[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4360-4385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2019]



[[Page 4360]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 444

[FRL-6503-6]
RIN 2040-AC23


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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This final rule represents the Agency's first effort to 
develop Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for wastewater discharges from the commercial hazardous waste 
combustor (CHWC) segment of the waste combustion industry. This rule 
generally applies to hazardous waste combustion facilities, except 
cement kilns, regulated as ``incinerators'' or ``boilers and industrial 
furnaces'' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
under certain conditions.
    This regulation limits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters of the United States and the introduction of pollutants into 
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) by existing and new stand-alone 
CHWCs that incinerate waste received from offsite.
    EPA estimates that compliance with this final regulation will 
reduce the discharge of pollutants by at least 170,000 pounds per year 
at an estimated annualized cost of $2 million. EPA predicts that the 
rule will improve water quality for both aquatic life and human health 
in five streams. EPA also projects that today's rule will reduce sewage 
sludge contamination associated with discharges from CHWC facilities at 
POTWs.

DATES:  This regulation shall become effective February 28, 2000. The 
incorporation by reference of test methods listed in Sec. 444.12 is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 28, 
2000. In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, for purposes of judicial review, 
this rule will be considered promulgated at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time on 
February 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  For additional technical information write to: Ms. Samantha 
Lewis, US EPA, (4303), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 or send E-
mail to: [email protected] or call at (202) 260-7149. For 
additional economic information contact Mr. William Anderson at the 
address above or send E-mail to: [email protected] or call at 
(202) 260-5131.
    The complete public record is available for review in the EPA Water 
Docket, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA has assigned the 
record for this rulemaking docket number W-97-08. The record includes 
supporting documentation, but does not include any information claimed 
as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is available for 
inspection from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. For access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to 
schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For additional technical information 
contact Ms. Samantha Lewis at (202) 260-7149. For additional economic 
information contact Mr. William Anderson at (202) 260-5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................  Incinerators that discharge directly to or
                               indirectly through publicly owned
                               treatment works to waters of the U.S. and
                               that burn RCRA hazardous wastes received
                               from off-site for a fee or other
                               remuneration (regulated under RCRA, 40
                               CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265,
                               subpart O (i.e. rotary kiln incinerators,
                               liquid injection incinerators)). Boilers
                               and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that
                               discharge directly to or indirectly
                               through publicly owned treatment works to
                               waters of the U.S. and that burn RCRA
                               hazardous wastes received from off-site
                               for a fee or other remuneration
                               (regulated under RCRA, 40 CFR part 266,
                               subpart H (i.e. boilers, industrial
                               furnaces)).
Federal Govt................  Incinerators that discharge directly to or
                               indirectly through publicly owned
                               treatment works to waters of the U.S. and
                               that burn RCRA hazardous wastes received
                               from off-site for a fee or other
                               remuneration (regulated under RCRA, 40
                               CFR part 264, subpart O or part 265,
                               subpart O (i.e. rotary kiln incinerators,
                               liquid injection incinerators)). Boilers
                               and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that
                               discharge directly to or indirectly
                               through publicly owned treatment works to
                               waters of the U.S. and that burn RCRA
                               hazardous wastes received from off-site
                               for a fee or other remuneration
                               (regulated under RCRA, 40 CFR part 266,
                               Subpart H (i.e. boilers, industrial
                               furnaces)).\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA identified no Federal agencies that operate commercial hazardous
  combustion facilities subject to this regulation. However, Federal
  agencies that burn RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a
  fee or other remuneration would be covered by the final regulation.

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of 
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine 
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 444.10 of the final rule and 
the definitions in Sec. 444.11 of the final rule. If you have questions 
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 
consult one of the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Compliance Dates

    Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on 
the best practicable technology currently available, the best 
conventional pollutant control technology, and the best available 
technology economically achievable as soon as their National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permit includes such limitations. 
Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's regulations must 
comply with the pretreatment standards for existing sources no later 
than January 27, 2003. New direct and indirect discharging sources must 
comply with applicable limitations and standards on the date the new 
sources begin operations.

Supporting Documentation

    The final regulations are supported by several major documents:
    1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-R-
99-020). This Technical Development Document (TDD) presents the 
technical information that formed the basis for EPA's decisions 
concerning the final

[[Page 4361]]

rule. In it, EPA describes, among other things, the data collection 
activities following the proposal, the wastewater treatment technology 
options considered, what pollutants are found in CHWC wastewater and 
the estimation of costs to the industry to comply with final 
limitations and standards.
    2. ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-99-
008).
    3. ``Statistical Support Document for Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors'' 
(EPA 821-B-99-010).
    4. ``Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors'' 
(EPA 821-B-99-009).
How to Obtain Supporting Documents
    The Technical Development Document and Economic Analysis will be 
posted on the Internet, at www.EPA.gov/OST/guide. The documents are 
also available from the Office of Water Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 
for the voice mail publication request.

Organization of This Document

Legal Authority

I. Statutory Background for Effluent Regulations
    A. Overview of the Clean Water Act
    B. Statutory Requirements of Regulation
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT)--Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA
    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec. 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 
307(b) of the CWA
    6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of 
the CWA
    C. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements
II. Background of the Industry and Prior Regulations
    A. Updated Profile of the Industry
    B. Proposed Rule
    1. Proposal
    2. Notice of Data Availability
    C. Related Regulations--Hazardous Waste Combustion Regulation 
Promulgated September 30, 1999
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. EPA Limited the Scope of the Final Guidelines to Waste 
Combustors that Burn Hazardous Waste
    B. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to Hazardous Waste 
Combustors Exempt from RCRA
    C. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to the Burning of Waste 
that Is Received From Off Site for No Fee or Other Remuneration
    D. EPA Has Excluded Cement Kilns From the Scope of the 
Guidelines
    E. EPA Used Additional Data to Calculate the Final Limitations 
and Standards
    F. Change in Technology Basis of Limitations and Standards Due 
to Expanded Data Set
    G. Change in Regulation Name
    H. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
IV. The Final Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Regulation
    A. Scope of the Final Rule
    B. BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES
    C. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    D. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
V. Costs and Impacts for the Final Commercial Hazardous Waste 
Combustor Regulations
    A. Contents of Economic Analysis
    B. Summary of Results
    1. Overview of Methodology
    2. Summary of Costs
    3. Summary of Economic Impacts for Existing Dischargers
    4. Cost Reasonableness of Final BPT Option
    5. Economic Impacts of New Sources
    6. Firm-Level Impacts
    7. Community Impacts
    8. Foreign Trade Impacts
VI. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits
    A. Characterization of Pollutants
    B. Facilities Modeled
    C. POTWs
VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Waste Treatment Residuals
    C. Energy Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    2. Water Quality Variances
    3. Permit Modifications
    4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and 
Monitoring Requirements
    D. Analytical Methods
IX. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
X. Summary of Public Participation
    A. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses
    B. Summary of Notice of Availability Comments and Responses
Appendix 1--Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

Legal Authority

    EPA is promulgating these regulations under the authority of 
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1361.

I. Statutory Background for Effluent Regulations

A. Overview of the Clean Water Act

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters.'' Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To achieve this 
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable 
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act 
attacks the problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. 
Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the 
types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, 
commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations and new 
source performance standards. These limitations and standards are 
established by regulation for categories of industrial dischargers and 
are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various 
levels of pollution control technology. Permits authorizing discharges 
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System must 
require compliance with these limitations and standards (CWA sections 
301(b), 304(b), 306, 307(b)-(d), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b), 1314(b), 1316, and 
1317(b)-(d)). In the absence of national effluent limitations and new 
source performance standards, EPA must establish ``best professional 
judgement'' limitations and standards on a case-by-case basis before it 
may issue an NPDES discharge permit.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that 
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be 
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires 
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards (for new 
and existing sources) which restrict pollutant discharges for those who

[[Page 4362]]

discharge wastewater indirectly though sewers flowing to publicly-owned 
treatment works (POTWs) (section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and 
(c)). National pretreatment standards are established for those 
pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass 
through or interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment 
standards are designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and 
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of 
treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local treatment 
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy 
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).

B. Statutory Requirements of Regulation

    The CWA requires EPA to establish effluent limitations guidelines, 
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources, and new source 
performance standards.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
    In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines the BPT 
effluent limitations for conventional, priority, and non-conventional 
pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA 
first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation 
to the effluent reductions obtained. The Agency also considers the age 
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any 
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control 
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy 
requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate 
(CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent 
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities 
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common 
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, 
however, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in 
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the 
technology can be practicably applied.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA require EPA to identify effluent 
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT 
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources beyond 
the effluent reductions achieved under BPT. In addition to other 
factors specified in section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA 
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total 
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional 
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The 
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional 
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial 
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT 
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
    NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the 
best available demonstrated treatment technology. New facilities have 
the opportunity to install the best and most efficient production 
processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS 
should represent the most stringent controls attainable through the 
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants 
(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In 
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost 
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality 
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b) 
of the CWA
    The CWA requires EPA to establish pretreatment standards to prevent 
pollutants passing through POTWs or interfering with POTW operations. 
EPA determines whether a pollutant passes through a POTW by comparing 
BAT removals of the pollutants at direct discharging facilities. The 
preamble to the proposal explains this. See 63 FR at 6405-06. As 
explained above, EPA develops BAT limitations by considering a number 
of factors, including the availability and feasibility of use of the 
treatment technology, pollutant removals, and its cost to dischargers. 
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA. EPA evaluates the same factors in 
establishing pretreatment standards as it considers when it develops 
BAT limitations (A Legislative History of the Clean Water Act 
Amendments of 1977, H.R. Rep. No. 830, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 271 
(1978)). Pretreatment standards are technology-based and analogous to 
BAT effluent limitations. Pretreatment standards also must be 
economically achievable on a national basis to the industry category.
    PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass 
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the 
operation of POTWs, including interfering with sludge disposal methods.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found 
at 40 CFR part 403. Those regulations require POTWs to establish 
pretreatment standards to address local passthrough and establish 
pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic dischargers. See 
52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) of the 
CWA
    Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of 
pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or are otherwise 
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the 
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to 
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated 
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating 
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

C. CWA Section 304(m) Requirements

    Section 304(m) of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)), added by the Water 
Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) 
reviewing and revising existing effluent limitation guidelines and 
standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (2) promulgating new effluent 
guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines 
Plan (55 FR 80), that included schedules for developing new and revised 
effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of the 
industries for

[[Page 4363]]

which the Agency established a schedule was the ``Hazardous Waste 
Treatment, Phase II'' Category. EPA subsequently changed the category 
name ``Hazardous Waste Treatment, Phase II'' to ``Landfills and 
Incinerators.''
    The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public 
Citizen, Inc. challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed 
in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al v. 
Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980). Under the terms of the consent decree, EPA 
agreed, among other things, to propose effluent guidelines for the 
``Landfills and Incinerators'' category by November 1997 and to take 
final action by November 1999. Although ``Landfills and Incinerators'' 
is listed as a single entry in the Consent Decree schedule, EPA 
proposed two separate rulemaking actions in the Federal Register, both 
on February 6, 1998. In order to reflect the fact that the effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards to be proposed would apply only to 
a segment of the waste combustion industry, EPA changed the name of the 
proposed regulation from ``Incinerators'' to ``Industrial Waste 
Combustor'' regulations prior to the proposal. In order to reflect 
accurately the segment of the combustion industry being regulated 
today, EPA has now changed the name for this final regulation to 
``Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor'' regulations.

