanded for 
the service by about one percent).
    The markets for CWT services are regional. This market 
characterization is based on responses to the questionnaire and is 
consistent with the theory of economic geography. Within each market, 
there are a relatively small number of suppliers and a relatively large 
number of demanders. Thus the market structure is treated as being 
imperfectly competitive. This implies that the competition each 
facility faces is limited to facilities in its region so that all 
suppliers have a degree of market power.
    This characterization of facilities, companies and markets is 
incorporated in a model that takes the engineering estimates of the 
costs of compliance with the effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards and projects impacts on facilities, companies, markets and 
communities. Each CWT faced with higher costs of providing CWT services 
may find it economical to reduce the quantity of waste it treats. This 
decision is simultaneously modeled for all facilities within a regional 
market, to develop consistent estimates of the facility and market 
impacts. Changes in the quantity of CWT services offered result in 
changes in the inputs used to produce these services (most importantly, 
labor).
    For commercial facilities, the EIA thus projects changes in 
employment at CWT facilities. Changes in facility revenues and costs 
result in changes in the revenues and costs of the companies owning the 
facilities, and thus changes [[Page 5492]] in company profits. 
Increased borrowing and changes in the assets owned by the companies, 
together with changes in profits, result in changes in overall company 
financial health. The EIA projects changes in the likelihood of company 
bankruptcy as a result of the effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards. These effects are separately calculated for small 
businesses. Changes in employment are specified by location to 
determine the community impacts.
    For non-commercial facilities, financial viability was determined 
on a company level. This is because the non- commercial facilities are 
generally cost centers for their companies. They do not explicitly 
receive revenues for their services. They exist to perform a service 
for the rest of the company and are not expected to be ``profitable'' 
as a unit. These facilities are included in the market analysis because 
prices charged for their commercial operations may change. Companies 
with some commercial operations will raise prices to cover the variable 
costs of the treatment and help pay for some of their fixed costs (e.g. 
underwrite the company waste treatment costs). Thus, no change in the 
quantity of CWT wastes treated are projected for non-commercial aspect 
of these facilities nor are market effects analyzed for the products of 
the parent company, since the share of waste treatment costs in the 
marketed products are minimal.
5. Results of the Economic Impact Analysis
    Results may be reported at the facility, company, market, or 
community level. All facilities are either direct or indirect 
dischargers. Most companies own either facilities that are direct 
dischargers or indirect dischargers, although two companies own both 
direct and indirect discharging facilities. Market level impacts are 
the combined result of both types of dischargers simultaneously 
complying with the regulation. Because markets for CWT services combine 
facilities that are direct dischargers and facilities that are indirect 
dischargers, it is not possible to break the market-level impacts into 
impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT as distinguished from impacts of PSES. 
Community-level impacts are also reported based on the combined impacts 
of BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES. Company-level impacts are reported separately 
for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES.
    The impacts of complying with BAT controls under Regulatory Options 
1 and 2 for the 57 companies operating CWT facilities are shown in 
Table VI.C-3 (for companies owning facilities that discharge directly) 
and Table VI.C-4 (for companies owning facilities that discharge 
indirectly).

                         Table VI.C--3.--Impacts of the BPT/BCT/BAT Regulatory Optionsa                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Likelihood of bankruptcy                          
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company impacts of compliance with                 Option 1                               Option 2              
  BPT/BCT/BAT regulatory options   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Small                                  Small                             
                                     companies      Others       Total      companies      Others       Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely............................            0            1            1            0            1            1
Indeterminate.....................            0            2            2            0            2            2
Unlikely..........................            0           11           11            0           11          11 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTwo companies own both direct and indirect dischargers. Company-level impacts combine the effects of complying 
  with BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES controls. These two companies appear in both tables.                                


                             Table VI.C-4.--Impacts of the PSES Regulatory Optionsa                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Likelihood of bankruptcy                          
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company impacts of compliance with                 Option 1                               Option 2              
    the PSES regulatory options    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Small                                  Small                             
                                     companies      Others       Total      companies      Others       Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likely............................            4            5            9            2            6            8
Indeterminate.....................            2           10           12            0           10           10
Unlikely..........................            5           13           18            9           12          27 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTwo companies own both direct and indirect dischargers. Company-level impacts combine the effects of complying 
  with BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES controls. These two companies appear in both tables.                                

