[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2280-2357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-130]
[[Page 2279]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 437
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source
Category; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2280]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 437
[FRL-6215-5]
RIN 2040-AB78
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point
Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of availability of new information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean
Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards--first proposed in January 1995--for wastewater discharges
from centralized waste treatment facilities. The proposed regulation
would establish technology-based effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for wastewater discharges associated with the operation of
new and existing centralized waste treatment facilities which accept
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, wastewater, and/or used
material from off-site for treatment and/or materials recovery.
Compliance with this regulation is expected to reduce the discharge
of pollutants by at least 14.3 million pounds per year of conventional
pollutants and 4.1 million pounds per year of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants and cost an estimated $27.8 million ($1997) on
an annual basis. EPA has estimated that the annual benefits of the
proposal would range from $5.3 million to $15.9 million ($1997).
DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by midnight of March
15, 1999. EPA will present an assessment of its 1998 characterization
sampling of non-hazardous oil treatment and recovery facilities, and
conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards on February 18, 1999
from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to, Ms. Jan Matuszko, Office of
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please submit any references cited in your
comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments
and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed,
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For
additional information on how to submit electronic comments see
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
EPA will present an assessment of its 1998 characterization
sampling of non-hazardous oil treatment and recovery facilities, and
conduct a public hearing on pretreatment standards in EPA's Auditorium,
Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC. Persons wishing to
present formal comments at the public hearing should contact Mr.
Timothy Connor before the hearing and should have a written copy for
submittal.
The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established
under docket number W-98-21 and is located in the Water Docket East
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is
available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials,
call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a
reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's proposed rule, contact Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 260-9126 or
Mr. Timothy Connor at (202) 260-3164. For economic information contact
Dr. William Wheeler at (202) 260-7905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............. Discharges from stand-alone waste
treatment and recovery facilities receiving
materials from off-site. These facilities may
treat and/or recover or recycle hazardous or
non-hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous
wastewater, and/or used material from off-site.
Certain discharges from waste treatment
systems at facilities primarily engaged in
other industrial operations. Thus, industrial
facilities which process their own, on-site
generated, process wastewater with hazardous or
non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used
material received from off-site, in certain
circumstances, may be subject to this proposal
with respect to a portion of their discharge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposed in Section 437.01 and
detailed further in Section IV of the proposed rule. If you still have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity (after consulting Section IV), consult one of the persons listed
for technical information in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
How To Submit Comments
Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be identified by
the docket number W-98-21 and must be submitted as an ASCII or
WordPerfect 6.1 file avoiding the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. Electronic comments on this notice may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business
information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.
Protection of Confidential Business Information
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed
rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, are not included in the
record that is available to the public in the Water Docket. To support
the rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain information in aggregated
form or, alternatively, is masking facility identities in order to
preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from
disclosure some data not claimed as CBI because release of this
information could indirectly reveal information claimed to be
confidential.
Some facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the
company that submitted the information. To ensure
[[Page 2281]]
that all CBI is protected in accordance with EPA regulations, any
requests for company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on
company letterhead and signed by a responsible official authorized to
receive such data. The request must list the specific data requested
and include the following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized
to transfer confidential business information submitted by my company,
and that I am authorized to receive it.''
Overview
The preamble describes the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations
used in this notice; the background documents that support these
proposed regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of
the proposal; background information; and the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This
preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History
A. January 27, 1995 Proposal
B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability
IV. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation
A. General Overview
B. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 through 471)
C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)
D. Product Stewardship
E. Solids, Soils and Sludges
F. Sanitary Wastes
G. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners
H. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
I. Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic and X-Ray
Materials
J. High Temperature Metals Recovery
K. Landfill Wastewaters
L. Industrial Waste Combustors
M. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending
N. Re-refining
O. Used Oil Filter Recycling
P. Marine Generated Wastes
Q. Stabilization
R. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes
S. Small Businesses
T. Hazardous vs. Non-hazardous Wastes
V. Industry Profile
A. Description of the Industry
B. Off-Site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment
VI. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment
Industry
B. Survey Questionnaires (1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire and Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
D. Analytical Methods
E. Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal and the1996 Notice of
Data Availability
F. Database Sources
G. Summary of Public Participation
H. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
I. Examination of the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals
Precipitation
VII. Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of
Subcategorization
B. Proposed Subcategories
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
D. Mixed Waste Subcategory Consideration
VIII. Wastewater Characterization
A. Wastewater Sources
B. Wastewater Characterization
C. Wastewater Flow and Discharge
IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Description of Available Technologies
B. Technology Options Considered and Treatment Systems Selected
for Basis of Regulation
C. Non-regulated Pollutants of Concern
D. Monitoring to Demonstrate Compliance with the Regulation
E. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations
X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions
Achieved by Treatment Technologies
B. Regulatory Costs
C. Pollutant Reductions
XI. Economic Analyses
A. Introduction
B. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline
Conditions
C. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology
D. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT
E. Results of BCT Cost Test
F. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options
G. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES Options
H. Economic Impacts for New Sources
I. Firm Level Impacts
J. Community Impacts
K. Foreign Trade Impacts
L. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XII. Water Quality Analyses and Environmental Benefits
A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
B. Reduced Lead Health Risk
C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
E. Improved POTW Operations
F. Other Benefits not Quantified
G. Summary of Benefits
XIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XIV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Applicability
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment
Standards to Monitoring Requirements
E. Subcategorization Determination
F. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple Subcategories
XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
XVI. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 301,
304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311,
1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.
II. Legislative Background
A. 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
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33
[[Page 2282]]
U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c)). National pretreatment standards are established
for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may
pass through or interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment
standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for
conventional, priority,1 and non-conventional pollutants. In
specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers
the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment
and facilities, the processes employed and any required process
changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)).
Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the
average of the best performances of facilities within the industry of
various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. Where,
however, existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require
higher levels of control than currently in place in an industrial
category if the Agency determines that the technology can be
practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (for example, TSS, pH, BOD5).
However, nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted
BPT limitations to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve
best available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to
include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. In
addition to other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA
requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after consideration of a
two part ``cost-reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology
for the development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
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 CWA establishes BAT as a principal
national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. 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 and such other factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor
considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA
determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the
industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall
industry and subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may require a higher
level of performance than is currently being achieved based on
technology transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT
may be based upon process changes or internal controls, even when these
technologies are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants
(that is, 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 impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass-
through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass-
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR Part 403. These regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establishes pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
[[Page 2283]]
B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for
which the Agency established a schedule was the centralized waste
treatment industry.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of
effluent guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Browner, Civ. No. 89-2980
(D.D.C.)). Under the terms of a consent decree dated January 31, 1992,
which settled the litigation, EPA agreed, among other things, to
propose effluent guidelines for the ``Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry Category by April 31, 1994 and take final action on these
effluent guidelines by January 31, 1996. On February 4, 1997, the court
approved modifications to the Decree which revised the deadline to
August 1999 for final action. EPA provided notice of these
modifications on February 26, 1997 at 62 FR 8726.
C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984,
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute
provides only two options for legal land disposal: meet the treatment
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste
in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory
no-migration-test. A no-migration-unit is one from which there will be
no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains
hazardous (RCRA Sections 3004 (d), (e), (g)(5)).
Under section 3004, the treatment standards that EPA develops may
be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as specific
methods of treatment. The criteria for these standards is that they
must substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the
waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1)). For purposes of
the restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any
placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation,
salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave. Land disposal
restrictions are published in 40 CFR Part 268.
EPA has used hazardous waste treatability data as the basis for
land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA has identified Best
Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each listed
hazardous waste. BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA finds to be
the most effective for a waste which is also readily available to
generators and treaters. In some cases, EPA has designated, for a
particular waste stream, a treatment technology which has been shown to
successfully treat a similar, but more difficult to treat, waste
stream. This ensured that the land disposal restrictions standards for
a listed waste stream were achievable since they always reflected the
actual treatability of the waste itself or of a more refractory waste.
As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase
two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of concentrations
for wastewaters and non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment
standard for each constituent. Previously, the LDR regulated
constituents according to the identity of the original waste; thus,
several numerical treatment standards might exist for each constituent.
The UTS simplified the standards by having only one treatment standard
for each constituent in any waste residue.
The LDR treatment standards established under RCRA may differ from
the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines proposed here today both in
their format and in the numerical values set for each constituent. The
differences result from the use of different legal criteria for
developing the limits and resulting differences in the technical and
economic criteria and data sets used for establishing the respective
limits.
The difference in format between the LDR and effluent guidelines is
that LDR establishes a single daily limit for each pollutant parameter
whereas the effluent guidelines generally establish monthly and daily
limits. Additionally, the effluent guidelines provide for several types
of discharge, including new vs. existing sources, and indirect vs.
direct discharge.
The differences in numerical limits established under the Clean
Water Act may differ, not only from LDR and UTS, but also from point-
source category to point-source category (for example, Electroplating,
40 CFR Part 413; and Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part 433). The effluent
guidelines limitations and standards are industry-specific,
subcategory-specific, and technology-based. The numerical limits are
typically based on different data sets that reflect the performance of
specific wastewater management and treatment practices. Differences in
the limits reflect consideration of the CWA statutory factors that the
Administrator is required to evaluate in developing technically and
economically achievable limitations and standards. A consequence of
these differing approaches is that similar waste streams can be
regulated at different levels.
2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry Effluent Guidelines
EPA's survey for this guideline identified no facilities
discharging wastewater effluent to land disposal units. There is,
consequently, no overlap between the proposed regulations for the CWT
Industry and the Universal Treatment Standards.
III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History
A. January 27, 1995 Proposal
On January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5464), EPA proposed regulations to
reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and non-
conventional pollutants in treated wastewater from facilities defined
in the proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' As
proposed, these effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards would have applied to ``any facility that treats any
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste received from off-site by
tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge or other forms of
shipment.'' Facilities which received waste from off-site solely via
pipeline were excluded from the proposed rule. Facilities proposed for
regulation included both stand-alone waste treatment and recovery
facilities that treat waste received from off-site as well as those
facilities that treat on-site generated process wastewater with wastes
received from off-site.
The Agency proposed limitations and standards for an estimated 85
facilities
[[Page 2284]]
in three subcategories. The subcategories for the centralized waste
treatment (CWT) industry were metal-bearing waste treatment and
recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and organic waste
treatment and recovery. EPA based the BPT effluent limitations proposed
in 1995 on the technologies listed in Table III.A-1 below. EPA based
BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS on the same technologies as BPT.
Table III.A-1. Technology Basis for 1995 BPT Effluent Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed subpart Name of subcategory Technology basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................... Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery........................ Selective Metals
Precipitation,
Pressure
Filtration,
Secondary
Precipitation,
Solid-Liquid
Separation, and
Tertiary
Precipitation.
For Metal-Bearing
Waste Which
Includes
Concentrated
Cyanide Streams:
Pretreatment by
Alkaline
Chlorination at
Elevated Operating
Conditions.
B..................... Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery................................. Emulsion Breaking/
Gravity Separation
and
Ultrafiltration; or
Ultrafiltration,
Carbon Adsorption,
and Reverse
Osmosis.
C..................... Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery.............................. Equalization, Air
Stripping,
Biological
Treatment, and
Multimedia
Filtration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability
Based on comments received on the 1995 proposal and new
information, EPA reexamined its conclusions about the Oily Waste
Treatment and Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory''. (The 1995
proposal had defined facilities in this subcategory as ``facilities
that treat, and/or recover oil from oily waste received from off-
site.'') Subsequently, in September, 1996 EPA noticed the availability
of the new data on this subcategory (61 FR 48800). EPA explained that
it had underestimated the size of the oils subcategory, and that the
data used to develop the original proposal may have mischaracterized
this portion of the CWT industry. EPA had based its original estimates
on the size of this segment of the industry on information obtained
from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The basis year
for the questionnaire was 1989. However, many of the new oils
facilities discussed in this notice began operation after 1989. EPA
concluded that many of these facilities may have started up or modified
their existing operations in response to requirements in EPA
regulations, specifically, the provisions of 40 CFR part 279,
promulgated on September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used
Oil). These regulations govern the handling of used oils under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA. EPA's 1996 notice discussed the
additional facilities, provided a revised description of the
subcategory, and described how the 1995 proposal limitations and
standards, if promulgated, would have affected such facilities. The
notice, among other items, also solicited comments on the use of
dissolved air flotation in this subcategory.
IV. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation
Over half of the comments received on the original proposal related
to the applicability of the rule. For more background on the CWT
industry, see Section V. EPA has reviewed these comments and is
proposing a revised scope for this rule. Many of these issues are
discussed in more detail below. EPA solicits comments on each of these
issues as well as any other applicability issues which are not
specifically addressed in today's notice.
A. General Overview
EPA is still proposing limitations and standards for three
subcategories of CWT facilities. However, it would change the scope of
the facilities and wastewater discharges that would be subject to
regulation from that proposed earlier. The universe of facilities which
would be potentially subject to this guideline generally include the
following. First, except where noted otherwise, EPA is proposing to
establish limitations and pretreatment standards for stand-alone waste
treatment and recovery facilities receiving materials from off-site--
classic ``centralized waste treaters.'' These facilities may treat and/
or recover or recycle hazardous or non-hazardous waste, hazardous or
non-hazardous wastewater, and/or used material from off-site. Second,
discharges from waste treatment systems at facilities primarily engaged
in other industrial operations may also fall within the scope of
today's proposal in certain circumstances. Thus, industrial facilities
which process their own, on-site generated, process wastewater with
hazardous or non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material
received from off-site may be subject to this proposal with respect to
a portion of their discharge.
The wastewater flows which EPA is proposing to subject to the
requirements of this rule would include some or all off-site waste
receipts and on-site wastewater generated as a result of CWT
operations. The kinds of on-site wastewater generated at these
facilities would include, for example, solubilization wastewater,
emulsion breaking/gravity separation wastewater, used oil processing
wastewater, treatment equipment washes, transport washes (tanker truck,
drum, and roll-off boxes), laboratory-derived wastewater, air pollution
control wastewater, industrial waste combustor wastewater from on-site
industrial waste combustors, landfill wastewater from on-site
landfills, and contaminated stormwater. A detailed discussion of CWT
wastewaters is provided in Section VIII. In summary, all wastewater
discharges to a receiving stream or the introduction of wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment works from a facility which falls under the
definition of centralized waste treatment facility would be subject to
the provisions of this rule unless specifically excluded as discussed
in the following sections.
B. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 Through 471)
At the time of the original proposal, EPA defined a centralized
waste treatment facility as any facility which received waste from off-
site for treatment or recovery on a commercial or non-commercial basis.
Non-commercial facilities were defined as facilities that accept off-
site wastes from facilities under the same ownership. EPA received many
comments concerning the applicability of the CWT rule to facilities
that perform waste treatment and/or recovery of off-site generated
wastes, but whose primary business is something other than waste
treatment or recovery. These facilities
[[Page 2285]]
are generally manufacturers who primarily treat wastes generated as a
result of their on-site manufacturing operations, and whose wastewater
discharges are already subject to existing effluent guidelines and
standards. Many of these facilities also accept off-site generated
wastes for treatment. In some instances, these off-site wastes received
at these industrial facilities are generated by a facility under the
same corporate ownership--intracompany transfer--and treated on a non-
commercial basis. In other instances, the off-site waste streams
originate from a company under a different ownership, an intercompany
transfer.
In general, commenters urged that the scope of the guideline should
be limited to facilities whose sole purpose is the treatment of off-
site wastes and wastewater. Reasons provided by commenters for not
including facilities that treat off-site wastes along with their own
on-site wastes within the scope of the guideline include:
The wastes transferred from different locations within a
company (and different companies) for treatment with on-site wastes are
usually generated from the same categorical process as the on-site
generated wastes. Since most of these facilities are already covered by
an existing effluent guideline, coverage of these waste streams is
redundant. Monitoring, record keeping, etc. would be duplicative.
This proposed rule could prevent effective waste
management practices at many manufacturing facilities. Currently, many
companies operate a single, central treatment plant and transport waste
from ``satellite'' facilities to the central treatment facility. This
allows for effective treatment while controlling costs. Additionally,
many facilities transfer a specific waste stream to other company-owned
treatment systems (intracompany) that are designed for the most
efficient treatment of that type of waste stream.
Many of these types of facilities only accept waste
streams which are comparable and compatible with the on-site generated
process waste streams.
These facilities are not primarily in the business of
waste treatment. Only a small percentage of wastes treated are from
off-site.
EPA has not performed the technical analyses that are
necessary to support application of the CWT rule to manufacturing
facilities regulated by existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards.
EPA reexamined the database of facilities which forms the basis of
the CWT rule. EPA's database contains information on 17 manufacturing
facilities which commingle waste generated by on-site manufacturing
activities for treatment with waste generated off-site and one
manufacturing facility which does not commingle waste generated by on-
site manufacturing activities for treatment with waste generated off-
site. Nine of these facilities treat waste on a non-commercial basis
only while nine treat waste on a commercial basis. Of the eighteen
facilities, eight facilities only accept and treat off-site wastes
which are from the same categorical process as the on-site generated
waste streams. Ten of the facilities, however, are clearly accepting
off-site wastes which are not subject to the same categorical standards
as the on-site generated wastewater. The percentage of off-site
wastewaters being commingled for treatment with on-site wastewater
varies from 0.06% to 80%, with the total volumes varying between 87,000
gallons per year to 381 million gallons per year.
The guidelines, as proposed in 1995, would have included all of
these facilities within the scope of this rule. EPA included these
facilities in the 1995 proposed CWT rule to ensure that all wastes
receive adequate treatment--even those shipped between facilities
already subject to existing effluent guidelines and standards. After
reconsidering this issue for the current proposal, however, EPA agrees
that, for off-site wastes which are generated by the same categorical
process as on-site generated wastes, intracompany and intercompany
transfers are a viable and often preferable method to treat waste
streams efficiently at a reduced cost. EPA does not want to discourage
these management practices. EPA is still concerned, however, that, in
circumstances where the off-site generated wastes are not from the same
categorical group as the on-site generated wastes, the effluent
limitations and categorical standards currently in place for one
industry may not ensure adequate treatment for wastes generated in
another industry. It is not duplicative, in such circumstances, to
include within the scope of the CWT guideline, wastewater that results
from the treatment of off-site wastes not subject to the guidelines and
standards applicable to the treatment of wastewater generated on-site.
EPA has included these facilities in all of its economic analyses.
Therefore, based on the Agency's evaluation of the comments
submitted on its earlier proposal and consideration of additional
information, EPA is today proposing to include within the scope of the
CWT rule wastewater received from off-site from facilities in other
industries that also generate on-site wastewater unless one of the
following conditions is met:
For facilities subject to national effluent limitations
guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance for new
sources, or pretreatment standards for new and existing sources
(``categorical standards''), the wastes received from off-site for
treatment would be subject to the same categorical standards as the on-
site generated wastes; or
For facilities not subject to existing categorical
standards, the waste received from off-site is from the same industry
(other than the waste treatment industry) and is of a similar nature to
the waste generated on-site (based on the best professional judgment of
the permit writer).
For purposes of developing its effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards, EPA has included manufacturing facilities which accept off-
site waste for treatment in all of its analyses unless the above
mentioned conditions were met.
EPA contemplates that this approach would be implemented in the
following manner. A facility that is currently subject to either
national effluent limitations or pretreatment standards receives
wastewater from off-site for treatment. The wastewater is commingled
for treatment with wastewater generated on-site. If the off-site
wastewater is subject to the same limitations or standards as the
onsite wastewater (or would be if treated where generated), the CWT
limitations would not apply to the discharge associated with the off-
site wastewater flows. In that case, another guideline or standard
applies. If, however, the off-site wastewater is not subject to the
same national limitations or standards (or if none exist), that portion
of the discharge associated with the off-site flow would be subject to
CWT requirements. (Of course, the portion of the wastewater generated
on-site remains subject to applicable limitations and standards for the
facility. If the off-site and on-site wastewaters were commingled prior
to discharge, the permit writer would use the ``'combined wastestream
formula'' or ``building block approach'' to determine limitations for
the commingled wastestream). Alternatively, EPA is considering an
option under which the permit writers could allow manufacturing
facilities that treat off-site wastes to meet all otherwise-
[[Page 2286]]
applicable categorical limitations and standards for the industries
from which the waste was generated. This approach would also determine
limitations or standards for any commingled on-site and off-site
wastewater using the ``combined waste stream formula'' or ``building
block approach''. Under the approach, however, the permit writer would
apply the categorical limitations from the industries generating the
wastewater, rather than the CWT limitations proposed today to the off-
site portion of the commingled wastestream. The use of the combined
wastestream formula and building block approaches for CWT wastes is
discussed further in Section XIV.F. EPA envisions the second
alternative would be preferable for facilities which only receive
continuous flows of process wastewaters with relatively consistent
pollutant profiles from no more than five customers. The decision to
base limitations in this manner would be at the permit writer's
discretion only. EPA solicits comment on this alternative as well as
the application of the CWT rule to manufacturing facilities in general.
In addition, there are manufacturing facilities that may not
currently be subject to any effluent limitations guidelines or
pretreatment standards. Some of these may accept off-site wastewater
that is commingled for treatment with on-site process wastewater. With
respect to such facilities, EPA contemplates that an approach similar
to that proposed above for categorical industries receiving off-site
wastewater for treatment. Thus, the proposal would be implemented as
follows. Under EPA regulations, the permit writer would develop best
professional judgement BPJ limits (or standards) for the on-site
generated wastewater flows. The portion of the discharge resulting from
the treatment of off-site flows would be subject either to CWT
limitations and standards or to the same BPJ requirements as on-site
flows. CWT limitations would apply if the off-site wastes treated at
the facility were different from those generated on-site.
Alternatively, applying either a building block or combined waste
stream formula approach, on-site wastewater would be subject to
appropriate BPJ limits or standards for the on-site processes
generating the wastewater and the off-site wastewater would be subject
to appropriate limits for the off-site industry generating the
wastewater. The Agency solicits comment on how it should treat such
facilities.
C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)
As previously noted, the scope of EPA's 1995 proposal did not
extend to facilities which received off-site wastes for treatment
solely via an open or enclosed conduit (for example, pipeline,
channels, ditches, trenches, etc.). At that time, EPA had concluded
that facilities which receive all their wastes through a pipeline or
trench (fixed delivery systems) from the original source of waste
generation are receiving continuous flows of process wastewater with
relatively consistent pollutant profiles. As such, EPA concluded that
these wastes differ fundamentally from those received at CWT facilities
it had studied as part of this rulemaking.
The Agency received many comments on the proposal to limit the
applicability of the proposed limits to wastewaters received other than
by pipelines or fixed delivery systems. Many commented that this
approach is arbitrary and that the mode of transportation should not be
the determining factor as to whether or not a facility is included in
the scope of the rule. Commenters asserted that the character of the
waste remains unchanged regardless of whether it is trucked or piped to
another facility for treatment. Many also questioned EPA's conclusion
that piped waste is more consistent in strength and treatability than
typical CWT wastewaters studied for this proposal.
EPA has reevaluated the database for this rule. EPA received
questionnaire responses from four CWT facilities which receive their
waste streams solely via pipeline. EPA also examined the database that
was developed for the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
(OCPSF) effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards to gather
additional data on OCPSF facilities which also have CWT operations.
Based on the OCPSF database, 16 additional facilities are treating
wastewater received solely via pipeline from off-site for treatment. A
review of the CWT and OCPSF databases supplemented by telephone calls
to selected facilities reveals that one facility no longer accepts
wastes from off-site, one facility is now operating as a POTW, and 11
facilities only accept off-site wastes that were generated by a
facility within the same category as on-site generated waste. (The
latter facilities, under the criteria explained above, would no longer
be within the scope of the proposed rule because they are already
subject to existing effluent guidelines and standards.) Therefore, EPA
identified 7 facilities which receive off-site wastes solely via
pipeline which may be subject to this rulemaking.
Of these seven facilities, one is a dedicated treatment facility
which is not located at a manufacturing site. The other six pipeline
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities which are already
covered by an existing effluent guideline or standard. All of the
facilities are direct dischargers and all receive waste receipts from
no more than five customers (many receive waste receipts from three or
fewer customers).
Since the 1995 proposal, EPA conducted site visits at two of these
pipeline facilities. Information collected during these site visits
confirmed EPA's original conclusion that wastes received by pipeline
are more consistent in strength and treatability than ``typical'' CWT
wastewaters. These wastewaters are traditional wastewaters from the
applicable industrial category that generally remain constant from day
to day in terms of the concentration and type of pollutant parameters.
Unlike traditional CWT facilities, their customers and wastewater
sources do not change and are limited by the physical and monetary
constraints associated with pipelines.
EPA has also reviewed the discharge permits for each of these
pipeline facilities. EPA found that, in all cases, permit writers had
carefully applied the ``building block approach'' in establishing the
facility's discharge limitations. Therefore, in all cases, the treating
facility was required to treat each of the piped wastewaters to comply
with otherwise applicable effluent guidelines and standards.
Consequently, based on the information it has obtained to date, EPA
continues to believe that (except as discussed below) wastes that are
piped to waste treatment facilities should be excluded from the scope
of the CWT rule and covered by otherwise applicable effluent guidelines
and standards. The Agency has concluded that effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for CWT facilities should not apply to pipeline
treatment facilities. EPA believes that it is more appropriate for
permit writers to develop limitations for treatment facilities that
receive wastewater by pipeline on an individual basis by applying the
``combined waste stream formula'' or ``building block'' approach. The
one exception to this approach is for facilities which receive waste
via conduit (that is, pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.) from
facilities that are acting merely as waste collection or consolidation
centers that are not the original source of the waste. These
wastewaters would be subject to the
[[Page 2287]]
CWT rule. EPA has not identified any pipeline facility that is
receiving waste from waste consolidators, but has received public
comment that these facilities exist.
EPA notes that 40 CFR 122.44(m) of the Agency's NPDES permitting
regulations require that an NPDES permit for a private treatment works
must include conditions expressly applicable to any user, as a limited
co-permittee, necessary to ensure compliance with applicable NPDES
requirements. In the case of a pipeline treatment system, this may
require that the permit writer include conditions in a permit issued to
the pipeline treatment system and its users, as co-permittee, if
necessary for the pipeline facility to comply with the applicable
limitations. Alternatively, EPA may need to issue permits both to the
private treatment works and to the users or require the user to file a
permit application.
D. Product Stewardship
Many members of the manufacturing community have adopted ``product
stewardship'' programs as an additional service for their customers to
promote recycling and reuse of products and to reduce the potential for
adverse environmental impacts from chemical products. Many commenters
on the proposal have defined ``product stewardship'' in this way:
``taking back spent, used, or unused products, shipping and storage
containers with product residues, off-specification products and waste
materials from use of products.'' Generally, whenever possible, these
manufacturing plants recover and reuse materials in chemical processes
at their facility. Manufacturing companies that cannot reuse the spent,
used, or unused materials returned to them treat these materials in
their wastewater treatment plant. In industry's view, such materials
are inherently compatible with the treatment system.
EPA received no specific information on these product stewardship
activities in the responses to the 308 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire. EPA obtained information on this program from comment
responses to the 1995 CWT proposal and in discussions with industry
since the 1995 proposal. As part of their comment to the 1995 proposal,
the Chemical Manufacturer's Association provided results of a survey of
their members on product stewardship activities. Based on these survey
results, the vast majority of materials received under the product
stewardship programs are materials received for product rework. A small
amount is classified as residual recycling and an even smaller amount
is classified as drum take backs. Of the materials received, the vast
majority is reused in the manufacturing process. With few exceptions,
all of the materials (which are not reused in the manufacturing
process) that are treated in the on-site wastewater treatment systems
appear to be from the same categorical group as the on-site
manufactured materials.
EPA has decided to apply the same approach to wastewater generated
from materials that are taken back for recycle or reuse as to
wastewater received from off-site by a manufacturing facility. EPA
applauds the efforts of manufacturing facilities to reduce pollution
and the environmental impacts of their products and does not want to
discourage these practices. In most of the instances stated in the
product stewardship definition, manufacturing facilities are
essentially taking back product which has not been utilized or has not
been chemically altered. In these cases, where the treatment of these
wastes would be subject to same guidelines or pretreatment standards as
the other wastewater generated at the facility, under the approach
discussed above, they would not be subject to CWT requirements (Section
IV.B).
EPA remains concerned, however, that there are circumstances in
which used materials or waste products may not be compatible with the
otherwise existing treatment system. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to
remove all product stewardship activities from the scope of this
rulemaking. Those activities that involve used products or waste
materials that are not subject to effluent guidelines or standards from
the same category as the other on-site generated wastes are subject to
today's proposal. Based on the information provided by manufacturing
facilities, EPA believes that very few product stewardship activities
would be subject to this rule. EPA's approach will not curtail product
stewardship activities, in general, but will ensure that all wastes are
treated effectively. EPA requests comment on this approach.
E. Solids, Soils, and Sludges
EPA did not distinguish in its information gathering efforts
between those waste treatment and recovery facilities treating aqueous
waste and those treating non-aqueous wastes or a combination of both.
Thus, EPA's 308 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and related CWT
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) asked for information on CWT
operations without regard to the type of waste treated. EPA's sampling
program also included facilities which accepted both aqueous and solid
wastes for treatment. In fact, the facility which formed the technology
basis for the metals subcategory limitations selected at the time of
the original proposal treats both liquid and solid wastes. As such, a
facility that accepts wastes from off-site for treatment and/or
recovery that generates a wastewater is subject to the CWT rule
regardless of whether the wastes are aqueous or non-aqueous. Therefore,
wastewater generated in the treatment of solids received from off-site,
of course, would be subject to the CWT rule.
As a further point of clarification, the main concern in the
treatment or recycling of off-site ``solid wastes'' is that pollutants
contained in the solid waste may be transferred to a process or contact
water resulting in a wastewater that may require treatment. Examples of
such wastewaters include the following:
entrained water directly removed through dewatering
operations (for example, sludge dewatering);
contact water added to wash or leach contaminants from the
waste material;
stormwater that comes in direct contact with waste
material; and
solvent contaminated wastewater removed from scrap metal
recycling.
The treatment or recovery of solids that remain in solid form when
contacted with water and which do not leach any chemicals into the
water are not subject to this rule. Examples of excluded solids
recovery operations are the recycling of aluminum cans, glass and
plastic bottles.
F. Sanitary Wastes
The CWT proposal would regulate facilities which treat, or recover
materials from, off-site industrial wastes and wastewaters. Sanitary
wastes such as chemical toilet wastes and septage are not covered by
the provisions of the proposed CWT rule. EPA would expect that permit
writers would develop BPJ limitations or local limits to establish
site-specific permit requirements for any commercial sanitary waste
treatment facility.
Similarly, sanitary wastes received from off-site and treated at an
industrial facility or a CWT facility are not covered by provisions of
the CWT rule. If these wastes are mixed with industrial wastes, EPA
would expect that, as is the case now with ancillary sanitary waste
flows mixed for treatment at categorical facilities, the permit writer
would establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.
[[Page 2288]]
G. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners
Facilities that treat wastewater that results from cleaning tanker
trucks, rail tank cars, or barges may or may not be subject to the
provisions of this rule. Thus, for example, the rule does not apply to
discharges from wastewater treatment at facilities engaged exclusively
in cleaning the interiors of transportation equipment. These facilities
may be subject to the requirements to be established for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category (these
requirements were proposed at 63 FR 34685 June 25,1998). As proposed,
the TEC regulation only applies to facilities that solely accept tanks
which have been previously emptied or that contain a small amount of
product, called a ``heel'', typically accounting for less than one
percent of the volume of the tank. A facility which accepts a tank
truck, rail tank car, or barge not considered to be empty for cleaning
or treatment is not subject to the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
(TEC) Point Source Category, and may be subject to the provisions
established for this rule.
There are some facilities which are engaged in traditional CWT
activities and also engaged in traditional TEC activities. If the
wastewaters from the two operations are commingled, under the approach
adopted for the TEC proposal, the commingled TEC wastewater flow would
be subject to CWT limits when promulgated. Therefore, a facility
performing transportation equipment cleaning as well as other CWT
services that commingles these wastes is a CWT facility. All of the
wastewater discharges are subject to provisions of this rule. If,
however, a facility is performing both operations and the waste streams
are not commingled (that is, transportation equipment cleaning
wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are treated in a
second, separate system), both the TEC rule and CWT rule apply to the
respective wastewaters.
As a further point of clarification, the CWT proposal would subject
transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-site to its
provisions. Transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-
site that are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site
wastes are subject to provisions of this rule.
H. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
At the time of the original proposal, EPA solicited comment on how
to treat POTWs which receive wastes for treatment by any means of
transportation other than sewers or pipelines. EPA was aware that many
POTWs were receiving waste via tanker trucks, but did not have a good
understanding of how widespread the practice was or what types of
wastes were being transferred in this manner. Based on comments, EPA
now believes that hauling of non-hazardous industrial and commercial
wastes is a widespread practice, particularly among the larger POTWs. A
special discharge survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of POTW
respondents accept hauled industrial wastes. Commenters to the original
CWT proposal also noted that many small POTWs located in rural areas
regularly accept trucked wastes. While the acceptance of waste at POTWs
via truck appears to be common practice, commenters also cautioned that
EPA should be concerned that the hauled waste is being accepted with
little or no documentation regarding the source, little or no
monitoring of the shipments when they arrive, and no pretreatment
before mixing with the normal POTW influent.
The large volume of wastes generally trucked to POTWs includes
septage and chemical toilet wastes. These were not evaluated for this
regulation and are not subject to the proposed limits. In addition,
POTWs also receive trucked industrial and commercial wastes. Examples
of these include tank cleaning water, bilge water, restaurant grease
trap wastes, groundwater remediation water, contaminated stormwater
run-off, interceptor wastewaters, and non-hazardous leachate.
The proposed CWT pretreatment regulations would not establish any
requirements that apply directly to local POTWs that receive off-site
wastes. In the case of categorical wastes (subject to pretreatment
standards in 40 CFR parts 400 through 471), the generator of the wastes
must comply with any applicable standards before introducing the waste
to the POTW regardless of whether the wastewater is discharged directly
to the sewer or otherwise hauled to the POTW. Similarly, for non-
categorical wastes, the generator would need to meet any applicable
local limits regardless of the mode of transportation to the POTW. As
such, therefore, the CWT rule as proposed today does not apply to
POTWs. EPA, does, however, want to remind POTWs that they should
document and monitor hauled waste streams to ensure that necessary
pretreatment steps have been performed. EPA pretreatment regulations at
40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(ii) require that POTW pretreatment programs must
require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards.
If, however, a POTW chooses to establish a pretreatment business as
an addition to their operation, they may, in given circumstances, be
subject to provisions of this rule. EPA is aware of a POTW which plans
to open a wastewater treatment system to operate in conjunction with
their POTW operations. This CWT facility at a POTW will accept
categorical wastewaters, treat them, and then discharge them to the
POTW. As such, the CWT operation may be subject to provisions of this
rule. It is not a POTW itself (even if the facility is located at the
same site). In this case, the facility is operating as a CWT facility
and all discharges are subject to provisions of this rule. EPA would
caution POTWs and industrial users that it will carefully examine such
operations to ensure they are legitimate CWT facilities and not simply
waste consolidation centers seeking to avoid meeting categorical
pretreatment standards. EPA further notes that if wastes are piped to
such facilities, under the approach proposed today, such flows would
still be subject to applicable categorical standards and not CWT
limits.
I. Silver Recovery Operations From Used Photographic and X-Ray
Materials
Many commenters to the 1995 CWT proposal expressed concern over the
inclusion in the metals subcategory of CWT operations that recover
metals from used photographic materials and solutions and x-ray
materials and solutions. Commenters were particularly concerned that
they would be unable to meet the limitations established for silver in
the metals subcategory. In general, commenters stated that the scope of
the proposed rule should not include these operations. Reasons provided
include:
The metals subcategory limitations proposed for the CWT
rule are not based on technologies typically used in silver recovery
operations. Silver recovery facilities typically use electrolytic
plating followed by metallic replacement with iron.
The facility used to calculate the BAT silver limitation
is engaged in a variety of recovery operations. This BAT treatment
system does not reflect performance of facilities which solely treat
silver-bearing wastes.
[[Page 2289]]
Existing effluent guidelines should be sufficient. Many
facility discharge permits are based on Part 421, effluent guidelines
for non-ferrous metals manufacturing, Subpart L secondary silver
subcategory. In addition, an effluent guideline also exists for the
industry which is the primary source of the recovered materials--Part
459 photographic point source subcategory.
The Silver Coalition and the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) have prepared and issued recommendations on
technology, equipment, and management practices for controlling
discharges from facilities that process photographic materials.
It is not economical or efficient for these waste streams
to be recovered on-site due to their small volume. If this rule were
enacted, many of the CWT facilities processing used photographic
materials would discontinue this operation, and silver recovery
operations would decrease greatly.
Based on information provided by the industry, EPA estimates that
there are 360,000 photographic and image processing facilities which
generate silver bearing wastes. Many of these facilities generate very
small volumes of silver bearing waste which would not be economical or
efficient to recover on site. Thus, there exists a large potential for
facilities to consolidate and treat silver bearing photographic waste
from various sources.
EPA believes that the off-site shipment of silver bearing
photographic waste streams for the purpose of consolidation and
recovery is beneficial, and does not wish to discourage this practice.
EPA encourages the segregation of waste streams as this leads to more
efficient recovery. EPA is aware that some of these consolidated waste
streams are treated at typical CWT facilities and some are treated at
facilities which treat photographic waste streams only. While EPA has
promulgated effluent guidelines for non-ferrous metals manufacturing
and the photographic point source categories (40 CFR part 421, Subpart
L and 40 CFR part 459, respectively), the majority of these centralized
silver recovery facilities are not currently subject to any effluent
guideline.
EPA agrees with proposal commenters that the BAT system selected at
the time of the original proposal does not reflect performance of
facilities which solely treat silver-bearing wastes. The precipitation
processes to recover silver used as the basis for its metal limits
(including silver) is different from that most widely used to recover
silver at facilities that treat only silver bearing wastes--
electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement. Although the
facility which formed the technology basis for the 1995 proposed BAT
limitations was engaged in recovering silver from photographic waste
streams, EPA does not have information in its database on facilities
which only perform CWT of photographic waste streams.
Consequently, EPA is today proposing not to include electrolytic
plating/metallic replacement silver recovery operations of used
photographic and x-ray materials within the scope of this rule. Based
on the fundamental difference in technology used to recover silver at
facilities devoted exclusively to treatment of photographic and x-ray
wastes, the Agency has decided to defer proposing regulations for these
facilities. Facilities which only perform CWT silver recovery
operations (electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement)
would not fall within the scope of today's proposal. Permit writers
would use Best Professional Judgement or local limits to establish
site-specific permit requirements. However, off-site wastes which are
treated/recovered at these facilities through any other process and/or
waste generated at these facilities as a result of any other
centralized treatment/recovery process are subject to provisions of
this rule.
J. High Temperature Metals Recovery
During the development of the 1995 proposal, EPA did not include
facilities which perform high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) within
the scope of this rule. EPA is aware of three facilities in the U.S.
which utilize the HTMR process. High temperature metals recovery
facilities generally take solid forms of various metal containing
materials and produce a remelt alloy which is then sold as feed
materials in the production of metals. These facilities utilize heat-
based pyrometallurgical technologies, not the water-based
precipitation/filtration technologies used throughout the CWT industry.
Based on questionnaire responses and industry comments, the HTMR
process does not generate wastewater.
For these reasons, the high temperature metals recovery operations
have been excluded from provisions of the CWT rule. Facilities which
only perform high temperature metals recovery are not subject to this
rule. However, off-site wastes which are treated/recovered at these
facilities through any other process and/or wastes generated at these
facilities as a result of any other CWT treatment/ recovery process are
subject to the provisions of this rule.
As noted, EPA's data show that HTMR operations generate no process
wastewater. Accordingly, EPA is also considering whether this rule,
when promulgated, should include a subcategory for HTMR operations with
a zero discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an
approach, and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may
produce a process wastewater in their HTMR operations.
K. Landfill Wastewaters
EPA proposed effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for
Landfills, 40 CFR Part 445, on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6426-6463).
There, EPA explained how it proposed to treat categorical facilities
that mix and treat categorical wastewater with wastewater from on-site
landfills. EPA proposed to subject the mixed wastewater to the
applicable categorical limits and not the proposed landfill limits. In
the CWT industry, there are some facilities which are engaged both in
CWT activities and in operating an on-site landfill(s). EPA is
proposing to treat the mixture of CWT wastewater and landfill
wastewater in the same way considered for the proposed landfill
guideline. Therefore, a facility performing landfill activities as well
as other CWT services that commingles the wastewaters would be a CWT
facility, and all of the wastewater discharges would be subject to the
provisions of this rule when promulgated. If a facility is performing
both operations and the waste streams are not commingled (that is,
landfill wastewaters are treated in one treatment system and CWT
wastewaters are treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the
provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT rule would apply to their
respective wastewaters.
Additionally, under the approach proposed for the Landfills
rulemaking, CWT facilities which are dedicated to landfill wastewaters
only, whether they are located at a landfill site or not, would be
subject to the effluent guidelines limitations and pretreatment
standards for Landfills when promulgated. These dedicated landfill CWT
facilities would not be subject to provisions of the CWT rulemaking.
EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are dedicated to the
treatment of off-site wastes from a single category for which EPA has
proposed or promulgated effluent limitations that do not also perform
on-site operations that generate these same categorical wastewaters.
EPA requests comments on any such facilities.
[[Page 2290]]
As a further point of clarification, landfill wastewaters are not
specifically excluded from provisions of this rule. Landfill
wastewaters that are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-
site waste streams are subject to provisions of this rule. Furthermore,
a landfill that treats its own landfill wastewater and off-site
landfill wastewater would be subject to the proposed Landfill limits
when promulgated in the circumstances described in IV.B above.
L. Industrial Waste Combustors
EPA proposed effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards for
Industrial Waste Combustors, 40 CFR Part 444 on February 6, 1998 (63 FR
6392-6423). There, EPA explained how it proposed to treat categorical
facilities that mix and treat categorical wastewater with wastewater
from on-site industrial waste combustors. EPA proposed to subject the
mixed wastewater to the applicable categorical limits and not the
proposed industrial waste combustor limits. In the CWT industry, there
are some facilities which are engaged both in CWT activities and in
operating an on-site industrial waste combustor(s). EPA is proposing to
treat the mixture of CWT wastewater and industrial waste combustor
wastewater in the same way considered for the proposed Industrial Waste
Combustor guideline. Therefore, a facility performing industrial waste
combustion activities as well as other CWT services that commingles the
wastewaters would be a CWT facility, and all of the wastewater
discharges would be subject to the provisions of this rule when
promulgated. If a facility is performing both operations and the waste
streams are not commingled (that is, industrial waste combustion
wastewaters are treated in one treatment system and CWT wastewaters are
treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the provisions of the
Industrial Waste Combustor rule and CWT rule would apply to their
respective wastewaters
As a further point of clarification, industrial waste combustor
wastewaters are not specifically excluded from provisions of this rule.
Industrial waste combustor wastewaters that are treated at CWT
facilities along with other off-site waste streams are subject to
provisions of this rule. Furthermore, an industrial waste combustor
that treats off-site industrial waste combustor wastewater would be
subject to the proposed Industrial Waste Combustor limits when
promulgated in the circumstances described in IV.B above.
M. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending
The solvent recycling industry was studied by the EPA in the 1980s.
EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling
Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) in September 1989 which describes this
industry and the processes utilized. This document defines solvent
recovery as ``the recycling of spent solvents that are not the
byproduct or waste product of a manufacturing process or cleaning
operation located on the same site.'' Spent solvents are generally
recycled in two main operations. Traditional solvent recovery involves
pretreatment of the waste stream (in some cases) and separation of the
solvent mixtures by specially constructed distillation columns.
Wastewater discharges resulting from this process are subject to
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the organic chemicals
industry (40 CFR part 414). As such, wastewaters resulting from
traditional solvent recovery operations as defined above are not
subject to this effluent guideline.
