[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38863-38877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18478]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 442

[FRL-6400-4]


Data Availability; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment 
Standards and New Source Performance Standards for the Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA proposed technology-based 
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source 
performance standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of 
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by 
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment 
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities 
are defined as facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning the 
interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars, 
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, inland tank 
barges, closed-top hopper barges, ocean/sea tankers, and other similar 
tanks (excluding drums and intermediate bulk containers) used to 
transport materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the 
tank or container interior.
    This notice presents a summary of data received in comments since 
the proposal and an assessment of the usefulness of the data in EPA's 
analyses; presents new data collected by EPA to support effluent 
limitations in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; presents a 
change from the mass-based limits format of the proposal; presents a 
modified subcategorization approach; reviews technology options 
considered for regulation; and discusses other specific issues raised 
by commenters including: selection of pollutants proposed for 
regulation, the costs associated with the regulation, a low flow 
exclusion, and the applicability of the rule. EPA solicits public 
comment on any of the issues or information presented in this notice of 
data availability and in the administrative record supporting this 
notice.

DATES: Submit your comments by September 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to Mr. John Tinger at the following address: 
US EPA, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 401 M. St. SW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    The data and analyses being announced today are available for 
review in the EPA Water Docket at EPA Headquarters at Waterside Mall, 
Room EB-57, 401 M. St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to the 
docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
for an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information, 
contact Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992 or at the following e-mail 
address: Tinger.J[email protected]. For additional economic information 
contact Mr. George Denning at (202) 260-7374 or at the following e-mail 
address: Denning.G[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents of This Document

I. Purpose of This Notice
II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal
III. Concentration-Based Limitations
IV. Modification to Subcategorization Approach
V. Low Flow Exclusion
VI. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates
VII. Discussion of Applicability Issues
    A. Coverage of IBCs
    B. Overlap With Other Guidelines
VIII. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation
    A. Oil and Grease and Non-Polar Material as Indicator Parameters
    B. Pass Through of SGT-HEM
IX. Technology Options
    A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

[[Page 38864]]

    C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    D. Food Subcategory
    BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and 
Barge/Food Subcategories
X. Presentation of Concentration-Based Limitations

I. Purpose of This Notice

    On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA proposed regulations for the 
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point Source Category. EPA has 
received numerous comments and data submissions concerning the 
proposal. In this document, EPA is making these new data submissions 
available for comment. Additionally, EPA is providing a discussion of 
additional analyses performed relating to specific issues raised by 
commenters. EPA is also presenting a revised approach to several 
aspects of the proposal which received numerous comments. EPA solicits 
comment on all revised approaches that EPA will consider for final 
action.

II. Data Acquired Since the Proposal

    Since proposal, EPA has obtained additional data and information 
from the industry, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and the 
Agency's continued data collection activities. The Agency has included 
these data, information, and the preliminary results of EPA's 
evaluation in sections 15 through 22 of the supporting record of this 
document, available for review in the Water Docket (see Addresses 
section). The industry and POTW information and data submittals are 
related to cost of treatment, pass through of pollutants at POTWs, and 
site visit reports from several facilities visited since proposal. The 
specific data, information, and comments provided to EPA are discussed 
in detail throughout the following sections of this document.
    The Agency collected treatment performance data from two additional 
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities operating BPT/BAT treatment. The 
data consisted of effluent self monitoring data for conventional 
pollutants over a one year period from both facilities, and effluent 
self monitoring data for priority pollutants over a one year period 
from one facility, totaling approximately 190 effluent data points. The 
facilities also provided self monitoring data for chemical oxygen 
demand (COD) at the influent to biological treatment over the same time 
period. Complete site visit reports, raw data results, and statistical 
methodology are available for review in sections 17 and 21 of the 
supporting record of this document. EPA recalculated the BPT 
concentration-based effluent limitations and new source performance 
standards for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended 
solids (TSS) based on effluent data from these two facilities.

III. Concentration-Based Limitations

    EPA proposed to establish mass-based rather than concentration-
based limits for the TEC industry, specified as grams of pollutant per 
tank cleaned. Numerous stakeholders have identified potential 
difficulties with implementing mass-based limits as proposed. In 
proposing mass-based limits, the Agency envisioned that the allowable 
discharge by a facility would be based on the average number of tanks 
cleaned at that facility on an annual basis. One of the main 
difficulties with this approach is the high variability in the number 
of tanks cleaned by a facility. The nature of a service industry is 
such that a tank cleaning facility has little control over the number 
of tanks which are brought in to be cleaned on a daily, monthly, or 
yearly basis. It is similarly difficult to predict the number of tanks 
that a facility will clean in an upcoming year. The Agency agrees with 
commenters that this variation may make it difficult to develop 
appropriate mass-based limits for a facility.
    Additionally, the Agency agrees with stakeholders who have stated 
that the amount of wastewater necessary to clean a tank is dependent on 
several factors which may make it difficult for a permitting authority 
to develop appropriate mass based limits. These factors may not have 
been fully accounted for in the Agency's calculation of the regulatory 
flow per tank which was used to establish mass-based limits. For 
example, the amount of water necessary to clean a tank depends on the 
cargos accepted (products such as molasses and tar will require more 
water), the type of tanks cleaned (a tank with an interior frame will 
require more water to clean), and the condition of the tank (some 
barges are only cleaned every few years and may have accumulated 
significant amounts of residue which would require greater volumes of 
water to clean). Because of the variation in the water volumes which 
may be necessary to clean a tank, EPA agrees that the regulatory flow 
per tank developed in the proposal may not be appropriate for some 
facilities. This in turn could lead to inappropriate calculations of 
mass-based limits, since mass-based limits are calculated on the basis 
of flow.
    Based on these comments and due to the potential difficulties of 
implementing mass-based limits, EPA will consider promulgating 
concentration-based limits for the final regulation. Because of this 
possibility, EPA has presented revised effluent limitations, 
pretreatment standards and new source performance standards as 
concentration-based standards for all subcategories in tables at the 
end of this notice.
    Although EPA will consider promulgating concentration-based limits, 
EPA believes that there would remain an economic incentive for 
facilities to use as little water as possible in their cleaning 
operations. In the cost model developed for the proposal, for example, 
EPA has assessed the cost to install water conservation measures as 
well as various end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies. EPA has 
determined that the compliance cost to the industry is generally less 
when water conservation measures are employed. EPA has therefore 
continued to cost wastewater flow reduction as a component of treatment 
options in the truck and rail subcategories, even though it may decide 
to promulgate concentration-based limits. For the Barge/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory, however, EPA has eliminated costs for flow 
reduction because of the high variability in wastewater volumes 
required for barge cleaning.
    EPA solicits comment on setting concentration-based limitations.

IV. Modification to Subcategorization Approach

    In the proposal, the Agency solicited comment on an approach to 
subcategorization that would combine the chemical and petroleum 
subcategories.
    The majority of stakeholders submitting comments supported 
combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories in order to 
facilitate implementation of the rule. Stakeholders have identified 
several specific examples of products and situations where it may be 
difficult to clearly determine whether a facility would be subject to 
the chemical or petroleum limitations. EPA agrees that the proposed 
definition of the petroleum and chemical subcategories are not as clear 
as the Agency would prefer.
    One option to address this would be for EPA to clarify the 
definitions of the petroleum and chemical subcategories, and therefore 
to clarify the definitions of

[[Page 38865]]