II. Background on the Industry and Prior Regulations

A. Updated Profile of the Industry

    The universe of incineration facilities currently in operation in 
the United States is broad. These include municipal waste combustors 
that burn household and other municipal trash and incinerators that 
burn hazardous wastes. Among other types of incinerators burning waste 
material are those that burn medical wastes exclusively and sewage 
sludge incinerators that burn residual solids from wastewater treatment 
at POTWs. In addition, some boilers and industrial furnaces may also 
burn waste materials for fuel.
    While many industries began incinerating some of their wastes as 
early as the late 1950's, the current market for waste combustion 
(particularly combustion of hazardous wastes) is essentially a creature 
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA's 
resulting regulation of hazardous waste disposal. For more information 
on the development of the industry, see the preamble to the proposed 
guideline at 63 FR 6392, 6395 (February 6, 1998).
    Today's rule establishes national effluent limitations and 
pretreatment standards for a segment of the waste combustion industry--
``commercial hazardous waste combustors.'' The segment of the universe 
of incineration units for which EPA has adopted regulations includes 
units which operate commercially and which use controlled flame 
combustion in the treatment or recovery of energy values from hazardous 
industrial waste. For example, industrial boilers, industrial furnaces, 
rotary kiln incinerators and liquid-injection incinerators are all 
types of units included in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors 
Subcategory.
    Thermal treatment or recovery operations at these facilities 
generate the following types of wastewater: Air pollution control 
wastewater, flue gas quench wastewater, truck/equipment wash water, 
container wash waster, laboratory drain wastewater, and floor washings 
from process areas. Section 4 of the TDD describes these more fully. 
Typical non-wastewater by-products of thermal treatment or recovery 
operations may include: Slag or ash developed in the thermal unit 
itself, and emission particles collected using air pollution control 
systems. There are many different types of air pollution control 
systems in use by thermal units. The types employed by thermal units 
include, but are not limited to, the following: Packed towers (which 
use a caustic scrubbing solution for the removal of acid gases), 
baghouses (which remove particles and do not use any water), wet 
electrostatic precipitators (which remove particles using water but do 
not generate a wastewater stream), and venturi scrubbers (which remove 
particles using water and generate a wastewater stream). Thus, the 
amount of wastewater and types of wastewater generated by a thermal 
unit are directly dependent upon the types of air pollution control 
systems employed by the thermal unit.
    The Agency estimates that there are approximately 55 Commercial 
Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities that are potentially subject to 
the rule. These include rotary kiln incinerators, liquid injection 
incinerators, fluidized-bed incinerators, multiple-hearth incinerators, 
fixed-hearth incinerators, industrial boilers, industrial furnaces, and 
other types of thermal units. These do not include cement kilns, since 
EPA specifically exempts cement kilns from this final rule. Of these 55 
facilities, approximately 33 facilities do not generate any wastewater 
that EPA is regulating under this final rule. Twelve of these 
facilities generate CHWC wastewater but do not discharge the wastewater 
to a receiving stream or POTW. These ``zero or alternative'' 
dischargers use a variety of methods to dispose of their wastewater. At 
these facilities, (1) wastewater is sent off-site for treatment or 
disposal (four facilities); (2) wastewater is burned or evaporated on 
site (four facilities); (3) wastewater is sent to a surface impoundment 
on site (three facilities); and (4) wastewater is injected underground 
on site (one facility).
    For the final rule, EPA identified only 10 facilities that were 
discharging CHWC wastewater to a receiving stream or introducing 
wastewater to a POTW. Of these 10 facilities, two facilities have, 
since 1992, either stopped accepting waste from off site for combustion 
or have closed their combustion operations.

B. Proposed Rule

1. Proposal
    On February 6, 1998 (63 FR 6391), EPA proposed limitations and 
standards for the Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Industry. The 
proposal applied to existing and new stand-alone industrial waste 
combustors that burned hazardous and non-hazardous wastes received from 
offsite. The proposed guidelines and standards would not have applied 
to wastewater discharges from industrial waste combustors that only 
burned wastes generated on-site at the industrial facility or generated 
at facilities under common corporate ownership. The principal source of 
regulated wastewater under the proposal was air pollution control 
wastewater. The comment period for the proposal closed on May 7, 1998. 
EPA received comments from 39 interested stakeholders.
2. Notice of Data Availability
    On May 17, 1999 (64 FR 26714), EPA published a Notice of Data 
Availability related to the proposed limitations and standards for the 
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor industry. This notice solicited 
comments on new wastewater treatment system performance data from three 
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities. EPA received this new 
performance data in early 1999, subsequent to the close of the comment 
period for the proposal.
    Three CHWCs submitted influent and effluent wastewater treatment 
system performance data and related information on the operation of 
their

[[Page 4364]]

treatment systems. Each facility submitted daily measurements for 
chlorides, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, pH, 
and 15 metals (aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, 
iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, silver, tin, titanium and 
zinc). One facility provided 11 days of sampling data, and the two 
other facilities provided 30 days of sampling data each. The comment 
period for the notice closed on June 16, 1999. EPA received comments 
from 4 interested stakeholders.

C. Related Regulations--Hazardous Waste Combustion Regulation 
Promulgated September 30, 1999

    The preamble to the proposal discusses a number of EPA regulatory 
efforts affecting the waste combustion industry, including a proposal 
to establish standards for hazardous waste combustion. 63 FR at 6395-
96. Recently, under the joint authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA promulgated the 
Hazardous Waste Combustion (HWC) MACT (64 FR 52828, September 30, 
1999). These final regulations apply to the following types of 
combustors:
     RCRA Incinerators (as defined in 40 CFR 260.10).
     RCRA Cement Kilns and RCRA Lightweight Aggregate Kilns (as 
defined in 40 CFR 260.10 under the Industrial Furnace definition).
    These regulations do not apply to:
     RCRA Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (other than Cement 
Kilns and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10).
    The HWC regulations establish stack emission limits for several 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Under the Clean Air Act, these limits 
must require the maximum achievable degree of emission reductions of 
HAPs, taking into account the cost of achieving such reductions and 
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements--so-called Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) 
standards. The HWC regulation does not set limits on the water 
effluents from the air pollution control systems (APCS) (like wet 
scrubbers, quench systems). As a result of promulgation of these 
standards, it is likely that some facilities using dry air pollution 
control, not presently generating wastewater, may switch to using wet 
APCS.

III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

    This section describes the most significant changes to the rule 
since proposal. Many of these changes result from EPA consideration of 
the comments submitted on the proposal. Section X below discusses the 
most significant of these. EPA's responses to all the comments provides 
more detailed explanations for changes. The record for the final rule 
includes these responses.

A. EPA Limited the Scope of the Final Guidelines to Waste Combustors 
that Burn Hazardous Waste

    Today's final rule does not apply to industrial waste combustors 
that do not burn hazardous waste. EPA had proposed to regulate both 
hazardous and non-hazardous waste combustors. EPA received comments 
questioning whether its data collection effort was complete enough to 
allow EPA to characterize non-hazardous industrial waste combustor 
facilities and develop limitations and standards for such facilities. 
Examples of non-hazardous industrial waste burned by waste combustors 
include: tire-derived fuels, alternative fuels, recycled manufactured 
products and reclaimed materials.
    The data examined by EPA as well as information supplied by 
commenters supports the conclusion that the pollutant profile of 
scrubber water for non-hazardous industrial waste combustors burning 
alternative fuels will exhibit significant variation depending on the 
type of fuels burned. The variation will range from scrubber water 
containing few, if any, pollutants of potential concern to facilities 
whose scrubber water may more closely resemble that of hazardous waste 
combustion practices. EPA determined that, in order to develop 
appropriate limitations and standards, EPA would need to consider 
multiple subcategories, based on the different fuels burned before it 
could regulate these facilities. This effort would require information 
that the Agency currently lacks.
    At this time, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is exploring the 
development of MACT CAA standards for industrial commercial waste 
incineration. They have identified four potential subcategories for 
regulation: wood and other biomass waste incinerators, pathological 
waste incinerators, drum and parts reclaimer incinerators, 
miscellaneous industrial and commercial waste incinerators. EPA may 
consider taking a second look at these facilities for wastewater 
regulation, following development of the MACT standards.
    The CHWC regulation focuses on RCRA combustor units and includes 
units that burn both RCRA and non-RCRA wastes. If a combustor does not 
burn any RCRA hazardous waste, it is not subject to the rule. The 
regulation will apply to the CHWC wastewater produced by burning non-
hazardous industrial wastes in conjunction with RCRA hazardous waste.

B. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to Hazardous Waste Combustors 
Exempt From RCRA

    In today's final rule, EPA is clarifying the proposal regarding 
incinerators and BIFs regulated under RCRA. EPA proposed to regulate 
only ``commercially-operating hazardous waste combustor facilities 
regulated as `incinerators' or `boilers and industrial furnaces' under 
RCRA.'' EPA based its decision to limit the scope of the guidelines, in 
part, on its determination that wastewater from these exempt facilities 
would be qualitatively different from the regulated wastewater. 
However, EPA failed to make it clear that it was not proposing to 
regulate facilities that are granted exemptions from 40 CFR part 264, 
subpart O; part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart H. The 
applicability provisions of the final guideline make it clear that the 
rule does not apply to those exempted facilities. One example of a 
facility of this type is a facility that is conditionally exempt from 
regulation as a RCRA BIF under 40 CFR 266.100(c).

C. The Final Guidelines Do Not Apply to the Burning of Waste that Is 
Received From Off Site for No Fee or Other Remuneration

    In today's final rule, EPA is not regulating hazardous waste 
combustors (HWCs) that only take waste from off-site (from facilities 
not under the same corporate structure) for no fee or other 
remuneration. At proposal, EPA had included waste burned from off-site 
for a fee or other remuneration in the scope of the rule. Examples of 
``not-for-fee'' activities include wastes burned as a public service 
and product stewardship activities.
    As explained in greater detail below, EPA decided it would not 
include captive or intra-company HWCs within this guideline so long as 
the combustors did not burn off-site wastes generated at a facility not 
under the same corporate structure or subject to the same ownership. A 
captive or intra-company HWC would still not be subject to the 
guideline if it burned off-site waste generated at a facility not under 
the same ownership so long as the wastes are similar to the wastes 
being generated on-site. EPA's review of data on captive facilities 
showed that permit writers regulated captive scrubber water either 
through specific guideline limitations or by developing BPJ limitations 
that

[[Page 4365]]

generally paralleled the limitations for the associated industrial 
process wastewater. The apparent reason for this is that if the 
incinerator is burning on-site industrial waste or similar waste, then 
the pollutant profile of its scrubber water would include many of the 
same pollutants seen in wastewater from its industrial operations. 
Given the small quantity of scrubber water and commingled treatment, 
applying the same requirements to scrubber water would be appropriate.
    EPA concluded that the quantity of wastes burned on a ``not-for-
fee'' basis was unlikely to be great for such captive and intra-company 
facilities. In those circumstances, the burning of such waste was not 
likely to change the character of the scrubber water for these 
combustors significantly. In these circumstances, the same reasoning 
that supported not including these combustors in this guideline would 
still apply.