Fuel blending is the second main operation which falls under the
definition of solvent recovery. Fuel blending is the process of mixing
wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse. At the time of
the 1995 proposal, fuel blending operations were excluded from the CWT
rule since EPA believed the fuel blending process was ``dry'' (that is,
no wastewaters were produced). Based on comments to the original
proposal and the Notice of Data Availability, EPA has concluded that
this is valid and that true fuel blenders do not generate any process
wastewaters and are, therefore, zero dischargers. EPA is concerned,
however, that the term ``fuel blending'' may be loosely applied to any
process where recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product.
Such operations occur at nearly all used oil and fuel recovery
facilities. Therefore, fuel blending operations as defined above would
be excluded from the CWT rule providing that the operations do not
generate a wastewater. In the event that wastewater is generated at a
fuel blending facility, the facility is most likely performing some
pretreatment operations (usually to remove water). These pretreatment
wastewaters would be subject to this rule.
N. Re-refining
When EPA initially proposed guidelines and standards for CWT
facilities, the regulations would have limited discharges from used oil
reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not specifically include or exclude
discharges from used oil re-refiners. During review of information
received on the proposal and assessment of the information collected,
the Agency, at one point, considered limiting the scope of this
regulation to reprocessors/reclaimers only because it was not clear
whether re-refiners actually generated wastewater. However, further
data gathering efforts have revealed that re-refiners may generate
wastewater and that the principal sources of re-refining wastewaters
are essentially the same as for reprocessors/reclaimers. Consequently,
the re-refining wastewater is included within the scope of this
proposal.
The used oil reclamation and re-refining industry was studied by
EPA in the 1980s. EPA published the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the
Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/014) in
September 1989 which describes this industry and the processes
utilized. This document generally characterizes the industry in terms
of the types of equipment used to process the used oil. Minor
processors (reclaimers) generally separate water and solids from the
used oil using simple settling technology, primarily in-line filtering,
and gravity settling with or without heat addition. Major processors
(reclaimers) generally use various combinations of more sophisticated
technology including screen filtration, heated settling,
centrifugation, and light fraction distillation primarily to remove
water. Re-refiners generally use the most sophisticated systems which
include, in addition to the previous technologies, a vacuum
distillation step to separate the oil into different components.
Today's proposal applies to the process wastewater discharges from
used oil re-refining operations. The principal sources of wastewater
include oil-water gravity separation (often accompanied by chemical/
thermal emulsion breaking) and dehydration unit operations (including
light distillation and the first stage of vacuum distillation). EPA
has, to date, identified two re-refining facilities. Data for these
facilities have not yet been included in the economic analysis for the
proposed rule, but will be included in the analysis for the final rule.
O. Used Oil Filter Recycling
EPA did not obtain information on used oil filter recycling through
the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. However, in response to the
September 1996 Notice of Data Availability, EPA received comments from
facilities which recycle used oil
[[Page 2291]]
filters. In addition, EPA also visited several used oil reprocessors
that recycle used oil filters as part of their operations.
Used oil filter recycling processes range from simple crushing and
draining of entrained oil to more involved processes where filters are
shredded and the metal and filter material are separated. In all cases,
the oil is recycled, the crushed filters and separated metal are sent
to smelters, and the separated filter material is recovered as solid
fuel. Also, in all cases observed, the operations generate no process
wastewater. Therefore, based on this characterization, used oil filter
recycling operations would not be subject to the provisions of the CWT
rule as proposed today. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when
promulgated, should include a subcategory for used oil filter recycling
with a zero discharge requirement for such operation. EPA is requesting
comment on such an approach, and the number of facilities engaged in
this activity. EPA specifically seeks data on any such facilities that
may produce a process wastewater in their operations.
P. Marine Generated Wastes
EPA received many comments on the original proposal relating to
marine generated wastes. Since these wastes are often generated while a
ship is at sea and subsequently off-loaded at port for treatment, the
treatment site could arguably be classified as a CWT facility due to
its acceptance of ``off'' site wastes. Commenters, however, claimed
that marine wastes should not be subject to the CWT rule for the
following reasons:
Unlike most CWT waste streams, bilge and/or ballast water
contains dilute concentrations of pollutants and is generally not
toxic; and
Much of the bilge water is generated while the ship is
docked. If only the portion of bilge water contained in the ship upon
docking is subject to regulation, it would be expensive and inefficient
to monitor only that small portion for compliance with the CWT rule.
EPA reexamined its database concerning these wastes as well as
additional data on the characteristics of these types of wastes
provided through comments to the 1995 proposal and collected by EPA
during development of the recently proposed Uniform National Discharge
Standards (UNDS) (63 FR 45298). Based on data provided by industry as
well as data collected during the development of UNDS, EPA has
determined these waste streams may be similar in some cases to the
toxic wastewaters proposed here for regulation. The data on bilge and
ballast water characteristics show that bilge and ballast water can
vary greatly in terms of the number of pollutants present and their
concentration from one ship to another. In most instances, the
pollutants and concentrations are similar to those found in wastes
typical of those proposed for regulation in the oils subcategory. EPA
found that while some shipyards and docking facilities have specialized
treatment centers for bilge and/or ballast wastes, some of these wastes
are being treated at off-site CWT facilities. EPA has concluded that
marine-generated, ``off-site'' wastes should not be included in the
scope of today's proposal except where this waste is not treated and
discharged at the ship service facility receiving the waste.
For purposes of this rule, EPA is defining marine waste as waste
generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a ship,
boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal or open waters. Such wastes
may include ballast water, bilge water, and other wastes generated as
part of routine ship operations. EPA has determined that a wastewater
off-loaded from a ship shall be considered as being generated on-site
at the point where it is off-loaded provided that the waste is
generated as part of the routine maintenance and operation of the ship
on which it originated while at sea. The waste will not be considered
an off-site generated waste (and thus subject to CWT requirements) as
long as it is treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility
where it is off-loaded. Therefore, these facilities would not be
considered CWT facilities. If, however, marine generated wastes are
off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility at a separate
location, these facilities and their waste streams would be subject to
provisions of this rule.
Q. Stabilization
In the original CWT proposal, waste solidification/stabilization
operations were specifically not subject to the CWT rule. The reason
stated for EPA's conclusion was that these operations are ``dry'' and
do not generally produce a wastewater. EPA reexamined its database and
concluded that this assessment remains valid. As such, stabilization/
solidification processes are not subject to the CWT rule as proposed
today. If, however, the stabilization/solidification facility produces
a wastewater from treatment and/or recovery of off-site wastes through
any other operation, those wastewaters would be subject to the CWT
rule. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated,
should include a subcategory for stabilization operations with a zero
discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an approach,
and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may produce a
process wastewater in their stabilization operations.
R. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes
EPA received comments on coverage of grease, sand, and oil
interceptor wastes by the CWT rule during the comment period for the
original proposal and 1996 Notice of Data Availability. Some of these
wastes are from non-industrial sources and some are from industrial
sources. Some are treated at central locations designed to exclusively
treat grease trap/interceptor wastes and some of these wastes are
treated at traditional CWT facilities with traditional CWT wastes.
Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has maintained that
this rule is designed to cover the treatment and/or recovery of off-
site industrial wastes. As such, as proposed today, grease/trap
interceptor wastes do not fall within the scope of the proposal. Grease
trap/interceptor wastes are defined as animal or vegetable fats/oils
from grease traps or interceptors generated by facilities engaged in
food service activities. Such facilities include restaurants,
cafeterias, and caterers. Excluded grease trap/interceptor wastes
should not contain any hazardous chemicals or materials that would
prevent the fats/oils from being recovered and recycled. Wastewater
discharges from the centralized treatment of wastes produced from oil
interceptors, which are designed to collect petroleum-based oils, sand,
etc. from industrial type processes, would be subject to this rule.
S. Small Businesses
During consideration of this proposal, among other alternatives,
EPA looked at whether it should limit the scope of this rule to
facilities above a certain size or flow level because of potential
impacts to small businesses. Given an assessment of potentially
significant effects on small businesses, EPA convened in November 1997
a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel (also referred to as SBAR
Panel, SBREFA panel, or panel) for this rule. After collecting advice
and recommendations from Small Entity Representatives (SERs), the Panel
discussed at length the possible impacts of the rule on small
businesses and various regulatory alternatives that might mitigate
these impacts. For a detailed summary of the panel's
[[Page 2292]]
findings and discussion, see ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry,'' January 23, 1998 (available in the public
docket). Among the regulatory alternatives discussed by the panel were
limiting the scope of the rule to various small business or small
facilities, including limiting the scope to not include all indirect
dischargers with flows under 3.5 million gallons per year (MGY), to not
include all indirect dischargers treating non-hazardous water only with
flows under either 3.5 or 7.5 MGY, and to not include all indirect
dischargers owned by companies with less than $6 million in annual
revenue, which is the Small Business Administration cut off for a small
business in this industry. A detailed analysis of the effects of these
possible scope limitations is included in the EA and summarized in
Section XI.L. The panel focused on indirect discharging facilities
because most small companies are indirect dischargers. Based on EPA's
current analyses, limiting the scope of the rule to not include all
indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY would address over half
of the small businesses potentially covered by the rule, reduce
compliance costs among indirect dischargers by about 22% while reducing
estimated pollutant removals by about 11%, and minimize projected
facility closures and job losses among all of the options considered.
Alternatively, limiting the scope of the rule to not include all
indirect discharging facilities owned by small businesses would
eliminate virtually all small business impacts (only 2 direct
discharging facilities owned by small businesses) and reduce pollutant
removals by about 30%. This option would result in somewhat more
facility closures and job losses than limiting the scope to not include
all indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY, but the relief
provided would be more directly targeted to small businesses.
Despite considerable effort, the SBREFA panel was not able to reach
consensus on a specific recommendation for providing regulatory relief
to small businesses that would not jeopardize the pollutant removals
and corresponding environmental benefits anticipated to result from the
rule. EPA's primary concern with limiting the scope of the rule is that
the ``lost'' pollutant reductions associated with these scope
limitations are not insignificant, that the analysis represents a
snapshot of a rapidly changing industry, and that any segment might
quickly expand as a result of scope limitations, leading to much
greater discharges within a few years. The panel noted that one way of
addressing this concern would be to put a mass-based limit on receipts
as part of the eligibility requirements for the scope limitation. This
could ensure that significant volumes of highly contaminated wastes
would not be handled by the facilities not included in the scope of the
rule. However, it would also constrain the flexibility of small
businesses benefiting from these scope limitations, and might require
them to give up a significant share of their existing business. Mass-
based limits on receipts, if set at a low level, might require some
small businesses to ``give up'' a significant share of their existing
business. On the other hand, many small businesses might save money if
they can limit their mass discharges and avoid the cost of wastewater
treatment. EPA is also reluctant to provide any type of scope
limitation based on low-flow or the size of the business because of its
concern that many existing plants may not be providing effective
treatment because they are commingling dissimilar waste streams prior
to treatment. This concern is discussed further in Section V.B.
Because of these concerns and others discussed more fully in
Section XI.L, EPA is not proposing to limit the scope of today's
proposal based on either the size of a facility or the volume of
wastewater flows. However, EPA requests comment on this issue. EPA also
requests comment on ways in which it could structure limiting the scope
of the rule to not include small businesses or low-flow facilities that
would address the concerns discussed above.
T. Hazardous vs. Non-hazardous Wastes
Another option discussed by the SBREFA panel was to develop
alternative regulatory requirements for oils subcategory facilities
based on the types of waste receipts treated. This could mean
limitations and standards for oils subcategory facilities that treat
RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes (either exclusively or in combinations
with non-hazardous wastes) that are different from those that would
apply to oils subcategory facilities that treat only non-hazardous
wastes. Another alternative would be to develop different limitations
and standards for oils facilities with and without RCRA subtitle C
permits. This could also mean not regulating discharges from the
treatment of non-hazardous waste receipts or ``non-RCRA permitted''
facilities. The Panel discussion of this option responded to an SER
comment that non-hazardous flows contain relatively low pollutant
loadings as compared to hazardous flows. The Panel was concerned that
the same guidelines and standards may not be appropriate to flows with
very different characteristics. Other SERs disagreed and argued that
hazardous flows are already heavily regulated while non-hazardous flows
are not (although neither are currently subject to categorical effluent
guidelines or pretreatment standards). In their view, it is, thus,
important that the proposed rule apply equally to both types of flows.
These SERs further argued that establishing different requirements for,
or not including facilities that treat only non-hazardous waste could
create a competitive disadvantage for those facilities that treat both
hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
EPA's database on oils subcategory facilities contains information
that was collected at facilities which treat a mixture of hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes and facilities which treat non-hazardous wastes
only. The majority of the data collected prior to the SBREFA Panel was
collected at facilities which have permits to accept hazardous waste
and treat a portion of RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste with non-
hazardous waste. Some data reflect facilities that do not have a RCRA
permit to treat hazardous waste. Although these data suggest that flows
from non-RCRA permitted facilities may have significantly lower
pollutant loadings, they are inadequate to support the conclusion that
EPA should differentiate between oily facilities on the basis of
whether hazardous or non-hazardous wastes are treated at the facility.
Consequently, EPA has not proposed different regulatory requirements
for facilities based on distinctions between hazardous and non-
hazardous waste or, alternatively, provided different limitations
depending on whether the facility has a RCRA permit.
However, following the SBREFA panel, EPA collected raw wastewater
samples at ten additional facilities that treat only non-hazardous
materials in order to obtain additional information on the pollutant
profiles of the wastes that are treated at these facilities. These
samples have now been analyzed and the results are included in Appendix
B to the technical development document. EPA has not yet had the
opportunity to review the data in detail or to compare these results to
the earlier data it collected. As a result, the Agency at this
[[Page 2293]]
time does not know whether the data would support a determination that
oily waste facilities treating exclusively non-hazardous waste treat a
significantly different waste stream from RCRA subtitle C facilities.
Consequently, EPA at this time has not proposed different regulatory
requirements for oily waste facilities based on whether they treat
hazardous or non-hazardous waste or whether or not they have a RCRA
subtitle C permit.
EPA plans to review this data in detail and will present its
assessment before commencing the public hearing on pretreatment
standards scheduled for February 18, 1999. The assessment will also be
available in the public docket for this rule on that date. Any member
of the public wishing to submit comment on EPA's assessment should
submit comments on that information within 30 days of February 18,
1999. Note that EPA will accept comment on this material only through
March 22, 1999 following the close of the 60 day comment period for the
proposed rule.
V. Industry Profile
EPA is today proposing limitations and standards for three
subcategories of CWT facilities: facilities treating either metal, oil,
or organic wastes and wastewater. This subcategorization scheme is
discussed in Section VII. The following provides a general description
of the CWT industry that would be subject to this proposal if
promulgated.
A. Description of the Industry
The adoption of the increased pollution control measures required
by CWA and RCRA requirements had a number of ancillary effects, one of
which has been the formation and development of a waste treatment
industry. Several factors have contributed to the growth of this
industry: (a) The manner in which manufacturing facilities have
selected to comply with CWA and RCRA requirements; (b) the manner in
which the applicability sections of promulgated CWA effluent guidelines
were developed; and (c) the RCRA 1992 used oil management requirements.
A manufacturing facility's options for managing wastes include on-
site treatment or sending them off-site. Because a large number of
operations (both large and small) have chosen to send their wastes off-
site, specialized facilities have developed whose sole commercial
operation is the handling of wastewater treatment residuals and
industrial process by-products.
The manner in which the applicability sections of many promulgated
effluent guidelines were developed also encouraged the creation of
these central treatment centers. Facilities which send their waste off-
site to CWT facilities are generally considered ``zero or alternative
dischargers'' in the effluent guidelines development program, and are
not directly subject to the categorical standards. Additionally, RCRA
regulations, such as the 1992 used oil management requirements (40 CFR
part 279), significantly influenced the size and service provided by
this industry.
Based upon responses to EPA's data gathering efforts (see
discussion below), the Agency now estimates that there are
approximately 205 CWT facilities in 38 States. The major concentration
of CWT facilities is in EPA Regions 4, 5, and 6 due to the proximity of
the industries generating the wastes undergoing treatment. At the time
of the original proposal, EPA estimated there were 85 CWT facilities in
the United States. EPA, however, greatly underestimated the size of the
proposed oily waste and recovery subcategory. Through additional data
gathering activities (see discussion below), EPA obtained information
on additional oils facilities. Except for facilities that were included
or excluded because of scope changes/clarifications, all of the
facilities which have been added since the original proposal treat and/
or recover oily waste and/or used oil. EPA is aware that facilities in
the metals and organics subcategories have joined and or left the CWT
market also. This is expected in a service industry. Even so, EPA
believes its initial estimate of facilities in the other subcategories
is reasonable and no adjustments, other than those resulting from the
redefined scope of the industry, have been made. EPA notes that its
current estimate may not include the entire universe of CWT facilities,
and again solicits information on the number, name, and location of
facilities within this industry.
CWT facilities do not fall into a single description and are as
varied as the wastes they accept. Some treat wastes from a few
generating facilities while others treat wastes from hundreds of
generators. Some treat only certain types of waste while others accept
many wastes. Some treat non-hazardous wastes exclusively while others
treat hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Some primarily treat
concentrated wastes while others primarily treat more dilute wastes.
For some, their primary business is the treatment of other company's
wastes while, for others, CWT is ancillary to their main business.
CWT facilities treat hazardous and/or non-hazardous wastes. At the
time of the original proposal, a few of the facilities in the industry
database solely accepted wastes classified as non-hazardous under RCRA.
The remaining facilities accepted either hazardous wastes only or a
combination of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The vast majority of
the newly identified oils facilities only accept non-hazardous
materials. As such, EPA believes the market for CWT of non-hazardous
materials has increased during the 1990s.
CWT facilities service a variety of customers. A CWT facility
generally receives a variety of wastes daily from dozens of customers.
Some customers routinely generate a particular waste stream, and are
either unable to provide effective on-site treatment of that waste
stream or find it cheaper to send the waste stream off-site for
treatment. Some customers utilize CWT facilities because they generate
particular waste streams only sporadically (for example tank removal,
tank cleaning and remediation wastes) and are unable to economically
provide effective on-site treatment of these wastes. Some, including
many which are small businesses, utilize CWT facilities as their
primary source of wastewater treatment.
Before a CWT facility accepts a waste for treatment, the waste
generally undergoes rigorous screening for compatibility with other
wastes being treated at the facility. Waste generators initially
furnish the treatment facility with a sample of the waste stream to be
treated. The sample is analyzed to characterize the level of pollutants
in the sample, and, at some facilities, bench-scale treatability tests
are performed to determine what treatment is necessary to treat the
waste stream effectively. After all analyses and tests are performed,
the treatment facility determines the cost for treating the waste
stream. If the waste generator accepts the cost of treatment, shipments
of the waste stream to the treatment facility will begin. Generally,
for each truck load of waste received for treatment, the treatment
facility collects a sample from the shipment and analyzes the sample to
determine if it is similar to the initial sample tested. If the sample
is similar, the shipment of waste will be treated. If the sample is not
similar, but falls within an allowable range as determined by the
treatment facility, the treatment facility will reevaluate the
estimated cost of treatment for the shipment. Then, the waste generator
decides if the waste will remain at the treatment facility for
treatment. If the sample is not similar, and does not fall within an
allowable
[[Page 2294]]
range, the treatment facility will decline the shipment for treatment.
Many treatment facilities and waste generators complete extensive
amounts of paperwork during the waste acceptance process. Most of the
paperwork is required by Federal, State, and local regulations. The
amount of paperwork necessary for accepting a waste stream may be a
significant component of the cost of operating CWT facilities.
B. Off-Site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment
As noted before, the adoption of the increased pollution control
measures required by the CWA and RCRA regulations were a significant
factor in the formation and development of the CWT industry. Major
contributors to the growth of this industry include the EPA CWA
effluent limitations guidelines program as well as the manner in which
manufacturing facilities have elected to comply with CWA and RCRA
requirements.
The CWA requires the establishment of limitations and standards for
categories of point sources that discharge into surface waters or
introduce pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. At present,
facilities that do not discharge wastewater (or introduce pollutants to
POTWs) may not be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Subchapter N
Parts 400 to 471. Such facilities include manufacturing or service
facilities that generate no process wastewater, facilities that recycle
all contaminated waters, and facilities that use some kind of
alternative disposal technology or practice (for example, deep well
injection, incineration, evaporation, surface impoundment, land
application, and transfer to a CWT facility).
Thus, for example, in implementing CWA and RCRA requirements in the
electroplating industry, many facilities made process modifications to
conserve and recycle process wastewater, to extend the lives of plating
baths, and to minimize the generation of wastewater treatment sludges.
As the volumes of wastewater were reduced, it became economically
attractive to transfer electroplating metal-bearing wastewater to off-
site CWT facilities for treatment or metals recovery rather than to
invest in on-site treatment systems. In the case of the OCPSF industry,
many facilities transferred selected process residuals and small
volumes of process wastewater to off-site CWT facilities. When
estimating the engineering costs for the OCPSF industry to comply with
the OCPSF regulation, the Agency assumed, based on economies of scale,
in the case of facilities with wastewater flows less than 500 gallons
per day, that such plants would use off-site rather than on-site
wastewater treatment.
In the development of existing effluent guidelines EPA considered
incremental costs for facilities that would likely choose hauling
wastes to CWT facilities as a less expensive alternative to compliance
with the effluent guideline by installing and operating control and
treatment technologies on-site. These estimates generally used an
average cost of treatment provided by CWT facilities at that time. EPA
excluded from these estimates facilities that were hauling wastes to
CWT facilities in advance of effluent guidelines for their industry.
The potential economic impact of the incremental controls being
required through today's proposal on customers was evaluated and found
to increase the price from less than half a percent to approximately 25
percent.
The Agency believes that any wastes transferred to an off-site CWT
facility should be treated effectively, in a manner consistent with the
technology-based provisions of the CWA, and that categorical standards
are necessary to ensure that this occurs. In the absence of appropriate
regulations to ensure at least comparable or adequate treatment, the
CWT facility may inadvertently offer an economic incentive for
increasing the pollutant load to the environment. One of the Agency's
primary concerns is the potential for a discharger to reduce its
wastewater pollutant concentrations through dilution rather than
through appropriate treatment. While the Agency has already promulgated
regulations at Sec. 403.6(d) prohibiting dilution in lieu of treatment,
it is concerned that some CWT facilities may be inadvertently engaging
in dilution by combining in a single treatment system dissimilar waste
streams for which different types of treatment would be more
appropriate. Today's proposal is designed to ensure that wastes
transferred to CWT facilities will be treated effectively.
This is illustrated by the information the Agency obtained during
the data gathering activities for the 1995 proposal. EPA visited 27 CWT
facilities in an effort to identify well-designed, well-operated
candidate treatment systems for sampling. Two of the principal criteria
for selecting plants for sampling were whether the plant applied waste
management practices that increased the effectiveness of the treatment
system and whether the treatment system was effective in removing
pollutants. One of the primary reasons why some plants did not satisfy
these criteria was co-dilution of one type of waste with another. For
example, many facilities treated metal-bearing and oily wastes in the
same treatment system and many facilities mixed non-CWT wastewater with
CWT wastewater. Mixing metal-bearing with non-metal-bearing oily
wastewater and mixing CWT with non-CWT wastewater provides a dilution
effect which generally reduces the efficiency of the wastewater
treatment system. Of the 27 plants visited, many were not sampled
because of the problems of assessing CWT treatment efficiencies due to
combining one type of wastewater with another.
Today's proposal would ensure, to the extent possible, that metal-
bearing wastes are treated with metals control technology, that oily
wastes are treated with oils control technology, and that organic
wastes are treated with organics control technology.
In developing today's proposal, EPA identified a wide variation in
the size of CWT facilities and the level of treatment provided by these
facilities. Often, pollutant removals were significantly lower than
would have been required had the wastewaters been treated at the site
where generated. In particular, EPA's survey indicated that some
facilities were employing only the most basic pollution control
equipment and, as a result, achieved low pollutant removals relative to
those which could be achieved through the use of other available
pollutant control technologies. Further, as explained below, EPA found
that most facilities had not installed appropriate technology and/or
were not operating the installed technology effectively.
As discussed previously, during consideration of this proposal, EPA
looked at whether it should limit the scope of national regulation to
facilities above a certain size or flow level because of information
before the Agency suggesting that, in the case of many smaller
facilities, the costs of additional controls would represent a
significant increase in their costs of operation. The Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, convened by EPA for this rulemaking,
discussed this approach extensively. For the reasons explained above,
however, EPA is not proposing to limit the scope of today's proposal
based on either the size of a facility or the volume of wastewater
flows. The effect of such an approach, given the structure of the
industry and treatment levels currently observed at some facilities,
could be to encourage the movement of wastewater to facilities that are
not providing effective treatment. EPA is, however,
[[Page 2295]]
requesting comment on this approach, which is discussed in Section
IV.S. In order to ensure adequate controls for wastewater discharges
from CWT facilities that accept waste and wastewater that would
otherwise be controlled by other guidelines, EPA is proposing that all
members of the CWT industry comply with economically achievable,
national CWT standards.
VI. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
A. Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry
EPA's initial effort to develop effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for the waste treatment industry began in 1986.
The Agency initiated a study which looked at a range of facilities,
including CWT facilities, landfills and industrial waste combustors,
that received hazardous waste from off-site for treatment, recovery, or
disposal. The purpose of the study was to develop information to
characterize the hazardous waste treatment industry, its operations,
and pollutant discharges to the nation's waters. EPA published the
results of its examination of the industry in a report entitled the
``Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry''
in 1989 (EPA 440/1-89/100). In addition, EPA conducted two similar, but
separate studies, of the solvent recycling industry and the used oil
reclamation and re-refining industry during the same time period. In
1989, EPA also published the results of these studies in two reports
entitled the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Solvent Recycling
Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) and the ``Preliminary Data Summary for
Used Oil Reclamation and Re-refining Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/014).
After a thorough analysis of the data presented in the Preliminary
Data Summary, EPA decided it should develop effluent guidelines
regulations for the CWT industry. EPA also decided to develop effluent
guidelines regulations for landfills and industrial waste combustors,
proposing these on February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6426 and 63 FR 6392,
respectively). In addition to CWT facilities, EPA also studied fuel
blending operations and waste solidification/stabilization facilities.
As detailed and defined in the applicability section, EPA has decided
not to propose nationally applicable effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for fuel blending and stabilization operations.
B. Survey Questionnaires (1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire
and Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire)
There are three major sources of information and data used in
developing today's effluent limitations guidelines and standards
proposal. Two of these are industry responses to detailed technical and
economic questionnaires and responses to subsequent follow up
monitoring questionnaires distributed by EPA (the third is discussed in
the subsequent section). In 1991, EPA sent the 1991 Waste Treatment
Industry Questionnaire to 455 facilities that the Agency had identified
as possible CWT facilities. Because there is no specific CWT Industry
Standard Industrial Code (SIC) code, identification of facilities was
difficult. EPA looked to directories of treatment facilities, other
Agency information sources, and even telephone directories to identify
the 455 facilities which received the questionnaires. EPA received
responses from 413 facilities indicating that 89 treated or recovered
material from off-site industrial waste in 1989. The remaining 324
facilities did not treat, or recover, materials from industrial waste
from off-site. Four of the 89 facilities received waste via a pipeline
(fixed delivery system) from the original source of wastewater
generation.
The technical section of the questionnaire specifically requested
information on: (1) the type and quantities of wastes accepted for
treatment; (2) the industrial waste management practices used; (3) the
quantity, treatment, and disposal of wastewater generated during
industrial waste management; (4) available analytical monitoring data
on wastewater treatment; (5) the degree of co-treatment (treatment of
CWT wastewater with wastewater from other industrial operations at the
facility); and (6) the extent of wastewater recycling and/or reuse at
the facility. EPA obtained further information through follow-up
telephone calls and written requests for clarification of questionnaire
responses.
As a follow-up to the initial questionnaire, EPA requested detailed
wastewater monitoring information from twenty in-scope facilities
selected from the questionnaire mailing list. These facilities were
selected based upon their responses. EPA reviewed each facility's
monitoring summary provided in the questionnaire, discharge permit
requirements, off-site waste receipts, and treatment technologies and
practices. Based on responses, EPA determined that these twenty
facilities could provide useful information on technology performance
and pollutant removal.
EPA asked that the twenty selected facilities send effluent
wastewater monitoring data in the form of individual data points rather
than monthly aggregates, generally for the 1990 calendar year. When
appropriate, EPA used this detailed monitoring data to calculate the
variability factors and long-term averages used in determining the
industry effluent limits (See section IX of today's notice). EPA also
requested analytical data for intermediate waste treatment points from
some facilities. In this manner, EPA hoped to obtain information about
pollutant removal across individual treatment units in addition to the
entire treatment train. Finally, EPA asked facilities to submit
information on pollutant concentrations and waste receipt data for a
six week period. EPA collected the waste receipt data to provide
information about the types of wastes treated and the influent waste
characteristics due to the absence of influent wastewater monitoring
data.
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
Between 1989 and 1994, EPA visited 27 CWT facilities. The purpose
of these visits was to collect various information about the operation
of CWT facilities and, in most cases, to evaluate each facility as a
potential week-long sampling candidate. The selection of these
facilities was largely based on the types of off-site waste received at
the facility and the types of wastewater treatment operations on-site.
During the site visits, EPA collected information on the facility and
its operations. This included information on the wastes accepted for
treatment and the facility's waste acceptance criteria, the raw
wastewater generated and its sources, the wastewater treatment on-site,
and the location of potential sampling points. Following the original
CWT proposal, EPA conducted site visits at eleven additional
facilities. EPA selected these facilities based on information obtained
through comment responses and contacts with the industry, AMSA, and EPA
Regional staff.
Based on an analysis of information collected during the site
visits, EPA selected 14 facilities to sample in order to characterize
the performance of their treatment systems. EPA sampled ten of the
facilities prior to the original proposal and four facilities after the
1995 proposal. EPA sampled twice at two of the facilities. During each
sampling episode, EPA sampled facility influent and effluent streams.
EPA also collected samples at intermediate points
[[Page 2296]]
throughout the entire waste/wastewater treatment system to assess the
performance of individual treatment units. Generally, EPA conducted the
sampling episodes over a five day period. EPA obtained 24-hour
composite samples for continuous systems and grab samples for batch
systems. Depending on the wastes/wastewaters treated at the site and
the technology employed, EPA analyzed for up to 460 analytes.
Data collected from the influent samples contributed to
characterization of the industry, development of the list of pollutants
of concern, and development of raw wastewater characteristics. EPA used
the data collected from the influent, intermediate, and effluent points
to analyze the efficacy of treatment at the facilities, and to develop
current discharge concentrations, loadings, and the treatment
technology options for the CWT industry. EPA used data collected from
the effluent points to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and
limitations for each of the proposed regulatory options.
Additionally, in March and April 1998, EPA conducted site visits at
eleven facilities which treat and/or recover non-hazardous oils wastes,
oily wastewater, or used oil material from off-site. While the
information collected at these facilities was similar to information
collected during previous site visits, these facilities were selected
based solely on waste receipts. That is, they were selected
specifically to investigate the question of whether oily hazardous
waste receipts are different from oily non-hazardous waste receipts and
whether oily wastes at facilities without RCRA hazardous waste permits
are significantly different from oily waste treated by facilities with
RCRA permits. The facilities represent a diverse mix of facility size,
treatment processes, and geographical locations. Also, unlike previous
site visits, EPA collected samples of their waste receipts and effluent
discharged at 10 of these facilities. These samples were one-time grabs
and were analyzed for metals, classicals, and semi-volatile organic
compounds. The analytical results are included in an appendix to the
technical development document, but EPA has not incorporated the
results into the analyses presented today. As discussed in Section
IV.S, EPA plans to use this analytical data for further analyses and
will present its assessment before commencement of the pretreatment
public hearing on February 18, 1999.
1. Metal-bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
Of the sampling episodes completed from 1989 to 1994, EPA conducted
six at facilities classified in the metals subcategory. EPA re-sampled
at two of these facilities in 1996 following the original proposal.
Both of these facilities had altered their treatment systems somewhat
from the treatment schemes in place at the time of the original
sampling episodes. All of the facilities employed some form of chemical
precipitation as part of their treatment of the metal-bearing waste
streams. Only one of the facilities sampled discharged to a surface
water. The rest are indirect dischargers. The Agency evaluated the
following treatment technologies: primary precipitation, secondary
precipitation, and tertiary precipitation, selective metals
precipitation, gravity separation, multimedia filtration,
clarification, liquid and sludge filtration, and treatment technologies
for cyanide destruction.
2. Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
Of the sampling episodes completed between 1989 and 1994, EPA
conducted four at facilities which treat oily wastes. During 1995-1996,
the Agency sampled an additional two oily waste facilities. All
performed an initial gravity separation step with or without emulsion
breaking to remove oil from wastewater. At this point, some facilities
commingled the oily wastewaters with other non-oily wastewaters for
additional treatment. At facilities which commingled their waste
streams, data was collected after the emulsion breaking step and prior
to commingling to characterize waste receipts and not for establishing
limitations and standards. None of the sampled oils facilities were
direct discharging facilities. EPA evaluated the following treatment
technologies for this subcategory: gravity separation, emulsion
breaking, ultrafiltration, dissolved air flotation, biological
treatment, reverse osmosis, carbon adsorption, and air stripping. For
the sampling episodes prior to 1995, EPA analyzed samples for oil and
grease using Method 413.1 (total recoverable oil and grease) which uses
freon. Since this method is being phased out, for the sampling episodes
conducted during 1995 and 1996, EPA analyzed the samples for oil and
grease as measured by the newly proposed Method 1664 for Hexane
Extractable Materials (HEM) and Silica Gel Treated Hexane Extractable
Materials (SGT-HEM). EPA believes that oil and grease measurements from
Method 413.1 and HEM measurements from Method 1664 are comparable and
has used the data interchangeably.
3. Organic Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling
EPA had difficulty identifying facilities that could be used to
characterize waste streams and assess treatment technology performance
for the organics subcategory. A large portion of the facilities whose
organic waste treatment operations EPA evaluated had other industrial
operations on-site. For these facilities, CWT waste streams represented
a minor component of the overall flow treated at the facility.
EPA did identify and sample three facilities treating a significant
volume of off-site generated organic waste relative to non-CWT flows.
EPA evaluated the following treatment technologies employed at these
facilities: air stripping, biological treatment in a sequencing batch
reactor, multi-media filtration, carbon adsorption and carbon dioxide
extraction. None of the organic facilities sampled were direct
discharging facilities. EPA has not used data from one of the
facilities in calculating effluent levels achievable with its in-place
technologies because the facility was experiencing operational
difficulties with the treatment system at the time of sampling. In
addition, after reviewing this facility's waste receipts during the
sampling episode, EPA determined that the facility accepted both oil
subcategory and organic subcategory waste streams and commingled them
for treatment. EPA has also not used data from a second facility in
calculating effluent levels achievable with its in-place technologies
for the same reason.
D. Analytical Methods
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate
guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants.
These methods allow the analyst to determine the presence and
concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and are used for compliance
monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program under 40
CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the implementation of
the pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA
has promulgated methods for all conventional and toxic pollutants and
for some nonconventional pollutants. EPA has identified five pollutants
pursuant to section 304(a)(4) of the CWA defined as ``conventional
pollutants'' (See 40 CFR 401.16). Table I-B at 40 CFR part 136 lists
the
[[Page 2297]]
analytical methods approved for these pollutants. EPA has listed,
pursuant to section 307(a) of the Act, 65 metals and organic pollutants
and classes of pollutants as ``toxic pollutants'' at 40 CFR 401.15.
From the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list
of 126 ``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is
shown, for example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The list includes
non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos,
and pesticide pollutants.
Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide are included in
the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table
I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for measurement
of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D lists approved
methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other pesticide
pollutants. Dischargers must use the test methods promulgated at 40 CFR
136.3 or incorporated by reference in the tables, when available, to
monitor pollutant discharges from the CWT industry, unless specified
otherwise in Part 437 or by the permitting authority.
Table I-C does not list 11 CWT semi-volatile organic pollutants and
two CWT volatile organic pollutants (2-butanone and 2-propanone).
However, the analyte list for EPA Method 1624 contains both volatile
organic pollutants and the analyte list for EPA Method 1625 contains
four of the semivolatile organic pollutants. EPA promulgated both of
these methods for use in Clean Water Act measurement programs at 40 CFR
part 136, Appendix A. As a part of this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to
allow the use of EPA Method 1624 for the determination of the CWT
volatile organic pollutants and modified versions of EPA Methods 625
and 1625 for the determination of all CWT semivolatile organic
pollutants. The proposed modifications to EPA Methods 625 and 1625 have
been included in the Docket for this rulemaking. The modified versions
of Methods 625 and 1625 will allow the analysis of all CWT semivolatile
organic pollutants by each method. If EPA adopts these proposed
modifications, the following pollutants will be added to their
respective analyte lists.
Additions to EPA Method 1625 and EPA Method 625
Pollutant CASRN
acetophenone................................................ 98-86-2
aniline...................................................... 62-53-3
benzoic acid................................................. 65-85-0
2,3-dichloroaniline.......................................... 608-27-5
o-cresol..................................................... 95-48-7
p-cresol..................................................... 160-44-5
pyridine..................................................... 110-86-1
Additions to EPA Method 625:
Pollutant CASRN
alpha-terpineol.............................................. 98-55-5
carbazole.................................................... 86-74-8
n-decane..................................................... 124-18-5
n-octadecane................................................. 593-45-3
These pollutants were found in CWT industry wastewaters in EPA's
data gathering. The modifications to Methods 625 and 1625 consist of
text, performance data, and preliminary quality control (QC) acceptance
criteria for the additional analytes, if available. This information
will allow a laboratory to practice the methods with the additional
analytes as an integral part. The QC acceptance criteria for the
additional analytes to be added to Method 1625 have been validated in
single-laboratory studies. EPA plans further validation of these method
modifications by use in subsequent data gathering for the final rule,
and plans to promulgate these method modifications for monitoring at 40
CFR part 437 (see 40 CFR 401.13) or at 40 CFR part 136 in the final
rule for this rulemaking.
On March 28, 1997, EPA proposed a means to streamline the method
development and approval process (62 FR 14975) and on October 6, 1997,
EPA published a notice of intent to implement a performance-based
measurement system (PBMS) in all of its programs to the extent feasible
(62 FR 52098). The Agency is currently determining the specific steps
necessary to implement PBMS in all of its regulatory programs, and has
approved a plan for implementation of PBMS in the water programs. Under
PBMS, regulated entities will be able to modify methods without prior
approval and will be able to use new methods without prior EPA
approval, provided they notify the regulatory authority to which the
data will be reported. EPA expects a final rule implementing PBMS in
the water programs by the beginning of calendar year 1999. When the
final rule takes effect, regulated entities in the CWT industry will be
able to select methods for monitoring other than those approved at 40
CFR parts 136 and 437, provided that certain validation requirements
are met. Many of the details were provided at proposal (62 FR 14975)
and will be finalized in the final PBMS rule.
E. Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data
Availability
In addition to data obtained through the Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire, DMQ, site visits and sampling episodes, commenters on
the 1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability also
provided data to EPA. In fact, much of EPA's current description and
estimates of the size of the oils subcategory is based on comments to
the 1996 Notice of Data Availability.
As described earlier, following the 1995 proposal, EPA revised its
estimate of the number of facilities in the oils subcategory and its
description of the oils subcategory. Using new information provided by
the industry during the 1995 proposal comment period in conjunction
with questionnaire responses and sampling data used to develop the
proposal, EPA has recharacterized this subcategory of the industry.
This recharacterization reflected new data on the wastes treated by the
subcategory, the technology in-place, and the pollutants discharged. As
part of this recharacterization, EPA developed individual profiles for
each of the newly identified oils facilities by modeling current
wastewater treatment performance and treated-effluent discharge flow
rates. In addition, assuming the same treatment technology options
identified at proposal, EPA recalculated the projected costs of the
proposed options under consideration, expected pollutant reductions
associated with the options, and the projected economic impacts.
EPA presented its recharacterization of the oils subcategory in the
September 1996 Notice of Data Availability (61 FR 48806). At that time,
EPA estimated there were an additional 240 facilities in the oils
subcategory and, as noted above, EPA developed a facility profile for
each of these facilities. EPA presented that information in the 1996
Notice and requested that facilities comment on the validity of the
modeled profiles. In order to facilitate that effort, copies of the
Notice and the individual facility profile were mailed to each of the
newly identified facilities. The facility information sheets summarized
the estimates that EPA developed for operations at a facility. The
facility information sheets provided EPA's estimates on the facility's
following characteristics: treated effluent flow, RCRA permit status,
quantity of oily waste being treated, quantity of oil recovered,
characteristics of the final treated effluent, oily waste technologies
in place, total cost of providing oily
[[Page 2298]]
waste treatment and recovery, total revenues from oily waste treatment
and recovery, total revenues from sale of recovered oil, and total
facility employment.
Of the 240 oils facilities for which NOA profiles were developed,
EPA assessment showed that 20 facilities were closed. Of the remaining
220 facilities, EPA received comments and revised profiles from 100.
Therefore, 120 facilities did not provide comments to the Notice or
revised facility profiles. Of those facilities supplying information,
69 indicated their operations fall within the scope of the oils
subcategory. EPA polled nine of the non-commenting facilities and
determined that almost half of these are within the scope of the
industry. Based on this information, EPA estimates that approximately
half of the non-commenting facilities, or sixty, are within the scope
of the oils subcategory. As to these sixty facilities that did not
comment, EPA does not necessarily have facility-specific information
for them.
EPA has again revised its characterization of the subcategory based
on information provided prior to the 1995 proposal, during the proposal
comment period, and during the Notice comment period. This includes
company-specific information provided by commenters to correct oily
waste facility profiles initially developed by EPA. EPA has used the
revised facility profiles and the earlier information to perform the
technical and economic analyses for the oils subcategory. The final
results of the analyses are adjusted upward to provide estimates of the
total population of oils facilities.
F. Database Sources
In developing the CWT effluent guidelines, EPA also evaluated the
following data sources:
Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (50 POTW Study) database.
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
treatability database.
These data sources and their application to the development of the CWT
effluent guidelines are discussed below.
EPA used the data included in the report entitled ``Fate of
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/
303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study'', in
determining those pollutants that would pass through a POTW. This study
presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs that employ
secondary treatment to remove toxic pollutants. EPA has edited this
database in order to minimize the possibility that low POTW removals
might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of being a
true measure of treatment effectiveness. The criteria used in revising
the data in the 50-POTW study were the following: (1) detected
pollutants must have at least 3 pairs (influent/effluent) of data
points to be included, (2) average pollutant influent levels less than
10 times the pollutant minimum analytical detection limit were
eliminated, and (3) if none of the average pollutant influent
concentrations exceeded 10 times the minimum analytical detection
limit, then the average influent values less than 20 g/l were
eliminated. EPA then calculated each POTW percent removal for each
pollutant based on its average influent and its average effluent
values. The POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-
through test is the median value of all the POTW percent removals for
that pollutant. This is discussed in further detail in the technical
development document.
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database). This computerized database
provides information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various
treatment technologies. The database provides the user with the
specific data source, and the industry from which the wastewater was
generated. EPA relied on the NRMRL database in its pass-through
analysis to supplement the treatment information provided in the 50-
POTW study when there was insufficient information on specific
pollutants. For each of the pollutants of concern (POCs) not found in
the 50-POTW database, EPA took data from portions of the NRMRL
database. EPA edited this data so that only treatment technologies
representative of typical POTW secondary treatment operations
(activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons)
were used. The files were further edited to include information
pertaining to domestic or industrial wastewater,2 unless
other wastewater data were available. Pilot-scale and full-scale data
were used, while bench-scale data were eliminated. Data from a peer-
reviewed journal or government report were used and lesser quality
references were edited out. From the remaining pollutant removal data,
the average percent removal for each pollutant was calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The NRMRL database breaks wastewaters down into the
following categories: clean water, domestic water, groundwater,
hazardous leachate, industrial wastewater, municipal leachate,
commercial storage and disposal facility liquids, RCRA listed
wastewater, synthetic wastewater, superfund wastewater, spill water,
tap water, and surface water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Summary of Public Participation
EPA has strived to encourage the participation of all interested
parties throughout the development of the CWT guidelines and standards.