``petroleum'' and ``chemical'' cargos. In this instance, EPA would have 
to make the definitions much more specific to address the numerous 
applicability issues raised in comments by amending the definition or 
by specifically listing a significant number of products. EPA believes 
that this may not be the best approach because it may increase 
confusion by creating a set of unwieldy definitions which still may not 
be able to address all potential regulatory circumstances.
    In addition, many parties requested that EPA simplify the TEC rule 
so as to create as little ambiguity as possible. Of particular concern 
to affected parties was that EPA provide unambiguous, straightforward 
definitions which provide clear direction for implementation. 
Therefore, EPA does not believe that augmenting the definition of the 
petroleum and chemical subcategories would be the best option.
    Due to concerns with implementing the subcategorization approach as 
proposed and the support for this change by commenters, EPA will 
consider combining the petroleum and chemical subcategories. EPA 
believes that this approach may provide the most unambiguous and 
implementable subcategorization scheme.
    However, EPA realizes that combining these subcategories would have 
the consequence of bringing 37 petroleum facilities which the Agency 
had previously concluded did not merit regulation under coverage of the 
TEC rule. In the proposal, EPA tentatively decided not to establish 
limits for the petroleum subcategories due to the low pollutant 
loadings associated with this segment of the industry. One of the 
greatest differences in wastewater characteristics between the chemical 
and petroleum subcategories was the amount of wastewater generated from 
tank cleaning. Generally, petroleum facilities generate significantly 
less water than chemical facilities. For example, 288 truck chemical 
facilities generated 708 million gallons per year of interior cleaning 
wastewater (average of 2.5 million gallons per facility per year), 
compared to 34 truck petroleum facilities which generated 2.5 million 
gallons per year (average of 74,000 gallons per facility per year). For 
the rail facilities, 38 chemical grade facilities generated 91 million 
gallons per year (average of 2.4 million gallons per facility per year) 
compared to three petroleum facilities which generated 2,800 gallons 
per year (average of 930 gallons per facility per year). The low 
pollutant loadings associated with the petroleum subcategories can be 
predominantly attributed to the low wastewater volumes generated from 
cleaning petroleum products. As discussed in Section V of this notice, 
EPA is also considering a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per 
year of regulated TEC process wastewater. As stated above, one reason 
for not regulating facilities in the petroleum subcategories was due to 
the low pollutant loads generated by this subcategory. Twenty eight of 
the 37 facilities in the proposed Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum 
Subcategories discharge less than 100,000 gallons of wastewater per 
year. These facilities also generate much less than 1% of the industry 
loadings calculated for proposal. Thus, EPA continues to believe that 
the majority of petroleum facilities do not merit regulation. EPA 
believes that the approach of excluding facilities on the basis of flow 
rather than on the basis of cargo would result in a more implementable 
regulation, and that these changes would be consistent with the 
rationale and conclusions reached in the proposal.
    The combined result of the revised subcategorization approach and 
low flow exclusion is that one model facility (representing nine 
facilities) excluded at proposal would be added to the Truck/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory. This model facility was evaluated as a small 
business in the impacts analysis and Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel report and review (section 12, 
DCN T10301 of the proposed record) and dischargers approximately 
200,000 gallons per year of TEC wastewater. This facility does not 
experience closure as a result of compliance costs in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. In addition, one model facility 
(representing 11 facilities) previously regulated in the Truck/Chemical 
Subcategory would be excluded from the regulation.
    In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, two model facilities 
(representing 8 facilities) previously covered at proposal would be 
excluded from the regulation if EPA adopts the low flow exclusion. The 
complete revised costs, loads, and impacts for the subcategories are 
discussed in section IX of this document.
    In addition to combining the chemical and petroleum subcategories, 
EPA will also consider combining the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/
Food Subcategories. In the proposal, subcategorization was necessary 
because the truck, rail, and barge facilities had different regulatory 
flows per tank which resulted in different mass-based limits for each 
subcategory. However, if EPA decides to promulgate concentration-based 
limits, subcategorization by transportation mode is unnecessary and EPA 
will likely promulgate one set of limits for all food subcategories.
    EPA solicits comments on the alternative subcategorization approach 
that combines the chemical and petroleum subcategories for rail and 
truck cleaning facilities.

V. Low Flow Exclusion

    In the proposal, EPA considered establishing a minimum flow level 
for defining the scope of the regulation. EPA conducted an analysis of 
the loads discharged by low flow facilities, but concluded that these 
facilities discharged proportional loadings and therefore EPA did not 
propose a low flow exclusion.
    Several commenters noted that the lowest flow level EPA considered 
for an exclusion was 2,000 gallons per day. They suggested that the 
Agency consider a flow exclusion based on a lower level of wastewater 
generation. The commenters noted that several POTWs have successfully 
implemented low flow exclusions of 300 to 500 gallons per day. In order 
to address these comments, EPA conducted an analysis to determine the 
effect of a low flow exclusion at 100,000 gallons per year of regulated 
TEC process wastewater. This equates to approximately 400 gallons per 
day (assuming 250 days of operation), as was suggested by the 
commenters. EPA believes that an exclusion based on annual flow is more 
appropriate than daily flow due to the potential daily variation in 
wastewater generation rates.
    Based on this analysis, EPA found that 28 of 37 facilities in the 
proposed Truck/Petroleum and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories would qualify 
for the low flow exclusion. Additionally, 11 indirect discharging 
Truck/Chemical facilities and eight indirect discharging Rail/Chemical 
facilities would qualify for the exclusion. One model direct 
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facility (representing three 
facilities) would be excluded because the majority of wastewater 
generated at this facility is subject to another categorical standard, 
and the facility generates a small amount of TEC wastewater incidental 
to its main business.
    As discussed in section IV, EPA will consider combining the 
chemical and petroleum subcategories for the Truck and Rail segments of 
the industry. EPA therefore analyzed the low flow exclusion in terms of 
this combined

[[Page 38866]]

subcategorization. EPA determined that the loads from the facilities 
discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year generated much less than 
1% of the total loads for the entire truck and rail subcategories.
    Due to the very low loadings associated with facilities discharging 
less than 100,000 gallons per year, EPA will consider adopting a low 
flow exclusion from this regulation for the TEC guideline. 
Additionally, EPA has received comments from commercial and 
manufacturing facilities that may clean a small number of tanks which 
may not clearly qualify for the exclusion of manufacturing facilities. 
EPA believes that the adoption of a low flow exclusion will have the 
benefit of providing flexibility to these facilities which may be 
unsure of their regulatory status under the TEC guideline.
    EPA envisions that the low flow exclusion would apply to any 
facility which discharges less than 100,000 gallons per year of 
regulated TEC process wastewater. Regulated TEC wastewater includes 
only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC subcategory. Process 
wastewater includes all wastewaters associated with cleaning the 
interiors of tanks including, but not limited to: tank trucks; rail 
tank cars; intermodal tank containers; inland tank barges; and ocean/
sea tankers used to transport commodities or cargos that come into 
direct contact with the tank or container interior. TEC process 
wastewaters also include wastewater generated from washing vehicle 
exteriors, equipment and floor washings, and TEC-contaminated 
stormwater. The revised costs and loads discussed in section IX of this 
document reflect the deletion of model facilities that discharge less 
than 100,000 gallons per year of regulated TEC process wastewater.
    Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year of 
regulated TEC process wastewater will remain subject to limitations and 
standards established on a case by case basis using best professional 
judgement by the permitting authority.
    EPA requests comment on the low flow exclusion from this regulation 
of 100,000 gallons per year. EPA additionally requests comment on 
alternative low flow exclusions between 100,000 and 500,000 gallons per 
year. EPA notes that an exclusion set at 200,000 gallons per year would 
exclude the one remaining model facility in the Truck/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory that EPA did not originally intend to regulate as 
part of the proposed Truck/Petroleum Subcategory. EPA will analyze the 
economic and environmental effects of an exclusion set at this flow 
level and may consider such an exclusion for the final rule.

VI. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates

    In the proposal, the Agency calculated pollutant loadings for each 
regulatory option in each subcategory based on the set of pollutants 
effectively removed by the treatment technology. These loadings were 
then used for evaluating the various technology options in each 
subcategory.
    In order to determine the list of pollutants effectively removed, 
EPA used a set of editing criteria to identify pollutants of interest 
in the subcategory, and to determine which pollutants were effectively 
treated by the regulatory option. In general, pollutants were only 
included in the analysis if they were detected in raw wastewater 
samples from more than one facility, were detected at an average 
concentration at least five times the minimum level of quantification 
(ML), and were removed by 50% or more in the proposed treatment option. 
These criteria were used to ensure that the pollutants were present at 
treatable concentrations in raw wastewaters, and that the presence of 
the pollutant was representative of the industry's wastewater, as 
described in section VIII.C of the proposal.
    In the proposal, EPA described that it used a modified set of 
editing criteria for pesticide and herbicide pollutants than was used 
for the other pollutants. Due to the relative toxicity of some 
pesticides and herbicides even at low levels, the Agency proposed that 
any pesticide or herbicide detected in any raw wastewater sample be 
considered a pollutant of interest. No other editing criteria were used 
to determine if a pesticide or herbicide was a pollutant of interest 
for the industry.
    Many commenters were concerned that the pesticides and herbicides 
account for a large portion of the toxic loads in the Truck/Chemical 
and Rail/Chemical Subcategories. Several commenters disagreed with the 
adoption of modified screening criteria and questioned whether these 
pesticides and herbicides were actually present in raw wastewaters. 
Specifically, several of the pesticides and herbicides which 
contributed a significant portion of the toxic loadings were detected 
at only one or two facilities, and/or were found at levels only 
slightly above the ML. Also, commenters noted in several instances that 
the laboratory results from the primary and secondary columns differed 
by more than a factor of three, thereby resulting in a ``best 
obtainable'' qualification of these data. Notably, the detects for 
coumaphos and azinphos ethyl, which accounted for 74% of the pound 
equivalent removals in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory Option II, both 
had this data qualifier. In these instances, commenters argued that the 
presence of the pesticides and herbicides in the analytical samples may 
be the result of matrix interference due to the low quantification 
levels.
    Consequently, EPA reviewed the data to confirm that the target 
analytes were appropriately identified and quantified. EPA reviewed 
laboratory calculations; compared the database, summary hard copy, and 
raw data results for transcription errors; double checked all QC data; 
and evaluated the chromatograms and other raw data. EPA concluded that 
all calculations were correct and no transcription errors were present 
among the raw data, summary level, and database results. Blank results 
showed no signs of contamination, and all calibration verification and 
ongoing precision and recovery results were within acceptable limits. 
In addition, surrogate standards, which are spiked into each of the 
field samples, generated acceptable recoveries. An evaluation of the 
chromatograms for these samples confirmed that azinphos ethyl and 
coumophos were appropriately identified within the respective retention 
time windows of both the primary and secondary columns. The results of 
this analysis, including the chromatograms, are available for review in 
section 17.2 of the supporting record for this document.
    In instances where the values obtained from the primary and 
secondary columns differed, the final result reported in the database 
and used for all Agency calculations is the lower of the two values. 
This only affected raw wastewater values because effluent wastewater 
concentrations were generally found below the quantification level, and 
were therefore set at the ML. Therefore, EPA has consistently used the 
lowest of the potential sampling values for determining the raw 
wastewater concentrations, and has used the highest of the potential 
sampling values for effluent concentrations. This is a conservative 
approach that likely results in a low bias in subsequent pollutant 
reduction estimates.
    Although the Agency has confirmed the presence of these analytes in 
wastewater samples, the Agency agrees with commenters that there are 
concerns about the level of certainty that can be achieved when such 
low quantification levels are involved. This is a particular concern 
due to the significant impact that pesticide and

