[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 180 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48806-48814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23658]


      

[[Page 48805]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 437



_______________________________________________________________________



Centralized Waste Treatment Category: Data Availability; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 180 / Monday, September 16, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 48806]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 437

[FRL-5610-1]
RIN 2040-AB78


Notice of Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, 
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: 
Centralized Waste Treatment Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: On January 27, 1995, EPA proposed Clean Water Act effluent 
limitations and pretreatment standards to reduce the discharge of 
pollutants from the centralized waste treatment industry (60 FR 5464). 
This document describes new information the Agency has obtained since 
the proposal. This document also explains, based on this information, 
the Agency's revised estimates of the size and regulatory impacts of 
the proposed rulemaking on the proposed oils treatment and recovery 
subcategory of the industry. This document presents the preliminary 
results of EPA detailed analyses for the subcategory with the inclusion 
of the new information and the data developed from it. EPA originally 
estimated that there were 35 facilities in this subcategory. EPA now 
estimates that there are a total of 275 facilities in the subcategory. 
EPA further believes that the majority of the facilities treat dilute 
oily wastestreams rather than the concentrated wastestreams that were 
described in the proposal.

DATES: Comments on this notice are solicited and will be accepted until 
October 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted to Mr. Ed Terry at the 
following address: Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), EPA, 401 M 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

    The data and analyses being announced today are available for 
review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, 
room M2616, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 
260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call for an 
appointment before visiting the Docket. A reasonable fee may be charged 
for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information, 
contact Mr. Ed Terry at the following address: Engineering and Analysis 
Division (4303), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, 
telephone number (202) 260-7128. For information on economic impacts, 
contact Ms. Susan Burris at the same address, telephone number (202) 
260-5379.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents of This Document

I. Summary of Proposed Regulation and Purpose of Today's Notice
II. Post-Proposal Data Gathering for the Oily Waste Treatment and 
Recovery Subcategory
III. Facility Specific Information
    A. Wastewater Discharge Flow Estimates
    B. Baseline Treatment Technology
    C. Final Treated Effluent Characterization
IV. Revised Description of the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery 
Subcategory
    A. Overview
    B. Wastewater Flow and Discharge
V. Costs of Technology Options
    A. BPT Costs
    B. BCT Costs
    C. BAT Costs
    D. PSES Costs
VI. Pollutant Reductions
    A. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    B. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    1. Direct Dischargers and BAT
    2. Indirect Dischargers and PSES
VII. Revised Economic Impacts
    A. Overview
    B. Data Sources and Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses
    C. Changes to Economic Analysis Methodology Since Proposal
    D. Revised Economic Impacts for Oils Option 2 and 3
    1. Impacts of Non-hazardous Oily Waste CWT Facilities and 
Markets
    2. Small Business Impacts
    E. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3
VIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
    1. Estimation of Oils Subcategory Size
    2. Waste Receipt Characterization
    3. Wastewater Discharge Flow Rates
    4. Wastewater Treatment Technologies
    5. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting from Various 
Treatment Technologies
    6. Final Effluent Characterization
    7. Fuel Blending
    8. RCRA Permits
    9. Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses

I. Summary of Proposed Regulation and Purpose of Today's Notice

    On January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5464), EPA proposed regulations to 
reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and 
nonconventional pollutants in treated wastewater from facilities 
defined in the proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' 
At proposal, these effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards would apply to ``any facility that treats any hazardous or 
non-hazardous industrial waste received from off-site by tanker truck, 
trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge or other forms of shipment.'' These 
facilities include both stand-alone waste treatment and recovery 
facilities that treat waste received from off-site as well as those 
facilities that treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes 
received from off-site. Based on its review of the data on the types of 
waste accepted for treatment or recovery at such facilities, EPA 
concluded that different limitations and standards were appropriate for 
subcategories within the industry. The Agency preliminarily determined 
that three subcategories were appropriate for the centralized waste 
treatment (CWT) industry. These subcategories are: metal-bearing waste 
treatment and recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and organic 
waste treatment and recovery.
    Today's notice focuses exclusively on the Oily Waste Treatment and 
Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory,'' defined in the proposal 
as ``facilities that treat, and recover oil from oily waste received 
from off-site.'' At the time of proposal, EPA believed that the oils 
subcategory was comprised of 35 facilities treating predominantly 
concentrated oily wastes. Since proposal, EPA has learned that the data 
used to develop the proposal may have mischaracterized this portion of 
the CWT industry. EPA learned that there are approximately 240 
previously unaccounted for facilities treating oily waste received from 
off-site, many of which accept dilute, not concentrated, oil 
wastestreams. Today's notice discusses these facilities and describes 
how the proposal limitations and standards, if promulgated, would 
affect such facilities. EPA is requesting comment on the accuracy of 
the information it has developed and its conclusions about the likely 
effect of the proposed limits and standards, if promulgated, on these 
facilities.
    Based on information EPA received during the comment period as well 
as material obtained from communication with the industry and the 
National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), EPA has revised its profile 
of the oils subcategory of the centralized waste treatment industry to 
take account of the newly identified facilities. Using this information 
in conjunction with questionnaire responses and sampling data used to 
develop the proposal, EPA has recharacterized this subcategory of this 
industry. EPA developed individual profiles for each of the newly 
identified facilities by modeling current