EPA has met with various industry representatives. These include the
Environmental Technology Council (formerly the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council), the National Solid Waste Management Association
(NSWMA), the National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), and the
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA). EPA has also participated in
industry meetings as well as meetings with individual companies that
may be affected by these regulations. Additionally, EPA has met with
environmental groups including members of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Finally, EPA has made a concerted effort to consult with EPA
Regional staff, pretreatment coordinators, and state and local entities
that will be responsible for implementing this regulation.
EPA sponsored two public meetings, one prior to the original
proposal on March 8, 1994 and one prior to this recent proposal on July
27, 1997. The purpose of the public meetings was to share information
about the content and status of the proposed regulations. The public
meetings also gave interested parties an opportunity to provide
information, data, and ideas on key issues. Following the 1995
proposal, EPA also held a workshop and public hearing to discuss topics
of interest to stakeholders and to receive oral comments.
H. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), imposes certain duties on
agencies that propose rules that may have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. These include requirements
to assess the impact on small entities and seek their views. For
example, unless EPA certifies that the proposed rule will not have such
an impact, the statute requires an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (RFA). Section XI.L summarizes that analysis. The statute also
provides that, where EPA has prepared an initial RFA, EPA must convene
a Small Business Advocacy
[[Page 2299]]
Review Panel for the proposed rule to seek the advice and
recommendations of small entities concerning the proposal. The review
panel for today's proposal was composed of employees from EPA, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 609(b)).
During development of today's proposal, EPA undertook a preliminary
assessment to determine the economic effect of the options being
considered for proposal on small CWT companies. (The statute defines
small entities, for purposes of RFA analyses, as small businesses,
small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. EPA is not aware of any CWT facilities owned by not-for-
profit organizations or small governmental jurisdictions). Based on
this initial evaluation, EPA concluded that, if EPA adopted limitations
and standards based on some of the options being considered for
proposal, the impact on small CWT companies might be significant. This
would be particularly true with respect to CWT facilities that treated
oily waste. Virtually all the small businesses potentially affected by
the proposal would be found in this subcategory. While the absolute
number of small businesses engaged in CWT operations was not large--EPA
currently estimates that 63 small businesses own discharging CWT
facilities--the potential costs for 71 percent of these companies would
exceed one percent of their revenue.
Given that several of the proposed options would have a significant
economic effect on a high percentage of these small businesses, EPA
decided to prepare the analysis that the statute requires for proposals
imposing significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
The assessment is discussed below in Section XI.L and in ``Economic
Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the CWT Industry.'' The assessment addresses all of the elements that
are required for an initial RFA under section 603(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. In addition, pursuant to section 609(b), in May 1997,
EPA decided to convene a panel for this proposed rule to collect the
advice and recommendations of representatives of small CWT businesses
that would be affected by the proposal.
EPA convened the panel on November 6, 1997. The panel members met
among themselves and also with representatives of small CWT businesses.
The panel then prepared a report that summarized its activities. The
report is available in the docket for this proposal (``Final Report of
the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned
Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--January 23, 1998''). The report
includes recommended alternatives and findings concerning the following
issues:
the type and number of small entities that would be
subject to the proposal;
record keeping, reporting and other compliance
requirements that the proposal would impose on small entities subject
to the proposal, if promulgated;
identification of relevant Federal rules that may overlap
or conflict with the proposed rule; and
description of significant regulatory alternatives to the
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of the CWA and
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.
The panel reviewed a number of alternatives for minimizing impact
on small businesses that are CWT facilities. Among the options
discussed were the following:
(a.) Relief from monitoring requirements. EPA's NPDES and
pretreatment program regulations require monitoring by both direct and
indirect dischargers to demonstrate compliance with discharge
limitations and pretreatment standards. Local permitting authorities,
under these regulations, retain considerable authority in determining
the frequency of monitoring. Because a significant portion of the costs
of complying with CWT limitations and standards is related to
monitoring costs, the panel examined approaches to reduce these costs.
The panel considered two options. The first is the use of an indicator
parameter as a surrogate for regulated organic pollutants. Instead of
being required to monitor for a series of organic pollutants, the
discharger would only need to measure the one indicator parameter. The
second option is for EPA to develop guidance for distribution to
permitting authorities that would recommend a reduced monitoring regime
for small businesses. This second option could also be combined with
the first. The Agency has examined these options further as discussed
below at IX.D.
(b.) Other regulatory relief for oily waste treaters. As previously
noted, the bulk of small CWT businesses are indirectly discharging oily
waste treatment companies. The panel focused its attention on relief
measures for these companies, but could develop no consensus on
recommended relief. Among the measures considered are the following:
The panel considered whether small businesses (those with
less than $6 million in annual revenue) should not be included in the
scope of the proposal or, alternatively, whether a flow cut off should
be used so as to limit the facilities within the scope of the rule. In
Section IV.S, EPA provides its current analyses of the effects of not
including small businesses and of flow cut-offs of 3.5 million gallons
per year (MGY) and 7 MGY on costs, facility closures, and pollutant
loading removals. Neither the panel members nor the small business
representatives could agree on whether such scope limitations would be
appropriate. A more detailed discussion and request for comment on this
issue is included in Section XI.L.
The panel also heard a recommendation that EPA should
propose pretreatment standards for oily waste treaters based on a less
costly treatment option (emulsion breaking and secondary gravity
separation) than dissolved air flotation. This treatment option is
discussed with the other technology options considered for the oils
subcategory as the basis for today's proposal, in Section IX.B.1.b.ii.
Another relief option discussed is development of a
streamlined procedure for obtaining a variance from categorical
pretreatment standards. The CWA authorizes EPA to grant a variance from
categorical pretreatment standards for facilities that, under specific
circumstances, establish that their facility is ``fundamentally
different'' with respect to the factors considered in establishing the
categorical standard. The panel urged EPA to consider developing a
procedure for small businesses to submit group applications for
obtaining such variances to the extent the CWA would authorize adoption
of such an approach. EPA discusses this relief option in Section XIV.C,
Variances and Modifications.
(c.) New source performance standards for metal-bearing waste
treaters. Concern was also expressed during the panel review about the
treatment technology being considered as the basis for EPA's new source
performance standards and pretreatment standards for new sources for
the metals subcategory. EPA's assessment of the cost of the technology
then being considered showed that it was three times as expensive as
the technology forming the basis for limitations and standards for
existing sources and that the incremental pollutant removals of the
more stringent technology were
[[Page 2300]]
small. In the view of some panel members, this might pose a potential
entry barrier for small business. This concern is discussed further,
along with a request for comment, in Section IX.B.4 and XI.H which deal
with option selection for these standards.
Finally, the panel discussed several methodological issues related
to EPA's characterization of baseline pollutant loadings and estimation
of loadings removals associated with various treatment options. These
issues are discussed in more detail in Sections VIII and XI.M and in
Chapter 12 of the technical development document.
Section XV.B discusses the SBREFA panel in more detail and provides
information on what EPA has done to address the panel's
recommendations. EPA notes that the panel was another effective public
outreach tool, and that the small entity representatives provided
valuable insight to the possible effects of the proposal to the CWT
industry--specifically, the small entities.
EPA's consideration of these relief options are discussed in the
appropriate sections of this document.
I. Examination of the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals
Precipitation
During the comment period for the 1995 proposal, EPA received
comments which asserted that high levels of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in CWT wastewaters may compromise a CWT facility's ability to
meet the proposed metal subcategory limitations. The data indicated
that for some metal-contaminated wastewaters, as TDS levels increased,
the solubility of the metal in wastewater also increased. As such, the
commenters claimed that metal-contaminated wastewaters with high TDS
could not be treated to achieve the proposed limitations.
At the time of the original proposal, EPA had no data on TDS levels
in CWT wastewaters. No facility provided TDS data in their response to
the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire or the Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire. Additionally, during the sampling episodes prior to the
1995 proposal, EPA did not collect TDS data. As such, EPA lacked the
data to estimate TDS levels in wastewaters at the CWT facility which
formed the technology basis for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory
limitations.
In order to address the comment, EPA (1) collected additional
information on TDS levels in metals subcategory wastewaters; (2)
conducted additional sampling; (3) consulted literature sources; and
(4) conducted bench scale studies.
First, EPA needed to determine the range of TDS levels in CWT
metals subcategory wastewaters. As such, EPA contacted the metals
subcategory Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire respondents to
determine the level of TDS in their wastewaters. Most CWT facilities do
not collect information on the level of TDS in their wastewaters. Those
facilities that provided information indicated that TDS levels in CWT
metals subcategory wastewaters range from 10,000 ppm to 100,000 ppm (1-
10%).
Second, EPA resampled the facility which formed the technology
basis for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory limitations and the
facility that provides the basis for metals subcategory limitations in
this proposal, in part, to determine TDS levels in their wastewaters.
EPA found TDS levels of 17,000 to 81,000 mg/L.
Third, EPA consulted various literature sources to obtain
information about the effect of TDS levels on chemical precipitation.
EPA found no data or information which related directly to TDS effects
on chemical precipitation.
Fourth, EPA conducted a laboratory study designed to determine the
effect of TDS levels on chemical precipitation treatment performance.
In this study, EPA conducted a series of bench-scale experiments on
five metals: arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel and titanium. These
metals were selected because (1) they are commonly found in CWT metals
subcategory wastewaters; (2) their optimal precipitation is carried out
in a range of pH levels; and/or (3) the data provided in the comments
indicated that TDS may have a negative effect on the precipitation of
these metals. The preliminary statistical analyses of the data from
these studies show no consistent relationship among the five metals, pH
levels, TDS concentrations, and chemical precipitation effectiveness
using hydroxide or a combination of hydroxide and sulfide. The study
and the statistical analyses are included in the record. Thus, the
study could not either confirm or refute the concern with high TDS
levels interfering with metals treatment. EPA solicits comments on this
study and EPA's statistical analyses of the results.
EPA has not incorporated an adjustment for TDS levels into the
development of limitations on metals discharges for the following
reason. EPA's data show that effluent levels associated with an option
proposed today for BPT, BAT, and PSES for the metals subcategory are
achievable even at high TDS levels. The facility which forms the
technology basis for Metals Option 4 (see Section IX.B.1.b.i) had high
influent levels of TDS in their wastewaters during EPA's sampling
episode. On an average basis, their TDS levels were the highest EPA
observed in the industry. Consequently, EPA believes the proposed BPT,
BAT, and PSES limitations and standards can be achieved by all metals
subcategory facilities--even those with high levels of TDS. EPA
solicits comment and any data commenters may have bearing on this
issue.
VII. Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
For its earlier 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 (see 60 FR 5464,
5474). In reaching its preliminary decision that it should
subcategorize for purposes of developing limitations and standards, EPA
discussed its consideration of various factors.
The CWA requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines
and pretreatment standards that represent the best available technology
economically achievable for a particular industry category, to consider
a number of different factors. Among others, these include the age of
the equipment and facilities in the category, manufacturing processes
employed, types of treatment technology to reduce effluent discharges,
and the cost of effluent reductions (Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. Sec. 1314(b)(2)(B)). The statute also authorizes EPA to take
into account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate and
requires that the limitations it promulgates are economically
achievable, which generally involves consideration of both compliance
costs and the overall financial condition of the industry.
One way in which the Agency has taken some of these factors into
account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate
classes of similar characteristics. This recognizes the major
differences among companies within an industry that may reflect, for
example, different manufacturing processes, economies of scale, or
other factors. One result of subdividing an industry by subcategories
is to safeguard against overzealous regulatory standards, increase the
confidence that the regulations are practicable, and diminish the need
to address variations
[[Page 2301]]
between facilities through a variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
The CWT industry, as previously explained, is not typical of many
of the other industries regulated under the CWA because it does not
produce a product. Therefore, EPA considered certain factors that
specifically apply to CWT operations in its evaluation of how to
establish appropriate limitations and standards and whether further
subcategorization was warranted. Additionally, EPA did not consider
certain other factors typically appropriate when subcategorizing
manufacturing facilities as relevant when evaluating this industry. The
factors EPA considered here in subcategorizing the CWT industry
include:
Facility age
Facility size
Facility location
Non-water quality impacts
Freatment technologies and costs
RCRA classification
Types of wastes received
Nature of wastewater generated
EPA concluded that certain of these factors did not support further
subcategorization of this industry. The Agency concluded that the age
of a facility is not a basis for subcategorization as many older
facilities have unilaterally improved or modified their treatment
process over time. EPA is also not proposing to use facility size as a
basis for subcategorization, although it is requesting comment in
Section IV.S on whether facility size, as measured by flow, would be an
appropriate basis for not including some facilities in the scope of the
rule. EPA identified three parameters as relative measures of facility
size: number of employees, amount of waste receipts accepted, and
wastewater flow. EPA found that CWT facilities of varying sizes
generate similar wastewaters and use similar treatment technologies,
although the economic impacts of compliance costs may be greater for
small facilities (as defined by parent company revenues). Furthermore,
wastes can be treated to the same level regardless of the facility
size. EPA is also not proposing to use facility location as a basis for
subcategorization. Based on the data collected, no consistent
differences in wastewater treatment technologies or performance exist
between different geographical locations. EPA recognizes, however, that
geographic location may have an effect on the market for CWT services,
the cost charged for these services, and the value of recovered product
which may affect the economic impacts of the rule. These issues are
addressed in the Economic Assessment Document.
While non-water quality characteristics (solid waste and air
emission effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did not
constitute a basis for subcategorization. Environmental impacts from
solid waste disposal and from the transport of potentially hazardous
wastewater are a result of individual facility practices, and EPA could
not identify any common characteristics particular to a given segment
of the industry. Treatment costs were not used as a basis for
subcategorization because costs will vary, and are dependent on the
following waste stream variables: flow rates, wastewater quality, and
pollutant loadings. Finally, EPA is not proposing to use RCRA
classification as a basis for subcategorization although EPA is
requesting comment on whether this would be an appropriate basis for
not including some facilities in the scope of the rule. (See further
discussion in Sections IV.T and VIII.B.)
EPA identified only one factor with primary significance for
subcategorizing the CWT industry--the type of waste received for
treatment or recovery. This factor encompasses many of the other
subcategorization factors. The type of treatment processes used, nature
of wastewater generated, solids generated, and potential air emissions
directly correlate to the type of wastes received for treatment or
recovery. For today's proposal, EPA proposes to retain its earlier
subcategorization approach.
B. Proposed Subcategories
Based on the type of wastes accepted for treatment or recovery, EPA
has determined that there are three subcategories appropriate for the
CWT industry.
Subcategory A: Facilities which treat, recover, or
treat and recover metal from metal-bearing waste, wastewater, or
used material received from off-site,
Subcategory B: Facilities which treat, recover, or
treat and recover oil from oily waste, wastewater, or used material
received from off-site, and
Subcategory C: Facilities which treat, recover, or
treat and recover organics from other organic waste, wastewater, or
used material received from off-site.
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
1. Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Operations
The facilities that would be subject to limits for this subcategory
treat metal-bearing wastes received from off-site and/or recover metals
from off-site metal-bearing wastes. Currently, EPA has identified 59
facilities in this subcategory. Fifty-two of these facilities are
treatment facilities exclusively, while another six are recovery
operations that recover metals from the wastes for sale in commerce or
for return to industrial processes. One facility provides waste
treatment services in addition to conducting a metals recovery
operation. The vast majority of these facilities have RCRA permits to
accept hazardous wastes. Among the types of wastes accepted for
treatment are spent electroplating baths and sludges, spent anodizing
solutions, metal finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes,
cyanide containing wastes, and waste acids and bases with or without
metals.
The typical treatment process used for metal-bearing waste is
chemical precipitation with lime or caustic followed by filtration. The
sludge generated is then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C or D landfill
depending upon its content. Most facilities that recover metals do not
generate a sludge that requires disposal. Instead, the sludges are sold
for their metal content. In addition to treating metal bearing waste
streams, many facilities in this subcategory also treat cyanide waste
streams, many of which are highly-concentrated and complex. Since the
presence of cyanide may interfere with the chemical precipitation
process, these facilities generally pretreat to remove cyanide and then
commingle the pretreated cyanide wastewaters with the other metal
containing wastewaters. EPA estimates that nineteen of the metals
facilities also treat cyanide waste streams. (See discussion in 1995
proposal at 60 FR 5474.)
2. Used/Waste Oil Treatment and Recovery Operations
The facilities proposed for regulation in this subcategory are
those that treat oily waste, wastewater, or used material received from
off-site and/or recover oil from off-site oily materials. EPA estimates
that, at present, there are 164 facilities in this subcategory. Among
the types of waste accepted for treatment are lubricants, coolants,
oil-water emulsions, used petroleum products, used oils, oil spill
clean-up, bilge water, tank clean-out, off-spec fuels, interceptor
wastes, and underground storage tank remediation waste. Many facilities
in this subcategory only provide treatment for oily wastewaters while
others pretreat the oily wastes for contaminants such as water and then
blend the resulting oil residual to form a product--usually fuel. Most
facilities perform both types of operations. EPA
[[Page 2302]]
estimates that 53 of these facilities only treat oily wastewaters and
36 facilities only recover oil for reuse. The remaining 75 facilities
both treat oily waste and recover oil to reuse.
At the time of the original proposal, EPA believed that 85 percent
of oils facilities were primarily accepting concentrated, difficult-to-
treat, stable, oil-water emulsions containing more than 10 percent oil.
However, during post-proposal data collection, EPA learned that many of
the wastes treated for oil content at these facilities were fairly
dilute and consisted of less than 10 percent oils. EPA now believes
that, while some facilities are accepting the more concentrated wastes,
that the majority of facilities in this subcategory are treating less
concentrated wastes.
Further, at the time of the original proposal, only three of the
facilities included in the database for this subcategory were
identified as solely accepting wastes classified as non-hazardous under
RCRA. The remaining facilities accepted either hazardous wastes alone
or a combination of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. In contrast,
based on more recent information, EPA believes that the vast majority
of facilities in this subcategory only accept wastes that would be
classified by RCRA as non-hazardous.
The most widely used treatment technology in this subcategory is
gravity separation and/or emulsion breaking. One-third of this industry
only uses gravity separation and/or emulsion breaking to treat oily
waste streams. Another third of the industry utilizes chemical
precipitation, and most of the rest use Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF).
3. Organic Waste Treatment
The facilities proposed for regulation in this subcategory are
those that treat organic waste received from off-site and/or recover
organics from off-site wastes. EPA estimates that there are 25
facilities in this subcategory. The majority of these facilities have
RCRA permits to accept hazardous wastes. Among the types of wastes
accepted at these facilities are landfill leachate, groundwater clean-
up from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing waste, off-specification
organic products, still bottoms, used glycols, and wastewater from
chemical product operations, paint washes, or adhesives and epoxies. As
explained previously, wastewater discharges from solvent recovery
operations are not included within the scope of this subcategory.
All of the organics facilities which discharge to a surface water
use equalization and some form of biological treatment to handle the
wastewater. The vast majority of organics facilities which discharge to
a POTW primarily use equalization. One third of all the organics
facilities also use activated carbon adsorption. Most of the facilities
in the organics subcategory have other industrial operations as well,
and the CWT wastes are mixed with these wastewaters prior to treatment.
The relatively constant make-up of on-site wastewater can support the
operation of conventional, continuous biological treatment processes
which otherwise could be upset by the variability of the off-site waste
receipts.
D. Mixed Waste Subcategory Consideration
EPA has received numerous comments from industry suggesting that
the subcategorization scheme developed for this rule is impractical for
CWT facilities which accept wastes in more than one subcategory. These
commenters are primarily concerned about incoming waste receipts which
may represent mixtures of wastes that would be classified in more than
one subcategory. These commenters argue that, while CWT facilities can
encourage their customers to segregate their wastes, they cannot
require segregation of incoming waste receipts according to waste type.
These commenters have suggested that, for ease of implementation, mixed
waste subcategory limitations should be developed for all facilities
treating wastes in more than one subcategory. These commenters are
primarily concerned that permit writers may impose additional and
substantial record keeping requirements in order to classify wastes in
one of the three subcategories. Commenters have suggested that
limitations for the mixed waste subcategory could combine pollutant
limitations from all three subcategories, selecting the most stringent
value where they overlap.
While facilities have suggested developing a mixed waste
subcategory with limitations derived by combining pollutant limitations
from all three subcategories (selecting the most stringent value where
they overlap), EPA does not believe facilities have adequately
considered the costs associated with such an option. In order to assure
effective treatment of co-diluted waste streams, EPA would need to
require more stringent limitations than currently being proposed for
any current subcategory because of the co-dilution that occurs when
wastes of different types are mixed together. Based on this assumption,
EPA assumed that facilities design and operate their treatment systems
to remove the mass of pollutants. EPA assumed that systems would not be
operated to meet pollutant concentration limits because concentrations
may be achieved merely through co-dilution (e.g., by mixing different
waste types) rather than treatment. Consequently, in order to cost for
mass pollutant removals, EPA compared the compliance cost for
facilities in multiple subcategories with the mixed waste subcategory
limitations as described above to compliance costs for facilities
meeting the limitations for the three subcategories separately. Costs
were greater for the mixed waste subcategory because EPA had to cost
for larger flows, the need for more chemical addition in treatment, and
other requirements. EPA chose nine representative facilities that treat
wastes in more than one subcategory to conduct the comparison. EPA
found that, in all cases, the costs of complying with the mixed waste
subcategory limitations were two to three times higher than the costs
associated with complying with each of the subcategory limitations
separately. Since the market for these services is generally very
competitive, and since many of these facilities are small businesses,
EPA believes that few facilities would chose to meet those stringent
limitations that would be necessary for the mixed waste subcategory.
The primary reason industry suggested the development of a mixed
waste subcategory was their concern that their waste receipts may be
classified in more than one subcategory. As detailed in Section XIV.E,
EPA believes that the information currently available to CWT facilities
is sufficient to classify wastes into one of the three subcategories.
Using the procedure recommended in Section XIV.E for determining the
subcategory, EPA has been able to assign each waste receipt identified
by the industry during rule development to one of the three proposed
subcategories. Therefore, EPA believes that the classification of any
particular waste into a single subcategory will not be a problem. EPA
requests comment on this issue, including examples of waste streams
that commenters believe would be difficult to classify.
The second reason industry suggested the development of a mixed
waste subcategory was to simplify implementation for mixed subcategory
facilities. EPA agrees with commenters that developing appropriate
limitations for mixed waste facilities presents many challenges, but
the Agency is also concerned that mixed wastes receive adequate
treatment. In many cases, facilities which accept wastes in
[[Page 2303]]
multiple subcategories do not have treatment in place to provide
effective treatment of all waste receipts. While these facilities meet
their permit limitations, compliance may be due to co-dilution of
dissimilar wastes rather than treatment. As an example, a facility may
have a treatment system comprised of equalization and biological
treatment and accepts wastes from the organics subcategory and the
metals subcategory (high concentrations of metal pollutants). Only the
organic subcategory waste receipts would be treated effectively. The
``mixed waste subcategory'' limitations described above would not
prevent ineffective treatment and could actually encourage it.
Therefore, based on economic considerations as well as concerns that
EPA has about ensuring compliance with effective treatment, rather than
dilution, EPA is not today proposing a mixed waste subcategory. EPA
solicits comments on ways to develop a ``mixed waste subcategory''
which ensures treatment rather than dilution.
VIII. Wastewater Characterization
This section describes the sources of wastewater at CWT facilities,
characterization of these wastewaters, and discharge flows. All waste
treatment processes covered by this regulation typically involve the
use of water; however, specifics for any facility depend on the
facility's waste receipts and treatment processes. For facilities that
completed the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, all information
is based on 1989 operations. For all facilities included in scope after
the original proposal, all data represent 1995 operations.
A. Wastewater Sources
Approximately 1.9 billion gallons of wastewater are generated
annually at CWT facilities. It is difficult to determine the quantity
of wastes attributable to different sources because facilities
generally mix the wastewater prior to treatment. EPA has, as a general
matter, however, identified the sources described below as contributing
to wastewater discharges at CWT operations that would be subject to the
proposed effluent limitations and standards.
1. Waste Receipts
Most off-site waste received by CWT facilities is aqueous. These
aqueous off-site waste receipts comprise the largest portion of the
wastewater treated at CWT facilities. Typical waste receipts for each
subcategory are detailed in section VII.C.
2. Solubilization Water
A portion of the off-site waste receipts is in a solid form. Water
may be added to the waste to render it treatable.
3. Used Oil Emulsion-Breaking Wastewater
The wastewater generated as a result of the emulsion breaking or
gravity separation process(es) from the processing of used oil
constitutes a major portion of the wastewater treated at oils
facilities. EPA estimates that, at a typical oils facility, half of the
wastewater treated is a result of oil/water separation processes.
4. Tanker Truck/Drum/Roll-Off Box Washes
Water is used to clean the equipment used for transporting wastes.
The amount of wastewater generated was difficult to assess because the
wash water is normally added to the wastes or used as solubilization
water.
5. Equipment Washes
Water is used to clean waste treatment equipment during unit shut
downs or in between batches of waste.
6. Air Pollution Control Scrubber Blow-Down
Water or acidic or basic solution is used in air emission control
scrubbers to control fumes from treatment tanks, storage tanks, and
other treatment equipment.
7. Laboratory-Derived Wastewater
Water is used in on-site laboratories which characterize incoming
waste streams and monitor on-site treatment performance.
8. Wastewater from On-site Industrial Waste Combustors or On-site
Landfills
Wastewater is generated at some CWT facilities as a result of on-
site landfilling or incineration activities.
9. Contaminated Stormwater
This is stormwater which comes in direct contact with the waste or
waste handling and treatment areas. If this contaminated CWT stormwater
is introduced to the treatment system, its discharge is subject to the
limitations proposed here today. The Agency is proposing not to
regulate under the CWT guideline non-contact stormwater or contaminated
stormwater not introduced to the treatment system. Such flows may, in
certain circumstances, require permitting under EPA's existing
permitting program at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) and 40 CFR 403.6. CWT
facilities that introduce non-contaminated stormwater into their
treatment system will need to identify this as a source of non-CWT
wastewater in their treatment system in their permit applications. This
is necessary in order that the permit writer may take account of these
flows in developing permit limitations that reflect actual treatment.
B. Wastewater Characterization
As discussed in Section V.A, wastewater receipts treated at CWT
facilities can have significantly different pollutants and pollutant
loads depending on the customer and the process generating the waste
receipt. In fact, at many CWT facilities, the pollutants and pollutant
loads can vary daily and from batch to batch. As such, it is difficult
to characterize typical CWT wastewaters. In fact, one of the
distinguishing characteristics of CWT wastewaters (as compared to
traditional categorical wastewaters) is that there is always the
exception to the rule. As an example, EPA analyzed samples of
wastewater receipts from a single facility that were obtained during
three different, non-consecutive weeks. EPA found that the weekly waste
receipts varied from the most concentrated (in terms of metal
pollutants) to one of the least concentrated (in terms of metal
pollutants).
[[Page 2304]]
EPA determined pollutants of concern for the CWT industry by
assessing EPA sampling data only. Industry has provided very little
quantitative data on the concentrations of pollutants entering their
wastewater treatment systems. For the metals and organics subcategory,
the data used to determine the pollutants of concern were collected at
influent points to the wastewater treatment systems. For the oils
subcategory, the data were collected following emulsion breaking and/or
gravity separation. The pollutant concentrations at these points are
lower than the original waste receipt concentrations as a result of the
commingling of a variety of waste streams, and for the oils
subcategory, as a result of pretreatment. In most cases, EPA could not
collect samples from individual waste shipments because of physical
constraints and excessive analytical costs.
EPA's influent sampling data were collected over a limited time
span (generally two to five days). The samples represent a snapshot of
the receipts accepted for treatment during the time the samples were
collected. Since waste receipts can vary significantly from day to day,
EPA cannot know if the data are representative of waste receipts during
any other time period. If EPA had sampled at more facilities or over
longer periods of time, EPA would expect to observe a wider range of
flow, pollutants, and pollutant concentrations in CWT industry raw
wastewater. This has complicated the selection of pollutants of concern
and regulated pollutants, and the estimation of current performance and
removals associated with this rulemaking. Historically, in developing
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, unlike CWT waste
receipts, influent waste streams are generally consistent in strength
and nature.
To establish the pollutants of concern, EPA reviewed the analytical
data from influent wastewater samples to determine the number of times
a pollutant was detected at treatable levels. Treatable levels were set
at ten times the minimum analytical detection limit to ensure that
pollutants detected at only trace amounts would not be selected. For
most organic pollutants, the minimum analytical detection limit is 10
ug/L. Therefore, for most organic parameters, EPA had defined treatable
levels as 100 ug/L. For metal pollutants, the minimum analytical
detection limits range from 0.2 ug/L to 1000 ug/L. The initial
pollutant of concern listing for each subcategory was then derived by
establishing which parameters were detected at treatable levels in at
least 10 percent of the daily influent wastewater samples. Ten percent
is a different criteria than was used to identify pollutants of concern
in the 1995 proposal. EPA used different criteria for this proposal
since it has a larger data set for this proposal than the 1995
proposal. EPA notes that, while it generally establishes criteria to
establish pollutants of concern on an industry-by-industry basis, the
criteria used in this proposal are similar to those used for proposal
of other service industries. EPA additionally notes that the criteria
to establish pollutants of concern used to date for the service
industries have varied from the criteria used to establish pollutants
of concern for some of the traditional categorical industries because
service industries (particularly CWT) have much greater variability in
the pollutants and pollutant concentrations seen in their wastewaters
than some of the traditional categorical industries previously studied
by EPA. Finally, if EPA had elected to establish pollutants of concern
using a criteria higher than 10 percent, the estimated baseline
loadings and pollutant removals would have been reduced, but EPA might
have overlooked potential pollutants of concern because of the
variability in the industry.
During the SBREFA panel, some industry representatives suggested
that both the pollutants and the concentration of pollutants in non-
hazardous CWT wastes were distinctly different from those in hazardous
CWT wastes. EPA's database contains information that was collected at
facilities which treat hazardous waste only, non-hazardous waste only,
and a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. The majority of
the data was collected at facilities which are permitted to accept
hazardous wastes. As stated earlier, although these data suggest that
flows from non-RCRA permitted facilities may have significantly lower
pollutant loadings, they are inadequate to support the conclusion that
EPA should differentiate between oily facilities on the basis of
whether hazardous or non-hazardous wastes are treated at the facility.
However, as described in Section VI.C., EPA recently collected
wastewater samples at an additional ten non-hazardous oily waste
facilities. EPA has not included this data in these analyses, but has
included this data in the Appendix of the technical development
document. EPA will revisit its conclusions based on the analytical
results of the recent sampling as well as any additional data provided
during the comment period prior to promulgation. As such, EPA solicits
comments and data on the pollutants and concentration of pollutants in
non-hazardous CWT waste receipts and in hazardous CWT waste receipts.
(See also Section IV.T).
1. Raw Wastewater at CWT Metals Subcategory Facilities
Wastewater treated at CWT facilities in the metals subcategory
contains a range of conventional, toxic, and non-conventional
pollutants. EPA identified 78 pollutants of concern for the metals
subcategory, including three conventional pollutants, 43 metals, and 17
organic pollutants. As expected, wastewaters contained significant
concentrations of common non-conventional metals such as aluminum,
iron, and tin. Also, as expected, given the processes generating these
wastewaters, waste receipts generally contained toxic heavy metals.
Toxic metals found in the highest concentrations were cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, and zinc. While organic pollutants
were present in the wastewater at a few sampled facilities in this
subcategory, they were not typically found in the treated wastewater
effluent in this subcategory. Many metals facilities have placed
acceptance restrictions on the concentration of organic pollutants
allowed in the off-site waste streams accepted for treatment.
2. Raw Wastewater at CWT Oils Subcategory Facilities
To characterize raw wastewater for the oils subcategory, EPA
evaluated samples obtained following the initial gravity separation/
emulsion breaking step. Wastewater treated at CWT facilities in the
oils subcategory also contains a range of conventional, toxic, and non-
conventional pollutants. EPA identified 120 pollutants of concern in
the oils subcategory including three conventional pollutants, 32
metals, and 72 organics. Oil and grease levels in this subcategory
varied greatly from one facility to the next and ranged from 26 mg/L to
61,000 mg/L after the first stage of treatment (emulsion breaking and/
or gravity separation). Wastewaters contained significant
concentrations of both non-conventional and toxic metals such as
aluminum, boron, cobalt, iron, manganese, and zinc. A wide range of
organic pollutants were also found in the untreated wastewaters from
this subcategory. Organic pollutants found in the highest
concentrations were straight chain hydrocarbons such as n-decane and n-
tetradecane and aromatics such as naphthalene and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. EPA also detected
[[Page 2305]]
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, such as benzo(a)pyrene in the wastewaters of
oils facilities. EPA reviewed the readily available literature
pertaining to benzo(a)pyrene and its presence in waste receipts that
may be accepted at facilities which treat non-hazardous oily wastes
such as used motor oils, diesel fuels, fuel oils, lubricating oils, and
gasolines. Based on this review, EPA has concluded that the presence of
benzo(a)pyrene as a pollutant in its sampling data is not an anomaly.
The result is consistent with what is observed in the available
literature.
3. Raw Wastewater at CWT Organics Subcategory Facilities
Wastewater treated at CWT facilities in the organics subcategory
contains a range of conventional, toxic and non-conventional
pollutants. EPA identified 97 pollutants of concern for this
subcategory including three conventional pollutants, 25 metals, and 60
organics. As expected, wastewaters contained significant concentrations
of organic parameters, many of which are highly volatile. The metals
present in the highest concentrations were common ones such as aluminum
and iron.
As described in VI.C.3, the data available to the EPA for
characterizing raw wastewaters for the organics subcategory are
limited. In fact, the preceding discussion on the characterization of
organic subcategory wastewaters is based on sampling data from a single
organic subcategory facility. All other wastewater characterization
data collected for the organics subcategory represented wastewater from
multiple subcategories (e.g., mixed oils and organic subcategory
wastewaters). EPA is especially eager for commenters on the proposal to
provide data for organic subcategory wastewaters which are not mixed
with other subcategory wastewaters to use in refining the Agency's
characterization of this subcategory.
C. Wastewater Flow and Discharge
Based on the information collected during the development of this
rule, approximately 1.9 billion gallons of in-scope wastewater are
discharged annually from CWT operations. CWT facilities do not generate
a ``process wastewater'' in the traditional sense of this term because
there is no manufacturing or commercial ``process'' which is generating
water.3 Consequently, the regulated wastewater for this
industry will include any wastes received for treatment (``waste
receipt'') as well as water which comes into contact with the wastes or
waste processing area. As mentioned previously, the primary sources of
``CWT wastewater'' discharges from these facilities include: waste
receipts, used oil processing wastewater, solubilization wastewater,
tanker truck/drums/roll-off box washes, equipment washes, air pollution
control scrubber blow-down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site
landfill and industrial waste combustor wastewaters, and contaminated
stormwater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Process wastewater is defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as ``any water
which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact
with or results from the production or use of any raw material, by-
product, intermediate product, finished product, or waste product.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWT facilities have several options for the discharge of their
wastewater. EPA estimates that there are 14 facilities discharging
wastewater directly into a receiving stream or body of water,
accounting for 0.5 billion gallons per year. In addition, there are 147
facilities discharging wastewater indirectly through a POTW, accounting
for 1.4 billion gallons per year.
Also, there are a number of CWT facilities which do not dispose of
wastewater directly to surface waters or indirectly to POTWs. The
Agency estimates that there are 44 of these alternative discharge
facilities. At these facilities, (1) wastewater is disposed of by
alternate means such as on-site or off-site deep well injection or
incineration (9 facilities); (2) wastewater is sent off-site for
treatment, generally to another CWT (23 facilities); (3) wastewater is
evaporated (5 facilities); and (4) zero discharge option is unknown (7
facilities).
Table VIII.C-1 provides estimates of wastewater flow and discharge
at a subcategory level basis.
Table VIII.C-1.--Wastewater Flow and Discharge by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Number of indirect Number of Total Total flow
Subcategory indirect flow (M direct direct flow (M gallons
discharging gallons / discharging (M gallons /year)
facilities year) facilities /year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery.................. 41 449 9 496 944
Oils Treatment and Recovery.................... 123 861 5 24 885
Organics Treatment............................. 14 60 4 16 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Description of Available Technologies
The treatment technologies presently employed by the industry
represent the range of wastewater treatment systems observed at
categorical industrial operations. All CWT facilities operate some
wastewater treatment systems. The technologies used include physical-
chemical treatment, biological treatment, and advanced wastewater
treatment. Based on information obtained from the 1991 Waste Treatment
Industry Questionnaire and site visits, EPA has concluded that a
significant number of these treatment systems need to be upgraded to
improve effectiveness and to remove additional pollutants.
Among the physical-chemical treatment technologies in use include:
Equalization Tanks. Equalization dampens variation in
hydraulic and pollutant loadings, thereby reducing shock loads and
increasing treatment facility performance.
Neutralization. Neutralization dampens pH variation prior
to treatment or discharge.
Coagulation/Flocculation. Coagulation/flocculation is used
to assist clarification of biological treatment effluent.
Gravity Separation. Gravity-assisted separation allows
suspended matter, heavier than water, to become quiescent and settle;
and suspended matter, lighter than water, to float.
Emulsion Breaking. The addition of de-emulsifiers (heat,
acid, metal coagulants, polymers, and clays) break down emulsions to
produce a mixture of water and free oil and/or an oily floc.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). DAF separates solid or
liquid particles from
[[Page 2306]]
a liquid phase by introducing air bubbles into the liquid phase. The
bubbles attach to the particles and rise to the top of the mixture.
Chemical Precipitation. The addition of chemicals to
wastewater to convert soluble metal salts to insoluble metal oxides
which are then removed by sedimentation and/or filtration.
Chemical Oxidation/Reduction. By chemical addition, the
structure of pollutants are changed so as to disinfect, increase
biodegradation and adsorption, or convert pollutants to terminal end
products.
Air/Steam Stripping. Air/Steam stripping involves the
removal of pollutants from wastewater by the transfer of volatile
compounds from the liquid phase to a gas stream.
Multimedia/Sand Filtration. Multimedia/sand filtration
involves a fixed (gravity or pressure) or moving bed of porous media
that traps and removes suspended solids from water passing though the
media.
Ultrafiltration. Extremely fine grade filters are used to
remove organic pollutants from wastewater according to the organic
molecule size.
Reverse Osmosis. Reverse osmosis relies on differences in
dissolved solids concentrations and selective semipermeable membranes
to primarily remove dissolved inorganic pollutants.
Fabric Filters. Fabric filters screen suspended matter by
means of a cloth or paper barrier.
Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration. Fabric filters under
pressure are used to separate solids from liquid streams.
Carbon Adsorption. In this process, wastewater is passed
over a medium of activated carbon which adsorbs certain pollutants.
Ion Exchange. The use of certain resins in contact with
wastewater removes contaminants of similar charge.
Biological treatment technologies in use include:
Aerobic Systems. Aerobic systems utilize an acclimated
community of aerobic microorganisms to degrade, coagulate, and remove
organic and other contaminants. They are typically ponds, lagoons or
tanks without recycle of biomass.
Activated Sludge. Activated sludge is a continuous flow,
aerobic biological treatment process which employs suspended-growth
aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants with recycle
of biomass.
Sequential Batch Reactors. A sequential batch reactor
contains acclimated microorganisms to degrade organic material. The
batch process permits equalization, aeration, and clarification in a
single tank.
Powdered Activated Carbon Biological Treatment. The
addition of granular activated carbon to biological treatment systems
enhances the removal of certain organic pollutants.
The typical treatment sequence for a facility depends upon the type
of waste accepted for treatment. Most facilities treating metal-bearing
wastes use precipitation/sedimentation/filtration to remove metals.
Those that treat oily wastes rely on emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and/or dissolved air flotation largely to remove oil and
grease, organics, and metals. Aerobic batch processes and conventional
activated sludge systems were the most widely-used treatment technology
for the organic-bearing wastes.
B. Technology Options Considered and Treatment Systems Selected for
Basis of Regulation
This section explains how EPA selected the effluent limitations and
standards proposed today for the metals, oils, and organics
subcategories. To determine the technology basis and performance level
for the proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of
daily effluent data collected from the Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire and the EPA wastewater sampling program. This database is
used to support the BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent
limitations and standards proposed today. While EPA establishes
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards based on a treatment
technology, EPA does not require a discharger to use that technology in
treating CWT wastewater. Rather, the technologies which may be used to
treat wastewater are entirely left to the discretion of the individual
CWT operator, as long as the numerical discharge limits are achieved.
In order to establish the proposed limits, EPA reviewed data from
treatment systems in operation at a number of treatment facilities to
calculate concentration limits that are achievable based on a well-
operated system using the proposed technologies. Below is a summary of
the technology basis for the proposed effluent limitations in each
subcategory.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
a. Introduction. EPA today proposes BPT effluent limitations for
the three discharge subcategories for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Point Source Category. The BPT effluent limitations proposed today
would control identified conventional, priority, and non-conventional
pollutants when discharged from CWT facilities.
b. Rationale for BPT limitations by subcategory. As previously
discussed, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(A) requires EPA to identify effluent
reductions attainable through the application of ``best practicable
control technology currently available for classes and categories of
point sources.'' The Senate Report for the 1972 amendments to the CWA
explained how EPA must establish BPT effluent reduction levels.
Generally, EPA determines BPT effluent levels based upon the average of
the best existing performances by plants of various sizes, ages, and
unit processes within each industrial category or subcategory. In
industrial categories where present practices are uniformly inadequate,
however, EPA may determine that BPT requires higher levels of control
than any currently in place if the technology to achieve those levels
can be practicably applied. See A Legislative History of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, U.S. Senate Committee
of Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT
limits, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does
not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are
achievable with available technology unless the required additional
reductions are ``wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving
such marginal level of reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit.
p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify
benefits in monetary terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel
Institute v. EPA, 526 F. 2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).
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).
In assessing BPT for this industry, EPA considered age, size,
process, other engineering factors, and non-water
[[Page 2307]]
quality impacts pertinent to the facilities treating waste in each
subcategory. For all subcategories, no basis could be found for
identifying different BPT limitations based on age, size, process, or
other engineering factors for the reasons previously discussed. For a
service industry whose service is wastewater treatment, the pertinent
factors for establishing the limitations are costs of treatment, the
level of effluent reductions obtainable, and non-water quality effects.
EPA determined that, while some CWT facilities are providing
adequate treatment of all waste streams, wastewater treatment at some
CWT facilities is poor. EPA is concerned that facilities which mix
different types of highly concentrated CWT wastes with non-CWT waste
streams or with stormwater may not be providing BPT treatment. In
addition, while some CWT facilities pretreat subcategory waste streams
for effective removal prior to commingling, some facilities mix wastes
from different subcategories without pretreatment. This practice
reduces the effectiveness of treatment and may lead to inadequate
treatment for some waste streams. As a result, the mass of pollutants
being discharged at some CWT facilities is higher than that which can
be achieved, given the demonstrated removal capacity of certain of the
treatment systems that the Agency reviewed. EPA has observed that many
CWT facilities recognize that commingling often leads to less effective
treatment, and have encouraged their customers to segregate wastes as
much as possible. Waste minimization techniques at most manufacturing
facilities have also led to increased waste stream segregation.
Comparison of EPA sampling data and CWT industry-supplied
monitoring information establishes that, in the case of metal-bearing
waste streams, virtually all the facilities are discharging large total
quantities of heavy metals. As measured by total suspended solids (TSS)
levels following treatment, TSS concentrations are substantially in
excess of levels observed at facilities in other industry categories
employing the very same treatment technology--10 to 20 times greater
than those observed for other point source categories. EPA believes
these higher TSS effluent concentrations are due to improper or
ineffective treatment of these wastes rather than TSS influent
concentration differences between CWT wastewaters and other industrial
category wastewaters.
In the case of oil discharges, many facilities are achieving poor
removal of oil and grease relative to the performance required for
other point source categories. In addition, many sample infrequently
for metal and organic constituents in their discharge since these
parameters are not included in their discharge permits. Further, some
facilities treating organic wastes, while successfully removing organic
pollutants through biological treatment, fail to remove metals
associated with these organic wastes.