6. Market Impacts of EPA Regulatory Options
    The markets for CWT services are regional. Within each region, 
markets for overall types of treatment such as metal recovery or metal 
treatment may be further subdivided into smaller markets on the basis 
of the per-gallon cost of treatment. The price changes and quantity 
changes projected at the regional and service level with each option 
are combined into an overall national value for the CWT services. In 
all cases, EPA's assessment projects that the prices of these services 
will increase and utilization of service will fall. Thus, EPA would 
expect, if the limitations and standards are promulgated as proposed, a 
reduction in the absolute quantity of wastes commercially treated in 
addition, of course, to the improvement in treatment. These market-
level adjustments in the quantity of wastes that are treated are 
reflected in the reduction in the quantity of services provided by 
individual commercial CWTs. In some cases, with less waste being 
managed by these facilities, it is possible that some commercial 
facilities could close. If demanders of waste management services are 
assumed to have fewer substitutes for CWT services than assumed here, 
then prices would increase more than projected here, quantities would 
fall less and the facility and company level impacts (discussed below) 
would be smaller.
    Under Option 1, price increases range from 3 to 35 percent, while 
quantities of waste treated decrease by between 3 percent and 20 
percent. Under Option 2, price increases range from 3 to 42 percent, 
while quantity decreases range from 3 percent to 65 percent. The larger 
price increases occur in the Oils [[Page 5493]] Recovery and Oils 
Treatment Markets. These higher price increases occur because of the 
poor treatment operations currently in place (only one facility in the 
Oils Recovery treats the wastewater generated from the oil recovery 
process). Price increases may occur in this market because the present 
market has inadequate treatment for the wastes generated.
    Significant price increases have potential effects on the users of 
CWT services. In order to account for impacts on the users of CWT 
services, EPA estimated the consumer surplus share of dead weight loss 
of the proposed regulation to be $6.8 million 1993 dollars for 
Regulatory Option 1 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 2, 
and Organics Option 1) and $13.4 million 1993 dollars for Regulatory 
Option 2 (the combination of Metals Option 3, Oils Option 3, and 
Organics Option 1). These costs are not additive to the direct 
implementation costs of the proposed regulation due to differences in 
the technique for calculating the consumer surplus costs. But the costs 
indicate the burden is not excessive in the context of the rule.
7. Impacts of BPT/BCT/BAT
    Complying with the BPT/BCT/BAT effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards will increase the cost of treating CWT wastes at affected 
direct dischargers. This in turn will reduce the number of facilities 
providing CWT services, resulting in an increase in the market price of 
the treatment services and a decrease in use of CWT services. EPA 
projects that changes in the prices of CWT services, combined with 
facility-specific changes in the costs of treatment and the quantities 
of waste treated, will result in changes in facility costs and revenues 
from services sold. These changes result in changes in the revenues and 
costs of companies owning CWT facilities. In addition, changes in the 
liabilities and assets of companies owning CWT facilities result from 
the borrowing and purchasing of capital equipment associated with 
complying with the regulation. Thus, overall company viability may 
change as a result of complying with the effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards. The Agency conducted an analysis using a 
multi-discriminant function called the Z-score, which combines several 
financial ratios, to estimate changes in the likelihood of company 
bankruptcy that result from compliance with the guidelines and 
standards. As shown in Table VI.C-3, one company owning a direct 
discharger is predicted to be likely to become bankrupt under both 
Regulatory Options 1 and 2. However, this company was also predicted to 
be bankrupt at baseline (see Table VI.C-2), so the Regulatory Options 
for BPT/BCT/BAT do not have an incremental adverse effect on the 
viability of companies owning direct dischargers.
8. Impacts of PSES
    Complying with the PSES standards will increase the cost of 
treating CWT wastes at affected indirect dischargers. This in turn will 
reduce the supply of CWT services, resulting in an increase in the 
market price and a decrease in use of CWT services. Changes in the 
prices of CWT services, combined with facility-specific changes in the 
costs of treatment and the quantities of waste treated, result in 
changes in facility costs and revenues from services sold. These 
changes result in changes in the revenues and costs of companies owning 
CWT facilities. In addition, changes in the liabilities and assets of 
companies owning CWT facilities result from the borrowing and purchases 
of capital equipment associated with complying with the regulation. 
Thus, overall company viability may change as a result of complying 
with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. As with BPT/
BCT/BAT, the Agency used the Z-score to estimate changes in the 
likelihood of company bankruptcy that result from compliance with the 
guidelines and standards. As shown in Table VI.C-4, EPA projects that 
nine companies owning indirect dischargers will likely become bankrupt 
under Regulatory Option 1, and eight companies owning indirect 
dischargers are likely to become bankrupt under Regulatory Option 2. At 
baseline, EPA analysis shows that five companies owning indirect 
dischargers are bankrupt. Thus, the PSES controls are predicted to 
result in only an incremental impact on company viability.
    With the PSES controls under Regulatory Option 1, four additional 
companies owning indirect dischargers are predicted to become bankrupt. 
Under Regulatory Option 2, three additional companies owning indirect 
dischargers are predicted to become bankrupt. Although the costs are 
higher in general under Regulatory Option 2, the data show that the 
companies owning indirect dischargers that incur these higher costs are 
better able to withstand the impacts.
    To the extent that predicted bankruptcies result in closure of CWT 
facilities, the cost of such closure are attributable to this action. 
EPA has not calculated the cost of closure for the treatment operations 
although for RCRA-permitted facilities, under some circumstances, such 
costs may be significant. The EPA solicits comment on the probability 
for closure of such facilities impacted by the proposed regulation and 
the costs associated with closure of the treatment operations.
9. Community Impacts of the Regulatory Options
    Overall, the communities in which CWT facilities are located are 
expected to experience fairly small, and generally positive, increases 
in employment as a result of the Regulatory Options. In addition to the 
negative employment changes estimated for facilities becoming 
unprofitable under Options 1 and 2, employment increases may occur in 
some facilities due to the operational changes related to the new 
regulations or due to the increase in volume of waste treated. These 
changes in employment may be positive for CWT facilities made better 
off by the regulation (for example, those who sell more services), or 
they may be negative for facilities becoming less profitable but not 
moving from profitable to unprofitable. Nationwide, facilities becoming 
unprofitable reduce their employment by 44 employees under Regulatory 
Option 1 and by 52 employees under Regulatory Option 2. Combined with 
market-related increases and decreases in employment at other 
facilities, the total market-related reduction in employment under 
Regulatory Option 1 is estimated to be 378 employees. Under Regulatory 
Option 2, the national market-related reduction employees is estimated 
to be 501 employees.
    These decreases in employment result from market adjustments to the 
proposed regulations must be compared to the employment increases 
estimated to be required for operation and maintenance of the controls. 
A large percentage of the costs estimated for facilities is attributed 
to the high annual operating and maintenance costs. The Agency 
estimates that the proper handling and treatment of the concentrated 
wastes will require additional personnel and tanks to segregate and 
monitor the wastes being treated. Therefore, under Regulatory Option 1, 
the labor requirements of the controls are estimated to be 710 
employees. Under Regulatory Option 2, the labor requirements are 
estimated to be 735 employees. Overall, employment is projected to 
increase by 333 employees under Regulatory Option 1 and by 234 
employees under Regulatory Option 2. Thus, we expect community- level 
impacts to be small and generally positive.
10. Foreign Trade Impacts
    The EIA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of 
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Although most of the 
affected CWT facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under 
RCRA, international trade in CWT services for treatment of hazardous 
wastes is virtually nonexistent.
11. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    The Agency performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to 
assess the relative severity of impacts on small entities, specifically 
small companies, owning CWT facilities. Small companies are defined as 
those having sales less than $6 million, which is the Small Business 
Administration definition of a small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse 
Systems. This is the SIC code that most CWTs listed in their 
questionnaire responses. Thirteen of the 84 facilities not owned by the 
Federal Government are small companies according to this definition. 
One facility is owned by the Federal Government. To determine whether 
the impacts on small companies are ``significant,'' EPA used the 
following criteria:
    (1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production for 
small entities for the relevant process or product by more than 5 
percent.
    (2) Compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities 
are at least 10 percent higher than compliance costs as a percentage of 
sales for large entities.
    (3) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in 
closures of small entities.
    Six of the thirteen small companies are estimated to have 
compliance costs exceeding 5 percent of baseline CWT costs. Larger 
companies, however, have both a higher absolute number and a higher 
percentage of companies incurring compliance costs that exceed 5 
percent of baseline CWT costs. Thus, small businesses are affected less 
than other facilities.
    The median value for the ratio of compliance costs to sales for 
small companies is very small: 0.6 percent. However, the median value 
for larger companies is even smaller: less than 0.001 percent. Thus, 
the ratio for small companies is more than 10 percent higher than the 
ratio for larger companies. While this suggests that small companies 
are more affected in comparison to the larger companies, the overall 
level of impact is very low for all size categories.
    The analysis does not estimate facility closures, but it does 
assess the impact of the Regulatory Options on the likelihood of 
company bankruptcy. As shown in Tables VI.C-3 and VI.C-4, three of four 
additional companies predicted to become ``likely'' to incur bankruptcy 
under Regulatory Option 1 are small. Of the three additional companies 
becoming likely to incur bankruptcy as a result of Option 2, one is 
small. Thus, under Regulatory Option 1, small businesses incur 
relatively larger impacts according to this measure, but under 
Regulatory Option 2, small businesses do not incur relatively larger 
impacts.
    Overall, while companies in all size categories are affected, small 
companies may experience impacts that are somewhat greater relative to 
those incurred by larger companies.
    The Agency considered less stringent control options for each 
subcategory. However, given the concentrated and difficult-to-treat 
wastes handled at CWT facilities, the Agency does not believe a less 
stringent level of control is BPT/BCT/BAT. From discussions with permit 
writers for CWT facilities, under the present treatment standards, many 
instances of water contamination and odor releases occur because of 
Centralized Waste Treatment facilities as well as contamination of 
sludge at POTWs. In comparison to other promulgated effluent 
guidelines, this industry has some of the most concentrated and toxic 
waste streams. Therefore, a stringent level of control is deemed 
necessary.
12. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    For each of the Regulatory Options, cost-effectiveness is 
calculated as the ratio of the incremental annual costs in 1981 dollars 
to the incremental pounds-equivalent of pollutants removed. The 
estimated pounds-equivalent removed were calculated by weighting the 
number of pounds of each pollutant by the relative toxic weighting 
factor for each pollutant. The use of pounds-equivalent gives 
correspondingly more weight to more highly toxic pollutants. Thus, for 
a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants removed, the cost per 
pound-equivalent removed would be lower when more highly toxic 
pollutants are removed than when less toxic pollutants are removed. The 
analysis employed toxic weighting factors for weighting different 
pollutants according to their relative toxicity.\5\ Table VI.C-5 and 
Table VI.C-6 show the Total Cost-Effectiveness for each subcategory 
option for BPT/BAT and PSES, respectively. [[Page 5494]] 

    \5\Further, EPA's toxic weighting factors do not provide 
environmental ``credit'' for removal of certain regulated 
pollutants. Thus, for example, the toxic weighting factors do not 
account for removals of the conventional pollutant, oil and grease. 
Consequently, a comparison of the difference in cost-effectiveness 
associated with oil subcategory Regulatory Options 1 and 2 does not 
account for the significantly greater removals of oil and grease 
achieved through Regulatory Option 2 treatment technology.

                               Table VI.C-5.--BPT/BAT Cost Effectiveness Analysis                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Cost-       Incremental cost-
                   Option                       Total costs   Total removals  effectiveness($/  effectiveness($/
                                                  ($1981)        (lb. eq.)        lb. eq.)          lb. eq.)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Metals Subcategory                                               
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................       2,278,827       1,085,922             5.54                   
2...........................................       8,541,863       1,142,279            51.52            111.13 
3...........................................       8,840,764       1,148,324            61.79             49.45 
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Oils Subcategory                                                
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................               0               0                0   ................
2...........................................         628,228         113,500             5.54              5.54 
3a..........................................       6,143,622         119,256            51.52            958.19 
[[Page 5495]]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
4...........................................       7,262,456         117,540            61.79           -652.04 
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Organics Subcategory                                              
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................         293,131         843,908             0.35                   
2...........................................       2,280,094          25,585            89.12             -2.43 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aDue to the use of pounds equivalent for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the pollutant removals do not include 
  the incremental Oil & Grease removal of 1,308,503 lb/year for Oils Option 3. The incremental cost associated  
  with the removal of Oil and Grease ($0.39/pound removed) is commensurate with other effluent limitations      
  guidelines and standards, such as the $9.77/pound of TSS and Oils and Grease promulgated for the Offshore     
  Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (EPA 821-R-93-003).                           