D. EPA Has Excluded Cement Kilns From the Scope of the Guidelines

    EPA is not including cement kilns within the scope of the CHWC 
guidelines for several reasons. Although EPA proposed to include cement 
kilns in the scope of this rule, EPA's survey identified no cement 
kilns that are currently discharging scrubber water or other wastewater 
that is potentially subject to the CHWC guidelines. In the absence of 
detailed information on the wastes burned in these kilns, wastewater 
characterizations, and treatment effectiveness, EPA is not applying the 
final limitations and standards to cement kilns.
    EPA learned, as part of its analysis for the final rule, that there 
may be a cement kiln considering the installation of wet scrubbers in 
order to comply with the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT. (See 
discussion on this MACT final rule above at Section II.C.) In the event 
that a cement kiln burning hazardous waste switched from a dry to wet 
scrubber, EPA would expect it to produce scrubber water with a 
pollutant profile very similar to those wastestreams regulated here as 
CHWC wastewater. In those circumstances, NPDES permit writers should 
consider whether they will need to establish BPJ limitations or local 
control authorities may need to establish local limits to control 
discharges of toxic pollutants in the scrubber water. Permit writers 
should compare cement kiln scrubber wastewater with the information 
provided in the TDD concerning the characteristics of CHWC wastewater 
to determine whether similar discharge limitations should be 
established.
    In EPA's view, thermal operations burning hazardous wastes that use 
wet emissions control equipment will generally result in wastewater 
with similar pollutant profiles. This conclusion is supported by the 
data EPA has collected. Thus, EPA's wastewater data included data from 
wet emission control equipment at thermal operations burning hazardous 
waste exclusively as well as operations that burned hazardous waste as 
a fuel for other industrial operations such as acid regeneration. As 
EPA expected, the wastewater included extremely low levels of organic 
pollutants which are largely destroyed in the combustion process. EPA 
did find present a number of metals at treatable levels. Permit writers 
and local control authorities should carefully examine cement kiln 
emission control wastewater to see if it also contains metal pollutants 
when the permit writer establishes case-by-case limitations under NPDES 
regulations at 40 CFR 125.(3) or the control authority establishes 
local limits under the General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 
403.5.
    EPA has established limitations and standards for cement 
manufacturers at 40 CFR part 411. Among these limitations and standards 
are discharge limits for cement kilns which use water in wet scrubbers 
to control kiln stack emissions. While the part 411 regulations include 
BPT/BAT limitations, they only limit conventional pollutants and 
temperature. There are no pretreatment standards for indirect 
dischargers and no BAT limitations to control the discharge of toxic 
pollutants from these facilities. Consequently, the permit writer or 
local control authority must include technology-based limits for any 
toxic pollutant which is or may be discharged at a level greater than 
the level which can be achieved by treatment requirements appropriate 
to the permittee or which may pass through or interfere with POTW 
operations (40 CFR 122.44(e), 125.3. See also 40 CFR 403.5(c) which 
requires the establishment of local limits in a POTW pretreatment 
program for any pollutant which may cause pass through or 
interference). The presence of metal pollutants in scrubber water would 
likely trigger these requirements.

E. EPA Used Additional Data To Calculate the Final Limitations and 
Standards

    As described in the Notice of Availability on May 17, 1999 (64 FR 
26714), EPA received influent and effluent data from three CHWC 
facilities following proposal of the regulation. Commenters supported 
the use of this data in the development of the final CHWC limitations 
and standards. Following an evaluation of the three facilities, EPA 
determined that two of the three facilities employed effective 
treatment. EPA used data from these two facilities as follows. The 
concentrations of pollutants in the treated effluent from these two 
additional facilities are higher for some pollutants and lower for 
others, as compared to the facility used to develop limitations and 
standards for the proposal. EPA used the new pollutant concentration 
data for the final rule. EPA did not rely on data from the two 
additional facilities to calculate variability factors. For both 
facilities, the average variability of the effluent concentrations was 
lower than the average variability of the effluent concentrations used 
to calculate the proposed limitations and standards. EPA used only the 
variability factors calculated from the facility it used at proposal to 
calculate the final limitations and standards. The variability factors 
calculated using the proposal data better reflect the variability seen 
in waste receipts at CHWCs.

F. Change in Technology Basis of Limitations and Standards Due to 
Expanded Data Set

    Based on the new data received and analyzed by EPA following 
proposal, EPA has changed the technology basis for PSES and BPT/BAT 
(noted this way because the BPT and BAT limitations are equivalent). 
For the final rule, PSES and BPT/BAT are based on chromium reduction 
(as necessary) followed by two stages of chemical precipitation with 
(or without) sand filtration. EPA developed the final limitations and 
standards using sampling data from facilities both with and without a 
final sand filtration step. The data show that filtration may or may 
not be necessary to meet the final limitations, depending upon the 
level of treatment provided in the initial two stages of chemical 
precipitation. EPA costed the limitations and standards with sand 
filtration, however, to ensure its economic achievability.

G. Change in Regulation Name

    EPA changed the name of this regulation from ``Industrial Waste 
Combustors'' to ``Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors.'' This change 
reflects the changes made in the scope of the project from proposal to 
promulgation. Specifically, EPA is regulating only hazardous, rather 
than all industrial, waste combustors for the final regulation (see 
Section IV.A.

[[Page 4366]]

above). Also, EPA is regulating only facilities which receive waste for 
a fee or other remuneration, rather than all facilities that take waste 
from off-site from facilities not under their same corporate structure, 
regardless of whether a fee is charged (see Section IV.C above).

H. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed

    In the proposed regulation, EPA included RCRA permit modification 
capital costs as one component of the total proposed capital costs. 
This was an error. The wastewater treatment unit exemption at 40 CFR 
264.1(g)(6) and 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10) and 40 CFR 270.1(c)(2)(v) exempts, 
from certain RCRA requirements, wastewater treatment units at 
facilities that are subject to the NPDES or pretreatment requirements 
under the Clean Water Act. Thus, CHWC facilities would not need to 
modify their RCRA permits as a result of this rule and would not incur 
these RCRA permit modification costs. The final rule does not include 
these RCRA permit modification costs.

IV. The Final Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Regulation

    This section discusses the scope of the final rule, the treatment 
options that EPA considered for development of the final limitations 
and standards and the rationale for the Agency's selected options for 
BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS.

A. Scope of the Final Rule

    Today's final effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment 
standards cover pollutants only in discharges of specified wastewater 
from new and existing Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities. 
Based on its consideration of comments, EPA has narrowed the scope of 
the final rule to commercial hazardous waste combustors, rather than 
industrial waste combustors, as proposed.
    As explained in Section III.G, EPA now defines the regulated 
facilities as Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors (CHWCs). A CHWC is 
any thermal unit, except a cement kiln, that is subject to either to 40 
CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart H if 
the thermal unit burns RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for 
a fee or other remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal 
unit is a commercial hazardous waste combustor if the off-site wastes 
are generated at a facility not under the same corporate structure or 
subject to the same ownership as the thermal unit and (1) the thermal 
unit is burning wastes that are not of a similar nature to wastes being 
burned from industrial processes on site, or (2) there are no wastes 
being burned from industrial processes on site. Examples of wastes of a 
``similar nature'' may include the following: wastes generated in 
industrial operations whose wastewaters are subject to the same 
provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N (Part 400 to 471) or wastes burned as 
part of a product stewardship activity.
    The term ``commercial hazardous waste combustor'' includes the 
following facilities: a facility that burns exclusively waste received 
from off-site; and, a facility that burns both wastes generated on-site 
and wastes received from off-site. Facilities that may be commercial 
hazardous waste combustors include hazardous waste incinerators, rotary 
kiln incinerators, lime kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and 
boilers.
    A facility not otherwise a commercial hazardous waste combustor is 
not a commercial hazardous waste combustor if it burns RCRA hazardous 
waste for charitable organizations, as a community service or as an 
accommodation to local, state or government agencies so long as the 
waste is burned for no fee or other remuneration. Thermal units that 
only burn non-hazardous industrial waste are no longer in the scope of 
this guideline, based on EPA's assessment of public comments.
    The scope of wastewater regulated for the final rule remains the 
same as proposed. CHWC wastewater means water used in air pollution 
control systems or water used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a 
result of commercial hazardous waste combustion operations. Most of the 
wastewater generated by Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor operations 
result from these three sources.
    As proposed, EPA is not including within the scope of the rule 
those hazardous waste combustors that burn only wastes received from 
off-site facilities within the same corporate ownership (intracompany 
wastes) or hazardous waste combustors that only burn wastes generated 
on-site. Thus, facilities which only burn waste from off-site 
facilities under the same corporate structure (an intracompany 
facility) and/or only burn waste generated on-site (captive facility) 
are not regulated under these guidelines.
    EPA received comments that claim that the Agency's proposal not to 
apply the guidelines to intracompany facilities would mean that as many 
as several thousand on-site and intracompany facilities would not be 
subject to the rule, without assurances other comparable categorical 
standards would apply to the wastewaters discharged by such facilities. 
EPA also received comments that the universe of commercial waste 
combustors covered by the rule is narrow considering the magnitude of 
the total pollutant loadings from the whole IWC industry. The comments 
state that EPA is ignoring the majority of pollutants discharged from 
combustion sources by excluding captive and intracompany sources.
    EPA has concluded that its decision to limit the scope of this 
regulation to a narrow universe of combustion operations is well-
supported by the record. From the information developed by the Agency 
for this rulemaking and confirmed by comments on the proposal, EPA has 
concluded that the combustor wastewater generated by captive and intra-
company hazardous waste combustors operated in conjunction with, and 
receiving the bulk of their waste from, associated industrial or 
commercial operations are currently subject to effluent guideline 
limitations for other point source categories either explicitly through 
the guideline or through permit writer-developed BPJ limitations. In 
some cases, EPA specifically considered scrubber water as a wastewater 
source in developing guidelines and thus scrubber water is a 
specifically regulated stream. In other cases, industrial operations 
with associated combustors commingle scrubber water with other 
industrial wastewater for treatment. In these circumstances, permit 
writers are applying the applicable industrial guideline to the 
scrubber water through BPJ limitations because of the small volumes of 
scrubber water and the similarity of the metals profile of the scrubber 
water to that of other wastewater being treated.
    The record shows the great bulk of wastewater discharges from 
captive and intracompany combustion operations are in fact being 
regulated under industry-specific guidelines. EPA has based those 
guidelines on data that are specific to the particular industrial 
processes being conducted on-site. Those guidelines regulate the 
appropriate range of pollutants associated with the on-site industrial 
processes. As a consequence, these pollutants are likely constituents 
of the waste being burned. In fact, many existing effluent guidelines 
specify air pollution control wastewaters (APC) as an ``in-scope'' 
wastewater (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers 
category and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing category). The preamble to 
the proposal provided detailed

[[Page 4367]]

information on 156 captive and intracompany facilities receiving EPA's 
screener survey that are covered by existing categorical standards. (63 
FR 6392 at 6415). EPA has updated this information. Rather than 107 
facilities as reported at proposal, EPA has now determined that 140 out 
of the 156 facilities are subject to existing categorical standards. 
There are 97 facilities subject to the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and 
Synthetic fibers category (40 CFR part 414), 17 facilities subject to 
the Pharmaceutical category (40 CFR part 439), 16 facilities subject to 
the Steam Electric Power Generating category (40 CFR part 423), 3 
facilities subject to the Pesticide Manufacturing category (40 CFR part 
455), and 7 subject to other categories. EPA could not identify an 
effluent guidelines category for 16 of these 156 facilities (five of 
these are federal facilities). Moreover, in the case of the small 
number--less than 10 percent--for which EPA could not identify a 
specific guideline that would apply, the permit writer has ample 
authority to obtain any necessary data to write facility-specific BPJ 
limitations or standards.
    In addition, EPA looked at the pollutant data for commercial and 
non-commercial hazardous facilities and concluded that their scrubber 
water is qualitatively different. EPA evaluated the grab samples of 
untreated scrubber water it collected from eight non-commercial 
facilities to determine if there was a difference in wastewater 
characteristics at non-commercial versus commercial facilities. For 
each regulated pollutant, the average untreated IWC wastewater 
concentration is less for the eight non-commercial facilities than for 
the three commercial facilities used to determine the final 
limitations. EPA concluded this results from the fact that non-
commercial facilities do not take the large variety of different wastes 
that commercial facilities do. Additionally, two of the nine regulated 
metal pollutants (mercury and silver) were not at treatable levels for 
any of the eight non-commercial facilities. Two more of the nine 
regulated metal pollutants (arsenic and cadmium) were at treatable 
levels at only one of the eight non-commercial facilities. Further, 
only one of the nine regulated metal pollutants (zinc) was at treatable 
levels at more than half of the eight non-commercial facilities. In 
contrast, seven of the nine regulated metal pollutants (arsenic, 
cadmium copper, lead, mercury, titanium and zinc) were found at 
treatable levels at all three of the commercial facilities used to 
determine the final limitations. Further, the remaining two metal 
pollutants (chromium and silver) were found at treatable levels at two 
of these three commercial facilities. These circumstances further 
support EPA's decision not to subject non-commercial, captive hazardous 
incinerators to the limitations and standards developed here.
    There may be instances when a combustor is operated in conjunction 
with on-site industrial activities and the combustor wastewater is 
treated and discharged separately from the treatment of industrial 
wastewater (or treated separately and mixed before discharge). Permit 
writers should consider this guideline as one source of information 
when developing limitations and standards for these situations.
    Therefore, EPA determined that it has appropriately balanced 
coverage of the guidelines without imposing limitations on thermal 
units already adequately regulated under existing guidelines. Given the 
circumstances reviewed above, EPA concluded that there is not likely to 
be any significant regulatory gap in the treatment of combustor 
wastewater.

B. BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES

a. Summary of Technology Basis
    For this final rule, EPA is promulgating BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES 
(BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES) limitations and standards based on the same 
wastewater treatment technology. EPA proposed BPT limitations for nine 
priority and non-conventional metal pollutants, TSS, and pH when 
discharged from Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities. EPA 
proposed BCT limitations equivalent to BPT because it did not identify 
any more stringent technology for the control of conventional 
pollutants. EPA proposed BAT limitations equivalent to BPT because it 
did not identify any more stringent technology option that it 
considered would represent BAT levels of control. EPA proposed PSES for 
nine priority and non-conventional metal pollutants. EPA proposed BPT/
BCT/BAT based on two stages of chemical precipitation followed by sand 
filtration. EPA proposed PSES based on two stages of chemical 
precipitation, with no sand filtration as the final step.
    EPA has based the final BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations and standards 
on the same treatment technologies it had considered at proposal with 
one modification. The technology forming the basis of the final 
limitations and standards is two-stage chemical precipitation with and 
without sand filtration as a final step. See 63 FR at 6404.
b. Rationale for BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES Limitations and Standards
    Based on a thorough analysis of the sampling data and public 
comments, EPA considered only one option for the final BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES 
limitations. EPA concluded that a two-stage precipitation process with 
or without a sand filtration polishing step provided the greatest 
overall pollutant removals at a cost that is economically achievable at 
most commercial hazardous waste combustion facilities. Consequently, 
EPA has based the final limitations on this treatment technology 
(Option 1), consisting of chromium reduction (as necessary), primary 
precipitation, solid-liquid separation, secondary precipitation, and 
solid-liquid separation with (or without) sand filtration.
    EPA has based BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations upon two stages of 
chemical precipitation, each followed by some form of separation and 
sludge dewatering. The pH levels used for chemical precipitation vary 
to promote optimal removal of metals because different metals are 
preferentially removed at different pH levels. In addition, chromium 
reduction precedes the first stage of chemical precipitation, when 
necessary. In some cases, BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations would require 
the current treatment technologies in place to be improved by use of 
increased quantities of treatment chemicals and additional chemical 
precipitation/sludge dewatering systems. Sand filtration is employed at 
the end of the treatment train, if necessary.
    In response to the proposal, EPA received comments claiming that 
carbon and other adsorptive media, including filtration technologies, 
would be more appropriate than sand filtration for treating waste 
streams likely to contain mercury. EPA did not include sand filtration 
system in the model treatment technology specifically to remove 
mercury, but, rather as a polishing step to help remove TSS and metals 
associated with fine precipitate particles. In addition, EPA finds that 
sand filtration is effective in removing mercury. EPA did investigate 
the use of Lancy filtration and carbon adsorption during the sampling 
conducted at one facility. EPA found that the removals for mercury at 
that facility were lower (88.6 percent) than those at the model plant 
(99.1 percent) whose data formed the basis for the BPT limitations. 
Although the influent mercury concentration was

[[Page 4368]]

an order of magnitude greater at the model facility (21.4 g/l) 
compared to the facility using Lancy filtration (3.3 g/l), the 
final effluent concentration was lower (non-detect, 0.2 g/l 
detection limit) than it was at the second plant (0.4 g/l). 
EPA has found that the treatment performance of activated carbon is 
sometimes unreliable due to the competitive adsorption and desorption 
of different pollutants that have different affinities for adsorption 
on activated carbon. Also, pH changes of the wastewater going through 
the carbon system may cause stable metal complexes to dissolve and thus 
cause an increase in some metals concentrations through the carbon 
system. The sampling data for the facility using Lancy filtration shows 
this. There, the concentration of several metallic pollutants increased 
across the activated carbon treatment system (see Table 6-4 of the TDD; 
specifically selenium, antimony, and boron as examples). Thus, the 
final technology basis includes sand filtration.
    The Agency has concluded that this treatment system represented the 
best practicable technology currently available and should be the basis 
for the BPT limitations for the following reasons. First, the 
demonstrated effluent reductions attainable through this control 
technology represent performance that may be achieved through the 
application of demonstrated treatment measures currently in operation 
in this industry. Three facilities containing the identified BPT 
technology were used in the database to calculate the effluent 
limitations. This database reflects technology and removals readily 
applicable to all facilities. Second, the adoption of this level of 
control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants 
discharged into the environment (approximately 94,000 pounds of TSS and 
metals). Third, the Agency assessed the total cost of water pollution 
controls likely to be incurred, in relation to the effluent reduction 
benefits and found those costs were reasonable.
    Although EPA is not changing the technology basis significantly, 
EPA is revising all BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations and standards. EPA has 
based the final BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES effluent limitations and standards on 
data from the CHWC facility used in the development of the proposed IWC 
limitations as well as data from two other CHWC facilities that 
submitted sampling data to EPA (See 64 FR 26714, May 17, 1999) 
following proposal of the IWC rule. See Section III.E above.
    As previously noted, EPA proposed BAT equal to BPT for all non-
conventional and priority pollutants for which it had proposed BPT 
limitations. EPA did consider and reject zero discharge as a possible 
BAT technology at proposal. EPA concluded that it should not promulgate 
zero discharge requirements for the following reasons.
    EPA determined that combustors have two main options for achieving 
zero discharge--off-site disposal or on-site incineration. Facilities 
will likely choose off-site disposal where the cost of on-site 
incineration is greater than the cost of off-site disposal. But off-
site disposal ultimately results in some pollutant discharge to surface 
waters which will exceed the level achieved by BPT unless the 
limitations and standards applicable to the off-site treater are 
equivalent to today's guideline. EPA is concerned that adopting a BAT 
zero discharge requirement may, in actuality, result in fewer effluent 
reductions than expected from today's limitations and standards. The 
second option for zero discharge is on-site. In this case, a facility 
must either incinerate its scrubber water or replace its wet scrubbing 
system with a dry scrubber. EPA has determined that on-site 
incineration would be more expensive than off-site disposal and 
therefore result in off-site treatment. Similarly, EPA believes, but 
cannot confirm, that the cost of changing air pollution control systems 
is probably so high that a combustor would send its scrubber water off-
site for treatment. Moreover, even if the cost is not greater, EPA 
found that replacement of wet scrubbing systems with dry scrubbers may 
result in an unstable solid (as opposed to the stable solids generated 
in wastewater treatment systems) that must be disposed of in a 
landfill, with potentially adverse, non-water quality effects. 
Consequently, EPA determined that zero discharge is not, in fact, the 
best available technology. EPA is promulgating BAT limitations equal to 
the BPT limitations for the non-conventional and priority pollutants 
covered under BPT.
    EPA proposed BCT equal to BPT for all conventional pollutants 
covered under BPT. The Agency indicated that it had not identified 
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants 
other that those associated with the proposed BPT limits. EPA has not 
received any comments concerning its proposed BCT technology basis. 
Because EPA did not identify any incremental conventional pollutant 
removal technology options that pass the BCT cost reasonableness test, 
EPA is promulgating BCT limitations equal to the BPT limitations for 
conventional pollutants covered under BPT.
    As explained above, EPA based the proposed pretreatment standard on 
two stages of chemical precipitation, with no sand filtration as the 
final step. EPA received comments that it should include the additional 
filtration step used in calculating its BPT/BCT/BAT standards for the 
proposal to calculate PSES standards, and adopt pretreatment standards 
based on the same level of treatment as its BPT/BAT standards. EPA also 
received comments that it should promulgate PSES standards as proposed.
    Based on new data received and analyzed by EPA following proposal 
of the IWC rule, EPA has decided to base PSES and BPT/BCT/BAT on the 
same treatment technology. The standards based on this technology allow 
a facility to either use or not use sand filtration as the last 
treatment step, depending on what is necessary to meet the pretreatment 
standards. EPA costed the PSES technology standards with sand 
filtration to ensure its economic achievability.
    Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs 
or which would interfere with the operation of POTWs. EPA looks at a 
number of factors in deciding whether a pollutant was not susceptible 
to treatment at a POTW or would interfere with POTW operations--the 
predicate to establishment of pretreatment standards. First, EPA 
assesses the pollutant removals achieved at POTWs relative to those 
achieved by directly discharging systems using BAT treatment. Second, 
EPA estimates the quantity of pollutants likely to be discharged to 
receiving waters after POTW removals. Third, EPA studies whether any of 
the pollutants introduced to POTWs by combustors interfered with or are 
otherwise incompatible with POTW operations.
    EPA is establishing PSES for this industry to prevent pass-through 
of the same pollutants controlled by BPT/BCT/BAT from POTWs to waters 
of the U.S. EPA has determined that all of the pollutants that ``passed 
through'' at proposal would ``pass through'' and has consequently 
developed pretreatment standards for these pollutants. Today's 
pretreatment standards represent a national baseline for CHWCs. Local 
authorities are free to establish stricter limitations (based on site-
specific water quality concerns) if they deem it necessary.
    For this rule, EPA has looked at the combined economic impacts of 
the final

[[Page 4369]]

regulatory option for both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA has 
combined these because it concluded, that in the case of CHWCs, there 
are no economic differences between direct and indirect dischargers 
that would support separate evaluation of the economic achievability of 
the selected technology. Both direct and indirect dischargers face the 
same capital requirement for treatment technology upgrades. 
Furthermore, the costs of the selected treatment technology are 
essentially the same for both direct and indirect dischargers because 
the technology is designed to remove metal pollutants not susceptible 
to POTW treatment. There are not additional biological controls for 
direct dischargers because the thermal operations are expected to 
destroy any organic pollutants in the incinerated wastes so that only 
traces remain in the scrubber water. In these circumstances, both 
direct and indirect dischargers also share similar profiles with 
respect to the characteristics of wastewater generated. In order to 
determine the cost of compliance with the BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES limitations 
and standards, EPA included the cost of installation of sand filtration 
at all CHWC facilities as a conservative approach because, as explained 
above, not all facilities will require one to meet the limitations and 
standards. EPA concluded the cost of installation of the selected 
control technology is economically achievable. See discussion of 
economic impacts in Section V below.

C. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

    EPA proposed to establish NSPS equal to BPT/BCT/BAT for all 
conventional, non-conventional and priority pollutants covered under 
BPT. EPA has decided that it should not promulgate NSPS based on any 
more stringent technology. EPA considered basing NSPS on zero discharge 
but has rejected this technology. As explained above, EPA has concluded 
that zero discharge may not ultimately result in any reduction in 
effluent discharges relative to BPT/BCT/BAT levels or it may have 
unacceptable non-water quality effects.
    EPA received a comment stating that EPA's discussion of recycling 
scrubber water as a potential component of NSPS was insufficient. The 
commenter explained that it understood why EPA might be hesitant in 
recommending such a system as a basis for BAT, but argued that 
incorporating a system to recycle scrubber water would pose a lesser 
financial burden on new sources. EPA agrees that such a system would 
pose a lesser financial burden on new sources, but does not agree that 
it should require all new sources to be zero dischargers as explained 
previously. EPA bases its decision on the fact that the HWC final MACT 
rule standards for new incinerators permit use of both wet and dry 
scrubbing systems. EPA bases the emission standards for dioxins and 
furans, for example, on an activated carbon injection system used at 
Waste Treatment Industries (WTI) Incinerator in Liverpool, Ohio. 
However, EPA bases the emission standards for mercury on wet scrubbing 
and hazardous waste feedrate control of mercury. EPA concluded that it 
could not establish that all systems using wet scrubbers, as allowed 
under the HWC final MACT rule, could recycle all of their scrubber 
water discharges.
    EPA is promulgating NSPS that would control the same conventional, 
priority, and non-conventional pollutants as the BPT effluent 
limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants at existing 
facilities are fully applicable to new facilities. Therefore, EPA is 
promulgating NSPS limitations that are identical to BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES.
    EPA considered the cost of the NSPS technology for new facilities. 
EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to present a barrier 
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently operating 
facilities are using these technologies. The Agency considered energy 
requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and 
found no basis for any different standards than the selected NSPS.

D. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

    EPA proposed PSNS for nine priority and non-conventional metal 
pollutants. EPA based the proposed standards on two stages of chemical 
precipitation, with no sand filtration as the final step. The proposed 
pretreatment standards for new sources were identical to the proposed 
PSES. EPA received comments that it should adopt PSNS based on two 
stages of chemical precipitation followed by sand filtration, given the 
increased removals that would be achieved by the addition of sand 
filtration. The final PSNS essentially does this. EPA has decided to 
base PSNS on the same technology as it used for BPT/BCT/BAT/PSES--
chromium reduction (as necessary) and two-stage precipitation with or 
without sand filtration. EPA concluded that sand filtration was not 
necessary in all cases to achieve BAT metals removals. The data showed 
that the facilities with and without filtration were achieving high, 
BAT removals. Filtration may be used as a polishing step depending on 
the level of treatment provided in the initial two stages of 
precipitation. The final BAT limitations and PSES were based on data 
from facilities with and without filtration.
    The Agency is establishing PSNS for the same priority and non-
conventional pollutants as for PSES.
    EPA considered the cost of the PSNS technology for new facilities. 
EPA concluded that such costs are not so great as to present a barrier 
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that currently operating 
facilities are using these technologies. The Agency considered energy 
requirements and other non-water quality environmental impacts and 
found no basis for any different standards than the selected PSNS.

V. Costs and Impacts for the Final Commercial Hazardous Waste 
Combustor Regulations

A. Contents of Economic Analysis

    The economic analysis for the final Commercial Hazardous Waste 
Combustor effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards 
assesses the costs and impacts of these guidelines. The record for the 
final rule contains results of this analysis. The ``Economic Analysis 
of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Commercial 
Hazardous Waste Combustors'' (EPA 821-B-99-008) (hereafter ``EA'') 
summarizes these results. This document looks at (1) the annualized 
cost of the rule (2) the impacts of the rule on Commercial Hazardous 
Waste Combustor facilities and firms (3) the impacts of the rule on 
employment and communities; and, (4) other secondary impacts on trade, 
inflation, POTWs, environmental justice, and distributional equity. The 
preamble to the proposal also discusses EPA's approach to costing this 
rule (63 FR 6407). EPA has used the same methodology for estimating the 
cost of compliance with the final rule as it used for the proposal 
except for the RCRA permit costing issue discussed under Section III.H 
above.

B. Summary of Results

1. Overview of Methodology
    The EA evaluates the economic effect on the industry of compliance 
with the regulation by two measures of impact: facility closures 
(severe impacts) and adverse financial effects short of closure 
(moderate impacts). For this rule, EPA has looked at the combined 
economic impacts of the final regulatory option for both direct and 
indirect dischargers. EPA has combined these because there are no 
differences between direct and

[[Page 4370]]

indirect discharges with respect to the characteristics of wastewater 
generated or the model process technologies considered to develop the 
final limitations and standards, as well as to prevent the disclosure 
of confidential business information. The report also includes an 
analysis of the effects of the regulation on new Commercial Hazardous 
Waste Combustor facilities and impacts on small businesses and other 
small entities. EPA made no substantive changes to the economic impact 
methodology since proposal. The preamble to the proposed rule 
summarizes the methodology (63 FR at 6409). Chapter 4 of the EA 
contains a complete description of the methodology.
2. Summary of Costs
    Table V.C-1 shows the total costs for the final limitations and 
standards. EPA estimates the final rule will have a total post-tax 
annualized cost of $2.01 million.

                           Table V.C-1 Total Costs of Final Limitations and Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Total post-tax
                                                                Total capital   Total O&M costs     annualized
               Final limitations and standards                  costs (million  (million 1998$)   costs (million
                                                                    1998$)                            1998$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BAT/PSES.................................................             8.19             1.97             2.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Summary of Economic Impacts for Existing Dischargers
    EPA evaluates the impacts associated with compliance costs for all 
the facilities affected by the regulation. EPA projects one facility 
will discontinue its waste burning operations. The facility as a whole, 
however, will continue to operate. The waste burning operations at this 
facility represent significantly less than 10 percent of total facility 
revenue. EPA estimates that the cessation of waste burning operations 
will cause 27 job losses on a full-time equivalent basis (FTE). EPA 
estimates that no other facilities will experience either severe or 
moderate impacts.
4. Cost Reasonableness of Final BPT Option
    EPA evaluated the cost of the BPT option in relation to effluent 
reduction benefits by first calculating pre-tax total annualized costs 
and total pollutant removals in pounds. EPA then compared the ratio of 
costs to removals for the option to the range of ratios in previous 
regulations to gauge its impact. EPA calculates that BPT costs $27 per 
pound of TSS and metal pollutants removed. EPA found this cost to 
reduction comparison to be reasonable.
5. Economic Impacts of New Sources
    EPA is establishing NSPS and PSNS equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES. In general, EPA 
concluded that new sources will be able to comply at costs that are 
similar to or less than the costs for existing sources, because new 
sources can apply control technologies more efficiently than sources 
that need to retrofit for those technologies. As a result, given EPA's 
finding of economic achievability for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES , EPA also 
finds that the NSPS and PSNS will be economically achievable and will 
not constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
6. Firm-Level Impacts
    A firm is a business entity or company and may be composed of a 
number of facilities. The firm level analysis evaluates the effects of 
regulatory compliance on firms owning one or more affected CHWC 
facilities. It also serves to identify impacts not captured in the 
facility level analysis. For example, some companies might be too weak 
financially to undertake the investment in the required effluent 
treatment, even though the investment might seem financially feasible 
at the facility level. Companies owning more than one facility subject 
to regulation may experience this effect.
    The firm-level analysis assesses the impacts of compliance costs at 
all facilities owned by the firm. EPA uses ratio analysis for this 
assessment. This analysis employs two indicators of financial 
viability: the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the interest coverage 
ratio (ICR). ROA is a measure of the profitability of a company's 
capital assets. It is computed as the earnings before interest and 
taxes minus taxes divided by total assets. ICR is a measure of the 
financial leverage of a company. It is computed as the earnings before 
interest and taxes divided by interest expense.
    Two firms each own three CHWC facilities that would be subject to 
the guidelines. EPA evaluated the effect on the firms as described 
above. First, EPA calculated the baseline ROA and ICR for each company 
absent the final regulation. Then EPA calculated the ratios after the 
projected investment in wastewater treatment equipment and the 
associated compliance costs. One firm experiences no measurable effect 
as the result of compliance with the final regulation. In its case, 
neither the ROA nor the ICR changes between the baseline and 
postcompliance analysis. The second firm experiences an insignificant 
decline in ROA and a minor decline in ICR. The decline in ICR, while 
significant in percentage terms, is an artifact of the firm's extremely 
low level of debt. As a result, EPA concluded that the guidelines will 
not significantly affect the two firms.
7. Community Impacts
    EPA assesses community impacts by estimating the expected change in 
employment in communities with CHWCs subject to the guidelines. 
Possible community employment effects include the employment losses in 
the facilities that are expected to close because of the regulation and 
the related employment losses in other businesses in the affected 
community. In addition to these estimated employment losses, employment 
may increase as a result of facilities' operation of treatment systems 
for regulatory compliance. It should be noted that job gains will 
mitigate community employment losses only if they occur in the same 
communities in which facility closures occur.
    EPA estimates the final regulation will result in the 
postcompliance closure of the waste burning operations of one facility. 
The postcompliance closure results in the direct loss of 27 Full-Time 
Equivalent (FTE) positions. EPA estimates secondary employment effects 
based on multipliers that relate the change in employment in a directly 
affected industry to aggregate employment effects in linked industries 
and consumer businesses whose employment is affected by changes in the 
earnings and expenditures of the employees in the directly and 
indirectly affected industries. The application of the national average 
multiplier of 4.049 to the 27 direct FTE losses leads to an estimated 
community impact of 110

[[Page 4371]]

total FTE losses as the result of the final rule. The county in which 
EPA projects one closure has a current employment of approximately 
170,000 FTEs dispersed among 9,900 establishments. The direct and 
secondary job losses represent 0.06 percent of current employment in 
the affected county.
    Job gains associated with the operation of control equipment 
mitigate the FTE losses. EPA estimates the gains at 10 FTEs nationally. 
EPA estimates the secondary and indirect effects at the national level 
by using the average multiplier of 4.049. This results in an estimate 
of 40 total FTE gains associated with the pollution control equipment. 
EPA concludes the projected impacts are small and do not change EPA's 
finding of economic achievability.
8. Foreign Trade Impacts
    The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of 
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Because most of the 
affected CHWC facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under 
RCRA, international trade in CHWC services for treatment of hazardous 
wastes is virtually nonexistent.

VI. Water Quality Analysis and Other Environmental Benefits

A. Characterization of Pollutants

    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the 
discharges to surface waters and POTWs from CHWCs of the 9 priority and 
nonconventional pollutants regulated by today's rule as well as the 
incidental removals of 6 other priority and nonconventional pollutants 
(aluminum, antimony, iron, molybdenum, selenium and tin). Discharges of 
these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter 
aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact 
human health through the consumption of contaminated fish and drinking 
water. Furthermore, these pollutants may also interfere with POTW 
operations by inhibiting activated sludge or biological treatment or by 
contaminating sewage sludges, thereby limiting how it may be disposed 
and thereby raising its costs.
    All of these pollutants have at least one identified toxic effect 
(human health carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). 
EPA reviewed additional information on toxicity since the proposal, and 
updated the toxicity values for nine of the 15 pollutants modeled in 
the water quality analysis. Toxicity values for three pollutants 
increased, while toxicity values for six pollutants decreased. In 
addition, many of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms 
and persist in the environment.
    The Agency did not evaluate the effects of the discharges of any 
conventional pollutant because its analysis focused on priority and 
nonconventional pollutants. However, the discharge of a conventional 
pollutant such as total suspended solids (TSS) can have adverse effects 
on human health and the environment. For example, habitat degradation 
can result from increased suspended particulate matter that reduces 
light penetration, and thus primary productivity, or from accumulation 
of sludge particles that alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding 
habitats.

