[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6392-6423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3086]



[[Page 6391]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 444



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Industrial Waste Combustor Subcategory of 
the Waste Combustors Point Source Category; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 6392]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 444

[FRL-5931-6]
RIN 2040-AD03


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Industrial Waste Combustor 
Subcategory of the Waste Combustors Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's first effort to develop 
Clean Water Act (CWA) national effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for wastewater discharges from commercially-operating 
hazardous waste combustor facilities regulated as ``incinerators'' or 
``boilers and industrial furnaces'' under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as commercially-operating non-hazardous 
industrial waste combustor facilities. The proposal would not apply to 
sewage sludge incinerators, medical waste incinerators, municipal waste 
combustors or other solid waste combustion units. Sources of wastewater 
that would be regulated under the proposal include flue gas quench, 
slag quench, and air pollution control wastewater.
    This proposal would limit the discharge of pollutants into 
navigable waters of the United States and the introduction of 
pollutants into publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) by existing and 
new stand-alone industrial waste combustors that incinerate waste 
received from offsite. The proposal would not apply to wastewater 
discharges from industrial waste combustors that only burn wastes 
generated on-site at an industrial facility or generated at facilities 
under common corporate ownership.
    Compliance with this proposed regulation is estimated to reduce the 
discharge of pollutants by at least 230,000 pounds per year and to cost 
an estimated $2.16 million annualized (post-tax $1996).

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by May 7, 1998.
    In addition, EPA will conduct a workshop and public hearing on the 
pretreatment standards of the rule on February 26, 1998 from 10:00 am 
to 1:00 pm.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and supporting data on this proposal 
to: Ms. Samantha Hopkins, US EPA, (4303), 401 M Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. Please submit an original and two copies of your comments and 
enclosures (including references). See Section IX of SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for further instructions.
    Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted. Comments and data will also be accepted on 
disks in WordPerfect format or ASCII file format.
    Comments may also be filed electronically to 
``[email protected]''. Electronic comments must be 
submitted as an ASCII or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments must be 
identified by the docket number W-97-08 and may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business information 
(CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
    The public record is available for review in the EPA Water Docket, 
401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The record for this rulemaking 
has been established under docket number W-97-08, and includes 
supporting documentation, but does not include any information claimed 
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is available for 
inspection from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. For access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-
3027 to schedule an appointment.
    The workshop and public hearing covering the rulemaking will be 
held at the EPA headquarters auditorium, Waterfront Mall, 401 M St. SW, 
Washington, DC. 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. Samantha Hopkins at 
(202) 260-7149. For additional economic information contact Mr. William 
Anderson at (202) 260-5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                  Examples of regulated entities     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  Incinerators regulated under RCRA (i.e.  
                                rotary kiln incinerators, liquid        
                                injection incinerators) that operate    
                                commercially                            
                               Boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs)   
                                regulated under RCRA (i.e. cement kilns,
                                boilers, industrial furnaces) that      
                                operate commercially                    
                               Industrial waste combustors that burn non-
                                hazardous industrial waste and operate  
                                commercially.                           
Federal Govt.................  Federal Agencies which burn industrial   
                                hazardous or non-hazardous waste and    
                                operate commercially (none              
                                identified).\1\                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No Federal Agencies which operate commercially were identified in   
  the information collection activities for this regulation. However,   
  Federal Agencies operating commercially would be covered by the       
  proposed regulation.                                                  

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 444.02 of the proposed rule. 
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the proceeding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Supporting Documentation

    The regulations proposed today are supported by several major 
documents:
    1. ``Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waster Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-
97-011). Hereafter referred to as the Technical Development Document, 
presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning the proposal. EPA 
describes, among other things, the data collection activities in 
support of the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology options, 
wastewater characterization, and the estimation of costs to the 
industry.

[[Page 6393]]

    2. ``Economic Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste 
Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-97-010).
    3. ``Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-
97-008).
    4. ``Environmental Assessment of Proposed Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-
97-009).

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

    The Technical and Economic Development Documents can be obtained 
through EPA's Home Page of the Internet, located at www.EPA.gov/OST/
rules. The document are also available from the Office of Water 
Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C., 
20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the voice mail publication request.

Organization of This Document

Legal Authority

I. Legal Authority for the Proposed Regulation
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
II. Overview of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
    A. Summary of the Industrial waste Combustor Industry
    B. Related Regulation
    C. Summary of Public Participation
III. Summary and Scope of Proposed Regulation

General Provisions

    A. Scope of This Regulation
    B. Monitoring Requirements for Industrial Waste Combustors

Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities

    C. Proposed Effluent Limitations for Existing Industrial Waste 
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater to Navigable Waters
    D. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Industrial Waste 
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater into a POTW

Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor Facilities

    E. Proposed Effluent Limitations for New Industrial Waste 
Combustor Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater to Navigable 
Waters
    F. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for New Industrial Waste 
Combustor Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater into a POTW
IV. Detailed Description of Industrial Waste Combustors
    A. Identified Industrial Waste Combustor Facilities
    B. Wastewater Treatment Processes Used by Industrial Waste 
Combustors
V. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
    A. EPA's Initial Efforts to Develop a Guideline for the 
Industrial Waster Combustor Industry
    B. Wastewater Sampling Program
    C. Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Screener 
Survey and Questionnaire
    D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
VI. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    A. Industry Subcategorization
    B. Characterization of Wastewater
    C. Pollutants Not Regulated
    D. Dioxins/Furans in Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
    E. Available Technologies
    F. Rationale for Selection of the Technology Basis of the 
Proposed Regulation
    G. Development of Numerical Limitations
VII. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative
    A. Costs
    B. Pollutant Reductions
    C. Economic Analysis
    D. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits
    E. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
VIII. Related Acts of Congress and Executive Orders
    A. Paperwork Reduction Act
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Executive Order 12866
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
IX. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
X. Regulatory Implementation

Appendix 1--Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

    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. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

I. Legal Authority for the Proposed Regulation

A. Clean Water Act

1. Overview of Clean Water Act
    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters.'' Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
attacks the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. 
Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the 
types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, 
commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations and new 
source performance standards. These limitations and standards are 
established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and 
are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various 
levels of pollution control technology. Permits authorizing discharges 
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System must 
require compliance with these limitations and standards (CWA Sections 
301(b), 304(b), 306, 307(b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and 
1317(b)-(d)). In the absence of national effluent limitations and new 
source performance standards, EPA must establish ``best professional 
judgement'' limitations and standards on a case-by-case basis before it 
may issue an NPDES discharge permit.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards (for new 
and existing sources) which restrict pollutant discharges for those who 
discharge wastewater indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) (Section 307 (b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1317 (b) and (c)). National pretreatment standards are established 
for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may 
pass through or interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment 
standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and 
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of 
treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local treatment 
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy 
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
2. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
    As noted above, the CWA requires EPA to establish effluent 
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards for new and existing 
sources 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 for a given industry category, EPA defines what 
are the BPT effluent limitations for conventional, priority, and non-
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of 
factors. EPA first

[[Page 6394]]

considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the 
effluent reductions obtained. 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 
304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA established BPT effluent limitations 
based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the 
industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common 
characteristics. Where, 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 practicably applied.
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 beyond 
the effluent reductions achieved under BPT. In addition to other 
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA 
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 303(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.
d. New Source Performance Standands (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 effluent reduction and any non-water quality 
environmental impact 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), including 
interfering with 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 standard, are found 
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations require POTWs to establish 
pretreatment standards to address local 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 consider the same factors in promulgating PSNS 
as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements

    Section 304(m) of the Act (33 U.S. 1314(m)), added by the Water 
Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) 
reviewing and revising existing effluent limitation guidelines and 
standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (2) promulgating new effluent 
guidelines On January 2, 1990, EPA published and Effluent Guidelines 
Plan (55 FR 80), that included schedules for developing new revised 
effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of the 
industries for which the Agency established a schedule was the 
``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'' Category. EPA subsequently 
changed the category name ``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'' to 
``Landfills and Incinerators.''
    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen, 
Inc. challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al. v. Reilly. 
Civ. No. 89-2980). The district court entered a Consent Decree in this 
litigation on January 31, 1992. The Decree required, among other 
things, that EPA propose effluent guidelines for the ``Landfills and 
Incinerators'' category by December 1995 and take final action on these 
effluent guidelines by December 1997. On February 4, 1997, the court 
approved modifications to the Decree which revise the deadlines to 
November 1997 for proposal and November 1999 for final action. EPA 
provide notice of these modifications on February 26, 1997 at 62 FR 
8726. Also, although ``Landfills and Incinerators'' is listed as a 
single entry in the Consent Decree schedule, EPA is publishing two 
separate rulemaking actions in the Federal Register.

II. Overview of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry

    Today's proposal represents the Agency's first attempt to develop 
national guidelines that would establish effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards for new and existing discharges from a defined 
segment of facilities combusting wastes. EPA estimates that the 
regulation being proposed today would reduce the discharge of total 
suspended solids and metals from these facilities by at least 230,000 
pounds per year. EPA performed an analysis of the water quality 
benefits that would be derived from this proposal and predicts the 
proposal would eliminate current excursions of aquatic life and/or 
human health toxic levels for three streams. EPA's model also projects 
that adoption of the proposal would result in reduction of sewage 
sludge contamination associated with discharges from Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities at two of the three POTWs.

[[Page 6395]]

    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 VI.F. of 
this notice. Today's proposal presents the Agency's recommended 
regulatory approach as well as other options considered by EPA. The 
Agency's recommended 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 discussion 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 described in this 
proposal and public comments, including any options considered but not 
selected for today's proposed regulation.

A. Summary of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry

    The universe of combustion facilities currently in operation in the 
United States is broad. These include municipal waste incinerators that 
burn household and other municipal trash and incinerators that burn 
hazardous wastes. Other types of incinerators include those that burn 
medical wastes exclusively and sewage sludge incinerators for 
incineration of POTWs' wastewater treatment residual sludge. In 
addition, some boilers and industrial furnaces (e.g., cement kilns) may 
burn waste materials for fuel.
    While many industries began incinerating some of their wastes as 
early as the late 1950's, the current market for waste combustion 
(particularly combustion of hazardous wastes) is essentially a creature 
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA's 
resulting regulation of hazardous waste disposal. Among the major 
regulatory spurs to combustion of hazardous wastes have been the land-
ban restrictions under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) 
of 1984 and clean-up agreements for Superfund sites called ``Records of 
Decision'' (RODs).
    Prior to the promulgation of EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions 
(LDRs) (40 CFR Part 268), hazardous waste generators were free to send 
untreated wastes directly to landfills. The LDRs mandated alternative 
treatment standards for wastes, known as Best Demonstrated Available 
Technologies (BDATs). Quite often, combustion was the stipulated BDAT. 
Future modifications to the LDRs may either increase or decrease the 
quantity of wastes directed to the combustion sector.
    The LDRs have also influenced hazardous waste management under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq.). The RODs set out the clean-up plan 
for contaminated sites under CERCLA. A key attribute to the RODs is the 
choice of remediation technology. Incineration is often a technology 
selected for remediation. While remediation efforts contribute a 
minority of the wastes managed by combustion, combustion has been used 
frequently on remediation projects. In addition, future congressional 
changes to CERCLA may affect remediation disposal volumes directed to 
the combustion sector.
    The Agency proposed a draft Waste Minimization and Combustion 
Strategy in 1993 and 1994 to promote better combustion of hazardous 
waste and encourage reduced generation of wastes. The key projects 
under the broad umbrella of the strategy are: ``Revised Standards for 
Hazardous Waste Combustors'' 61 FR 17358, April 1996, the Waste 
Minimization National Plan completed in May 1995, and the ``RCRA 
Expanded Public Participation Rule'' 60 FR 63417, December 1995. Waste 
minimization will directly affect waste volumes sent to the combustion 
and all other waste management sectors.
    In recent years, a number of contrary forces have contributed to a 
reduction in the volume of wastes being incinerated. Declines in waste 
volumes and disposal prices have been attributed to: waste minimization 
by waste generators, intense price competition driven by overcapacity, 
and changes in the competitive balance between cement kilns (and other 
commercial Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs)) and commercial 
incinerators. These trends have been offset by factors such as 
increased overall waste generation as part of general economic 
improvement, Industrial Waste Combustors consolidation, and reductions 
in onsite combustion. The Agency solicits information and data on the 
current size of the industry and trends related to the growth or 
decline in the need for the services provided by these facilities.
    The segment of the universe of combustion units for which EPA is 
today proposing regulations includes all units which operate 
commercially and which use controlled flame combustion in the treatment 
or recovery of industrial waste. For example, industrial boilers, 
industrial furnaces, rotary kiln incinerators and liquid-injection 
incinerators are all types of units included in the Industrial Waste 
Combustor Industry.
    Combustion or recovery operations at these facilities generate the 
following types of wastewater described more fully in Section VI.B.1.: 
air pollution control wastewater, flue gas quench wastewater, slag 
quench, truck/equipment wash water, container wash water, laboratory 
drain wastewater, and floor washings from process area. Typical non-
wastewater by-products of combustion or recovery operations may 
include: slag or ash developed in the combustion unit itself, and 
emission particles collected using air pollution control systems. There 
are many different types of air pollution control systems in use by 
combustion units. The types employed by combustion units include, but 
are not limited to: packed towers (which use a caustic scrubbing 
solution for the removal of acid gases), baghouses (which remove 
particles and do not use any water), wet electrostatic precipitators 
(which remove particles using water but do not generate a wastewater 
stream), and venturi scrubbers (which remove particles using water and 
generate a wastewater stream). Thus, the amount of wastewater and types 
of wastewater generated by a combustion unit are directly dependent 
upon the types of air pollution control systems employed by the 
combustion unit.

B. Related Regulations

1. Hazardous Waste Combustion Regulation Proposed in 1996
    Under the joint authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA): EPA proposed the Revised 
Technical Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustion (HWC) Facilities (61 
FR 17358, April 19, 1996). The proposed regulations would apply to the 
following types of combustors:
     RCRA Incinerators (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10)
     RCRA Cement Kilns and RCRA Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (as 
defined in 40 CFR 260.10)
    The proposal would not apply to:

[[Page 6396]]

     RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (other than Cement 
Kilns and Aggregate Kilns, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10)
    The proposed HWC regulation would establish stack emission limits 
for several hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Under the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), these limits must require the maximum achievable degree of 
emission reductions of HAPs, taking into account the cost of achieving 
such reductions and non-air quality health and environmental impacts 
and energy requirements--so-called Maximum Achievable Control 
Technologies (MACT) standards. The HWC regulation would not set limits 
on the water effluents from the air pollution control systems (APCS) 
(like wet scrubbers, quench systems). The Agency identified revised 
emission limits based on updated data, which was published at 62 FR 
24212, May 2, 1997. The Agency's current schedule calls for 
promulgation of this regulation in the third quarter of 1998. If the 
final regulation were promulgated as proposed, it is likely that some 
facilities using dry air pollution control, not presently generating 
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater, may switch to using wet APCS. It 
is not anticipated that the universe of facilities that may be 
potentially subject to today's proposal will increase as a result of 
the promulgation of the HWC regulations.
2. Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR)
    EPA plans an Industrial Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) to 
develop recommendations for Federal air emission regulations that 
address various combustion source categories and pollutants. 
Regulations will be developed under sections 112 and 129 of the Clean 
Air Act, as well as section 111. The overall goal of the Industrial 
Combustion Coordinated Rulemaking is to develop recommendations for a 
unified set of Federal air regulations that will maximize environmental 
and public health compliance, within constraints of the Clean Air Act. 
The ICCR is expected to be proposed in October 1999 and promulgated in 
November 2000.
    Under the CAA, the ICCR will potentially regulate air emissions 
from several categories of industrial combustion sources, including 
boilers, process heaters, waste incinerators, combustion turbines, and 
internal combustion engines. The ICCR will not cover combustion sources 
which burn hazardous waste. The combustion devices that will be covered 
by the ICCR are used pervasively for energy generation and waste 
disposal in a wide variety of industries and commercial and 
institutional establishments. They burn non-hazardous fuels including 
oil, coal, natural gas, wood, and other non-hazardous wastes. The 
industrial combustion regulations will affect thousands of sources 
nationwide. Only a small number of the facilities covered under the 
ICCR are also Industrial Waste Combustor facilities and thus 
potentially subject to today's proposal. Specifically, only ICCR 
facilities which operate commercially are potentially subject to 
today's proposal.
    Because this regulation is not scheduled to go final until November 
2000, EPA does not know what the final emission standards will be or on 
what technology they will be based. Consequently, EPA may need to 
reconsider its effluent limitations guidelines following promulgation 
of final ICCR rules.