[[Page 38867]]

herbicide removals had on the calculation of toxic loadings. Therefore, 
the Agency is considering applying the same editing criteria to 
pesticides and herbicides as were established in the proposal for all 
other pollutants.
    In this case, EPA would only consider those pollutants detected at 
more than one wastewater characterization sample and at an average 
concentration at least five times the ML as a potential pollutant 
effectively removed. Although EPA has concluded that pollutants such as 
azinphos ethyl and coumophos are indeed present in TEC wastewaters, EPA 
also believes that it may be appropriate to utilize the same criteria 
for pesticide/herbicide pollutants as were used in the proposal for all 
non-pesticide/herbicide parameters.
    EPA has therefore re-evaluated its list of pollutants effectively 
removed for each subcategory, applying the applicable criteria to 
pesticides and herbicides. Under this approach, several pesticides and 
herbicides would be deleted from the list of pollutants effectively 
removed. This would in turn significantly decreased the toxic pound 
equivalents attributed to raw and treated TEC wastewaters.
    In section VIII of the proposal, EPA also discussed analytical 
results for dioxins and furans in raw wastewater for the TEC industry. 
EPA did not include dioxins and furans in the loadings calculations 
because EPA assumed that these were isolated, site-specific instances. 
EPA received several comments disagreeing with the Agency's assumption. 
In response to this, EPA re-evaluated the presence of dioxins and 
furans in wastewater based on the standard editing criteria described 
above. EPA found that several pollutants met the editing criteria to be 
considered a pollutant effectively removed, and EPA has therefore 
included several dioxin and furan removals in the loadings 
calculations.
    The revised removals of toxic pound equivalents by each technology 
option are presented in section IX of this document. EPA solicits 
comment on the revised methodology for calculating pollutant removals.

VII. Discussion of Applicability Issues

A. Coverage of IBCs

    In the proposal, EPA indicated that it did not intend to regulate 
wastewater generated from Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) for 
several reasons discussed in the preamble and in the report prepared by 
the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. IBCs were defined in the 
proposal as portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 
liters (793 gallons) capacity. Although EPA did not have data to 
calculate the loads associated with IBC cleaning, EPA assumed that the 
loadings generated from IBC cleaning were not a significant portion of 
the loadings of the TEC industry. EPA based this assumption on several 
data comparisons. First, based on responses to the 1994 detailed 
questionnaire (section 6.3. DCN T09842 of the proposed record), EPA 
estimated that 84,500 IBCs per year were cleaned by the TEC industry. 
This accounted for only 3% of the units cleaned at TEC facilities. 
Second, EPA assumed that wastewater generated from IBCs is similar to 
that of the drum reconditioning industry. EPA reasoned that IBCs were 
being used as a replacement for 55 gallon drums, and that the cargos 
being transported in IBCs were similar to those being transported in 
drums. Therefore, resulting IBC wastewater would be expected to be 
similar to that of drum reconditioning wastewater. EPA had conducted 
The Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum Reconditioning Industry (EPA 
440/1-89/101 September 1989), and EPA concluded at that time that the 
industry did not merit national regulation. Drum reconditioning 
facilities were therefore not considered within the scope of the TEC 
guideline, and EPA concluded that IBCs should also be excluded from the 
scope of this guideline.
    EPA has received comments which have both agreed and disagreed with 
the Agency's proposal to exclude IBCs from the scope of the TEC 
regulation. The most significant comments received on the IBC issue 
have described the changes in the industry since EPA's data collection 
efforts. In 1989, the Preliminary Data Summary for the Drum 
Reconditioning Industry did not collect any data on IBCs because so few 
IBCs were being used by the industry. By 1994, according to responses 
to the detailed questionnaire for the TEC industry, over 84,000 IBCs 
were being cleaned at TEC facilities. Data submitted by commenters have 
shown that IBC cleanings have increased dramatically in each year since 
EPA's survey. Based on data provided in comments, EPA now believes that 
there are up to several million IBCs being cleaning annually.
    In the preamble, EPA solicited comment on the loads associated with 
IBC cleaning, and on the assumption that IBC wastewater was similar to 
drum reconditioning wastewater. Although no commenters provided data on 
the raw wastewater characteristics of IBC cleaning wastewater, several 
commenters did provide information on the amount of heel associated 
with IBCs as compared to that from drums and tank trucks. As several 
commenters noted, most IBCs are cleaned at facilities which have 
historically cleaned either drums or tank trucks, and IBC wastewater is 
therefore commingled with drums or tank truck cleaning wastewater. For 
this reason, EPA was unable to obtain wastewater sampling data which 
would be representative of wastewater generated solely from cleaning 
IBCs.
    In terms of the amount of heel contained in an IBC, one commenter 
who supports coverage of IBCs said that IBCs typically contain between 
0.5 to two gallons of heel. In comparison, a tank truck typically 
contains one to two gallons of heel, but may contain up to five to 10 
gallons of heel for more viscous products. Another commenter who 
supports no regulation for IBCs noted that IBCs that have carried 
hazardous waste must contain less than one gallon of residue to be 
processed by a reconditioner, less than one inch of heel (typically 1.6 
gallons) for more viscous products for containers less than 110 
gallons, or less than 0.3% residue for containers greater than 110 
gallons (approximately 0.83 gallons for a 275-gallon IBC) to be 
considered RCRA empty.
    The 1994 questionnaire for the TEC industry gave similar results, 
with tank trucks containing <1 to 9 gallons of heel for non-food grade 
products, and IBCs containing <1 to 2 gallons of heel. EPA has not 
received any comments on whether or not the cargos transported in IBCs 
are similar or dissimilar to those transported by drum or tank truck. 
Based on site visits and conversations with the National Tank Truck 
Carriers Association, EPA believes that all truck facilities which 
clean IBCs treat IBC and tank washwater in the same wastewater 
treatment system, indicating that IBC and tank washwater contain 
similar constituents in terms of treatability. Personnel at these sites 
also indicated that they see no significant difference in the types of 
cargos transported in IBCs or tank trucks. EPA believes that all drum 
reconditioning facilities that clean IBCs also treat IBC and drum 
washwater in the same wastewater treatment system.
    Based on the increase in IBC cleaning and on the heel generation 
rate from IBCs, EPA no longer believes that wastewater generated from 
IBC cleanings represents an insignificant amount of pollutant loadings.
    The Association of Container Reconditioners argued that IBCs should 
be considered industrial packaging units and should be regulated 
similarly to drums because IBCs are closer in nature

[[Page 38868]]