B. Facilities Modeled

    EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health 
of wastewater discharges to receiving waters at current levels of 
treatment and at levels achieved by BPT/BAT/PSES treatment for direct 
and indirect discharges. EPA predicted steady-state instream pollutant 
concentrations assuming immediate mixing with no loss from the system, 
and compared these levels to EPA-published water quality criteria 
guidance or to documented toxic effect levels (i.e., lowest reported or 
estimated toxic concentration) for those chemicals for which EPA has 
not published water quality criteria. (In performing this analysis, EPA 
used its published guidance documents that recommend numeric human 
health and aquatic life water quality criteria for numerous pollutants. 
States often consult these guidance documents when adopting water 
quality criteria as part of their water quality standards. However, 
because those State-adopted criteria may vary, EPA used the nationwide 
criteria guidance as the most representative value.)
    In addition, EPA assessed the potential benefits to human health by 
estimating the risks (carcinogenic and systemic effects) associated 
with reducing pollutant levels in fish tissue and drinking water from 
current to BPT/BAT treatment levels for direct dischargers, and from 
current to pretreatment levels for indirect dischargers. EPA estimated 
risks for recreational and subsistence anglers and their families, as 
well as the general population.
    EPA performed these analyses for the eight CHWC facilities 
currently in operation. Achievement of BPT/BAT and pretreatment 
standards will reduce current pollutant loadings (in pounds) of the 15 
priority and nonconventional pollutants modeled by 88 percent.
    EPA projected instream concentrations for five pollutants will 
exceed acute or chronic aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels in 
three of the eight receiving streams. Compliance with the guidelines 
will eliminate excursions of the acute criteria by two pollutants and 
the excursions of chronic criteria by one pollutant.
    Current instream concentrations exceed human health criteria or 
toxic effect levels in five of the receiving streams. Compliance with 
the guidelines eliminates excursions in one stream completely and 
reduces the remaining excursions to a limited extent by eliminating the 
excursions of one pollutant. Estimates of the increase in value of 
recreational fishing to anglers as a result of this improvement range 
from $93,300 to $334,000 annually (1998 dollars). In addition, the 
estimate of the nonuse (intrinsic) benefits to the general public, as a 
result of the same improvements in water quality, ranges from $46,700 
to $167,000 (1998 dollars).
    Compliance with the guidelines will reduce total excess annual 
cancer cases by an estimated 6.6E-3 excess cases. The monetary value of 
benefits to society from these avoided cancer cases is $17,700 to 
$92,700 (1998 dollars). (EPA did not assign a monetary value to this 
benefit at proposal.) EPA does not project systemic toxicant effects 
(non-carcinogenic adverse human health effects including reproductive 
toxicity) for any of the receiving streams at current discharge levels.

C. POTWs

    EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts from CHWC 
discharges on POTW operations (inhibition of microbial activity during 
biological treatment) and contamination of sewage sludge at the POTW. 
The Agency estimates inhibition by comparing predicted POTW influent 
concentrations to available inhibition levels. For this evaluation, EPA 
used the inhibition values in an EPA document, Guidance Manual for 
Preventing Interference at POTWs (U.S. EPA, 1987) and CERCLA Site 
Discharges to POTWs: Guidance Manual (U.S. EPA, 1990). EPA estimated 
potential contamination of sewage sludge by comparing projected 
pollutant concentrations in POTW sewage sludge to available EPA 
criteria. EPA has established CWA standards for sewage sludge use and 
disposal at 40 CFR part 503. These regulations limit the concentrations 
of pollutants in sewage sludge that is used or disposed. For the 
purpose of this analysis, EPA considered the sewage

[[Page 4372]]

sludge contaminated if the concentration of a pollutant in sewage 
sludge exceeds the limits presented in 40 CFR part 503 for land 
application of the sludge or surface disposal.
    EPA evaluated 10 pollutants for potential POTW operation inhibition 
and seven pollutants for potential sewage sludge contamination. At 
current discharge levels, EPA projects no inhibition problems at POTWs 
receiving wastewater but does project sewage sludge contamination. EPA 
projects that compliance with the pretreatment standards will eliminate 
contamination problems. EPA estimates that POTWs will accrue a modest 
benefit through reduced recordkeeping requirements and exemption from 
certain sewage sludge management practices. EPA did not assign a 
monetary value to this improvement in sewage sludge quality.
    The POTW inhibition values used in this analysis are not, in 
general, regulatory values. EPA based these values upon engineering and 
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA 
and other sources. Therefore, EPA has not based these pretreatment 
standards on the fact that some pollutants may impair POTW treatment 
effectiveness. Of course, as explained above, EPA did find that certain 
pollutants would pass through as a basis for establishing pretreatment 
standards. Still, the values used in this analysis help indicate the 
potential benefits for POTW operations that may result from the 
compliance with pretreatment discharge levels.

VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or 
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, sections 304(b) and 
306 of the Act call for EPA to consider non-water quality environmental 
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly, 
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution, 
waste treatment residual generation, and energy consumption.

A. Air Pollution

    Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor facilities treat wastewater 
streams which contain very low concentrations of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). Typically, concentrations of VOCs are below treatable 
levels in CHWC wastewater streams.
    Because there are only low concentrations of VOCs in CHWC 
wastewater, EPA estimates that there will be no significant air 
emissions associated with treatment systems installed to comply with 
the guidelines. Thus, EPA does not expect adverse air quality impacts 
due to the final regulations.

B. Waste Treatment Residuals

    Use of metals precipitation and sand filtration to comply with the 
guidelines will generate waste treatment residuals. EPA assessed the 
cost of off-site disposal in subtitles C and D landfills for these 
residuals. These costs were included in the economic evaluation of the 
technologies.
    EPA estimates that the 8 facilities will generate an additional 1 
million pounds of sludge per year from metals precipitation and sand 
filtration operations. The disposal of this filter cake will not have 
an adverse effect on the environment or result in the release of 
pollutants in the filter cake to other media. The reason EPA has 
concluded this will be true is that the disposal of these wastes into 
controlled subtitles C or D landfills are strictly regulated by the 
RCRA program.

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and 
PSNS will increase energy consumption by a small increment over present 
industry use. Overall, compliance with the guidelines will result in an 
increase of 1,672 thousand kilowatt hours per year, which equates to 
937 barrels of oil per year. The United States consumed 19 million 
barrels of oil per day in 1994.

VIII. Regulatory Implementation

    The purpose of this section is to provide assistance and direction 
to permit writers and control authorities to aid in their 
implementation of this regulation. This section also discusses the 
relationship of upset and bypass provisions, variances and 
modifications, and analytical methods to the final limitations and 
standards.

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards

    As previously explained, new and reissued Federal and State NPDES 
permits to direct dischargers must include the effluent limitations 
promulgated today. Existing indirect dischargers must comply with 
today's pretreatment standards no later than January 27, 2003. New 
direct and indirect discharging sources must comply with applicable 
limitations and standards on the date the new sources begin operations.
    Permit writers and pretreatment authorities should also closely 
explore special circumstances which might merit BPJ limitations similar 
to the limitations promulgated here. If an intracompany incinerator 
burns waste from off site from a facility under the same corporate 
structure and operations generating the off-site waste is neither 
subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR subchapter N nor is the waste 
of a similar nature to the wastes being burned from industrial 
processes on site, it would not be a CHWC. However, permit writers and 
pretreatment authorities should consider whether limitations similar to 
the guidelines should apply to this intracompany facility. Also, if a 
facility burns dissimilar wastes for no fee or other remuneration, it 
would not be a CHWC. In this case, permit writers and pretreatment 
authorities should also consider whether limitations similar to the 
guidelines should apply to this facility.
    As explained above, EPA has decided that these guidelines do not 
apply to cement kilns for the reasons discussed above at section III.D. 
However, there may be circumstances where permit writers should 
consider whether they will need to establish BPJ limitations or local 
control authorities may need to establish local limits to control 
discharges of toxic pollutants in the scrubber water. Permit writers 
should compare cement kiln scrubber wastewater with the information 
provided in the TDD concerning the characteristics of CHWC wastewater 
to determine whether similar discharge limitations should be 
established.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and 
(n) and 40 CFR 403.16 and 403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

    Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued 
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the 
CHWC Industry must include the effluent limitations. In addition, the 
indirect dischargers must comply with the pretreatment standards within 
3 years of issuance.

[[Page 4373]]

1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
    The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations 
established pursuant to section 301 or the pretreatment standards of 
section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the 
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in 
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established 
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the 
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority, 
conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
    EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing 
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors 
considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to 
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a 
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional pollutants 
for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA provided for FDF 
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF 
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and 
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n 
v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical 
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is 
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in 
section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in 
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section 
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish 
alternative requirements. Under section 301(n), an application for 
approval of FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information 
submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that are 
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have 
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be 
no less stringent than justified by the difference and not result in 
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the 
national limitation or standard.
    EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the 
Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations and 
standards, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF 
variance requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 
125.31(d) identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, 
age and size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in 
determining if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must 
determine whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the 
facility in question is fundamentally different from the facilities and 
factors considered by the EPA in developing the nationally applicable 
effluent guidelines. The regulation also lists four factors (e.g., 
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's 
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In 
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less 
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if 
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a 
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered 
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water 
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) 
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during 
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF 
variance for existing indirect discharger at 40 CFR 403.13. The 
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment 
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct 
dischargers.
    The legislative history of section 301(n) underscores the necessity 
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the 
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in 
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that 
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's 
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, 
fundamentally different from those factors considered by the EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
    An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or 
PSNS.
2. Water Quality Variances
    Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent 
guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants due to localized 
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, 
color, iron, and total phenols.
3. Permit Modifications
    Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit 
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain 
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration, 
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit 
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could 
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the 
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person 
may request that a permit modification be made. There are two 
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural 
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice 
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor 
modifications do not. Virtually any modifications that results in less 
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with 
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would 
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR 
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The 
conditions for minor modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring 
Requirements
    Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the 
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. These 
limitations are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits 
issued by the EPA or authorized States under section 402 of the Act.
    The Agency has developed the limitations and standards for today's 
rule to cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial 
subcategory. In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may 
elect to establish technology-based permit limits for pollutants not 
covered by this regulation. In addition, if State water quality 
standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on 
pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more stringent 
limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must apply 
those limitations.
    For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple 
categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are applied using 
a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline for each 
category or

[[Page 4374]]

subcategory. Where a facility treats an Commercial Hazardous Waste 
Combustor waste stream and process wastewater from other industrial 
operations, the effluent guidelines would be applied by using a flow-
weighted combination of the BPT/BAT limitations for the Commercial 
Hazardous Waste Combustor and the other industrial operations to derive 
the appropriate limitations. However, as stated above, if State water 
quality standards or other provisions of State or Federal Law require 
limits on pollutants not covered by this regulation (or require more 
stringent limits on covered pollutants), the permitting authority must 
apply those limitations regardless of the limitations derived using the 
flow-weighted combinations.
    Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the 
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of 
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor 
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can 
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. 
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in 
order to assure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams 
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers 
may establish additional internal monitoring points to the extent 
consistent with EPA's regulations.

D. Analytical Methods

    Section 304(h) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate guidelines 
establishing test methods for the analysis of pollutants. EPA uses 
these methods to determine the presence and concentration of pollutants 
in wastewater. NPDES permitting authorities use these methods for 
compliance monitoring and for filing applications for the NPDES program 
under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 and 123.25. Pretreatment control 
authorities also use these for the implementation of the pretreatment 
standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA has promulgated 
methods for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and for some 
nonconventional pollutants. EPA's CWA regulations list five 
conventional pollutants at 40 CFR 401.16. Table I-B at 40 CFR Part 136 
lists the analytical methods approved for the conventional pollutants. 
EPA's CWA regulations list 65 toxic metals and organic pollutants and 
classes of pollutants at 40 CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes of 
toxic pollutants EPA identified a list of 126 ``Priority Pollutants,'' 
shown, for example, at 40 CFR part 423, appendix A. The list includes 
non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, 
and pesticide pollutants. The table of approved inorganic test 
procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I-B includes the currently approved 
methods for metals. Discharger permits must include the test methods 
promulgated at 40 CFR 136.3 or incorporated by reference in the tables, 
when available, to monitor pollutant discharges from commercial 
hazardous waste combustors for the pollutants specified in today's 
effluent limitations guidelines.
    As a part of today's final rule, EPA is promulgating an additional 
test method for some of the metal pollutants to be regulated under part 
444. This test method is EPA Method 200.8, ``Determination of Trace 
Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass 
Spectrometry.'' EPA first proposed this analytical method with others 
in 1995 (60 FR 53988, October 18, 1995). EPA plans to promulgate the 
other proposed methods in the near future. In the meantime, EPA has 
decided to promulgate EPA Method 200.8 in today's rulemaking because 
EPA used this test method to analyze samples during development of this 
rule. EPA included testing results using this method in the 
administrative record at the time of proposal. EPA also has 
incorporated this method into the approved methods for its Safe 
Drinking Water Act national primary drinking water regulations at 40 
CFR 141.23.
    In addition, EPA is allowing use of an applicable Inductively 
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry method from the Annual Book of ASTM 
Standards, ASTM D 5673-96, for monitoring of the regulated pollutants. 
The final rule allows for use of these two additional test methods for 
several reasons: First, it allows greater flexibility in monitoring; 
Second, it conforms use of methods in EPA's drinking water and 
wastewater programs; Third, it moves toward a performance-based 
measurement system; Finally, it allows use of technical standards as 
contemplated by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995 (NTTAA; see Section IX). EPA is promulgating these methods today 
using direct final rulemaking.
    With the allowed use of the test methods included above, in 
addition to those already approved in Table IIB at 40 CFR 136.3 and 
incorporated by reference into this regulation, EPA will provide 
dischargers with greater flexibility in selection of a method for 
monitoring the pollutants being regulated in today's final rule.