                                 Table VI.C-6.--PSES Cost Effectiveness Analysis                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Incremental 
                                                    Total costs   Total removals       Cost            cost     
                     Option                           ($1981)        (lb.eq.)      effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                                                    ($/lb.eq.)      ($/lb.eq.)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Metals Subcategory                                               
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................       2,410,819         156,945           15.36  ..............
2...............................................      17,790,208         164,492          108.15        2,037.92
3...............................................      18,676,537         165,056          113.15        1,569.66
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Oils Subcategory                                                
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................               0               0  ..............  ..............
2...............................................       2,021,483         146,606           13.79           13.79
3b..............................................      16,570,113         148,780          111.37        6,692.49
4...............................................      19,864,864         148,264          133.98       -6,376.47
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Organics Subcategory                                              
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................       1,837,897          47,409           38.77  ..............
2...............................................       3,722,098          41,227           90.28        -304.83 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bDue to the use of pounds equivalent for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, the pollutant removals do not include 
  the incremental Oil & Grease removal of 3,197,445 lb/year for Oils Option 3. The incremental cost associated  
  with the removal of Oil and Grease is commensurate with other effluent limitations guidelines and standards.  

D. Water Quality Analyses

    The water quality benefits of controlling discharges from CWTs to 
surface waters and POTWs were evaluated in national analyses of direct 
and indirect dischargers. CWT effluents contain priority, 
nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. Discharge of these 
pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic 
habitats, affect aquatic life, and adversely impact human health. Many 
of these pollutants are either human carcinogens, human systemic 
toxicants, or aquatic life toxicants. In addition, many of these 
pollutants are persistent and bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. These 
pollutants can also affect POTW operations and cause POTW sludge 
contamination. Four direct CWT wastewater dischargers and eight POTWs 
receiving wastewater from 13 indirect CWT dischargers are currently 
impairing receiving stream water quality (i.e., are listed on EPA's 
304(l) short list of impaired water bodies). In addition, seven cases 
of impairment of POTW operations have also been documented. (All 66 
pollutants proposed for regulation have at least one toxic effect 
(human health carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic 
toxicant)).
    Discharge of conventional pollutants such as TSS, Oil & Grease, and 
BOD\5\ can have adverse effects on human health and environment. For 
example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended 
particulate matter that reduces light penetration and, thus, primary 
productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that alters 
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. Oil & Grease can have 
lethal effect on fish, by coating surface of gills causing asphyxia, or 
depleting oxygen levels due to excessive biological oxygen demand, or 
by reducing stream reaeration because of surface film. Oil and grease 
can also have detrimental effects on waterfowl by destroying the 
buoyancy and insulation of their feathers. Bioaccumulation of oil 
substances can cause human health problems including tainting of fish 
and bioaccumulation of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds. High 
BOD\5\ levels can also deplete of oxygen levels resulting in mortality 
or other adverse effects on fish. But the effects of conventional 
pollutants and pollutant parameters, such as TOC and COD, are not 
calculated when modelling the effect of the proposed regulation on the 
water quality of receiving streams and POTW operations. The Agency 
solicits comment on possible approaches for calculating the effect of 
conventional pollutants and pollutant parameters, such as TOC and COD, 
on the water quality of receiving streams and POTW operations in terms 
of inhibition or sludge contamination. [[Page 5496]] 
    The effects of direct wastewater dischargers of toxic pollutants 
(excluding conventional pollutants and pollutant parameters) on 
receiving stream water quality are evaluated at current and proposed 
BPT/BAT treatment levels for today's proposed rule. The potential 
impacts of indirect wastewater dischargers on POTWs in terms of 
inhibition of POTW operation, contamination of sludge and the effects 
of POTWs effluents on receiving stream water quality are also evaluated 
at current discharge levels and proposed PSES levels. Water quality 
models are used to project pollutant in-stream concentrations based on 
estimated releases at current and proposed treatment levels; the in-
stream concentrations are then compared to EPA-published water quality 
criteria or to documented toxic effect levels where EPA water quality 
criteria are not available for certain pollutants. POTW models are used 
to estimate potential POTW inhibition and sludge contamination.
    The effects on receiving stream water quality for 15 direct and 45 
indirect CWT facilities discharging up to 113 pollutants to 15 
receiving streams and 33 POTWs respectively, are evaluated. These 
analyses are first performed on subcategory-specific basis for the 
three CWT subcategories (i.e., metals, oils, and organics 
subcategories). The subcategory-specific analyses, however, consider 
only impacts of discharges from individual subcategories, and 
therefore, underestimate overall water quality impacts for facilities 
with multiple subcategory operations. Over 40% of facilities in the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry have operations in multiple 
subcategories. In order to evaluate overall benefits of the proposed 
BPT/BAT/PSES proposed options for pollutants (excluding conventional 
pollutants and pollutant parameters), the water quality and POTW 
analyses are also performed for multiple subcategory combinations, as 
appropriate for individual facilities.
    The subcategory-specific modeling results for pollutants (excluding 
conventional and pollutant parameters) show that the proposed BPT/BAT/
PSES limitations reduce current excursions of chronic aquatic life and/
or human health criteria or toxic effect levels as follows: (1) for the 
Metals Subcategory from 19 receiving streams to four streams; (2) for 
the Oils Subcategory from seven receiving streams to one stream for 
both co-proposed options; and (3) for the Organics Subcategory from 14 
receiving streams to five streams. For the multiple subcategory 
combinations (as applicable to individual facilities), the modeling 
shows current excursions of chronic aquatic life and/or human health 
criteria or toxic effect levels projected for 30 receiving streams 
reduced to ten receiving streams for both co-proposed regulatory 
options.
    The potential impacts of 45 indirect dischargers, which discharge 
up to 113 pollutants (excluding conventional pollutant and pollutant 
parameters) into 33 POTWs are also evaluated in terms of inhibition of 
POTW operations and contamination of sludge. Both, the subcategory-
specific analyses for these three CWT subcategories (i.e., metals, 
oils, and organics subcategories), and for the multiple subcategory 
combinations, as appropriate for individual facilities, are performed. 
The subcategory-specific modeling results show the proposed PSES reduce 
and/or eliminate current potential POTW inhibition and sludge 
contamination problems as follows: (1) in the Metals Subcategory from 9 
POTWs with potential inhibition problems to two POTWs, and from 11 
POTWs with potential sludge contamination problems to one POTW; and (2) 
in the Oils Subcategory from ten POTWs with potential inhibition 
problems to three POTWs and from one POTW with potential sludge 
contamination problem to none for both co-proposed options. No 
potential POTW inhibition or sludge contamination problems are 
projected for the Organics Subcategory at any level. For the multiple 
subcategory combinations, the modeling shows the proposed PSES to 
reduce current POTW inhibition problems projected for 17 POTWs to six 
POTWs, and potential current sludge contamination problems projected 
for 13 POTWs to one POTW.
    The POTW inhibition and sludge values used in this analysis are 
not, in general, regulatory values. They are based upon engineering and 
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA 
and other sources. Thus, EPA generally is not basing its regulatory 
approach for proposed pretreatment discharge levels upon the finding 
that some pollutants interfere with POTWs by impairing their treatment 
effectiveness or causing them to violate applicable limits for their 
chosen disposal methods. (Rather, the proposed discharge limits are 
based upon a determination of pass through as explained earlier in 
preamble). However, the values used in this analysis help indicate the 
potential benefits for POTW operations and sludge disposal that may 
result from the compliance with proposed pretreatment discharge levels.