to drums than to tank trucks. The commenter argued that IBCs (typically 
275 gallons) are closer in volume to drums (55 gallons) than tank 
trucks (typically 3,000 gallons), and that IBCs are replacing drums, 
not tank trucks, in the industry because of their increased efficiency 
and ability to be re-used. The commenter further stated that this 
designation is consistent with policies developed by the Department of 
Transportation, which includes IBCs with drums as industrial packaging 
units.
    EPA agrees that IBCs are more similar to drums than transportation 
equipment, and continues to believe that wastewater generated from IBC 
cleaning is outside the scope of this guideline. However, EPA does 
agree with commenters that IBC wastewater may represent more loadings 
than was originally considered at proposal. Due to this, EPA is 
conducting a preliminary evaluation of the industrial repackaging 
industry, which includes cleaning drums and IBCs, to determine if this 
industry merits development of national categorical wastewater 
regulation at a later date. Wastewater generated from IBC cleaning will 
remain subject to limitations and standards established on a case by 
case basis using best professional judgement by the permitting 
authority.
    One issue that was raised in comments by the National Tank Truck 
Carriers Association (NTTC) as a result of EPA proposing to exclude 
IBCs was the issue of market competition. NTTC argues that tank truck 
cleaners would suffer a competitive disadvantage from the IBC cleaning 
business if tank trucks were required to comply with the regulation but 
IBCs were not covered by the regulation. The commenter argued that a 
tank truck facility would be subject to effluent guidelines and that 
IBC wastewater generated at the facility would therefore also be 
subject to the guidelines, thereby increasing the cost of IBC cleaning 
at tank truck facilities as compared to the cost at drum reconditioning 
facilities. EPA agrees that most tank truck facilities commingle 
wastewater generated from IBC and tank cleaning for treatment, and that 
IBC wastewater would therefore be subjected to guidelines established 
for the TEC industry. NTTC further argues that a facility not subject 
to the TEC guideline, such as a drum reconditioning facility, is not 
subject to national effluent guidelines and therefore may not incur a 
similar cost increase for IBC cleaning. EPA realizes that, even if the 
Agency decides to establish effluent limitations, guidelines and 
standards for the container reconditioning industry, there may be an 
interim period where wastewater from IBC cleaning at tank truck 
facilities may incur additional costs while wastewater from IBC 
cleaning at drum reconditioning facilities would not incur this cost. 
This may have an impact on the market for IBC cleaning if the costs are 
significant.
    EPA conducted a market analysis based on the TEC cost model, data 
submitted in comments, and data gathered by EPA since the proposal. The 
complete analysis can be found in section 20 of the regulatory record 
in support of this document. EPA does not have sufficient data to 
compare the number of IBC cleanings conducted by TEC affected tank 
truck facilities to the number of IBC cleanings conducted at facilities 
unaffected by the guideline. Therefore, EPA relied on an analysis of 
the incremental compliance cost of IBC cleaning that would result from 
this rule, and compared that to the potential market effects that this 
increase would have on TEC facilities.
    In order to determine the incremental cost per gallon of wastewater 
treated as a result of the TEC regulation, EPA divided the facility-
specific annualized compliance costs by the facility's annual baseline 
wastewater flow. The incremental cost for IBC cleaning was determined 
by assuming that 100 gallons of wastewater generated per IBC cleaning 
would be treated at the facility's treatment system. EPA estimated 100 
gallons per cleaning based on facility site visits, comments received 
on the proposal, and the 308 Detailed Questionnaire. The incremental 
costs are a result of the additional operation and maintenance costs 
associated with this wastewater flow. This is consistent with an 
assumption that the primary business of TEC facilities is cleaning tank 
trucks, and that capital equipment for wastewater pollutant control is 
installed for, and effluent monitoring is performed for, tank truck 
cleaning. Based on this analysis, EPA estimates that the average cost 
increase incurred by tank truck facilities to clean an IBC as a result 
of this regulation would be $0.38 per IBC. This represents a cost 
increase of less than 1% for IBC cleaning at TEC facilities, assuming 
an average cost per cleaning of $65 to $100.
    For a sensitivity analysis, EPA also looked at the total post-tax 
annualized compliance costs (including annualized capital and 
monitoring costs in addition to operating and maintenance costs) to 
determine an upper bound estimate of incremental IBC cleaning costs. 
For this analysis, EPA found that the full compliance costs of 
installing capital equipment and monitoring requirements to treat IBC 
wastewater would increase by a maximum of $1.10 per cleaning, 
representing less than 2% cost increase for the most conservative 
assumption.
    Based on this analysis, EPA believes that the cost increase to 
clean IBCs will not have a significant impact on the competitive 
ability of tank truck carriers to compete for the IBC cleaning market.
    EPA solicits comment on the assumptions, methodology, and 
conclusions of the market analysis conducted by EPA on the effect of 
not including IBCs within the scope of the TEC regulation. EPA solicits 
any information on the price of IBC cleaning, the volume of wastewater 
generated from IBCs, the economic importance of IBC cleaning to 
affected facilities, and the relative market shares of different types 
of facilities engaged in IBC cleaning.

B. Overlap With Other Guidelines

    EPA has received numerous comments from industrial facilities that 
are concerned that they may be affected by the TEC guideline. In the 
proposal, EPA noted that there may be instances when the TEC guideline 
may overlap with other categorical effluent guidelines.
    In the proposal, EPA explained that it does not intend to cover 
manufacturing facilities which clean their own transportation equipment 
and treat the wastewater in their treatment system. EPA has outlined 
its rationale for the exclusion of manufacturing facilities in the 
proposal. This rationale includes: (1) That wastewater generated from 
tank cleaning operations at manufacturing facilities is typically a 
very small percentage of the total flow, (2) that tank cleaning 
wastewater is typically included in the coverage of the applicable 
categorical standard, and (3) that the characteristics of the tank 
cleaning wastewater are similar in treatability to the wastewater 
generated at the rest of the facility.
    EPA has proposed to define the exclusion for manufacturing 
facilities by excluding those facilities covered, or proposed to be 
covered, under other Clean Water Act categorical standards. This has 
excluded most manufacturing facilities in operation, including 
facilities covered under Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414); Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) 
(proposed 40 CFR part 437, 60 FR 5464, January 27,1995; supplemental 
proposal 64 FR 8, January 13, 1999); Dairy Products Processing Point 
Source Category (40 CFR part 405); Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 
Point Source Category

[[Page 38869]]

(40 CFR part 415); and Petroleum Refining Point Source Category (40 CFR 
part 415).
    Based on the data collected in preliminary studies for certain 
industries (e.g., Chemical Formulators, Packagers, and Repackagers, 
Paint Formulators), EPA determined that development of effluent 
guidelines was not necessary. TEC wastewaters generated by these 
facilities in these industries are excluded from the applicability of 
this rule.
    In addition, EPA further qualified the exclusion by stating that 
the exclusion applies only to facilities which clean ``tanks containing 
cargos or commodities generated or used on-site, or by a facility under 
the same corporate structure.'' EPA used this qualifier to ensure that 
a manufacturing facility does not become a commercial TEC operation 
without being subject to this rulemaking, and that the excluded 
facility only cleans those cargos which are compatible with the 
existing wastewater treatment system.
    Based on comments received on the proposed rule, EPA believes that 
it should consider making the exclusion somewhat broader in order to 
encompass TEC activities which fall within EPA's rationale for 
exclusion, yet which may fall outside the definition of ``on-site'' or 
``same corporate structure.'' Commenters have identified several areas 
which EPA intends to address in this exclusion: product stewardship 
activities, tolling or contract manufacturing operations, and 
manufacturing agreements that are part of divestitures, partnerships, 
or joint-ventures.
    Several commenters to the proposed rule indicated that product 
stewardship activities are intended to promote recycling and reuse of 
products, and to reduce the environmental impact of chemical products. 
Product stewardship activities may include taking back: spent, used, or 
unused products; containers (i.e., those used for shipping) with 
product residues; off-specification products; and waste materials from 
use of products. Where possible, these materials are recovered and 
reused in chemical processes at the manufacturing plants. Returned 
materials that are not reusable, or residues that remain after reuse, 
are usually treated or disposed in the existing on-site wastewater 
treatment system, incinerator, or placed in an appropriately regulated 
landfill.
    Tolling or contract manufacturing operations are described by 
commenters as an arrangement used in the chemical industry to enable a 
company to contract with a second company (i.e., a ``toller'') to 
engage in specified production activities on behalf of the first 
company. Toll manufacturers often perform one step in a customer's 
multi-step process, such as production of an intermediate, and are 
often an integral part of the supply chain for the customer's final 
product. Raw materials used by toll manufacturers are often provided by 
the primary manufacturer and the toller returns the intermediate along 
with any by-products and waste materials.
    Commenters also provided input on manufacturing agreements that are 
part of divestitures, partnerships, or joint-ventures. Commenters felt 
that manufacturing complexes that have individual operating units or 
have created joint venture partnerships under separate legal ownership 
should still be considered ``on-site'' for the purposes of the TEC 
rulemaking, provided: The facilities continue to manufacture the same 
products and generate the same wastewater destined for the same on-site 
treatment system, including TEC wastewater. Any infrastructure 
operations such as waste treatment and TEC operations continue to be 
provided to the new company per an agreement established at the time of 
divestiture or formation of the joint venture partnership.
    In each of these cases, commenters believe that the wastewaters 
generated from performing TEC activities is very similar to that 
generated by the primary manufacturing facility. If TEC wastewaters are 
returned to the primary manufacturing facility, or TEC wastewaters are 
generated from cleaning tanks containing materials returned to the 
primary manufacturer, these facilities should be considered under the 
control of the primary manufacturer and excluded from the TEC 
regulation.
    EPA believes that these activities satisfy the proposed exclusion 
rationale because: (1) TEC wastewater comprises a very small percentage 
of flow, (2) TEC wastewater is typically included in the coverage of 
the applicable categorical standard, and (3) TEC wastewater 
characteristics are similar in treatability to wastewater generated by 
other facility operations. Therefore, EPA will consider excluding TEC 
wastewater generated at manufacturing facilities which have resulted 
from product stewardship activities, tolling or contract manufacturing 
operations, and manufacturing agreements that are part of divestitures, 
partnerships, or joint-ventures.
    However, EPA is rejecting the comment that all manufacturing 
facilities simply be excluded from the TEC guideline. EPA does not 
believe that a manufacturing facility which accepts off site cargos for 
cleaning should be excluded because the wastewater generated from these 
cargos may not be compatible with the treatment system in place and may 
not be compatible with the existing discharge limitations established 
for that facility. Additionally, this blanket exclusion could allow a 
manufacturing facility to become a for-profit tank cleaner without 
comparable environmental controls.
    Although EPA is not providing a blanket exclusion for manufacturing 
facilities, EPA will consider a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons 
per year for TEC wastewaters as discussed in section V. EPA believes 
the exclusion would provide some flexibility to manufacturing 
facilities which clean small numbers of tanks which may not fit into 
the strict definition given for the exclusion of tank cleaning 
operations at manufacturing facilities.
    EPA is considering the following language to exclude these 
manufacturing facilities: ``The final TEC limitations do not apply to 
wastewaters associated with tank cleanings operated in conjunction with 
other industrial or commercial operations so long as the facility only 
cleans tanks that have contained raw materials, by-products and 
finished products that are associated with the facility's on-site 
processes.'' On-site means the contiguous and non-contiguous property 
within the established boundary of a facility.
    With regard to the overlap with the Metal Products and Machinery 
(MP&M) guideline, EPA has also received numerous comments, many of them 
asking the Agency to more clearly distinguish an MP&M facility from a 
TEC facility.
    In the proposal, EPA stated that facilities which are predominately 
engaged in MP&M operations and clean barges, railcars, or tank trucks 
as part of those activities are proposed to be regulated by the MP&M 
guideline and are excluded from this guideline. EPA has received 
numerous comments asking EPA to more clearly define what is meant by 
``predominantly engaged.''
    One commenter suggested that EPA use flow as a basis for the 
determination; facilities should be covered under the guideline that 
generates the largest flow volume. Although this would be a relatively 
straightforward definition, EPA does not believe that flow volume 
represents the best method for determining TEC or MP&M applicability. 
EPA believes that the activities performed at the site (both tank 
cleaning and maintenance and repair), and the objective of those