IX. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this rule is a not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 
today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 
business that has annual revenues less than $6 million (i.e., the 
definition for SIC 4953, Refuse Systems); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

[[Page 4375]]

    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule, I 
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will not impose 
any requirements on small entities. Today's final rule establishes 
requirements applicable only to Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. 
The facilities subject to this rule are all owned by large entities 
with firm revenues in excess of $230 million each per year. 
Consequently, there are no small businesses affected by the rule.

C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective February 28, 2000.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no information collection requirements. 
Therefore, it is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the 
final rule as $2.01 million (1998$, post-tax). Thus, today's rule is 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. EPA projected no incremental requirements for small 
governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule will not impose 
substantial costs on States and localities. The rule establishes 
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards imposing requirements 
that apply to CHWCs when they discharge wastewater or introduce 
wastewater to a POTW. The rule does not apply directly to States and 
localities and will only affect State and local governments when they 
are administering CWA permitting programs. The final rule, at most, 
imposes minimal administrative costs on States and local governments if 
the States have an authorized NPDES programs and local governments 
administering approved pretreatment programs. (These States and 
localities must incorporate the new limitations and standards in new 
and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or permits). 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns,

[[Page 4376]]

and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In 
addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective 
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's Rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. EPA has not identified any 
facilities covered by today's rule that are owned and operated by 
Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. 
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use 
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rule involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency 
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable test methods from 
voluntary consensus standard bodies. EPA's search revealed that there 
is one new consensus standard for some metals included in today's rule. 
Even prior to enactment of the NTTAA, EPA has traditionally included 
any applicable test methods in its regulations. EPA promulgates this 
voluntary consensus standard (ASTM Method D 5673-96) as part of this 
rulemaking. Today's rule also promulgates a number of voluntary 
consensus standards for the regulated pollutants. These standards were 
previously promulgated at 40 CFR part 136.

I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health

    The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is 
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

X. Summary of Public Participation

    The following sections describe the major comments on the proposed 
rule and the NOA, and EPA's responses. The public record contains the 
full comment summary and response document for this rulemaking.

A. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses

    Thirty-nine commenters provided detailed comments on the February 
6, 1998 proposal. In all, the comments dealt with 51 separate aspects 
of the proposal. This summary addresses only the major comments.
    Comment: Several commenters asked EPA to redefine ``IWC facility'' 
so that a waste combustor burning off-site wastes without charge would 
not automatically fall within the scope of the rule. The commenters 
suggested adopting the definition of intracompany waste combustors 
found in the 1992 survey of the IWC industry.
    Response: EPA has decided to limit the applicability of the 
guidelines to certain commercial hazardous waste combustors. The 
revised scope of the rule for CHWCs (formerly IWCs) will alleviate the 
concerns expressed and will allow a facility to burn wastes if received 
for no fee or other remuneration without subjecting the associated 
wastewaters to the CHWC guidelines.
    Comment: The commenter supports the inclusion of a de minimis 
exclusion for wastes associated with product stewardship, public 
service, and sub-contractor activities off-site.
    Response: Under the revised definition, a facility would not be a 
CHWC merely because it accepted product stewardship wastes if these 
wastes are either of a similar nature or are subject to the same 
provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the operations generating the 
wastes being burned from industrial processes on-site. Further, for 
example, a facility would not be a CHWC if it burns household hazardous 
wastes for the community. Household hazardous wastes are exempt from 
RCRA hazardous waste regulations. CHWC facilities, however, that burn 
dissimilar RCRA hazardous wastes will be covered by the final CHWC 
rule.
    EPA has no information on which to establish a de minimis level for 
dissimilar wastes burned from off-site for a fee or other remuneration. 
EPA believes that the majority of waste burned as product stewardship 
activity and waste received from subcontractor activities from off-site 
will be exempt from the CHWC rule due to its similar nature. EPA also 
believes that public service activities will generally be exempt 
because the waste received is either not hazardous under RCRA or exempt 
from RCRA hazardous waste regulations (e.g., exempt household hazardous 
waste, non-hazardous waste from public agencies, and wastes from small 
quantity generators).
    Comment: One commenter suggests that the HWC maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) rule will cause higher loadings in the 
scrubber water than there currently are.
    Response: EPA promulgated the MACT rule for hazardous waste 
combustors (HWC) this summer at (64 FR 52828, July 30, 1999).
    Using detailed emissions data collected under the HWC MACT rule, 
EPA estimates that, overall, there is a possibility of a 100 percent 
increase in particulate matter loadings at a CHWC facility. EPA used 
this estimate to determine the potential effect the MACT standards 
would have on CHWC facilities. (The commenter submitted no data that 
would allow EPA to determine how much its own loadings will change.) 
Specifically, EPA has performed an economic sensitivity analysis to 
estimate the effects on costs of a 100 percent increase in loadings in 
the scrubber water for CHWC facilities. EPA compared BPT/BAT baseline 
costs to costs for an increase of 100 percent in concentration for 
metals and total suspended solids. For direct discharge facilities, the 
total annualized compliance costs ($1992) would increase 3 percent and 
for indirect discharge facilities, the total annualized compliance 
costs would increase 13 percent. However, no facilities would 
experience severe impacts (closure) or moderate impacts (compliance 
costs greater than 5 percent of revenue) as a result of the increased 
compliance costs. Thus, the sensitivity analysis indicates that a 
potential increase in loadings of 100 percent would not affect the

[[Page 4377]]

economic achievability determination for the selected technology 
option.
    Comment: EPA should not regulate high temperature metals recovery 
facilities under the IWC guideline if they are exempt from regulation 
under 40 CFR 266.100(c) as a RCRA BIF.
    Response: The guidelines do not apply to facilities (like high 
temperature metals recovery facilities) that are not subject either to 
40 CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart 
H. EPA based its decision to limit the scope of the guidelines, in 
part, on its determination that wastewater from these exempt facilities 
would be qualitatively different from the regulated wastewater. The 
data from a high temperature metals recovery facility confirms this. 
These data show that wastewater from a high temperature metals recovery 
facility has higher metals concentrations than typically observed for 
the regulated facilities.
    Comment: Commenter is unsure of the types of IWC wastewater subject 
to the proposed regulation and thinks it is important to make precisely 
clear exactly how the regulation of ``other'' IWC wastestreams should 
be addressed by a permit writer.
    Response: Sections 444.1 and 444.2 of the final regulation clearly 
state the types of wastewater a CHWC (formerly IWC) may generate that 
are subject to the final regulation. In addition, this preamble to the 
final rule further explains the regulated wastewaters.
    EPA does not agree with this commenter that it is important to make 
clear exactly how the regulation of ``other'' waste streams should be 
addressed by a permit writer. EPA did not collect data on these 
streams. The permitting authority will use BPJ authority to develop 
limitations that reflect the characteristics of the particular waste 
streams. However, EPA does agree with the commenter that the ``other'' 
waste streams should not be subject to CHWC guidelines unless the 
characteristics of the waste streams are similar to the CHWC streams 
(e.g. a waste stream that comes into contact with the waste after it is 
burned would have characteristics similar to regulated CHWC streams.)
    Comment: None of the facilities sampled by EPA employed state-of-
the-art dioxin air emission controls that will be required for at least 
some of the facilties covered by the proposed rule. None of the 
commercial facilities from which EPA obtained its wastewater data 
employed activated carbon injection (ACI), recently proposed beyond-
the-floor MACT by EPA.
    Response: EPA did not base the promulgated MACT dioxin emission 
standards on activated carbon injection (ACI) for approximately 85 
percent of the hazardous waste incinerators identified by the HWC final 
rule. The standards are instead based on rapid quench of the flue gas 
prior to the particulate matter control device. Although EPA did not 
sample ACI, as the commenter mentioned, it did sample CHWC facilities 
with rapid flue gas quench prior to the particulate matter control 
device. For the 15 percent of hazardous waste incinerators identified 
by the HWC final rule that have waste heat boilers, EPA promulgated the 
emission standard based on activated carbon injection.
    The commenter is concerned that the low dioxin concentrations found 
by EPA in the CHWC wastewater sampling program are a result of weak 
dioxin emission controls. As stated above, EPA sampled facilities with 
the promulgated HWC control for 85% of hazardous waste incinerators. 
For the 15% of hazardous waste incinerators that have waste heat 
boilers, EPA does not anticipate that the addition of ACI will increase 
the dioxin concentrations found in the wastewater because the ACI 
control devices specified in the final HWC rule are all ``dry'' carbon 
systems--either a carbon bed or a fabric filter with dry carbon 
injection. That is, the dioxin that is removed via the carbon injection 
will not be added to the wastewater--it will stay with the carbon.
    Based on the data available and its resulting decision not to 
establish limitations and standards for dioxins, EPA cannot justify the 
imposition of a monitoring program for dioxins. While EPA recognizes 
that the promulgation of the MACT dioxin emission standards may result 
in some changes in the volume and character of air pollution control 
wastewater generated, EPA does not believe that the changes will result 
in a media transfer for dioxins that would change its decision that it 
should not establish dioxin limitations and standards. The promulgated 
MACT standards for 85% of the hazardous waste incinerators in the final 
HWC rule are based on changes in air pollution control device process 
conditions to minimize generation of dioxins and furans. Various 
studies have shown that a significant source of dioxin in waste 
incinerators is the formation of dioxin in the flue gas as it is cooled 
to around 400 degrees C. The longer the flue gas is held at this 
temperature the greater the formation of dioxin. One useful control 
measure is the rapid cooling of flue gas to levels below this 
temperature range to minimize this dioxin production window. EPA has 
concluded that the largest portion of the reduction in dioxin emissions 
will be through reductions in the amount generated rather than a media 
transfer.
    Comment: Commenter questioned whether EPA conducted the type of 
data collection analysis necessary to characterize adequately the non-
hazardous industry sector that falls within the scope of the proposal.
    Response: At the onset of this project, EPA decided to limit the 
scope of its examination of the combustion industry. Thus EPA's initial 
planning did not include consideration of limitations and standards for 
medical waste incinerator or sewage sludge incinerators. Neither did 
the Agency undertake to revisit some of its existing guidelines for 
industrial categories which included allowances for wastewater 
discharges associated with air pollution control equipment for on-site 
incinerators. As a result of these decisions, EPA tailored its initial 
data collection to address its perceived needs for this guideline. As a 
result, EPA agrees that there may be gaps in the data which limit the 
Agency's ability to adequately characterize wastewater from certain 
combustion units at such facilities. This is particularly true with 
respect to non-hazardous combustion operations. As a result, EPA 
decided that the CHWC guideline would not extend to these facilities as 
explained earlier. EPA's 1992 data collection efforts for the CHWC 
Industry identified only one facility generating CHWC wastewater that 
burned only non-hazardous industrial waste and operated commercially, 
and this facility regenerated activated carbon.
    The CHWC regulation focuses on RCRA combustor units, and includes 
units that burn both RCRA and non-RCRA wastes. The above definition 
makes it clear that if a combustor does not burn any RCRA hazardous 
waste, it is not subject to the rule. The regulation, however, will 
apply to the CHWC wastewater produced by burning non-hazardous 
industrial wastes in conjunction with RCRA hazardous waste.
    Comment: It is difficult to understand how the Agency could assume 
that treatment performance data from a single facility could be 
representative of BPT/BAT performance for this point source category.
    Response: Subsequent to the close of the comment period, EPA 
received wastewater treatment data from three additional CHWC 
facilities. Each of the three CHWCs submitted influent and effluent 
wastewater treatment system performance data and related information on 
the operation of the