EPA's options to evaluate treatment systems in place at direct
discharging CWT facilities were extremely limited since most of the
facilities in this industry are indirect dischargers. This is
particularly true of the metals and oils facilities. Many CWT indirect
dischargers are not required to control discharges of conventional
pollutants because the receiving POTWs are designed to achieve removal
of conventional pollutants. Therefore, in general, indirect dischargers
currently do not monitor or optimize the performance of their treatment
systems for control of conventional pollutants. Because BPT applies to
direct dischargers, the data used to establish limitations and
standards are normally collected from such facilities. For this rule,
EPA relied on information and data from widely available treatment
technologies in use at CWT facilities discharging indirectly. For non-
conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that some technology in place at
indirect discharging CWT facilities is appropriate to use as the basis
for regulation of direct dischargers. For conventional pollutants,
however, EPA largely relied on information and data collected for other
point source categories.
(i) Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory. The Agency is today
proposing BPT limitations for the metals subcategory for 19 pollutants.
In developing these limitations, EPA reexamined the treatment options
it had looked at for the 1995 proposal at the same time it was
assessing one new treatment option. As a result of this reexamination,
EPA continues to believe that single-stage, chemical precipitation of
mixed, disparate metal-bearing waste streams is not an acceptable
technological basis for BPT limitations. As explained in the earlier
proposal (60 FR 5478), adequate metals removals are not obtained
through single-stage chemical precipitation of mixed-metals waste
streams. In the case of complex cyanide, metal-bearing streams, EPA is
still proposing to require cyanide removal prior to metals treatment as
discussed in the 1995 proposal (60 FR 5477).
For today's proposal, EPA considered three regulatory options (two
previously assessed as well as one new treatment option), all relying
on chemical precipitation, to reduce the discharge of pollutants from
CWT facilities. The three currently available treatment systems for
which the EPA assessed performance for the metals subcategory BPT are
as follows:
Option 2 4 Selective Metals Precipitation,
Liquid-Solid separation, Secondary Precipitation, and Liquid-Solid
Separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The numbering of options reflects the numbering for the 1995
proposal. Options 2 and 3 were first considered for that proposal.
Option 4 is a new technology EPA evaluated for this proposal. EPA is
no longer evaluating Option 1 as the treatment basis for proposed
limitations and standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 34 Selective Metals Precipitation,
Liquid-Solid Separation, Secondary Precipitation, Liquid-Solid
Separation, Tertiary Precipitation, and Clarification.
Option 44 Batch precipitation, Liquid-Solid
Separation, Secondary Precipitation, Clarification, and Sand
Filtration.
For a more detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and
the basis for the technologies selected, see the technical development
document as well as the discussion in the 1995 proposal at 60 FR 5477.
The first treatment option (Option 2) that EPA evaluated as a basis
for today's proposed BPT limitations for CWT facilities is based on
``selective metals precipitation.'' ``Selective metals precipitation''
is a specialized metals removal technology that tailors precipitation
conditions to the metal to be removed. The extent to which a metal is
precipitated from a solution will vary with a number of factors,
including pH, temperature, and treatment chemicals. Selective metals
precipitation adjusts these conditions sequentially in order to provide
maximum precipitation of metals. Selective metals precipitation
requires segregation of incoming waste streams and careful
characterization of the metals content of the waste stream. Next, there
are multiple precipitations in batches at different pH levels in order
to achieve maximum removal of specific metals. Selective metals
precipitation results in formation of a metal-rich filter cake. This
treatment option requires numerous treatment tanks and personnel to
handle incoming waste streams, greater quantities of treatment
chemicals, and increased monitoring of the batch treatment processes.
One of the benefits of this technology, however, is that it results in
a metal-rich filter
[[Page 2308]]
cake that facilities employing this treatment have the option of
selling as feed material for metal reclamation. For metals streams
which contain concentrated cyanide complexes, achievement of the BPT
limitations under this option would require alkaline chlorination in a
two step process prior to metals treatment. These BPT cyanide
limitations are discussed in greater detail below.
The second treatment option EPA evaluated (Option 3) is the same as
Option 2 with an additional, third precipitation step added for
increased pollutant removals. Again, for metals streams which contain
concentrated cyanide complexes, like Option 2, for Option 3, BPT
limitations are also based on alkaline chlorination in a two step
process before metal precipitation.
The new technology EPA evaluated as the basis of BPT for this
regulation (Option 4) is a two stage precipitation process. The first
stage of this technology is similar to the Option 1 chemical
precipitation technology considered (and rejected) for the earlier
proposal. It is based on chemical precipitation followed by some form
of solids separation and sludge dewatering. In Option 4, however, a
second precipitation step is also performed followed by clarification
and sand filtration. Generally, BPT limitations based on Option 4 would
require some facilities to use increased quantities of treatment
chemicals, perform additional monitoring of batch processes, perform an
additional precipitation step, and add a clarification and sand
filtration step. Once again, for metals streams which contain
concentrated cyanide complexes, like Options 2 and 3, alkaline
chlorination in a two step process prior to metals treatment is also
part of the Option 4 treatment process that forms the basis for BPT
limitations.
At the time of the original proposal, the Agency considered
treatment Options 1, 2 and 3 only, and proposed to adopt BPT
limitations based on Option 3. In today's proposal, the Agency is
proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations based on Option 4 for the
metals subcategory.
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option 4 treatment
reflects primarily an evaluation of two factors: the degree of effluent
reductions attainable through this technology and the total cost of the
proposed treatment in relation to the effluent reductions benefits. The
Agency is proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on the removal
performance of the Option 4 treatment system for the following reasons.
First, the Option 4 technology is one that is readily applicable to all
facilities that are treating metal-bearing waste streams. It is
currently used at 25 percent of the facilities in this subcategory.
Second, the adoption of this level of control would represent a
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. Option 4 would remove approximately
13.8 million pounds annually of conventional pollutants now discharged
to the Nation's waters. Third, the Agency assessed the total cost of
water pollution controls likely to be incurred for Option 4 in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were
economically reasonable--less than $0.19 per pound.
The Agency has decided not to propose BPT limitations based on
Option 3, selective metals precipitation, for a number of reasons.
First, while both Option 3 and Option 4 provide significant pollutant
removals, are economically achievable, and expected to result in non-
water quality benefits through increased recycling of metals, Option 3
is nearly four times as costly as Option 4. Furthermore, there is
little, if any, expected increase in total removals associated with the
Option 3 technology. (Total removals associated with Option 3 are
virtually identical to those achieved by Option 4--less than 1.25
percent greater.) Second, EPA has some concern about whether selective
metals precipitation could be applied throughout the industry because,
currently, only one facility is employing this technology. Moreover, as
noted above, the effectiveness of selective metals precipitation
depends, in part, on the separation and holding of waste streams in
numerous treatment tanks. EPA is aware that there may be physical
constraints on the ability of certain facilities to install the
additional, required treatment tanks. These and other factors support
EPA's determination not to propose limitations based on the Option 3
technology. Because Option 2 treatment also includes selective metals
precipitation, the Agency is similarly rejecting it as a basis for BPT.
The Agency used chemical precipitation treatment technology
performance data from the Metal Finishing regulation (40 CFR Part 433)
to establish direct discharge limitations for TSS because the facility
from which the Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect
discharger and the treatment system is not designed to optimize removal
of conventional parameters. EPA has concluded that the transfer of this
data is appropriate given the absence of adequate treatment technology
for this pollutant at the only otherwise well-operated BPT CWT
facility. Based on a review of the data, EPA believes that similar
wastes (in terms of TSS concentrations) are being treated at both metal
finishing and centralized waste treatment facilities, and that the use
of the metal finishing data to derive TSS limits for this subcategory
is warranted. Since the technology basis for the transferred
limitations includes clarification rather than sand filtration, the
Agency also included a clarification step prior to sand filtration
(which the Option 4 facility does not have) in the technology basis for
Option 4 for facilities subject to BPT. Therefore, because the
technology basis for CWT is based on primary chemical precipitation,
primary clarification, secondary chemical precipitation, secondary
clarification, and sand filtration and the technology basis for Metal
Finishing is based on primary precipitation and clarification only, EPA
concluded that CWT facilities will perform similarly (or better) when
treating TSS in wastes in this subcategory. EPA requests comment on its
approach to developing TSS limitations for this subcategory.
EPA believes it is important to note that BPT limitations
established by Option 4 are based on data from a single, well-operated
system. Generally, for purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations,
EPA looks at the performance of the best treatment technology and
calculates limitations from some level of average performance measured
at facilities which employ this ``best'' treatment technology. In
reviewing technologies currently in use in this subcategory, however,
EPA found that facilities generally utilize a single stage chemical
precipitation step--a technology which generally does not achieve
adequate metals removals for the waste streams observed at these
operations. EPA did identify a handful of facilities which utilize
additional metals wastewater treatment, generally secondary chemical
precipitation. Of these facilities, EPA believes that only one accepts
a full spectrum of waste, often with extremely high metals
concentrations and provides, therefore, a suitable basis to determine
the performance that a well-designed and operated system can achieve
for a wide range of raw waste concentrations. Consequently, EPA is
proposing to adopt BPT limitations based on performance data from this
facility.
Cyanide Subset. The presence of high cyanide concentrations, as
discussed above, detrimentally affects the performance of metal
precipitation
[[Page 2309]]
processes due to the formation of metal-cyanide complexes. Effective
treatment of such wastes typically involves a cyanide destruction step
prior to any metal precipitation steps. Consequently, in the case of
metal streams which contain concentrated cyanide complexes, EPA based
BPT limitations on an additional treatment step to destroy cyanide
before metals precipitation. EPA considered three regulatory options
for the destruction of cyanide:
Cyanide Option 1 Alkaline Chlorination.
Cyanide Option 2 Alkaline Chlorination in a two step
process.
Cyanide Option 3 Confidential Cyanide Destruction.
The Option 1 technology, alkaline chlorination, is widely used for
cyanide destruction in this industry as well as others. For this
subset, therefore, it represents current performance. EPA also
evaluated Option 2 BPT limitations based on the use of alkaline
chlorination in a two-step process. In the first step, cyanide is
oxidized to cyanate in a pH range of 9 to 11. The second step oxidizes
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a controlled pH of 8.5. In
addition, EPA considered a third technology which is extremely
effective in reducing cyanide. Application of this technology resulted
in cyanide reductions of 99.8 percent for both amenable and total
cyanide. The Option 3 technology is claimed as confidential.
At the time of the original proposal, the Agency proposed
limitations based on what is Cyanide Option 2 for the cyanide subset of
the metals subcategory. This technology remains the basis for the BPT
limitations for metals streams with concentrated cyanide complexes
proposed today. Although Option 3 provides greater removals than Option
2, the Agency has decided to reject Option 3 as a basis for BPT
limitations because the technology is not publicly available. The
cyanide destruction system used at the one facility employing Option 3
is a proprietary process that does not employ off-the-shelf technology.
There are, in addition, several reasons supporting the selection of
limitations based on Option 2. First, the facility achieving Option 2
removals accepts a full spectrum of cyanide waste. Consequently, the
treatment used by the Option 2 facility can be readily applied to all
facilities in the subset of this subcategory. Second, adoption of this
level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants
discharged into the environment by facilities in this subset. Finally,
the Agency assessed the total cost for Option 2 in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were
economically reasonable.
The proposal would require monitoring for compliance with the
cyanide limitations for cyanide-bearing wastes when the wastewater
exits the cyanide destruction process rather than after mixing with
other process wastewater. Alternatively, the facility may monitor for
compliance after mixing if the cyanide limitations are adjusted using
the ``building block approach'' (see Section XIV.F), assuming the
adjusted cyanide limitations do not fall below the minimum analytical
detection limit.
(ii). Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory. The Agency is today
proposing BPT limitations for the oils subcategory for 22 pollutants.
EPA examined four regulatory options in establishing BPT effluent
reduction levels for this subcategory of the CWT Industry. EPA is no
longer considering any of the four options it proposed in 1995 (60 FR
5478).
The four technology options considered today for the oils
subcategory BPT limitations are based on emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and:
Option 8 \5\ Dissolved Air Flotation
Option 8v \5\ Air Stripping with Emissions Control and
Dissolved Air Flotation
Option 95 Secondary Gravity Separation and Dissolved Air
Flotation
Option 9v 5 Air Stripping with Emissions
Control, Secondary Gravity Separation, and Dissolved Air Flotation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As noted above, EPA is no longer considering Oils Option 1-4
proposed in 1995. During development of today's proposal, EPA also
preliminarily considered seven other options numbered 5-9v. EPA has
chosen to focus its attention on Option 8 through 9v.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a more detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and
the basis for the technologies selected, see the technical development
document.
As previously noted, at the time of the original proposal, the
Agency also evaluated four other options. The first treatment option
considered was based on emulsion breaking/gravity separation only.
Next, EPA considered BPT limitations based on emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and ultrafiltration. The third treatment operation evaluated
included emulsion breaking/gravity separation, ultrafiltration, carbon
adsorption, and reverse osmosis. Finally, EPA looked at basing
limitations on adding an additional carbon adsorption step to the third
treatment system. While emulsion breaking/gravity separation alone is
widely used in this subcategory, the Agency dropped it from further
consideration at the time of the original proposal because EPA believed
that emulsion breaking/gravity separation alone did not adequately
control the pollutants of concern relative to other widely available
technologies, and, therefore, did not represent a BPT technology. The
Agency dropped the final option from consideration at the time of the
original proposal because EPA's analysis showed that some pollutant
concentrations actually increased following the additional carbon
adsorption.
At the time of the 1995 proposal, the Agency co-proposed BPT
limitations based on emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
ultrafiltration as well as emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
ultrafiltration with added carbon adsorption and reverse osmosis to
remove metals compounds found at significant levels in this
subcategory. Because the costs associated with the latter option were
four times higher than emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
ultrafiltration, EPA was concerned about its impacts on facilities in
this subcategory. EPA co-proposed BPT based on both options, because
the oil and grease limits based on emulsion breaking/gravity separation
and ultrafiltration were less stringent than BPT effluent limitations
guidelines promulgated for other industries. EPA was concerned that the
effect of promulgating such limitations would be to encourage
ineffective off-site treatment of oily waste streams. As mentioned
previously, after the 1995 proposal, EPA collected additional
information on facilities in the oils subcategory and revisited its
conclusion about the size and nature of the oils subcategory. Further,
as detailed earlier, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability in
1996 describing the new information and EPA's revised assessment of the
oils subcategory. Based on analyses presented in the 1996 Notice, EPA
determined it should no longer consider emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and ultrafiltration with added treatment steps as the basis
for BPT limitations because the projected total costs relative to
effluent reduction benefits were not economically reasonable.
Based on comments to the 1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data
Availability, EPA was strongly encouraged to look at alternate
technology options to emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
ultrafiltration. This concern was driven in large measure by the fact
that many of the facilities in the oils subcategory are classified as
``small businesses'' and
[[Page 2310]]
the economic cost of installing and operating the ultrafiltration
technology was quite high. Additionally, many commenters stated that
ultrafiltration is a sophisticated technology which would be difficult
to operate and maintain with the majority of these waste streams.
Commenters also noted that the Agency had failed to consider non-water
quality impacts adequately, particularly those associated with the
disposal of the concentrated filtrate from these operations. As a
result, based on comments to the original proposal, the 1996 Notice of
Data Availability, and additional site visits, EPA identified several
other treatment options that were efficient, produced tighter oil and
grease limits, and were less expensive. As such, EPA is no longer
considering emulsion breaking/gravity separation and ultrafiltration as
an appropriate technology for limitations for the oils subcategory.
Small entity representatives and SBREFA panel members requested
that EPA examine emulsion breaking/gravity separation and secondary
gravity separation as a potential treatment technology basis for the
oils subcategory. Secondary gravity separation employs additional
separation steps following the initial emulsion breaking/gravity
separation step. During development of today's proposal, EPA examined
emulsion breaking/gravity separation and secondary gravity separation
as a possible BPT technology. EPA has data from a single facility which
utilizes this technology (as a pretreatment step prior to dissolved air
flotation and biological treatment). As previously noted, the oils
subcategory wastewaters often contain significant concentrations of
metals pollutants. The data show that this technology alone did not
adequately control the metal pollutants of concern relative to other
widely available technologies. That is, removals of metals were much
lower than those obtained from single-stage chemical precipitation and
DAF units. Therefore, the Agency is not proposing that emulsion
breaking/gravity separation and secondary gravity separation without
further treatment as BPT treatment for this subcategory. EPA requests
comment on this issue and paired influent/effluent data from well-
operated facilities employing this technology.
The first option evaluated for today's proposed BPT limitations for
the oils subcategory, Option 8, is based on the use of emulsion
breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air flotation (DAF). DAF
separates solid or liquid particles from a liquid phase by introducing
air bubbles into the liquid phase. The bubbles attach to the particles
and rise to the top of the mixture. Often, chemicals are added to
increase the removal of metal constituents. Generally, BPT limitations
based on this option would require some facilities to install and
operate a DAF system or, for some facilities with currently installed
DAF systems, to improve monitoring and operation. For oils streams with
significant concentrations of metals, this option would also require
some facilities to use increased quantities of treatment chemicals to
enhance metals removals. The second technology evaluated for BPT
limitations, Option 9, is emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
secondary gravity separation in combination with dissolved air
flotation. Secondary gravity separation involves using a series of
tanks to separate the oil and water and then skimming the oily
component off. The resulting water moves to the next step. The gravity
separation steps are then followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF). As
mentioned previously, EPA believes all oils facilities currently
utilize some form of gravity separation, although most perform primary
gravity separation only. Generally, BPT limitations based on this
option would require some facilities to perform additional gravity
separation steps, perform better monitoring and operation of their DAF
system, or install and operate a DAF system. For oils streams with
relatively high concentrations of metals, this option would also
require some facilities to use increased quantities of treatment
chemicals to enhance the removal of metals.
EPA also considered both options in combination with air stripping
(with emissions control) to control the emission of volatile pollutants
into the air.
The Agency is today proposing BPT limitations for the oils
subcategory based on Option 9, emulsion breaking/gravity separation,
secondary gravity separation and dissolved air flotation for two
reasons. First, the adoption of this level of control would represent a
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. Second, the Agency assessed the total
costs of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for this option
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these
costs were reasonable at $0.69/lb ($1997).
EPA proposes to reject Option 8 because BPT pollutant removals
based on Option 8, for a number of parameters (particularly oil and
grease), are much less stringent than current BPT effluent limitations
guidelines promulgated for other industries. EPA believes that the vast
majority of DAF systems in use in this subcategory are not performing
optimally. As mentioned earlier, all of the DAF systems studied by EPA
were used at facilities that discharge to POTWs. As such, optimal
control of oil and grease is not required. Many do not even monitor the
oil and grease levels in the material entering, and in some cases,
leaving the DAF.
For direct dischargers, EPA's cost analysis was not able to
distinguish between Option 8 and Option 9. All of the direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory for which EPA estimated
costs currently employ rather extensive treatment (relative to the rest
of the facilities in the oils subcategory), but the treatment
technologies for the majority of the facilities are different from the
technology basis for Option 8 or Option 9. While EPA believes these
treatment technologies would allow these facilities to comply with
either option for many pollutants, none of these in-place treatment
technologies would achieve significant removals of metals pollutants.
Therefore, for both options, EPA included costs of installing and
operating dissolved air flotation. EPA believes its estimates (for both
options) are, in fact, overestimates. EPA does, however, believe that
meeting the more stringent Option 9 will result in additional removals
while the cost differences will be negligible. EPA solicits comments on
its conclusion as well as quantitative information on the cost
differences for such facilities.
EPA has studied the performance of DAF systems in other largely
indirect discharging industries and has found the same lack of optimal
performance. EPA believes that all facilities, including indirect
dischargers, should monitor the levels of oil and grease entering and
leaving the DAF system. Even though oil and grease levels are not of
great concern for indirect dischargers, removal of many organic
compounds is directly related to removal of oil and grease. As such,
the overall efficacy of the DAF system in removing the vast majority of
specific toxic parameters can be improved by improving removals of oil
and grease.
As explained above, the facilities sampled were not required to
optimize their oil and grease or TSS removals because they discharge to
POTWs that treat these pollutants. Current POTW/local permit
limitations for oil and grease in this subcategory range from 100 mg/L
to 2,000 mg/L and for TSS from 250 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L. Many have no
oil and grease or TSS limits at all. EPA believes that only one of the
[[Page 2311]]
systems in this subcategory for which EPA has data was designed to
remove oil and grease and TSS effectively. EPA believes the oil and
grease and TSS removals are uniformly inadequate at the other
facilities included in the proposed BPT limitations calculations for
other parameters. Consequently, EPA based the proposed oil and grease
and TSS limitations on data from a single facility. EPA solicits
additional data on oil and grease and TSS discharges from oils
facilities which are designed and operated to effectively remove these
parameters.
Additionally, EPA is aware of a direct discharging oils facility
which has an oil and grease daily maximum permit limit of 13 mg/L and a
TSS daily maximum permit limit of 55 mg/L. EPA plans to request
discharge data from this facility when it commences commercial
operation and intends to revisit the oil and grease and TSS limitations
as proposed today based on its review of new data received, including
data from the newly discharging facility. EPA has also reviewed data
from the Industrial Laundries and the TECI rulemaking for dissolved air
flotation systems. Given the similarities in the treated waste, EPA is
considering whether use of this data is appropriate in determining CWT
limitations for oil and grease for this subcategory. EPA requests
comments on this issue as well as data on the efficacy of dissolved air
flotation systems in treating CWT wastewaters.
EPA projects additional pollutant removals associated with the
technology basis for the proposed limitations, has costed facilities
for the additional technology (a series of gravity separation steps)
associated with this option, and has determined that it is economically
achievable. However, EPA believes that many CWT facilities may be able
to achieve these limitations using emulsion breaking/gravity separation
and DAF only. As described above, EPA believes that many DAF systems in
this industry are not performing optimally. Careful observation of the
influent and effluent of these systems would allow facilities to better
understand and control the resulting effluent.
The Agency is not proposing BPT limitations based on air stripping
with overhead recovery or destruction. While air stripping with
overhead recovery or destruction would seem to provide some additional
protection from volatile and semi-volatile pollutants to all
environmental media, no substantial additional removal of volatile and
semi-volatile parameters from the water would be achieved through these
options since the proposed wastewater discharge limits would be the
same with or without the additional technology basis of air stripping
with overhead recovery. The use of air stripping coupled with emissions
capture reduces or eliminates the air emissions that otherwise would
occur by the volatilization of the volatile organic pollutants in
gravity separation and dissolved air flotation systems. However,
compliance with any proposed limitation would not require installation
of such equipment.
EPA highly recommends that plants incorporate air stripping with
overhead recovery or destruction into their wastewater treatment
systems for more complete environmental protection. EPA also notes that
CWT facilities determined to be major sources of hazardous air
pollutants are currently subject to maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and recovery
operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140).
(iii). Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory. The Agency is today
proposing BPT limitations for the organics subcategory for 17
pollutants. For this proposal, EPA identified two new regulatory
options for consideration in establishing BPT effluent reduction levels
for this subcategory of the CWT industry.
At the time of the original proposal, EPA also identified two
regulatory options for consideration in establishing BPT effluent
reduction levels for this subcategory (60 FR 5479). EPA is no longer
considering these options as a basis for BPT limitations. The first
treatment system EPA examined as a basis for BPT limitations included
the following treatment steps: equalization, two air strippers in
series equipped with a carbon adsorption unit for control of air
emissions, biological treatment in the form of a sequential batch
reactor, and finally a multimedia filtration unit. The second option
was the same as the first, but included a final carbon adsorption step.
At the time of the original proposal, the Agency selected BPT
limitations based on the first treatment system even though,
theoretically, the second system under consideration should have
provided greater removal of pollutants. EPA selected the first system
as the technology basis since EPA's sampling data showed that,
following the carbon adsorption treatment step, specific pollutants of
concern actually increased. Therefore, for today's proposal, EPA is no
longer considering the second system which includes the final carbon
adsorption unit as the basis for BPT limitations. Additionally, EPA has
concluded that it should no longer consider the first system
(equalization, air stripping, biological treatment, and multimedia
filtration) as the basis for BPT limitations. The multimedia filtration
step is primarily included in the treatment train to protect the carbon
adsorption unit installed downstream from high TSS levels. Since EPA
rejected the option which includes the carbon adsorption unit, EPA
similarly rejects the option which includes the multimedia filtration
step.
The two technology options considered for the organics subcategory
BPT are as follows:
Option 3--Equalization, Air-Stripping with emissions
control, and Biological Treatment.
Option 4--Equalization and Biological Treatment.
For a more detailed discussion of the basis for the limitations and the
basis for the technologies selected see the technical development
document.
The first option, Option 3, evaluated for today's proposed BPT
limitations for the organics subcategory is based on the following
treatment system: equalization, two air-strippers in series equipped
with a carbon adsorption unit for control of air emissions, and
biological treatment in the form of a sequential batch reactor. BPT
Option 4 effluent limitations are based on the same treatment system as
Option 3 without the use of air strippers (and associated carbon
adsorption units).
The Agency is today proposing to adopt BPT effluent limitations
based on the Option 4 technology for the organics subcategory. As
mentioned earlier, the Agency decision is based primarily on the
pollutant reductions, the cost and impacts to the industry, and non-
water quality impacts. Unlike the other BPT limitations proposed today,
the adoption of limitations based on Option 4 would not represent a
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. EPA believes that all direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory currently employ
equalization and biological treatment systems. EPA has assumed that all
facilities which currently utilize equalization and biological
treatment will be able to meet the BPT limitations without additional
capital or operating costs. While EPA recognizes that some facilities
may incur increased operating costs associated with the proposed
limits, EPA believes these increases are negligible and has not
quantified them. EPA solicits comments on its assumptions for these
facilities as well as specific data which would aid in quantifying
these increases. Additionally, many of these facilities
[[Page 2312]]
are not currently required to monitor for organic parameters or are
only required to monitor a couple of times a year. The estimated costs
associated with complying with BPT limitations for this subcategory are
associated with additional monitoring only. The Agency believes the
additional monitoring is warranted, and will promote more effective and
consistent treatment at these facilities. The Agency recognizes that in
some cases this monitoring may lead to changes in operating procedures
that could involve additional costs to the facilities, but does not
expect these additional costs will be significant.
The Agency proposes to reject Option 3. BPT effluent limitations
associated with Option 3 treatment would be essentially the same as
those established by Option 4. The main difference between Option 4 and
Option 3 is that Option 3, which includes air stripping with emissions
control, would be effective in reducing the levels of volatile and
semi-volatile organic pollutants in all environmental media, not just
the water. The use of air stripping with emissions control would reduce
or eliminate the air emissions that otherwise would occur by the
volatilization of the volatile organic pollutants in the biological
system.
However, while EPA is concerned about volatile pollutants,
particularly for this subcategory, compliance with proposed limitations
would not necessarily require installation of equipment to capture air
emissions. EPA notes that CWT facilities determined to be major sources
of hazardous air pollutants are subject to maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and recovery
operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) as 40 CFR Part 63.
Once again, the selected BPT option is based on the performance of
a single indirect discharging facility. While EPA identified four
direct discharging organics subcategory facilities which utilize
biological treatment, EPA could not use data from these facilities to
establish limitations because they commingle organics subcategory
wastewaters with other CWT subcategory wastewaters or other categorical
wastewaters. Many facilities that are treating wastes that will be
subject to effluent limitations for the Organic Waste Subcategory also
operate other industrial processes that generate much larger amounts of
wastewater than the quantity of off-site generated organic waste
receipts. The off-site generated organic waste receipts are directly
mixed with the wastewater from the other industrial processes for
treatment. Therefore, identifying facilities to sample for limitations
development was difficult because the waste receipts and treatment unit
effectiveness could not be properly characterized for off-site
generated waste. The treatment system on which Option 4 is based was
one of the few facilities identified which treated organic waste
receipts separately from other on-site industrial wastewater.
The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the
Thermosetting Resin Subcategory of the OCPSF regulation to establish
direct discharge limitations for BOD5 and TSS because the
facility from which Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect
discharger and the treatment system is not operated to effectively
remove conventional pollutants. EPA has concluded that the transfer of
this data is appropriate given the absence of adequate treatment
technology for these pollutants at the only otherwise well-operated BPT
CWT facility in this subcategory that the Agency was able to evaluate.
Moreover, EPA concluded that the biological treatment systems at CWT
facilities will perform similarly to those at OCPSF facilities. EPA
based this conclusion on its review of the NPDES permits for the four
direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. Two of these
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities which commingle
their wastewater for treatment and are already subject to OCPSF. The
other two facilities have conventional pollutant limits which are lower
than those proposed today. EPA has concluded that all of these
facilities should be able to comply with the transferred limitations
without incurring additional costs. Likewise, EPA has not estimated any
additional pollutant removals associated with this data transfer. EPA
requests comment on its approach for developing conventional pollutant
limitations for this subcategory.
2. Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
In today's rule, for the conventional pollutants covered under BPT
for all subcategories, EPA is not proposing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards different from those proposed for BPT. In
deciding whether to propose BCT limits, EPA considered whether there
are technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional
pollutants than proposed for BPT, and whether those technologies are
cost-reasonable under the standards established by the CWA--the ``BCT
Cost Test.'' For all three subcategories, EPA identified no
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional
pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT that are also cost-
reasonable under the BCT Cost Test. Accordingly, EPA is proposing BCT
effluent limitations equal to the proposed BPT effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. For additional information on the ``BCT Cost
Test,'' refer to XI.E.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA today is proposing BAT effluent limitations for all
subcategories of the CWT Industry based on the same technologies
selected as the basis for BPT for each subcategory. Therefore, the
proposed BAT limitations are the same as the proposed BPT limitations.
The BAT effluent limitations proposed today would control identified
priority and non-conventional pollutants discharged from facilities. As
described in the BPT discussion, in general, the adoption of this level
of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants
discharged into the environment by facilities in this subcategory.
Additionally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts associated with
adoption of these limitations and found them to be economically
achievable. This analysis is discussed in detail in Section XI.F.
With the exception of the metals subcategory, EPA has not
identified any more stringent treatment technology option different
from those evaluated for BPT that might represent best available
technology economically achievable for this industry. For the metals
subcategory of today's proposed rule, EPA did consider as BAT
technology two treatment technologies that it had evaluated for the
1995 proposal, Option 2 and Option 3, based on the use of selective
metals precipitation. However, the costs to the industry for Option 2
and Option 3 are more than four times greater than the cost of the BPT
option, Option 4, with little additional toxics removal.6
Given the comparable toxic removals, EPA has concluded it should not
adopt a more costly option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA's data show that Option 3 would remove approximately 2%
more additional toxic pound-equivalents than Option 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the oils and organics subcategories, EPA has evaluated
treatment technologies for BAT limitations, which theoretically should
provide greater removal of pollutants of concern. For example, EPA
identified an add-on treatment technology to technologies considered
for BPT--carbon adsorption--that should have further increased removals
of pollutants of concern. However, EPA's data show
[[Page 2313]]
increases rather than decreases in concentrations of specific
pollutants of concern. Consequently, EPA is not proposing BAT
limitations based on this technology.
As with BPT limitations, EPA is proposing to require monitoring for
compliance with the limitations at a point after treatment, but prior
to combining the CWT process wastewater with other wastewater as
explained below. Alternatively, as detailed in Section XIV.F, EPA is
proposing that the facilities may monitor for compliance after mixing
if the limitations are adjusted using the ``building block approach'',
assuming the adjusted limitations do not fall below the minimum
analytical detection limit. Many facilities operate other processes
that generate wastewater. The common treatment of this wastewater with
CWT wastewater may result in dilution due to the difference in
concentration of waste streams. Also, when a facility mixes CWT
wastewater with non-contaminated stormwater before discharge,
compliance may be due to dilution rather than treatment. Also, as with
BPT, monitoring for compliance for the Total Cyanide limitations at
facilities in the metals subcategory which treat concentrated cyanide-
bearing metal waste is after cyanide pretreatment and prior to metals
treatment, unless the building block approach can be used to calculate
end-of-pipe limitations that are not below the detection limit. This
ensures that cyanide will not interfere with metals treatment.
Therefore, EPA's estimate of compliance monitoring costs associated
with the proposed BAT limitations is based on the assumption that
facilities will monitor at a point after treatment, but prior to
commingling.
While EPA has based its monitoring cost estimates on separate
monitoring for each subcategory (and Total Cyanide), as with BPT
limitations, if the facility can demonstrate to the permitting
authority the capability of achieving the effluent limitations for each
subpart (and Total cyanide), the facility may monitor for compliance
after mixing. See Section IX.D for further information regarding
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the regulation.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, EPA must propose
and promulgate Federal standards for performance for new sources for
categories of sources. Section 306(e) provides that, after the
effective date of the standards of performance, the owner or operator
of a new source may not operate the source in violation of any
applicable standard of performance. The statute defines ``standard of
performance'' as a standard for the control of the discharge of
pollutants which reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction
achievable through application of the best available demonstrated
control technologies, processes, operating methods or other
alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting no
discharge of pollutants. See Section 306(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
1316(a)(1). 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. See general discussion of legislative history in American
Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1057-59 (3rd Cir.
1975). In establishing these standards, Congress directed EPA to
consider the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water
quality environmental impacts and energy requirements. As the
legislative history of the CWA makes clear, consideration of cost in
establishing new source standards is given less weight than in
establishing BAT limitations because pollution control alternatives are
available to new sources that would not be available to existing
sources. See Legis. Hist. (Sen. Muskie statement of House-Senate
Conference Report on 1972 Act).
For the oils and the organics subcategory, EPA is proposing NSPS
that would control the same conventional, priority, and non-
conventional pollutants proposed for control by the BPT effluent
limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants at existing
facilities are fully applicable to new facilities. Furthermore, EPA has
not identified any technologies or combinations of technologies that
are demonstrated for new sources that are different from those used to
establish BPT/BCT/BAT for existing sources. Therefore, EPA is
establishing NSPS oils and organics subcategories similar to the oils
and organics subcategories for existing facilities, and proposing NSPS
limitations that are identical to those proposed for BPT/BCT/BAT.
For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is proposing NSPS effluent
limitations based on the technology proposed in 1995--selective metals
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary precipitation,
liquid-solid separation, and tertiary precipitation and clarification.
This technology (Option 3) provides the most stringent controls
attainable through the application of demonstrated technology. On the
other hand, Option 4 provides slightly lower removals than Option 3 at
significantly lower costs. EPA's determination to propose limitations
based on Option 3 is closely tied to its preliminary conclusion that
facilities will generally choose to recover and reuse metals, whereas
facilities employing technologies to comply with Option 4 limitations
will generally dispose of metal-bearing sludges in landfills. EPA
believes that the selection of either Option 3 or Option 4 for NSPS
satisfies the requirements that Congress established in the Clean Water
Act for new sources. However, provided new sources employ recovery and
reuse, Option 3 also promotes the objectives of the Pollution
Prevention Act.
EPA believes that this technology is fully applicable to all metal
waste streams in the CWT industry, including those with high
concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS). Commenters to the
original proposal had questioned whether the level of TDS in wastewater
would increase the solubility of the metals, and negatively affect the
ability of the Option 3 treatment technology to perform optimally. As
detailed in VI.I, EPA has concluded that the evidence do not either
support or refute a direct relationship between TDS and the solubility
of metals in water. Finally, EPA has concluded that there is no barrier
to entry for new sources to install, operate, and maintain treatment
systems that will achieve discharge levels associated with these Option
3 technologies. See XI.H for a more detailed discussion of EPA's
barrier to entry analysis.
While EPA has concluded that the Option 3 technology does not pose
a barrier to entry for new sources (using EPA's standard methodology
for evaluating economic impacts for new sources), EPA recognizes that
aside from the projected non-water quality benefits, EPA only estimates
an additional 3.6 percent removal of pollutants and an additional 2.3
percent removals of toxics associated with the Option 3 technology as
compared to the Option 4 technology. Additionally, EPA estimates that
the start-up costs associated with the Option 3 technology range from
about 46% to 50% greater than those associated with the Option 4
technology. (These estimates do not account for costs associated with
RCRA permits, which may be a substantial portion of the start-up costs
depending on the flow for which the facility is designed.) Finally, EPA
acknowledges that the operating and maintenance
[[Page 2314]]
costs associated with Option 3 range from about 23% to 160% greater
than those associated with Option 4. These estimates do not include
monitoring costs which would be the same for either option, and which
can be substantial. These estimates also do not include the reduction
in landfilling costs associated with Option 3 or the revenue generated
from the sale of recovered metals. For more information on the cost of
pollutant removals for existing sources, see Table XI.M-1. EPA solicits
comments and data on the market for recovered metals, and revenue
generated from the sale of recovered metals. Finally, EPA solicits
comments on the extent to which new sources may choose to recover and
reuse metals through the Option 3 technology basis or simply comply
with the limitations and continue to dispose of their metal sludges in
a landfill.
EPA's determination to propose limitations based on Option 3 is
closely tied to its preliminary conclusion that facilities will choose
to recover and reuse metals. In the event that EPA concludes that new
sources would not generally recover and reuse metals despite the
improved ability to do so, EPA will promulgate NSPS based on the
proposed BAT technology basis, Metals Option 4.
The Agency used performance data from the CWT metals subcategory
BAT limitations data set to establish NSPS limitations for oil and
grease because the facility from which the NSPS limitations were
derived did not have oil and grease in its influent at treatable levels
during EPA's sampling episodes. EPA has concluded that transfer of this
data is appropriate given that the technology basis for NSPS includes
selective metals precipitation and an additional precipitation step. As
such, EPA has every reason to believe that facilities employing the
NSPS technology could achieve the limitations, given the fact that the
oil and grease limitation is based on performance at a facility
employing less treatment steps.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
Indirect dischargers in the CWT industry, like direct dischargers,
accept wastes for treatment that contain many priority and non-
conventional pollutants. Like direct dischargers, indirect dischargers
may be expected to discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at
significant mass and concentration levels. EPA estimates that CWT
indirect dischargers annually discharge approximately 10.2 million
pounds of metal and organic pollutants to POTWs.
CWA Section 307(b) requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards to prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs to waters of
the U.S. or to prevent pollutants from interfering with the operation
of POTWs. EPA is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-
through of the same pollutants controlled by BAT from POTWs to waters
of the U.S.
a. Pass-through analysis. Before proposing pretreatment standards,
the Agency examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry
pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or sludge
disposal practices. In determining whether pollutants pass through a
POTW, the Agency compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by
POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by discharging
facilities achieving BAT removals. A pollutant is deemed to pass
through the POTW when the average percentage removed nationwide by
well-operated POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is
less than the percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT
effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) that standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of the POTW be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by the POTW with the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by a BAT facility, EPA compares the percentage of
the pollutants removed by the plant with the POTW removal. EPA takes
this approach because a comparison of mass or concentration of
pollutants in a POTW effluent with pollutants in a BAT facility's
effluent would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged
to the POTW from non-industrial sources nor the dilution of the
pollutants in the POTW effluent to lower concentrations from the
addition of large amounts of non-industrial wastewater.
For this effluent guideline as well as past effluent guidelines, in
conducting the pass-through analysis, EPA used a study of 50 well-
operated POTWs (``Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works,'' September 1982, EPA 440/1-82/303) to estimate the
percent removals of CWT pollutants in POTWs. Additionally, due to the
large number of pollutants applicable for this industry, EPA also used
data from the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
database to augment the POTW database for the pollutants which the 50
POTW Study did not cover. The editing criteria are described in Section
VI.F and in Chapter Seven of the technical development document.
In addition to the pass-through analysis described above, EPA has
historically considered pass-through analysis for volatile pollutants
by applying a volatile override test which is based on the Henry's law
constant. Pollutants which are deemed to be volatile by this test are
deemed to pass through because a substantial part of the overall
percent removal estimated at the POTW represents emission of the
pollutant into the air rather than treatment. For this proposal,
however, EPA has not applied this test. EPA chose not to apply this
test because the overall percent removal for many of these volatile
pollutants estimated for the proposed technologies also represents
emission of the pollutant into the air rather than treatment. As
described under the discussion of BPT and BAT, EPA considered
technology options which would have controlled these volatile
pollutants in all media, but is proposing not to set limitations based
on these technologies. While EPA is concerned about emissions of
pollutants in all environmental media, EPA has concluded that
limitations based on such technologies (e.g., air stripping with
overhead recovery) would not be significantly different from the
limitations being proposed today. Thus, EPA has concluded that the use
of authorities other than the CWA to address air emissions from CWT
wastewater is preferable. As such, EPA did not apply the volatile
override test in conducting its pass-through analyses for this
industry.
b. PSES options considered. For the metals and organics
subcategories, the Agency today is proposing to establish pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the same technologies as
proposed for BPT and BAT.7 These standards would apply to
existing facilities in the metals or organics subcategories of the CWT
industry that discharge wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) and would prevent pass-through of pollutants and help control
sludge contamination. Based on EPA's
[[Page 2315]]
pass-through analysis, all of the BAT pollutants controlled by the
metals subcategory and six of the BAT pollutants controlled by the
organics subcategory would pass through and are proposed for PSES. The
pollutants in the organics subcategory that were determined not to
pass-through are antimony, copper, zinc, acetophenone, phenol,
pyridine, 2-butanone, 2-propanone, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For the metals subcategory, the technology basis for PSES
does not include the second clarification step since this step was
only included to meet the transferred TSS limitations which apply to
direct dischargers only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained earlier, in establishing PSES, the Agency generally
sets the technology basis for PSES equivalent to BAT and then conducts
a pass-through analysis. The Agency also considers the economic
achievability of alternative technology options. In developing PSES for
the oils subcategory, EPA carefully considered several types of
economic impacts: to the CWT oils facilities, to the CWT oils firms,
and to specific segments of the CWT industry such as small businesses.
Early results from these analyses supported basing PSES on Option 8
rather than Option 9 (the basis for the BAT limitations) since the
additional technology associated with Option 9, while removing some
additional pollutants, was associated with higher costs and greater
adverse economic impact. Therefore, EPA preliminarily concluded that
Option 9 was not economically achievable for indirect dischargers.
As previously explained, EPA held a number of discussions with the
small business community engaged in oils treatment operations. EPA also
convened a SBREFA review panel for this proposal. The panel and the
small entity representatives provided many pertinent discussions and
insights on possible impacts of this regulation to small businesses.
Many commented that even Option 8 was too expensive. However, as
detailed in Section V.B, EPA believes that all CWT wastes should be
treated effectively. EPA has concluded based on its economic analysis,
that Option 8 is economically achievable--even in light of the
projected level of impacts to small businesses.
More recent results of the economic analysis for this proposal
(which include final cost estimates, etc.) indicate that projected
impacts for Option 9, while greater than Option 8, were not as high as
originally projected in our preliminary analyses. However, EPA
estimates that removals for Option 9 for indirect dischargers are only
about one percent higher than removals for Option 8. As such, the
difference in the removals between the two options may be negligible.
In contrast, in estimating the economic impacts associated with
Option 9, EPA costed facilities for the additional treatment technology
associated with the Option 9 technology basis. While not as high as
originally projected, these impacts are still significant. In
particular, EPA estimates additional process closures and impacts to
small businesses associated with the Option 9 technology basis.
Therefore, EPA today is proposing to establish PSES standards for
the oils subcategory based on the oils Option 8 technology--emulsion
breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air flotation. Fourteen of
the BAT pollutants controlled by the oils subcategory would pass
through and are proposed for regulation. The six pollutants in the oils
subcategory that were determined not to pass through are arsenic, butyl
benzyl phthlate, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury. Additionally,
EPA requests comments on whether any treatment technology basis more
expensive than the Option 8 technology basis (dissolved air flotation)
produces significantly greater pollutant removals and is economically
achievable for indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
Section 307 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time it promulgates new
source performance standards (NSPS). Such pretreatment standards must
prevent the discharge of any pollutant into a POTW that may interfere
with, pass through, or may otherwise be incompatible with the POTW
(Section 307(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1317(c)). EPA promulgates
categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources based on BAT
technology for existing sources. EPA promulgates pretreatment standards
for new sources based on best available demonstrated technology for new
sources (National Ass'n of Metal Finishers v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624 (3rd
Circ. 1983)). The legislative history explains that Congress required
simultaneous establishment of new source standards and pretreatment
standards for new sources for two reasons. First, Congress wanted to
ensure that any new source industrial user achieve the highest degree
of internal effluent controls necessary to insure that such user's
contribution to the POTW would not cause a violation of the POTW's
permit. Second, Congress wished to eliminate from the new user's
discharge any pollutant that would pass through, interfere, or was
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations.