C. Summary of Public Participation

    During the data gathering activities that preceded development of 
the proposed rules, EPA met with or spoke to the following 
representatives from the industry: the Environmental Technology Council 
(formerly the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council), the National Solid 
Waste Management Association, and the Council of Industrial Boiler 
Owners.
    EPA will assess all comments and data received at the public 
meeting prior to promulgation.

III. Summary and Scope of Proposed Regulation

    EPA is proposing to establish discharge limitations and standards 
for wastewater discharges from those facilities which the proposed rule 
defines as an ``Industrial Waste Combuster facility.'' Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities include commercial hazardous waste incinerators, 
boilers and industrial furnaces that burn waste for fuel and other 
commercial combustors burning industrial wastes. EPA is not including 
within the scope of the proposal industrial waste combustors that burn 
only wastes received from off-site facilities within the same corporate 
ownership (intracompany wastes) or industrial waste combustors that 
only burn wastes generated on-site. 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 found in the Technical Development 
Document and Section VI.F. of today's notice.
    The following summarizes today's proposal:

General Provisions

A. Scope of This Regulation

    In today's notice, EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines 
and pretreatment standards for new and existing commercial facilities 
that are engaged in the combustion of industrial waste received from 
off-site facilities not under the same corporate ownership as the 
industrial waste combustor. The proposal would not apply to wastewater 
generated in burning wastes from intracompany transfers exclusively 
and/or from industrial processes on-site exclusively.
    The proposed regulation today applies to the discharge of 
wastewater associated with the operation of the following:
     RCRA Incinerators (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10 and in the 
Definitions Section of this notice),
     RCRA Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) (as defined in 
40 CFR 260.10 and in the Definitions Section of this notice), and
     Non-hazardous commercial combustors.
    As noted above, the proposal would not apply to wastewater 
discharges associated with combustion units that burn only wastes 
generated on-site. Furthermore, wastewater discharges from RCRA 
hazardous incinerators, RCRA BIFs, and non-hazardous combustors that 
burn waste generated off-site from facilities that are under the same 
corporate ownership (or effective control) as the combustor are 
similarly not included within the scope of this proposal. Facilities 
subject to the guidelines and standards would include commercial 
facilities whose operation is the combustion of off-site generated 
industrial waste as well as industrial or manufacturing combustors that 
burn waste received from off-site from facilities that are not within 
the same corporate structure. A further discussion of the types of 
combustion units to be covered under this regulation is included in the 
Technical Development Document and Section IV.A. of this notice.
    As noted, facilities which only burn waste from off-site facilities 
under the same corporate structure (intracompany facility) and/or only 
burn waste generated on-site (captive facility) are not included in 
this proposal to be regulated under these guidelines. EPA has decided 
not to include these facilities within the scope of this regulation for 
the following reasons. First, based on its survey, EPA

[[Page 6397]]

identified (as of 1992) approximately 185 captive facilities and 
approximately 89 facilities that burn wastes received from other 
facilities within the same corporate umbrella.\1\ A significant number 
of these facilities generated no Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. 
EPA's data show that 73 captive facilities (39 percent) and 36 
intracompany facilities (42 percent) generated no Industrial Waste 
Combustor wastewater. Second, EPA believes the wastewater generated by 
Industrial Waste Combustor operations at most of the captive and 
intracompany facilities that EPA has identified are already subject to 
national effluent limitations (or pretreatment standards) based on the 
manufacturing operations at the facility. Specifically, 140 of the 156 
captive and intracompany facilities which received a screener survey 
and generated Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater as a result of 
their combustion operations: (1) Were either previously identified as 
subject to another effluent guidelines by EPA or (2) identified 
themselves as subject to another effluent guidelines. There are 97 
facilities subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic 
Fibers category (40 CFR Part 414), 17 subject to the Pharmaceuticals 
category (40 CFR Part 439), 16 subject to the Steam Electric Power 
Generating category (40 CFR Part 423), 3 to the Pesticide Manufacturing 
category (40 CFR Part 455), and 7 to other categories. EPA could not 
identify an effluent guidelines category applicable to their discharges 
for 16 of these 156 facilities (five of these are federal facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As explained below, EPA conducted an extensive survey (with 
follow-up questionnaire), in part, to characterize the universe of 
facilities being considered for regulation. Following proposal, EPA 
plans to review its screener survey and questionnaire results in 
order to confirm the accuracy of its assignment of wastewater flows 
and facilities as captive, intra-company or commercial Industrial 
Waste Combustors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, 83 percent of all captive facilities and 73 percent of all 
intracompany facilities reported that the combustion unit wastewaters 
made up less than 20 percent of the final wastewater stream discharged 
from each facility. EPA concluded that, in these circumstances, it is 
likely that the Industrial Waste Combustor waste streams are being 
treated along with other categorical waste. Also, 71 percent of all 
captive facilities and 67 percent of all intracompany facilities 
reported that their IWC wastewater is covered as process wastewater 
under existing EPA effluent limitations (40 CFR Parts 405-471). This 
indicates that most Industrial Waste Combustor waste streams are 
subject either directly (where discharged separately) or when mixed 
with other wastes subject to national effluent guidelines (or 
pretreatment standards) comparable to those being considered here. 
Given these facts, EPA has concluded preliminarily that it should not 
include such captive or intracompany facilities within the scope of 
today's proposed action. However, EPA is requesting comment on its 
approach. The Agency is particularly eager for data concerning 
treatment of such waste streams at categorical and other facilities. 
The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards are intended 
to cover wastewater discharges resulting from combustion of, or 
recovery of components from, hazardous and non-hazardous industrial 
waste received from off-site facilities.
    The Agency also solicits comment on including a de minimis quantity 
or percentage of off-site receipts in comparison to the total amount of 
waste burned at the facility for which facilities would not be 
considered in the scope of this regulation. Some manufacturing 
facilities may receive a few shipments of waste or off-specification 
products to be burned on site, but these facilities do not actively 
accept large quantities of waste from off-site for the purpose of 
combustion and disposal. In the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: 
Incinerators Questionnaire, some Industrial Waste Combustor facilities 
were identified with intermittent shipments of waste. 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 exemption has been established for this 
rulemaking. Facilities are included in the scope of this regulation 
regardless of the quantity received for treatment if they accept any 
waste for treatment from off-site.

B. Monitoring Requirements for Industrial Waste Combustors

    EPA's regulations require that both direct and indirect discharges 
must monitor to establish compliance with their limitations and 
standards. Thus, EPA's NPDES permit regulations require that all the 
permits of all direct dischargers must include requirements to monitor 
according to EPA-approved test procedures each pollutant limited in the 
permit, the volume of effluent discharged from each outfall, other 
appropriate measurements such as pollutants such to notification 
requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(i). EPA's pretreatment regulations 
similarly require indirect discharge to monitor to demonstrate 
compliance with pretreatment standards. See 40 CFR 403.12(g).

Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities

C. Proposed Effluent Limitations for Existing Industrial Waste 
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater to Navigable Waters

i. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
    The Agency is proposing to establish BPT effluent limitations 
guidelines for the Industrial Waste Combustors to control conventional, 
priority, and non-conventional pollutants in the waste treatment 
effluent. Table III.C-1 is a summary of the technology basis for the 
proposed effluent limitations.

      Table III.C-1.--Technology Basis for BPT Effluent Limitations     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Proposed subpart                     Technology basis       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
444....................................  Primary Precipitation, Solid-  
                                          Liquid Separation, Secondary  
                                          Precipitation, Solid-Liquid   
                                          Separation, and Sand          
                                          Filtration.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BPT limitations would be based upon two stages of chemical 
precipitation, each at different pH levels, each followed by some form 
of separation and sludge dewatering. The first stage of chemical 
precipitation is preceded by chromium reduction, when necessary. The 
different pH levels would be selected so as to optimize the removal of 
metals from the Industrial Waste Comubustor wastewater. The pollutants 
controlled and the points of application are described in Section VI of 
this notice.
ii. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    The EPA is proposing BCT effluent limitations guides for Total 
Suspended Solids (TSS) for the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. The 
proposed BCT effluent limitations guidelines are equal to the proposed 
BPT limitations for TSS. The development of proposed BCT effluent 
limitations is further explained in Section VI of this notice.
iii. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    The Agency is proposing to set BAT effluent limitations guidelines 
for the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. These proposed limitations 
are based on the same technologies proposed for BPT.

[[Page 6398]]

D. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Industrial Waste 
Combustor Facilities That Discharge Wastewater into a POTW

Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    For pollutants that pass-through or otherwise interfere with POTWs, 
EPA is proposing to set PSES similar to the proposed BPT/BAT effluent 
limitations for the Industrial Waste Combustors. Table III.D-1 is a 
summary of the technology basis for the proposed effluent limitations. 
PSES are further discussed in Section V of this notice.

     Table III.D-1.--Technology Basis for PSES Effluent Limitations     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Proposed subpart                     Technology basis       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
444....................................  Primary Precipitation, Solid-  
                                          Liquid Separation, Secondary  
                                          Precipitation and Solid-Liquid
                                          Separation.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities

E. Proposed Effluent Limitations for New Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater to Navigable Waters

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    EPA is proposing to set NSPS equivalent to the proposed BPT/BCT/BAT 
effluent limitations for the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. NSPS 
are discussed in more detail in Section VI of this notice.

F. Proposed Pretreatment Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities That Will Discharge Wastewater into a POTW

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 PSES effluent 
limitations. PSNS are further discussed in Section VI of this notice.

IV. Detailed Description of Industrial Waste Combustors

A. Identified Industrial Waste Combustor Facilities

    Presented below is a brief summary description of the Industrial 
Waste Combustor Industry, for which EPA is today proposing guidelines.
    Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase 
II: Incinerators Screener Survey and Questionnaire (see discussion 
below), the Agency estimates that there are approximately 84 commercial 
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities of the type for which EPA is 
proposing limitations and standards. These include both stand-alone 
combustion facilities as well as facilities which treat their own 
process residuals along with wastes received from off-site. Of these 84 
facilities, 58 facilities do not generate any type of Industrial Waste 
Combustor wastewater (as defined in Section VI.B. of this notice.) 
Also, 13 of these facilities generate Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater but do not discharge the wastewater to a receiving stream or 
to a POTW. These facilities are considered ``zero or alternative 
dischargers'' and use a variety of methods to dispose of their 
wastewater. At these facilities, (1) wastewater is sent off-site for 
treatment or disposal (four facilities); (2) wastewater is burned or 
evaporated on site (five facilities); (3) wastewater is sent to a 
surface impoundment on site (three facilities); and (4) wastewater is 
injected underground on site (one facility). Thus, EPA has identified 
only 13 facilities that were discharging Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater to a receiving stream or introducing wastewater to a POTW in 
1992. Of these 13 facilities, 2 facilities have, since 1992, either 
stopped accepting waste from off site for combustion or have closed 
their combustion operations. Eight of the 11 open facilities introduce 
their Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater to a receiving stream and 3 
of the 11 facilities discharge their Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater to a POTW. These 11 facilities are found near the industries 
generating the wastes undergoing combustion.
    As previously noted, Industrial Waste Combustor facilities accept a 
variety of different wastes for treatment. Typically, a combustor 
operator will request that the waste generators initially furnish 
profile information on the waste stream to be burned. After the 
combustion facility reviews the profile information of the waste, it 
determines a charge for treating the waste stream. If the waste 
generator accepts the cost of treatment, shipments of the waste stream 
to the combustion facility will begin. For each truck load of waste 
received for combustion, the combustion facility collects a sample from 
the shipment and analyzes the sample to determine if it matches the 
profile information. Specifically, the waste shipment is analyzed to 
characterize the level of pollutants in the sample as well as the 
energy content of the sample. If the sample matches the profile 
information, the shipment of waste will be burned. If the sample does 
not match the profile information, the combustion facility will 
reevaluate the estimated cost of combustion for the shipment or decline 
the shipment for combustion.
    The 11 open facilities identified by EPA operate a wide variety of 
combustion units. Four facilities operate rotary kilns and are 
hazardous waste incinerators regulated under RCRA. Three facilities 
operate liquid injection incinerators that are also incinerators 
regulated under RCRA. Three facilities operate furnaces that are 
regulated as BIFs under RCRA. One facility operates a liquid injection 
device that is also regulated as a BIF under RCRA. Finally, one 
facility operates a combustion device that is not subject to RCRA 
regulations as either a BIF or an incinerator.
    The 11 open facilities identified by EPA use a wide variety of air 
pollution control systems. The types of air pollution control systems 
in use are: fabric filters, spray chamber scrubbers, packed tower 
scrubbers, ionizing wet scrubbers, venturi scrubbers, dry scrubbers, 
dry cyclones, and wet electrostatic precipitators. Ten of the 11 open 
facilities use more than one of the air pollution control systems 
listed above. Six of the eleven facilities use a combination of wet and 
dry air pollution control systems. Four of the eleven facilities use 
only wet air pollution control systems. The type of air pollution 
systems in use at two of the facilities is not known.

B. Wastewater Treatment Processes Used by Industrial Waste Combustors

    As the Agency learned from data and information collected as a 
result of the 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators 
Questionnaire, the commercial Industrial Waste Combustors for whose 
wastewater discharges EPA is today proposing effluent guidelines accept 
many types of hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste for 
treatment in liquid or solid form. In 1992, these 11 commercial 
facilities accepted approximately 314,000 tons of industrial waste for 
combustion, of which 86 percent was hazardous and 14 percent was non-
hazardous.
    The wastewater generated by the different types of facilities is 
very similar. The majority of the wastewater by the 11 open Industrial 
Waste Combustor facilities is generated from air pollution control 
systems designed to capture stack emissions. Air pollution

[[Page 6399]]

control wastewater consists of primarily or inorganic pollutants and 
has very low concentrations of organic compounds because these are 
largely destroyed during combustion. The post-combustion streams that 
passes through the air pollution control system contain low levels of 
organics and consequently little ends up in the wastewater.
    Nine of the 11 open Industrial Waste Combustor facilities employ 
some type of chemical precipitation to treat these organic pollutants 
in their wastewater. These facilities then send the treatment sludge to 
a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill depending upon its content. Two of the 
remaining eleven only neutralize their air pollution control system 
wastewater before discharge.
    The remaining facility does not generate air pollution control 
system wastewater. It uses filtration and adsorption as its wastewater 
treatment technology to treat the following wastewaters: floor washings 
from the Industrial Waste Combustor process area, truck/equipment wash 
water and container wash water.
    EPA sampled wastewater at three facilities for five days. Of the 
three facilities sampled by EPA, only one facility generated and 
treated wastewater exclusively from its air pollution control system. 
It also did not treat other wastewater such as floor washwater, truck/
equipment washwater or container wash water with its air pollution 
control system wastewater. The other two facilities generated 
wastewater streams other than air pollution control wastewater, but 
treated these other wastewater streams separately from the air 
pollution control wastewater. Because these other streams contain both 
organic and inorganic pollutants, these two facilities treated these 
other wastewaters using biological treatment. These biological 
treatment systems were not sampled by EPA because the volume of these 
other wastewater streams (floor washings or truck/equipment/container 
wash water) represented only a small percentage of the wastewater being 
treated in these systems. Thus, EPA has no sampling data for any 
wastewaters other than air pollution control wastewater and flue gas 
quench. And thus, the proposed regulations are based on data from 
facilities employing treatment technologies designed to reduce metals 
loadings. The proposed limits do not include limits on discharges of 
organic pollutants and do not regulate discharges associated with the 
other types of wastewater streams EPA identified at these sites. Permit 
writers would need to establish site-specific Best Professional 
Judgment (BPJ) limits to regulate facilities which do not generate any 
wastewater from air pollution control systems but which are discharging 
wastewater associated with the treatment of other Industrial Waste 
Combustor wastewater streams. If EPA obtains data on treatment of these 
other wastewater streams it will consider developing limits for these 
wastestreams in this rule. To this end, EPA is requesting commenters to 
provide sampling data on such treatment of these ancillary streams. 
Further, the Agency is requesting comments on whether it should 
subcategorize the industry based on the types of wastewater sources 
found at an Industrial Waste Combustor facility. Commenters should also 
submit data on specific wastewater technologies that may be appropriate 
for treating these wastewaters.

V. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

 A. EPA's Initial Efforts To Develop a Guideline for the Industrial 
Waste Combustor 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 combustors, centralized waste treatment facilities, 
landfills, fuel blending operations, and waste solidification/
stabilization processes (Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous 
Waste Treatment Industry, EPA 440-1-89-100, September 1989).
    Developemnt of effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry began in 1993. EPA originally 
looked at RCRA hazardous waste incinerators, RCRA boilers and 
industrial furnaces (BIFs), and non-hazardous combustion units that 
treat industrial waste. Sewage sludge incinerators, municipal waste 
incinerators, and medical waste incinerators were not included in the 
1989 study or in the initial data collection effort in 1993. EPA 
limited this phase of the rulemaking to the development of regulations 
for Industrial Waste Combustors.

B. Wastewater Sampling Program

    In the sampling program for the 1989 Hazardous Waste Treatment 
Industry Study, twelve families were sampled to characterize the wastes 
received and evaluate the on-site treatment technology performance at 
combustors, landfills, and hazardous waste treatment facilities. All of 
the facilities sampled had more than one on-site operation (e.g., 
combustion and landfill leachate generation). The data collected cannot 
be used for this project because the facilities mix wastestreams for 
treatment. The collected data provides information on the performance 
of mixed wastewater treatment systems. Waste characteristics and 
treatment technology performance for the combustor facilities cannot be 
differentiated from the characteristics and performance associated with 
treatment of the mixed streams.
    Between 1993 and 1995, EPA visited 14 Industrial Waste Combustor 
facilities. Eight of the fourteen Industrial Waste Combustors EPA 
visited were captive facilities because captive facilities were still 
being considered for inclusion in the scope of the Industrial Waste 
Combustor regulation at the time of the site visits. During each visit, 
EPA gathered information on waste receipts, waste and wastewater 
treatment, and disposal practices. EPA also took one grab-sample of 
untreated Industrial Waste Combustor scrubber blowdown water at twelve 
of the fourteen facilities. EPA analyzed most of these grab-samples for 
over 450 analytes to identify pollutants at these facilities. The grab-
samples from the twelve site visits allowed EPA to assess whether there 
was a significant difference in raw wastewater characteristics from a 
wide variety of combustion unit types. (Section IV.A. of today's notice 
describes the types of combustion units used by Industrial Waste 
Combustors.) EPA determined that the raw wastewater characteristics 
were similar for all types of combustion units both in types of 
pollutants found and the concentrations of the pollutants found. 
Specifically, organics, pesticides/herbicides, and dioxins/furans were 
generally only found, if at all, in low concentrations in the grab-
samples. (See Section VI.D. for a thorough discussion of dioxins/furans 
found at 7 of the 12 Industrial Waste Combustor facilities sampled.) 
However, a variety of metal analytes were found in treatable 
concentrations in the grab-samples.
    Based on these data and the responses to the 1994 Waste Treatment 
Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire, EPA selected three of 
the Industrial Waste Combustor facilities for the BPT/BAT sampling 
program to collect data to characterize discharges and the performance 
of selected treatment systems. Using data supplied by the facilities, 
EPA applied five criteria in initially selecting which facilities to 
sample. The criteria were based on whether the wastewater treatment 
system: (1) was effective in removing pollutants; (2) treated wastes 
received

[[Page 6400]]

from a variety of sources (solids as well as liquids), (3) employed 
either novel treatment technologies or applied traditional treatment 
technologies in a novel manner (4) applied waste management 
practicesthat increased the effectiveness of the treatment unit, and 
(5) discharged its treated wastewater under an NPDES permit. The other 
11 facilities visited were not sampled because they did not meet these 
criteria. Eight of these 11 facilities visited did not operate 
commercially, and are thus no longer in the scope of the project.
    During each sampling episode, wastewater treatment system influent 
and effluent streams were sampled. Samples also were taken an 
intermediate points to assess the performance of individual treatment 
units. This information is summarized in the Technical Development 
Document. In all sampling episodes, samples were analyzed for over 450 
analytes to identify the pollutants at these facilities. Again, organic 
compounds, pesticides/herbicides, and dioxins/furans were generally 
only found in low concentrations in the composite daily samples, if 
they were found at all. Dioxin/furan analytes were not detected in the 
sampling episode used to establish BPT/BAT/PSES. However, dioxin/furan 
analytes were found in the two other sampling episodes (see discussion 
in Section VI.D. below.)
    EPA completed the three sampling episodes for the Industrial Waste 
Combustor Industry from 1994 to 1995. Selection of facilities to be 
sampled was limited due to the small number of facilities in the scope 
of the project. Only nine of the operating facilities identified 
discharged their treated wastewater under an NPDES permit. Of these 
nine facilities, only five burned solid as well as liquid waste. Also, 
one of these five burned non-hazardous waste only. All of the 
facilities sampled used some form of precipitation for treatment of the 
metal-bearing waste streams. All of the facilities sampled were 
directed dischargers and were therefore designed to treat effectively 
the conventional pollutant found in this industry, TSS. Data from two 
of the facilities sampled could not be used to calculate the proposed 
limitations and standards in combination with the other facility 
because they did not employ the selected treatment technology. However, 
data from these facilities were used to characterize the raw waste 
streams. Thus, only one sampling episode contained data which were used 
to characterize the treatment technology performance of the Industrial 
Waste Combustors.

C. Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Screener Survey and 
Questionnaire

    Under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA sent 
the Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators 1992 Screener 
Survey (OMB Approval Number: 2040-0162, Expired: 08/31/96) in September 
1993 to 606 facilities that the Agency had identified as possible 
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. Since the Industrial Waste 
Combustor Industry was not represented by a SIC code at the time of the 
survey, identification of facilities was difficult. Directories of 
treatment facilities, Agency information, and telephone directories 
were used to identify the 606 facilities to which the questionnaires 
were mailed. The screener survey requested summary information on: (1) 
the types of wastes accepted for combustion; (2) the types of 
combustion units at a facility; (3) the quantity, treatment, and 
disposal of wastewater generated from combustion operations; (4) 
available analytical monitoring data on wastewater treatment; and (5) 
the degree of co-treatment (treatment of Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater with wastewater from other industrial operations at the 
facility). Information obtained by the Waste Treatment Industry Phase 
II: Incinerators 1992 screener survey is summarized in the Technical 
Development Document for today's proposed rule. The responses from 564 
facilities indicated that 357 facilities burned industrial waste in 
1992. The remaining 207 did not burn industrial waste in 1992. Of the 
357 facilities that burned industrial waste, 142 did not generate any 
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater as a result of their combustion 
operations. Of the remaining 215 facilities that generated Industrial 
Waste Combustor wastewater, 59 operated commercially, and 156 only 
burned wastes generated on-site, and/or only burned wastes generated 
from off-site facilities under the same corporate structure.
    Following an analysis of the screener survey results, EPA sent the 
1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire (OMB 
Approval Number: 2040-0167, Expired: 12/31/96) in March, 1994 to 
selected facilities which burned industrial waste and generated 
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA sent the questionnaire to 
all 59 of the commercial facilities and all 16 of the non-commercial 
facilities that burned non-hazardous industrial waste. Further, EPA 
sent 32 of the remaining 140 non-commercial facilities a questionnaire. 
These thirty-two were selected based on a statistical random sample. 
The questionnaire specifically requested information on: (1) the type 
of wastes accepted for treatment; (2) the types of combustion units at 
a facility; (3) the types of air pollution control devices used to 
control emissions from the combustion units at a facility; (4) the 
quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated from 
combustion operations; (5) available analytical monitoring data on 
wastewater treatment; (6) the degree of co-treatment (treatment of 
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater with wastewater from other 
industrial operations at the facility); and (7) 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 
1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire is 
summarized in the Technical Development Document for today's proposed 
rule.

D. Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire

    EPA also requested a subset of Industrial Waste Combustor 
facilities that received a questionnaire to submit wastewater 
monitoring data in the form of individual data points rather than 
monthly or annual aggregates. Only facilities that had identified a 
sample point location where the stream was over 50 percent Industrial 
Waste Combustor wastewater received the Detailed Monitoring 
Questionnaire. These wastewater monitoring data included information on 
pollutant concentrations at various points in the wastewater treatment 
processes. Data were requested from 26 facilities. Sixteen of these 
facilities operated commercially and 10 operated non-commercially.

VI. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

A. Industry Subcategorization

    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 not required, EPA took into account 
all the information collected and developed with respect to the 
following factors: waste type received; type of combustion process; air 
pollution control used; nature of wastewater generated; facility size, 
age, and location; non-water

[[Page 6401]]

quality impact characteristics; and treatment technologies and costs. 
For most facilities in this industry, a wide variety of wastes are 
combusted. These facilities, however, employ the same wastewater 
treatment technologies regardless of the specific type of waste being 
combusted in a given day.
    EPA concluded that 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 
technical basis for subcategorization for the Industrial Waste 
Combustor Industry because wastes can be burned to the same level 
regardless of the facility size and has no significant relation to the 
quality or character of the wastewaters generated or treatment 
performance. Likewise, facility location is not a good basis for 
subcategorization; no consistent differences in wastewater treatment 
performance or costs exist because of geographic location. Non-water 
quality characteristics (waste treatment residuals and air emission 
effects) did not constitute a basis for subcategorization. The 
environmental effects associated with disposal of waste treatment 
residual or the transport of potentially hazardous wastewater are a 
result of individual facility practices. The Agency did not identify 
any consistent basis for these decisions that would support 
subcategorization. Treatment costs to not appear to be a basis for 
subcategorization because costs will vary and are dependent on the 
following waste stream variables: flow rates, waste quality, waste 
energy content, and pollutant loadings. Therefore, treatment costs were 
not used as a factor in determining subcategories.
    EPA identified three factors with significance for potentially 
subcategorizing the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry: the type of 
waste received for treatment, the type of air pollution control system 
used by a facility, and the types of Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater sources (e.g., container wash water vs. air pollution 
control water).
    A review of untreated Industrial Waste Combustor air pollution 
control system wastewater showed that there is some difference in the 
concentration of pollutants between solid and liquid waste combustion 
units. In particular, for nine of the 27 metals analyzed at six 
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities, the average concentration of a 
particular metal was higher in the water from facilities that burned 
solids (as well as liquids) than in facilities that burned liquids 
only. EPA believes that this difference is probably the result of two 
factors: the type of air pollution control employed by the facilities 
and the amount of wastewater generated. Specifically, the data reviewed 
by EPA showed that two of the three facilities that burn liquid waste 
use dry scrubbing devices prior to using scrubbing devices which 
generate wastewater. One of these facilities uses a baghouse initially 
and the other uses a fabric filter. These dry scrubbers would remove 
some of the metals which would have ended up in the wastewater stream. 
In comparison, only one of the three facilities that burn solids uses a 
dry scrubbing device prior to using scrubber devices which generate 
wastewater. This facility uses an electrostatic precipitator initially. 
In addition, all three of the facilities that burn liquid waste do not 
recycle any of their wastewater for reuse in the scrubbing system 
following partial wastewater treatment. In comparison, two of the three 
facilities that burn solids recycle some of their partially treated 
wastewater for reuse in their scrubbing system. One of these facilities 
recycles 60 percent and the other recycles 82 percent. The reuse of 
partially treated wastewater would have the effect of reducing the 
wastewater discharge and increasing the concentration of metals in the 
recycled wastewater. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether there is 
in fact any significant difference in the concentrations of pollutants 
in wastewater from facilities burning solid versus liquid waste. This 
situation in general makes subcategorization on this basis difficult. 
Therefore, EPA has concluded that available data do not support 
subcategorizating either by the type of waste received for treatment or 
the type of air pollution control system used by a facility.
    Based on analysis of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry, EPA 
has determined that it should not subcategorize the Industrial Waste 
Combustors for purposes of determining appropriate limitations and 
standards. EPA invites comment on whether the Industrial Waste 
Combustors should be divided into subcategories, and if so, what should 
be the basis of the subcategorization. Commenters should submit data to 
support any suggested subcategorization.

B. Characterization of Wastewater

    This section describes current water use and wastewater 
characterization at the 11 Industrial Waste Combustor facilities 
identified in the U.S. which currently discharge Industrial Waste 
Combustor wastewater to a receiving stream or to a POTW.
1. Water and Sources of Wastewater
    Approximately 861 million gallons of wastewater are generated and 
discharged annually at the 11 Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. 
EPA has identified the sources described below as contributing to 
wastewater discharges at Industrial Waste Combustor operations. Only 
air pollution control wastewater, flue gas quench, and slag quench will 
be subject to the proposed effluent limitations and standards. Most of 
the wastewater generated by Industrial Waste Combustor operations 
result from these sources.
    a. Air Pollution Control System Wastewater. Particulate matter in 
the effluent gas stream of an Industrial Waste Combustor is removed by 
four main physical mechanisms (Handbook of Hazardous Waste 
Incineration, Brunner 1989). One mechanism is interception, which is 
the collision between a water droplet and a particle. Another method is 
gravitational force, which causes a particle to fall out of the 
direction of the streamline. The third mechanism is impingement, which 
causes a water-particle to fall out of the streamline due to inertia. 
Finally, contraction and expansion of a gas stream allow particulate 
matter to be removed from the stream. Thus, removal of particulate 
matter can be accomplished with or without the use of water. Depending 
upon the type of waste being burned, Industrial Waste Combustors may 
produce acid gases in the air pollution control system. In order to 
collect these acid gases, caustic solution is generally used in a wet 
scrubbing system.
    b. Flue Gas Quench Wastewater. Water is used to rapidly cool the 
gas emissions from combustion units. There are many types of air 
pollution control systems that are used to quench the gas emission from 
Industrial Waste Combustors. For example, in packed tower scrubbing 
systems, water enters from the top of the tower and gas enters from the 
bottom. Water droplets collect on the packing material and are rinsed 
off by the water stream entering the top of the tower (Handbook of 
Hazardous Waste Incineration, Brunner 1989). This rapidly cools the gas 
stream along with removing some particulate matter.
    c. Slag Quench Wastewater Water is used to cool molten material 
generated in slagging-type combustors.
    d. Truck/Equipment Wash Wastewater. Water is used to clean the 
inside of trucks and the equipment used for transporting wastes.