E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or 
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and 
306 of the Act call for EPA to consider non- water quality 
environmental impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. 
Accordingly, EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air 
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
1. Air Pollution
    CWT facilities generate wastewater that contain significant 
concentrations of organic compounds, some of which are also on the list 
of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These wastewater typically pass-through a 
series of collection and treatment units that are open to the 
atmosphere and allow wastewater containing organic compounds to contact 
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-containing wastewater 
may result in significant volatilization of both volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), which contribute to the formation of ambient ozone, 
and HAP from the wastewater.
    VOC and HAP are emitted from wastewater beginning at the point 
where the wastewater first contacts ambient air. Thus, VOC and HAP from 
wastewater may be of concern immediately as the wastewater is 
discharged from the process unit. Emissions occur from wastewater 
collection units such as process drains, manholes, trenches, sumps, 
junction boxes, and from wastewater treatment units such as screens, 
settling basins, and equalization basins, biological aeration basins, 
air or steam strippers lacking air emission control devices, and any 
other units where the wastewater is in contact with the air.
    Today's proposed regulations for the Organics Subcategory are based 
on the use of air stripping equipped with a carbon adsorption air 
emission control device for controlling volatile organic compounds. For 
the Metals and Oils Subcategories, where low levels of volatile organic 
compounds were detected, treatment technologies are equipped air 
scrubbers to control emissions.
    No adverse air impacts are expected to occur due to the proposed 
regulations. Based on raw wastewater loading estimates, air emissions 
of volatile pollutants would decrease by 2.0 million pounds per year 
due to the [[Page 5497]] use of air stripping equipped with carbon 
adsorption air emission control devices. The proposed regulation, 
however, does not require air stripping equipped with carbon adsorption 
air emission control devices or any specific technology, but only 
establishes the amount of pollutant that can be discharged to navigable 
waters.
2. Solid Waste
    Solid waste would be generated due to the following technologies, 
if implemented to meet proposed regulations, selective metals 
precipitation, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, carbon adsorption, and 
air stripping. The solid wastes generated due to the implementation of 
the technologies discussed above were costed for off-site disposal. 
These costs were included in the economic evaluation of the proposed 
technologies.
    The filter cake from selective metals precipitation will generally 
contain metal-bearing waste. Even though the filter cake generated from 
selective metals precipitation may be recycled due to its high metal 
content, the EPA developed costs for disposal of the filter cake in 
Subtitle C and D landfills. EPA would expect that some portion of the 
metal-rich filter cake will be recycled. EPA estimates that 39 million 
pounds of filter cake will be generated annually by 56 facilities.
    Reverse osmosis of oily streams results in the generation of a 
concentrated residual stream. The concentrate contains oily and metal-
bearing wastes. The EPA estimates that 58 million gallons of reverse 
osmosis concentrate will be generated annually by 35 facilities.
    Ultrafiltration of oily streams results in the generation of a 
concentrated residual stream which contain oily and organic waste. The 
EPA estimates that 4.1 million gallons of ultrafiltration concentrate 
will be generated annually by 35 facilities.
    Granular activated carbon adsorption treatment of waste results in 
the generation of exhausted or spent activated carbon. Approximately 
1.6 million pounds of activated carbon will be exhausted or spent 
annually by 35 facilities. The activated carbon may be regenerated on-
site or off-site by vendors. The EPA costed regeneration of the spent 
activated carbon by off-site vendors.
    Air stripping of waste streams results in the generation of 
contaminated off-gas, which requires the application of an air 
pollutant control device such as a catalytic oxidizer. When the 
catalytic oxidizer becomes deactivated, the spent catalyst must be 
replaced. Approximately 168.5 pounds annually of spent catalytic 
oxidizer are used.
3. Energy Requirements
    EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and 
PSNS will increase energy consumption by a small increment over present 
industry use. The main energy requirement in today's proposed rule is 
for the operation of ultrafiltration units. Ultrafiltration units 
operate at high pressures to separate the waste stream. The 
ultrafiltration unit would require 9.4 million kilowatthours per year. 
Energy requirements will also increase due to reverse osmosis and 
liquid filtration units. Reverse osmosis and liquid filtrations units 
would require approximately 4.1 and 4.9 million kilowatthours per year, 
respectively. Overall, an increase of 22.0 million kilowatthours per 
year would be required for the proposed regulation which equates to 40 
barrels of oil per day. The United States currently consumes 19 million 
barrels of oil per day.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket and Public Record

    The public record for this rulemaking is available for public 
review at EPA Headquarters, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460 in 
the Office of Water Docket, Room L102 (in the basement of Waterside 
Mall). The Docket is staffed by an EPA contractor, Labat-Anderson, 
Inc., and interested parties are encouraged to call for an appointment. 
The telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 260-3027. The EPA 
information regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee 
may be charged for photocopying.
    EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting these 
proposed rules have been claimed as confidential business information 
and, therefore, are not included in the record that is available to the 
public in the Water Docket. To support the rulemaking, EPA is 
presenting certain information in aggregated form or is masking 
facility identities to preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the 
Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as 
confidential business information because release of this information 
could indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential.

B. Clean Water Act Procedural Requirements

    As required by the Clean Water Act, EPA will conduct a public 
hearing on the pretreatment standards portion of the proposed rule. The 
public hearing will be conducted on March 24, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. to 
10:30 a.m. in the Lake Michigan Conference Room at the U.S. EPA Region 
V Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL.

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because it may adversely affect a sector of the economy. As such this 
action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB 
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
    EPA has concluded that costs on the economy of this proposed rule 
will be less than $100 million annually, and it has not prepared an 
RIA.

D. Executive Order 12875

    In developing the proposed CWT effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards, EPA has already invested substantial time in discussions 
with permit writers, the affected industries and environmental groups. 
As previously noted, in March of this year, EPA held a public meeting, 
attended by industry, states, and local permitting authorities to 
discuss its efforts. The Agency also has had discussions concerning the 
regulation at the 1994 Pretreatment Coordinators Workshop attended by 
state and local permitting authorities, various industrial trade 
association meetings, and effluent guideline task force meetings. 
[[Page 5498]] 
    On October 26, 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 
12875, ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.'' This order is 
intended to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon State, 
local and tribal governments. The order requires Federal agencies like 
EPA that impose unfunded mandates upon such governments through 
regulation either (1) to assure that the Federal government provides 
the necessary funds for compliance or (2) to describe the extent of the 
Agency's prior consultations with affected units of governments and the 
nature of their concerns. The order calls for intergovernmental 
consultation to begin as early as possible in the regulatory 
development process, preferably before the publication of the notice of 
proposed rulemaking. Consultation may continue after publication but 
must occur prior to the formal promulgation of the regulatory action 
containing the proposed mandate.
    The rulemaking process to develop the CWT limitations guidelines 
and standards antedates the issuance of E.O. 12875 by a number of years 
as explained above. To meet its obligations under E.O. 12875, following 
publication of the regulation, EPA plans extensive outreach efforts to 
state and local governments. EPA will develop estimates of the upfront 
and recurring costs likely incurred by State, local or tribal 
governments in complying with the proposal, if adopted.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., requires EPA 
and other agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis for regulations that have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. EPA projects that today's 
proposed rule, if promulgated, could affect small businesses. The 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis for these proposed rules is 
incorporated into the economic impact analysis and is discussed in 
Section VI.A. Briefly, the small entity analysis estimates the economic 
impacts of the new requirements on small companies and describes the 
potential disparate impacts between the groups of large and Centralized 
Waste Treatment facilities. The analysis also presents the Agency's 
consideration of alternatives that might minimize the impacts on small 
entities.
    The reasons why EPA is proposing this rule are presented in Section 
II. The legal basis for today's rule is presented in Legal Authority. 
The number of small entities and the approach for defining small 
entities are summarized in Section VI.A. and the economic effects on 
small entities detailed in the economic impact analysis report for this 
rulemaking. This assessment has led the Agency to conclude that small 
businesses are not disproportionately impacted by the proposed rule. 
Reporting and other compliance requirements are summarized in Sections 
VI. and VII. and detailed in the technical development document. While 
the Agency has not identified any duplicative, overlapping, or 
conflicting Federal rules, a discussion of other related rulemakings is 
presented in Section II.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed effluent guidelines and standards contain no 
information collection activities and, therefore, no information 
collection request (ICR) has been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking. 
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the 
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be 
supported by data.
    The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection 
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study 
plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the For 
Further Information section at the beginning of this preamble for 
technical contacts at EPA.