As set forth in Section IX.B.5(a) of this preamble, EPA determined
that a broad range of pollutants discharged by CWT industry facilities
pass through POTWs. EPA considered the same technologies discussed
previously for BAT, NSPS, and PSES as the basis for PSNS.
EPA is proposing that pretreatment standards for new sources be set
equal to NSPS for priority and non-conventional pollutants for all
subcategories. Since the pass-through analysis remains unchanged, the
Agency is proposing to establish PSNS for the same priority and non-
conventional pollutants as are being proposed for PSES. In addition,
given the potential for co-dilution, EPA is again proposing that
monitoring to demonstrate compliance with these standards be required
immediately following treatment of the regulated streams. However, as
with PSES, EPA is alternatively proposing to allow facilities to
monitor for compliance after mixing if the standards are adjusted using
the combined waste stream formula (see Section XIV.F), assuming the
standards do not fall below the minimum analytical detection limits.
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.
C. Non-Regulated Pollutants of Concern
Section VIII.B discusses the pollutants of concern for each of the
subcategories. EPA has not chosen to regulate all of these pollutants.
Chapter 7 of the technical development document lists the pollutants of
concern that EPA proposes not to regulate and the bases for these
decisions.
D. Monitoring To Demonstrate Compliance With the Regulation
The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards EPA is
proposing today are intended to apply to discharges resulting from
treatment of the subcategory wastes and not to mixtures of subcategory
wastes with other wastes or mixtures of different subcategory wastes.
However, in certain circumstances on a site specific basis, these
effluent limitations or pretreatment standards may apply, through the
use of the combined waste stream formula or the building block approach
(see Section XIV.F), to discharges from the treatment of subcategory
wastes that are mixed prior to or after treatment with other wastewater
streams prior to discharge. EPA is not proposing to establish a single
set of limits (and pretreatment standards) for the pollutants proposed
[[Page 2316]]
to be regulated in this category at the point of discharge for mixed
waste streams, given the difficulty of ensuring comparable treatment to
what would be achieved by the separate subcategory limitations (or
standards).
Currently, many facilities in this industry may operate other
processes which generate wastes requiring treatment and may add these
wastes to CWT wastes before treatment and discharge. If the addition of
these other wastes was not taken into account in developing site-
specific permit limitations, this may result in dilution rather than
required treatment of CWT wastes due to the difference in concentration
of waste streams. In addition, if a facility discharges its non-contact
stormwater in combination with its CWT discharge and if it was not
accounted for in the development of the facility's permit limitations,
a similar problem of dilution, rather than treatment of wastes, may
result.
Similarly, for facilities which treat concentrated cyanide-bearing
metal wastes, the development of limitations and pretreatment standards
for Total Cyanide was based on cyanide levels that are demonstrated to
be achieved after cyanide pretreatment and prior to metals
precipitation. Separate pretreatment of cyanide in metal-bearing waste
streams is necessary in order to ensure that cyanide will not interfere
with metals treatment. However, in certain circumstances, these Total
Cyanide limitations (or standards) may apply, through the use of the
combined waste stream formula or the building block approach, to
discharges of Total Cyanide mixed with other wastewaters.
Consequently, EPA has preliminarily determined that many plants may
need to conduct compliance monitoring immediately following treatment
of subcategory waste streams (for example, metal-bearing, oily, or
organic-bearing, as appropriate). EPA does not believe that the use of
the combined waste stream formula or the building block approach will
be possible for all plants in this industry either, because the
proportion of wastes being treated from different subcategories will
change frequently, or because co-dilution of different subcategory
waste types with another would require mixed-waste limits or standards
below the minimum analytical detection limit for some regulated
pollutants. In such situations, permits will require separate
monitoring of each subcategory wastestream following treatment and
prior to mixing. Consequently, all compliance monitoring cost estimates
presented today are based on separate monitoring of each subcategory. A
detailed discussion of compliance monitoring for facilities which
accept waste in more than one subcategory can be found in Section XIV.F
of today's notice and in Chapter 14 of the technical development
document.
In estimating compliance costs and developing limitations, EPA
assumed daily monitoring for conventional pollutants by direct
dischargers, and monitoring for toxic and non-conventional pollutants
by both indirect and direct dischargers as follows: for the metals
subcategory, daily monitoring for metals, and for the oils and organics
subcategories, weekly monitoring for both metals and organics. EPA
believes these frequencies are appropriate given the variability of
receipts generally seen on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis at CWT
facilities. EPA notes that the recommended monitoring frequencies, as
proposed today, are greatly reduced from the recommended monitoring
frequencies in the original proposal. Even so, EPA recognizes that, in
many cases, monitoring costs still represent a significant share of the
compliance costs of this proposed rule, particularly for many of the
small businesses in the oils subcategory.
As such, for facilities in the oils subcategory, EPA is considering
an alternative monitoring scheme. Facilities may either (1) monitor for
all pollutants as proposed today; or (2) monitor for the conventional,
metal parameters, and an indicator parameter such as hexane extractable
material (HEM) or silica gel treated-hexane extractable material (SGT-
HEM) in lieu of the organic pollutants. EPA is currently conducting a
study to determine which organic pollutants are measured by SGT-HEM and
HEM. If facilities choose to monitor for organics with an indicator
parameter, the facility must comply with all applicable requirements,
including the requirement that pollutant reductions must not be
achieved through dilution. EPA solicits comments on this monitoring
scheme and the use of indicator parameters in general.
As another alternative that would target monitoring relief to small
businesses, the SBREFA panel discussed at length the merits and
disadvantages of providing alternative limitations and pretreatment
standards for small businesses based on an assumption of less frequent
monitoring for facilities owned and operated by small businesses. Under
this approach, EPA would establish two sets of effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards. Three major issues with this approach were
raised during the panel process.
First, current permit application forms do not require facilities
to indicate whether or not they are owned and operated by small
businesses. EPA defines small CWT companies as those having sales less
than $6 million (the Small Business Administration definition of a
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems). Information on a
firm's sales is not always publicly available. Industry representatives
have indicated that revenue would be a suitable criterion to identify
small businesses for purposes of a reduced monitoring regime and that
facilities would be comfortable providing firm-level economic
information to the federal, state, or local permitting authority as
long as confidentiality is protected. Note that the designation of
small business could not be claimed confidential for facilities that
are granted monitoring relief or alternative limitations on this basis,
although the data on which the designation was based could be. EPA
solicits comment on this potential basis for identifying small
businesses for purposes of monitoring relief.
Second, EPA does not generally establish nationally-applicable
monitoring frequency requirements. Even when EPA has established
minimum monitoring requirements (See 63 FR 18504 April 15, 1998), state
and local permitting authorities are free to establish more frequent
monitoring than that specified by EPA. Permitting authorities have
historically used factors such as raw waste variability, wastewater
flow, type of treatment, and compliance history to determine
appropriate monitoring frequencies. EPA is uncertain whether or not,
and to what extent, recommendations on monitoring frequency based upon
firm revenue would be considered by permitting authorities. This is
even more uncertain given that the factors historically used by
permitting authorities do not correlate to firm size in this industry.
Permitting authorities that establish more frequent monitoring
requirements for facilities that pose a greater threat to water quality
or POTW treatment system effectiveness may not be inclined to allow
facilities with higher loadings to monitor less frequently than other
facilities due to the revenues of the parent firm. EPA solicits comment
on the likelihood that permitting authorities would follow EPA
recommendations regarding reduced monitoring frequencies for small
business owned and operated facilities.
Third, although the technology basis and the long-term average for
both sets of limitations would be the same, the
[[Page 2317]]
monthly average limitations calculated based upon reduced monitoring
assumptions would be higher (less stringent). This is due to the
influence of variability on the limitation calculation which is much
more pronounced with reduced monitoring: a ``monthly average''
limitation based upon an assumption of once a month monitoring equals
the calculated daily maximum limitation; a ``monthly average''
limitation based on daily monitoring would have a value closer to that
of the long-term average. While both limitations (daily maximum and
monthly average) are based upon the same technology and same long-term
average performance, EPA is concerned that higher monthly average
limitations for facilities with less frequent required monitoring might
allow these facilities to target a less stringent level of treatment
than that reflected by the long-term average. Although they would run a
greater risk of violation if they did this, they might be able to
reduce their liability for violation by monitoring early in the month,
and conducting subsequent monitoring within the month if that first
event is in violation of their (higher) monthly average. EPA recognizes
that this potential exists to some extent even without higher
limitations based on less frequent monitoring, but it becomes more
pronounced as required monitoring frequencies decrease. One way of
addressing this concern would be to allow the alternative limitations
to apply only when compliance monitoring is conducted at a comparable
frequency to that assumed in the development of the alternate
limitations. For example, a facility could be required to determine in
advance a random day on which compliance monitoring for a month would
be conducted. Any other monitoring that the facility might perform for
its own purposes (eg., process control) could not be used to lower the
monthly average for compliance purposes. EPA solicits comment on this
and other alternatives to ensure that any monitoring relief the Agency
might provide does not jeopardize environmental performance.
EPA has issued guidance to permit authorities on implementing
reduced reporting and monitoring requirements in its ``Interim Guidance
for Performance-based Reduction of NPDES Permit Monitoring
Frequencies'' (EPA-833-B-96-001, April 1996). Ordering information is
available from http://www.epa.gov/OWM/avail.htm.
E. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations
This subsection describes the statistical methodology used to
develop long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations for
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The same basic procedures apply to
the calculation of all limitations and standards for this industry,
regardless of whether the technology is BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, or
PSNS. For simplicity, the following discussion refers only to
``limitations''; however, the discussion also applies to standards.
The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as
presented in today's notice, are provided as ``daily maximums'' and
``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2
state that the daily maximum limitation is the ``highest allowable
`daily discharge' '' and the maximum for monthly average limitation is
the ``highest allowable average of `daily discharges' over a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all `daily discharges' measured during
a calendar month divided by the number of `daily discharges' measured
during that month.'' Daily discharges are defined to be the ``
`discharge of a pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-
hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of
sampling.''
EPA calculates the limitations based upon percentiles chosen with
the intention, on one hand, to be high enough to accommodate reasonably
anticipated variability within control of the facility and, on the
other hand, to be low enough to reflect a level of performance
consistent with the Clean Water Act requirement that these effluent
limitations be based on the ``best'' technologies. The daily maximum
limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of the distribution of
the daily measurements. The maximum for monthly average limitation is
an estimate of the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly
averages of the daily measurements. The percentiles for both types of
limitations are estimated using the products of long-term averages and
variability factors.
In the first of two steps in estimating both types of limitations,
EPA determines an average performance level (the ``long-term average'')
that a facility with well-designed and operated model technologies
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of
achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects
that all facilities subject to the limitations will design and operate
their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average performance
level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and
operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be done. In
the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance
for the variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through
extensive and well designed treatment systems. This allowance for
variance incorporates all components of variability including shipping,
sampling, storage, and analytical variability. This allowance is
incorporated into the limitations through the use of the variability
factors which are calculated from the data from the facilities using
the model technologies. For a few pollutants, EPA transferred the long-
term average, variability factors, or limitations from another source
such as another pollutant group or industrial category (as explained
briefly in Section IX.B.1 and in detail in Chapter 10 of the technical
development document). If a facility operates its treatment system to
meet the relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility to be
able to meet the limitations. Variability factors assure that normal
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term
averages. The data sources, the selection of pollutants and data, and
the calculations of pollutant long-term averages and variability
factors are briefly described below. More detailed explanations are
provided in the technical development document.
The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from three data sources:
EPA sampling episodes, the 1991 Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire, and
data submitted by industry after the 1995 proposal. These data sources
are described in Sections VI.B and VI.C. When the data from the EPA
sampling episodes at a facility met the data editing criteria described
below, EPA used the sampling data and any monitoring data provided by
the facility.
EPA calculated long-term averages for the initial pollutant of
concern list for each option and each subcategory. As described in
section VIII.B, the initial pollutant of concern list for each
subcategory consisted of parameters that were detected at treatable
levels in at
[[Page 2318]]
least 10 percent of the daily influent wastewater samples collected in
the EPA sampling episodes. Treatable levels were defined as those equal
to or greater than ten times the minimum analytical detection limit.
Generally, the ``minimum analytical detection limit'' was the value
published in the chemical analytical method. Chapter 15 of the
technical development document identifies the minimum analytical
detection limit for all pollutants proposed to be regulated. In
calculating long-term averages, EPA applied two additional criteria to
the concentration data sets for the pollutants of concern. If a
pollutant data set from an EPA sampling episode met both criteria, the
EPA sampling data and any monitoring data from that facility were used
in calculating the long-term averages for the pollutant. The first
criteria EPA applied was whether EPA had detected the pollutant at
treatable levels in 50 percent or more of the daily influent wastewater
samples. If not detected at treatable levels in 50 percent or more of
the samples, then EPA looked to see if the long-term average value of
the daily influent wastewater samples for a particular pollutant was
equal to or greater than the treatable levels for that pollutant and
the pollutant was detected in at least 50% of the influent wastewater
samples (at any level). If the pollutant data set met the first
criteria, then EPA applied the second criteria. In the second criteria,
EPA confirmed that the percent removal for the data set was greater
than zero. (Percent removal was calculated as 100 times the ratio of
the difference between the influent and effluent averages to the
influent average.) If the concentration data for any of the pollutant
data sets met both criteria, then EPA calculated a long-term average
for the pollutant. For some pollutants in some options, none of the
data sets from the EPA sampling episodes met both criteria; thus, EPA
did not calculate a long-term average for that pollutant for that
option. Further, as a result of applying the criteria, EPA may have
proposed slightly different lists of regulated pollutants for the
options within a given subcategory.
For each facility that met the criteria and that had the model
technologies, the long-term average for each pollutant was calculated
by arithmetically averaging the daily values of the pollutant
concentrations. (For facilities with continuous flow systems, a daily
value was the average of the concentrations of a pollutant on a given
calendar day. For facilities with batch systems, a daily value was the
average of the concentrations of a pollutant in a batch.) The pollutant
long-term average for an option was the median of the long-term
averages from the facilities with the model technologies for the
option.
The daily variability factors for each option were developed in
four steps for each group of pollutants with similar chemical
structures. (The group for each pollutant is identified in the
technical development document.) The first step evaluated the size of
the facility data set that met the criteria and the censoring types of
its daily values. As described in Chapter 10 of the technical
development document, a facility data set was excluded if the number of
non-censored values was too small to reliably estimate the statistical
distributional parameters used in calculating the daily variability
factor. (A non-censored value is a measured value, i.e., a
concentration value greater than the minimum analytical detection
limit.) The second step was to develop a daily variability factor for
each pollutant at each facility by fitting a modified delta-lognormal
distribution to the daily values for the pollutant at each facility.
The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is the
ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the daily
pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value, or mean,
of the distribution of the daily values. The third step was to develop
one daily variability factor for each pollutant for each option by
averaging the daily variability factors for the selected facilities
with the technology basis for the option. The fourth step was to
develop group daily variability factors for each option. The daily
variability factor for each group was the median of the daily
variability factors obtained in the third step for the pollutants in
the group and option. The daily maximum limitation for a pollutant was
the product of the pollutant long-term average and its group daily
variability factor.
Similarly, the monthly variability factors for each option were
developed in the same basic four steps described for the daily
variability factors. However, in the second step, the modified delta-
lognormal distribution was fit to monthly averages rather than daily
measurements. Another change was that the 95th percentile was used
rather than the 99th percentile. Thus, the monthly variability factor
for each pollutant at each facility was the ratio of the estimated 95th
percentile of the distribution of the monthly average divided by the
expected value, or mean, of the distribution of the monthly averages.
Although the monitoring frequency necessary for a facility to
demonstrate compliance is determined by the local permitting authority,
EPA must assume a monitoring frequency in order to develop the
distribution of monthly averages. The distribution fit to averages of
20 daily values will be different from the distribution fit to averages
of 4 daily values. The number of measurements used to calculate the
monthly averages corresponds to the number of days that the pollutant
is assumed to be monitored during the month. For example, the organic
compounds are expected to be monitored once a week (which is
approximately four times a month); therefore, the monthly variability
factor was based upon the distribution of monthly averages comprising
four daily values. Certain pollutants such as oil and grease (HEM) are
expected to be monitored daily; therefore, the monthly variability
factor was based upon the distribution of averages comprising 20 daily
values (most facilities operate only on weekdays of which there are
approximately 20 in each month). The assumed monitoring frequency of
each pollutant is identified in Table IX.E-1. The maximum for monthly
average limitation for a pollutant was the product of the pollutant
long-term average and its group monthly variability factor.
Table IX.E-1.--Monitoring Frequencies Used To Estimate Monthly Variability Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed monitoring frequency Metals subcategory Oils subcategory Organics subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Monitoring (20 per month).. Hexane-Extractable Oil Hexane-Extractable Oil BOD5.
and Grease (HEM). and Grease (HEM). TSS.
TSS...................... TSS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
[[Page 2319]]
Chromium, hex
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Cyanide (if
applicable).
Weekly Monitoring................ None..................... Antimony Antimony.
Arsenic Copper.
Barium Molybdenum.
Cadmium Zinc.
Chromium Acetophenone.
Cobalt Aniline.
Copper Benzoic Acid.
Lead o-cresol.
Mercury p-cresol.
Molybdenum Phenol.
Tin Pyridine.
Titanium 2-butanone.
Zinc 2-propanone.
Alpha terpineol 2,3-dichloroaniline.
Bis-2-ethylhexyl 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
phthalate.
Butyl benzyl phthlate.
Carbazole.
Flouranthene.
n-decane.
n-octadecane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section XVI of today's reproposal, EPA is soliciting comment on
two specific aspects of the procedures used to determine the
limitations. Both of these requests are described further below.
First, EPA reiterates its request for additional data that can be
used to evaluate autocorrelation in the data. When data are said to be
positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken at
different time periods are similar. For example, positive
autocorrelation would be present in the data if the final effluent
concentration of oil and grease was relatively high one day and was
likely to remain at similar high values the next and possibly
succeeding days. In many industries, measurements in final effluent are
likely to be similar from one day to the next because of the
consistency from day-to-day in the production processes and in final
effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater
in basins, holding ponds, and other components of wastewater treatment
systems. EPA believes that autocorrelation is unlikely to be present in
daily measurements from wastewater from this industry. Unlike other
industries, where the industrial processes are expected to produce the
same type of wastewater from one day to the next, the wastewater from
CWT industry is generated by treating wastes from different sources and
industrial processes. The wastes treated on a given day will often be
different from the waste treated on the following day. Because of this,
autocorrelation would be expected to be absent from measurements of
wastewater from the CWT industry. In the preamble to the 1995 proposal,
EPA requested additional monitoring data that would allow for
evaluating autocorrelation in daily measurements. The monitoring data
that EPA has received thus far are insufficient for the purpose of
evaluating the autocorrelation in CWT operations. To determine
autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for each pollutant would
be required with values for every single day over an extended period of
time. Such data were not available to EPA. EPA again requests
additional monitoring data for this purpose in Section XVI.
Second, EPA solicits comment on using pollutant variability factors
rather than group variability factors in calculating the limitations.
The pollutant variability factor is the average of the variability
factors for a particular pollutant from facilities with the model
technologies for the option. The group variability factor is the median
of the pollutant variability factors from pollutants with similar
chemical structures. For the 1995 proposed limitations and in today's
proposed limitations, EPA generally used the group variability factor,
multiplied by the pollutant long-term average, to calculate each
pollutant limitation. (Exceptions are described in Chapter 10 of the
technical development document.) For today's reproposal, EPA
alternatively considered using the pollutant variability factor instead
of the group variability factor. For pollutants where pollutant
variability factors could not be calculated (due to data constraints),
EPA would continue to use the group variability factor. Using the group
variability factor eliminates the low and high pollutant variability
factors. Thus, using individual
[[Page 2320]]
variability factors, limitations for some pollutants would be more
stringent and for others less stringent. EPA solicits comment on
whether the pollutant or group variability factors or some combination
should be used in calculating the limitations to accurately reflect the
variability of the pollutants discharged by the CWT industry.
X. Costs and Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved
by Treatment Technologies
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loadings
associated with the effluent limitations and standards proposed today
using data collected through survey responses, site visits, sampling
episodes, and comments submitted on the 1995 proposal and 1996 Notice
of Data Availability. EPA calculated costs based on a computerized
design and cost model developed for each of the technology options
considered. The Agency estimated current pollutant loads and projected
pollutant load reductions using treatment data collected from industry
and EPA sampling data.
EPA developed industry-wide costs and pollutant loads using data
for 145 facilities which responded to the 308 Questionnaire or
commented to the 1996 Notice of Data Availability. These 145 facilities
represent a census of the metals and organics subcategory, but only a
subset of the facilities in the oils subcategory. For the oils
facilities, EPA calculated costs and loads for the subset and then
modeled the national population by adjusting the oils results upward to
estimate the entire oils subcategory population.
In order to develop costs and to estimate the pollutant reductions
associated with this proposal, EPA estimated the current performance of
existing wastewater treatment at each of the facilities. In the 308
Questionnaire and in the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire, EPA had
solicited effluent monitoring data in order to estimate current
performance. For the majority of facilities, however, data were not
available either for all pollutants of concern or for pollutants before
mixing CWT wastewater and non-CWT wastewater. Therefore, EPA developed
methodologies to estimate current discharge concentrations of each
pollutant of concern for each facility. The methodologies vary between
subcategory and facility based on: 1) the analytical data available; 2)
the characteristics of the facilities in the subcategory; and 3) the
facility's treatment train. For facilities in multiple subcategories,
EPA estimated loadings for that portion of the waste stream in each
subcategory and then added them together. Chapter 12 of the technical
development document describes the methodologies used to estimate
loadings for each subcategory in detail.
For its costing analysis, EPA assumed that facilities whose current
discharge concentrations were not meeting the limitation concentrations
proposed in today's notice would incur costs as a result of compliance
with this guideline. EPA developed costs for a facility which did not
have the BPT treatment technology in place to install the BPT
technology. In the case of a facility already having BPT treatment
technology in place but not currently meeting the proposed limits, EPA
determined the applicable upgrade to the treatment system. Typical
upgrades included increasing aeration capacity or residence time,
installing new equipment, or increasing chemical usage.
Next, EPA used a computer cost model to estimate compliance costs
for the selected technology options after taking into account treatment
in place, current discharge concentrations of pollutants, and
wastewater flow rates for each facility. EPA programmed the computer
cost model with technology-specific modules which calculated the costs
for various combinations of technologies as required by the BPT/BAT
options and the facilities' wastewater characteristics. The model
calculated the following costs for each facility:
Capital costs for installed wastewater treatment
technologies;
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for installed
wastewater treatment technologies, including labor, electrical, and
chemical usage costs; and
Solids handling costs, including capital, O&M, and
disposal.
EPA developed additional cost factors for the capital and O & M
costs in order to account for site work, interface piping, general
contracting, engineering, instrumentation and controls, buildings, site
improvements, legal/administrative fees, interest, contingency, and
taxes and insurance.
Other direct costs associated with compliance included retrofit
costs associated with integrating the existing on-site treatment with
new equipment, RCRA part B permit modification costs for hazardous
facilities, additional land, if any, and monitoring costs.
During the SBREFA panel, one industry representative noted that EPA
may have underestimated the costs associated with dissolved air
flotation for low-flow facilities. In fact, this industry
representative suggested that capital costs for dissolved air flotation
for low-flow facilities may be twice as high as EPA's estimate.
Subsequently, EPA reexamined its costing curves for dissolved air
flotation, and determined that EPA had underestimated DAF costs for
low-flow facilities. The DAF costs included in the analyses presented
today reflect the revised DAF cost curves.
Detailed information on EPA's compliance cost estimates and
methodologies, including the cost curves for all treatment technologies
considered as the basis for today's proposed rule, is located in the
``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry.'' EPA encourages all interested parties to refer to this
document and provide comment on any aspect of the methodology or the
data used to estimate compliance costs associated with today's
proposal.
B. Regulatory Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for CWT facilities to achieve each of
the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. This section
summarizes these estimated costs and the technical development document
discusses them in more detail. All cost estimates in this section are
expressed in terms of 1997 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, land costs associated with that
equipment, costs for facilities to modify existing RCRA permits, and
additional costs for discharge monitoring.
1. BPT Costs
Table X.B-1 summarizes, by subcategory, the total capital
expenditures, and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT (on a pre-tax
basis). The total capital expenditures for the process change component
of BPT are estimated to be $4.08 million with annual O&M costs of $1.77
million.
[[Page 2321]]
Table X.B-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations (in 1997 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Pre-tax
Subcategory Number of capital and Annual O&M annual
facilities land costs costs costs \2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------\1\--------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery............................. 9 3,195,900 2,471,400 2,852,800
Oils Treatment and Recovery............................... 5 943,200 391,400 485,200
Organics Treatment........................................ 4 80,000 215,800 233,200
Combined Regulatory Option................................ 14 4,219,100 3,078,600 3,560,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 14 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one
subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
facilities.
\2\ Because annual costs are used to evaluate the economic impacts of options for each subcategory as well as
the CWT industry as a whole, lump-sum costs for modifying a RCRA permit are included in the annual costs for
each RCRA facility in a subcategory and in the combined option. These costs are counted only once in the
combined option, but may appear in the annual costs for more than one subcategory if a RCRA facility has
operations in more than one subcategory. Therefore, the annual cost of the combined option is not equal to the
sum of the subcategory combined costs. For the combined BPT option, the total lump-sum costs across all
facilities of modifying RCRA permits are $340,800.
EPA notes that the BPT costs and all analyses presented today do
not include the additional capital costs that may be associated with
the transferred TSS limitations for the metals subcategory. For some
metals subcategory facilities, EPA intends to include capital costs in
addition to the costs associated with the BPT metals subcategory
technology basis in order to comply with the transferred TSS
limitation. These additional costs are projected to increase EPA's
current estimate of the annualized costs for these metals subcategory
facilities by zero to fifteen percent, depending on treatment in place.
EPA will refine its BPT costs estimates for this subcategory prior to
promulgation.
2. BCT/BAT Costs
The Agency estimated that there would be no incremental cost of
compliance for implementing BCT/BAT because the technology used to
develop BCT/BAT limitations is identical to BPT, and the costs are
included with BPT.
3. PSES Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES applying the
same assumptions and methodology used to estimate cost of implementing
BPT. Table X.B-2 summarizes, by subcategory, the capital expenditures
and annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. The total capital
expenditures for the process change component of PSES are estimated to
be $36.1 million with annual O&M costs of $10.5 million.
Table X.B-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations (in 1997 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Pre-tax
Subcategory Number of capital and Annual O&M annual
facilities land costs costs costs \2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------\1\--------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery............................. 41 8,014,200 7,140,100 8,088,200
Oils Treatment and Recovery............................... 123 18,519,000 11,343,400 13,362,000
Organics Treatment........................................ 14 11,226,200 1,730,800 2,929,200
Combined Regulatory Option................................ 147 40,316,500 20,078,600 24,300,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 147 indirect dischargers. Because some indirect dischargers include operations in more than one
subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
facilities.
\2\ Because annual costs are used to evaluate the economic impacts of options for each subcategory as well as
the CWT industry as a whole, lump-sum costs for modifying a RCRA permit are included in the annual costs for
each RCRA facility in a subcategory and in the combined option.
These costs are counted only once in the combined option, but may
appear in the annual costs for more than one subcategory if a RCRA
facility has operations in more than one subcategory. Therefore, the
annual cost of the combined option is not equal to the sum of the
subcategory combined costs. For the combined PSES option, the total
lump-sum costs across all facilities of modifying RCRA permits are
$2,557,100.
C. Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for CWT activities
achieving each of the effluent limitations and standards proposed
today. This section summarizes these estimated reductions and Chapter
12 of the technical development document discusses them in detail.
Chapter 12 details the methodologies used to estimate reductions as
well as some methodological issues related to the loadings estimates.
Some members of the SBREFA panel expressed concern that the
Agency's estimates of baseline loadings, post-regulation loadings, and
pollutant removals may be too high for certain parameters due to
methodological issues. These issues relate to the relatively small
number of CWT plants that EPA uses to characterize typical conditions
of the industry as a whole at baseline and post-regulation, EPA's
representation of ``non-detect'' data, EPA's method of imputing data,
and EPA's randomization procedure for assigning baseline pollutant
loadings for the oils subcategory. Following the completion of the
SBREFA panel, EPA reexamined all methodological issues raised by the
panel. For this proposal, EPA modified its approach to attributing
pollutant concentrations values to non-detects in samples with very
high sample specific detection values. This, and other issues raised by
the panel, is discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of technical
development document and the SBREFA Panel Report. EPA encourages all
interested parties to refer to these documents and provide comment on
any aspect of the methodology used to estimate baseline loadings, post-
regulation loadings, and pollutant removals.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
EPA has calculated how adoption of the proposed BPT/BCT limitations
[[Page 2322]]
would reduce the total quantity of conventional pollutants that are
discharged. To do this, the Agency developed an estimate of the long-
term average (LTA) loading of BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease
8 that would be discharged after the implementation of BPT.
Next, these BPT/BCT LTAs for BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease
were multiplied by annual wastewater flows for each direct discharging
facility in the subcategory to calculate BPT/BCT mass discharge
loadings for BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease for each
facility. The BPT/BCT mass discharge loadings were subtracted from the
estimated current loadings to calculate the pollutant reductions for
each facility. Each subcategory's BPT/BCT pollutant reduction was
summed to estimate the total facility's pollutant reduction for those
facilities treating wastes in multiple subcategories. Subcategory
reductions, obviously, were obtained by summing individual subcategory
results. The Agency estimates that the proposed regulation will reduce
BOD5 discharges by approximately 8.05 million pounds per
year, TSS discharges by approximately 6.3 million pounds per year, and
oil and grease discharges by approximately 0.32 million pounds per
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Oil and grease removals were not included for the metals
subcategory since EPA's data show that these wastes do not contain
significant concentrations of oil and grease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
Today's proposal would reduce discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants. Applying the same methodology used to estimate
conventional pollutant reductions attributable to application of BPT/
BCT control technology, EPA has also estimated priority and non-
conventional pollutant reductions for each facility by subcategory.
Because EPA has proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT, there are
no additional pollutant reductions associated with BAT limitations.
a. Direct Facility Discharges (BPT/BAT). The estimated reductions
in priority and non-conventional pollutants directly discharged in
treated final effluent resulting from implementation of BPT/BAT are
listed in Table X.C-1. The Agency estimates that proposed BPT/BAT
regulations will reduce direct facility discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants by approximately 1.39 million pounds per year.
Table X.C-1.--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation of
BPT/BAT Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Priority priority Total metal
metal and metal and and organic Total lbs-
Subcategory organics organic compounds equivalent/
compounds compounds lbs/year year
lbs/year lbs/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery............................... 582,200 781,400 1,363,600 372,000
Oils Treatment and Recovery................................. 6,490 17,300 23,800 14,810
Organics Treatment \1\...................................... 0 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------
Total Removals for all Subcategories.................... 588,700 798,700 1,387,400 386,810
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA estimates there will be no additional removal of organic compounds for the organics subcategory, because
all facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.
b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. Table X.C-2 lists the
estimated reductions in priority and non-conventional pollutants
indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES.
The Agency estimates that proposed PSES regulations would reduce
indirect facility discharge to POTWs by 8.5 million pounds per year.
These figures are not adjusted for pollutant removals expected from
POTWs, and thus do not reflect reductions in dischargers to waters of
the U.S. Estimated reductions in pollutants discharged indirectly to
surface waters are provided on a subcategory basis in Tables 12-10
through 12-13 of the technical development document.
Table X.C-2.--Reduction in Discharges to POTWs of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation
of PSES Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Priority priority Total metal
metal and metal and and organic Total lbs-
Subcategory organics organic compounds equivalent/
compounds compounds lbs/year year
lbs/year lbs/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery............................... 51,270 341,500 392,760 372,003
Oils Treatment and Recovery................................. 689,800 3,722,500 4,412,300 9,876,128
Organics Treatment.......................................... 816,500 2,905,500 3,721,900 110,149
Combined Regulatory Option.................................. 1,557,600 6,973,500 8,527,000 10,358,280
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Economic Analyses
A. Introduction
EPA's economic impact assessment for this proposal is set forth in
a report titled ``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry''
(hereinafter ``EA''). This report estimates the economic and financial
impacts of compliance with the proposed regulation in terms of process
and facility closures and company effects. Impacts on new sources are
also considered. Community
[[Page 2323]]
impacts, foreign trade impacts, market impacts, and an ``environmental
justice'' analysis are also presented there. The EA also includes a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing the effects on small CWT
businesses. Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in a
report titled ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry.''
As discussed previously, EPA identified 205 CWT facilities,
including 14 direct dischargers, 147 indirect dischargers, and 44 zero
discharge facilities. EPA calculated the economic impact on each of the
facilities based on the cost of compliance with the proposed options
and the other options considered for the proposal. For direct
dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for compliance with the proposed
BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for
compliance with PSES. The proposed limitations and standards are based
on Metals Option 4, Oils Option 9, and Organics Option 4 for direct
dischargers. (As previously noted, for direct dischargers in the
organics subcategory, the proposed BPT/BAT is already in place. The
only costs associated with this option are monitoring costs.) For
indirect dischargers, the proposed limitations and standards are based
on Metals Option 4, Oils Option 8, and Organics Option 4. A facility
with processes in multiple subcategories was assigned costs for meeting
the limits or standards in each subcategory. Section IX.B of this
preamble describes the technical basis for each of these options.
The technologies which are the basis for today's proposal are
estimated to have a total pre-tax annualized cost of $27.9 million
(unlike the costs presented in Section X.B, these costs are annualized
to represent the yearly cost of compliance). Table XI.A-1 presents the
total annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES in 1997 dollars (these
costs are extrapolated to represent the entire universe of CWT
facilities). This notice differentiates between pre-tax annualized
costs and post-tax annualized costs. The pre-tax annualized costs are
the engineering estimates of annualized control costs, but the post-tax
costs more accurately reflect the costs businesses will incur. For that
reason, post-tax costs are used in the economic impact analysis. Pre-
tax costs, however, more accurately reflect the total cost to society
of the rule and are used in the cost-effectiveness analysis and
elsewhere.
Table XI.A-1.--Total Annualized Costs ($1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Post-tax
costs ($ costs ($
million) million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT Costs (Direct Dischargers)........ 3.56 2.17
PSES Costs (Indirect Dischargers)............. 24.3 13.2
-------------------------
Total Costs............................... 27.9 15.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts on facilities are calculated using a market model
(described in Section XI.C and the EA) to determine closures and other
impacts at individual CWT facilities. The market model also estimates
changes in market prices, quantities, and losses in employment. The
facility-specific changes in revenues and costs are aggregated to the
company level to predict company-level impacts. The changes in
employment are also used in the community-level analysis.
B. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline Conditions
One source of data used in this analysis is the questionnaire sent
in 1991 under authority of Section 308 of the CWA (see Section VI of
today's notice and Chapter 2 of the EA for a full discussion of data
sources used in the economic analysis). The Agency recognizes that its
questionnaire database may not precisely reflect current conditions in
the industry. Nevertheless, EPA has concluded that the data provide a
sound and reasonable basis for assessing the overall ability of the
industry to achieve compliance with the regulations. This survey
provided detailed data on 85 facilities. Additional data for the
economic analyses are from the Toxic Release Inventory databases and
several financial databases.
As detailed in Section VI.E, comments on the original proposed rule
indicated that a large number of oils treatment and recovery facilities
were not included in the original survey. EPA estimated profiles for
these additional oils facilities and analyzed the impacts on these
facilities from the proposed rule and published this analysis in the
1996 Notice of Data Availability. EPA sent profiles describing the data
used for each additional oils facility to that facility, and received
comments and corrections from many of these facilities. Not all
facilities who received profiles, however, provided comments. EPA
polled non-commenting facilities, and based on this communication, EPA
assigned weights to the commenting oils facilities to account for the
non-commenting facilities and to represent the total number of CWT
facilities in the subcategory. Generally, when dealing with facility-
specific information in the oils subcategory, results are weighted to
extrapolate to the entire subcategory. When not dealing with facility-
specific information, they may or may not be weighted. When dealing
with aggregate impacts for a specific geographic area (for example,
community-level impacts or water quality benefits), they are not
weighted. The choice to weight or not will be described in the relevant
sections.
Of the 205 CWT facilities, 201 facilities are commercial, accepting
waste generated by other facilities and/or generators for treatment and
management for a fee. Four facilities are non-commercial facilities
that accept waste from off-site for treatment exclusively from
facilities under the same ownership. Some facilities perform both
commercial and non-commercial operations. For the purposes of this
analysis, a facility's commercial status refers only to the operations
subject to today's proposal and not other operations at that facility.
That is, a facility that performs non-commercial CWT operations along
with other non-CWT commercial operations would still be considered a
non-commercial facility.
The companies owning CWT facilities range from large, multi-
facility companies to small companies that operate only a single
facility. Company-level information is available or estimated for 145
facilities (unweighted). One hundred and fourteen companies own these
145 facilities. Of these 114 companies, EPA has reliable company-level
information for 74 companies; for the remaining 40
[[Page 2324]]
companies, EPA based its estimate of company revenues on facility-level
information. In the case of companies owning only CWT facilities with
profiles from the NOA, that company's information was weighted to
represent the universe of CWT companies.
EPA currently estimates that 82 companies owning CWT facilities
(including zero discharge facilities) are small businesses (for the
purposes of this analysis, EPA has defined small businesses as
companies with less than $6 million in annual revenues--see Section
XI.L). Sixty-three small companies own two direct discharging
facilities and 61 indirect discharging facilities.
EPA made a number of assumptions when formulating its company-level
profiles. For facilities that had no reliable company-level
information, EPA assumed that the facility-level data accurately
represented the company, although this may underestimate company-level
revenues (if the company has revenues not associated with the
facility). In weighting many of these companies to let them represent
other companies in the universe of CWT companies, EPA may have
exacerbated this underestimation. Furthermore, the weights were based
on a survey of facilities and applying these weights to companies may
not be accurate. Finally, in order to maintain a consistent baseline, a
facility's status of ownership is based on the year data was collected
for that facility--1989 or 1995. Although EPA has information about
changes in ownership status for many of these facilities, which would
decrease the number of small businesses, EPA conservatively is still
using its earlier information to maintain consistency with its
engineering database. EPA believes that these assumptions overestimate
the number of (and therefore impacts to) small businesses owning the
CWT facilities in EPA's database. EPA solicits comment on these
assumptions, and on its conclusion that small business impacts are
overestimated.
At the time of the original CWT proposal, about 20 percent of the
commercial CWT facilities appeared to be unprofitable based on the data
available to EPA (see Table VI.C-2 in the preamble to the original
proposal, 60 FR 5490). Several others were only marginally profitable.
The industry had expanded capacity during the 1980s, but in the late
1980s, there was a reduction in demand for these services (perhaps due
to pollution prevention efforts by industrial waste generators). EPA
believes this trend may have reversed in the 1990s. EPA has learned in
conversations with personnel at a number of these facilities that,
while some of these facilities were now profitable, most of the
remaining unprofitable facilities were still in operation three years
after the questionnaire. The continued operation of such a large share
of unprofitable facilities in the industry raises a significant
question. It suggests that some of the traditional tools of economic
analysis used to project potential closures in an industry due to the
costs of compliance may not accurately predict real world behavior in a
market where owners have historically demonstrated a willingness to
continue operating unprofitable facilities. Therefore, while some
number of facilities are likely to be unprofitable at baseline, for
purposes of today's proposal, EPA is not eliminating baseline closures
from its analysis of economic impacts. This decision represents a
significant departure from previous effluent guidelines. However, given
the nature of the industry, EPA believes that this is a reasonable
approach. EPA solicits comments on this decision and on alternative
methods that could be used to identify baseline closures.
C. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology
1. Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
Standard economic and financial analysis methods are used to assess
the economic effects of the proposed regulation. These methods
incorporate an integrated view of CWT facilities, the companies that
own these facilities, the markets the facilities serve, and the
communities where they are located.
CWT facilities are divided into two groups: commercial (those that
charge a fee for their services) and noncommercial (those that handle
intracompany waste). Impacts on commercial CWT facilities are estimated
based on the results of a market model that allows facilities to adjust
operations in response to changes in operating costs. The market model
predicts adjustments in market prices and quantities and facility-level
changes in revenues and employment. After the markets and facilities
have responded to the regulation, facilities are assumed to close CWT
treatment operations (or processes) for which operating costs
(including compliance costs) exceed operating revenues. Impacts on non-
commercial CWT facilities are estimated at the company level, assuming
that the firm must absorb the full cost of compliance, because these
facilities do not operate in the markets defined by the model.
a. Impacts on commercial facilities. Because industrial wastewater
is costly to transport, the markets for CWT services are localized. The
model defines six geographic regions for CWT services across the
continental U.S. Each commercial CWT facility is assigned to one of the
six regions. Within each region, each facility can be assigned to one
or more markets for CWT services. These markets are defined by
operations or processes (metals recovery, metals treatment, oil
recovery, oil treatment, and organics treatment) and cost of treatment
(high, medium, and low-cost for metals recovery, metals treatment, and
oil recovery, high and low cost for organics treatment, and one market
for oil treatment). The markets are divided in this way because of the
variability in treatment costs and revenues shown in EPA's data; EPA,
therefore, assumes that substantially different costs and revenues
reflect distinct operations. Since a facility may provide more than one
CWT service, each process line at every facility is assigned to a
market based on responses to the 308 questionnaire, Notice of Data
Availability (NOA) modeling assumptions, and comments on the NOA
assumptions. Each process line is also assigned wastewater quantities
and treatment costs.
After assigning facilities to markets, the structure of each
regional market is determined by the number of facilities in that
market: monopoly for one facility, duopoly for two facilities, or
competitive for three or more facilities. The market supply curve is
modeled as a step function using process line average costs at each
facility (see Appendix C of the EA). Costs of CWT facilities include
both those that vary with the quantity of CWT services provided
(variable costs) and those whose value is fixed, but, for this
analysis, all costs are modeled as variable. Revenues from CWT
operations are estimated by multiplying an estimated market price of
the CWT service by the quantity of waste treated in the CWT market. The
market price is estimated as the average cost of the high-cost facility
in each market, consistent with economic theory. (Actual prices vary by
waste stream and facility, and would not be possible to include in the
analysis.) Compliance treatment costs are added to the baseline costs
to form a new post-compliance supply curve. Different assumptions are
used about the amount of costs that can be passed on to consumers for
each market structure: monopolists or
[[Page 2325]]
duopolists can pass on a larger portion of costs than facilities in
competitive markets. The model then solves for a new market price and
market quantity within each regional market.
The demand for CWT services is characterized based on the
responsiveness of quantity demanded to price. In an economic context,
CWT services are intermediate goods demanded because they are inputs to
production of other goods and services. CWT facilities treat wastewater
that results from production of goods at other facilities--a service
which these other facilities pay CWT facilities to perform. Therefore,
the economic theory on which EPA's analysis is based is the theory of
intermediate goods. The sensitivity of quantity demanded to price
(elasticity of demand) for an intermediate good depends on the
elasticity of demand for the final good, the share of manufacturing
costs (for the other good) represented by costs of the intermediate
good, and the availability of substitutes for the intermediate good.
The elasticity of demand for manufactured products which require CWT
services varies widely. The cost of CWT services as a share of
manufacturing costs is generally quite small. Substitutes for CWT
services include other types of off-site waste management such as
underground injection, on-site treatment, or pollution prevention.
Overall, as long as generators have alternatives to commercial
treatment (for example, on site treatment, or pollution prevention),
the quantity of most services traded may be expected to fall (to some
extent) as a result of the guidelines and standards. But for some
services, such as cyanide treatment or treatment of concentrated metals
sludges, there are no other commercially viable alternatives to
commercial treatment. EPA's choice of elasticities was governed, in
part, by these considerations and a review of the empirical literature.