[[Page 6402]]

    e. Container Wash Wastewater. Water is used to clean the insides of 
waste containers.
    f. Laboratory Drain Wastewater. Water is used in on-site 
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
    g. Floor Washings and Other Wastewater From Process Area. This 
includes 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. However, this stormwater is covered under 
the NPDES stormwater rule, 40 CFR 122.26.)
2. Wastewater Discharge
    As mentioned above, approximately 861 million gallons of wastewater 
were discharged from the 11 of the 84 commercial industrial combustors 
identified by EPA based on questionnaire responses. Eight of the 11 
facilities discharge wastewater directly into a receiving stream or 
body of water. The other three facilities discharge indirectly by 
introducing their wastewater into a publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTW). There are sixty-seven facilities that either do not generate 
any wastewater (43) or do not discharge their wastewater to a receiving 
stream or POTW (24) as explained above. In general, the primary types 
of wastewater discharges from discharging facilities are: air pollution 
control system wastewater, flue gas quench, laboratory-derived 
wastewater, and floor washings from process area. EPA is using the 
phrase ``Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater'' to refer to these 
wastewaters.
    This regulation applies to direct and indirect discharges only.
3. Wastewater Characterization
    The Agency's BPT/BAT/PSES sampling program for this industry 
detected 21 pollutants (conventional priority, and non-conventional) in 
waste steams at treatable levels. The quantity of these pollutants 
currently being discharged is difficult to assess. Limited monitoring 
data are available from facilities for the list of pollutants 
identified from the Agency's sampling program prior to commingling of 
these wastewaters with non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial 
wastewater before discharge. EPA also used wastewater permit 
information, monitoring data supplied in the 1994 Waste Treatment 
Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire and data supplied in the 
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire to estimate current pollutant 
discharge levels. EPA used a ``non-process wastewater'' factor to 
quantify the amount of non-contaminated stormwater and other industrial 
process water in a facility's discharge Section 4 of the Technical 
Development Document (TDD) provides a more detailed description of 
``non-process wastewater'' factors and their use. A facility's current 
discharge of treated Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater was 
calculated using the monitoring data supplied multiplied by the ``non-
process wastewater'' factor. 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 proposing effluent limitations and standards for only a few 
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 Industrial Waste 
Combustor 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 in the influent 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 ``indicator'' pollutants, 
including those for which limitations are proposed today, and are 
therefore regulated by the limitations for the indicator pollutants or
    (e) Insufficient data are available to establish effluent 
limitations.

D. Dioxins/Furans in Industrial Waste Combustor Industry

1. Background
    Scientific research has identified 210 isomers of chlorinated 
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF). EPA 
attention has primarily focused on the 2,3,7,8-substituted congeners--a 
priority pollutant under the CWA--of which 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF are considered the most toxic. Evidence suggests that non-2,3,7,8-
substituted congeners may not be as toxic. Some sources report that 
these non-2,3,7,8-substituted congeners may either be broken down or 
quickly eliminated by biological systems.
    Dioxins and furans are formed as a by-product during many 
industrial and combustion activities, as well as during several other 
processes. The activities that may create dioxins under certain 
conditions may include:
--Combustion of chlorinated compounds, including PCBs;
--Some metals are suspected to serve as catalysts in the formation of 
dioxin/furans;
--Metal processing and smelting;
--Petroleum refining.
--Chlorinated organic compound manufacturing.
2. Dioxin/Furans in Industrial Waste Combustor Wastewater
    EPA identified a number of dioxin/furan compounds as present in the 
untreated wastewater streams at seven of the twelve facilities sampled. 
Data from two closed facilities has been excluded. Thus, the following 
discussion relates to the data for the ten remaining facilities (a 
total of 32 aqueous samples).
    It is important to note that EPA did not detect 2,3,7,8-TCDD or 
2,3,7,8-PeCDD (the two most toxic congeners of all dioxin/furan 
compounds) in any of the raw wastewater samples collected. Furthermore, 
the dioxin/furans detected in untreated Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewaters during EPA sampling at 10 sites shows that these dioxin/
furans were all detected at levels significantly (orders of magnitude) 
below the ``Universal Treatment Standard'' (40 CFR 268.48) level 
established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for 
dioxins/furans. EPA identified no dioxin/furans in the Industrial Waste 
Combustor wastewater effluent.
    CDD/CDFs are lipophilic and hydrophobic. As such, they are most 
often associated, or have an affinity for, suspended particulates in 
wastewater matrices. The more highly chlorinated isomers (i.e. the 
hepta- and octa- congeners) are the least volatile and more likely to 
be removed through particulate adsorption or filtration. While 
recommended treatment technologies differ according to the wastewater 
characteristics, there is some evidence that dioxins generally will 
bind with suspended solids and some

[[Page 6403]]

sources have asserted that these compounds may be removed by 
precipitation and filtration technologies.
    Of the three week long sampling episodes, the one from which BPT/
BAT limits were developed had no dioxins detected in the influent or 
effluent. At the other two facilities, HpCDD, HpCDF, OCDD, and OCDF 
were detected in the influent and none were detected in the effluent. 
Both facilities employed a combination of chemical precipitation and 
filtration that may have contributed to these removals.
    The most toxic congener, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was never detected in 
Industrial Waste Combustor scrubber water during the sampling program; 
and the CDD/CDFs detected were neither detected at most facilities 
sampled nor found in any significant quantity. The toxic equivalent 
(TEQ) values found in the Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater were 
low values when compared to other dioxin sources in industry. The 
detected congeners were of the highly chlorinated type which may be 
treated by the methods recommended by this guideline (chemical 
precipitation, filtration). Also, since no dioxins were detected in the 
treated effluents at any of the three facilities EPA sampled, this may 
be evidence of dioxin removals.
    Based on EPA's sampling program, no CDD/CDF meet the criteria for 
regulation in today's proposed rule.
    The Agency has proposed CDD/CDF emission limits of 0.2 ng/dscm from 
the stacks of hazardous waste burning incinerators (see 61 FR 17358 of 
April 19, 1996 and 62 FR 24212 of May 2, 1997), and believes that the 
incinerators have to operate with good combustion conditions to meet 
the proposed emission limits. In the final LDR rulemaking that set 
treatment standards for CDD/CDF constituents in non-wastewater and 
wastewater forms of EPA Hazardous Waste Number: F032, the Agency has 
established (62 FR 26000 of May 12, 1997) incineration as the BDAT, 
after which the CDD/CDF constituents do not have to be analyzed in the 
effluent. EPA, therefore, considers that dioxins/furans will be 
sufficiently destroyed given good combustion practices.

E. Available Technologies

    All 11 in-scope Industrial Waste Combustor facilities operate 
wastewater treatment systems. The range of treatment technologies used 
are similar to those in use at other categorical industries. The 
technologies used include physical-chemical treatment, and advanced 
wastewater treatment. Based on information obtained from the 1994 Waste 
Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators 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;
     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;
     Coagulation/Flocculation, which is used to assist 
clarification in physical-chemical treatment.
    An advanced wastewater treatment technology in use is 
ultrafiltration, which is used to remove organic and inorganic 
pollutants from wastewater according to the molecule size.
    The typical treatment sequence for a facility does not depend upon 
the type of waste accepted for treatment. In addition, most facilities 
use precipitation/filtration to remove metals.

F. Rationale for Selection of the Technology Basis of the 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, the 
1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire, 
facility NPDES permits, facility POTW permits, and the EPA wastewater 
sampling program. This database was used to develop the BPT, BCT, BAT, 
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations and standards proposed today.
1. BPT
    a. Introduction. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today would 
control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional 
pollutants when discharged from industrial waste combustor facilities.
    b. Rationale for BPT Limitations. As previously noted, the 
Industrial Waste Combustors receive for combustion large quantities of 
hazardous and non-hazardous industrial waste which results in 
discharges of a significant quantity of pollutants. The EPA estimates 
that 291,000 pounds per year of TSS and metal pollutants are currently 
being discharged directly or indirectly to the nations waters.
    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 level of control than any currently in place if the technology 
to achieve those levels can be practically applied. See A Legislative 
History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 
U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, 
p. 1468.
    In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost 
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining BPT 
limitations, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved by such 
technology. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt 
BPT limitations that are achievable with available technology unless 
the required additional reductions are `'wholly out of proportion to 
the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction.'' See 
Legislative History, op.cit.,p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not 
require the Agency to quantify benefits in monetary terms. See 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 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, inadequate 
and that only

[[Page 6404]]

two facilities are using best practicable, currently available 
technology. Moreover, EPA only found a significant number of pollutants 
at ``treatable levels'' at one of the facilities. Thus, the proposed 
BPT effluent limitations will be based on data from this one treatment 
system only.
    The inadequate pollutant removal performance observed generally for 
discharging Industrial Waste Combustor facilities is not unexpected. As 
pointed out previously, these facilities are burning highly variable 
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 more specific waste streams (e.g. OCPSF limitations).
    The Agency is today proposing BPT limitations for 9 pollutants. EPA 
considered two regulatory options to reduce the discharge of pollutants 
by Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. For a more detailed 
discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies selected 
see the Technical Development Document.
    The two currently available treatment systems for which the EPA 
assessed performance for BPT are:
     Option A--Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, 
Secondary Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation. Under Option A, 
BPT limitations would be based upon two stages of chemical 
precipitation, each followed by some form of separation and sludge 
dewatering. The pH's used for chemical precipitation would vary to 
promote optimal removal of metals because different metals are 
preferentially removed at different pH levels. In addition, the first 
stage of chemical precipitation is preceded by chromium reduction, when 
necessary. 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 chemical 
precipitation/sludge dewatering systems.
     Option B--Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, 
Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and Sand Filtration. 
The second option evaluated for BPT for Industrial Waste Combustor 
facilities would be based on the same technology as Option A with the 
addition of sand filtration at the end of the treatment train.
    The Agency is proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on 
Option B for the Industrial Waste Combustors. These limitations were 
developed based on an engineering evaluation of the average level of 
pollutant reduction achieved through application of the best 
demonstrated methods to control the discharges of the regulated 
pollutants.
    EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option B 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 
industry. 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 Industrial waste combustor facility 
will significantly affect either the character or treatability of the 
Industrial Waste Combustor 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 combustion, 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 treatment system and 
calculates limitations from some level of average performance of these 
``best'' facilities. For example, in the BPT limitations for the OCPSF 
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/1 (54 FR 42535, November 5, 1987). For this industry, as 
previously explained, EPA concluded that treatment performance is, in 
all but two cases, inadequate. Without two stages of precipitation at 
different pH levels, metal removal levels are uniformly inadequate 
across the industry. Also, since the specific technologies employed by 
these two facilities were not the same, the data from these facilities 
could not be combined to determine BPT performance and costs. 
Consequently, BPT performance levels are based on data from the one 
well-operated system using two stages for metals precipitation at 
different pH levels that was sampled by EPA. EPA, of course, welcomes 
any additional data which currently operating facilities may have on 
the performance of their wastewater treatment operations.
    The demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through the Option 
B 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 performance of the Option B treatment system 
for the following reasons. First, these removals are demonstrated by a 
facility and can readily be applied to all facilities. The adoption of 
this level of control would represent a significant reduction in 
pollutants discharged into the environment (from 181,00 to 54,000 
pounds of TSS and metals). Second, the Agency assessed the total cost 
of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for Option B in 
relation to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs 
were economically reasonable.
    EPA estimated the cost of installing Option A and B BPT 
technologies at the direct discharging facilities. The pretax total 
estimated annualized cost in 1992 dollars is approximately $1.736 
million (if BPT is Option A) and approximately $1.952 million (if BPT 
is Option B). EPA concluded the cost of installation of either of these 
control technologies is clearly economically achievable. EPA's 
assessment shows that none of the direct discharging facilities will 
experience a line closure as a result of the installation of the 
necessary technology.
    The Agency proposes to reject Option A because, EPA concluded that 
not using sand filtration as the final treatment step is not the best 
practicable treatment technology currently in operation for the 
industry. Consequently, effluent levels associated with this treatment 
option would not represent BPT performance levels. Also, Option A was 
rejected because the greater removals obtained through addition of sand 
filtration at Option B were obtained at a relatively insignificant 
increase in costs over Option A.
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

[[Page 6405]]

whether there are technologies that achieve greater removals of 
conventional pollutants that proposed for BPT, and whether those 
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT Cost Test. EPA 
identified no technologies that can achieve greater removals of 
conventional pollutants than proposed for BPT, and accordingly EPA 
proposes BCT effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards.
3. BAT
    EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for the Industrial 
Waste Combustors based on the same technologies selected for BPT. The 
BAT effluent limitations proposed today would control identified 
priority and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities.
    EPA has not identified a more stringent treatment technology option 
which it considered to represent BAT level of control applicable to 
facilities in this industry. EPA considered and rejected zero discharge 
as possible BAT technology for the reasons explained below.
4. New Source Performance Standards
    As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, new industrial 
direct dischargers must comply with standards which reflects 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 more 
effective than those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing 
sources. Therefore, EPA is 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 BPT/BAT and 
NSPS of zero discharge, since so many facilities are currently not 
generating or not discharging any wastewater as a result of their 
industry waste combustor operations (see action IV.A. of today's 
notice). There are two primary means of achieving zero discharge: the 
use of dry scrubbing operations or off-site disposal of Industrial 
Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA evaluated the cost for facilities to 
dispose of their industrial waste combustor wastewater off-site and 
found it was less expensive than on-site treatment of the wastewater 
for only 3 of the eleven facilities. EPA also evaluated the cost for 
facilities to burn the industrial waste combustor wastewater streams 
they generated and found that is was also significantly more costly 
than wastewater treatment. EPA did not evaluate the cost for all 
facilities to replace their wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbing 
systems, as the wet scrubbing systems have been established as the best 
performers (according to the HWC proposed regulation) for removing acid 
gases and dioxins from effluent gas streams. Also, dry scrubbing 
systems have an adverse affect of generating an unstable solid to be 
disposed of in a landfill, as opposed to the stable solids generated by 
wastewater treatment of air pollution control wastewater. Given the 
apparent environmental superiority of wet versus dry scrubbers, EPA has 
decided a zero discharge requirement could have unacceptable non-water 
quality effects. EPA also did not evaluate the cost of all facilities 
to recycle their industrial waste combustor wastewater, as EPA 
discovered that only certain types of air pollution control systems 
working in conjunction with one another are able to accomplish total 
recycle of wastewater. Thus, new air pollution control systems would 
have to be costed for all facilities along with recycling systems.
    Overall, zero discharge is not being proposed at BPT/BAT because 
EPA believes that the cost to facilities of changing current air 
pollution control systems are too high. Also, zero discharge is not 
being proposed at BPT/BAT or NSPS because the change may cause 
unacceptable non-water quality impacts. EPA is requesting comments on 
its decision not to propose zero discharge for BPT/BAT and/or NSPS.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
    Indirect dischargers in the Industrial Waste Combustor 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 non-combustible low-volatility pollutants to POTWs at significant 
mass and concentration levels. EPA estimates that indirect dischargers 
annually discharge approximately 110,000 pounds of TSS and metals to 
POTWs.
    Section 307(b) of the Act 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 BPT/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 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 BPT/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 BPT/BAT effluent limitation 
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 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 BPT/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 
BPT/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

[[Page 6406]]

pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations from the 
addition of large amounts of non-industrial wastewater.
    For past effluent guidelines, a study of 50 well-operated POTWs was 
used for the pass-through analysis. This study is referred to as the 
``The Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'', 
September 1982 [EPA 440/1-82/303]. 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 5 
times the minimum level. Further, where no influent data exceeded 5 
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 were determined from these averaged 
influent and effluent levels. This percent removal was then compared to 
the percent removal for the BPT/BAT option treatment technology. Due to 
the large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, additional 
data from the EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database 
(Now renamed the National Risk Management Research Laboratory database) 
was used to augment the POTW database for the pollutants not covered by 
the 50 POTW Study. Based on this analysis, all of the pollutants 
regulated under BPT/BAT Options A and B passed through POTWs and are 
proposed for regulation for PSES.
    b. Options Considered. EPA considered the same two regulatory 
options as in the BPT/BCT/BAT analysis to reduce the discharge of 
pollutants by Industrial Waste Combustor facilities. For a more 
detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and technologies 
selected see the Technical Development Document. The Agency is 
proposing to adopt PSES effluent limitations based on Option A for the 
Industrial Waste Combustors. The technology for Options A and B are the 
same except that option A does not require the use of sand filtration 
as the last treatment step.
    In assessing PSES, 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 PSES limitations based on age, size, process 
or other engineering factors.
    These proposed standards would apply to existing facilities in the 
Industrial Waste Combustor Industry that discharge wastewater to 
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). PSES set at these points would 
prevent pass-through of pollutants and help control sludge 
contamination.
    EPA estimated the cost and economic impact of installing Option A 
and B PSES technologies at the indirect discharging facilities. The 
pretax total estimated annualized cost in 1992 dollars is approximately 
$758 thousand (if PSES is Option A) and approximately $798 thousand (if 
PSES is Option B). EPA concluded the cost of installation of either of 
these control technologies is clearly economically achievable. EPA's 
assessment shows that only one of the indirect discharging facilities 
will experience a line closure as a result of the installation of the 
necessary technology.
    EPA is not, however, proposing PSES based on Option B for the 
following reasons. EPA has determined that, after achieving Option A 
treatment levels, the regulated BAT pollutants do not pass through in 
amounts that would justify requiring the additional Option B treatment 
step, sand filtration. The additional removals obtained by sand 
filtration are small, less than 57 lb.eq. per year discharged to 
receiving streams. POTW removals for the regulated pollutants range 
from 59 percent to 90 percent. The total additional removals associated 
with the Option B technology represents less than one percent of total 
lb.eq. removals. Consequently, requiring PSES limits based on the 
Option B technology is not justified by the small quantity of 
pollutants involved.
    EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Option B as 
PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are not 
significantly higher than Option A. Further information is provided in 
the Economic Analysis.
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 VI.F.5(a) of this notice, EPA determined 
that all of the pollutants selected for regulation for the Industrial 
Waste Combustor Industry pass through POTWs. The same technologies 
discussed previously for PSES are available as the basis for PSNS.
    EPA is proposing that pretreatment standards for new sources be set 
equal to PSES for priority and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency 
is proposing to establish PSNS for the same priority and non-
conventional pollutants as are being proposed for PSES. EPA is 
requesting comment on whether it should adopt PSNS based on Option B, 
given the increased removals that would be achieved by the addition of 
sand filtration.
    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. The Agency 
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality 
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards 
than the selected PSNS.