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

    EPA has solicited comments and data on many individual topics 
throughout this preamble. The Agency incorporates each and every such 
solicitation here, and reiterates its interest in receiving data and 
comments on the issues addressed by those solicitations. In addition, 
EPA particularly requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Applicability of Regulation for Facilities Which Mix Centralized 
Waste Treatment Waste Streams With Other Industrial Waste Prior to 
Treatment or After Minimal Treatment
    The Agency is asking for comment on whether the guidelines and 
standards should apply to categorical facilities which receive limited 
quantities of CWT waste streams for treatment. The Agency considered 
two approaches for this proposal.
    The first approach EPA considered would have limited the 
applicability of the guidelines and standards to facilities which treat 
only the defined CWT wastes without any mixing of wastes with other 
categorical wastes. EPA, however, has rejected this approach for the 
proposal because of concern that this would create a loophole. If CWT 
wastes could be mixed with other wastes for treatment and escape 
regulation as CWT wastes, there exists significant possibility that 
economically achievable reduction of CWT pollutant discharge levels 
will not be met. The Agency believes that if the guidelines and 
standards do not apply to CWT wastes mixed with other waste streams 
there is significant potential for blending waste streams to avoid 
otherwise required effluent reduction levels.
    Under the approach EPA is proposing, CWT wastes that are mixed with 
other categorical waste streams or other waste streams will be subject 
to CWT effluent limitations and standards. Even under this second 
approach, however, there exists significant potential to avoid 
achieving CWT effluent reduction levels by mixing wastes. Therefore, in 
order to ensure that facilities mixing CWT wastes and non-CWT waste 
streams actually treat the CWT wastes, the Agency is also proposing to 
require separate monitoring for compliance with CWT standards or 
limitations waste streams (or alternatively, a demonstration that 
treatment of mixed CWT wastes and other waste streams achieves the 
required pollutant reductions). (See discussion below.) In the absence 
of a requirement for separate monitoring for compliance of CWT waste 
streams, promulgation of the CWT guideline could have the perverse 
result of, in fact, discouraging centralized treatment by encouraging 
categorical facilities to accept CWT waste streams that are diluted 
with other waste streams before treatment. The result would be no 
treatment for the CWT wastes and no achievement of effluent reduction 
obtainable at facilities treating only CWT wastes. The Agency is asking 
for comment on this approach.
2. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With CWT Limitations and 
Standards
    EPA is today proposing to require each CWT facility that discharges 
wastewater resulting from the treatment of CWT wastes to monitor to 
demonstrate compliance with [[Page 5499]] applicable subcategory 
limitations and standards.
    As discussed above, commingling of disparate waste streams may, in 
many cases, allow achievement of discharge limits without any real 
reduction in the quantity of discharges of certain pollutants. In fact, 
EPA has data that show that CWT facilities which commingle subcategory 
waste do not achieve the reductions in pollutant discharges that 
separate treatment yields. One facility at which EPA sampled mixes oily 
wastewater after chemical emulsion breaking with metal-bearing 
wastewater. EPA measured the oily wastewater after emulsion breaking 
and before mixing with the other subcategory wastes and found 
measurable levels of regulated organic compounds. Samples of the mixed 
wastewater showed non-detectable levels of the organic compounds. The 
treatment for mixed wastewater included no treatment for organics 
removal. Thus, this facility clearly provides no reduction in organic 
pollutant discharges other than that provided by chemical emulsion 
breaking of the surface oil. Separate treatment of oily wastes would, 
however, remove significant quantities of organic pollutants. EPA has 
preliminarily concluded that the reduced removals that may be 
associated with the mixing of waste streams is inconsistent with the 
requirements of the Act. EPA, consequently, as previously discussed, is 
requiring that the CWT demonstrate to the POTW or permitting authority 
that it is achieving removal of regulated pollutants that are 
equivalent to that which would be obtained if the wastes are treated 
separately.
    EPA's proposal today does not require separate treatment of CWT and 
non-CWT wastewater. Rather, EPA requires monitoring or other data 
establishing that the required effluent levels are met. The Agency has 
concluded, however, that separate treatment is economically achievable 
and the Agency has concluded that mixing waste will not achieve the 
pollutant reduction associated with best available technology. 
Consequently, as explained above, EPA is proposing to require 
monitoring for compliance at a point immediately following treatment of 
the CWT waste stream. In the case of facilities that mix CWT wastes 
with other wastes (or mix different subcategories of CWT waste streams) 
for treatment, EPA has proposed to require a facility to demonstrate 
that treatment processes employed result in reduction in the quantity 
of pollutants discharged that is equivalent to that achieved by 
separate treatment.
    The Agency has concluded it has the authority to adopt such a 
requirement. Under the Clean Water Act, effluent limitations must 
ensure the achievement of the discharge levels associated with BPT/BCT/
BAT technology. The data collected by the Agency establishes that 
today's proposed BPT/BCT/BAT limitations and standards are available at 
a cost not incommensurate with the expected effluent reduction and no 
more stringent limitations are economically achievable. Without a 
requirement to demonstrate compliance with the limitations and 
standards, EPA cannot ensure that the limitations and standards will be 
met.
3. Estimation of Industry Size
    From the information obtained from the 1991 Waste Treatment 
Industry Questionnaire, EPA estimates that there are 85 facilities in 
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. Permit writers and industry 
representatives believe this is an underestimation of the present 
industry size. EPA's estimation of The industry size is based on data 
provided from questionnaire mailed to facilities that EPA identified 
using information available to it in 1989. As stated earlier, 
facilities names were gathered from various sources, because no SIC 
code exists for the industry. Therefore, there may have been CWT 
facilities not included on the questionnaire mailing list. EPA solicits 
information on the number, name, and location of facilities within the 
industry.
4. Exclusion of Pipeline Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities From 
Scope of Rule
    The Agency proposes to exclude from this regulation facilities 
which receive all waste from off-site by pipeline from the source of 
waste generation.\6\ Based on the information gathered in the 1991 
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, such facilities are 
fundamentally different from those that are the subject of today's 
proposal. These pipeline facilities receive steady flows of relatively 
consistent pollutant profiles from facilities that in most cases are 
subject to categorical regulations. By contrast, centralized waste 
treatment facilities receive concentrated wastes with highly variable 
pollutant content, such as sludges, tank bottoms, off-spec products, 
and process residuals. Permit writers should use the building block 
approach in conjunction with the appropriate guidelines for the 
facilities discharging to the pipeline facility to derive the 
appropriate BPJ effluent limitations for these facilities. The Agency 
solicits comment on excluding such facilities from this scope of this 
rule as well as comment on this approach to permitting pipeline 
facilities.