[[Page 48807]]

wastewater treatment performance and treated effluent discharge flow 
rates. Additional information on how EPA modeled these facilities is 
provided below. In addition, assuming the same treatment technology 
options identified at proposal, EPA has recalculated the projected 
costs of the proposed options under consideration, expected pollutant 
reductions associated with these options, and the projected economic 
impacts.
    EPA is today announcing the availability of the new information and 
requesting comment on it. EPA is specifically requesting that 
individual facilities in the oils subcategory review the data developed 
for their facility to ensure that EPA has accurately characterized 
their operations. To the extent that actual wastewater treatment data 
is available, EPA is also soliciting that information.
    As noted, EPA has developed a facility profile for each of the 240 
oils subcategory facilities. EPA will use the data to decide what 
limitations and standards for the oils subcategory the Agency should 
promulgate. EPA tested the assumptions and models it used to generate 
the profiles against information already in the CWT rulemaking record 
to validate its initial conclusions about the 240 new facilities in the 
oils subcategory. In some cases, the results were consistent with that 
observed in EPA's available data base. In other cases, the results seem 
less certain. Given the use to which this data will be put, calculation 
of pollutant reductions and treatment option costs, EPA hopes that 
facilities will review the profiles to ensure their accuracy and that 
these profiles are representative of actual conditions at individual 
facilities.
    In order to facilitate this effort, copies of the profiles for each 
of the newly identified facilities will be available at the Agency. 
Moreover, EPA will mail copies of this notice to each of the facilities 
and include the profile for that facility with the notice. This will 
provide that facility with an easy means of modifying the profile as 
necessary.
    In its proposal, EPA proposed limitations and standards for the 
oils subcategory based on two treatment systems comprised of various 
treatment technologies that the Agency identified. These were emulsion 
breaking followed by (1) ultrafiltration and (2) ultrafiltration, 
carbon adsorption, and reverse osmosis. These wastewater treatment 
schemes were identified based on the data EPA had collected for 
facilities treating highly concentrated, hazardous oily wastes. As 
explained further below, EPA believes that the newly identified 
facilities treat largely non-hazardous, dilute oily wastes. In 
addition, EPA has learned that a number of these facilities are using 
dissolved air flotation (DAF) systems to treat their wastewater. 
Consequently, EPA will be sampling some of these facilities as part of 
its assessment of appropriate limitations and standards for the oils 
subcategory. EPA is particularly interested in obtaining information on 
the use of DAF in treatment of oily wastes and requests any data and 
information which commenters may have on this issue. This will be used 
in the Agency's reconsideration of the achievable effluent limitations 
and pretreatment standards.

II. Post-Proposal Data Gathering for the Oily Waste Treatment and 
Recovery Subcategory

    Since the January 27, 1995 proposal, EPA has obtained a more 
inclusive list of facilities that may fall into the oils subcategory. 
EPA gathered and evaluated technical data and economic data from 
various sources, including comments to the January 27, 1995 proposal, 
facility lists in the 1995 Environmental Information Directory, 
membership lists from the National Oil Recyclers Association, 
information from EPA Regions, and Dun and Bradstreet. EPA has compiled 
a list of an additional 240 facilities that may be included in the oils 
subcategory. Some of these facilities began operation after the Waste 
Treatment Industry Questionnaire, the primary source of information for 
the 1995 proposal was conducted. Others were in operation in 1989, the 
base year for the questionnaire, but had not been identified by EPA as 
centralized waste treatment facilities. EPA believes that many of the 
newly identified facilities were created or altered their oily waste 
treatment services in response to provisions of 40 CFR 279, promulgated 
on September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used Oil, which 
covers the handling and fate of used oils under the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act and CERCLA). For the analyses presented in today's notice, 
EPA determined that new facilities created after 1989 should be 
included in the data base for development of the regulation because of 
the tremendous growth rate of the industry.
    EPA is also conducting further sampling in order to better 
characterize the incoming waste receipts and type and concentrations of 
wastewater constituents resulting from treatment of oily wastes and 
wastewaters. EPA is sampling and evaluating the use of additional 
treatment technologies including Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) and 
plans to re-examine the technology basis and proposed limitations and 
treatment standards for the oils subcategory based on the results of 
this additional sampling.

III. Facility Specific Information

    In developing these effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards, EPA considers impacts on the entire industry as 
well as individual subcategories. Having learned of the additional 
facilities treating oily wastes, not previously considered in 
development of the proposal, EPA needed to develop information of both 
a technical and economic nature for the newly identified facilities and 
then incorporate this into the data base used for developing final 
limitations and standards. EPA had several options. One method to 
obtain the required information would be to send a questionnaire to the 
240 facilities. EPA rejected this option since questionnaires are 
burdensome for the facilities and time consuming to the EPA to develop, 
conduct, and analyze.
    The option EPA has recently adopted is to generate data for each of 
the additional 240 facilities using modeling assumptions developed from 
newly obtained information and the data base for the proposal. EPA has 
then taken the data for each of the 240 facilities and used the 
information to re-evaluate the proposed limits and standards for the 
oils subcategory. The following sections explain how EPA developed this 
information.

A. Wastewater Discharge Flow Estimates

    In lieu of sending out questionnaires to the newly identified 
facilities to collect technical and economic information, EPA used data 
from secondary sources to estimate several facility characteristics 
such as wastewater discharge flow. For most of the facilities, 
information about total facility revenue and employment were available 
from public sources (such as Dun and Bradstreet). Using these two 
pieces of information, EPA used statistical procedures to match the 
newly identified facilities to similar facilities that provided 
information about facility operations in 1989 in response to EPA's 
``Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire.'' This matching enabled EPA 
to estimate the flow of treated wastewater from each of the newly 
identified facilities. Where EPA had actual estimates of flow from the 
facility or public sources, EPA used the actual values. This 
methodology is described in more detail in the record accompanying this 
notice.