G. Development of Numerical Limitations

    The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 
today's notice are based upon statistical procedures. This section 
describes the assumptions used as the basis for developing these 
numerical limitations.
    The assumptions are: (1) Individual pollutant effluent measurements 
are delta-lognormal in probability distribution, (2) on a long-term 
average basis, good engineering practice will allow appropriately 
designed and well-operated wastewater treatment systems to perform at 
least as well as the observed performance of the system whose data were 
used to develop the limitations, (3) an allowance for the observed 
process variability will allow for the normal process variation 
associated with both combustion and a well-designed and operated 
treatment system, and (4) process variation within certain classes of 
pollutants, such as metals, are approximately equal.
    The proposed pollutant limitations for each option, as presented in 
today's

[[Page 6407]]

notice, are provided as daily maximums and maximums for monthly 
averages. For total suspended solids, the maximum for monthly average 
limitation is based on a monitoring frequency of 20 samples per month, 
that is roughly one sample per weekday. In all other cases, the maximum 
for monthly average limitation is based on a monitoring frequency of 
four samples per month, that is one sample per week. The limitations 
were based upon pollutant concentrations collected from EPA sampling 
episodes. Data sources are described in Sections IV.B. A detailed 
explanation of the statistical procedures is provided in the 
statistical support document. The actual limitations are presented in 
the regulatory text following the preamble.
    Because EPA is assuming that TSS will be monitored daily, the 
limitation based on the probability distribution of 20-day averages. If 
concentrations measured on consecutive days are correlated, then 
autocorrelation would have an effect on this probability distribution. 
However, the combustion data used to calculate the variability of the 
20-day average was consecutive daily measurements from a 5-day sampling 
episode. 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. 
However, EPA believes that autocorrelation may not be present in daily 
measurements of 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 the Industrial 
Waste Combustion industry is generated by 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 is not expected to be 
present in measurements of wastewater from the Industrial Waste 
Combustion industry. In Section IX.B.7., EPA requests additional 
wastewater monitoring data. EPA will use these data to further evaluate 
autocorrelation in the TSS data.

VII. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternative

A. Costs

    The Agency estimated the cost for Industrial Waste Combustor 
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 TDD. All cost estimates in this 
section are expressed in terms of 1992 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 Section VII.C., 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 analysis for the 
proposed regulation is contained in Section VII.C. of today's notice.
1. BPT Costs
    The Agency estimated the cost of implementing the proposed BPT 
effluent limitations by calculating the engineering costs of meeting 
the required effluent reductions for each direct discharging Industrial 
Waste Combustor facility. 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 VI.E. The Agency solicits comment 
on these costing assumptions. Table VII.A-1 summarizes the capital 
expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT. The capital 
expenditures for the process change component of BPT are estimated to 
be $6.346 million with annual O&M costs of $1.255 million for 
Regulatory Option B. A complete discussion of the costs for Regulatory 
Options A and B may be found in the TDD.

                              Table VII.A-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations                              
                                          [In millions of 1992 dollars]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of                      Annual O&M  
                        Regulatory option                           facilities     Capital costs       costs    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Option B.............................................               8           6.346           1.255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. BCT/BAT Costs
    The Agency estimated that there would be no cost of compliance for 
implementing BCT/BAT, because the technology and effluent limitations 
are 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 BPT/
BAT. A complete discussion of the costs for Regulatory Options A and B 
may be found in the TDD. Table VII.A-2 summarizes the capital 
expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. Costs are 
presented only for the selected option, Option A. The capital 
expenditures for the process change component of PSES are estimated to 
be $2.090 million with annual O&M costs of $0.528 million for 
Regulatory Option A.

[[Page 6408]]



                              Table VII.A-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations                             
                                          [In millions of 1992 dollars]                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of                      Annual O&M  
                             Option                                 facilities     Capital costs       costs    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option A........................................................               3           2.090           0.528
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated the reduction in the mass of pollutants that 
would be discharged from Industrial Waste Combustor 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, the Agency developed an estimate of 
the long-term average loading (LTA) of TSS that would be discharged 
after the implementation of BPT. Next, the BPT/BCT LTA for TSS was 
multiplied by 1992 wastewater flows for each direct discharging 
facility to calculate BPT/BCT mass discharge loadings for TSS for each 
facility. The BPT/BCT mass discharge loading was subtracted from the 
estimated current loadings to calculate the pollutant reductions for 
each facility. The Agency estimates that the proposed regulations will 
reduce TSS discharges by approximately 88 thousand pounds per year for 
Regulatory Option A (two-stage chemical precipitation) and by 120 
thousand pounds per year for Regulatory Option B (Regulatory Option A 
followed by sand filtration).
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. Because EPA has proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT, 
there are no further pollutant reductions associated with BAT 
limitations.
    Current loadings were estimated by using the following data 
sources: the Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators 
Questionnaire; the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire; the Agency field 
sampling program; and, facility wastewater permit information. For many 
facilities, data were not available for all pollutants of concern or 
without the addition of other out-of-scope Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater. Therefore, methodologies were developed to estimate current 
performance by assessing performance of on-site treatment technologies, 
and by comparing combustion unit types to other facilities for which 
data was available, as described in Section VI.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 VII.B-1. Pollutant 
reductions are presented only for the selected Option, Option B. Data 
for the other regulatory option considered, Option A, may be found in 
the TDD. The Agency estimates that proposed BPT/BAT regulations will 
reduce direct facility discharges of priority, and non-conventional 
pollutants by about 7 thousand pounds per year for Option B.

      Table VII.B-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and     
 Nonconventional Pollutants After Implementation of BPT/BAT Regulations 
                           (units = lbs/year)                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Metal          Organic   
                 Option                      compounds       compounds  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option B................................           6,767           0 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The organic compounds pollutant reduction was estimated to be 0,    
  because no facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of       
  organic compounds and treatment for the removal of organic compounds  
  was not costed.                                                       

    c. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. The estimated reductions in 
pollutants indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation 
of PSES are listed in Table VII.B-2. Pollutant reductions are presented 
only for the selected Option, Option A. Data for the other regulatory 
option considered, Option B, may be found in the TDD. The Agency 
estimates that proposed PSES regulations will reduce indirect facility 
discharge to POTWs by 47 thousand pounds per year for Option A.

     Table VII.B-2.--Reduction in Indirect Discharge of Priority and    
    Nonconventional Pollutants to POTWs After Implementation of PSES    
                     Regulations (Units = lbs/year)                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Metal          Organic   
                                             compounds       compounds  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option A................................          47,276               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 6409]]

C. Economic Analysis

I. Introduction and Overview
    This section of the notice reviews EPA's analysis of the economic 
impacts of the regulation. EPA's detailed economic impact assessment 
can be found in the report titled ``Economic Analysis and Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors'' (hereafter ``EA''). The 
report estimates the economic effect on the industry of compliance with 
the regulation in terms of facility closures (severe impacts) and 
financial impacts short of closure (moderate impacts). The report also 
includes an analysis of the effects of the regulation on new Industrial 
Waste Combustor facilities and detailed impacts on small businesses and 
other small entities. A section of the EA presents an analysis of the 
cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
    The total costs for the proposed regulatory options are presented 
in Table VII.C-1. The proposed regulatory option for BPT/BCT/BAT is 
Option B (see Section VI.F.), which is estimated to have a total post-
tax annualized cost of $1,381,000. The proposed regulatory option for 
PSES is Option A (see Section VI.F.), which is estimated to have a 
total post-tax annualized cost of $531,000.

                           Table VII.C-1.--Total Costs of Proposed Regulatory Options                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total post-tax
                                                                   Total capital     Total O&M      annualized  
                        Proposed options                            costs  (mil     costs  (mil     costs  (mil 
                                                                      1992$)          1992$)          1992$)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT=Option B............................................           6.346           1.255           1.381
PSES=Option A...................................................           2.090           0.529           0.531
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Baseline Conditions
    The first step in the development of an economic analysis is the 
definition of the baseline state from which any changes are to be 
measured. The baseline should be the best assessment of the way the 
industry would look absent the proposed regulation. In this case, the 
baseline has been set by assuming the status quo will continue absent 
the enactment of the regulation.
    In the course of the regulatory development, EPA found that six 
potentially affected facilities had either closed entirely or 
discontinued burning waste. The six facilities were extracted from the 
analysis. An after tax cash flow test was conducted on the remaining 
facilities for which sufficient data was available. The test consisted 
of calculating the after tax cash flows for each facility for both 1991 
and 1992. If a facility experienced negative after tax cash flows in 
both years, the facility was deemed to be a baseline closure. No 
facilities failed the test, thus no facilities were deemed to be 
baseline closures.
    In recent years, Industrial Waste Combustors have been affected by 
a number of opposing forces. Declines in waste volumes and disposal 
prices have been attributed to waste minimization by waste generators, 
intense price competition driven by overcapacity, and changes in the 
competitive balance between cement kilns (and other commercial BIFs) 
and commercial incinerators. The noted negative trends have been offset 
by factors such as increased overall waste generation as part of 
general economic improvement, Industrial Waste Combustors' 
consolidation, and reductions in on-site combustion. The Agency 
solicits information and data on the current size of the industry and 
trends related to the growth or decline in the need for the services 
provided by these facilities.
    The Agency recognizes that its data base, which represents 
conditions in 1992, 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 facility. Nevertheless, EPA concludes 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 analysis is to characterize the impact of the proposed 
regulation for the industry as a whole.
3. Methodology
    EPA applies two financial tests to determine facility level 
economic impacts. The first is the after tax cash flow test. This test 
examines whether a facility loses money on a cash basis. The second 
test is the ratio of the facility's estimated compliance costs to the 
facility's revenue. These two tests were conducted at one of two 
levels: if the majority of the facility revenue is derived from 
combustion services, the tests are conducted at the facility level; 
however, if revenues from combustion services, the tests are conducted 
at the facility level; however, if revenues from combustion are not the 
majority of facility revenue, then the tests are conducted at waste 
treatment operations level if the data is available, and at the 
facility level as well.
    The economic impact analysis measures three types of primary 
impacts: severe impacts (facility closures), moderate impacts (facility 
impacts short of closure), and job losses. Each impact analysis measure 
is reviewed briefly below.
     Severe Impacts: Severe impacts, defined as facility 
closures or cessation of waste treatment operations, were assessed on 
the finding that the regulation would be expected to cause a facility 
to incur, on average, negative after tax cash flow over the two-year 
period of analysis.
     Moderate Impacts: Moderate impacts were defined as a 
financial impact short of entire facility closure. All facilities were 
assessed for the incurrence of total annualized compliance costs 
exceeding five percent of facility revenue.
     Employment losses: Possible employment losses were 
assessed for facilities estimated to close or discontinue waste 
treatment operations as a result of regulation.
    The economic impact analysis for the proposed Industrial Waste 
Combustor regulation assumes that Industrial Waste Combustor facilities 
would not be able to pass the costs of compliance on to their customers 
through price increases. While a zero cost pass-through assumption is 
typically characterized as a conservative assumption, in this case, it 
is presumably an accurate assumption as the affected facilities 
represent only a portion of the broader combustion services industry.
4. Cost Reasonableness and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT/BCT/BAT
    The statutory requirements for the assessment of BPT options are 
that the total cost of treatment options must not be wholly 
disproportionate to the additional effluent benefits obtained. EPA 
evaluates treatment options by first calculating pre-tax total 
annualized

[[Page 6410]]

costs and total pollutant removals in pounds. The ratio of the costs to 
the removals for each option is then evaluated relative to one another. 
The selected option is then compared to the range of ratios in previous 
regulations to gauge its impact. The results of the analysis are 
presented in Table VII.C-2. Option A has a ratio of $19 per lb. while 
option B has a ratio of $15 per lb. Option B provides significant 
additional pollutant removals at a relatively low cost, thus it is the 
selected option. Option B is also found to be within the historical 
bounds of BPT cost to removal ratios.

                                Table VII.C-2.--BPT Cost Reasonableness Analysis                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Pre-tax total                          Average cost  
                         Option                           annualized costs    Total removals     reasonableness 
                                                            (mil 1992$)           (lbs)           (1992 $/lb)   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................................             $1,736             93,443                $19
B......................................................              1,952            126,435                 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulatory option for BPT/BCT/BAT is option B. The 
postcompliance analysis under option B projects no severe or moderate 
impacts to any of the affected facilities. The analysis estimates no 
facility closures, no cessation of waste burning operations, and no 
associated job losses resulting from compliance with the proposed 
option.

                            Table VII.C-3.--Impacts of Evaluated BPT/BCT/BAT Options                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax                  Moderate              
                                                                 total        Severe      impacts     Employment
                           Option                              annualized    impacts       (TAC/        losses  
                                                              costs  (mil   (closures)    revenues      (FTEs)  
                                                                 1992$)                     >5%)                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...........................................................       $1.232            0            0            0
B...........................................................        1.381            0            0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES
    The proposed regulatory option for PSES is Option A. The 
postcompliance analysis under the selected option projects one facility 
will discontinue waste burning operations. The facility as a whole is 
projected to remain open. The waste burning operations of this facility 
represent significantly less than 10 percent of total facility revenue. 
The cessation of waste burning operations are estimated to cause 27 job 
losses on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE). No other facilities are 
projected to suffer either severe or moderate impacts.