During the SBREFA panel consideration of the proposal (see
discussion in Section VI.H), the Small Business Administration (SBA)
expressed concern that EPA's economic methodology understates impacts.
In particular, SBA questioned the elasticity of demand assumption used
by the Agency. As discussed in the EA and this notice, the elasticity
of demand (which varies depending on the number of facilities in each
market) is based on economic reasoning that the Agency believes to be
sound and reflects the limited empirical evidence available in the
literature. In response to SBA's comment, EPA has reexamined the
literature and attempted to contact waste generators to obtain further
information on their responsiveness to the price of CWT services. EPA
has identified several additional empirical studies that support the
elasticity parameters used in the EA. The Agency has not been
successful, however, in eliciting information from waste generators.
For a complete discussion of the elasticity parameters used in this
analysis, see Appendix E of the EA.
Each CWT faced with higher costs of providing CWT services may find
it economical to shut down a process line in a given market or to
reduce the quantity of waste it treats (in fact, the model allows only
a single facility in a competitive market to reduce the amount of waste
that it treats without closing down a process line although both
facilities in a duopoly can reduce the amount of waste that they
treat). This decision is simultaneously modeled for all facilities
within a regional market (if, during the model run, a process line is
shut down, the model continues to run, eliminating that process line
from the market supply curve) to develop consistent estimates of
facility and market impacts.
EPA notes that its current model, unlike the market model used for
the original proposal, does not allow wastewater from processes or
facilities that close to go to another facility in the market. Although
the price increase caused by increased compliance costs forces the
total quantity of waste treated in the market to decline (the amount of
this decline is governed by the elasticity of demand for a market),
some of the waste treated by facilities that close should be treated at
other facilities. To the extent that the EPA's model does not account
for transfers, the model may overstate economic impacts. Prior to
promulgation of the final rule, EPA may reconfigure its model to allow
waste from facilities or process lines that close to be treated
elsewhere in the market. EPA solicits comments on this issue and on
appropriate ways to model this transfer.
b. Impacts on non-commercial and mixed facilities. For non-
commercial facilities, economic impacts were estimated only on the
company level, not the facility level. This is because the non-
commercial facilities generally do not generate revenues for their
companies. They exist to perform a service for the rest of the company
and are not expected to be ``profitable'' as a unit. Facilities with
mixed commercial and non-commercial operations are included in the
market analysis because prices charged for their commercial operations
may change. Companies with some commercial operations will raise prices
to cover the variable costs of the treatment and help pay for some of
their fixed costs (for example to underwrite the company waste
treatment costs), but only a share of treatment costs proportionate to
the quantity of waste treated commercially is assigned to the
commercial portion of the facility. Therefore, a ``closure'' of the
commercial portion of a mixed facility indicates that the facility
ceases to perform commercial operations. No change in the quantity of
CWT wastes treated is projected for the non-commercial aspects of these
facilities, nor are market effects analyzed for the products of the
parent company, since the share of waste treatment costs in the
marketed products are minimal. Employment impacts are also calculated
for those facilities with some commercial and some non-commercial
operations.
c. Other impacts. Changes in facility revenues and costs result in
changes in the revenues and costs of the companies owning the
facilities, and thus changes in company profits. Increased borrowing
and changes in the assets owned by the companies, together with changes
in profits, result in changes in overall company financial health. EPA
evaluates company-level impacts by examining changes in company profit
margins and returns-to-assets test. These results are presented
separately for small businesses. For small businesses, EPA also
evaluated the economic impacts of this proposal using a cost-to-sales
test, comparing company compliance costs to baseline sales (unadjusted
for cost pass-through).
Finally, the communities where the CWT facilities are located may
be impacted. Obviously, if facilities cut back operations, employment
and income may fall, sending ripple effects throughout the local
community. On the other hand, there may be increased employment
associated with operating the pollution controls associated with the
regulation, resulting in increased community employment and income.
Facility-level changes in employment are used to calculate total
employment changes. At the same time, for the communities in which CWT
facilities are located, water quality may be expected to improve.
2. Changes From Previous Methodology (at Original Proposal and Notice
of Availability)
There are two major differences between the economic methodology
used for the 1995 proposal and the current methodology. First, EPA
assumed there were no competitive markets at proposal. Since EPA now
[[Page 2326]]
estimates a large increase in the number of oils facilities, some
markets are now structured as competitive. Second, at proposal, EPA
examined facility-level profitability, but did not identify closures
because so many facilities were unprofitable at baseline. For the
current analysis, EPA examines impacts at the process level and has
identified facility closures when all processes at a facility are
projected to close.
In the proposal analysis, EPA identified 85 facilities, 70 of which
were commercial (including zero dischargers). These 70 facilities were
assigned to one of six multi-state regions, and one or more of at most
nine waste treatment or recovery service markets within each region.
The markets were defined in terms of type and cost of treatment or
recovery (for example, metals wastewater treatment) and region. These
markets were very similar to the markets used in today's proposal.
With at most 12 facilities in a single regional waste treatment or
recovery market (39 of 43 regional waste management markets had 5 or
fewer facilities), the markets were defined as oligopolistic (small
number of competitors) or monopolistic (only one supplier). Because EPA
had data that allowed computation of average variable cost of each
waste management process at each facility, but not enough data to
estimate upward sloping cost curves, each facility's average variable
cost for a treatment process was assumed to be constant. EPA used a
simultaneous equation solution algorithm to estimate the with-
regulation prices, quantities, and profits for each commercial
facility.
For the current analysis, EPA has data for 142 commercial CWT
facilities (including zero dischargers); these include the 73
facilities identified at proposal (three facilities were redefined as
commercial based on updated information) plus 69 NOA oil recovery
facilities. Furthermore, some of the NOA facilities are weighted and
ultimately represent more than one facility, but no more than two. EPA
redesigned the economic impact analysis model, incorporating the new
oil facilities into oil recovery or oily wastewater treatment markets
in the appropriate regions and also made some adjustments to the market
definitions. The addition of the NOA facilities to the oil recovery and
oil treatment markets meant that there were now a larger number of
facilities in most of the oil markets. For this reason, EPA decided to
model them as perfectly competitive. (Perfect competition requires that
the number of sellers in a market be sufficiently high that no single
seller can influence the market; rather, they accept the market price
as a ``given,'' and decide the most profitable quantity of waste to
treat based on the given price.) EPA therefore had to redesign the
model so that it would allow either a perfectly competitive market
structure or imperfect competition. Markets are defined as monopoly,
duopoly (two sellers), or perfect competition, depending on the number
of sellers. In this modeling approach, any market in any of the
subcategories with more than two sellers is defined as perfectly
competitive. In reality, markets with three to eight or ten sellers are
probably imperfectly competitive oligopolies, but the current modeling
approach does not allow that market structure. This may tend to
overstate impacts on markets with only a few sellers because they may
be able to pass compliance costs on to customers to a greater degree
than assumed in the model. Conversely, some of the facilities assigned
to monopoly or duopoly markets may actually face some more competition
than the model projects, particularly at higher prices, from other
segments of the CWT industry or from other waste disposal/reduction
opportunities that may be available to their customers. In this case,
the model may underestimate impacts because they may be unable to pass
on as large a share of compliance costs to their customers as the model
projects. As a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated process and
facility closures assuming no cost pass-through (see Appendix E of the
EA). This represents a worst case scenario.
In the proposal analysis, EPA initially analyzed facility closure
by focusing on overall facility profits. If a facility was not
profitable, EPA assumed it would shut down. Examination of baseline
questionnaire data indicated, however, that 22 CWT facilities were
unprofitable at baseline. When 18 of these unprofitable facilities were
contacted two years after the survey, 16 were still in operation.
Owners of CWT facilities did not immediately close their facilities
when they were unprofitable (for a variety of reasons):
30 of the 70 commercial CWT facilities treated some waste
generated by other facilities owned by the same company. They, thus,
provide a service to the rest of the company for which they may not
receive revenue, and, therefore, may not close if their revenues
understate their true value.
Similarly, some facilities perform a service for the rest
of their company. For example, one facility generates a metal-rich
sludge which may be incorporated into the parent company's smelting
process.
Many of the CWT facilities are RCRA-regulated and are
subject to RCRA clean closure requirements, which would entail
expensive long-term monitoring and possibly clean-up of the site.
Facilities may decide to try to ``ride out'' an unprofitable period in
the hopes of avoiding RCRA closure costs.
Facility owners may feel that the negative profits are due
to the rapidly changing demand conditions in the market, and may hope
that once demand conditions stabilize, the facility will become
profitable. Additionally, many facilities stay in business hoping that
new environmental regulation, such as the RCRA Phase 3 rule, may create
more business for facilities.
For whatever reason, many apparently unprofitable CWT facilities
continue to operate for years. Thus, EPA decided in 1995 that facility
profitability was not a closure criterion. In that impact analysis,
EPA, therefore, examined the impacts of the regulation on facility
profit, paying particular attention to facilities that had been
profitable without the regulation, but became unprofitable with the
regulation in effect (but not termed ``closures''). In adjusting to the
costs of complying with the regulation, a CWT facility would shut down
an individual CWT process (metal recovery, for example) if it became
unprofitable, but the facility as a whole would continue to operate,
even if it became unprofitable.
In 1995, EPA also examined the data on CWT operation costs and
revenues, and found that at most of the unprofitable facilities, the
individual CWT operations were at least breaking even (revenues from
wastewater treatment, for example, were at least as great as costs of
wastewater treatment). The negative profits were due to other
conditions at the facility, not the actual operations themselves.
Therefore, as in 1995, EPA has decided to focus exclusively on CWT
operations and ignore overall facility profits that may be affected by
other activities, revenues, or costs at CWT facilities.
In the reproposal analysis, EPA examines impacts on commercial CWT
facilities in terms of closures, but focuses on potential closures of
CWT processes by examining the costs and revenues of each waste
treatment or recovery operation with the regulation in effect (this
isolated the analysis to only examine CWT operations and not overall
facility operations). If with-regulation costs of the operation exceed
revenues, then the operation will be shut down. This is called a
``process closure.'' If all the waste treatment processes at a facility
are shut down, this is called a ``facility closure.''
[[Page 2327]]
D. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed BPT
For BPT, EPA evaluates treatment options first by calculating pre-
tax total annualized costs and total pollutant removals in pounds. The
ratio of the costs to the removals for each option are presented in
Table XI.D-1.
For BPT, EPA is proposing Option 4 for the metals subcategory and
Option 9 for the oils subcategory. Direct dischargers in the organics
subcategory are only assigned costs for monitoring, so there are no
other compliance costs, nor are there incremental conventional
removals.
Table XI. D-1.--BPT Cost Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
total Average cost
Option annualized Removals (M reasonableness
costs lbs) (1997 $/b)
($1997 M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9
Facilities:
4......................... $2.85 15.21 $0.19
2......................... 13.7 14.79 0.93
3......................... 14.2 15.40 0.96
Oils Subcategory--5
Facilities:
8......................... 90.486 0.625 0.78
9......................... 90.486 0.663 0.69
Organics Subcategory--4
Facilities:
4......................... 0.237 0 n/a
3......................... 0.426 0 n/a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For direct dischargers, EPA's cost analysis was not able to
distingish between Option 8 and Option 9. EPA does, however, believe
that meeting the more stringent Option 9 will result in additional
removals while the cost differences will be negligible.
Table XI.D-2 presents the economic impact results for the proposed
BPT (economic impacts for the options rejected for BPT are presented in
section XI.F where those options are considered for BAT). Options in
the Metals and Organics subcategories more stringent than proposed BPT
are evaluated in Sections XI.E and XI.F. Impacts are presented for
process closures, facility closures, and employment losses. Process
closures are a direct output of the market model; facility closures are
designated if all of the processes at a facility close. Employment
losses are calculated from process closures, facility closures, and
from reductions in waste treated by process lines that do not close. In
all cases, the reduction in employment is calculated as a percentage
decrease of the facility's total employment proportionate to the
percentage reduction in waste treated.
Table XI.D-2.--Economic Impacts of BPT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
total Total
Option annualized Process Facility employment
costs closures closures losses
($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
4....................................................... $1.72 1 1 35
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
9....................................................... 0.310 0 0 0
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
4....................................................... 0.138 2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic impacts of the proposed BPT regulations are only one
process closure and one facility closure in the metals subcategory;
there are no closures in the oils subcategory; and there are only 2
process closures, but no facility closures, in the organics
subcategory. Total job losses for the BPT options are 35. (There are no
job losses associated with the organics subcategory even though there
are two process closures because job losses are proportional to flow.
The organics flow at the facilities with the process closures is so low
compared to the facility flow that there are no proportional job
losses.)
Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than
one subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated the impacts of a combined BPT
option on all direct dischargers. This Combined Option consists of
Metals Option 4, Oils Option 9, and Organics Option 4. The combined
impacts of this option are presented in Table XI.D-3.
[[Page 2328]]
Table XI.D-3.--Economic Impacts of Combined BPT Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
total Total
Option annualized Process Facility employment
costs closures closures losses
($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Direct Dischargers--14 Facilities:
Combined................................................ $2.17 1 2 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic impacts of the combined option are one process
closure, two facility closures, and a total employment loss of 40 jobs.
The impacts of the chosen BPT options shown in Table XI.D-2 do not add
to the impacts shown in Table XI.D-3 because a facility closure is
counted when all of the processes at a given facility close, and a
process closure is counted when one, but not all, of the processes
close. Therefore, for facilities with process closures in more than one
subcategory, the analysis of the combined option can show a lower
number of process closures and a higher number of facility closures.
As noted above, EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis assuming
no cost pass-through. For direct dischargers (those subject to BPT
limitations), the number of projected process and facility closures was
unaffected by this worst-case assumption.
E. Results of BCT Cost Test
In July 1986, EPA explained how it developed its BCT methodology
(51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT candidate
technologies--those that remove more conventional pollutants than BPT--
by applying a two-part cost test: a POTW test and an industry cost-
effectiveness test.
EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the cost per pound
of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from secondary
treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the POTW
benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars). In the industry cost-
effectiveness test, the ratio of the incremental BPT to BCT cost
divided by the BPT cost for the industry must be less than 1.29 (that
is, the cost increase must be less than 29 percent).
Table XI.E-1 presents the results of the BCT cost test for the
metals subcategory. For both Option 2 and Option 3, the table presents
costs and conventional removals and compares them to the BPT baseline,
Option 4. For one of the BCT options to pass the POTW test, incremental
cost reasonableness (compared to the BPT option, the ratio of
incremental costs to incremental conventional removals) for each option
must be less than $0.71 ($1997) per pound. Option 2 removes fewer
conventional pounds (see Table XI.D-2), so it is not a candidate BCT
technology. Option 3 has an incremental cost-reasonableness of $23.65,
well above the benchmark of $0.71, so it fails the POTW test. This
option is therefore not BCT, and since it fails the POTW test, it is
not necessary to perform the industry cost-effectiveness test. Because
the only BCT option fails the POTW test, BCT is set equal to BPT.
Table XI.E-1.--BCT Cost Test Results (Metals Subcategory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax
total Conventional Incremental
Option annualized removals (M cost- Pass POTW
costs lbs) reasonableness test?
($1997 M) ($/ lb.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................................... $2.85 13.84 n/a n/a
3....................................................... 14.2 14.32 $23.65 no
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options
EPA also evaluated options more stringent than BPT in the metals
and organics subcategories for BAT (in the oils subcategory, EPA set
BPT equal to the most stringent option that it considered). These are
Metals Option 2 and Option 3 and Organics Option 3. For a given
technology to be the basis for BAT limitations it must be economically
achievable. EPA is today proposing BAT limitations equivalent to
proposed BPT for all subcategories; economic impacts are, therefore,
equivalent to those presented in Section XI.D for the final BPT limits.
Table XI.F-1 presents the economic impact results for the options
considered for BAT.
Table XI.F-1.--Economic Impacts of BAT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
total Total
Option annualized Process Facility employment
costs closures closures losses
($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
4....................................................... $1.72 1 1 35
2....................................................... 8.28 1 1 37
3....................................................... 8.60 1 1 37
[[Page 2329]]
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
8....................................................... 0.310 0 0 0
9....................................................... 0.310 0 0 0
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
4....................................................... 0.138 2 0 0
3....................................................... 0.263 2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic impacts of the proposed BAT options are minimal: three
process closures, one facility closure and 35 job losses. In all cases,
the closure impacts for the rejected options (Metals options 2 and 3
and Organics option 3) are equivalent to the impacts for the proposed
BPT options, although there are slightly more employment losses for the
rejected metals options. However, as discussed in Section IX.B.3, EPA
is not proposing these options for BAT.
G. Costs and Economic Impacts of Proposed PSES Options
In addition to evaluating impacts to direct dischargers for BPT/
BCT/BAT, EPA evaluated the impacts to indirect dischargers for
complying with PSES. EPA considered the same technology options for
PSES that it did for BPT and BAT. For the metals and organics
subcategories, EPA is proposing the same options for PSES that is for
BPT/BAT: Metals Option 4 and Organics Option 4. For the oils
subcategory, however, EPA is proposing Option 8 rather than Option 9 as
discussed in Section IX.B. The impacts of the PSES options are
presented in Table XI.G-1. Impacts are presented for process closures,
facility closures, and employment losses. Process closures are a direct
output of the market model; facility closures are designated if all of
the processes at a facility close. Employment losses are calculated
from process closures, facility closures, and from reductions in waste
treated by process lines that do not close. In all cases, the reduction
in employment is calculated as a decrease of the facility's total
employment proportionate to the reduction in waste treated.
Table XI.G-1.--Impacts of PSES Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
total Total
Option annualized Process Facility employment
costs closures closures losses
($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--41 Facilities:
4....................................................... $4.23 5 0 124
2....................................................... 14.7 8 1 126
3....................................................... 15.5 8 1 126
Oils Subcategory--123 Facilities:
8....................................................... 7.35 12 11 216
9....................................................... 10.7 14 11 213
Organics Subcategory--14 Facilities
4....................................................... 1.66 6 0 4
3....................................................... 2.12 7 0 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each subcategory, EPA is proposing the least costly option for
PSES. For the metals and organics subcategory, PSES is set equal to
BAT. In the metals subcategory, Option 4 results in five process
closures, no facility closures, and 124 job losses. Options 2 and 3
results in eight process closures, one facility closure, and 126 job
losses. For the organics subcategory, Option 4 results in six process
closures and no facility closures, with 4 job losses. Organics Option 3
results in seven process closures and 27 job losses. There are fewer
employment losses with the more stringent Oils Option 9 because
different facilities with different numbers of employees close in the
market model under the two options.
Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than
one subcategory. EPA, therefore, evaluated the impacts of a combined
PSES option on all indirect dischargers. This option consists of Metals
Option 4, Oils Option 8, and Organics Option 4. To further evaluate the
impacts of Oils Option 9, a combined option with this option was also
considered. The impacts of both combined options are presented in Table
XI.G-2. The impacts of the selected PSES options shown in Table XI.G-1
do not add to the impacts shown in Table XI.G-2 because a facility
closure is counted if all of the processes at a given facility close
while a process closure is counted if one, but not all, processes
close. Therefore, in the combined options, the number of process
closures can go down while facility closures go up if processes in
difference subcategories close. The employment losses also do not add
up because of rounding. The economic impacts of the combined option
with Oils Option 9 are higher than the combined option with Oils Option
8, and the former also has more extensive impacts on small businesses
(see Section XI.L) .
[[Page 2330]]
Table XI.G-2.--Economic Impacts of Combined PSES Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
total Total
Option annualized Process Facility employment
costs closures closures losses
($1997 M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Indirect Dischargers--147 Facilities:
w/Oils 8................................................ $13.2 15 13 298
w/Oils 9................................................ 16.6 19 13 302
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sensitivity analysis in which no costs are passed through to
customers, among indirect dischargers, 29 process closures and 16
facility closures are projected under the proposed options.
H. Economic Impacts for New Sources
EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for both the organics and oils
subcategories. 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. BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are found to be economically
achievable; therefore, NSPS limitations will not present a barrier to
entry for new facilities in these subcategories. EPA is setting PSNS
equal to PSES limitations for existing sources for the oils and
organics subcategories. As a result, given EPA's finding of economic
achievability for PSES in those two subcategories, EPA also finds that
the PSNS regulation will be economically achievable and will not
constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is proposing Option 3 for
NSPS and for PSNS. While EPA acknowledges that Option 3 achieves
slightly greater removals than Option 4 at much higher costs for
existing sources (see detailed discussion in Section IX.B.4), EPA does
not believe that this option is a barrier to entry for new sources.
Unlike the oils subcategory, the information collected by the Agency
indicates that the metals subcategory is stable over time, with little
entry or exit, and EPA does not expect this trend to change.
Furthermore, metals facilities tend to be involved in specialized
operations and are frequently RCRA-permitted. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that start-up costs are not the primary factor considered in
starting a new facility. However, EPA solicits comment on this
conclusion.
I. Firm Level Impacts
Complying with the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards affects the revenues and profitability of firms owning CWT
facilities. In Section 6.1.4 of the EA, the Agency examines two
financial ratios to assess the magnitude of these impacts: firm profit
margin (profit/revenues) and return on assets or ROA (profit/total
assets). Baseline values are compared to post-regulation values that
are determined by calculating changes in profits based on output from
the market model. EPA does not have complete data for all firms, but
the two measures decline for more than half of the firms for which EPA
has data. EPA also examined these measures by size categories,
including a category for small businesses. For most size categories,
median profit margin and median ROA decline. If not, they stay the
same. EPA has profit data on 56 small firms and asset data for 15 small
firms; profit margin declines for 34 of the 56 firms and ROA declines
for 7 of the 15 firms. As discussed more fully in the EA, these results
are dependent on the assumptions used in the market model and the
market in which EPA placed the facilities. EPA is currently considering
how to refine this analysis for the final rule.
J. Community Impacts
EPA estimated impacts on communities in which CWT facilities were
located by estimating the overall change in employment in the community
as a result of the CWT rule. EPA estimated the change in employment at
each CWT associated with reductions in the quantity of waste treated at
facilities incurring economic impacts. Then, EPA applied state-specific
direct-effect employment multipliers to estimate the total change in
employment. Most of the change in employment will occur in the
community where the CWT is located. Thus, EPA estimated the change in
community employment as a result of the rule by assigning all of the
change in employment to the community. Table XI.J-1 shows a
distribution of the estimated changes in community employment resulting
from the economic impacts of the regulation. Community employment
losses range from zero to 213 full time equivalents. Even the largest
reduction in employment represents only 0.7 percent of the baseline
employment in that community. Thus, the Agency expects the negative
employment impacts of the regulation to be extremely small. In fact,
EPA estimates that most facilities will have to hire from one to three
additional workers to comply with the regulation (although this is not
taken into account in Table XI.J-1). Taking these impacts into effect,
almost all facilities will experience increases in employment due to
the regulation. The overall impact of the regulation on community
employment is, therefore, generally expected to be positive.
Table XI.J-1.--Estimated Community Employment Impacts of the CWT
Regulation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions in community employment as a result of process Number of
and facility closures communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 50 full time equivalents...................... 5
20 to 50................................................... 11
1 to 20.................................................... 14
0 to 1..................................................... 12
Zero....................................................... 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not account for employment gains associated with compliance.
The Agency also examined the distribution of benefits across
communities with different socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA must, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission. Environmental justice concerns arise when
communities of color and/or low income communities experience
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
impacts. CWT facilities are frequently located in industrial areas; as
such, the communities frequently have higher minority populations and
greater poverty than their surrounding states or
[[Page 2331]]
the nation as a whole. Reductions in pollutant exposures to these
populations would, therefore, improve environmental justice. Table
XI.J-2 characterizes the communities in which CWT facilities are
located.
Table XI.J-2.--Socioeconomic Profile of Communities in Which CWT
Facilities Are Located
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Percentage communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of the Population that are Non-Caucasian (National
Percentage=16.8%)
Less than 10............................................... 32
10 to 20................................................... 17
20 to 30................................................... 35
30 to 50................................................... 39
Over 50.................................................... 23
Percent of the Population With Incomes Below Poverty Level (National
Percentage=13.5)
Less than 7................................................ 19
7 to 13.................................................... 33
13 to 20................................................... 56
20 to 30................................................... 31
Over 30.................................................... 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the most recent census data, in 1990, the nation as a whole
had a population that was 16.8 percent non-Caucasian. Of the
communities in which CWT facilities were located, on the other hand, 38
percent had populations that were at least 30 percent minority, and 54
percent of communities had populations whose minority percentage
exceeded that of the state in which they were located by more than five
percentage points. In 1990, 13.5 percent of the U.S. population had
incomes below the poverty level, 22 percent of communities with CWT
facilities had at least 20 percent of their residents in poverty, and
33 percent had percentages of the population in poverty that exceeded
by at least 5 percentage points the percentage of the population in
poverty for the states in which they were located. Thus, environmental
justice is a concern for these communities. The costs of the rule fall
disproportionately on facilities in minority and low-income
communities. Benefits may also accrue to these communities as a result
of this rule, but a large share of benefits are likely to accrue to
communities downstream from the CWT or POTW, which may not be the same
community.
K. Foreign Trade Impacts
The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Many of the affected
CWT facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under RCRA and
international trade in CWT services for treatment of hazardous wastes
is virtually nonexistent. There is also very little, if any,
international trade in treatment of non-hazardous CWT wastes.
L. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Agency prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to
assess the impacts on small companies owning CWT facilities. For
purposes of this analysis, EPA defines small CWT companies as those
having sales less than $6 million--the Small Business Administration
definition of a small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems. This
is the SIC code that most CWT facilities listed in their questionnaire
responses (see EA Chapter 3). Two small companies own facilities that
discharge directly. There are 61 small companies that own facilities
that discharge indirectly (the total number of small indirects includes
applying weights to some of the facilities). EPA evaluated the impact
on small CWT companies using a cost-to-sales test, which compares
baseline sales to compliance costs (adjusted for inflation so that the
costs and sales are expressed in the same year's dollars). This
assessment does not account for any ability of the companies to pass
any increase in operating costs through to their customers. EPA
recognizes that costs-to-sales ratios in excess of one percent, and
particularly those in excess of three percent, may represent
significant impacts because they will generally correspond to much
higher rates of cost to pre-compliance profits, and, thus, serve as a
signal for additional analysis.
The two small companies that own direct discharging facilities,
both in the oils subcategory, have cost-to-sales ratios of over three
percent. Results of the cost-to-sales test for the PSES options are
presented in Table XI.L-1 for the number of facilities with costs
exceeding one percent and three percent. Some companies own facilities
with operations in more than one subcategory.
Table XI.L-1.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for PSES Options for Small
Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
small small
Option companies companies
with cost/ with cost/
sales >1% sales >3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--4 Small Businesses:
4......................................... 3 1
2......................................... 3 3
3......................................... 3 3
Oils Subcategory--57 Small Businesses:
8......................................... 40 21
9......................................... 49 31
Organics Subcategory--2 Small Businesses:
4......................................... 2 1
3......................................... 2 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen from Table XI.L-1, the economic impact on small
businesses of the proposed PSES options is not as great as for the
other alternatives. In particular, Oils Option 8 has 40 firms (70
percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of
1 percent and 21 firms (37 percent of the small businesses) with cost-
to-sales ratios in excess of 3 percent (without adjustment for pass-
through of costs). On the other hand, Oils Option 9 has 49 firms (87
percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of
1 percent and 31 firms (55 percent of the small businesses) with cost-
to-sales ratios in excess of 3 percent.
Many of the facilities owned by small businesses operate processes
in more than one subcategory so, as with the economic impact analyses
presented
[[Page 2332]]
earlier in this section, cost-to-sales test results are presented for
two combined PSES options: one with Oils Option 8 and one with Oils
Option 9. These results are presented in Table XI.L-2.
Table XI.L-2.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Combined PSES Options
for Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
small small
Combined option companies companies
with cost/ with cost/
sales >1% sales >3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses:
w/ Oils Option 8.......................... 43 23
w/ Oils Option 9.......................... 52 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSES options combined with Oils Option 8 has 43 firms (70
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1
percent and 23 firms (38 percent of small businesses) with cost-to-
sales ratios in excess of 3 percent. On the other hand, the combined
option with Oils Option 9 has 52 firms (85 percent of small businesses)
with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent and 33 firms (54
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3
percent.
As detailed in Section VI.H, EPA convened a SBREFA panel during the
development of this rule. As part of those exercises, EPA considered
several regulatory alternatives to provide relief for small businesses.
Some of these alternatives are discussed in detail in other sections of
this document. For example, one option considered by EPA was a reduced
monitoring alternative. This option is discussed in Section IX.D.
EPA also analyzed several bases for not including small businesses
within the scope of this proposal. EPA examined several criteria for
establishing an exclusion for small businesses such as the volume of
wastewater flow, employment, or annual revenues. The objective was to
minimize the impacts on small businesses, still achieve the
environmental benefits, and stay responsive to the Clean Water Act. EPA
is defining small CWT businesses according to the SBA size definition
of $6 million in annual revenue, but considered other criteria that
would be easier to implement in practice, such as wastewater flow. To
target relief to small businesses, EPA examined the correlation between
these criteria and the size definition.
Since most CWT facilities have similar numbers of employees
regardless of their size, EPA first eliminated employment as a basis
for establishing a small business exclusion. While EPA also found no
correlation between annual volume of wastewater and the size of a
facility, EPA retained this criteria due to the anticipated ease in
implementing an exclusion based on this criteria. If an exclusion based
on volume of wastewater is ultimately selected, the regulation would
exclude both small and large businesses.
EPA evaluated alternative levels for criteria based on wastewater
flow and size as potential bases for limiting the scope of the proposed
regulation to: (i) indirect dischargers with flows greater than 3.5
million gallons per year (MGY), (ii and iii) indirect dischargers that
manage non-hazardous wastes only with flows greater than either 3.5 MGY
or 7.5 MGY. EPA also considered limiting the applicability of the
proposed regulation to indirect dischargers not owned by small
businesses without any specific reference to flow (referred to as ``no
smalls'' below). The justification for EPA's choice of these particular
exclusion alternatives is included in the record in materials submitted
to the SBREFA panel.
For each potential limitation, EPA estimated the projected economic
impacts, both in absolute terms and in relative terms (that is, whether
the impacts were higher, proportionately, for small businesses). The
economic impacts that EPA considered for small companies include
process closures, facility closures, employment losses, and the cost-
to-sales test. Table XI.L-3 shows the results of the facility-level
analyses (if current facility receipts do not change) and the results
of the analyses for the selected options for comparison purposes for
all indirect dischargers. Table XI.L-4 shows the results of the cost-
to-sales test, which are company-level impacts for small companies that
own indirect dischargers. Preliminary versions of these results were
provided to all small entity representatives and SBREFA panel members.
Table XI.L.--Impacts of PSES Options With Limited Scope
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
total Process Facility Total
Option annualized closures closures employment
costs (small/ (small/ losses
($1997 M) large) large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Indirect Dischargers--147 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Option w/ Oils 8................................... $13.2 5/10 7/6 298
Reduced monitoring.......................................... 11.03 5/11 4/7 286
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous..................................... 11.7 5/10 3/3 273
>3.5 MGY.................................................... 10.3 2/7 0/1 161
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous..................................... 10.9 5/10 3/3 273
``No smalls''............................................... 8.81 0/12 0/12 142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2333]]
Table XI.L-4.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Small Businesses for
PSES Options with Limited Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost/ Cost/
Option sales>1% sales>3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Option w/Oils Option 8............... 43 23
Reduced monitoring............................ 32 14
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous....................... 27 18
>3.5 MGY...................................... 22 14
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous....................... 22 18
``No smalls''................................. 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some panel members and small entity representatives (SERs) believe
that these results support not including small businesses in the
regulation. As described in the Panel's final report, these panel
members and SERs believe that the ``lost'' pollutant reductions
associated with not including small businesses would not be
environmentally significant. Based on analysis available at the time of
the panel, limiting the applicability to not include all oils
facilities owned by small businesses would have reduced removals by 12
percent. Not including indirect dischargers with flows under 3.5 MGY
would have reduced removals by 6 percent. They also suggested that
these facilities provide an important ``safety valve'' for an
affordable and effective treatment alternative for industrial
facilities that would otherwise find it prohibitively expensive to
comply with industry-specific categorical standards.
Other SERs opposed this approach. These commenters believe that not
including small businesses in the scope of this rule would adversely
impact the image of the industry. One of these commenters preferred
reduced monitoring and also suggested that small businesses might be
granted additional time to comply with the new standards, rather than
not including those businesses within the scope of the rule. EPA
expressed concern that the absence of categorical standards for CWT
facilities has been a major ``loophole'' in a national program to
control industrial pollution, allowing wastes to be treated off-site
less effectively than would be required of the same wastes if treated
on-site. One of EPA's primary concerns with any of the alternatives
that limit the scope of the rule is that they represent one snapshot of
a rapidly changing industry. If a segment of the industry is not
subject to national regulation, these companies might quickly expand
leading to much greater discharges within a few years than predicted by
existing data--with environmentally deleterious consequences. In
addition, EPA believes that most CWT facilities have substantial
amounts of unused capacity. Because this industry is extremely
competitive, by limiting the scope of the CWT rule, EPA could actually
be encouraging ineffective treatment while discouraging effective
treatment.
The panel discussed several ways of addressing this concern. One
idea was to put mass-based limits on receipts as part of the
eligibility requirement for not subjecting certain facilities to the
rule, ensuring that these facilities would not handle significant
volumes of contaminated wastes. However, this approach would also limit
the flexibility of small businesses not subjected to this rule, and
might require CWT facilities owned by small companies to give up a
significant share of their existing waste receipts.
In summary, in an effort to limit the rule's applicability to
mitigate small business impacts and still preserve the benefits of the
rule, EPA considered a variety of potential alternatives. For the
reasons discussed elsewhere, however, EPA is not proposing to include
any alternatives that limit the scope of the rule for small businesses.
However, EPA has followed the panel recommendation that it include a
full and balanced discussion of possible small business relief measures
in this preamble and solicits both comments and data that might address
some of the concerns that have been raised. Examples of such data would
include plant capacity, as well as influent and effluent
concentrations. Finally, as recommended by the panel, EPA will strongly
consider developing some form of regulatory relief for small businesses
for the final rule if its analyses continue to show significant
economic impacts on a substantial number of small businesses.
M. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the
alternative treatment technology options that were considered. The
report, ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry'' (hereinafter, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Report''), describes the methodology, data, and results;
the report is included in the record of this rulemaking. The results of
this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of the costs
(in 1981 dollars) per pound-equivalent removed, where pounds-equivalent
removed for a particular pollutant is determined by multiplying the
number of pounds of a pollutant removed by each option by a toxic
weighting factor. The toxic weighting factors account for the
differences in toxicity among pollutants and are derived using ambient
water quality criteria. Cost effectiveness results are presented in
1981 dollars as a reporting convention. Cost-effectiveness is
calculated as the ratio of pre-tax annualized costs of an option to the
annual pounds-equivalent removed by that option, and can be expressed
as the average or incremental cost-effectiveness for an option.
Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of as the ``increment''
between no regulation and the selected option for any given rule. For
direct dischargers, the technologies used as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT
in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $5.58/
lb-equivalent. For indirect dischargers, the technologies used as the
basis for PSES in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness
ratio of $23.59/lb-equivalent. These results incorporate all
subcategories with their selected options.
Incremental cost-effectiveness is the appropriate measure for
comparing one regulatory option to an alternative, less stringent
regulatory option for the same subcategory. Cost-effectiveness results
by subcategory and option are presented for direct dischargers in Table
XI.M-1 and indirect dischargers in Table XI.M-2. The options are listed
in order of increasing removals. The calculations reflect only those
increments that are ``efficient,'' in that they remove more for an
incremental cost. In this context,
[[Page 2334]]
``inefficient'' options (i.e., those that cost more but remove less)
are eliminated from the analysis. For example, Metals Subcategory
Option 4 for direct dischargers has greater removals than Option 2, but
costs less. Therefore, the incremental ``cost-effectiveness'' of the
``inefficient'' option--Option 2--is displayed as ``n/a'' for ``not
applicable,'' and Option 4 becomes the first option in the series
against which further increments are compared.
Table XI.M-1.--BPT/BCT/BAT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Incremental
total Average cost cost-
Option annualized Removals effectiveness effectiveness
costs (lbs-eq) (1981 $/lb- (1981 $/lb-
($1981 M) eq) eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
2................................................... $8.85 369,112 $23.99 n/a
4................................................... 1.84 370,040 4.95
3................................................... 9.18 379,571 24.18 974.19
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
8................................................... 0.314 13,943 22.49
9................................................... 0.314 14,811 21.17 n/a a
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
4................................................... 0.151 0
3................................................... 0.275 27,055 10.17 4.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a EPA is not able to distinguish between the costs to direct dischargers to comply with Options 8 and 9, and
therefore is not able to compute incremental cost-effectiveness.
Table XI.M-2.--PSES Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax Incremental
total Average cost cost-
Option annualized Removals effectiveness effectiveness
costs (lbs-eq) (1981 $/lb- (1981 $/lb-
($1981 M) eq) eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities:
4................................................... $5.23 25,843 $202.22 .............
2................................................... 17.86 26,943 662.86 11,484.84
3................................................... 18.84 27,480 685.58 1,825.82
Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities:
8................................................... 8.63 510,740 16.90 .............
9................................................... 12.30 514,398 23.91 725.50
Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities:
4................................................... 1.89 87,917 21.53 .............
3................................................... 2.42 165,392 14.63 6.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the issues discussed at length by the SBREFA panel members
was EPA's analyses of toxic loadings and removals which underlie the
cost-effectiveness analysis for the various regulatory options for the
oils subcategory. For the oils subcategory, the cost-effectiveness
analysis appears to be driven largely by a limited number of
observations for one or two pollutants. For example, a single
pollutant, benzo(a)pyrene, accounts for 88% of the estimated toxic
removals by indirect dischargers and 80% of the estimated toxic
removals by direct dischargers in the oils subcategory. Benzo(a)pyrene
was detected in the effluent from the emulsion breaking/gravity
separation process (which EPA used to establish baseline loadings for
this subcategory) in four out of nine daily composite samples from one
of the facilities sampled in this subcategory. One of the four daily
composite samples was biphasic--the technology did not completely
separate the oil from the water phase. The concentration of
benzo(a)pyrene in the oil phase of this sample was several orders of
magnitude greater than the concentration in the water phase and in the
other samples at that facility. Therefore, the average concentration of
benzo(a)pyrene for that facility is largely driven by its concentration
in the oil phase of the biphasic sample. Applying its baseline loading
methodology (see detailed discussion in Chapter 12 of the technical
development document), EPA also attributed the average concentration of
benzo(a)pyrene for the facility with the biphasic sample to 10 other
facilities (approximately 13% of all the oils subcategory indirect
dischargers). Consequently, the benzo(a)pyrene concentration detected
in the oil phase of the daily composite biphasic sample accounts for a
third to a half of the total pound-equivalent removals estimated for
indirect dischargers in the oils subcategory.
EPA acknowledges that this daily composite sample significantly
influences its estimate of pound-equivalent removals for indirect
dischargers in the oils subcategory. However, EPA believes it is
reasonable to project that some portion of other oils subcategory
indirect discharging facilities may experience biphasic effluents from
emulsion breaking/gravity separation and may thus also contain high
baseline concentrations of highly toxic pollutants. Even if the
concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in this sample were non-representative
of other oily waste facilities, there may be other, highly toxic
pollutants that were not detected in the waste streams of the plants
sampled. The nature of this industry is to accept highly variable waste
streams, so there is no ``typical'' set of pollutants and
representative
[[Page 2335]]
concentrations. EPA solicits comment and data on this conclusion.
Finally, EPA notes that its extension of the average pollutant
concentrations for the facility with the biphasic sample to 10 other
facilities (unscaled) in this subcategory was conducted without
consideration of whether these facilities treat non-hazardous materials
or a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. If EPA were to
analyze facilities on this basis, it might also effect EPA's estimate
of toxic removals for this subcategory. This issue is discussed in more
detail in Section IV.S.
XII. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
In addition to costs and impacts, EPA also estimated the
environmental and human health benefits of today's proposed
requirements. Benefits identified as a result of this proposed rule are
associated with improvements in water quality. Section X.C of this
notice and Chapter 12 of the technical development document (TDD)
describe the estimated reductions in effluent discharges. Those
reductions and the estimates of incremental environmental improvements
are derived by a comparison of estimated post-compliance discharges to
a baseline of current discharges. Because current discharges are a
function of current technology, this is the same baseline that is used
to establish the costs of complying with this rule.
EPA is confident that its estimate of compliance costs is a full
and accurate account of such costs. EPA is less confident, however,
that its estimate of benefits is similarly complete. EPA is not
currently able to evaluate all human health and ecosystem benefits
associated with water quality improvements quantitatively. EPA is even
more limited in its ability to assign monetary values to these
benefits. The economic benefit values described below and in the
``Economic Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations, Guidelines
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (EA)
should be considered a subset of the total benefits of this rule and
should be evaluated along with descriptive assessments of benefits and
the acknowledgment that even these may fall short of the real-world
benefits that may result from this rule. For example, the analyses
consider the effects of metals and organic pollutants, but do not
evaluate the impacts of other classes of pollutants, such as five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand
(COD), and total suspended solids (TSS), which can produce significant
adverse environmental impacts. In addition, EPA has not calculated any
benefits from water quality improvement at facilities that are
represented by survey weights from the NOA (Notice of Data
Availability) facilities. Assigning benefits to these facilities
requires data specific to the reach into which the facility discharges.
The monetized benefits presented in this section are therefore
underestimated, and should not be directly compared with the costs
presented in Section XI.
Within these confines, EPA analyzes the effects of current water
discharges and assesses the benefits of reductions in these discharges
resulting from this proposed regulation. EPA evaluated water quality
benefits of controlling the discharge from CWT facilities to surface
waters and POTWs for direct and indirect dischargers located throughout
the United States. CWT industry waste effluents contain pollutants
that, when discharged into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems, may
alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, and adversely affect human
health. In fact, all 105 pollutants of concern considered in this
analysis have at least one toxic effect (they are a human health
carcinogen and/or human health systemic toxicant or aquatic life
toxicant). Many of these pollutants are persistent and bioaccumulate in
aquatic organisms. In addition, many of these pollutants can also
adversely affect POTW operations or contribute to POTW biosolid
contamination.
Water quality problems from four direct discharging CWT facilities
and nine POTWs (which receive discharges from 14 indirect facilities)
have been documented in State 304(l) Short Lists of impaired water
bodies. In the case of indirect dischargers, the 9 POTWs have had water
quality problems with pollutants that are typical of CWT discharges and
these POTWs receive discharges from CWT facilities. However, EPA cannot
definitely link the water quality problems with these CWT facilities.
Finally, EPA has documented seven cases of impairment of POTW
operations.
EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic
benefits to result from these reductions in effluent loadings (see
``Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the
Centralized Waste Treaters Industry,'' (Environmental Assessment)). In
particular, the benefits assessment addresses the following benefit
categories: a) human health benefits due to reductions in excess cancer
risk; b) human health benefits due to reductions in lead exposure; c)
human health benefits due to reductions in non-carcinogenic hazard
(systemic); d) ecological and recreational benefits due to improved
water quality with respect to toxic pollutants; and e) benefits to
POTWs from reductions in interference, pass-through, and biosolid
contamination, and elimination of some of the efforts associated with
establishing local pretreatment limits.
Out of a total of 205 CWT facilities, EPA evaluated 10 direct
wastewater dischargers and 85 indirect wastewater dischargers
discharging up to 105 pollutants. Facilities not evaluated either are
zero dischargers (44) or had insufficient data to conduct the water
quality analysis. To estimate some of the benefits from the
improvements in water quality expected to result from this rule,
instream concentration estimates are modeled and then compared to both
aquatic life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or
toxic effect levels to evaluate whether these discharges pose risk to
aquatic organisms or to human health. The analyses were first performed
on a subcategory-specific basis. The subcategory-specific analyses,
however, consider only impacts of discharges from individual
subcategories, and therefore, underestimate overall water quality
impacts for facilities that treat wastes in more than one subcategory.