[[Page 48808]]

B. Baseline Treatment Technology

    In developing the 1995 proposal, EPA evaluated the treatment 
technologies being used at the 35 facilities that EPA had identified as 
belonging to the oils subcategory. EPA determined that the vast 
majority of these facilities utilized emulsion breaking with either 
acid and/or heat to separate the oil and water fractions. A few 
facilities utilized other types of treatment systems in addition to 
emulsion breaking, such as Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). A few 
facilities only utilized gravity separation; these facilities only 
accepted unstable oil-water emulsions. However, very few facilities 
utilized the technologies for the two co-proposed options-- identified 
as Option 2 and Option 3 in the 1995 proposal. Under Option 2, the 
proposed numerical effluent limitations and standards were based on the 
use of ultrafiltration in the wastewater treatment system. Under Option 
3, the proposed limitations and standards were based on the use of 
carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis in addition to the Option 2 
technology.
    Based on information from NORA and from other secondary sources, 
EPA discovered that the newly identified oils facilities utilize 
technologies similar to those identified by questionnaire respondents. 
EPA has found little evidence that the newly identified facilities 
utilize the technologies associated with the proposed options for 
limitations and standards. In modeling and costing technology 
improvements necessary for the newly identified facilities to achieve 
the effluent limitations and standards for the proposed options, EPA 
assumes that none of the facilities have ultrafiltration, carbon 
adsorption or reverse osmosis currently in place. Baseline treatment 
for these newly identified facilities is assumed to be emulsion 
breaking.

C. Final Treated Effluent Characterization

    In developing the proposal, establishing the quantities of 
pollutants currently being discharged in the final treated effluent 
from oils facilities was a difficult task. As a result of EPA's 
sampling at a few oils facilities, EPA determined that the wastewater 
discharge from these facilities are characterized by as many as 100 
pollutant parameters. Unfortunately, very few of the original 35 
facilities could provide monitoring data for this wide list of 
parameters. Additionally, most of these facilities mixed oily 
wastewater with other centralized waste treatment (CWT) wastewaters, 
industrial wastewater or stormwater prior to their monitoring point. 
This made it extremely difficult to characterize the effluent from oils 
treatment only.
    As discussed previously, EPA found chemical emulsion breaking to be 
baseline treatment for this subcategory. Therefore, current discharge 
performance is the concentration of pollutants following chemical 
emulsion breaking multiplied by the facility discharge flow. EPA 
determined the concentration of pollutants resulting from chemical 
emulsion breaking during the sampling program conducted prior to 
proposal. This sampling program is discussed in more detail in the 
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-
95-006, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985). EPA is currently conducting 
additional sampling at some of the newly identified facilities to 
supplement the earlier data and plans to publish the sampling results 
for comments before promulgation.
    For this notice, EPA estimated current discharge concentrations for 
the newly identified facilities in the same manner as that used for the 
proposal. Table I summarizes the concentrations of the parameters that 
EPA is using to characterize wastewater pollutant concentrations for 
each of the newly identified oils facilities.

 Table I.--Oils Subcategory Current Wastewater Pollutant Concentrations 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Pollutant  
                        Pollutant                          concentration
                                                               (mg/L)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional:                                                           
  BOD5...................................................         7,164 
  Oil and Grease.........................................        29,396 
  TSS....................................................         7,209 
Metals:                                                                 
  Aluminum...............................................         48.93 
  Antimony...............................................          1.34 
  Arsenic................................................          0.22 
  Barium.................................................          2.53 
  Boron..................................................        239.36 
  Cadmium................................................          0.24 
  Chromium...............................................          2.20 
  Cobalt.................................................          0.72 
  Copper.................................................         15.79 
  Iron...................................................        232.26 
  Lead...................................................          8.15 
  Manganese..............................................          7.39 
  Molybdenum.............................................          3.05 
  Nickel.................................................         26.44 
  Silver.................................................          1.08 
  Tin....................................................          2.10 
  Titanium...............................................          0.38 
  Zinc...................................................         42.00 
Organics:                                                               
  1,1,1-Trichloroethane..................................          3.64 
  2-Butanone.............................................         20.10 
  2-Propanone............................................        221.07 
  4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol................................         22.31 
  Benzene................................................          8.25 
  Benzoic Acid...........................................         16.81 
  Ethyl Benzene..........................................          6.61 
  Hexanoic Acid..........................................          5.38 
  Methylene Chloride.....................................          1.47 
  m-Xylene...............................................         11.37 
  n-Decane...............................................         91.78 
  n-Docosane.............................................          3.03 
  n-Dodecane.............................................         70.39 
  n-Eicosane.............................................         42.69 
  n-Hexacosane...........................................          3.08 
  n-Hexadecane...........................................        153.22 
  n-Octadecane...........................................         95.36 
  n-Tetradecane..........................................        282.72 
  o+p-Xylene.............................................          5.19 
  Phenol.................................................          4.59 
  Tetrachloroethene......................................          2.16 
  Toluene................................................         33.95 
  Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether........................         86.47 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Revised Description of the Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery 
Subcategory

    EPA's original description of the oils subcategory was based on 
Questionnaire responses for 1989. The following description reflects 
the Agency's current, revised thinking on how the oils subcategory 
should be characterized.

A. Overview

    At the time of proposal, 35 facilities were estimated to be in the 
oils subcategory. EPA now believes there are a total of 275 oils 
facilities. These facilities accept a variety of wastes, oil, and oily 
wastewater for treatment and/or recovery. Types of wastes accepted for 
treatment include but are not limited to: lubricants, used petroleum 
products, used oils, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, tank cleanout, 
off-spec fuels, and underground storage tank remediation waste. Many 
facilities pre-treat the oily wastes for contaminants such as water and 
then blend the resulting oil residual to form a product--usually fuel.
    At the time of proposal, EPA believed that 85 percent of oils 
facilities were primarily accepting concentrated, difficult to treat 
stable oil-water emulsions. As such, EPA's sampling program prior to 
proposal focused on facilities that treated the more concentrated and 
difficult to treat stable oil-water emulsions. New information 
indicates that the majority of the newly identified facilities are 
treating less concentrated wastestreams. At facilities that EPA 
recently visited, EPA found