[[Page 38870]]

activities, have a more significant impact on the total final effluent 
loads and wastewater characteristics than the actual flow volume 
generated.
    However, EPA does agree with commenters that the Agency needs to 
further clarify when a facility is to be subject to the TEC guidelines 
or the MP&M guidelines. Therefore, EPA has attempted to further define 
wastewaters subject to the TEC guideline, according to the following:
    Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for the purposes 
of maintenance and repair on the tank is considered MP&M process 
wastewater and is subject to the MP&M guideline. Facilities which clean 
tank interiors solely for the purposes of repair and maintenance would 
be solely regulated under the MP&M guideline.
    Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for purposes of 
shipping products (i.e., cleaned for purposes other than maintenance 
and repair) is considered TEC process wastewater and is subject to the 
TEC guideline. If EPA promulgates a 100,000 gallons per year low flow 
exclusion, only facilities which discharge more than 100,000 gallons 
per year of TEC process wastewater would be subject to the TEC 
guideline.
    It is possible that a facility may be subject to both the TEC 
regulations and the MP&M regulations. If a facility generates 
wastewater from MP&M activities which are subject to the MP&M guideline 
and also discharges wastewater from cleaning tanks for purposes other 
than repair and maintenance of those tanks, then that facility may be 
subject to both guidelines.
    At the time of proposal, EPA included all facilities which would 
potentially be covered by the MP&M guideline in the analysis of costs 
and impacts due to the uncertainty of the classification of these 
facilities. Based on the new definition, which EPA believes more 
clearly defines an MP&M facility, EPA has collected additional data on 
those facilities which indicated in the 308 survey that they perform a 
predominant amount of MP&M activities. Based on this data, EPA 
determined that several facilities proposed to be covered by the TEC 
rule would now not be affected by the TEC rule. These facilities have 
been excluded from EPA's analyses, the results of which are described 
in section IX of this document.
    EPA solicits comment on the revised applicability language of the 
rule, including the definition ``MP&M generated wastewaters.''

VIII. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation

    In the proposal, EPA solicited, and has received, numerous comments 
from stakeholders on the pollutants selected for regulation in each 
subcategory. EPA is considering several changes based on the comments 
received. The tables in section X present limitations and standards for 
the revised set of pollutants EPA will consider for regulation. EPA 
solicits comment on the list of analytes being considered for 
regulation in all subcategories.

A. Oil and Grease and Non-Polar Material as Indicator Parameters

    EPA has revised the name of ``total petroleum hydrocarbons'' in 
Method 1664 to ``non-polar material'' to indicate that the new test 
method is different from previous versions. (64 FR 26315, May 14, 
1999). Non-polar materials are measured by Silica-gel Treated n-Hexane 
Extractable Material (SGT-HEM). Oil and Grease continues to be 
synonymous with the Method 1664 for n-Hexane Extractable Material 
(HEM).
    EPA received numerous comments from POTWs, industry trade 
associations, and affected facilities suggesting that EPA use oil and 
grease (measured as HEM) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (now referred 
to as ``non-polar materials'' measured as SGT-HEM) as indicator 
pollutants for straight chain hydrocarbons proposed for regulation. In 
the proposal, EPA proposed to regulate HEM for direct discharging 
facilities, and SGT-HEM for indirect discharging facilities. As 
discussed in section XIII.G of the proposal, EPA recognizes the 
distinction between edible oils (such as animal fats and vegetable 
oils) included in the HEM analysis, and petroleum based oils as 
measured by the SGT-HEM analysis. As discussed in section VIII.B of 
this document, EPA has deemed SGT-HEM to pass through a POTW due to the 
prevalence of petroleum based compounds.
    Many commenters argued that straight chain hydrocarbons are 
components of HEM and SGT-HEM, and that their regulation would be 
redundant and would impose additional, unnecessary costs on the 
industry. EPA agrees with the commenters that HEM and SGT-HEM are good 
indicator parameters for a number of pollutants proposed for 
regulation. EPA believes that the following pollutants would be 
adequately controlled through the regulation of HEM and SGT-HEM: n-
Hexadecane, n-Tetradecane, n-Decane, n-Docosane, n-Dodecane, n-
Eicosane, n-Octadecane, n-Tetracosane, and n-Tetradecane. EPA has 
primarily made this determination based on the similar chemical 
structure of these parameters which indicate that they will behave 
similarly in a treatment system. EPA believes that HEM and SGT-HEM are 
the best indicators for demonstrating treatment effectiveness for this 
range of pollutants with similar chemical characteristics.
    EPA has reviewed the treatment effectiveness data collected in 
support of this regulation, and has found that the treatment 
effectiveness of these parameters is strongly correlated to the 
treatment effectiveness of HEM and SGT-HEM. In cases where HEM and SGT-
HEM were effectively controlled, all of the previously discussed 
pollutants were treated to very low levels, often at the detection 
limit. For example, PSES/PSNS Option II in the Rail/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory, consisting of oil/water separation and dissolved 
air flotation. This system achieved a 98% removal for HEM and 97% 
removal for SGT-HEM. Treatment effectiveness for the straight chain 
hydrocarbons listed above averaged 98% across the same system and were 
all treated to non-detect levels. Treatment effectiveness in the Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory demonstrated similar results.
    Additionally, EPA reviewed data collected for the Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial 
Laundries Point Source Category (62 FR 242, December 17, 1997, proposed 
40 CFR part 441), which conducted a characterization study of the HEM 
and SGT-HEM test methods. This study was performed to determine what 
individual constituents are measured by the analytical methods, and is 
available for review in section 16 of the regulatory record for the 
Industrial Laundries Effluent Guideline. This data demonstrates that 
the previously mentioned pollutants were found to be measured by the 
HEM and SGT-HEM test methods, thus supporting EPA's conclusion that HEM 
and SGT-HEM are good indicators of these pollutants.