    \6\However, a facility which receives wastes by pipeline from a 
facility which receives off-site wastes by truck, barge, etc. but 
does not treat the wastes is still a CWT facility. The interposition 
of an intermediate collection agent between generators of CWT waste 
and a CWT treatment facility does not convert the treatment facility 
into a non-CWT facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. De minimis Level for Scope of Regulation
    According to comments received from the May 1994 Effluent 
Guidelines Plan (59 FR 25859), the EPA should consider establishing a 
de minimis level for the scope of the regulations due to possible 
management practices at manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers may 
receive small quantities of waste from off-site to treat in a 
wastewater treatment system due to a site's ability to handle the waste 
properly in comparison to the site at which the waste is generated. 
Information collected from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry 
Questionnaire was not designed to collect this information due to the 
method of creating the mailing list. EPA solicits additional data to 
determine if a de minimis level should be established and information 
on the appropriate level.
6. Characterization of Waste Received by Oils Subcategory Facilities
    In the EPA sampling program for the Oils Subcategory, the EPA 
focused on facilities which treat concentrated, stable oil-water 
emulsions which are difficult to treat, because the majority of 
facilities identified in 1989 with on-site treatment accepted this type 
of waste. EPA requests information on the type of oily waste (stable, 
unstable, etc.) accepted for treatment by facilities in the Oils 
Subcategory as well as the constituents found in the waste.
7. Methodology for Estimating Current Performance
    Many facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry 
commingle waste receipts from off-site with other on-site generated 
wastewater, such as non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial 
wastewater, prior to discharging. This mixing of waste may occur prior 
to or after treatment of the waste receipts. Because the commingling 
occurs prior to the discharge point, monitoring data collected by 
facilities at the discharge point cannot be used to estimate the 
current treatment performance of certain [[Page 5500]] centralized 
waste treatment operations. Under the approach EPA is proposing, in the 
case of the introduction of stormwater after treatment but before 
discharge, the allowable discharges from such a facility would be based 
on the guideline limitations and standards before the introduction of 
the stormwater. In the case of the stormwater or other wastes 
introduced before treatment, as discussed previously, the EPA used 
several methods to estimate current industry performance. EPA solicits 
comment on the methodologies used to estimate current discharge 
performance. EPA also requests discharge monitoring data from 
facilities prior to commingling the Centralized Waste Treatment 
wastewater with other sources of wastewater. These data will be used to 
assess current discharge performance and to statistically analyze the 
autocorrelation of concentrations measured on consecutive days (See 
Section V.G. for an explanation of autocorrelation). Before submitting 
discharge monitoring data, please contact Debra DiCianna at (202) 260-
7141 to ensure that the data provided include information to support 
its use for calculating current performance and possible limitations.
8. Implementation of Regulation for Multiple Subcategory Facilities
    Forty percent of the facilities in the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry receive flows that fall within two or more of the proposed 
subcategories for this industry. Since waste receipts in this industry 
are concentrated and difficult to treat, the Agency believes that the 
defined levels of effluent reductions will not be met if waste receipts 
from different categories are treated in a single treatment system. EPA 
has concluded that separate pretreatment steps are necessary in order 
to treat the waste receipts adequately for its constituents prior to 
commingling the wastes. For example, if oily wastes and metal-bearing 
wastes are mixed, selective metals precipitation will not remove 
certain constituents (i.e. n-decane, oil and grease) which would be 
removed if the oily waste is pretreated before precipitation. As 
discussed above, the approach which EPA has proposed would require 
monitoring to demonstrate compliance after oily waste treatment and 
after metal-bearing treatment. The EPA solicits comment on other 
approaches for implementing the proposal in order to address the 
problem of discharges from treatment of mixed subcategory wastes. EPA 
also requests data on the performance of treatment systems which are 
designed to treat waste that may be characterized in more than one 
subcategory.
9. Applicability of Guideline to POTWs Treating CWT Wastes
    EPA is soliciting comment today also on how to treat wastes 
received for treatment at a POTW by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins 
or barges or other forms of shipment. EPA is aware that there are 
several POTWs receiving wastes for treatment that are not discharged to 
the POTW through sewers or pipes. EPA welcomes additional information 
and data on the subject.
    The CWA provides that pretreatment standards apply to all 
discharges which pass through or interfere with POTW operations and all 
POTWs must comply with effluent limitations based on secondary 
treatment requirements and any more stringent limitations, including 
those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, 
or schedules of compliance established pursuant to any other Federal 
law or regulation. CWA Sections 301(a)(1) and 307(b). Under RCRA, under 
certain conditions, a POTW may accept hazardous waste for treatment. A 
POTW is deemed to have a permit for treatment of hazardous waste if, 
among other things, the POTW complies with the conditions of its NPDES 
permit and certain RCRA regulatory requirements (e.g., use of the RCRA 
manifest system, maintaining certain records). In addition, the waste 
must meet ``all Federal State, and local pretreatment requirements 
which would be applicable to the waste if it were being discharged into 
the POTW through a sewer, pipe or similar conveyance.'' 40 CFR 
270.61(c)(4). Under this provision, therefore, EPA has concluded that a 
POTW cannot accept wastes for treatment via any form of shipment which 
are RCRA hazardous wastes unless these wastes comply with pretreatment 
requirements in today's guideline. Moreover, it is EPA's view that 
whether the CWT wastes are hazardous or non-hazardous, the pretreatment 
standard would apply to the CWT wastes. As proposed today, the 
pretreatment standards apply to the introduction of a pollutant to a 
POTW irrespective of the mechanism for introducing that pollutant to 
the POTW.
    EPA is soliciting comment on how widespread is the practice of POTW 
treatment of wastes received from off-site via any form of shipment as 
well as its tentative conclusion that today's proposal would apply to 
such wastes.
10. Treatment of Incidental Organic Pollutants Detected in the Metals 
Subcategory
    During the EPA sampling program, EPA collected analytical data on 
the presence of organic pollutants in the Metals Subcategory. Various 
organic pollutants were detected at low concentrations in the untreated 
CWT wastewater. EPA sampled treatment technologies to control the 
discharge of organic pollutants. In most circumstances, the organic 
pollutants detected at low concentrations in the treatment facility 
influent were found at non-detectable levels prior to any treatment for 
the organic pollutants. Because the initial concentrations of organic 
pollutants were very low, the addition of treatment chemicals and other 
sources of CWT wastewater caused the concentrations to become lower and 
thereby non-detectable. As previously discussed, EPA sampled carbon 
adsorption units to use as add-on technologies for the removal of 
organic compounds, but treatment performance for carbon adsorption 
units was found to be uniformly poor throughout the industry. EPA 
solicits comment on the necessity of control on low level organic 
pollutants for the Metals subcategory and technologies appropriate for 
the control of low level organics as well as analytical data to 
characterize the performance of such treatment technologies.
11. Additional Technologies for the Control of Concentrated Cyanide-
Bearing Wastes
    The BPT effluent limitations and standards for the pretreatment 
control of cyanide in the Metals Subcategory is based on the use of 
alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions which enable the 
destruction of concentrated cyanide complexes. Two additional treatment 
technologies were sampled in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. Performance by one treatment technology was uniformly 
inadequate for the treatment of concentrated cyanide waste. The 
additional treatment technology sampled performed well in the treatment 
of concentrated cyanide complexes, but is propriatary information. EPA 
solicits information on additional treatment technologies applicable to 
the treatment of concentrated cyanide complexes that are commercially 
available.
12. Probability and Cost of RCRA-Permitted Facilities Undergoing 
Closure
    The Agency has predicted that a few companies may undergo 
bankruptcy as [[Page 5501]] a result of the proposed rulemaking. The 
predicted bankruptcies may result in closure of CWT facilities and the 
cost of such closure is attributable to this action. For RCRA permitted 
facilities, the cost of such closure may be significant. EPA solicits 
comment on the probability of closure of such facilities impacted by 
the proposed regulation and the costs associated with closure of the 
treatment operations.
13. Assessing the Effects of Conventional Pollutants
    A large portion of the pollutant reductions for the proposed 
regulation are for conventional pollutants, especially oil and grease. 
Due the present methodology for the environmental assessment, the 
impacts of conventional pollutants are not taken into account for the 
proposed regulation. The Agency solicits comment on possible approaches 
for assessing the effect of conventional pollutants and pollutant 
parameters, such as TOC and COD, on the water quality of receiving 
streams and POTW operations in terms of inhibition and sludge 
contamination.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437

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

    Dated: December 15, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding part 
437 as follows:

PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY POINT SOURCE 
CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.
437.1  General definitions.
437.2  Applicability.
437.3  Monitoring requirements.

Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory

Sec.
437.10  Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.
437.11  Specialized definitions.
437.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
437.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.14  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
437.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory

Sec.
437.20  Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.
437.21  Specialized definitions.
437.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
437.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.24  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
437.25  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.26  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.27  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory

Sec.
437.30  Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.
437.31  Specialized definitions.
437.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).
437.33  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.34  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
437.35  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.36  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.37  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and 1361.

General Provisions


Sec. 437.1  General definitions.

    In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR part 401, the 
following definitions apply to this part:
    (a) Centralized waste treatment facility--Any facility that treats 
any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-site 
by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge, or other forms of 
shipment. A ``centralized waste treatment facility'' includes: A 
facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively; and a 
facility that treats wastes generated on-site as well as waste received 
from off-site.
    (b) Centralized waste treatment wastewater--Water that comes in 
contact with wastes received from off-site for treatment or recovery or 
that comes in contact with the area in which the off-site wastes are 
received, stored or collected.
    (c) Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in section 
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, pH, 
and fecal coliform).
    (d) Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, 
operated, leased or under the control of the same person. The 
contiguous property may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
    (e) Metal-bearing wastes--Wastes that contain metal pollutants from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. 
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following: 
process wastewater, process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills 
and process wastewater treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges.
    (f) New source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 
122.29.
    (g) Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants.
    (h) Off-site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a 
facility.
    (i) Oily wastes--Wastes that contain oil and grease from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. 
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, the following: spent 
lubricants, cleaning fluids, process wastewater, process residuals such 
as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater treatment residuals, 
such as treatment sludges.
    (j) On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
    (k) Organic wastes--Wastes that contain organic pollutants from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. 
These wastes may include, but are not limited to, process wastewater, 
process residuals such as tank bottoms or stills and process wastewater 
treatment residuals, such as treatment sludges. [[Page 5502]] 
    (l) Pipeline--``Pipeline'' means an open or closed conduit used for 
the conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube, 
trench or ditch.
    (m) POTW--Publicly-owned treatment works as defined at 40 CFR 403.3 
(o).
    (n) Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as 
priority in 40 CFR part 423, appendix A.
    (o) Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR 
122.2.


Sec. 437.2  Applicability.

    (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in subchapter N of 
this chapter, the provisions of this part are applicable to that 
portion of wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment 
facility that result from the treatment or recovery of metals, oil, and 
organics from metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and organic-bearing 
wastes received from off-site. The provisions of this Part are also 
applicable to that portion of wastewater discharge from a CWT facility 
contact water. The provisions of this part do not apply to that portion 
of wastewater discharges from a CWT facility that results from the 
treatment of wastes that are generated on-site which are subject to 
other applicable provisions of Subchapter N of this chapter.
    (b) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater 
discharges at a centralized waste treatment facility that result from 
the following treatment operations: thermal destruction, incineration, 
stabilization, solidification, the blending of fuel and recycling of 
solvents from hazardous and non-hazardous industrial wastes received 
from off-site.
    (c) The provisions of this part do not apply to discharges from a 
centralized waste treatment facility that result from the treatment or 
recovery of wastes received by pipeline from a facility that generates 
the waste.