[[Page 48809]]

that many of the wastestreams treated for oil content were fairly 
dilute and consisted of less than 10 percent oils. In contrast, at the 
time of the proposal, EPA believed that oily wastestreams were more 
concentrated and mainly consisted of more than 10 percent oils. While 
EPA still believes some facilities are accepting the more concentrated 
wastes, the dilute wastestreams increasingly represent the more 
significant portion of the incoming wastes.
    Further, at proposal, only three of the facilities included in the 
data base for this subcategory were identified as solely accepting 
wastes classified as non-hazardous under RCRA. The remaining facilities 
accepted either hazardous wastes alone or a combination of hazardous 
and non-hazardous wastes. In contrast, EPA believes that the vast 
majority of the newly identified facilities only accept wastestreams 
that would be classified by RCRA as non-hazardous.
    Additionally, for the 1995 proposal, EPA decided not to propose 
nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
fuel blending which was defined as ``the process of mixing organic 
waste for the purpose of generating fuel for reuse.'' The 1989 
Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry (EPA 440/1-
89/102, September 1989, NTIS #PB90-126467), which included fuel 
blending operations, stated that 81 percent of the industry achieved 
zero discharge of process wastewater primarily through incineration, 
fuel blending, and contract hauling. EPA chose to exclude fuel blending 
operations from the CWT rulemaking because EPA believed, based on 
information obtained in the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, 
that fuel blending was essentially a ``dry'' process and did not 
generate any wastewater. The oily waste treatment industry's compliance 
with the Standards for the Management of Used Oil (40 CFR 279) seems to 
have increased the number of facilities that treat oily wastes for the 
purpose of recovering used oils and fuels for use in fuel blends. As 
such, EPA believes that the majority of the newly identified facilities 
perform fuel blending operations as part of their waste treatment 
services. EPA solicits comments on fuel blending operations in general 
as well as those in conjunction with waste oil recovery and treatment. 
EPA solicits information on the fuel blending process, wastewater 
generated as a result of fuel blending operations, and the 
applicability of the proposed rule to such operations.

B. Wastewater Flow and Discharge

    Table II summarizes the original estimates of wastewater flow and 
the revised estimates developed by including the newly identified 
facilities for the oils subcategory. At the time of proposal, EPA 
estimated that four of the 35 facilities were direct dischargers. The 
remainder were indirect dischargers, discharging to Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTWs). During EPA's recent data gathering for oils 
facilities, however, EPA has not identified any new facilities that are 
direct dischargers. Therefore, for the newly identified oils 
facilities, EPA assumes that all facilities are indirect dischargers. 
EPA now believes that there are four direct dischargers and 271 
indirect dischargers.

    Table II.--Summary of Wastewater Discharges From Oils Subcategory   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Original    Revised 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Direct Discharge (million gallons)..        64.2       64.2
Total Annual Indirect Discharge (million gallons)       162.5      946.8
Total Annual Discharge (million gallons).........       226.7    1,011.1
Median Annual Flow (million gallons).............         2.2        2.1
Average Annual Flow (million gallons)............         6.5        3.7
Number of Facilities.............................        35        275  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Costs of Technology Options

    The Agency has estimated the cost for each of the newly identified 
oils facilities to achieve each of the effluent limitations and 
standards proposed in the January 27, 1995 Federal Register Notice. 
These estimated costs are summarized in this section. The general 
methodology used to calculate the costs for the newly identified 
facilities was the same as that used for the proposal. A detailed 
discussion of this methodology can be found in the Development Document 
accompanying the proposal and in the Detailed Costing Document for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-002, January 1995, 
NTIS #PB95-187001).
    All cost estimates in this section are expressed in 1995 dollars. 
The cost components reported in this section represent estimates of the 
investment cost of purchasing and installing equipment, the annual 
operating and maintenance (O & M) costs associated with the equipment, 
additional costs for monitoring, land costs, and costs for facilities 
to modify existing RCRA permits. Even though EPA has assumed that the 
newly-identified facilities accept only non-hazardous wastes, EPA 
assumed that all facilities have an existing RCRA permit and that the 
proposed technology changes would require permit modifications. EPA 
made this assumption because EPA has identified non-hazardous 
facilities which have a RCRA permit. EPA recognizes that use of this 
assumption will necessarily overstate the costs of treatment for 
facilities treating non-hazardous wastes which do not have a RCRA 
permit. The land costs and the permitting costs have been included in 
the capital costs. The monitoring costs are included in the O & M 
costs. Total annualized costs include (1) the costs of capital and land 
annualized over 20 years at 7 percent, and (2) the annual O & M costs.
    For comparison purposes, the cost estimates calculated for the 
original proposal for the oils subcategory have been included in 
today's notice. The costs presented in the original proposal were 
expressed in 1993 dollars. EPA adjusted the cost estimates from 
proposal by applying the McGraw-Hill Company Engineering News Record 
Construction Costs Indices for the appropriate years.

A. BPT Costs

    The Agency estimated the cost of complying with the proposed 
effluent limitations based on the best practicable control technology 
currently available (BPT) for both of the proposed options-- Option 2 
and Option 3. BPT limitations are expected to apply to the four direct 
discharging facilities in this subcategory. BPT costs presented in this 
notice including the newly identified facilities are the same as the 
costs presented in the original proposal because EPA has assumed that 
all of the newly identified facilities are indirect dischargers and 
therefore not subject to BPT. The capital expenditures for Option 2 are 
estimated to be $1.07 million with annual O&M costs of $0.82 million; 
for Option 3, the capital expenditures are estimated to be $4.03 
million with annual O&M costs of $8.56 million. To the extent that any 
of the newly identified facilities are direct dischargers, they would 
incur costs in complying with BPT and these figures would be an 
underestimate.

B. BCT Costs

    In the 1995 proposal, the Agency estimated that there would be no 
incremental cost of compliance for

[[Page 48810]]

limitations based on the best conventional pollutant control technology 
(BCT) because the technology is identical to BPT. This is still the 
case for any newly identified facilities which are direct dischargers.

C. BAT Costs

    In the 1995 proposal, the Agency estimated that there would be no 
incremental cost of compliance for limitations based on the best 
available technology economically achievable (BAT) because the 
technology is identical to BPT. This is still the case for the newly 
identified facilities which are direct dischargers.