B. Pass Through of SGT-HEM

    EPA received one comment which disagreed with the Agency's pass 
through conclusion for SGT-HEM. The commenter stated that SGT-HEM is 
adequately treated by POTWs or does not pass through and thus should 
not be regulated.
    In the proposal, EPA did not have actual data for removals of SGT-
HEM in a POTW. Instead, EPA relied on the methodology developed in the 
Industrial Laundries proposal, which

[[Page 38871]]

calculated a removal rate based on SGT-HEM constituents. One commenter, 
the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, disagreed with 
this approach and submitted five days of influent and effluent SGT-HEM 
using Method 1664. This information was also submitted and evaluated 
for the Proposed Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and Standards for 
the Industrial Laundries Point Source Category (62 FR 242, December 17, 
1997).
    Of the five days of data, only three of the days contained usable 
paired data for calculating SGT-HEM removals. Two of the five days of 
data could not be used because one day had an effluent value greater 
than the influent value, and the other day did not have a reported 
influent concentration. A limitation of the three remaining paired data 
sets that were used to calculate the percent removal for SGT-HEM was 
that the sets did not result in a precise estimate, but only a lower 
bound estimate. Because the effluent concentrations were below the 
method detection level, a percent removal could only be calculated as 
``greater than'' some value. The greater than values ranged from 37.5 
percent to 73.7 percent. For the purpose of this document, EPA used the 
daily data with the highest influent concentration, resulting in a 
percent removal estimate of 74 percent for the revised pass-through 
evaluation.
    The percent removal for SGT-HEM using one day of data from LA 
County (the day with the highest influent concentration) is 74 percent, 
compared to 65 percent POTW removal used in the proposed rule. This 
value is still significantly lower than the 99% removal achieved by 
preferred BPT treatment technologies evaluated in the Rail/Chemical & 
Petroleum and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.
    EPA believes SGT-HEM has been demonstrated to pass through, and 
that SGT-HEM is a good indicator parameter for a number of toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants as discussed in section VIII.B. In addition, 
the use of a relatively inexpensive monitoring method for SGT-HEM 
justifies regulating SGT-HEM rather than individually regulating the 
host of pollutants controlled by such a limitation.
    Additionally, several commenters from industry as well as POTW 
representatives have requested that EPA use oil and grease and SGT-HEM 
as indicator parameters for a number of other pollutants. As discussed 
above, EPA has reviewed the data from sampling episodes, and believes 
that the data clearly demonstrates a correlation between oil and grease 
and the pollutants listed in section VIII.B. Therefore, EPA believes 
that SGT-HEM does pass through a POTW, and furthermore that HEM and 
SGT-HEM can be used as effective indicator parameters.

IX. Technology Options

    In the proposal, EPA considered establishing 11 sets of effluent 
limitations, pretreatment standards or new source performance standards 
for six subcategories. EPA received many comments suggesting that EPA 
simplify the proposal in order to ease the implementation burden of the 
rule. In this document, EPA has described several regulatory 
alternatives, including the use of concentration-based limits, a low 
flow exclusion, combining the chemical and petroleum subcategories and 
combining the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food Subcategories, 
which EPA believes will simplify the TEC rule. EPA has also considered 
the effects of clarification of scope in evaluating costs and loadings 
and in evaluating the proposed technology options.

A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

    As mentioned previously, EPA will consider combining the proposed 
Truck/Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA will also 
consider a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per year. The results 
presented in this section reflect these potential changes.
    EPA is re-evaluating the proposed options in this subcategory in 
response to comments received on the proposal. The major changes that 
have affected this analysis include revising the list of pollutants 
effectively removed and adjusting the cost model. Revisions to the cost 
model were made based on comments received and based on a thorough 
review of the model by EPA. The complete list of revisions to the cost 
model can be found in section 19.1 of the regulatory record. In 
summary, EPA increased several cost factors, increased capital and 
annual costs for activated carbon, increased the size (and associated 
costs) of equalization tanks, corrected several cost model inaccuracies 
identified in the proposal rulemaking record, revised the methodology 
to credit treatment in place, and removed flow reduction for some 
facilities. EPA also significantly reduced the monitoring costs 
associated with compliance due to the selection of indicator parameters 
(further discussed in section VIII.B) to replace specific pollutants 
proposed for regulation, and use of less expensive analytical methods.
1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    In the proposal, EPA evaluated the following treatment options:

Option I: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical 
Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological 
Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical 
Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological 
Treatment, Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

    EPA proposed to establish BPT limits based on Option II, and to 
establish BCT, BAT, and NSPS equivalent to BPT. In the proposal, EPA 
stated that all model facilities have equalization, coagulation/
clarification, biological treatment, and activated carbon in place. Two 
of the three facilities in the cost model have sufficient treatment in 
place and only costs for additional monitoring are attributed to these 
facilities. The third facility was costed for flow reduction, sludge 
dewatering, and monitoring. Flow reduction and sludge dewatering 
generates net cost savings for the facility's entire treatment train. 
In addition, these net cost savings are larger than the monitoring 
costs incurred by the other two facilities.
    EPA is not considering any changes to the option selected for this 
subcategory. The revised concentration-based limits for Option II are 
presented in section X of this document.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    In the proposal, EPA evaluated two treatment options, consisting 
of:

Option I: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical 
Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, and Sludge 
Dewatering.
Option II: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical 
Oxidation, Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Activated Carbon 
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

    In response to comment, EPA is presenting the following additional 
option in this notice:

Option A: Flow Reduction, Equalization, Oil/Water Separation.

    Option A was determined to have a post tax annualized cost of $5.5 
million ($8.6 million pre-tax) for 286 affected facilities. Option I 
cost $9.1 million

[[Page 38872]]

($14.3 million pre-tax) and Option II cost $19.9 million ($31.2 million 
pre-tax) annualized.
    EPA projects that there will be no adverse economic impacts for any 
option when a positive cost pass through assumption is made. However, 
EPA has also looked at the conservative assumption of no cost pass 
through, which resulted in seven closures at Option II and no closures 
at Option I.
    Option A is projected to remove 1,700 toxic pound-equivalents, 
while Option I removes 26,000 and Option II removes 42,000 toxic pound-
equivalents.
    EPA does not believe that the lower cost Option A demonstrated 
significant removals of toxics to justify its selection as a regulatory 
option. Option A was considerably less cost effective than Option I. 
Additionally, EPA received comments from pretreatment authorities, 
including the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), 
which argued that oil/water separation alone is not effective for 
achieving concentration standards for the pollutants which may be 
discharged by tank cleaning operations.
    Option II was not demonstrated to achieve significant reductions 
incremental to Option I for any pollutant proposed for regulation. The 
majority of the additional pound-equivalent removals achieved at Option 
II were due to the removal of a pesticide not proposed for regulation 
and not contributing to the monetized benefits. EPA estimates that 
implementation of Option I will result in monetized benefits of $2.7 
million to $9.4 million (1994 dollars) annually. EPA estimates that 
Option II will not result in any significant additional benefits 
incremental to Option I.
    EPA proposed to establish PSES and PSNS on Option II. Due to the 
high costs and potential economic impacts associated with Option II, 
and due to the significant removals of regulated parameters achieved by 
Option I, EPA will consider establishing PSES and PSNS based on Option 
I.
    The pretreatment standards that would result based on Option I 
technology are presented in section X of this document. EPA solicits 
comment on the revised costs, benefits, and economic impacts associated 
with these options.

B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

    As mentioned previously, EPA will consider combining the proposed 
Rail/Chemical and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. EPA will also consider 
a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per year. The results presented 
in this section reflect these potential changes.
    EPA is re-evaluating the proposed options in this subcategory in 
response to comments received on the proposal. The major changes that 
have affected this analysis include revising the list of pollutants 
effectively removed and adjusting the cost model. Revisions to the cost 
model were made based on comments received and based on a thorough 
review of the model by EPA. The complete list of revisions to the cost 
model can be found in section 19.1 of the regulatory record. In 
summary, EPA increased several cost factors, corrected several cost 
model inaccuracies identified in the proposal rulemaking record, 
revised the methodology to credit treatment in place, and removed flow 
reduction for some facilities. EPA also significantly reduced the 
monitoring costs associated with compliance due to the selection of 
indicator parameters (further discussed in section VIII.B) to replace 
specific pollutants proposed for regulation, and use of less expensive 
analytical methods.
1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    In the proposal, EPA evaluated three treatment options, consisting 
of:

Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, 
Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, 
Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), 
Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering.
Option III: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, 
Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), 
Biological Treatment, Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and 
Sludge Dewatering.

    EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT and 
BAT equivalent to BPT. EPA proposed to establish Option III for NSPS.
    As discussed in section VIII.B.1.c of the proposal, EPA evaluated 
the costs, loads, and impacts of one model direct discharging facility 
which currently has equalization, pH adjustment, biological treatment 
and a filter press in place. Because EPA is considering adopting 
concentration based standards, the model facility no longer incurs 
costs for flow reduction. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing 
Option I is for monitoring costs only, totaling approximately $7,000 
annually; and that Option II costs $57,000 annualized, and Option III 
costs $85,000 annualized.
    All parameters proposed for regulation, with the exception of oil 
and grease and N-Dodecane, were treated to the same level at Options I, 
II and III. As discussed in section VIII.B., EPA is no longer 
considering regulating N-Dodecane. For oil and grease, EPA would 
transfer effluent limitations from BPT biological treatment operated in 
the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory because EPA does not have 
treatment data for a biological system operated in the Rail/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory. Therefore, the effluent limitation established 
for oil and grease would be based on biological treatment which has 
been demonstrated to achieve significant removals. Effluent limitations 
for oil and grease based on Options II or III would not be 
significantly different than those established for Option I, and EPA 
therefore projects no additional benefits for Option III incremental to 
Option I.
    EPA believes that there are few additional pollutant removals to be 
achieved by establishing NSPS based on Option III. EPA will therefore 
consider establishing NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT at Option I.
    EPA solicits comment on establishing NSPS equivalent to BAT for the 
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The revised concentration-based 
limits for Option I are presented in section X of this document.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    In the proposal, EPA considered three options for PSES and PSNS:

Option I--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation.
Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, 
Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), and 
Sludge Dewatering.
Option III--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, 
Dissolved Air Flotation (with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Organo-
Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.