                                Table VII.C-4.--Impacts of Evaluated PSES Options                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Post-tax                  Moderate              
                                                                 total        Severe      impacts     Employment
                           Option                              annualized    impacts       (TAC/        losses  
                                                              costs  (mil   (closures)    revenues      (FTEs)  
                                                                 1992$)                     >5%)                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...........................................................       $0.531            1            0           27
B...........................................................        0.559            1            0           27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Economic Impacts of Proposed NSPS and PSNS
    EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT. BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are found 
to be economically achievable; therefore, NSPS limitations will not 
present a barrier to entry for new facilities.
    EPA is setting PSNS equal to PSES limitations for existing sources. 
In general, EPA believes that new sources will be able to comply at 
costs that are similar to or less than the costs for existing sources, 
because new sources can apply control technologies more efficiently 
than sources that need to retrofit for those technologies. As a result, 
given EPA's finding of economic achievability for the PSES regulation, 
EPA also finds that the PSNS regulation will be economically achievable 
and will not constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
7. Firm-Level Impacts
    The firm level analysis evaluates the effects of regulatory 
compliance on firms owning one or more affected Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities. It also serves to identify impacts not captured 
in the facility level analysis. For example, some companies might be 
too weak financially to undertake the investment in the required 
effluent treatment, even though the investment might seem financially 
feasible at the facility level. Such circumstances can exist at 
companies owning more than one facility subject to regulation.
    The firm-level analysis assesses the impacts of compliance costs at 
all facilities owned by the firm. These impacts are assessed using 
ratio analysis, which employs two indicators of financial viability: 
the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the interest coverage ratio 
(ICR). ROA is a measure of the profitability of a company's capital 
assets. It is computed as the earnings before interest and taxes minus 
taxes divided by total assets. ICR is a measure of the financial 
leverage of a company. It is computed as the earnings before interest 
and taxes divided by interest expense.

[[Page 6411]]

    Two firms each own three affected Industrial Waste Combustor 
facilities and are subjected to the ratio analysis. The first step is 
to calculate the baseline ROA and ICR for each company absent the 
proposed regulation. The post-compliance analysis then calculates the 
ratios after the projected investment in wastewater treatment equipment 
and the associated compliance costs. One firm experiences no measurable 
effect as the result of compliance with the proposed regulation. 
Neither the ROA nor the ICR changes between the baseline and 
postcompliance analysis. The second firm experiences an insignificant 
decline in ROA and a minor decline in ICR. The decline in ICR, while 
significant in percentage terms, is an artifact of the firm's extremely 
low level of debt. As a result, the two firms are found to be not 
significantly impacted by the proposed regulation.
8. Community Impacts
    Community impacts are assessed by estimating the expected change in 
employment in communities with combustors that are affected by the 
proposed regulation. Possible community employment effects include the 
employment losses in the facilities that are expected to close because 
of the regulation and the related employment losses in other businesses 
in the affected community. In addition to these estimated employment 
losses, employment may increase as a result of facilities' operation of 
treatment systems for regulatory compliance. It should be noted that 
job gains will mitigate community employment losses only if they occur 
in the same communities in which facility closures occur.
    The proposed regulation is estimated to result in the 
postcompliance closure of the waste burning operations of one facility. 
The postcompliance closure results in the direct loss of 27 Full-Time 
Equivalent (FTE) positions. Secondary employment impacts are estimated 
based on multipliers that relate the change in employment in a directly 
affected industry to aggregate employment effects in linked industries 
and consumer businesses whose employment is affected by changes in the 
earnings and expenditures of the employees in the directly and 
indirectly affected industries. The application of the state specific 
multiplier of 5.334 to the 27 direct FTE losses leads to an estimated 
community impact of 144 total FTE losses as the result of the proposed 
rule. The county in which the closure is projected to occur has a 
current employment of 173,242 FTEs dispersed among 9,922 
establishments. The direct and secondary job losses represent 0.08 
percent of current employment in the affected county.
    The FTE losses are mitigated by the job gains associated with the 
operation of control equipment which are estimated to be 9 FTEs 
nationally. The secondary and indirect effects can be estimated at the 
national level by using the average multiplier of 4.049, resulting in 
an estimate of 36 total FTE gains associated with the pollution control 
equipment.
9. Foreign Trade Impacts
    The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of 
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Because most of the 
affected Industrial Waste Combustor facilities treat waste that is 
considered hazardous under RCRA, international trade in Industrial 
Waste Combustor services for treatment of hazardous wastes is virtually 
nonexistent.
10. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    EPA also performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of the proposed 
BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES regulatory options. (A more detailed discussion 
can be found in the cost-effectiveness analysis section of the EA.) The 
cost-effectiveness analysis compares the total annualized cost incurred 
for a regulatory option to the corresponding effectiveness of that 
option in reducing the discharge of pollutants.
    Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency 
of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory 
option. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of 
a pollution control option in an industry subcategory per incremental 
pollutant removal. The increments are considered relative to another 
option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-
effectiveness analysis, pollutant removals are measured in toxicity 
normalized units called ``pound-equivalents.'' The cost-effectiveness 
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing an additional 
pound-equivalent (lb. eq.) of pollutants. In general, the lower the 
cost-effectiveness value, the more cost-efficient the regulation will 
be in removing pollutants, taking into account their toxicity. While 
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a 
useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic 
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis does not take into account the 
removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, biochemical 
oxygen demand, and total suspended solids).
    For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimated pound-
equivalents of pollutants removed were calculated by multiplying the 
number of pounds of each pollutant removed by the toxic weighting 
factor for each pollutant. The more toxic the pollutant, the higher 
will be the pollutant's toxic weighting factor; accordingly, the use of 
pound-equivalents gives correspondingly more weight to pollutants with 
higher toxicity. 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 if pollutants of lesser 
toxicity are removed. Annual costs for all cost-effectiveness analyzes 
are reported in 1981 dollars so that comparisons of cost-effectiveness 
may be made with regulations for other industries that were issued at 
different times.
    The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for the potential 
BPT/BCT/BAT options are presented in Table VII.C-5. The results for 
these options are presented for strictly illustrative purposes, as the 
selected option is to be proposed as BPT, which is subject to a cost 
reasonableness evaluation rather than the cost-effectiveness 
evaluation. The selected option is option B, which has an average cost-
effectiveness of $65 per lb.eq. and an incremental (to option A) cost-
effectiveness of $57 per lb.eq. This result reinforces the selection of 
option B for BPT/BCT/BAT as a significant incremental removal of toxic 
pollutants is achieved for a relatively low incremental cost.

                             Table VII.C-5.--BPT/BCT/BAT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pre-tax                                             
                                                             total        Total     Average cost-   Incremental 
                         Option                            annualized    removals   effectiveness      cost-    
                                                          costs  (mil    (lb.eq.)     ($/lb.eq.)   effectiveness
                                                             1981$)                                  ($/lb.eq.) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................................................       $1.231       18,581           $66   .............

[[Page 6412]]

                                                                                                                
B.......................................................        1.384       21,265            65            $57 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for the PSES 
regulatory options are presented in Table VII.C-6. The selected option 
is option A, which has an average and incremental cost-effectiveness of 
$85 per lb.eq. Option B has an average cost-effectiveness of $88 per 
lb.eq., but has an incremental (to option A) cost-effectiveness of $509 
per lb.eq.

                                Table VII.C-6.--PSES Cost-Effectiveness Analysis                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Pre-tax       Total                                 
                                                             total       removals   Average cost-   Incremental 
                         Option                            annualized   (lb.eq.),   effectiveness      cost-    
                                                          costs  (mil  net of POTW    ($/lb.eq.)   effectiveness
                                                             1981$)      removals                    ($/lb.eq.) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................................................       $0.538        6,349           $85   .............
B.......................................................        0.566        6,405            88           $509 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits

1. Characterization of Pollutants
    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the 
discharges of 17 toxic and nonconventional pollutants from Industrial 
Waste Combustor facilities to surface waters and POTWs in national 
analyses of direct and indirect discharges. Discharges of these 
pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic 
habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact human 
health through the consumption of contaminated fish and water. 
Furthermore, these pollutants may also interfere with POTW operations 
in terms of inhibition of activated sludge or biological treatment and 
contamination of sewage sludges, thereby limiting the available method 
of disposal and thereby raising its costs. Many of these pollutants 
have at least one toxic effect (human health carcinogen and/or systemic 
toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition, many of these pollutants 
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist in the environment.
    The Agency did not evaluate the effects of three non-conventional 
pollutants since the analysis focused on toxic and nonconventional 
pollutants. However, the discharge of conventional pollutants such as 
total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total 
dissolved solids (TDS), can have adverse effects on human health and 
the environment. For example, habitat degradation can result from 
increased suspended particulate matter that reduces light penetration, 
and thus primary productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles 
that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. High COD 
levels can deplete oxygen levels, which can result in mortality or 
other adverse effects on fish.
2. Direct Discharges
    EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health 
of direct wastewater discharges to receiving waters at current levels 
of treatment and at proposed BPT/BAT treatment levels. EPA predicted 
steady-state in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete 
immediate mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these 
levels to EPA-published water quality criteria guidance or to 
documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or estimated 
toxic concentration) for those chemicals for which EPA has not 
published water quality criteria. (In performing this analysis, EPA 
used its published guidance documents that recommend numeric human 
health and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. 
States often consult these guidance documents when adopting water 
quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, 
because those State-adopted criteria may vary, EPA used the nationwide 
criteria guidance as the most representative value). In addition, EPA 
assessed the potential benefits to human health by estimating the risks 
(carcinogenic and systemic effects) associated with reducing pollutant 
levels in fish tissue and drinking water from current to proposed 
treatment levels. EPA estimated risks for recreational and subsistence 
anglers and their families, as well as the general population. EPA 
performed these analyses for the eight direct Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities currently in operation, modeling their discharge 
of 17 pollutants to eight receiving streams.
    Current pollutant loadings (in pounds) of the 17 toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants modeled are reduced by 29 percent by the 
proposed BPT/BAT regulatory option. In-stream concentrations for nine 
pollutants are projected to exceed acute or chronic aquatic life 
criteria or toxic effect levels in four of the eight receiving streams. 
The proposed BPT/BAT will eliminate excursions of the acute criteria 
for one pollutant and the chronic criteria of a second pollutant. 
Current instream concentrations or toxic effect levels exceed human 
health criteria in, depending on how defined, at as many as half of the 
receiving streams. The proposed BPT/BAT limitations reduces these 
excursions to a limited extent.
    The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are 
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated 
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated. No benefits due 
to the reduction of cancer cases are projected to be achieved by the 
regulation. Systemic toxicant effects are projected for subsistence 
anglers in three of the receiving streams nationwide from three 
pollutants at current discharge levels. The proposed BPT/BAT regulated 
discharge levels will reduce the systemic toxicant effects to 
subsistence anglers on a single receiving stream and

[[Page 6413]]

pollutant, reducing the exposed population by 47 percent.
3. Indirect Dischargers
    EPA also evaluated the aquatic life and human health impacts of 
POTW wastewater discharges of 17 pollutants on receiving stream water 
quality at current and proposed pretreatment levels for the three 
indirect discharging Industrial Waste Combustor facilities currently in 
operation. These three facilities discharge to three POTWs with 
outfalls located on three receiving streams. EPA predicted steady-
state-in-stream pollutant concentrations after complete immediate 
mixing with no loss from the system, and compared these levels to EPA-
published water quality criteria or to documented toxic effect levels 
(i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration) for those 
chemicals for which EPA has not published water quality criteria. 
Nationwide criteria guidance were used as the most representative 
value. In addition, the potential benefits to human health were 
evaluated by estimating the potential reduction of carcinogenic risk 
and systemic effects from consuming contaminated fish and drinking 
water. Risks were again estimated for recreational and subsistence 
anglers and their families as well as the general population.
    Current loadings (in pounds) of the 17 pollutants evaluated for 
water quality impacts are reduced 97 percent by the proposed 
pretreatment regulatory options.
    EPA projects that in-stream concentrations of one pollutant will 
exceed human health criteria or toxic effect levels in one receiving 
stream at current discharge levels. The proposed pretreatment 
regulatory option eliminates this excursion. EPA also projects a single 
receiving stream with in-stream concentrations for one pollutant 
projected to exceed chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect 
levels at current discharge levels. This stream will no longer have 
this excursion under the proposed pretreatment. Estimates of the 
increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers as a result of 
this improvement range from $78,600 to $281,000 annually (1992 
dollars).
    The excess annual cancer cases at current pollutant loadings are 
projected to be much less than 0.5 from the ingestion of contaminated 
fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated. No benefits due 
to the reduction of cancer cases are projected to be achieved by the 
regulation. Systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer adverse health 
effects including reproductive toxicity) are projected for subsistence 
anglers in one receiving stream for two pollutants at current discharge 
levels. No systemic toxicant effects are projected at the proposed 
pretreatment level.
4. POTWs
    EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations 
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and 
contamination of sewage sludge at the three POTWs that received 
wastewater from Industrial Waste Combustors. Inhibition of POTW 
operations is estimated by comparing predicted POTW influent 
concentrations to available inhibition levels. Inhibition values were 
obtained from Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs 
(U.S. EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual 
(U.S. EPA, 1990). Potential contamination of sewage sludge was 
estimated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in POTW 
sewage sludge to available EPA criteria. The Standards for the Use or 
Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503) contain limits on the 
concentrations of pollutants in sewage sludge that is used or disposed. 
For the purpose of this analysis, the sewage sludge is considered 
contaminated if the concentration of a pollutant in sewage sludge 
exceeds the limits presented in 40 CFR Part 503 for land application of 
the slude or surface disposal.
    EPA was able to evaluate 12 pollutants for potential POTW operation 
inhibition and seven pollutants for potential sewage sludge 
contamination. At current discharge levels, EPA projects inhibition 
problems at one of the POTWs, caused by one pollutant. At the proposed 
pretreatment regulatory option, EPA projects no inhibition problems at 
the POTW. The Agency projects sewage sludge contamination at two of the 
POTWs, caused by three pollutants at current discharge levels. At the 
proposed pretreatment regulatory option, EPA projects no biosolids 
contamination problems at these POTWs. EPA estimates that the savings 
in biosolids disposal costs to these POTWs is about $7,400 (1992 
dollars) annually.
    The POTW inhibition values used in this analysis are not, in 
general, regulatory values. EPA based these values upon engineering and 
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA 
and other sources. Therefore, EPA does not intend to base its 
regulatory approach for proposed pretreatment discharge levels upon the 
finding that some pollutants interfere with POTWs by impairing their 
treatment effectiveness. Of course, as explained above. EPA did find 
that certain pollutants would pass through a basis for establishing 
pretreatment standards. Still, the values used in this analysis help 
indicate the potential benefits for POTW operations that may result 
from the compliance with proposed pretreatment discharge levels.
    EPA evaluated the benefits of reducing contamination of sewage 
sludge in its analysis of projected POTW sewage sludge disposal 
practices at current and proposed pretreatment levels. Current levels 
resulted in two POTWs whose sewage sludge may not be land applied, 
although more expensive alternatives are available for disposal. EPA's 
analyses showed that of these two POTWs, one will shift into qualifying 
for land application of POTW sewage sludge under the proposed 
pretreatment regulatory option. Land application quality sewage sludge 
meets ceiling pollutant concentration limits, class B pathogen 
requirements, and vector attraction reduction requirements. Because 
costs for land application tend to be lower than those for other 
disposal methods, this shift away from incineration, co-disposal, and 
surface disposal results in a cost savings. The other POTW will upgrade 
from land application pollutant ceiling levels to the more stringent 
land application pollutant concentration limits. This POTW is expected 
to benefit through reduced record-keeping requirements and exemption 
from certain POTW biosolids management practices. However, EPA has not 
estimated a monetary value for these more modest benefits.