D. PSES Costs

    The Agency estimated the cost for compliance with pretreatment 
standards for existing sources (PSES) using the same assumptions and 
methodology used to estimate cost of implementing BPT. Table III 
summarizes the capital expenditures, annual O&M costs, and total 
annualized costs for implementing PSES for the original 35 facilities 
as well as the revised estimates including the newly identified oils 
facilities. For PSES Option 2, EPA estimates capital expenditures of 
$45.72 million, annual O&M costs of $31.38 million, and total 
annualized costs of $35.31 million. For PSES Option 3, EPA estimates 
capital expenditures of $120.1 million, annual O&M costs of $173.85 
million, and total annualized costs of $203.05 million.

                                            Table III.--Cost of Complying With PSES for the Oils Subcategory                                            
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Original estimates ($ millions)                      Revised estimates ($ millions)          
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Proposed option                                                            Total                                                Total   
                                                  Number of     Capital     Annual O&M   annualized   Number of      Capital     Annual O&M   annualized
                                                  facilities     costs        costs        costs      facilities      costs        costs        costs   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils--Option 2.................................           31         4.42         2.49         3.12          271         45.72        31.38        35.31
Oils--Option 3.................................           31        13.65        22.58        25.59          271        120.1        173.85       203.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that 
would be discharged from the newly identified oils facilities after the 
implementation of the regulation proposed in January 1995. The 
methodology used to estimate the pollutant reductions in this notice is 
the same as that used for the proposal. A detailed discussion of this 
methodology can be found in The Development Document for Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-006, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985.

A. Conventional Pollutant Reductions

    EPA has calculated how much the proposed BPT and BCT limitations 
would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants that are 
discharged by the oils facilities. The information presented in this 
notice applies to the oils subcategory only. If a facility could be 
classified in more than one subcategory, then only reductions related 
to the oils portion have been included in this discussion. The 
estimated conventional pollutant reductions due to BPT and BCT 
limitations including the newly identified facilities are the same as 
the reductions estimated in the original proposal since all of the 
newly identified facilities are assumed to be indirect dischargers and 
not subject to BPT and BCT limitations. The Agency estimates that the 
proposed regulations will reduce BOD5 discharges by approximately 
1.9 million pounds per year for Option 2 and by approximately 2.6 
million pounds per year for Option 3; TSS discharges by approximately 
3.9 million pounds per year for both Options 2 and 3; and oil and 
grease discharges by approximately 14.4 million pounds per year for 
Option 2 and 15.7 million pounds per year for Option 3.

B. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions

    EPA applied the same methodology used to estimate conventional 
pollutant reductions attributable to application of BPT/BCT control 
technologies to estimate priority and non-conventional pollutant 
reductions for each facility for the oils subcategory. Because EPA 
proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT, there are no additional 
pollutant reductions associated with the BAT limitations.
1. Direct Dischargers and BAT
    The estimated reductions in pollutants directly discharged in 
treated final effluent from the oils subcategory resulting from 
implementation of BPT and BAT are summarized in Table IV. For 
convenience in reviewing today's notice, this table provides the same 
information that was presented in the proposal. EPA does not estimate 
that any of the newly identified facilities are direct dischargers. The 
Agency estimates that proposed BPT and BAT regulations will reduce 
direct facility discharges of priority and non-conventional pollutants 
by 0.85 million pounds per year for Option 2 and 0.93 million pounds 
per year for Option 3.

      Table IV.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-     
            Conventional Pollutants for the Oils Subcategory            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Metal       Organic  
                                                 compounds    compounds 
                Proposed option                   (pounds/     (pounds/ 
                                                   year)        year)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2......................................      294,543      556,627
Option 3......................................      319,847      610,937
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Indirect Dischargers and PSES
    The estimated reductions in pollutants indirectly discharged to 
POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES for the oils subcategory 
are summarized in Table V. For comparison purposes, the table includes 
the pollutant reductions originally estimated at the time of proposal 
as well as the estimated pollutant reductions including the newly 
identified facilities. The Agency estimates that proposed PSES 
regulations including the newly identified facilities will reduce 
indirect facility discharges to POTWs by 12.7 million pounds per year 
for Option 2 and 13.6 million pounds per year for Option 3.

[[Page 48811]]



  Table V. Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants for the Oils Subcategory 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Original estimates  (pounds/     Revised estimates  (pounds/ 
                                                               year)                           year)            
                 Proposed option                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Metal          Organic          Metal          Organic   
                                                     compounds       ompounds        compounds       compounds  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oils--Proposed Option 2.........................         709,834       1,341,439       4,212,333       8,509,688
Oils--Proposed Option 3.........................         771,668       1,474,708       4,667,589       8,932,084
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Revised Economic Impacts

A. Overview

    As explained in Section IV.A, EPA believes that the vast majority 
of newly identified facilities only accept RCRA non-hazardous 
wastestreams. Although the economic analysis assumes separate markets 
for oily waste management services (one for hazardous oily wastes and 
one for non-hazardous oily wastes), the following discussion focuses on 
the economic impacts for facilities exclusively managing non-hazardous 
oily waste.
    The Agency has estimated the economic and financial impacts 
expected to result from the proposed limitations and standards for all 
of the newly identified oils facilities. This analysis includes an 
assessment of projected changes in the prices and quantities of oily 
waste treatment services, employment, facility profitability, and 
impacts on companies owning these facilities (including small business 
impacts). Today's notice summarizes the results of these analyses. For 
all the analyses, dollar values from other years were adjusted to 1995 
values using a cost adjustment factor.
    Additional information about the economic analysis, including a 
detailed description of the model and method, is available in Economic 
Impacts of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry: Revised Impacts of Oils Option 2 
and Oils Option 3 (EPA 821-R-95-001, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-187985).