At least 20 percent of facilities in the CWT industry accept wastes in
multiple subcategories. In order to evaluate overall benefits of the
proposed technologies, EPA also analyzed water quality and POTW impacts
for subcategory combinations, as appropriate, for individual
facilities.
For indirect dischargers, EPA also evaluates the potential
inhibition of POTW operations and biosolid contamination (thereby
limiting its use for land application) based on current and proposed
pretreatment levels. Inhibition of POTW operations are projected by
comparing modeled POTW influent concentrations to known inhibition
levels from the literature; potential contamination of biosolids is
estimated by comparing projected pollutant concentrations in biosolids
to available EPA biosolid regulatory standards.
EPA monetizes the estimated benefits for reduced cancer risk,
reduced lead health risk, improved recreational activity, improved
nonuse (intrinsic) value, and reduced biosolid contamination at POTWs.
However, EPA is unable to quantify the dollar value of benefits from
the other benefit categories such as reduced noncarcinogenic hazards.
The methodology and data used in the
[[Page 2336]]
estimate of all benefits are described in detail in the EA.
A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters associated with
the proposal will reduce cancer incidences by approximately 0.65 per
year with estimated monetized benefits of $1.5 to $8.0 million ($1997)
per year. These estimated benefits are attributable to reducing the
cancer risks associated with consuming contaminated fish tissue. EPA
developed these benefit estimates by applying an existing estimate of
the value of a statistical life to the estimated number of excess
cancer cases avoided. The estimated range of the value of a statistical
life used in this analysis is $2.3 million to 12.4 million ($1997).
B. Reduced Lead Health Risk
EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters will
significantly reduce lead. Under the proposed treatment levels, the
ingestion of lead-contaminated fish tissues by recreational and
subsistence anglers would be substantially reduced at four water
bodies. Because elevated blood lead levels can cause intellectual
impairment in exposed children 0 to 6 years of age, benefits to the at-
risk child populations are quantified by estimating the reduced
potential IQ point loss. Benefits to adults are quantified by
estimating the reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases including
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and strokes (the benefits of
reduced heart disease and strokes include both fatal and non-fatal
cases). The benefits are quantified and monetized using methodologies
developed in the Retrospective Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Final
Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to
1990; EPA 410-R-97-002). EPA estimates that this proposed regulation
would reduce annual cases of these adverse health effects: 3.209 cases
of hypertension valued at $838 per case, 0.185 cases of heart disease
valued at $63,690 per case, 0.012 cases of cerebrovascular accidents
valued at $246,000 per case for men and $123,000 per case for women,
0.008 cases of brain infarctions also valued at $246,000 per case for
men and $123,000 per case for women, .222 cases of premature mortality
valued at $2.3 million to $12.4 million per case, 72 increased IQ
points in children valued at $3,637 per case, and 34 children with an
IQ that is prevented from going below 70 (and thus requiring special
education) valued at $64,800 per case. The total benefit for these
reductions would range from approximately $3.0 million to $5.2 million
($1997). EPA also solicits comment on the methods that it used to
calculate benefits from the reduction of lead health risks.
C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
Exposure to toxic substances poses risk of systemic and other
effects to humans, including effects on the circulatory, respiratory or
digestive systems, and neurological and developmental effects. This
proposed rule is expected to generate human health benefits by reducing
exposure to these substances, thus reducing the hazards of these
associated effects. EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters
would reduce the number of persons potentially exposed to non-cancer
effects due to consumption of contaminated fish tissue by 19,000
people. Presently, EPA does not have methodology for monetizing these
benefits.
D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
EPA expects this proposed rule to generate environmental benefits
by improving water quality. There is a wide range of benefits
associated with the maintenance and improvement of water quality. These
benefits include use values (e.g., recreational fishing), ecological
values (e.g., preservation of habitat), and passive-use values. For
example, water pollution might affect the quality of the fish and
wildlife habitat provided by water resources, thus affecting the
species using these resources. This, in turn, might affect the quality
and value of recreational experiences of users, such as anglers fishing
in the affected streams. EPA considers the value of the recreational
fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this proposed
rule, but does not evaluate the other types of recreational benefits
and improvements to other recreational activities, such as swimming,
boating, water skiing, and wildlife observation due to data
limitations.
The projected reductions in loadings of metals and organics to
surface waters and POTWs are significant. Modeled (unscaled) end-of-
pipe metals and organic pollutant loadings are estimated to decline by
about 83 percent, from 5.04 million pounds per year under current
conditions to 0.88 million pounds per year under this proposed rule.
The analysis comparing modeled instream pollutant levels to AWQC
estimates that current discharge loadings result in 110 contraventions
at 18 receiving water locations. The proposed rule would reduce this to
53 contraventions at 13 receiving water locations.
EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range
from $0.41 million to $1.2 million ($1997). EPA evaluates these
recreational benefits, applying a model that considers the increase in
value of a ``contaminant-free fishery'' to recreational anglers
resulting from the elimination of all pollutant concentrations in
excess of AWQC at 5 of the 18 receiving water locations. The monetized
value of impaired recreational fishing opportunity is estimated by
first calculating the baseline value of the receiving stream using a
value per person day of recreational fishing, and the number of person-
days fished on the receiving stream. The value of improving water
quality in this fishery, based on the increase in value to anglers of
achieving contaminant-free fishing, is then calculated. Because the
valuation of these benefits is based on estimates of a willingness to
pay for recreational fishing benefits in different fisheries with
different water quality conditions, EPA recognizes that they are only
approximate.
In addition, EPA estimates that the annual monetized intrinsic
benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in
water quality, range from at least $0.20 million to $0.60 million
($1997). These intrinsic benefits are estimated as half of the
recreational benefits and may be over or underestimated.
E. Improved POTW Operations
EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this
proposed regulation: (1) reductions in the likelihood of interference,
pass-through, and biosolid contamination problems; and (2) reductions
in costs potentially incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic pollutants
and determining whether to, and the appropriate level at which to, set
local limits. EPA is unable to quantify these benefits, but they are
discussed qualitatively below.
First, regarding potential interference, pass-through and biosolid
contamination, this proposed rule is expected to help reduce these
problems by reducing pollutant loadings in the industry's effluent and
reducing shock releases. Anecdotal evidence from POTW operators and
sampling results indicate that such effects can occur. EPA also expects
the proposed rule to improve the biosolid quality of 4,100
[[Page 2337]]
metric tons permitting the use of less expensive disposal mechanisms.
The estimated monetized benefit for improving biosolid quality is
$0.15-$0.93 million ($1997).
EPA recognizes that POTWs already have responsibility and full
authority to prevent interference and pass-through due to discharges by
industrial users by the establishment and enforcement of local limits.
Reducing the pollutant load to local POTWs may eliminate some of the
efforts associated with establishing these local limits for new CWT
facilities or existing CWT facilities which begin to accept different
waste types other than those upon which their permits are based. (Local
limits have already been established for existing CWT facilities, and
will need to be recalculated based on the new limits once promulgated.)
Local limits are sometimes required to protect against pass-through and
interference, and to protect worker health and safety. Several POTWs
indicated that establishment of more effective national pretreatment
standards would reduce the time and effort required to establish local
limits.
Furthermore, reducing the discharge of toxic pollutants reduces the
likelihood that the POTW effluents will exhibit excessive toxicity.
When POTW effluent exhibits excessive toxicity, the POTW must enact a
rigorous, costly analytical program to identify and reduce the source
of toxicity. As noted above, however, POTWs generally address this
issue through the establishment of local limits.
F. Other Benefits Not Quantified
The above benefit analyses focus mainly on identified compounds
with quantifiable toxic or carcinogenic effects. This potentially leads
to an underestimation of benefits, since some pollutant
characterizations are not considered. For example, the analyses do not
include the benefits associated with reducing the particulate load
(measured as TSS), or the oxygen demand (measured as BOD5
and COD) of the effluents. TSS loads can degrade ecological habitat by
reducing light penetration and primary productivity, and from
accumulation of solid particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and
feeding habitats. BOD5 and COD loads can deplete oxygen
levels, which can produce mortality or other adverse effects in fish,
as well as reduce biological diversity.
G. Summary of Benefits
EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from
this proposed rule are in the range of $5.3 million to $15.9 million
($1997). Table XII.F.1 summarizes these benefits, by category. The
range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this
proposed rule and in placing a dollar value on these effects. As
indicated in Table XII.F.1, these monetized benefits ranges do not
reflect some of the benefit categories such as improved POTW
operations. Therefore, the reported benefit estimate may understate the
total benefits of this proposed rule. On the other hand, EPA has not
applied a discount factor to any of the monetized health and
environmental benefits, although there are likely to be significant
lags between implementation of the rule and realization of some types
of benefits. This would tend to overstate the benefits of the rule.
However, EPA also repeats that benefits were quantified and/or
monetized for the 105 (out of the 205 total) CWT facilities for which
EPA had enough data to perform the analysis, whereas the costs of the
rule accounted for 205 facilities.
Table XII.F.1--Potential Economic Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit category Millions of 1997 dollars per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk........................................ 1.5-8.0.
Reduced Lead Health Risk................................... 3.0-5.2.
Reduced Non-Carcinogenic Hazard............................ Unquantified.
Improved Ecological Conditions............................. Unquantified.
Improved Recreation Value.................................. 0.41-1.2.
Improved Intrinsic Value................................... 0.20-0.60.
Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW..................... 0.65-0.93.
Improved POTW Operation (inhibition)....................... Unquantified.
Improved Occupational Conditions at POTWs.................. Unquantified.
Total Monetized Benefits................................... 5.3-15.9.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XIII. 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 require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly,
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution,
solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts across all
media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the impacts
identified below are acceptable in light of the benefits associated
with compliance with the limitations and standards.
A. Air Pollution
CWT facilities generate wastewater that contain significant
concentrations of organic compounds, some of which are also on the list
of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These wastewaters often pass through a
series of collection and treatment units that are open to the
atmosphere and allow wastewater containing organic compounds to contact
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-containing wastewater
may result in significant volatilization of both volatile organic
compounds (VOC), which contribute to the formation of ambient ozone,
and HAP from the wastewater.
As discussed previously, EPA considered including air stripping in
the technology basis for today's proposed limitations and standards,
but rejected it because it would not have resulted in significantly
different limitations. Because the proposed rule would not allow any
less stringent control of VOCs than is currently in place at most CWT
facilities, EPA does not project any net increase in air emissions of
volatile pollutants due to today's proposal. As such, no adverse air
impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed regulations.
Finally, while this proposal does not require the use of air
stripping with emissions control to control the
[[Page 2338]]
emission of volatile pollutants, EPA encourages all facilities which
accept waste containing volatile pollutants to incorporate air
stripping with overhead recovery or destruction into their wastewater
treatment systems. Additionally, EPA also notes that CWT sources of
hazardous air pollutants are subject to maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and recovery
operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) as 40 CFR Part 63.
B. Solid Waste
Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the proposed
treatment technologies. These wastes include sludge from biological
treatment systems, chemical precipitation and clarification systems,
and gravity separation and dissolved air flotation systems. EPA costed
off-site disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills of the solid wastes
generated due to the implementation of the technologies discussed
above. These costs were included in the economic evaluation of the
proposed technologies.
The precipitation and subsequent separation proposed as the
technology basis for the metals subcategory will produce a metal-rich
filter cake which requires disposal. EPA estimates that metals
subcategory facilities will generate annually 3.7 million gallons of
filter cake. Dissolved air flotation and additional gravity separation
steps proposed as the technology basis for the oils subcategory will
also produce a metal-rich filter press cake requiring disposal. EPA
estimates that oils subcategory facilities will generate annually 22.7
million gallons of filter press cake. Finally, the biological treatment
system proposed for the organics subcategory will also produce a sludge
requiring disposal. EPA estimates that 4.3 million gallons will be
generated annually by the organics subcategory facilities.
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES will
increase energy consumption by a small increment over present industry
use. With the exception of the oils subcategory, the projected increase
in energy consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of
components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, and controls. For the
metals subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy usage of 3.3
million kilowatt hours per year and, for the organics subcategory, an
increased energy usage of 0.5 million kilowatt hours per year. For the
oils subcategory, however, the main energy requirement in today's
proposed rule is for the operation of dissolved air flotation units.
Dissolved air flotation units require air sparging to help separate the
waste stream. For the oils subcategory, EPA projects an increased
energy usage of 3.5 million kilowatt hours per year. Overall, an
increase of 7.5 million kilowatt-hours per year would be required for
the proposed regulation which equates to 20 barrels of oil per day. In
1996, the United States consumed 18.3 million barrels of oil per day.
The costs associated with these energy requirements are included in
EPA's estimated operating costs for compliance with the proposed rule.
XIV. Regulatory Implementation
A. Applicability
The regulation proposed today is just that--a proposed regulation.
While today's proposal represents EPA's best judgment at this time, the
effluent limitations and standards may still change based on additional
information or data submitted by commenters or developed by the Agency.
Consequently, the permit writer should consider the proposed limits in
developing permit limits, but should continue to base limits on BPJ
until final limits for this industry are promulgated. Although the
information provided in this preamble and the accompanying documents
may provide useful information and guidance to permit writers in
determining BPJ permit limits, the permit writer will still need to
justify any permit limits based on the conditions at the individual
facility.
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 for direct dischargers are set forth at
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16
and 403.17.
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 dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Consequently, 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.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA has established procedures for determining 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. The
SBREFA panel that reviewed this proposal encouraged the consideration
of ways to streamline the Agency's processes for obtaining an FDF
variance. One suggestion advanced was that the Agency provide for
facilities to submit ``group'' FDF requests.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants, and BCT limitations 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 standards.
Section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an
application for approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1)
information submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that
are fundamentally different, or (2) information the applicant did not
have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard
must be no less stringent than justified by the difference, and not
result in markedly more adverse non-water quality
[[Page 2339]]
environmental impacts than the national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125 Subpart D, authorizing the
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR
125.31(d) identifies six factors (for example, volume of process
wastewater, age, and size of a discharger's facility) that may be
considered in determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The
Agency must determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these
factors, the facility in question is fundamentally different from the
facilities and factors considered by the EPA in developing the
nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists
four other factors (for example, 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 dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct
dischargers.
In reality, the Agency has only granted a limited number of the
requests for FDF variances.
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).
The Agency requests comment on how to modify its existing
regulation to provide additional flexibility to small businesses in
obtaining FDF variances in light of the specific statutory requirement
that each individual discharger establish the fundamental difference in
its operations through information submitted during development of the
limitations and standards or show there was no opportunity to submit
such information. It would be helpful if commenters supplied specific
suggested changes to the regulatory language found at 40 CFR 125.32 and
403.13.
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
2. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person
may request a permit modification. There are two classifications of
modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they
differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major
modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not.
Virtually any modification that results in less stringent conditions is
treated as a major modification, with provisions for public notice and
comment. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of a
permit are described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are
generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor
modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
3. Removal credits
The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant
``removal credits'' to their indirect discharges. 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 may be available for three
metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants (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)).
Given the statutory requirements for removal credits, the Agency
has only received a very limited number of removal credit requests (2
or fewer).
Given compliance with the requirements of EPA's removal credit
regulations, 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, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc.
[[Page 2340]]
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), EPA may
authorize removal credits only when EPA determines that, if removal
credits are authorized, the increased discharges of a pollutant to
POTWs resulting from removal credits will not prevent POTW sewage
sludge use or disposal in accordance with EPA's regulations. 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 for which EPA
either has established a numerical pollutant limit in Part 503, or
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.
EPA will soon propose to amend Part 403 to make removal credits
available for those pollutants that are not now listed in Appendix G as
eligible for removal credits provided a POTW seeking removal credit
authority studies the impact that granting removal credits would have
on the concentration of the pollutant in the POTW's sewage sludge, and
establishes that the pollutants will not interfere with sewage sludge
use or disposal. This proposed change would provide POTWs and their
industrial users with additional opportunities to use removal credits
to efficiently allocate treatment.
The proposal addresses the availability of removal credits for
pollutants for which EPA has not developed a Part 503 pollutant limit
or determined through a national study a concentration for the
pollutant in sewage sludge below which public health and the
environment are protected when the sewage sludge is used or disposed.
Because EPA is only considering two additional pollutants for
regulation under Part 503, the proposal would provide a mechanism for
evaluating other pollutants for removal credit purposes. As noted
above, EPA has interpreted the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only
allowing removal credits for a pollutant if EPA had either regulated
the pollutant or established a concentration of the pollutant in sewage
sludge below which public health and the environment are protected when
sewage sludge is used or disposed. The proposal would allow the POTW to
perform the study that would establish that allowable concentration.
The POTW analysis would need to establish that the granting of removal
credits will not increase the level of pollutants in the POTW's sewage
sludge to a level that would fail to protect public health and the
environment from reasonably anticipated adverse effects of the
pollutant.
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment Standards to
Monitoring Requirements
Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards 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 and local limits developed for POTWs issued by
the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act and local
pretreatment programs under Section 307 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial
category. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority or local
POTW may elect to establish technology-based permit limits or local
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 or standards on covered
pollutants to achieve compliance), the permitting authority must apply
those limitations or standards.
Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations and standards
are the monitoring conditions set out in an NPDES or local POTW
pretreatment 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. EPA's regulations authorize establishment of monitoring
requirements for internal waste streams in prescribed circumstances.
See 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 403.6(e). Control
authorities may establish additional internal monitoring points to the
extent consistent with EPA's regulations.
Some observers have questioned EPA's authority to require in-plant
monitoring in light of the recent decision in American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997). There, a court
held that, although EPA has the authority to require monitoring of
internal waste streams, see AISI, 115 F.3d at 995, the CWA does not
authorize EPA to require compliance with water quality-based effluent
limitations at a point inside the facility and thereby deprive a
permittee of the ability to choose its own control system to meet the
limitations, see id. at 966. EPA does not believe that decision would
affect the Agency's approach taken for today's proposal. The AISI court
did not consider the question of whether EPA has authority to take
internal waste streams into consideration in establishing technology-
based controls such as BPT/BAT, PSES, and NSPS/PSNS. Unlike water
quality-based effluent limitations, which are calculated to ensure that
water quality standards for the receiving water are attained,
technology-based limitations and standards are derived to measure the
performance of specific model technologies that EPA is required by
statute to identify. In identifying these technologies, EPA is directed
to consider precisely the type of internal controls that are irrelevant
to the development of water quality-based effluent limitations, such as
the processes employed, process changes, and the engineering aspects of
various types of control technologies. EPA's technology-based effluent
limitations are intended to reflect, for each industrial category or
subcategory, the ``base level'' of technology (including process
changes) and to ensure that ``in no case * * * should any plant be
allowed to discharge more pollutants per unit of production than is
defined by that base level'' (E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train,
430 U.S. at 129 (1973)).
EPA concluded that it can require in-plant monitoring to
demonstrate compliance with technology-based effluent limitations in
accordance with the CWA and its regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i),
122.45(h), 122.3(e), and 403.6(e) if such monitoring is necessary to
demonstrate that wastes are being treated to a level corresponding to
the technology basis of the standards. In today's rule, EPA is,
therefore, requiring in-plant monitoring for compliance with
limitations in the circumstances described above. Were EPA to require
compliance monitoring of the final effluent without adjustment for the
amount of dilution, there would be no
[[Page 2341]]
way to determine whether the facility had adequately controlled for
pollutants or whether the effluent had simply been diluted below the
analytical detection level. Diluting pollutants in this manner, rather
than preventing their discharge, is inconsistent with achieving the
removals represented by the technology-based levels of control and
hence with the purposes of the limitations. It is also inconsistent
with the goals of the CWA in general.
E. Subcategorization Determination
EPA believes that the paperwork and analyses currently performed at
CWT facilities, as part of their waste acceptance procedures (as
detailed in V.A), provide CWT facilities with sufficient information
for them to determine into which of the proposed subcategories their
treated waste would fall. EPA tried to base its recommended
subcategorization determination procedure on information generally
obtained during these waste acceptance and confirmation procedures. In
EPA's view, permit writers and local pretreatment authorities should
not (because they need not) require additional monitoring or paperwork
solely for the purpose of subcategory determinations. EPA believes that
if CWT facilities follow EPA's recommendations, they should easily
classify their wastes. Permit writers and local authorities, in these,
circumstances, would only need to satisfy themselves that the facility
made a good-faith effort to determine the category of wastes treated.
In most cases, as detailed below, EPA believes the subcategory
determination can be made on the type of waste receipt, e.g., metal-
bearing sludge, waste oil, or landfill leachate. Certainly, in EPA's
estimation, all CWT facilities should, at a minimum, collect adequate
information from the generator on the type of waste received at the CWT
facility, because this is the minimum information required by CWT
facilities to treat off-site wastes effectively.
To determine an existing facility's subcategory classification(s),
the facility should review data for a period of one year on its
incoming wastes. Information in Table XIV.E-1 below should aid CWT
facilities in classifying each of its waste receipts for that one year
period into a subcategory.
Table XIV.E-1.--Waste Receipt Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory spent electroplating
baths and/or sludges
metal finishing rinse
water and sludges
chromate wastes
air pollution control
blow down water and
sludges
spent anodizing solutions
incineration wastewaters
waste liquid mercury
cyanide-containing wastes
(> 136 mg/L)
waste acids and bases
with or without metals
Oils Subcategory used oils
oil-water emulsions or
mixtures
lubricants
coolants
contaminated groundwater
clean-up from petroleum
sources
used petroleum products
oil spill clean-up
bilge water
rinse/wash waters from
petroleum sources
interceptor wastes
off-specification fuels
underground storage
remediation waste
tank clean-out from
petroleum or oily
sources
Organics Subcategory landfill leachate
contaminated groundwater
clean-up from non-
petroleum sources
solvent-bearing wastes
off-specification organic
product
still bottoms
used glycols
wastewater from paint
washes
wastewater from adhesives
and/or epoxies
wastewater from chemical
product operations
tank clean-out from
organic, non-petroleum
sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the CWT facility receives the wastes listed above, the
subcategory determination may be made solely from this information. If,
however, the wastes are unknown or not listed above, EPA recommends
that the facility use the following hierarchy to determine how to
characterize the wastes it is treating, so as to identify the
appropriate regulatory subcategory.
(1) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease at or in excess of
100 mg/L, the waste receipt should be classified in the oils
subcategory;
(2) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease <100 mg/L, and has
any of the pollutants listed below in concentrations in excess of the
values listed below, the waste receipt should be classified in the
metals subcategory.
Cadmium: 0.2 mg/L
Chromium: 8.9 mg/L
Copper: 4.9 mg/L
Nickel: 37.5 mg/L
(3) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease < 100 mg/L, and
does not have concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, or nickel
above any of the values listed above, the waste receipt should be
classified in the organics subcategory.
[[Page 2342]]
Once all wastes receipts have been categorized, the facility should
determine the relative percent of the amount of off-site wastes
accepted in each subcategory (by volume). For ease of implementation
during development of this proposal, EPA considered an approach which
would allow the facility to round the relative percent of wastes in
each subcategory to the nearest five percent (by volume). Thus, under
such an approach, a facility which discharges one million gallons per
year, 950,000 gallons of which is classified in the metals subcategory
and 50,000 gallons of which is classified in the oils subcategory,
would be considered a metals subcategory facility only. However, EPA is
concerned that this approach would potentially allow facilities to
discharge large quantities of untreated pollutants on a mass basis,
particularly from facilities with large discharge flows. Therefore, for
today's notice, EPA is not proposing this approach. At the same time,
EPA recognizes the practical difficulty of implementing limits for
facilities that may receive waste in more than one subcategory due to
the significant paperwork involved in detailed tracking of waste
receipts. Thus, EPA solicits comments on this approach and ways to
implement it while ensuring treatment, rather than dilution.
Members of the CWT industry have expressed concern that wastes may
be received from the generator as a ``mixed waste'', i.e., the waste
may be classified in more than one subcategory. Using the
subcategorization procedure recommended in this section, EPA has had no
difficulty classifying each waste receipt in one of the subcategories.
Therefore, EPA believes that these ``mixed waste receipt'' concerns
have been addressed in the current subcategorization procedure. EPA
requests comments on the subcategorization determination procedure in
general. Additionally, EPA requests specific information on mixed waste
receipts that cannot be classified into a single subcategory using this
procedure, as well as information on additional types of waste receipts
that EPA should include in Table XIV.E-1 above.
Once a facility's subcategory determination has been made, EPA does
not believe the facility should be required to repeat this annual
determination process unnecessarily. However, if a single subcategory
facility alters its operation to accept wastes from another subcategory
or if a mixed waste facility alters its annual operations to change the
relative percentage of waste receipts in one subcategory by more than
20 percent, the facility should notify the appropriate permit writer or
pretreatment authority and the subcategory determination should be
revisited. EPA notes that current permit regulations require
notification to the permitting authority when significant changes
occur. EPA also recommends that the subcategory determination be
reevaluated whenever the permit is reissued, though this would not
necessarily require complete characterization of a subsequent year's
waste receipts if there were no indication that the make-up of the
facility's receipts had significantly changed.
For new CWT facilities, the facility should estimate the percentage
of waste receipts expected in each subcategory. Alternatively, the
facility could compare the treatment technologies being installed to
the selected treatment technologies for each subcategory. After the
initial year of operation, the permit writer or pretreatment authority
should revisit the facility's subcategory determination and follow the
procedure outlined for existing facilities.
F. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple Subcategories
EPA estimates that many facilities in the CWT industry accept
wastes in two or more of the subcategories being proposed for
regulation here. In other words, the facilities actively accept a
variety of waste types. This situation is different from the case in
which metal-bearing waste streams may include low-level organics or
that oily wastes may include metals due to the origin of the waste
stream accepted for treatment.
In implementing this rule for multiple subcategory CWT facilities,
the permit writer or pretreatment authority needs to ensure that the
CWT facility has an optimal waste management program. First, the
control authority should verify that the CWT facility is identifying
and segregating waste streams appropriately since segregation of
similar waste streams is the first step in obtaining optimal mass
removals of pollutants from industrial wastes. Next, the control
authority should verify that the CWT facility is employing treatment
technologies designed to treat all off-site waste receipts effectively.
If a facility accepts for treatment a mixture of waste types, it is
still subject to limitations and standards (and monitoring to
demonstrate compliance) that reflect the treatment performance
achievable for the unmixed streams. In other words, if a facility
accepts metal-bearing and oily waste for treatment, the facility must
comply with the limitations and standards based on a treatment system
which achieves the same pollutant reductions as the model system
(dissolved air flotation or secondary gravity separation and dissolved
air flotation) to ``adequately treat'' the oily waste for the oils and
organics constituents. Similarly, discharges from the metal-bearing
stream must comply with the limitations and standards defined by a
treatment system that achieves the same reduction as the model system
(two stage chemical precipitation and multimedia filtration).
EPA wants to ensure that wastes treated at multiple subcategory
facilities are treated to the same level as wastes at single
subcategory facilities. Therefore, EPA has costed all CWT facilities
for compliance monitoring immediately following treatment of
subcategory waste streams.
EPA recognizes, however, that the costs associated with monitoring
immediately following treatment of subcategory waste streams can be
significant. Additionally, EPA recognizes that requiring compliance
monitoring immediately following treatment of subcategory waste streams
would require some facilities to reconfigure their facility.
Consequently, EPA is additionally proposing a monitoring alternative
which would allow compliance monitoring at the discharge point only.
Under this alternative, a multi subcategory CWT facility's limitations
or pretreatment standards would be determined using the combined waste
stream formula (CWF) or ``building block approach.'' Limitations or
standards developed through the use of the combined waste stream
formula or building block approach are essentially flow-weighted
combinations of BPT/BAT/PSES limitations for the applicable
subcategories.
The source of information used for calculating ``building block
approach'' NPDES categorical limitations for direct dischargers is the
``U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writer's Manual'' (December 1996, EPA-833-B-96-
003). The sources of information that should be used for the CWT point
source category for applying the combined waste stream formula in
calculating federal pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers are
40 CFR Part 403.6 and ``EPA's Industrial User Permitting Guidance
Manual.'' However, for this subcategory, EPA is proposing to amend the
CWF to define an individual parameter as having a ``regulated flow'' if
the pollutant is limited through BAT (not PSES). For pollutants which
are limited through BAT and not PSES, EPA has included an allowance
which is
[[Page 2343]]
based on the PSES standard if one had been proposed. EPA is proposing
this approach, since a pollutant may pass the pass-through test and not
be regulated as PSES, but still provide a significant contribution of
that pollutant in the combined waste stream. By adopting this approach,
EPA can ensure that standards for indirect dischargers are equivalent
to standards for direct dischargers, and still allow for any
contribution by this pollutant to the combined waste stream.
Chapter 14 of the technical development document provides a more
thorough discussion, including specific examples, of the use of the
combined waste stream formula or building block approaches. EPA
encourages all interested parties to refer to this document and provide
comment on its selected and alternative compliance monitoring
requirements.
Some facilities, such as those located near auto manufacturers,
claim that their waste streams vary significantly for very limited time
spans each year, and that they would be unable to meet limitations
based on their annual waste receipts during these time periods. In
these cases, one set of limits or standards may not be appropriate for
the permit's entire period. EPA recommends that a tiering approach be
used in such situations. In tiered permits, the control authority
issues one set of permits for ``standard'' conditions and another set
which take effect when there is a significant change in the waste
receipts accepted. ``EPA's Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual''
(September 1989) recommends that tiered permits should be considered
when production rate varies by 20 percent or greater. Since this rule
is not production based, EPA recommends that for the CWT industry,
tiered permits should be considered when the subcategory determination
varies for selected time periods by more than 20 percent. An example
when a tiered approach may be appropriate in the CWT industry would be
if a CWT facility's major customer (in terms of flow) does not operate
for a two week period in December. The CWT facility would not be
receiving waste receipts from the generating facility during its two
week closure which could greatly alter the relative percent of waste
accepted by the CWT facility for the two week period only.
As explained previously, many facilities have waste streams that
vary on a daily basis. EPA cautions that the tiering approach should
only be used for facilities which have limited, well-defined, ``non-
standard'' time periods. A tiered permit should only be considered when
the control authority thoroughly understands the CWT facility's
operations and when a substantial change in the relative percentages of
waste in each subcategory would effect permit conditions.
Finally, as described in Section VII.D, the Agency considered, but
is not proposing to establish, and rejected the suggestion to
establish, a separate set of limitations for facilities that commingle
flows from all subcategories. EPA is concerned that this approach would
not address its concerns about co-dilution, instead of treatment,
occurring as a result of commingling different types of waste streams.
The Agency solicits comment on its approach to multiple subcategory
facilities, particularly in regard to ensuring effective treatment. EPA
is requesting commenters to supply additional data which they may have
that would aid in characterizing the efficiency of waste treatment
systems for facilities which commingle waste from multiple
subcategories prior to treatment. If adequate data become available,
EPA will reconsider this issue for the final rule.
XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 Federal Register 51735, (October 4,
1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and
Budget (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
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this proposal is a ``significant regulatory action.''
As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA), EPA generally is required to prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of a proposed rule on
small entities as part of rulemaking. Under section 605(b) of the RFA,
if the Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA is not required to prepare an IRFA.
Based on its preliminary assessment of the economic impact of
regulatory options being considered for the proposed rule, EPA had
concluded that the proposal might significantly affect a number of
small entities. Accordingly, EPA prepared an IRFA pursuant to section
603(b) of the RFA.
The IRFA is discussed at Section XI.L and found in Chapter 8 of the
``Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.'' As described
above, while there is not a large number of small businesses in
absolute terms that would be subject to the proposal, a large
percentage of those that would be (forty-five out of 63) would incur
annual costs under the proposal greater than one percent of sales (that
is, annual costs as a percentage of annual revenue). Somewhat fewer
(twenty-three firms) would have costs exceeding three percent of sales.
EPA notes that this analysis does not account for the extent that a
company can pass the additional costs of compliance on to their
customers, and so may overstate the impacts of the proposed rule.
Pursuant to the RFA as amended by SBREFA, EPA convened a Small
Business Advocacy Review panel as described above at VI.H. Section
VI.H. provides detail on the purpose of the panel and summarizes the
issues raised by the panel. The panel's findings are presented in the
``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry--January 23,
1998.'' (This document is included in the public record). The panel
made several recommendations that are reflected in today's proposal.
Because the panel discussions and recommendations addressed integral
[[Page 2344]]
analyses and decision factors that formed the basis of today's
proposal, their discussions and recommendations have been identified
throughout this notice. In addition, the following discussion
summarizes the panel's recommendations, describes EPA's actions, and
identifies where the issues are discussed in today's notice.
(a) EPA should solicit comment on the number of small entities that
would be subject to this rule. EPA solicited names and addresses of
additional CWT facilities in the specific data and comments
solicitation section, XVI.B.
(b) EPA should consider alternatives to reduce monitoring costs.
EPA today solicits comments on an alternative monitoring scheme in
which facilities may either (1) monitor for all pollutants as regulated
today, or (2) monitor for the conventional, metal parameters, and an
indicator parameter such as hexane extractable material (HEM) for the
organic pollutants. EPA also solicits comments on recommending reduced
monitoring frequencies for small businesses to alleviate economic
impacts. These issues, as well as potential bases for identifying small
businesses for purposes of providing monitoring relief, are discussed
in more detail in IX.D and in the comment solicitation section, XVI.B.
(c) EPA should consider ways to streamline the FDF variance process
for small businesses. EPA considered ways to streamline the FDF
variance process for small businesses to the extent permitted by the
Clean Water Act. One option considered would have allowed facilities to
submit a ``group'' FDF request. However, EPA determined that the Clean
Water Act requires that facilities submit FDF requests on a facility-
specific basis. FDF variances are discussed in detail in XIV.C.1 of
today's notice.
(d) EPA should consider less costly technology, specifically,
emulsion breaking and secondary gravity separation for the oils
subcategory. EPA is concerned that emulsion breaking and secondary
gravity separation may not achieve acceptable pollutant removals as
evidenced by EPA's limited sampling data for facilities employing this
technology. EPA is requesting comment and additional data on this
issue. This issue is discussed in greater detail in IX.B.1.ii. In
addition, for indirect dischargers in all three subcategories, EPA is
proposing pretreatment standards based on the least expensive
technology option considered. In fact, PSES for the oils subcategory
are based on less costly and less effective technology than the oils
subcategory BAT limitations. The less costly and effective technology
was selected for the basis of PSES largely due to small business impact
concerns. Finally, in Section XVI.B, EPA solicits comments on
alternative treatment technologies that would accomplish the stated
objectives of the CWA and minimize any significant economic impact on
small entities.
(e) EPA should include a full and balanced discussion of possible
small business relief measures. In addition to the monitoring
alternatives discussed above and the selection of the less costly PSES
technology basis, EPA also considered several other regulatory
alternatives to provide relief for small businesses. These
alternatives, all of which involve different bases for exemptions, and
the results of EPA's analyses are discussed in detail in XI.L
Additionally, EPA solicits comment in IV.S and XVI.B on regulatory
alternatives for small businesses. Specifically, EPA solicits comments
on whether exclusions are warranted for any portion of this industry.
(f) EPA should consider the degree of flexibility available under
the Clean Water Act to select a cost-effective treatment option on
which to base new source standards for the metals subcategory. Under
the Clean Water Act, in establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to select
the most stringent controls attainable through the application of the
best control technology for all pollutants. In addition, EPA is
directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent
reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy
requirements. EPA does not consider the increased cost of NSPS for the
metals subcategory to be a barrier to entry for new sources in that
subcategory (see Section XI.H). However, EPA's technology basis for the
proposed limitations is closely tied to its preliminary conclusion that
facilities will choose to recover and reuse metals. In the event that
EPA concludes that new sources would not generally do so, EPA will
promulgate NSPS based on the proposed BAT technology basis. EPA
solicits comments on the technology basis selected for NSPS for the
metals subcategory and its barrier to entry analysis in Section XI.H.
(g) EPA should identify any limitations of the pollutant loadings
estimate methodologies. Based on recommendations by panel members, EPA
reviewed its loadings methodologies, specifically its use of non-
detects and its modeling procedures for assigning current performance
estimates to oils subcategory facilities. Section X.C of today's notice
discusses all of the pollutant loading methodological issues raised
during the SBREFA panel and requests comment on them. Additionally,
each of the issues is discussed in detail in the technical development
document. Finally, in XVI.B, EPA solicits wastewater monitoring data,
current performance information, and current pollutant loadings from
the treatment and/or recovery of oily wastes, wastewaters and/or used
materials.
(h) EPA should solicit additional data and perhaps itself perform
additional sampling to determine if an adequate basis exists for
distinguishing between hazardous and non-hazardous flows. EPA is not
proposing a regulatory distinction based on whether a facility has a
RCRA permit because its current analyses do not support such a
distinction. This issue is discussed further in Section IV.T. As
discussed in VI.C, following the completion of the SBREFA panel, EPA
obtained grab samples of non-hazardous oily wastewaters from 10
additional oils facilities. Additionally, in today's notice, EPA
solicits additional analytical data on the pollutants and concentration
of pollutants in non-hazardous CWT waste receipts and hazardous CWT
waste receipts. While the analytical results of the recent sampling
episodes are in the appendix of the technical development document, EPA
has not included these results in the analyses presented today. EPA
will reconsider this issue based on the recent sampling data and any
analytical data submitted during the comment period prior to
promulgation.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
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
[[Page 2345]]
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 the
final rule with an explanation of 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 the proposed rule, if promulgated, would
not contain a Federal mandate that will result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, today's
proposal is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. EPA has determined that this proposal contains no regulation
requirements that might significantly or uniquely effect small
governments, and, thus, is not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA. The proposal itself, if promulgated, would not establish
requirements that would apply to small governments. Any new costs that
may result would arise from previously promulgated regulatory
requirements, not promulgation of CWT limitations and standards. EPA
has, however, sought meaningful and timely input from the private
sector, states, and small governments on the development of this
notice. Prior to issuing this proposed rule, EPA met with members of
private sector as discussed earlier in the preamble.
As noted, EPA has determined that the requirements being proposed
today will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments. EPA recognizes that small governments may
own or operate POTWs that will need to enter into pretreatment
agreements with the indirect dischargers of the CWT industry that would
be subject to this proposed rule. However, EPA currently estimates that
the added costs of entering into or modifying existing pretreatment
agreements will be minimal. The main costs resulting from this proposed
rule will fall upon the private entities that own and operate CWT
facilities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., EPA must submit an information collection request
covering information collection requirements in proposed rules to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. OMB has
previously approved information collection requirements for CWA direct
dischargers to comply with their NPDES permits and for indirect
dischargers to comply with pretreatment requirements. Burden estimates
for direct dischargers to comply with this rule are contained in the
``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/Compliance
Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0110).
Burden estimates for indirect discharging facilities to comply with 40
CFR Part 403 are included in the ``National Pretreatment Program (40
CFR Part 403)'' ICR (OMB control no. 2040-0009).
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA), 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 standards
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 (OMB), an
explanation of the reasons for not using such standards. The following
discussion summarizes EPA's response to the requirements of the NTTAA.
EPA performed a search of the technical literature to identify any
applicable analytical test methods from industry, academia, voluntary
consensus standard bodies, and other parties that could be used to
measure the analytes in today's proposed rulemaking. EPA's search
revealed that there are consensus standards for many of the analytes
specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. Even prior to enactment of the
NTTAA, EPA has traditionally included any applicable consensus test
methods in its regulations. Consistent with the requirements of the
CWA, those applicable consensus test methods are incorporated by
reference in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. The consensus test methods in
these tables include American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and
Standard Methods.
Today's proposal would require dischargers to monitor for up to 18
metals, 18 organics, BOD5, total cyanide, hexavalent
chromium, TSS, and Oil and Grease (HEM). Examples of pollutants with
consensus methods promulgated by reference in today's rule include the
metals, total cyanide, BOD5, TSS, and some organic
pollutants such as fluoranthene and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. In addition,
EPA is developing additional data for certain nonconventional
pollutants not included in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3 in support of the
centralized waste treatment rule and the relevant analytical methods
are discussed in section VI.D of this preamble. The pollutants for
which additional data are being gathered include acetophenone, aniline,
pyridine, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline, and benzoic acid.
EPA notes that no applicable consensus methods were found for those
pollutants. EPA plans to approve use of test methods for these
pollutants, including any applicable consensus methods, if available,
in conjunction with the promulgation of the CWT final rule. Commenters
should identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards for EPA's consideration.
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health risk or safety risk that the Agency has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866.
However, EPA did evaluate children's health effects (specifically,
impaired IQ) in its analysis of environmental benefits (see XII.B).
[[Page 2346]]
G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, requires
most federal agencies to differentiate between, and establish separate
classes for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine
mammal oils, and oils of vegetable origin, and (2) other greases and
oils, including petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any regulation or
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a
fat, oil, or grease.
The Agency believes that vegetable oils and animal fats pose
similar types of threats to the environment as petroleum oils when
spilled to the environment (62 FR 54508 Oct. 20, 1997).
The deleterious environmental effects of spills of petroleum and
non-petroleum oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, are
produced through physical contact and destruction of food sources (via
smothering or coating) as well as toxic contamination (62 FR 54511).
However, the permitted discharge of CWT wastewater containing residual
and dilute quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is
significantly different from an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or
non-petroleum oil products.
CWT facilities that would be subject to the proposal do not
typically accept wastes with appreciable amounts of animal fats and
oils, etc. The exception are grease trap wastes. Today's proposal would
not apply to that portion of wastewater treated at CWT facilities that
represents grease trap wastes.
H. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposed rule would not, if promulgated, create a mandate
on State, local, or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. The proposal would establish
requirements that apply to directly and indirectly discharging CWT
facilities and not to State, local, or tribal governments. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 would not
apply to this rule.
I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's proposed rule would not, if promulgated, significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities. The proposal
would establish requirements that apply to directly and indirectly
discharging CWT facilities and not to tribal governments or their
communities. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13084
would not apply to this rule.
XVI. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data.
The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection
activities with EPA to facilitate mutually beneficial and cost-
effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in study
plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the ``For
Further Information'' section at the beginning of this preamble for
technical contacts at EPA. Comments on the proposal must be received by
[60 days after publication in Federal Register].
B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
1. Estimation of Industry Size
Based on data gathered from various sources for today's proposal,
EPA has estimated there are 205 facilities in the CWT industry. EPA
solicits general comments on this estimate as well as specific
information on the number, name, location, and company information
(particularly size status) of facilities within the industry (See
Section V.A and Section VI). In addition, EPA is aware that an emerging
activity at many CWT facilities is the recovery of used glycols. EPA
requests information on CWT facilities that are performing this service
alone or in combination with other CWT activities.
2. Applicability to Facilities Subject to 40 CFR (Parts 400 through
471)
As described in Section IV.B, EPA is today proposing to include
within the scope of the CWT rule wastewater received from off-site (and
commingled for treatment with on-site wastewater) at facilities
currently subject to limitations or standards unless the wastes
received from off-site for treatment would be subject to the
limitations or standards as the on-site generated wastes.
Alternatively, EPA is considering an option that allows (subject to
permit writer's discretion) manufacturing facilities who treat off-site
wastes to meet all categorical limitations and standards that would
otherwise apply to the off-site wastewater and to set limitations and
pretreatment standards using the ``combined waste stream formula'' or
``building block approach'' as modified by today's notice. EPA
envisions that the second alternative
[[Page 2347]]
would be preferable for facilities that only receive continuous flows
of process wastewaters with relatively consistent pollutant profiles
from a limited number of customers. The decision to base limitations in
this manner would be at the permit writers' discretion only. EPA
solicits comment on this alternative as well as the application of the
CWT rule to manufacturing facilities in general.
3. Applicability to Manufacturing Facilities That Are Not Subject to 40
CFR (Parts 400 through 471)
EPA has not established effluent limitations guidelines or
pretreatment standards for all manufacturing industries. Under EPA
regulations, the permit writer would develop BPJ limits for such
facilities. However, like the facilities described in Solicitation 2
above, some of these may accept off-site wastewater that is commingled
for treatment with on-site process wastewater. These off-site
wastewaters may be subject to existing guidelines and standards. EPA's
present thinking is that, with respect to such wastewater, the facility
would be a CWT facility and the associated wastewater, subject to CWT
limits. Its on-site wastewater would be subject to BPJ limits.
