[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