B. Data Sources and Assumptions for Revised Economic Analyses

    In developing and running the models for the non-hazardous waste 
market, EPA utilized five main sources of data: information obtained 
from Dun and Bradstreet, information from the National Oil Recyclers 
Association (NORA), information from comments to the 1995 proposal, 
information from site visits conducted after the proposal at a limited 
number of oils facilities, and information obtained from the Waste 
Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The Agency solicits comment on the 
representativeness of the data used and the accuracy of the assumptions 
made in modeling facility operations for the new facilities.
    EPA has assumed that the volume of waste and wastewater received 
from off-site for treatment and/or recovery is evenly split between 
oily waste from which oil is recovered and oily wastewater which is 
treated. For facilities that recover oil, EPA has assumed that 60 
percent of the incoming volume is recovered as oil and the remainder is 
wastewater. Combining these assumptions, EPA assumed that the total 
volume of incoming waste receipts at a facility is 1.25 times the 
estimated discharge flow to the POTW. These assumptions were based on 
information from NORA, site visits and previous questionnaire 
responses.
    The Agency estimated operating costs, revenues, and profits at each 
facility, based on confidential cost and price data obtained from 
commenters, and on each facility's estimated quantity of waste received 
from off site. Each facility is assumed to charge $0.35 per gallon to 
accept incoming waste receipts from off site, and to sell recovered oil 
for $0.12 per gallon. Since no data are available from secondary 
sources to enable the Agency to include other revenue or cost at each 
facility, the Agency's analysis is limited to costs, revenues, and 
profits from oily waste CWT operations only.
    Demand for oily waste management services is assumed to be 
relatively unresponsive to changes in price. Thus, when the price of 
CWT services increases, EPA's analysis assumes that most generators 
continue to send their waste to CWTs, and pay a higher price.

C. Changes to Economic Analysis Methodology Since Proposal

    The economic analysis of Oils Option 2 and Oils Option 3 includes 
impacts on 243 non-hazardous oily waste CWT facilities. This analysis 
includes the 240 newly identified oily waste CWTs, plus the three non-
hazardous oils facilities from the pre-proposal analysis.
    The Agency believes that the waste managed by the 243 non-hazardous 
oily waste management CWTs is fundamentally different from the waste 
managed at CWTs also accepting hazardous waste. Thus, facilities 
managing non-hazardous oily waste offer services that are not perfect 
substitutes for the services offered by facilities managing hazardous 
oily waste. In other words, there are two separate markets for the two 
types of oily waste CWT services. For this reason, the Agency has 
chosen to develop two separate market models: one for hazardous oily 
waste CWT services and one for non-hazardous oily waste CWT services. 
For both markets, the Agency has assumed that there are six regional 
markets, corresponding to the Northeast, Southeast, Upper Midwest, 
Lower Midwest, Northwest, and Southwest of the United States. There the 
similarities between the models end.
    The model used to analyze the economic impacts on hazardous waste 
CWTs is described in detail in the proposal and in EPA's Economic 
Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 821-R-95-
001, January 1995, NTIS #PB95-106821). A brief description of the 
hazardous model follows in order to contrast the model used to analyze 
impacts on non-hazardous oily waste CWTs.
    The hazardous oily waste CWT model assumed six regional markets in 
which a few facilities offered centralized waste treatment services. 
Within each region, markets are assumed to be imperfectly competitive: 
facilities are aware of their competitors' actions and determine how 
much waste to accept at a given market price based on their assumptions 
about how their competitors will respond. Perhaps because of a desire 
to avoid triggering additional RCRA corrective action requirements by 
closing a facility, companies managing hazardous oily waste have tended 
to keep unprofitable CWT facilities in operation for extended periods 
of time. For this reason, the model does not assume that facilities

[[Page 48812]]

becoming unprofitable due to the proposed rule will close; rather, it 
tallies the number of facilities becoming unprofitable (as well as 
those becoming more profitable).
    Unlike the hazardous waste markets, each of the six regional 
markets for non-hazardous oily waste CWT services includes from 15 to 
70 facilities offering to supply these services. With so many 
facilities, it is not possible for each facility to keep track of all 
of its competitors' activities. Neither is it possible for any one 
facility to have a significant impact on market price. Thus, the 
analysis assumes that the market for non-hazardous oily waste CWT 
services is competitive. Rather than making a strategic decision when 
faced with new market conditions, non-hazardous oils CWTs determine the 
profit-maximizing quantity of waste to treat, given a new market price. 
Unlike the hazardous waste oils CWTs, these facilities do not share the 
same concerns about RCRA corrective action; they are all estimated to 
be profitable at baseline and are assumed to close if unprofitable.

D. Revised Economic Impacts for Oils Options 2 and 3

1. Impacts on Non-Hazardous Oily Waste CWT Facilities and Markets
    Facilities complying with Option 2 and Option 3 may need to obtain 
land, install capital equipment, and employ more labor and materials. 
These compliance activities will increase the cost of treating oily 
waste and oily wastewater at CWT facilities. The costs incurred by oily 
waste management facilities are described in Section V. In this 
section, EPA describes expected facility responses to the increased 
costs, and the resulting impacts on the markets for oily waste 
management services, industry and facility profitability, and 
employment.
    Facilities are assumed to respond to changes in their costs and in 
the market price for treatment services by selecting the profit-
maximizing quantity of waste to treat. All non-hazardous oily waste CWT 
facilities are assumed to incur compliance costs under both Option 2 
and Option 3. Overall, the quantity of waste accepted by each facility 
declines; market supply falls and market price rises. Facilities become 
less profitable and some close. Because they are accepting less waste, 
they need fewer employees, and employment declines. Table VI summarizes 
the results of this analysis.