    EPA proposed Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS. As 
discussed in section VIII.B.5.d of the preamble, the economic impacts 
to the industry played a large role in EPA's selection of Option I for 
pretreatment standards. EPA noted that its preliminary conclusion was 
that the Rail/Chemical facilities would not be able to absorb the cost 
of installing Option II levels of treatment without incurring 
significant economic impacts.
    EPA received several comments on the pollutant control technologies

[[Page 38873]]

proposed for the Rail/Chemical Subcategory. EPA received comments from 
several entities, including AMSA, who argued that oil/water separation 
alone is not sufficient pretreatment for the pollutants in Rail/
Chemical Subcategory wastewaters. Additionally, many commenters have 
expressed concern about the discrepancy in treatment technology 
proposed for the rail and truck facilities. Several commenters have 
argued that the wastewater characteristics are similar for truck and 
rail facilities, and that the treatment options should therefore be 
similar for facilities which potentially compete with each other.
    In the proposal, EPA also noted this discrepancy, and noted that 
there were many similarities between the truck and rail subcategory 
wastewaters, and that the most significant reason for proposing 
dissimilar technology options in the truck and rail subcategories was 
due to economic considerations. EPA's analysis showed that several rail 
facilities were unable to incur the costs of a more stringent 
regulatory option without sustaining significant economic impacts. 
However, many of the rail facilities included in this analysis will 
qualify for the low flow exclusion for TEC wastewater. Many of these 
facilities which discharge low volumes of TEC wastewater would not be 
affected by the TEC rule if EPA adopts a low flow exclusion. EPA has 
therefore removed these facilities from its analysis, which has in turn 
affected the total costs, loads, and economic impacts of the technology 
options.
    EPA estimates that Option I will have an annualized cost of $0.54 
million ($0.82 million pre-tax), Option II will cost $0.93 million 
($1.4 million pre-tax), and Option III will cost $1.5 million ($2.3 
million pre-tax). EPA projects that Option I and Option II will result 
in annual benefits of $51,000 to $270,000.
    For Options I, II, and III, EPA anticipates no closures at even the 
most conservative assumption of no cost pass through, and anticipates 
no revenue or employment impacts when a positive cost pass-through is 
assumed for Options I or II. For the most conservative zero cost pass 
through assumption, EPA calculates that Option II would result in 18 
facilities experiencing revenue impacts of 1% and six facilities 
experiencing impacts of 3%. The less costly Option I would result in 15 
facilities experiencing revenue impacts of 1% and no facilities 
experiencing impacts of 3%. At both options, six of the facilities 
experiencing 1% revenue impacts are small businesses. Option III would 
result in 22 facilities experiencing revenue impacts of 1% and 20 
facilities experiencing impacts of 3%. At Option III, nine of the 
facilities experiencing 1% impacts and six of the facilities 
experiencing 3% impacts are small businesses.
    EPA also considers the cost effectiveness of each option. The 
preamble to the proposal describes EPA's cost effectiveness analysis in 
section X. EPA uses cost effectiveness to evaluate the relative 
efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants. Option I is 
projected to remove 6,500 pound-equivalents, Option II will remove 
7,100 pound-equivalents, and Option III will remove 7,600 pound-
equivalents. The average cost effectiveness of Option I is $83 (1981 
dollars) per pound-equivalent removed. The incremental cost 
effectiveness of moving from Option I to Option II is $533 per pound-
equivalent removed, and the incremental cost effectiveness of moving 
from Option II to Option III is $1,282 per pound-equivalent removed.
    EPA will consider establishing PSES and PSNS based on Option II. 
Option II achieves a significant reduction in toxic loadings and 
results in no facility closures. Furthermore, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to establish similar levels of control for the Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory, and will therefore consider establishing PSES and PSNS at 
Option II, which is analogous to Option I in the Truck/Chemical & 
Petroleum Subcategory.
    In addition, EPA notes that the total costs for Option II presented 
today are roughly equivalent to the costs estimated for Option I at 
proposal. This is primarily due to EPA reducing the burden of the 
regulation through reduced monitoring requirements and the 
consideration of a low flow exclusion.
    EPA notes that the cost of Option II presented in today's notice is 
nearly 70% higher than the costs for Option I presented today, and the 
corresponding increase in pound-equivalents removed is approximately 
10%. Option II is also associated with some additional economic impacts 
not incurred at Option I. Notwithstanding the reasons described above 
supporting Option II, EPA will also consider establishing PSES and PSNS 
based on Option I.
    EPA solicits comment on the revised costs, benefits, and economic 
impacts associated with this subcategory and on the appropriate 
technology basis for pretreatment standards for new and existing 
sources. The revised concentration-based limits for Option II are 
presented in section X of this document.

C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory

    EPA is re-evaluating the proposed options in this subcategory due 
to changes in the industry since proposal and due to comments received 
on the proposal. At the time of proposal, EPA noted that there was only 
one identified facility discharging to a POTW. Since the proposal, 
several model facilities that previously discharged to surface waters 
have begun discharging or plan to discharge wastewater to a POTW. EPA 
is also considering several changes in response to comment that include 
revising the list of pollutants effectively removed and adjusting the 
cost model. As discussed in section II of this notice, EPA has also 
collected data from two additional facilities operating BAT treatment. 
EPA has used this data, which represents each facilities performance 
over a one year period, to develop Long Term Averages (LTAs) and 
variability factors for BOD and TSS.
    Revisions to the cost model were made based on comments received 
and based on a thorough review of the model by EPA. Additionally, the 
cost model has been adjusted to reflect the changes in long term 
averages for BOD and TSS. The complete list of revisions to the cost 
model can be found in section 19.1 of the regulatory record. In 
summary, EPA increased several cost factors, corrected several cost 
model inaccuracies identified in the proposal rulemaking record, 
revised the methodology to credit treatment in place, and removed flow 
reduction. EPA also significantly reduced the monitoring costs 
associated with compliance due to the selection of indicator parameters 
(further discussed in section VIII.B) to replace specific pollutants 
proposed for regulation, and use of less expensive analytical methods.
    1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory
    The Agency's engineering assessment of BPT consisted of the 
following options:

Option I: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air 
Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air 
Flotation, Filter Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and 
Sludge Dewatering.

    EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT, BAT 
and NSPS equivalent to BPT. EPA estimates the revised annualized costs 
for Option I at $82,000 ($134,000 pre-tax) and

[[Page 38874]]

Option II at $316,000 ($494,000 pre-tax). The costs to the industry 
have decreased significantly for several reasons. One, EPA is no longer 
costing flow reduction as a required component of the regulation 
because EPA may not establish mass based limits. Two, several model 
facilities which did not employ biological treatment at proposal have 
switched discharge status; and three, EPA has reduced the monitoring 
burden of the rule due to the use of indicator parameters. EPA 
determined that neither Option will result in any closures, revenue, or 
employment losses.
    EPA estimates that both Option I and Option II removes 19,000 
pounds of BOD and TSS. Based on the treatment technologies in place at 
the model facilities, EPA believes at this time that the regulation 
will not result in significant incremental removals of toxic 
pollutants. EPA predicts that Option II would not result in any 
additional removal of toxic pounds because most pollutants are already 
treated to very low levels, often approaching or at non-detect levels, 
by the technology utilized by Option I. EPA therefore continues to 
believe that BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS should be based on Option I levels 
of control. The revised concentration-based limits for Option I are 
presented in section X of this document.
    2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
    The Agency's engineering assessment of PSNS consisted of the 
following options:

Option I--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air 
Flotation, and In-Line Filter Press.
Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air 
Flotation, In-Line Filter Press, Biological Treatment, and Sludge 
Dewatering.
Option III--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air 
Flotation, In-Line Filter Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, 
and Sludge Dewatering.

    EPA proposed Option II for PSNS. EPA did not propose PSES standards 
for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory because EPA identified 
only one facility discharging to a POTW. However, since the proposal, 
EPA has identified four facilities which previously discharged directly 
to surface waters and have since either switched or plan to switch 
discharge status. EPA now estimates that there are five facilities in 
EPA's model which discharge wastewater to a POTW.
    EPA evaluated the treatment in place and levels of control 
currently being achieved by the model indirect discharging Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum facilities. EPA was able to evaluate effluent 
discharge concentrations of BOD, TSS, and Oil & Grease from each of 
these model facilities. EPA did not have the data to evaluate the 
discharge concentrations of other parameters. Based on the discharge 
concentrations of these conventionals, EPA believes that all model 
indirect discharging facilities are meeting the levels of control that 
would be established under PSNS. Although EPA does not generally 
establish technology based pretreatment standards for conventionals, 
EPA believes that these parameters demonstrate a level of control 
similar to the systems being proposed for NSPS at Option II, and that 
the effluent concentrations of other pollutants of interest would also 
be controlled similarly.
    Therefore, EPA estimates that the cost of implementing PSES 
standards equivalent to PSNS would be solely for increased monitoring 
costs, totaling approximately $60,000 annually. EPA believes that all 
indirectly discharging facilities have sufficient treatment in place to 
prevent pass through or interference and are predicted to be meeting 
standards that would be established under PSES. EPA predicts that there 
would be no incremental removals or benefits associated with 
establishing PSES standards. EPA therefore believes that it will 
continue to establish PSNS standards based on Option II, and that it 
will continue not to establish PSES standards.
    EPA solicits comment on the conclusion that all indirect 
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities have treatment in 
place sufficient to prevent pass through or interference at a POTW.