Sec. 437.3  Monitoring requirements.

    The following monitoring requirements apply to this part:
    (a) The ``monthly average'' regulatory values shall be the basis 
for the monthly average effluent limitations in direct discharge 
permits and pretreatment standards. Compliance with the monthly average 
discharge limit is required regardless of the number of samples 
analyzed and averaged.
    (b) Any centralized waste treatment facility that discharges 
wastewater that results from the treatment of metal-bearing waste, oily 
waste, or organic-bearing waste must monitor as follows:
    (1) A centralized waste treatment facility must monitor to 
demonstrate compliance with applicable Subcategory A, B, or C 
limitations or standards.
    (2) When a Centralized Waste Treatment facility: is subject to 
effluent limitations, new source performance standards or pretreatment 
standards in more than one Subpart of this Part (or any other Part of 
Subchapter N of this chapter), and (after treatment) mixes waste whose 
wastewater treatment discharges are subject to more than one Subpart of 
this Part (or any other Part of Subchapter N of this chapter), the 
owner or operator of the Centralized Waste Treatment facility must 
monitor for compliance with the limitations for each Subpart of this 
Part after treatment and before mixing of the waste for discharge with 
any other Subpart wastes, process wastewater subject to another 
effluent limitation or standard in Subchapter N of this chapter, or 
stormwater. A Centralized Waste Treatment facility is not required to 
monitor for compliance after treatment and before mixing of Subpart 
wastes that are mixed with other wastes for treatment and discharge if 
the following condition is met. The owner or operator of the 
Centralized Waste Treatment facility must demonstrate to the POTW or 
permitting authority that the Centralized Waste Treatment facility 
treating and discharging effluent from the mixture of wastes is capable 
of achieving the effluent limitation or standard for each Subpart.
    (3) When a Centralized Waste Treatment facility: is subject to 
effluent limitations, new source performance standards or pretreatment 
standards in more than one Subpart of this Part (or any other Part of 
Subchapter N of this chapter), and (prior to treatment) mixes waste 
whose wastewater treatment discharges are subject to more than one 
Subpart of this Part (or any other Part of Subchapter N), the owner or 
operator of the Centralized Waste Treatment facility must demonstrate 
to the POTW or permitting authority that the Centralized Waste 
Treatment facility treating and discharging effluent from the mixture 
of wastes is capable of achieving the effluent limitation or standard 
for each Subpart.
    (4) A centralized waste treatment facility must monitor for cyanide 
after cyanide treatment and before dilution with other waste streams. 
Periodic analysis for cyanide is not required for a centralized waste 
treatment facility in the metal-bearing waste subcategory when the 
following condition is met: The owner or operator of the facility 
certifies in writing to the POTW or permit issuing authority that the 
centralized waste treatment system is not treating wastes that contain 
more than 68 mg/l of Total Cyanide.

Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory


Sec. 437.10  Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of 
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that 
result from the treatment of, or recovery of metals from, metal-bearing 
waste received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.


Sec. 437.11  Specialized definitions.

    The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set 
forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 437.01 shall apply to this subpart.


Sec. 437.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations listed in the following table representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT). These 
limitations apply to the pretreatment of metal-bearing waste which 
contain cyanide and the metals treatment effluent.

      In-Facility BPT Limitations for Cyanide Pretreatment.--Metals     
                           Subcategory (mg/l)                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum            
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly 
                                                     one day    average 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide.....................................        350        130
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           BPT Effluent Limitations--Metals Subcategory (mg/l)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum            
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly 
                                                     one day    average 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:                                                
  Oil and Grease..................................    45         11     
  TSS.............................................    55         18     
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:                               
  Aluminum........................................     0.72       0.16  
  Antimony........................................     0.14       0.031 
  Arsenic.........................................     0.076      0.017 
  Barium..........................................     0.14       0.032 
  Cadmium.........................................     0.73       0.16  
  Chromium........................................     0.77       0.17  
[[Page 5503]]                                                           
                                                                        
  Cobalt..........................................     0.73       0.16  
  Copper..........................................     1.0        0.23  
  Hexavalent Chromium.............................     0.14       0.077 
  Iron............................................     2.4        0.54  
  Lead............................................     0.37       0.082 
  Magnesium.......................................     9.9        2.2   
  Manganese.......................................     0.18       0.039 
  Mercury.........................................     0.013      0.0030
  Nickel..........................................     5.4        1.2   
  Silver..........................................     0.028      0.0063
  Tin.............................................     0.20       0.044 
  Titanium........................................     0.021      0.0047
  Total Cyanide...................................     4.4        1.2   
  Zinc............................................     1.2        0.27  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.13  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by 
the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology 
(BCT). The limitations for TSS and Oil and Grease shall be the same as 
those specified in Sec. 437.12 for the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 437.14  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent 
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by 
the application of the best available technology economically 
achievable (BAT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified 
in Sec. 437.12 for the best practicable control technology currently 
available (BPT) for the priority and non-conventional pollutants 
listed.


Sec. 437.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve new source 
performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the metals 
treatment effluent. The limitations shall be the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.12 for the best practicable control technology 
currently available (BPT).


Sec. 437.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works (or any source that introduces hazardous or non-
hazardous waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/
roll-off bins, drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: Comply 
with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards 
for existing sources (PSES).

  In-Facility Pretreatment Standards for Cyanide Pretreatment.--Metals  
                           Subcategory (mg/l)                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum            
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly 
                                                     one day    average 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide.....................................   350        130     
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Pretreatment Standards.--Metals Subcategory (mg/l)           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Maximum            
         Pollutant or pollutant parameter            for any    Monthly 
                                                     one day    average 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum..........................................     0.72       0.16  
Antimony..........................................     0.14       0.031 
Arsenic...........................................     0.076      0.017 
Cadmium...........................................     0.73       0.16  
Chromium..........................................     0.77       0.17  
Cobalt............................................     0.73       0.16  
Copper............................................     1.0        0.23  
Hexavalent Chromium...............................     0.14       0.077 
Iron..............................................     2.4        0.54  
Lead..............................................     0.37       0.082 
Magnesium.........................................     9.9        2.2   
Manganese.........................................     0.18       0.039 
Mercury...........................................     0.013      0.0030
Nickel............................................     5.4        1.2   
Silver............................................     0.028      0.0063
Tin...............................................     0.20       0.044 
Titanium..........................................     0.021      0.0047
Total Cyanide.....................................     4.4        1.2   
Zinc..............................................     1.2        0.27  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment 
works (or any new source that introduces hazardous or non-hazardous 
waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, 
drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: Comply with 40 CFR part 
403; and achieve the pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). The 
limitations shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.16 for the 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory


Sec. 437.20  Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of 
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that 
result from the treatment of, or recovery of oils from, oily waste 
received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.


Sec. 437.21  Specialized definitions

    The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set 
forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 437.01 shall apply to this subpart.


Sec. 437.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

                               BPT Effluent Limitations.--Oils Subcategory (mg/l)                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Option 2                    Option 3         
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant parameter               Maximum for     Monthly     Maximum for     Monthly  
                                                           any one day     average     any one day     average  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:                                                                                        
    Oil and Grease......................................     30,000        5,900          240           64      
[[Page 5504]]                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
    TSS.................................................         24            8.2          4.0           1.4   
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:                                                                       
    1,1,1-Trichloroethane...............................          1.6          1.0          0.18          0.12  
    2-Propanone.........................................         41           22          130            44     
    4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol............................          5.2          4.4          0.96          0.54  
    Aluminum............................................          2.3          0.57         0.085         0.038 
    Barium..............................................          0.10         0.026        0.0027        0.0012
    Benzene.............................................          9.0          6.8          1.8           1.4   
    Butanone............................................          3.7          2.0         13             4.3   
    Cadmium.............................................          1.5          0.37         0.0046        0.0020
    Chromium............................................          2.2          0.54         0.010         0.0045
    Copper..............................................          2.0          0.50         0.016         0.0073
    Ethylbenzene........................................          1.1          0.86         0.085         0.066 
    Iron................................................         75           19            0.40          0.18  
    Lead................................................          5.0          1.2          0.076         0.034 
    Manganese...........................................          5.4          1.3          0.043         0.019 
    Methylene Chloride..................................          3.9          2.0          2.2           0.91  
    m-Xylene............................................          1.6          1.2          0.074         0.058 
    Nickel..............................................        120           29            2.2           0.99  
    n-Decane............................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Docosane..........................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Dodecane..........................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Eicosane..........................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Hexacosane........................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Hexadecane........................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Octadecane........................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    n-Tetradecane.......................................          0.18         0.096        0.19          0.067 
    o&p-Xylene..........................................          0.86         0.65         0.045         0.035 
    Tetrachloroethene...................................          0.23         0.14         0.032         0.016 
    Tin.................................................          0.82         0.20         0.12          0.056 
    Toluene.............................................         17           13            1.8           1.4   
    Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether.....................        280          150          160            57     
    Zinc................................................         22            5.6          0.54          0.24  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant 
control technology (BCT). The limitations for TSS and Oil and Grease 
shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.22 for the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 437.24  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT). The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified in Sec. 437.22 for the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT) for the priority and non-
conventional pollutants listed.