 Table VI.--Impacts of Oils Option 2 and Option 3 on CWTS Managing Non- 
                          Hazardous Oily Waste                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Changes from baseline      
                                     -----------------------------------
                                          Absolute           Percent    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Market Impacts                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2:                                                               
    Market Price ($1995/gallon).....              0.03               8.5
    Quantity Treated (10 \3\ gallons/                                   
     year)..........................           -20,158              -2.0
Option 3:                                                               
    Market Price ($1995/gallon).....              0.12              34.4
    Quantity Treated (10\3\ gallons/                                    
     year)..........................           -71,210             -7.1 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Industry Impacts                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2:                                                               
    Average Change in Operating                                         
     Profits ($10\3\)...............               -12              -1.0
    Facilities Becoming Unprofitable                 3               1.2
    Change in Employment............              -721              -9.6
Option 3:                                                               
    Average Change in Operating                                         
     Profits ($10\3\)...............              -166             -14.5
    Facilities Becoming Unprofitable                30              12.3
    Change in Employment............            -2,024             -26.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Option 2, the price charged to generators of oily waste 
increases substantially, and the quantity of oily waste treated 
decreases slightly. This relatively large increase in price and 
moderate decrease in the quantity of waste treated reflect the fact 
that supply and demand curves for oily waste CWT services are both 
relatively unresponsive to changes in price. Thus, when the costs of 
the facilities increase, they are able to pass most of the increased 
cost along to their customers. While the price charged to the 
generators for oily waste CWT services is projected to increase 
significantly, this does not represent a significant burden to the 
average manufacturer, for whom CWT services is a very small share of 
total manufacturing costs. Three oily waste CWT facilities, which are 
predicted to incur very high compliance costs, are predicted to close 
as a result of Option 2. Employment is estimated to decline by more 
than 700 employees. Under Option 3, the impacts are considerably 
higher. Thirty facilities are projected to close and employment is 
projected to decline by more than 2,000 employees, from a base of 
approximately 7,530.
2. Small Business Impacts
    As was the case for proposal, the Agency has defined small business 
according to the Small Business Administration's definition for SIC 
code 4953 (Refuse Systems). Small businesses owning CWTs are those 
having less than $6 million in annual sales. Of the 243 non-hazardous 
oils facilities, the Agency has determined that 99 are owned by small 
businesses. Of the remaining facilities, 90 are owned by businesses 
that are not small. The Agency has been unable to determine the size of 
the companies owning the remaining 54 facilities because no company 
ownership data are available from publicly available financial 
databases. For this notice, the Agency's analysis of impacts on small 
businesses is limited to impacts on the 99 facilities known to be owned 
by small companies.
    The impacts of the proposed regulation on small businesses are 
summarized in Table VII. Total annualized compliance costs for these 
facilities average $125,000 per facility under Option 2 and $567,000 
per facility under Option 3. Under Option 2, total annualized 
compliance costs

[[Page 48813]]

represent 9% of baseline facility revenues for the facilities owned by 
small businesses; under Option 3, they are 39 percent. Profits for 
small businesses owning oily waste CWT facilities are projected to 
decline by 2.0% as a result of Option 2 and by 15.4% as a result of 
Option 3. No facilities owned by small businesses are projected to 
close as a result of Option 2, but two are projected to close as a 
result of Option 3. Employment at facilities owned by small businesses 
is projected to decline by 6.7 percent under Option 2 and by nearly 23 
percent under Option 3.

      Table VII.--Small Business Impacts of the Proposed Regulation     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Changes from baseline      
                                     -----------------------------------
                                          Absolute           Percent    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2:                                                               
    Average Change in Operating                                         
     Profits ($10\3\)...............               -20              -2.0
    Facility Closures...............                 0                 0
    Change in Employment............               -86              -6.7
    TAC as a Share of Baseline                                          
     Revenue........................  ................               8.8
Option 3:                                                               
    Average Change in Operating                                         
     Profits ($10\3\)...............              -160             -15.4
    Facility Closures...............                 2               2.0
    Change in Employment............              -293             -22.8
    TAC as a Share of Baseline                                          
     Revenue........................  ................              39.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3

    EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of complying 
with the control options to their effectiveness in removing pollutants 
from surface waters. Cost-effectiveness ratios are expressed as dollars 
per pound-equivalent removed, where a ``pound-equivalent'' is a pound 
of pollutant weighted by its relative toxicity. The estimated pollutant 
reductions (see Section VI) for indirect dischargers are also adjusted 
to reflect pollutant removals by the POTW. Total cost-effectiveness is 
calculated as the ratio of the total annualized costs to the pound 
equivalents removed. Cost-effectiveness can also be presented 
incrementally between options, comparing incremental costs to 
incremental removals from option to option. To permit comparison with 
cost-effectiveness results for effluent limitation guidelines and 
standards for other industries, the total annualized costs of Option 2 
and Option 3 were converted to 1981 dollar values.
    Table VIII details the results of the revised cost-effectiveness 
analysis for Option 2 and Option 3. The results reported include costs 
and removals for the entire oils subcategory and thus include hazardous 
oily waste CWTs as well as the non-hazardous oily waste CWTs. Since no 
new direct dischargers have been identified, the cost-effectiveness 
results for direct dischargers remain unchanged since proposal. At the 
time of proposal, EPA's cost effectiveness results for indirect 
discharging oils facilities were lower than the results presented in 
Table VIII. Total and incremental cost-effectiveness of Option 2 was 
$13.79 per pound-equivalent removed. For option 3, total cost-
effectiveness was $111.37 per pound equivalent removed, and incremental 
cost-effectiveness was $6,692.49 per pound equivalent removed.