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, 
waste treatment residual generation, and energy consumption.
1. Air Pollution
    Industrial Waste Combustor facilities treat wastewater streams 
which contain very low concentrations of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs). Specifically, the concentrations of VOCs are typically below 
treatable levels in industrial Waste Combustor wastewater streams.
    Since there are only low concentrations of VOCs in Industrial

[[Page 6414]]

Waste Combustor wastewater, no significant air emissions could be 
generated by the proposed treatment technologies. Thus, EPA does not 
expect adverse air impacts due to the proposed regulations.
2. Waste Treatment Residuals
    Waste treatment residuals would be generated due to the following 
technologies, if implemented, to meet proposed regulations: metals 
precipitation and sand filtration. The waste treatment residuals 
generated due to the implementation of the technologies discussed above 
were costed for off-site disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills. These 
costs were included in the economic evaluation of the proposed 
technologies.
    EPA estimates that an additional 1.3 million pounds of sludge will 
be generated annually by 11 facilities from metals precipitation and 
sand filtration operations. EPA believes that the disposal of this 
filter cake would not have an adverse effect on the environment or 
result in the release of pollutants in the filter cake to other media. 
The disposal of these wastes into controlled Subtitle C or D landfills 
are strictly regulated by the RCRA program.
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. Overall, and increase of 1,840 thousand Kilowatt hours 
per year would be required for the proposed regulation which equates to 
1,031 barrels of oil per year. The United States consumed 19 million 
barrels of oil per day in 1994.

VIII. Related Acts of Congress and Executive Orders

A. 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.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
provides that, whenever an agency is required to publish general notice 
of rulemaking for a proposed rule, the agency generally must prepare 
(and make available for public comment) an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA). The agency must prepare an IRFA for a 
proposed rule unless the head of the agency certifies that it will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. EPA is today certifying, pursuant to section 605(b) of the 
RFA, that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities Therefore, the Agency did not 
prepare an IRFA.
    While EPA has so certified today's rule, the Agency nonetheless 
prepared a regulatory flexibility assessment equivalent to that 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as modified by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The assessment 
for this rule is detailed in the ``Economic Analysis of Proposed 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Industrial Waste 
Combustors''.
    The proposal, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following 
reasons. The RFA defines ``small entity'' to mean a small business, 
small organization or small governmental jurisdiction. Today's proposal 
would establish requirements applicable only to commercial Industrial 
Waste Combustors. As previously explained, the eleven facilities that 
would be subject to the proposal if adopted, are all owned by large 
entities with firm revenues in excess of $230 million per year. 
Consequently, there are no small businesses that would be affected by 
the proposal. Therefore, the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the 
proposed rule as $2.16 million (1996$, post-tax). Thus, today's rule is 
not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
Section 203 of the UMRA.

D. 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

[[Page 6415]]

President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is a not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard 
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide 
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation 
of the reasons for not using such standards.
    EPA is not proposing any new analytical test methods as part of 
today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA 
performed literature searches to identify any analytical methods from 
industry, academia, voluntary consensus standard bodies and other 
parties that could be used to measure the analytes in today's proposed 
rulemaking. The results of this search confirm EPA's determination to 
continue to rely on its existing analytical tests methods for the 
analytes for which effluent limitations and pretreatment standards are 
proposed. Although the Agency initiated data collection for these 
effluent guidelines many years prior to enactment of the NTTAA, 
traditionally, analytical test method development has been analogous to 
the Act's requirements for consideration and use of voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed rule would require dischargers to monitor for TSS, pH, 
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium, 
and zinc. Methods for monitoring these pollutants are specified in 
tables at 40 CFR Part 136. When available, methods published by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies are included in the list of 
approved methods in these tables. Specifically, voluntary consensus 
standards from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 
are approved for pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 
and zinc. Further, EPA has approved the use of voluntary consensus 
standards from the 18th edition of Standard Methods (published jointly 
by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works 
Association and the Water Environment Federation) for TSS, arsenic, 
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium, and zinc. 
In addition, EPA's regulation authorizes the use of USGS methods for 
TSS, pH, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and 
zinc.
    EPA requests comments on the discussion of NTTAA, on the 
consideration of various voluntary consensus standards, and on the 
existence of other voluntary consensus standards that EPA may not have 
found.

IX. 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.
    To ensure that EPA can read, understand and therefore properly 
respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that commenters cite, 
where possible the paragraph(s) or sections in the notice or supporting 
documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a 
separate paragraph for each issue discussed.
    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 today's document for 
technical contracts 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. EPA 
particularly requests comments and data on the following issues:
1. Exclusion of Captive and Intracompany Facilities From the Scope the 
Regulation
    Most facilities which only burn waste from off-site facilities 
under the same corporate structure (intracompany facility) and/or only 
burn waste generated on-site (captive facility) are already subject to 
national effluent guidelines based on the manufacturing operations at 
the facility. Specifically, 107 of the 156 captive and intracompany 
facilities which received a screener survey and generated wastewater as 
a result of their combustion operations either completed a 
questionnaire for an effluent guidelines regulation or stated that they 
were subject to effluent guidelines. Three of these 156 facilities 
identified themselves as zero dischargers. Finally, only 46 of these 
156 facilities did not identify an effluent guideline for their 
discharge. Of these facilities, it is likely that some are zero 
dischargers and some are already subject to effluent guidelines, 
although the respondent was unaware of that fact. In addition, 83 
percent of all captive facilities and 73 percent of all intracompany 
facilities reported that the combustion unit wastewaters made up less 
than 20 percent of the final wastewater stream discharged from the 
facility. The Agency is requesting comment on not including captive and 
intracompany facilities in today's proposed rule as well as any 
additional data on the treatment of IWC wastewater at such operations. 
This would include information demonstrating that the IWC wastewater is 
commingled for treatment and subject to effluent limitations or 
pretreatment standards under regulations for other point source 
categories.
    As described above, today's proposal would apply to all commercial 
IWC's and not to so-called ``captive'' and ``intra-company'' 
combustors--combustors that burn wastes either generated on-site or 
received from off-site facilities that are owned in common with the 
combustor. So long as these combustors do not burn wastes received from 
off-site from facilities that are not subject to common ownership, the 
effluent generated from the treatment of IWC wastewater at such 
combustors would not be subject to the proposal. Essentially, as 
explained above, EPA has concluded that such wastewater is generally 
commingled for treatment with wastewater generated in the primary 
industrial process at the site and subject to effluent limitations and 
standards for that industrial category. However, EPA recognizes that 
there may be circumstances in which this is not the case. For example, 
there may be stand-alone combustors burning wastes received from 
facilities under common ownership without other, on-site industrial 
operations. Further, even

[[Page 6416]]

where a combustor is operated in conjunction with on-site industrial 
activities, the IWC wastewater may be treated and discharged separately 
from that generated in other operations (or treated separately and 
mixed before discharge). Under these conditions, EPA is not certain 
that the wastewater should, in fact, be treated differently from that 
of commercial IWC wastewater. EPA specifically solicits comments and 
data on whether or not to include such facilities within the scope of 
the final rule. Following proposal, EPA will be collecting further data 
on such facilities.
2. De Minimis Level for Scope of Regulation
    The Agency solicits comment on including an exclusion from the 
scope of this regulation for industrial waste combustors located at 
manufacturing facilities that accept a de minimis quantity of waste 
from other facilities not within the same corporate umbrella due to 
possible management practices at manufacturing facilities. 
Manufacturers may receive small quantities of waste from off-site to 
burn 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 1994 Waste Treatment Industry Phase II: Incinerators 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.
3. Subcategorization of Industrial Waste Combustors
    Based on analysis of the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry, EPA 
has determined that it should not further subcategorize the Industrial 
Waste Combustors. EPA invites comment on whether the Industrial Waste 
Combustors should be divided into subcategories, including the basis of 
the subcategorization. Specifically, the Agency is requesting comments 
on whether it is necessary to subcategorize the industry based on the 
types of wastewater generated at an Industrial Waste Combustor 
facility.
4. Methodology for Estimating Current Performance
    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.
    Many facilities in the Industrial Waste Combustor 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 wastewater 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 Industrial Waste Combustor 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 VI.G. for an 
explanation of autocorrelation). Before submitting discharge monitoring 
data, please contact Samantha Hopkins at (202) 260-7149 to ensure that 
the data include information to support its use for calculating current 
performance and possible limitations.
5. Additional Technologies for the Control of Wastes Containing a Large 
Variety of Metal in Continually Changing Concentrations
    The BPT effluent limitations and standards for the control of 
metals is based on the use of two stages of chemical precipitation and 
sand filtration. An additional treatment technology was sampled in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation. Performance by this 
treatment technology was adequate for the metals found in the 
wastewater at treatable levels. The additional treatment technology 
sampled is proprietary information. EPA solicits information on 
additional treatment technologies applicable to the treatment of wastes 
containing a large variety of metal in continually changing 
concentrations that are commercially available.
6. Options Selection
    EPA is asking for comment on whether it should adopt Option B as 
PSES for this subcategory, given that annual costs are very close to 
Option A. Additional information is provided in the EA. Option A is: 
Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, Secondary 
Precipitation, and Solid-Liquid Separation.
    Option B is: Primary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, 
Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and Sand Filtration.
7. Costing Methodology
    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 VI.E. The Agency solicits comments on these costing 
assumptions. Table VII.A-1 summarizes the capital expenditures and 
annual O&M costs for implementing BPT. The capital expenditures for the 
process change component of BPT are estimated to be $5.924 million with 
annual O&M costs of $1.085 million for Regulatory Option B.
8. Estimation of Industry Size
    From the information obtained from the 1994 Waste Treatment 
Industry Phase II: Incinerators Questionnaire, EPA estimated that there 
are 84 facilities in the Industrial Waste Combustor Industry. However, 
only 11 of these facilities are currently operating and discharging 
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater to a POTW or water body. EPA's 
estimation of the industry size is based on data provided from 
questionnaire mailed to facilities that EPA identified using 
information available in 1992. As stated earlier, facilities names were 
gathered from various sources, and no listing of non-hazardous waste 
combustion units was available. Therefore, there may have been 
Industrial Waste Combustor facilities not included on the questionnaire 
mailing list. EPA solicits information on the number, name, and 
location of facilities within the industry.
9. Treatment of Incidental Organic Pollutants Detected in the 
Industrial Waste Combustor Industry
    During the EPA sampling program, EPA collected analytical data on 
the presence of organic pollutants in the Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater.

[[Page 6417]]

Various organic pollutants were detected at low concentrations in the 
untreated Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA sampled treatment 
technologies to control the discharge of inorganic pollutants for 
Industrial Waste Combustors. 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 effect of the addition of treatment 
chemicals and other sources of wastewater is to cause the 
concentrations to become lower and thereby non-detectable. EPA solicits 
comment on the necessity of control on low level organic pollutants for 
the Industrial Waste Combustors and technologies appropriate for the 
control of low level organics as well as analytical data to 
characterize the performance of such treatment technologies.
10. Concentration Limitations vs. Production-based Limitations
    EPA is requesting comments on the decision to use concentration 
limitations as opposed to production-based limitations. EPA based the 
decision on the fact that Industrial Waste Combustors do not make a 
product. However, the limitations could potentially be based upon how 
much waste is burned rather than product generation. EPA sees the 
concentration limitations as a potential problem in that facilities 
could generate more process water to comply with the limitations rather 
than treating the process water sufficiently. For example, a facility 
could increase the volume of scrubber water by decreasing the amount of 
scrubber water that is recycled for reuse. EPA is requesting comments 
on this issue.
11. Zero-discharge Standards for BPT/BAT and NSPS
    EPA is specifically considering whether it should adopt BPT/BAT and 
NSPS of zero discharge, since so many facilities are currently not 
generating or not discharging any wastewater as a result of their 
Industrial Waste Combustor operations (see section IV.A. of today's 
notice). Zero discharge is primarily accomplished through the use of 
dry scrubbing operations or through off-site disposal of Industrial 
Waste Combustor wastewater. EPA evaluated the cost for facilities to 
dispose of their Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater off-site and 
found it was less expensive than on-site treatment of the wastewater 
for only 3 of the eleven facilities. EPA also evaluated the cost for 
facilities to burn the Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater streams 
they generated and found that it was significantly more costly than 
wastewater treatment. EPA did not evaluate the cost for all facilities 
to replace their wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbing systems, as 
the wet scrubbing systems have been established as the best performers 
(according to the Hazardous Waste Combustion proposed regulation) for 
removing acid gages and dioxins from effluent gas streams. Also, dry 
scrubbing systems have an adverse affect of generating an unstable 
solid to be disposed of in a landfill, as opposed to the stable solids 
generated by wastewater treatment of air pollution control wastewater. 
EPA also did not evaluate the cost for all facilities to recycle their 
Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater, as EPA discovered that only 
certain types of air pollution control systems working in conjunction 
with one another are able to accomplish total recycle of wastewater. 
Thus, new air pollution control systems would have to be costed for all 
facilities along with recycling systems. Overall, zero discharge at 
BPT/BAT or NSPS is not being proposed because EPA believes that the 
cost to facilities of changing current air pollution control systems 
are probably too high for BPT/BAT and because the change may cause 
unacceptable non-water quality impacts. EPA is requesting comments on 
its decision not to propose zero discharge for BPT/BAT and/or NSPS.

X. Regulatory Implementation

A. Applicability

    While today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment a this time, 
the promulgated effluent limitations and standards may change based on 
additional information or data submitted by commenters or developed by 
the Agency. Consequently, the permit writer may consider the proposed 
limits and data provided in the Technical Support Document 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 until EPA promulgates final 
limitations.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and 
(n).

C. 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 discharges. However, the statute 
provides for the modification of these requirements in a limited number 
of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established administrative 
mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the application of 
national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for 
categories of existing sources for priority, conventional and non-
conventional pollutants.
    EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing 
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors 
considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to 
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a 
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants 
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF 
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF 
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and 
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n 
v. NRDC. 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish 
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for 
approval of FDF variance must be based

[[Page 6418]]

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 not 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 request for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g, volume of process wastewater, 
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in 
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must 
determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the 
facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and 
factors considered by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable 
effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four factors (e.g., 
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's 
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In 
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less 
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if 
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a 
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered 
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water 
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements ) 
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during 
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF 
variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The 
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment 
standards and factors considered are the same as those for indirect 
discharges.
    The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSNS
2. Water Quality Variances
    Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent 
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized 
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, 
color, iron, and total phenols.
3. Permit Modifications
    Evens after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit 
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain 
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration, 
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit 
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could 
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the 
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person 
may request that a permit modification be made. There are two 
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural 
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice 
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor 
modifications do not. Virtually any modifications that results in less 
stringent conditions is treated as a major modifications, with 
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would 
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR 
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The 
conditions for minor modifications are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
4. Removal credits
    The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant 
``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. This 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. See 40 CFR 403.7. EPA has promulgated removal 
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations. Under EPA's 
pretreatment regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a 
particular pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing 
of its sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are 
only available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR Part 
503 sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment 
regulations at 40 CFR 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 maybe available for three 
metals. When these sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits maybe 
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants (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 (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid 
waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258, 
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage 
sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given compliance with the 
requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,\2\ following 
promulgation of the pretreatment standards being proposed today, 
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,

[[Page 6419]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 amendments 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 have 
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 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 its Round 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 pollutant in sewage sludge are lower than a 
prescribed level, removal credits are authorized for such 
pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has concluded that a POTW discharge of a particular pollutant 
will not prevent sewage sludge use (or disposal) so long as the POTW is 
complying with EPA's part 503 regulations and so long as the POTW 
demonstrates that use or disposal of sewage sludge containing that 
pollutant will not adversely affect public health and environment. 
Thus, if the POTW meets these two conditions, a POTW may obtain removal 
credit authority for pollutants other than those specifically regulated 
in the part 503 regulations. What is necessary for a POTW to 
demonstrate that a pollutant will not adversely affect public health 
and the environment will depend on the particular pollutant, the use or 
disposal means employed by the POTW and the concentration of the 
pollutant in the sewage sludge. Thus, depending on the circumstances, 
this effort could vary from a complete 14-pathway risk assessment 
modeling exercise to a simple demonstration that available scientific 
data show that, at the levels observed in the sewage sludge, the 
pollutant at issue is not harmful. As part of its initiative to 
simplify and improve its regulations, at the present time, EPA is 
considering whether to propose changes to its pretreatment regulations 
so as to provide for case-by-case removal credit determinations by the 
POTWs' permitting authority.
    EPA has already begun the process of evaluating several pollutants 
for adverse potential to human health and the environment when present 
in sewage sludge. In November 1995, 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 when available at that time, it intended to propose only 
two pollutants for regulation in the Round Two sewage sludge 
regulations dioxins/dibenzofurans (all monochloro to octochloro 
congeners) and polychlorinated biphenyls.
    The Round Two sludge 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 propose 
that removal credits should be authorized for identified 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.
5. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring 
Requirements
    Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the 
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These 
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits 
issued by the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
    The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for today's 
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial 
subcategory. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may 
elect to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not 
covered by this 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 an Industrial Waste 
Combustor waste stream and process wastewater from other industrial 
operations, the effluent guidelines would be applied by using a flow-
weighted combination of the BPT/BAT/PSES limit for the Industrial Waste 
Combustors 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 which a facility must monitor 
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can 
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. 
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in 
order to assure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams 
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers 
may establish additional internal monitoring points to

[[Page 6420]]

the extent consistent with EPA's regulations.