Alternatively, applying either a building block or combined waste
stream formula approach, on-site wastewater would be subject to BPJ
limits or standards and the off-site categorical wastewater subject to
categorical limits. The Agency solicits comment on how it should treat
such facilities. (See discussion in Section IV.B.).
4. Zero Discharge Requirement for Facilities Engaged in High
Temperature Metals Recovery
EPA's data show that high temperature metals recovery (HTMR)
operations generate no process wastewater. Accordingly, EPA excluded
HTMR recovery operations from the scope of the CWT rule. EPA is also
considering whether this rule, when promulgated, should include a
subcategory for HTMR operations with a zero discharge requirement. EPA
is requesting comment on such an approach and specifically seeks any
data on facilities that may produce a process wastewater in their HTMR
operations.
5. Used Oil Filter Recycling
EPA's data show that used oil filter recycling operations generate
no process wastewater. Therefore, EPA excluded used oil filter
recycling operations from the scope of the CWT rule as proposed today.
EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated, should
include a subcategory for used oil filter recycling with a zero
discharge requirement for such operations. EPA is requesting comment on
such an approach and the number of facilities engaged in this activity.
EPA specifically seeks any data on any such facilities that may produce
a process wastewater in their operations.
6. Stabilization
EPA's data show that waste solidification/stabilization operations
are dry and do not produce a wastewater. As such, stabilization/
solidification processes are not subject to the CWT rule as proposed
today. EPA is also considering whether this rule, when promulgated,
should include a subcategory for stabilization operations with a zero
discharge requirement. EPA is requesting comment on such an approach
and specifically seeks any data on facilities that may produce a
process wastewater in their stabilization operations.
7. Other Applicability Issues
In addition to the applicability issues discussed above, EPA
solicits comments on each of the issues discussed in IV as well as any
other applicability issues that are not specifically addressed in
today's notice.
8. Mixed Waste Subcategory
Based on comments on the original proposal, for today's proposal,
EPA considered a fourth subcategory, a mixed waste subcategory, that
would apply to facilities that accept wastes in multiple subcategories.
Limitations and pretreatment standards for this subcategory would
combine pollutant limitations from all three subcategories, selecting
the most stringent value where they overlap. EPA has chosen, however,
not to propose a mixed waste subcategory. EPA is eager to ensure that
mixed wastes receive adequate treatment. In many cases, facilities that
accept wastes in multiple subcategories do not have treatment in place
to provide effective treatment of all waste receipts. EPA solicits
comments on ways to develop a ``mixed waste subcategory'' while
ensuring treatment rather than dilution (See discussion in Section
VII.D).
Alternatively, EPA considered an approach which would allow
facilities to round the relative percent of wastes in each subcategory
to the nearest five percent (by volume). However, EPA is concerned that
this approach may allow facilities to discharge large quantities of
untreated pollutants on a mass basis, particularly from facilities with
large discharge flows. Therefore, for today's notice, EPA is not
proposing this approach. EPA solicits comments on this approach and
ways to implement it while ensuring treatment, rather than dilution.
Finally, EPA requests additional data that would aid in
characterizing the efficiency of waste treatment systems that commingle
waste from multiple subcategories prior to treatment.
9. Characterization of Wastewater Resulting From Dissolved Air
Flotation
EPA solicits data on the chemical composition of wastewaters
resulting from the effective treatment of CWT wastewaters using
dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA is particularly interested in
obtaining data on DAF systems which are designed and operated to
effectively remove oil and grease and TSS. All of the DAF systems
studied by EPA were used at facilities that discharge to POTWs and,
therefore, optimal control of oil and grease and TSS is not required.
In addition, EPA solicits data on the effectiveness of dissolved air
flotation systems in general. As such, EPA solicits data on the
composition of CWT wastewaters entering and leaving dissolved air
flotations systems. (See discussion in Section IX.B.1.b.ii).
10. Economic Achievability of Oils Subcategory PSES Options
As detailed in IX.B of today's notice, while EPA generally sets the
technology basis for PSES equivalent to BAT, EPA is proposing a less
stringent option for PSES for the oils subcategory than that
established for BAT based on economic achievability concerns. EPA
requests comments on whether any treatment technology basis more
stringent, albeit more expensive, than dissolved air flotation is
economically achievable.
11. Use of Indicator Parameters for Organic Pollutants
EPA recognizes that monitoring costs represent a significant
portion of the compliance costs of this proposed rule. This is
particularly true for facilities in the oils subcategory, many of which
are owned by small businesses. The majority of the costs associated
with EPA's recommended monitoring scheme are for organic pollutants. As
such, EPA is considering an alternative to allow facilities to either
(1) monitor for all pollutants as regulated today, or (2) monitor for
the conventional and metal parameters and an indicator parameter such
as hexane extractable material (HEM) or silica gel treatment--hexane
extractable material (SGT-HEM) for the organic pollutants. EPA solicits
[[Page 2348]]
comment on this alternative, the appropriateness of HEM or SGT-HEM as
an indicator parameter, alternative indicator parameters, and the use
of indicator parameters in general. (See Section IX.D).
12. Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities Owned by Small
Businesses
EPA recognizes that monitoring costs represent a significant share
of the compliance costs of this proposed rule, particularly for small
businesses. EPA is considering offering facilities an alternative
monitoring scheme involving indicator parameters to alleviate some of
the costs associated with monitoring. In the event that a suitable
indicator parameter cannot be found, EPA is also considering
recommending reduced monitoring frequencies for small businesses to
alleviate economic impacts.
As detailed in Section IX.D, under a reduced monitoring
alternative, two sets of limitations and pretreatment standards would
be promulgated. Although the long-term average for both sets of
limitations would be based upon the same technology and same long-term
average performance, the monthly average limitations calculated based
upon reduced monitoring assumptions would be higher (less stringent).
EPA is concerned that facilities may target the monthly average as the
basis for their design and operation of pollution control and treatment
to comply with the regulation, rather than the long-term average that
formed the basis of the limitations. One way to ensure that the
appropriate level of control is not jeopardized in favor of reduced
monitoring costs would be to allow the alternative limitations to apply
only when monitoring is conducted at a lower frequency than assumed in
the development of the limitations that apply to non-small business
facilities. EPA solicits comment on this and other alternatives to
ensure that the monitoring relief provides relief without jeopardizing
environmental performance. EPA also solicits comment on the likelihood
that permitting authorities would follow EPA recommendations regarding
reduced monitoring frequencies for small-business owned and operated
facilities.
Finally, EPA solicits comments on potential bases for defining
small businesses for purposes of this monitoring relief. (See
discussion in Section IX.D).
13. Loadings Methodology
Section X.C and Chapter 12 of the technical development document
detail the methodologies EPA used to estimate baseline loadings, post-
regulation loadings, and pollutant removals. EPA solicits comment on
these methodologies. Specifically, EPA requests comment on its
representation of ``non-detect'' data, its method of imputing data, and
the modeling procedures used for estimating baseline pollutant loadings
for the oils subcategory.
14. Regulatory Costs
Section X.B, Chapter 11 of the technical development document, and
the ``Detailed Costing Document for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry'' discuss EPA's estimates of the cost for CWT facilities to
achieve the effluent limitations and standards proposed today. EPA
solicits comment on all aspects of the methodology and data used to
estimate these compliance costs.
15. Cost Estimates for Direct Dischargers in Oils Subcategory
For direct dischargers, EPA's cost analysis was not able to
distinguish between Option 8 and Option 9. All of the direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory for which EPA estimated
costs currently employ rather extensive treatment (relative to the rest
of the facilities in the oils subcategory), but the treatment
technologies for the majority of the facilities are different from the
technology basis for Option 8 or Option 9. While EPA believes these
treatment technologies would allow these facilities to comply with
either option for many pollutants, none of these in-place treatment
technologies would achieve significant removals of metals pollutants.
Therefore, for both options, EPA included costs of installing and
operating dissolved air flotation. EPA believes its estimates (for both
options) are, in fact, overestimates. EPA does, however, believe that
meeting the more stringent Option 9 will result in additional removals
while the cost differences will be negligible. EPA solicits comments on
its conclusion as well as quantitative information on the cost
differences for such facilities.
16. Cost Estimates for Direct Dischargers in Organics Subcategory
EPA believes that all direct discharging facilities in the organics
subcategory currently employ equalization and biological treatment
systems. EPA has assumed that all facilities which currently utilize
equalization and biological treatment will be able to meet the BPT
limitations without additional capital or operating costs. While EPA
recognizes that some facilities may incur increased operating costs
associated with the proposed limits, EPA believes these increases are
negligible and has not quantified them. EPA solicits comments on its
assumptions for these facilities as well as specific data which would
aid in quantifying these increases.
17. Baseline Closures
Based on information obtained in the Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire, at the time of the original proposal EPA estimated that
approximately 20 percent of the commercial CWT facilities were
unprofitable. Through telephone calls to these facilities, EPA found
that many of these facilities were still in operation three years
later, even though they continued to be unprofitable. The continued
operation of such a large share of unprofitable facilities in the
industry raises a significant issue. It suggests that some of the
traditional tools of economic analysis used to project potential
closures in an industry due to costs of compliance may not accurately
predict real world behavior in a market where owners have historically
demonstrated a willingness to continue operating unprofitable
facilities. Therefore, for this proposal, EPA has not eliminated
baseline closures from its analysis of economic impacts. EPA solicits
comments on this approach and on alternative methods that could be used
to identify baseline closures for this industry (See Section XI.B).
18. Market Model Approach
For this industry, EPA developed a market model to predict the
impact of the regulation on the industry. Markets are defined as
monopoly, duopoly, or perfect competition, depending on the number of
facilities. Any market with more than three facilities is defined as
perfectly competitive. This approach may overstate impacts in markets
with one or two facilities, and may understate impacts on markets with
three to ten facilities. EPA solicits comments on this approach and on
appropriate ways to determine levels of competition for CWT markets
(See XI.C.2).
19. SBREFA Panel Recommendations
In today's notice, VI.H. and XV.B detail the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and the recommendations of
the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review panel. Additional references
to the panel discussions and recommendations have been identified
throughout this notice. In particular, Section XV.B describes many of
the panel's recommendations and
[[Page 2349]]
summarizes EPA's response. EPA solicits data and comments on all issues
raised by the panel members.
20. Regulatory Alternatives for Small Businesses
Because EPA projects significant costs for many CWT facilities
owned by small firms, EPA analyzed several alternatives which would
exempt various portions of the industry.
EPA's primary concern with an exclusion based on these analyses is
that they represent one snapshot of a rapidly changing industry. EPA is
concerned that if any segment of the industry were excluded, the
segment might quickly expand as a result of the exclusion, leading to
much greater discharges within a few years than predicted by existing
data. In addition, EPA believes that most CWT facilities have
substantial unused capacity.
EPA solicits comments on a small business exclusion that would
minimize impacts on small firms for which projected compliance costs
represent a significant share of costs or net income, or, more
generally, any regulatory alternative that would minimize the economic
impacts on small businesses. EPA is particularly interested in
obtaining information on any less costly, but effective, treatment
technology alternatives. Additionally, EPA solicits information on the
current amount of unused capacity in the CWT industry (See Section
XI.L).
21. Waste Receipt Characterization
As detailed in Sections VIII.B, industry has provided very little
information on the concentration of pollutants in their waste receipts.
EPA requests qualitative and quantitative data on a subcategory basis
on the types of waste accepted for treatment as well as constituents
found in the incoming wastes, wastewaters, and used materials. EPA
specifically requests quantitative data on waste receipts from the
organics subcategory that have not been commingled with waste receipts
from other subcategories.
22. Characterization of Wastewater
EPA is interested in the pollutant levels in wastewater resulting
from treatment processes currently in place at CWT facilities including
the technologies discussed in this preamble and any other effective
technologies. EPA is particularly interested in the pollutant levels
currently being discharged in the treated final effluent resulting
solely from the treatment of organics wastes and wastewaters at
organics facilities. Specifically, EPA requests discharge monitoring
data from treatment trains that treat wastes from a sole subcategory
prior to commingling with wastewaters from other subcategories, non-
contaminated stormwater, or other sources of water. As supporting
information for this information, EPA requests the concentrations of
pollutants in waste receipts and in intermediate waste streams that
correspond to the reporting period of the final effluent discharges.
EPA also requests detailed information about the treatment system
at the facility. To determine autocorrelation in the data, EPA requests
final effluent data that contain many measurements for each pollutant
for every single day over an extended period of time. (When data are
said to be positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements taken
at different time periods are similar. See discussion in IX.E)
Prior to submitting information about the wastewater currently in
place at your CWT facility, please discuss your data submission with
one of the technical contacts in the ``For Further Information''
section at the beginning of this preamble.
23. RCRA Classification
EPA's database contains information that was collected at
facilities which treat hazardous waste only, non-hazardous waste only,
and a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA solicits
comments and data on the pollutants and concentration of pollutants in
non-hazardous CWT waste receipts and in hazardous CWT waste receipts.
24. Waste Receipt Subcategorization Determination Procedure
EPA solicits comment on the subcategorization determination
procedure outlined in XIV.E of this notice. Specifically, EPA requests
data on waste receipts that have not been subcategorized and mixed
waste receipts that can not be classified into a single subcategory
using the recommended approach.
25. Facility Subcategorization Determination
In developing today's notice, for ease of implementation, EPA
considered a facility subcategorization approach which would allow CWT
facilities to round the relative percentage of wastes in each
subcategory to the nearest five percent (by volume). EPA solicits
comments on this approach and ways to implement it while ensuring
treatment, rather than co-dilution (see XIV.E).
26. Status of Companies Owning CWT Facilities
EPA had to make a number of assumptions when formulating its
company-level profiles, as detailed in Section XI.B EPA solicits
comments on these assumptions.
27. New Source Performance Standards Selection for Metals Subcategory
In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to select the technology
basis that represents the most stringent controls attainable through
the application of the best control technology for all pollutants. EPA
is also directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impact. In
today's proposal, EPA proposed limitations and standards for the metals
subcategory based on the metals option 3 technology. The model facility
for metals Option 3 recovers metals and sells them to a smelter for
reuse. EPA solicits comments and data on the market for recovered
metals and revenue generated from the sale of recovered metals. EPA
also solicits comments on the extent to which new sources may chose to
recover and reuse metals through the Option 3 technology basis or
simply comply with the limitations and continue to dispose of their
metal sludges in a landfill.
Finally, for today's proposal, in evaluating NSPS for the metals
subcategory, EPA used a ``barrier to entry'' analysis. EPA has
traditionally evaluated different technologies for NSPS by testing
whether the cost of a particular technology is so great as to act as a
barrier to the entry of new firms into the business. EPA has
tentatively determined that the proposed technology basis will not pose
a barrier to entry. However, as discussed further in Section IX.B, EPA
also considered another technology basis that would remove only
slightly less pollutants at significantly lower costs. EPA solicits
comment on its technology basis selected for NSPS for the metals
subcategory.
28. Transfer of Oil and Grease Limitations From Industrial Laundries or
TECI
As discussed in IX.B, EPA has reviewed data from the Industrial
Laundries and the TECI rulemaking for dissolved air flotation systems.
For similar influent oil and grease concentrations, these systems
removed oil and grease to levels well below those achieved at the DAF
systems sampled for development of this regulation. Given the
similarities in the oil and
[[Page 2350]]
grease levels of these wastes, EPA is considering whether use of this
data is appropriate in determining CWT limitations. EPA requests
comments on this issue as well as data generally on the efficacy of
dissolved air flotation systems in treating CWT wastewaters.
29. Group FDF Requests
The Agency requests comment on how to modify its existing
regulation to provide additional flexibility to small businesses in
obtaining FDF variances in light of the specific statutory requirement
that each individual discharger establish the fundamental difference in
its operations through information submitted during development of the
limitations and standards or show there was no opportunity to submit
such information. It would be helpful if commenters supplied specific
suggested changes to the regulatory language found at 40 CFR 125.32 and
403.13.
30. Small Business Identification
EPA defines small CWT companies as those having sales less than $6
million--the Small Business Administration definition of a small
business for SIC Code 4953, Refuse Systems. Industry representatives
have indicated that revenue would be a suitable criterion to identify
small businesses for purposes of any small business regulatory
alternatives (including reduced monitoring) and that facilities would
be comfortable providing firm-level economic information to the
federal, state, or local permitting authority as long as
confidentiality is protected. EPA solicits comment on this basis,
particularly from CWT facilities that are owned by a parent company, as
well as alternative bases for identifying small businesses.
31. Effect of TDS on Chemical Precipitation
As detailed in Section VI.I, EPA conducted a laboratory study
designed to determine the effect of TDS levels on chemical
precipitation treatment performance. The resulting data and analysis
are included in the record. EPA solicits comments on this data and
analyses. Additionally, EPA consulted various literature sources to
obtain information about the effect of TDS levels on chemical
precipitation. EPA found no data or information which related directly
to TDS effects on chemical precipitation. EPA solicits comment on and
copies of any such literature sources.
Finally, the facility which forms the technology basis for Metals
Option 4 (see Section IX.B.1.b.i) had high influent levels of TDS in
their wastewaters during EPA's sampling episode. Consequently, the
proposed BPT, BAT, and PSES limitations and standards can be achieved
by all metals subcategory facilities, even those with high levels of
TDS. EPA solicits comment and any data commenters may have bearing on
this issue.
32. Benefits of Lead Health Risk Reduction
EPA quantified and monetized the benefits of health risk reductions
from lower discharges of lead using methodologies developed in the
Retrospective Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Final Report to Congress
on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990; EPA 410-R-97-
002). This exercise required a number of assumptions. EPA solicits
comment on the methodology used to calculate lead benefits.
33. Elasticity Assumptions Used in the Economic Model
As discussed in Section XI.C, EPA chose specific elasticity
parameters for use in the economic model based on reasoning that it
believes to be sound and on the available literature. EPA solicits
comments on the elasticity assumptions and, in particular, requests
additional studies that provide elasticity estimates. EPA prefers
studies that have been peer-reviewed, but is interested in any well-
done study. EPA also requests data that could be used to calculate an
elasticity and has placed a detailed description of data requirements
in the record.
34. Variability Factors
Today's proposal discusses two different approaches to calculate
variability factors--one based on pollutant variability factors and one
based on group variability factors. The pollutant variability factor is
the average of the variability factors from facilities with the model
technologies for the option, and the group variability factor is the
median of the pollutant variability factors from pollutants with
similar chemical structures. In today's proposal, EPA generally used
the product of the group variability factor and the pollutant long-term
average in calculating each pollutant limitation. The calculation of
variability factors is discussed in more detail in Section IX.E. EPA
solicits comment on whether the pollutant or group variability factors
or some combination should be used in calculating the limitations to
accurately reflect the variability of the pollutants discharged by the
CWT industry.
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
ADMINISTRATOR--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
AGENCY--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGE LIMITATION-The highest allowable
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as
the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar
month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during
the month.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable,
applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984,
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by section
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology,
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources, as defined by section. 304(b)(4) of the
CWA.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July
1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by
section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY--Any facility that treats
and/or recovers or recycles any hazardous or non-hazardous
industrial waste, hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastewater,
and/or used material from off-site.
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT WASTEWATER--Wastewater generated as
a result of CWT activities. CWT wastewater sources may include, but
are not limited to: liquid waste receipts, solubilization water,
used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-off
box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-
down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site industrial waste
combustor wastewaters, on-site landfill wastewaters, and
contaminated stormwater.
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water Quality
Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE--A questionnaire
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA,
which requests information to be used in the development of national
effluent guidelines and standards.
COMMERCIAL FACILITY--A CWT facility that accepts off-site
generated wastes, wastewaters, or used material from other
facilities not under the same ownership as this facility. Commercial
operations are usually made available for a fee or other
remuneration.
CONTAMINATED Stormwater--Stormwater which comes in direct
contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Constituents of wastewater as
determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including, but not limited
to, pollutants classified as
[[Page 2351]]
biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease,
fecal coliform, and pH.
CWT--Centralized Waste Treatment
DAILY DISCHARGE--The discharge of a pollutant measured during
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a
calendar day.
DETAILED MONITORING QUESTIONNAIRE (DMQ)--Questionnaires sent to
collect monitoring data from 20 selected CWT facilities based on
responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
DIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
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)).
EXISTING SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced
before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
FACILITY--All contiguous property owned, operated, leased, or
under the control of the same person or entity
FUEL BLENDING--The process of mixing waste, wastewater, or used
material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
HAZARDOUS WASTE--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as
hazardous under RCRA, TSCA, or any state law.
HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS RECOVERY (HTMR)--A metals recovery
process in which solid forms of metal containing materials are
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce
a remelt alloy which can then be sold as feed material in the
production of metals.
IN-SCOPE--Facilities and/or wastewaters that EPA proposes to be
subject to this guideline.
INDIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
INTERCOMPANY--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover
waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-site
facilities not under the same corporate ownership. These facilities
are also referred to as ``commercial'' CWT facilities.
INTRACOMPANY TRANSFER--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/
recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-
site facilities under the same corporate ownership. These facilities
are also referred to as ``non-commercial'' CWT facilities.
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.
MARINE-GENERATED WASTE--Waste, wastewater, and/or used material
generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a ship,
boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open waters.
METAL-BEARING WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain
significant quantities of metal pollutants, but not significant
quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100 mg/L), from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial
operations. These wastes include, but are not limited to, the
following: spent electroplating baths and sludges, metal finishing
rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes, air pollution control blow
down water and sludges, spent anodizing solutions, incineration air
pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid mercury, cyanide
containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste acids and bases
with or without metals.
MINIMUM LEVEL--the lowest level at which the entire analytical
system must give a recognizable signals and an acceptable
calibration point for the analyte.
MIXED COMMERCIAL/NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that treat
and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material
generated by off-site facilities both under the same corporate
ownership and different corporate ownership.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT--
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system,
authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
NEW SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced
after the proposal of regulations prescribing a standard of
performance under section 306 of the Act and 403.3(k).
NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that accept waste from off-
site for treatment and/or recovery from generating facilities under
the same corporate ownership as the CWT facility.
NON-CONTAMINATED STORMWATER--Stormwater which does not come into
direct contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas.
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR
Section 401.
NON-DETECT VALUE--The analyte is below the level of detection
that can be reliably measured by the analytical method. This is also
known, in statistical terms, as left-censoring.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT--Deleterious aspects of
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NSPS--New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to
industrial facilities whose construction is begun after the
publication of the proposed regulations, as defined by Sec. 306 of
the CWA.
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category. (40 CFR Part 414).
OFF SITE--Outside the boundaries of a facility.
OILY WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain oil and
grease (generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or
processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes
include, but are not limited to, the following: used oils, oil-water
emulsions or mixtures, lubricants, coolants, contaminated
groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources, used petroleum
products, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, rinse/wash waters from
petroleum sources, interceptor wastes, off-specification fuels,
underground storage remediation waste, and tank clean out from
petroleum or oily sources.
OLIGOPOLY--A market structure with few competitors, in which
each producer is aware of his competitors' actions and has a
significant influence on market price and quantity.
ON SITE--The same or geographically contiguous property, which
may be divided by a public or private right-of-way, provided the
entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along
the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned by the same
company or locality but connected by a right-of-way, which it
controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also
considered on-site property.
ORGANIC-BEARING WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that
contain organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil
and grease (generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or
processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes
include, but are not limited to, landfill leachate, contaminated
groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing
wastes, off-specification organic product, still bottoms, used
glycols, wastewater from paint washes, wastewater from adhesives
and/or epoxies, wastewater from chemical product operations, and
tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources.
OUTFALL--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
OUT-OF-SCOPE--Out-of-scope facilities are facilities which only
perform centralized waste treatment activities which EPA has not
proposed to be subject to provisions of this guideline. Out-of-scope
operations are centralized waste treatment operations which EPA has
not proposed to be subject to provisions of this guideline.
PIPELINE--Pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube,
trench, ditch, or fixed delivery system.
PASS THROUGH--A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' a
POTW when the average percentage removed by an efficiently operated
POTW is less than the average percentage removed by the industry's
direct dischargers that are using well-defined, well-operated BAT
technology.
POINT SOURCE--Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance
from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
[[Page 2352]]
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in
centralized waste treatment wastewaters. For the purposes of this
guideline, a POC is a pollutant that is detected at or above a
treatable level in influent wastewater samples from centralized
waste treatment facilities. Additionally, a CWT POC must be present
in at least ten percent of the influent wastewater samples.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT--One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined
in Section 307 of the CWA. The priority pollutants are specified in
the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et
al v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833
[D.D.C. 1979]).
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP--A program practiced by many manufacturing
facilities which involves taking back spent, used, or unused
products, shipping and storage containers with product residues,
off-specification products, and waste materials from use of
products.
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) of the CWA.
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW)--Any device or system,
owned by a state or municipality, used in the treatment (including
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes
of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
RCRA--The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation,
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous
wastes.
RE-REFINING--Distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment
employing acid, caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals of used oil
in order to produce high quality base stock for lubricants or other
petroleum products.
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.
SMALL-BUSINESS--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than
$6 million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1,
Sec. 121.601) which is being used to characterize the CWT industry.
SOLIDIFICATION--The addition of sorbents to convert liquid or
semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of adsorption, absorption or
both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
STABILIZATION--A waste process that decreases the mobility of
waste constituents by means of a chemical reaction. For the purpose
of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for
stabilization.
VARIABILITY FACTOR--Used in calculating a limitation (or
standard) to allow for reasonable variation in pollutant
concentrations when processed through extensive and well designed
treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term
averages. WASTE RECEIPT--Wastes, wastewater, or used material
received for treatment and/or recovery. Waste receipts can be
liquids or solids.
ZERO OR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE--No discharge of pollutants to
waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also included in this
definition is disposal of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 437
Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
Dated: December 29, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding part
437 as follows:
PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
437.01 Applicability.
437.02 Definitions.
437.03 Monitoring requirements.
Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
437.10 Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.
437.11 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
437.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
437.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
437.20 Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.
437.21 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
437.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
437.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
437.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory
437.30 Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.
437.31 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
437.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
437.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Combined Waste stream Formula
437.40 Combined waste stream formula.
Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,
1342, and 1361).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 437.01 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this
section, this part applies to that portion of wastewater discharges
from a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility that results from any
of the following activities:
(1) The treatment of metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and organic-
bearing wastes received from off-site.
(2) The treatment of CWT wastewater.
(3) Used oil re-refining operations.
(4) Solvent recovery operations based on fuel blending.
[[Page 2353]]
(b) This part does not apply to that portion of wastewater
discharges from a CWT facility that results from:
(1) The treatment of wastes that are generated on-site and are
subject to another part of subchapter N.
(2) The treatment of a mixture of wastes that are generated off-
site and on-site so long as the wastewater resulting from the treatment
of the off-site wastes, if discharged at the site where generated,
would have been subject to the same provisions of subchapter N as the
wastewater resulting from the treatment of wastes generated on-site.
(3) The treatment of wastes received from off-site solely via
conduit (e.g., pipelines, channels, ditches, trenches, etc.) from the
facility that generates the wastes. A facility that acts as a waste
collection or consolidation center is not a facility that generates
wastes.
(4) The treatment of sanitary wastes and wastes of domestic origin
including chemical toilet wastes, septage, and restaurant wastes.
(5) The treatment or recovery of animal or vegetable fats/oils from
grease traps or interceptors generated by facilities engaged in food
service activities.
(c) This part does not apply to the discharge of wastewater from
facilities which are engaged exclusively in cleaning the interiors of
tanker trucks, rail tank cars, or barges. The discharge resulting from
the treatment of off-site wastewater generated in cleaning
transportation equipment (or on-site wastewater generated in cleaning
equipment) treated at a CWT facility along with other off-site wastes
not generated in cleaning transportation equipment is, however, subject
to this part.
(d) This part does not apply to the discharge of wastewater that
results from the treatment of landfill wastes generated on-site at a
CWT facility so long as landfill wastes are not mixed with other wastes
for treatment. The discharge resulting from the treatment of landfill
wastewater, whether generated on-site or off-site, treated at CWT
facilities along with other off-site waste is, however, subject to this
part.
(e) This part does not apply to wastewater discharges at a CWT
facility that is exclusively engaged in the treatment of wastewater
generated by industrial waste combustors. The discharge resulting from
the treatment of off-site wastewater generated in the incineration of
industrial waste that is treated at a CWT facility along with other
off-site waste streams is subject to this part.
(f) This part does not apply to the discharge of wastewater
generated in solvent recovery operations so long as the solvent
recovery operations involve the separation of solvent mixtures by
distillation. The discharge of wastewater resulting from distillation-
based solvent recovery operations is subject to 40 CFR part 414.
(g) This part does not apply to marine generated wastes including
wash water from equipment and tank cleaning, ballast water, bilge
water, and other wastes generated as part of routine ship maintenance
and operation as long as they are treated and discharged at the ship
servicing facility where it is off-loaded. The discharges resulting
from the treatment of marine generated wastes that are off-loaded and
subsequently sent to a centralized waste treatment facility at a
separate location are, however, subject to this part.
Sec. 437.02 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) The general definitions, abbreviations and methods of analysis
in 40 CFR parts 122 and 401 and 403 shall apply.
(b) The term centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility means any
facility that treats any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes
received from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums,
barge, or other forms of shipment. ``CWT facility'' includes both a
facility that treats waste received from off-site exclusively, as well
as a facility that treats wastes generated on-site and waste received
from off-site. For example, an organic chemical manufacturing plant
may, in certain circumstances, be a CWT facility if it treats
industrial wastes received from offsite as well as industrial waste
generated at the organic chemical manufacturing plant. The term CWT
facility does not apply to facilities engaged in the following
activities:
(1) Solids recovery operations so long as the wastes recovered are
from non-industrial sources, do not generate a wastewater, or do not
leach any metal or organic chemicals into the water. Solids recovery
operations include, but are not limited to, the recycling of aluminum
cans, glass, and plastic bottles.
(2) High temperature metals recovery operations that use heat-based
pyrometallurgical technologies to recover metals.
(3) Used oil filter recycling operations generating no process
wastewater.
(4) Waste solidification/stabilization operations that generate no
process wastewater.
(5) Electrolytic plating operation with metallic replacement silver
recovery operations on used photographic and x-ray materials. A
facility that treats off-site silver-bearing wastes using other
processes is a CWT.
(c) The term centralized waste treatment wastewater means water
that comes in contact with wastes received from off-site for treatment
or recovery, or water that comes in contact with the area in which the
off-site wastes are received, stored or collected.
(d) The term conventional pollutants means those pollutants EPA has
identified as conventional pollutant pursuant to section Sec. 304(a)(4)
of the CWA (see 40 CFR Sec. 401.16)
(e) The term electrolytic plating operation means the application
of various types of processes which lower the concentration of
dissolved metals in solution by the passage of current through an
electrolyte.
(F) The term 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
may .
(g) The term fuel blending means the process of mixing hydrocarbon
wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse. However, fuel
blending may be loosely applied to any process where recovered
hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product where some pretreatment
operations generate wastewater.
(h) The term high temperature metals recovery means a metals
recovery process in which solid forms of metal containing materials are
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce a
remelt alloy which can then be sold as feed material in the production
of metals.
(i) The term metal-bearing wastes means wastes and/or used
materials that contain significant quantities of metal pollutants, but
not significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100
mg/L), from manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial
operations. Examples of these wastes are spent electroplating baths and
sludges, metal finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes, air
pollution control blow down water and sludges, spent anodizing
solutions, incineration air pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid
mercury, cyanide containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste
acids and bases with or without metals.
(j) The term off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
(k) The term oily wastes means wastes and/or used materials that
contain oil and grease (generally at or in excess of
[[Page 2354]]
100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing facilities or other
commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are used oils, oil-
water emulsions or mixtures, lubricants, coolants, contaminated
groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources, used petroleum products,
oil spill clean-up, bilge water, rinse/wash waters from petroleum
sources, interceptor wastes, off-specification fuels, underground
storage remediation waste, and tank clean out from petroleum or oily
sources, and wastes that contain oil and grease from manufacturing or
processing facilities or other commercial operations.
(l) The term on-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
(m) The term organic wastes means wastes and/or used materials that
contain organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil and
grease (generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing
facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are
landfill leachate, contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum
sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-specification organic product,
still bottoms, used glycols, wastewater from paint washes, wastewater
from adhesives and/or epoxies, wastewater from chemical product
operations, and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources.
(n) The term pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube,
trench, or ditch.
(o) The term solvent recovery includes fuel blending operations and
the recycling of spent solvents through separation of solvent mixtures
in distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional,
pretreatment step prior to distillation.
(p) The term treatment means any method, technique, or process
designed to change the physical, chemical or biological character or
composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to
neutralize such wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge or
to recover energy or recover metal, oil, or organic content from the
wastes.
(q) The term used oil filter recycling means crushing and draining
of used oil filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and separation of
used oil filters.
(r) The term waste includes aqueous, non-aqueous and solid wastes.
Sec. 437.03 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Permit compliance monitoring is required for each regulated
pollutant.
(b) Any CWT facility that discharges wastewater resulting from the
treatment of metal-bearing waste, oily waste, or organic-bearing waste
must monitor as follows:
(1) Facilities subject to more than one subpart must monitor for
compliance for each subpart after treatment and before mixing of the
waste with any other subpart wastes, stormwater, or wastewater subject
to another effluent limitation or standard in Subchapter N. If,
however, the facility can demonstrate to the receiving POTW or
permitting authority the capability of achieving the effluent
limitation or standard for each subpart, the facility may monitor for
compliance after mixing.
(2) Whenever a CWT facility is treating any waste receipt that
contains more than 136 mg/l of Total Cyanide, the CWT facility must
monitor for cyanide after cyanide treatment and before dilution with
other waste streams. If, however, the facility can demonstrate to the
receiving POTW or permitting authority the capability of achieving the
Total Cyanide limitation or standard after cyanide treatment and before
mixing with other waste steams, the facility may monitor for compliance
after mixing.
Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
Sec. 437.10 Applicability; description of the Metals Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that
results from the treatment of, or recovery of metals from, metal-
bearing wastes received from off-site and that CWT facility's contact
water.
Sec. 437.11 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations listed in the following table. These limitations apply to
the pretreatment of metal-bearing waste which contain cyanide and the
metals treatment effluent.
In-Plant BPT Limitations for Cyanide Pretreatment--Metals Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one Day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide..................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT Effluent Limitations--Metals Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
TSS............................................. 60.0 31.0
Oil and Grease.................................. 88.4 27.8
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.214 .176
Arsenic......................................... 0.106 0.087
Cadmium......................................... 0.111 0.052
Chromium........................................ 2.93 1.37
Chromium, hexavalent............................ 2.68 0.988
Cobalt.......................................... 0.285 0.133
Copper.......................................... 1.45 0.674
Lead............................................ 0.290 0.135
Manganese....................................... 0.121 0.057
Mercury......................................... 0.0027 0.0013
Nickel.......................................... 2.66 1.24
Selenium........................................ 2.83 0.583
Silver.......................................... 0.057 0.026
Tin............................................. 0.223 0.104
Titanium........................................ 0.141 0.066
Vanadium........................................ 0.124 0.058
Zinc............................................ 1.05 0.489
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT). The limitations for TSS and oil and grease are the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.11 of this subpart.
Sec. 437.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT). Except for the conventional pollutants, the
limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.11 of this
subpart.
Sec. 437.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve new source
performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the metals
treatment effluent. The cyanide
[[Page 2355]]
pretreatment limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.11
of this subpart. The NSPS limitations are:
NSPS Effluent Limitations--Metals Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Pollutants:
TSS............................................. 29.6 11.3
Oil and Grease.................................. 88.4 27.8
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.111 0.031
Arsenic......................................... 0.059 0.017
Cadmium......................................... 0.319 0.104
Chromium........................................ 0.155 0.051
Chromium, hexavalent............................ 0.138 0.057
Cobalt.......................................... 0.224 0.073
Copper.......................................... 0.658 0.216
Lead............................................ 0.215 0.070
Manganese....................................... 0.058 0.019
Mercury......................................... 0.0008 0.0003
Nickel.......................................... 1.05 0.345
Silver.......................................... 0.039 0.013
Tin............................................. 0.117 0.038
Titanium........................................ 0.020 0.006
Vanadium........................................ 0.195 0.064
Zinc............................................ 0.803 0.263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing user
subject to this subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
In-Plant PSES for Cyanide Pretreatment--Metals Subcategory (mg/L)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cyanide..................................... 500 178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES--Metals Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.214 .176
Arsenic......................................... 0.106 0.087
Cadmium......................................... 0.111 0.052
Chromium........................................ 2.93 1.37
Chromium, hexavalent............................ 2.68 0.988
Cobalt.......................................... 0.285 0.133
Copper.......................................... 1.45 0.674
Lead............................................ 0.290 0.135
Manganese....................................... 0.121 0.057
Mercury......................................... 0.003 0.001
Nickel.......................................... 2.66 1.24
Selenium........................................ 2.83 0.583
Silver.......................................... 0.057 0.026
Tin............................................. 0.223 0.104
Titanium........................................ 0.141 0.066
Vanadium........................................ 0.124 0.058
Zinc............................................ 1.05 0.489
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new user subject to this
subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403. The cyanide pretreatment
limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.15. The
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) are:
PSNS--Metals Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.111 0.031
Arsenic......................................... 0.059 0.017
Cadmium......................................... 0.319 0.104
Chromium........................................ 0.155 0.051
Chromium, hexavalent............................ 0.138 0.057
Cobalt.......................................... 0.224 0.073
Copper.......................................... 0.658 0.216
Lead............................................ 0.215 0.070
Manganese....................................... 0.058 0.019
Mercury......................................... 0.0008 0.0003
Nickel.......................................... 1.05 0.345
Silver.......................................... 0.039 0.013
Tin............................................. 0.117 0.038
Titanium........................................ 0.020 0.006
Vanadium........................................ 0.195 0.064
Zinc............................................ 0.803 0.263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery Subcategory
Sec. 437.20 Applicability; description of the Oils Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that
results from the treatment of, or recovery of oils from, oily waste
received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.
Sec. 437.21 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
BPT Effluent Limitations--Oils Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional pollutants:
Oil & Grease.................................... 127 38.0
TSS............................................. 74.1 30.6
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.237 0.141
Arsenic......................................... 1.81 1.08
Barium.......................................... 0.783 0.359
Cadmium......................................... 0.027 0.012
Chromium........................................ 0.650 0.298
Cobalt.......................................... 26.3 12.1
Copper.......................................... 0.400 0.183
Lead............................................ 0.350 0.160
Mercury......................................... 0.011 0.005
Molybdenum...................................... 5.48 2.51
Tin............................................. 0.380 0.174
Titanium........................................ 0.077 0.035
Zinc............................................ 7.20 3.30
Alpha-terpineol................................. 0.166 0.081
Bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate....................... 0.215 0.101
Butyl benzyl phthlate........................... 0.188 0.089
Carbazole....................................... 0.520 0.255
Fluoranthene.................................... 0.045 0.024
n-decane........................................ 0.778 0.403
n-octadecane.................................... 0.662 0.343
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT). The limitations for oil and grease and TSS
are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.21 of this subpart.
[[Page 2356]]
Sec. 437.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). Except for the conventional pollutants,
the limitations are the same as those specified in Sec. 437.21 of this
subpart.
Sec. 437.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the
oils treatment effluent. The limitations are the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.21 of this subpart.
Sec. 437.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing user
subject to this subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
PSES--Oils Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.237 0.141
Barium.......................................... 0.703 0.340
Cobalt.......................................... 23.7 11.4
Copper.......................................... 0.500 0.242
Molybdenum...................................... 4.92 2.38
Tin............................................. 0.341 0.165
Titanium........................................ 0.069 0.034
Zinc............................................ 10.0 4.84
Alpha-terpineol................................. 0.141 0.071
Bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate....................... 0.267 0.158
Carbazole....................................... 0.440 0.222
Fluoranthene.................................... 0.611 0.347
n-decane........................................ 5.96 3.48
n-octadecane.................................... 1.99 1.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new user subject to this
subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
PSNS--Oils Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.237 0.141
Barium.......................................... 0.783 0.359
Cobalt.......................................... 26.3 12.1
Copper.......................................... 0.400 0.183
Molybdenum...................................... 5.48 2.51
Tin............................................. 0.380 0.174
Titanium........................................ 0.077 0.035
Zinc............................................ 7.20 3.30
Alpha-terpineol................................. 0.166 0.081
bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate....................... 0.215 0.101
carbazole....................................... 0.520 0.255
fluoranthene.................................... 0.045 0.024
n-decane........................................ 0.778 0.403
n-octadecane.................................... 0.662 0.343
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart C--Organics Treatment or Recovery Subcategory
Sec. 437.30 Applicability; description of the Organics Subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion of
wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility that
result from the treatment of, or recovery of organics from, organic-
bearing waste received from off-site and CWT facility contact water.
Sec. 437.31 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
BPT Effluent Limitations--Organics Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional pollutants:
BOD5............................................ 163 53
TSS............................................. 216 61
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Antimony........................................ 0.972 0.691
Copper.......................................... 0.850 0.752
Molybdenum...................................... 1.14 1.01
Zinc............................................ 0.461 0.408
Acetophenone.................................... 0.155 0.072
Aniline......................................... 0.046 0.021
Benzoic Acid.................................... 1.39 0.638
o-cresol........................................ 1.89 0.556
p-cresol........................................ 0.677 0.199
Phenol.......................................... 3.70 1.09
Pyridine........................................ 0.370 0.182
2-butanone...................................... 8.83 2.62
2-propanone..................................... 20.7 6.15
2,3-dichloroaniline............................. 0.100 0.046
2,4,6-trichlorophenol........................... 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT). The limitations for BOD5 and TSS are the same
as those specified in Sec. 437.31 of this subpart.
Sec. 437.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available technology economically achievable
(BAT). Except for the conventional pollutants, the limitations are the
same as those specified in Sec. 437.31 of this subpart.
Sec. 437.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards (NSPS). These limitations apply to the
organics treatment effluent. The limitations are the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.31 of this subpart.
Sec. 437.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing user
subject to this subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
[[Page 2357]]
PSES--Organics Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or pollutant parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and non-conventional pollutants:
Molybdenum...................................... 1.14 1.01
Aniline......................................... 0.046 0.021
Benzoic Acid.................................... 1.39 0.638
o-cresol........................................ 1.89 0.556
p-cresol........................................ 0.677 0.199
2,3-dichloroaniline............................. 0.100 0.046
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 437.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new user subject to this
subpart must comply with 40 CFR Part 403 and achieve pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS). The standards are the same as those
specified in Sec. 437.35 of this subpart.
Subpart D--Combined Waste stream Formula
Sec. 437.40 Combined waste stream formula.
Whenever any new or existing user subject to pretreatment standards
mixes wastewater subject to subparts A, B, or C of this Part prior to
treatment, the Control Authority, as defined in Sec. 403.12(a) or
Industrial User with the written concurrence of the Control Authority,
must calculate fixed alternative discharge concentration limits using
the ``combined waste stream formula'' of Sec. 403.7(e). For purposes of
calculating fixed alternative discharge limits pursuant to
Sec. 403.6(e), wastewater subject to this part is a ``regulated flow.''
In calculating fixed alternative discharge limits pursuant to
Sec. 403.6(e), the Control Authority should use the following
categorical concentration limits:
(a) Metals subcategory categorical concentration standards. There
are no allowances for the metals subcategory.
(b) Oils subcategory categorical concentration limits.
Oils Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or Pollutant Parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic........................................... 1.81 1.08
Cadmium........................................... 0.024 0.012
Chromium.......................................... 0.584 0.283
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Organics subcategory categorical concentration limits.
Organics Subcategory
[mg/L]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Pollutant or Pollutant Parameter for any Monthly
one day average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony.......................................... 0.972 0.691
Copper............................................ 0.850 0.752
Zinc.............................................. 0.461 0.408
Acetophenone...................................... 0.155 0.072
Phenol............................................ 3.70 1.09
Pyridine.......................................... 0.370 0.182
2-butanone........................................ 8.83 2.62
2-propanone....................................... 20.7 6.15
2,4,6-trichlorophenol............................. 0.155 0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-130 Filed 1-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P