Sec. 437.25  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
new source performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the 
oils treatment effluent. The limitations shall be the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.22 for the best practicable control technology 
currently available (BPT).


Sec. 437.26  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works (or any source that introduces hazardous or non-
hazardous waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/
roll-off bins, drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: comply 
with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards 
for existing sources (PSES).

                                                                                                                
[[Page 5505]]                                                                                                   
            Pretreatment Standards.--Oils Subcategory (mg/l)            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Option 2             Option 3     
                                ----------------------------------------
     Pollutant or pollutant       Maximum              Maximum          
           parameter              for any   Monthly    for any   Monthly
                                  one day   average    one day   average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1-Trichloroethane..........      1.6      1.0        0.18     0.12  
2-Propanone....................     41       22        130       44     
4-Chloro-3-Methyl Phenol.......      5.2      4.4        0.96     0.54  
Aluminum.......................      2.3      0.57       0.085    0.038 
Barium.........................      0.10     0.026      0.0027   0.0012
Benzene........................      9.0      6.8        1.8      1.4   
Butanone.......................      3.7      2.0       13        4.3   
Cadmium........................      1.5      0.37       0.0046   0.0020
Chromium.......................      2.2      0.54       0.010    0.0045
Copper.........................      2.0      0.50       0.016    0.0073
Ethylbenzene...................      1.1      0.86       0.085    0.066 
Iron...........................     75       19          0.40     0.18  
Lead...........................      5.0      1.2        0.076    0.034 
Manganese......................      5.4      1.3        0.043    0.019 
Methylene Chloride.............      3.9      2.0        2.2      0.91  
m-Xylene.......................      1.6      1.2        0.074    0.058 
Nickel.........................     NA       NA          2.2      0.99  
n-Decane.......................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Docosane.....................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Dodecane.....................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Eicosane.....................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Hexacosane...................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Hexadecane...................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Octadecane...................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
n-Tetradecane..................      0.18     0.096      0.19     0.067 
o&p-Xylene.....................      0.86     0.65       0.045    0.035 
Tetrachloroethene..............      0.23     0.14       0.032    0.016 
Tin............................      0.82     0.20       0.12     0.056 
Toluene........................     17       13          1.8      1.4   
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether     NA       NA        160       57     
Zinc...........................     NA       NA          0.54     0.24  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA= No pretreatment standards are developed: pollutant was determined   
  not to ``pass-through.''                                              

Sec. 437.27  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment 
works (or any new source that introduces hazardous or non-hazardous 
waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, 
drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: Comply with 40 CFR part 
403; and achieve pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). The 
limitations shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.26 of this 
subpart for the pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory


Sec. 437.30  Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of 
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that 
result from the treatment of, or recovery of organics from, organic-
bearing waste received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.


Sec. 437.31  Specialized definitions.

    The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set 
forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 437.01 shall apply to this subpart.


Sec. 437.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best practicable control 
technology currently available (BPT).

         BPT Effluent Limitations.--Organics Subcategory (mg/l)         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Maximum          
          Pollutant or pollutant parameter             for any   Monthly
                                                       one day   average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:                                                
  BOD5..............................................   163        53    
  Oil and Grease....................................    13         4.9  
  TSS...............................................   216        61    
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:                               
  1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane.........................     0.013     0.011
  1,1,1-Trichloroethane.............................     0.021     0.018
  1,1,2-Trichloroethane.............................     0.21      0.17 
  1,1-Dichloroethane................................     0.037     0.027
  1,2,3-Trichloropropane............................     0.016     0.014
  1,2-Dibromoethane.................................     0.014     0.011
  1,2-Dichloroethane................................     0.031     0.025
  2,3-Dichloroaniline...............................     0.17      0.14 
  Butanone..........................................     1.1       0.84 
  2-Propanone.......................................     1.6       1.3  
  4-Methyl-2-Pentanone..............................     0.093     0.074
  Acetophenone......................................     0.048     0.022
  Aluminum..........................................     1.3       0.75 
  Antimony..........................................     0.42      0.24 
  Barium............................................     3.8       2.2  
  Benzene...........................................     0.014     0.011 
[[Page 5506]]                                                           
                                                                        
  Benzoic Acid......................................     0.49      0.24 
  Carbon Disulfide..................................     0.16      0.11 
  Chloroform........................................     0.56      0.48 
  Diethyl Ether.....................................     0.070     0.056
  Hexanoic Acid.....................................     0.51      0.25 
  Lead..............................................     0.16      0.095
  Methylene Chloride................................     1.1       0.97 
  Molybdenum........................................     0.98      0.57 
  m-Xylene..........................................     0.014     0.011
  o-Cresol..........................................     0.051     0.025
  Phenol............................................     0.79      0.38 
  Pyridine..........................................     0.71      0.24 
  p-Cresol..........................................     0.098     0.040
  Tetrachloroethene.................................     0.73      0.53 
  Tetrachloromethane................................     0.013     0.011
  Toluene...........................................     0.014     0.011
  trans-1,2-dichloroethene..........................     0.15      0.11 
  Trichloroethene...................................     1.2       0.86 
  Vinyl Chloride....................................     0.071     0.052
  Zinc..............................................     0.43      0.25 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.33  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant 
control technology (BCT). The limitations for BOD5. TSS, and Oil 
and Grease shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.32 of this 
subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available 
(BPT).


Sec. 437.34  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology 
economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve limitations 
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the 
application of the best available technology economically achievable 
(BAT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in 
Sec. 437.32 for the best practicable control technology currently 
available (BPT) for the priority and non-conventional pollutants 
listed.


Sec. 437.35  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
new source performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the 
organics treatment effluent. The limitations shall be the same as those 
specified in Sec. 437.32 for the best practicable control technology 
currently available (BPT).


Sec. 437.36  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works (or any source that introduces hazardous or non-
hazardous waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/
roll-off bins, drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: comply 
with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following pretreatment standards 
for existing sources (PSES).

           Pretreatment Standards--Organics Subcategory (mg/l)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Maximum          
          Pollutant or pollutant parameter             for any   Monthly
                                                       one day   average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane...........................     0.013     0.011
1,1,1-Trichloroethane...............................     0.021     0.018
1,1,2-Trichloroethane...............................     0.21      0.17 
1,1-Dichloroethene..................................     0.037     0.027
1,2,3-Trichloropropane..............................     0.016     0.014
1,2-Dibromoethane...................................     0.014     0.011
1,2-Dichloroethane..................................     0.031     0.025
2,3-Dichloroaniline.................................     0.17      0.14 
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone................................     0.093     0.074
Acetophenone........................................     0.048     0.022
Aluminum............................................     1.3       0.75 
Antimony............................................     0.42      0.24 
Barium..............................................     3.8       2.2  
Benzene.............................................     0.014     0.011
Benzoic Acid........................................     0.49      0.24 
Butanone............................................     1.1       0.84 
Carbon Disulfide....................................     0.16      0.11 
Chloroform..........................................     0.56      0.48 
Diethyl Ether.......................................     0.070     0.056
Hexanoic Acid.......................................     0.51      0.25 
Methylene Chloride..................................     1.1       0.97 
Molybdenum..........................................     0.98      0.57 
m-Xylene............................................     0.014     0.011
o-Cresol............................................     0.051     0.025
p-Cresol............................................     0.098     0.040
Tetrachloroethene...................................     0.73      0.53 
Tetrachloromethane..................................     0.013     0.011
Toluene.............................................     0.014     0.011
trans-1,2-dichloroethene............................     0.15      0.11 
Trichloroethene.....................................     1.2       0.86 
Vinyl Chloride......................................     0.071     0.052
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.37  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment 
works (or any new source that introduces hazardous or non-hazardous 
waste into a POTW from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, 
drums, barge or other form of shipment) must: comply with 40 CFR part 
403; and achieve pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). The 
limitations shall be the same as those specified in Sec. 437.36 for the 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

[FR Doc. 95-47 Filed 1-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P