Appendix 1--Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

    Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as 
described in 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.
    Boiler--An enclosed device using controlled flame combustion and 
having the following characteristics:
    (1)(i) The unit must have physical provisions for recovering and 
exporting thermal energy in the form of steam, heated fluids, or 
heated gases; and
    (ii) The unit's combustion chamber and primary energy recovery 
section(s) must be of integral design. To be of integral design, the 
combustion chamber and the primary energy recovery section(s) (such 
as waterwalls and superheaters) must be physically formed into one 
manufactured or assembled unit. A unit in which the combustion 
chamber and the primary energy recovery section(s) are joined only 
by ducts or connections carrying flue gas is not integrally 
designed; however, secondary energy recovery equipment (such as 
economizers or air preheaters) need not be physically formed into 
the same unit as the combustion chamber and the primary energy 
recovery section. The following units are not precluded from being 
boilers solely because they are not of integral design: process 
heaters (units that transfer energy directly to a process stream), 
and fluidized bed combustion units; and
    (iii) While in operation, the unit must maintain a thermal 
energy recovery efficiency of at least 60 percent, calculated in 
terms of the recovered energy compared with the thermal value of the 
fuel; and
    (iv) The unit must export and utilize at least 75 percent of the 
recovered energy, calculated on an annual basis. In this 
calculation, no credit shall be given for recovered heat used 
internally in the same unit. (Examples of internal use are the 
preheating of fuel or combustion air, and the driving of induced or 
forced draft fans or feedwater pumps); or
    (2) The unit is one which the Regional Administrator has 
determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be a boiler, after 
considering the standards in Section 260.32.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently 
available, as described in Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    Captive--Used to describe a facility that only accepts waste 
generated on site and/or by the owner operator at the facility.
    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, pipeline, 
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 treats wastes generated 
on-site as well as waste received from off-site.
    Clarification--A treatment designed to remove suspended 
materials from wastewater--typically by sedimentation.
    Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, 
by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and the Water 
Quality Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-4).
    Closed--A facility or portion thereof that is currently not 
receiving or accepting wastes and has undergone final closure.
    Combustion unit--A device for waste treatment which uses 
elevated temperatures as the primary means to change the chemical, 
physical, biological character or composition of the waste. Examples 
of combustion units are incinerators, fuel processors, boilers, 
industrial furnaces, and kilns.
    Commercial facility--Facilities that accept waste from off-site 
for treatment from facilities not under the same ownership as their 
facility. Commercial operations are usually made available for a fee 
or other remuneration. Commercial waste treatment does not have to 
be the primary activity at a facility for an operation or unit to be 
considered ``commercial.''
    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).
    Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
    Disposal--Intentional placement of waste or waste treatment 
residual into or on any land where the material will remain after 
closure. Waste or residual placed into any water is not defined as 
disposal, but as discharge.
    EA--Economic Analysis
    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).)
    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.
    Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewaters defined as 
hazardous under RCRA, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), or any 
state law.
    Incinerator--means any enclosed device that:
    (1) Uses controlled flame combustion and neither meets the 
criteria for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon 
regeneration unit, nor is listed as an industrial furnace; or
    (2) Meets the definition of infrared incinerator or plasma arc 
incinerator.
    Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
    Industrial Furnace--means any of the following enclosed devices 
that are integral components of manufacturing processes and that use 
thermal treatment to accomplish recovery of materials or energy:
    (1) Cement kilns
    (2) Lime kilns
    (3) Aggregate kilns
    (4) Phosphate kilns
    (5) Coke ovens
    (6) Blast furnaces
    (7) Smelting, melting and refining furnaces (including 
pyrometallurgical devices such as cupolas, reverberator furnaces, 
sintering machine, roasters, and foundry furnaces)
    (8) Titanium dioxide chloride process oxidation reactors
    (9) Methane reforming furnaces
    (10) Pulping liquor recovery furnaces
    (11) Combustion devices used in the recovery of sulfur values 
from spent sulfuric acid
    (12) Halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) for the production of acid 
from halogenated hazardous waste generated by chemical production 
facilities where the furnace is located on the site of a chemical 
production facility, the acid product has a halogen acid content of 
at least 3 percent, the acid product is used in a manufacturing 
process, and except for hazardous waste burned as fuel, hazardous 
waste fed to the furnace has a minimum halogen content of 20 percent 
as generated.
    (13) Such other devices as the Administrator may, after notice 
and comment, add to this list on the basis of one or more of the 
following factors:
    (i) The design and use of the device primarily to accomplish 
recovery of material products;
    (ii) The use of the device to burn or reduce raw materials to 
make a material product;
    (iii) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary 
materials as effective substitutes for raw materials, in processes 
using raw materials as principal feedstocks;
    (iv) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary materials 
as ingredients in an industrial process to make a material product;
    (v) The use of the device in common industrial practice to 
produce a material product; and,
    (vi) Other factors, as appropriate.
    Industrial Waste--Hazardous or non-hazardous waste generated 
from industrial operation. This definition excludes refuse and 
infectious wastes.

[[Page 6421]]

    Industrial Waste Combustor facility--Any thermal unit that burns 
any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from off-
site from facilities not under their same corporate structure or 
subject to the same ownership. This term includes the following: a 
facility that burns waste received from off-site exclusively as well 
as a facility that burns wastes generated on-site and waste received 
from off-site. Examples of a commercial industrial waste combustor 
facility include: rotary kiln incinerators, cement kilns, aggregate 
kilns, boilers, etc.
    Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater--Water used in air 
pollution control systems of industrial waste combustion operations 
or water used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of 
industrial waste combustion operations.
    Intracompany--A facility that treats, disposes, or recycles/
recovers wastes generated by off-site facilities under the same 
corporate ownership. The facility may also treat on-site generated 
wastes. If any waste from other facilities not under the same 
corporate ownership is accepted for a fee or other remunerations, 
the facility is considered commercial.
    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.
    Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives 
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
    Municipal Facility--A facility which is owned or operated by a 
municipal, county, or regional government.
    New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29 
for direct discharging facilities and at 40 CFR 403.3 for facilities 
discharging to a POTW.
    Non-commercial facility--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 
Part 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-hazardous waste--All waste not defined as hazardous under 
federal or state law.
    Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact 
of a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
    NPDES--The Natural 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 (40 CFR Part 414).
    Off-Site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a 
facility.
    On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
    Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from 
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters or POTWs.
    Point source category--A category of sources of water 
pollutants.
    Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator 
residue, filter backwash sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, 
chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive 
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar 
dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged 
into water.
    POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 
CFR 403.3(o).
    Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial 
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA 
Section 307(b).)
    Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as 
priority in 40 CFR Part 423 Appendix A.
    Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR 
122.2.
    PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under 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 Conventional and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580) 
of 1976, as amended.
    Residuals--The material remaining after a natural or 
technological process has taken place, e.g., the sludge remaining 
after initial wastewater treatment.
    Sewage Sludge--Sludge generated by a sewage treatment plant or 
POTW.
    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 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.
    Sludge--The accumulated solids separated from liquids during 
processing.
    Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than 
$6 million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of 
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.I, 
Sec. 121.601).
    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 constituents from the facility. The process is usually 
accompanied by stabilization.
    Solids--For the purpose of this notice, a waste that has a very 
low moisture content, is not free-flowing, and does not release free 
liquids. This definition deals with the physical state of the waste, 
not the RCRA definition.
    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.
    Treatment--Any activity designed to change the character or 
composition of any waste so as to prepare it for transportation, 
storage, or disposal; render it amenable for recycling or recovery; 
or reduce it in volume.
    TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of 
particulate matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure 
is obtained by filtering a water sample of known volume. The 
particulate material retained on the filter is then dried and 
weighed.
    Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery.
    Wastewater treatment system--A facility, including contiguous 
land and structures, used to receive and treat wastewater. The 
discharge of a pollutant from such a facility is subject to 
regulation under the Clean Water Act.
    Waters of the United States--See 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 
``alternative'' discharge of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 444

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

    Dated: November 26, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 444 is proposed to be added to read as 
follows:

PART 444--WASTE COMBUSTORS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Subpart A--Industrial Waste Combustor Subcategory

General Provisions

Sec.
444.1  Definitions.
444.2  Scope of this part.
444.3  Monitoring requirements for the Industrial Waste Combustors.

Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities

444.10  Proposed effluent limitations for existing Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities that discharge Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater to navigable waters.
444.11  Proposed pretreatment standards for existing Industrial 
Waste Combustor facilities that introduce Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater into a POTW.

[[Page 6422]]

Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities

444.20  Proposed effluent limitations for new Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities that will discharge Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater directly into navigable waters.
444.21  Proposed pretreatment standards for new Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities that will introduce Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater into a POTW.

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

Subpart A--Industrial Waste Combustor Subcategory

General Provisions


Sec. 444.1  Definitions.

    EPA's regulations in this part may use words and phrases that are 
unfamiliar to you. To help you understand its regulations in this part, 
EPA has defined some of these. You should look at 40 CFR parts 122 and 
401 when reading the regulations in this part. In addition to the 
definitions in 40 CFR parts 122 and 401, the following definitions 
apply specifically to this part:
    Conventional pollutants. Section 304 of the CWA requires EPA to 
identify conventional pollutants and how much effluent reduction may be 
obtained through use of best conventional control technology for 
categories of dischargers. EPA has identified the following as 
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 
total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform.
    Facility means all contiguous property owned, operated, leased or 
under the control of the same person or entity. The contiguous property 
may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
    Industrial waste means hazardous or non-hazardous waste generated 
from industrial operations. Refuse and infectious wastes are not 
industrial waste.
    Industrial Waste Combustor facility means any thermal unit that 
burns any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes received from 
off-site from facilities not under their same corporate structure or 
subject to the same ownership. This term includes the following: a 
facility that burns waste received from off-site exclusively as well as 
a facility that burns wastes generated on-site and waste received from 
off-site. Examples of a commercial industrial waste combustor facility 
include: rotary kiln incinerators, cement kilns, lime kilns, aggregate 
kilns, and boilers.
    Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater means water used in air 
pollution control systems of industrial waste combustion operations or 
water used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of 
industrial waste combustion operations.
    Non-conventional pollutants means pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants.
    Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
    POTW. Publicly-owned treatment works as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(o).
    Priority pollutants means the pollutants designated by EPA as 
priority in 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A.
    You means the owner or operator of a commercial industrial waste 
combustor facility.


Sec. 444.2  Scope of this part.

    (a) Subchapter N of title 40 of the Code of Federal Register 
contains EPA's CWA effluent guidelines and standards regulations. The 
provisions of this part apply only to the discharge of Industrial Waste 
Combustor wastewater. The discharge of other wastewater may be subject 
to other applicable provisions of this subchapter N.
    (b) The provisions of this part apply to you if:
    (1) You operate a commercial, Industrial Waste Combustor facility 
that receives industrial waste from off-site for burning; and
    (2) You discharge Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater.
    (c) The provisions of this part do not apply to you if you operate 
an Industrial Waste Combustor facility that only burns wastes that are 
generated exclusively on-site and/or burns wastes received exclusively 
from off-site from other facilities that are under the same corporate 
ownership.


Sec. 444.3  Monitoring requirements for the Industrial Waste 
Combustors.

    You must monitor to demonstrate compliance with the limitations or 
standards. Here are your monitoring requirements: The ``monthly 
average'' regulatory values are the basis for the monthly average 
effluent limitations in direct discharge permits and pretreatment 
standards. You must comply with the monthly average discharge limit 
regardless of the number of samples you average.

Limitations and Standards for Existing Industrial Waste Combustor 
Facilities


Sec. 444.10  Proposed effluent limitations for existing Industrial 
Waste Combustor facilities that discharge Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater to navigable waters.

    The provisions of this section apply to existing direct dischargers 
of Industrial Waste Combustor wastewater. If you discharge Industrial 
Waste Combustor wastewater, except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 
125.32, you must achieve the effluent limitations listed as follows:
    (a) Effluent limitations attainable through the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT). The following table 
specifies the effluent limitations attainable through the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

                     BPT Effluent Limitations (mg/l)                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Maximum          
          Pollutant or pollutant parameter             for any   Monthly
                                                       one day   average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:                                                
  TSS...............................................      24.3      7.46
  pH................................................  ........     (\1\)
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:                               
  Arsenic...........................................    0.0166    0.0162
  Cadmium...........................................     0.137    0.0493
  Chromium..........................................    0.0205     0.013
  Copper............................................    0.0224    0.0131
  Lead..............................................    0.0957    0.0606
  Mercury...........................................   0.00409   0.00259
  Silver............................................    0.0102   0.00648
  Titanium..........................................    0.0442    0.0159
  Zinc..............................................    0.0532    0.0354
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range 6.0 to 90. pH units.                               

    (b) Effluent limitations attainable through the best conventional 
pollutant control technology (BCT). The BCT effluent limitations for 
the conventional pollutants, TSS and pH, are the same as those 
specified in the table in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Effluent limitations attainable through the best available 
technology economically achievable (BAT). The BAT effluent limitations 
are the same as those specified for BPT for the priority and non-
conventional pollutants in the table in paragraph (a) of this section.


Sec. 444.11  Proposed pretreatment standards for existing Industrial 
Waste Combuster facilities that introduce Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater into a POTW.

    The provisions of this section apply to any existing Industrial 
Waste Combustor facility that introduces Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater into a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). Except as 
provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing Industrial Waste 
Combustor facility subject to this part must comply with 40 CFR part 
403 and the following pretreatment standards for existing sources 
(PSES):

[[Page 6423]]



                      Pretreatment Standards (mg/l)                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Maximum          
          Pollutant or pollutant parameter             for any   Monthly
                                                       one day   average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants:                               
  Arsenic...........................................    0.0323    0.0172
  Cadmium...........................................     0.484     0.160
  Chromium..........................................    0.0203     0.013
  Copper............................................    0.0684    0.0322
  Lead..............................................    0.0968     0.062
  Mercury...........................................   0.00536   0.00343
  Silver............................................    0.0193    0.0123
  Titanium..........................................    0.0131   0.00614
  Zinc..............................................     0.248     0.159
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitations and Standards for New Industrial Waste Combustor

Facilities


Sec. 444.20  Proposed effluent limitations for new Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities that will discharge Industrial Waste Combustor 
wastewater directly into navigable waters.

    Any Industrial Waste Combustor facilities subject to this part that 
is a new source must comply with new source performance standards 
(NSPS). NSPS is the same as specified in the table in Sec. 444.10(a).


Sec. 444.21  Proposed pretreatment standards for new Industrial Waste 
Combustor facilities that will introduce Industrial Waste Combustor 
Wastewater into a POTW .

    The provisions of this section apply to any industrial Waste 
Combustor facility subject to this part that is a new source and 
introduces pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works. Except as 
provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new industrial Waste Combustor source 
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards 
for new sources (PSNS). PSNS is the same as specified in the table in 
Sec. 444.11.

[FR Doc. 98-3086 Filed 2-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P