D. Food Subcategory

    EPA proposed to establish separate subcategories for the Barge/
Food, Truck/Food, and Rail/Food subcategories due to the differences in 
water generated per cleaning by truck, rail, and barge facilities. The 
different volumes of wastewater were used to establish distinct mass-
based limits in each of the subcategories. However, EPA will consider 
establishing concentration-based instead of mass-based limits, and EPA 
will therefore consider establishing one set of concentration limits 
for all food grade facilities. EPA is continuing to consider Option II 
as BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS.
BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food 
Subcategories
    EPA considered the following BPT options for the food 
subcategories:

Option I--Flow Reduction and Oil/Water Separation.
Option II--Flow Reduction, Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, 
Biological Treatment and Sludge Dewatering.

    The revised costs, loads, economic impacts, cost reasonableness, 
and environmental benefits for BPT, BCT, and BAT have not changed 
significantly since the proposal, and EPA is therefore not considering 
any changes to the options selected for the food subcategories.
    The revised concentration-based limits for Option II are presented 
in section X of this document.

X. Presentation of Concentration-Based Limitations

    The following tables present the numerical standards that would be 
adopted based on the revisions described in this section and throughout 
this document. The data and methodology is located in section 21 of the 
regulatory record. The data and methodology is the same as proposed 
with several exceptions. One, EPA has calculated concentration instead 
of mass-based limits. Two, EPA has used data from two additional Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum facilities in the calculation of BOD and TSS 
limits, as discussed in section II of this document. Third, EPA has 
used the pollutant-specific variability factor where available, and 
then calculated fraction and group level variability factors by taking 
a median of all pollutants effectively removed in a chemical class, 
rather than using the median of only those pollutants selected for 
regulation in a chemical class. EPA believes this revised methodology 
is appropriate because the Agency believes that all pollutants in a 
chemical class will behave similarly, regardless of whether or not it 
is selected for regulation. EPA requests comment on this conclusion and 
on the revision to its methodology.
    Fourth, EPA has used technology transfer to establish PSES 
standards for SGT-HEM in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As 
in the proposal, EPA has continued to use technology transfer to 
establish BPT limits for conventional pollutants BOD, TSS, and oil and 
grease in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategories.
    EPA does not have sampling data from a facility operating BPT 
biological treatment in either the Truck/Chemical

[[Page 38875]]

& Petroleum or Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. Therefore, EPA 
will consider transferring effluent limitations for BOD, TSS, and oil 
and grease from a biological system in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory.
    EPA proposed pretreatment standards for SGT-HEM in the Truck/
Chemical Subcategory based on the data from two Truck/Chemical 
facilities. However, EPA feels that the SGT-HEM standards developed for 
this subcategory may not be achievable because the raw wastewater 
concentrations at these facilities were 65 mg/L and 61 mg/L, whereas 
the average raw wastewater concentration for this subcategory was 
measured to be 1,600 mg/L. EPA is aware that some facilities in the 
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may be generating wastewater 
with significantly higher concentrations of oil and grease than EPA 
considered in the proposed limitations. Therefore, EPA will consider 
transferring standards for SGT-HEM from similar treatment technologies 
operated in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As mentioned 
previously, this system consisted of oil water separation followed by 
DAF and achieved 98% removal of HEM for wastewater that had an influent 
concentration of 1,994 mg/L. EPA believes that technology transfer of 
SGT-HEM would establish limitations that would be achievable for all 
facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As discussed 
in section VIII, EPA will consider using HEM (for direct dischargers) 
and SGT-HEM (for indirect dischargers) as indicator pollutants for 
several other constituents in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory.
    The proposed mass-based standards were published in the Federal 
Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (63 FR 34685) and the associated 
concentration-based standards were presented in appendix E.1 through 
E.7 of the Statistical Support Document of Proposed Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment 
Cleaning Industry. Concentration based limits are again presented in 
the tables below for the purposes of review and comment. In sections XV 
and XVI of the proposal, EPA outlined its requirements for submission 
of additional monitoring data which may be used in support of this 
guideline. EPA will continue to analyze monitoring data, statistical 
methodologies, and pass-through analysis for regulated pollutants prior 
to the final promulgation of effluent limitations and pretreatment 
standards.

   Table 1-Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for
                                          Discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 61                 22
TSS.......................................................................                 58                 26
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 36                 16
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units
Chromium..................................................................              0.055                N/A
Copper....................................................................               0.14                N/A
Zinc......................................................................              0.037                N/A
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............................................              0.032                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 2--Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to
                                                      POTWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant property                          [mg/L]  Maximum for any one day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)...........................  26.
pH.....................................................  Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
Chromium...............................................  0.055.
Copper.................................................  0.143.
Zinc...................................................  0.037
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...........................  0.032.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 3--Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for
                                          discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 61                 22
TSS.......................................................................                 58                 26
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 36                 16
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units
Fluoranthene..............................................................              0.076                N/A
Phenanthrene..............................................................              0.341                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 38876]]


Table 4.--Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSES and PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to
                                                      POTWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant property                          [mg/L]  Maximum for any one day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)...........................  26.
pH.....................................................  Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
Fluoranthene...........................................  0.076.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for
                                          Discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 61                 22
TSS.......................................................................                 58                 26
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 36                 16
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units
Cadmium...................................................................              0.014                N/A
Chromium..................................................................               0.42                N/A
Copper....................................................................               0.10                N/A
Lead......................................................................               0.11                N/A
Nickel....................................................................               0.58                N/A
Zinc8.3...................................................................                N/A
1-Methylphenanthrene......................................................               0.11                N/A
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............................................              0.071                N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 6.--Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory: PSNS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to POTWs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Pollutant or pollutant property                          [mg/L]  Maximum for any one day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar Material (SGT-HEM)...........................  22.
pH.....................................................  Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0 pH units.
Cadmium................................................  0.014.
Chromium...............................................  0.42.
Copper.................................................  0.10.
Lead...................................................  0.11.
Nickel.................................................  0.58.
Zinc...................................................  8.3.
1-Methylphenanthrene...................................  0.11.
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...........................  0.071.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 7.--Food Subcategory: BPT, BCT and NSPS Concentration-Based Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           [mg/L]
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                      Pollutant or pollutant property                        Maximum for any
                                                                                 one day        Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................................................                 56                 24
TSS.......................................................................                225                 86
Oil and Grease (HEM)......................................................                 20                8.8
pH........................................................................   Shall be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0
                                                                                          pH units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Solicitation of Comments

    1. EPA solicits comment on setting concentration-based limitations. 
(Section III).
    2. EPA solicits comments on the alternative subcategorization 
approach that combines the chemical and petroleum subcategories for 
rail and truck cleaning facilities. (Section IV).
    3. EPA requests comment on the low flow exclusion from the TEC 
regulation of 100,000 gallons per year and on alternative low flow 
exclusions in the range of 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per year. 
(Section V).
    4. EPA solicits comment on the revised methodology for calculating 
pollutant removals. (Section VI).
    5. EPA solicits comment on the assumptions, methodology, and

[[Page 38877]]

conclusions of the market analysis conducted by EPA on the effect of 
not including IBCs within the scope of the TEC regulation. EPA solicits 
any information on the price of IBC cleaning, the volume of wastewater 
generated from IBCs, the economic importance of IBC cleaning to 
affected facilities, and the relative market shares of different types 
of facilities engaged in IBC cleaning. (Section VII.A).
    6. EPA solicits comment on the revised applicability language of 
the rule, including the definition ``MP&M generated wastewaters''. 
(Section VII.B).
    7. EPA solicits comment on the revised costs, benefits, and 
economic impacts associated with establishing PSES and PSNS at Option I 
for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.A.2).
    8. EPA solicits comment on establishing NSPS equivalent to BAT for 
the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. (Section IX.B.1).
    9. EPA solicits comment on establishing PSES and PSNS at Option II, 
or alternatively at Option I, for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum 
Subcategory. (Section IX.B.2).
    10. EPA solicits comment on the conclusion that all indirect 
discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities have treatment in 
place sufficient to prevent pass through or interference at a POTW. 
(Section IX.C.2).
    11. EPA solicits comment on using HEM and SGT-HEM as indicator 
parameters and on the pass-through of SGT-HEM. (Section VIII.B and 
VIII.C).
    12. EPA solicits comment on the list of analytes being considered 
for regulation in all subcategories. (Section VIII).

    Dated: July 12, 1999.
    J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 99-18478 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P