                            Table VIII.--Cost Effectiveness of Option 2 and Option 3                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Total                            Total cost-    Incremental cost-
                                          annualized costs  Removals  (lb-eq/   effectiveness     effectiveness 
                                             ($1981/yr)            yr)            ($/lb-eq)         ($/lb-eq)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Dischargers:                                                                                             
    Option 2............................           628,218           113,500              5.53              5.53
    Option 3............................         6,143,526           119,256             51.52            958.18
Indirect dischargers:                                                                                           
    Option 2............................        22,861,383           950,144             24.06             24.06
    Option 3............................       131,454,856           969,858            135.54          5,508.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 notice and that suggested revisions or corrections be 
supported by data. EPA is requesting that individual facilities in the 
oils subcategory review the data developed for their facility to ensure 
that EPA has accurately characterized their operations.
    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 notice for 
technical contacts at EPA.
    All information that you provide to EPA in your comments may be 
made public by EPA without further notice to you if not claimed as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Any information submitted, 
other than effluent data, may be claimed as CBI, as described in 40 CFR 
Section 2.203 (b):

    (b) Method and time of asserting business confidentiality claim. 
A business which is submitting information to EPA may assert a 
business confidentiality claim covering the information at the time 
it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or 
other suitable form of notice employing language such as `trade 
secret,' `proprietary,' or `company confidential.' Allegedly

[[Page 48814]]

confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should 
be clearly identified by the business, and may be submitted 
separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the 
business desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or 
until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state.
    Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed 
by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth in 
40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. In general, submitted information protected 
by a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other 
employees, officers, or authorized representatives of the United States 
concerned with carrying out the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, or 
when relevant to any proceeding under these Acts.

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

    EPA requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Estimation of Oils Subcategory Size
    Based on data gathered from various sources for today's notice, EPA 
has revised its estimate of the number of facilities in the oils 
subcategory. EPA estimates that there are 275 facilities in the oils 
subcategory. A portion of these facilities may have been considered as 
part of the Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry 
rather than part of the Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous 
Waste Treatment Industry (EPA 440/1-89/100, September 1989, NTIS #PB90-
126517). EPA solicits general comments on this revised estimate as well 
as specific information on the number, name, and location of facilities 
within the industry.
2. Waste Receipt Characterization
    At the time of proposal, EPA believed that the vast majority of 
oils facilities treated concentrated, stable oil-water emulsions. As 
such, EPA's sampling program prior to proposal focused on facilities 
which accepted these types of wastes. EPA no longer believes that the 
majority of wastewater receipts are comprised of concentrated (>10% 
oil) wastestreams. EPA requests information on the type of oily waste 
(stable, unstable, % water, etc.) accepted for treatment by the oils 
subcategory as well as constituents found in the incoming wastes and 
wastewaters.
3. Wastewater Discharge Flow Rates
    For this notice, EPA estimated the annual discharge flow rate at 
each of the newly identified facilities based on publicly available 
information on total facility revenue and employment. Additionally, EPA 
assumed that all of these facilities discharge to Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTWs) rather than to surface waters. EPA solicits 
information on the actual annual wastewater discharge flow rate at each 
of the oils facilities as well as the destination of the wastewater 
discharge.
4. Wastewater Treatment Technologies
    EPA assumed that all of the newly-identified oils facilities have 
chemical emulsion breaking to treat wastes and wastewaters accepted for 
treatment. EPA additionally assumed that none of the newly-identified 
facilities utilize any of the technologies that form the basis for the 
proposed options. EPA solicits information on these assumptions. 
Facilities should provide detailed information on the types of 
treatment technologies employed in both their oil recovery and 
wastewater treatment operations.
5. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting From Various Treatment 
Technologies
    EPA has proposed chemical emulsion breaking as the baseline 
wastewater treatment technology for this subcategory. In order to 
provide a broader picture of the pollutant removal effectiveness, EPA 
is seeking additional information on the concentrations of pollutants 
in wastewater resulting from treatment by chemical emulsion breaking 
and gravity separation. Additionally, as noted previously, EPA will be 
sampling at some oils subcategory facilities that use dissolved air 
flotation (DAF) to treat oily wastewaters. EPA is particularly 
interested in data on the chemical composition of wastewaters resulting 
from treatment by DAF. To the extent that actual wastewater treatment 
data is available for DAF, EPA is also soliciting that information.
6. Final Effluent Characterization
    EPA has very limited data on the level of constituents currently 
being discharged in the treated final effluent resulting solely from 
the treatment of oily wastes and wastewaters at oils facilities. For 
the proposal and today's notice, EPA has assumed that all facilities 
have the same constituents and concentrations of constituents in their 
discharges. EPA requests discharge monitoring data from facilities 
prior to commingling with other centralized waste treatment wastewater, 
non-contaminated stormwater, or other sources of wastewater.
7. Fuel Blending
    In EPA's 1995 proposal, EPA chose not to propose nationally 
applicable effluent limitations guidelines and standards for fuel 
blending operations defined as ``the process of mixing organic waste 
for the purpose of generating fuel for reuse.'' New information 
indicates that the majority of the newly identified facilities perform 
fuel blending operations as part of their waste treatment services. EPA 
solicits comments on fuel blending operations in general as well as 
those in conjunction with waste oil recovery and treatment. EPA 
solicits information on the fuel blending process, wastewater generated 
as a result of fuel blending operations, and the applicability of the 
proposed rule to such operations.
8. RCRA Permits
    EPA has identified non-hazardous oils facilities which have 
obtained or applied for RCRA permits. As such, EPA assumed that all of 
the newly identified facilities had the potential to have a RCRA 
permit, and EPA included the cost of permit modifications in the 
capital component of complying with the proposed options. EPA 
recognizes that use of this assumption will necessarily overstate the 
costs of treatment for those non-hazardous facilities which do not have 
a RCRA permit. EPA solicits comment on why non-hazardous facilities 
would obtain a RCRA permit and the extent of RCRA permits in the non-
hazardous portion of this industry.
9. Assumptions for Revised Economic Analysis
    EPA used various sources of information to make assumptions used in 
modeling the baseline conditions for the newly identified oils 
facilities. EPA made assumptions concerning the relationship between 
the volume of incoming waste and wastewaters being treated in oil 
recovery and wastewater treatment, the percent of oil recovered, the 
relationship between incoming waste receipts and final treated effluent 
flow rates, the charge to generators for the CWT service, the price of 
recovered oil, and the market structure. EPA solicits comments on the 
accuracy of the assumptions used.

    Dated: September 9, 1996.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 96-23658 Filed 9-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P