[[Page 4378]]

treatment systems (referred to as Episodes 6181, 6182, and 6183). Each 
facility submitted daily measurements for chlorides, total dissolved 
solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, pH, and 15 metals (aluminum, 
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, 
molybdenum, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, and zinc).
    EPA has reviewed this data and incorporated it into the data base 
for determining the CHWC limitations. Inclusion of the submitted data 
followed a careful check to ensure its accuracy, quality, and that it 
was collected using procedures consistent with EPA sampling and 
collection standards. EPA has used this information in the calculation 
of BPT/BAT effluent limitations for the final rule. EPA concluded that 
two of the three new facilities represented the ``average of the best'' 
technology for the industry. The remaining facility (Episode 6182) 
provided insufficient treatment for the profile of metals detected in 
its wastewaters. Incorporation of the post-proposal data into EPA's 
database had the effect of increasing the effluent long-term averages 
for some of the regulated pollutants and decreasing others.
    Comment: EPA's proposed MACT standards for Hazardous Waste 
Combustors overlooked a preferred component of establishing emissions 
control--reductions in metal feed rates to combustors (pollution 
prevention)--because combustion of metals is not an appropriate form of 
treatment for these pollutants.
    Response: Combustion of wastes is an appropriate management, 
treatment, and recovery practice for a wide variety of wastes, 
including those with trace quantities of metals. EPA rulemaking efforts 
under the CWA, CAA, and RCRA usually consider multi-media water, air, 
and solid waste impacts. EPA expects that well-designed, well-operated 
combustors will reduce the organic components of feed material to near-
elemental compounds (carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts). 
However, since the metal components of the feed material are immutable 
(neither destroyed nor reduced to other elemental compounds), any 
effort to control or reduce metal pollutants in one medium must 
recognize the potential ancillary impact on the volumes and pollutant 
concentrations of the other media.
    Further, the commenter's suggestion that EPA's proposed MACT air 
emission standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (HWCs) should have 
considered reductions in metal feed rates as a control technique to 
limit emissions of metals is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The 
Agency received many public comments, including substantial comment on 
the issue of feedrate control of metals and chlorine in the hazardous 
waste, in response to the HWC MACT proposal and subsequent notices (61 
FR 17358 and 62 FR 24212) . These comments were considered in 
developing the final air emissions standards for HWCs that were 
promulgated on September 30, 1999 (64 FR 52828). The Agency's comment 
response document supporting the final rule responds to all comments 
regarding feedrate control of metals and chlorine in the hazardous 
waste as MACT control. See Final Response to Comments to the Proposed 
HWC MACT Standards, Volume I: Standards, July 1999, available in docket 
F-1999-RC2F-FFFFF.
    Comment: Some state regulations are more stringent than EPA's 
proposed regulations for mercury and cadmium. Systems in use have 
achieved lower mercury levels than EPA has proposed.
    Response: The limitations and standards established by EPA in the 
CHWC regulation are national minimum technology-based standards based 
on data from CHWCs. States, of course, under the CWA, remain free to 
establish more stringent discharge limits. In addition, the permit 
writer or control authority may establish more stringent permit 
requirements in order, for example, to comply with water quality 
standards as necessary.
    Based on new data received from CHWC facilities, EPA has decided to 
promulgate standards for PSES identical to the BAT/BPT standards. This 
technology basis is two stages of chemical precipitation with or 
without a final sand filtration step. The promulgated mercury and 
cadmium limits for direct dischargers and indirect dischargers are 
lower than the proposed mercury and cadmium limits.

B. Summary of Notice of Availability Comments and Responses

    Comment: Two commenters want EPA to use the noticed data to set 
final limitations and standards for the final IWC rule. One commenter 
also argues that the data submitted illustrates the variability of 
influent and effluent concentrations for most metals and TSS between 
IWC facilities.
    Response: EPA used the submitted data from the CHWC (formerly IWC) 
facilities that operate BPT/BAT/PSES treatment in development of the 
final effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA only used 
additional data from two facilities of the three facilities that 
submitted data in calculating the final limitations and standards. EPA 
concluded that only these two facilities were operating BPT/BAT/PSES 
treatment systems. The third facility was operating only one (rather 
than two) stages of chemical precipitation at the time of its sampling. 
Inclusion of these data has lead to higher effluent limits for some 
pollutants and lower effluent limits for others than at proposal.
    Additionally, while the Agency recognizes that different facilities 
will accept variable ranges of hazardous and solid wastes for 
incineration, the Agency has concluded that the final limitations and 
standards do not need to take these differences into account. The 
statistical methods used by the Agency to calculate final limitations 
and standards do not result in limits that require a discharger to meet 
a single long-term average value for a particular pollutant. Instead, 
EPA has designed the final pollutant limits so that any facility 
employing good engineering practice and an appropriately designed 
treatment system will perform at least as well, or better than, the 
average observed performance and variability of the systems whose data 
were used to develop the limitations. Rather than allowing for between-
facility variation, EPA uses the performance of the mean treatment 
system as a standard to establish limits that a well-operated system 
should be capable of achieving. However, this standard is not itself a 
limit. In developing daily maximum and monthly average limits, EPA 
provides an allowance for average within-facility variation about the 
average facility's average effluent concentration. Thus, a treatment 
system designed and operated to achieve the BPT/BAT model long-term 
average on a consistent basis should have no problem in complying with 
the limitations. See the comment response document for details.
    Comment: One commenter thinks it is important to simulate the level 
of metals that could be encountered in the course of taking a broad 
variety of wastes into an Industrial Waste Combustor.
    Response: The Agency has taken feed concentrations of metals into 
account in establishing effluent limits for CHWCs (formerly IWCs). EPA 
calculates the regulatory limits based on data from multiple facilities 
which experienced different feed rates over time. EPA does not accept 
the commenter's conclusion that the spiking simulation validly 
describes routine CHWC performance. The commenter introduced the spiked 
metal solutions to the treatment system downstream of the influent 
sampling point. Without knowing the resulting metal concentrations and 
without

[[Page 4379]]

knowing whether these concentrations are representative of potential 
loadings, EPA can not use the spiked data in its calculations for the 
final limitations and standards.
    EPA is aware of the RCRA trial burn procedures and understands the 
techniques regarding waste ``spiking'' for thermal treatment. However, 
EPA's Office of Water has never used such techniques in developing its 
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards and does 
not believe these techniques are appropriate for wastewater treatment 
technologies. The variability factors calculated by EPA will 
accommodate any unusual ``spikes'' in metal concentrations experienced 
by a CHWC facility.

Appendix 1 to the Preamble--Definitions, Acronyms, and 
Abbreviations

    Administrator--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    Agency--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as 
described in section 304(b)(2) of the CWA.
    BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as 
described in section 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
    Boiler--means an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion 
and having the following characteristics:
    (1)(i) The unit must have physical provisions for recovering and 
exporting thermal energy in the form of steam, heated fluids, or heated 
gases; and
    (ii) The unit's combustion chamber and primary energy recovery 
section(s) must be of integral design. To be of integral design, the 
combustion chamber and the primary energy recovery section(s) (such as 
waterwalls and superheaters) must be physically formed into one 
manufactured or assembled unit. A unit in which the combustion chamber 
and the primary energy recovery section(s) are joined only by ducts or 
connections carrying flue gas is not integrally designed; however, 
secondary energy recovery equipment (such as economizers or air 
preheaters) need not be physically formed into the same unit as the 
combustion chamber and the primary energy recovery section. The 
following units are not precluded from being boilers solely because 
they are not of integral design: Process heaters (units that transfer 
energy directly to a process stream), and fluidized bed combustion 
units; and
    (iii) While in operation, the unit must maintain a thermal energy 
recovery efficiency of at least 60 percent, calculated in terms of the 
recovered energy compared with the thermal value of the fuel; and
    (iv) The unit must export and utilize at least 75 percent of the 
recovered energy, calculated on an annual basis. In this calculation, 
no credit shall be given for recovered heat used internally in the same 
unit. (Examples of internal use are the preheating of fuel or 
combustion air, and the driving of induced or forced draft fans or 
feedwater pumps); or
    (2) The unit is one which the Regional Administrator has 
determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be a boiler, after considering 
the standards in 40 CFR 260.32.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently available, 
as described in section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    Captive--Used to describe a facility that only accepts waste 
generated on site and/or by the owner operator at the facility.
    Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, inter alia, by 
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217) and the Water Quality Act 
of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
    Closed--A facility or portion thereof that is currently not 
receiving or accepting wastes and has undergone final closure.
    Combustion Unit--A device for waste treatment which uses elevated 
temperatures as the primary means to change the chemical, physical, 
biological character or composition of the waste. Examples of 
combustion units are incinerators, boilers, industrial furnaces, and 
kilns.
    Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor means any thermal unit, except 
a cement kiln, that is subject to either to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; 
part 265, subpart O; or part 266, subpart H if the thermal unit burns 
RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a fee or other 
remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal unit is a 
commercial hazardous waste combustor.
    Commercial hazardous waste combustor means any thermal unit, except 
a cement kiln, that is subject to either to 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart O; 
Part 265, Subpart O; or Part 266, Subpart H if the thermal unit burns 
RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a fee or other 
remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal unit is a 
commercial hazardous waste combustor if the off-site wastes are 
generated at a facility not under the same corporate structure or 
subject to the same ownership as the thermal unit and
    (1) The thermal unit is burning wastes that are not of a similar 
nature to wastes being burned from industrial processes on site or
    (2) There are no wastes being burned from industrial processes on 
site.
    Examples of wastes of a ``similar nature'' may include the 
following: wastes generated in industrial operations whose wastewaters 
are subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N or wasters 
burned as part of a product stewardship activity.
    The term commercial hazardous waste combustor includes the 
following facilities: a facility that burns exclusively waste received 
from off-site; and, a facility that burns both wastes generated on-site 
and wastes received from off-site. Facilities that may be commercial 
hazardous waste combustors include hazardous waste incinerators, rotary 
kiln incinerators, lime kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and 
boilers.
    A facility not otherwise a commercial hazardous waste combustor is 
not a commercial hazardous waste combustor if it burns RCRA hazardous 
waste for charitable organizations, as a community service or as an 
accommodation to local, state or government agencies so long as the 
waste is burned for no fee or other remuneration.
    Commercial hazardous waste combustor wastewater means wastewater 
attributable to commercial hazardous waste combustion operations, but 
includes only wastewater from air pollution control systems and water 
used to quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of commercial 
hazardous waste combustor operations.
    Conventional pollutants--The pollutants identified in section 
304(a)(4) of the CWA and the regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, 
fecal coliform, and pH).
    Direct discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated pollutants into waters of the United States.
    Disposal--Intentional placement of waste or waste treatment 
residual into or on any land where the material will remain after 
closure. Waste or residual placed into any water is not defined as 
disposal, but as discharge.
    Effluent--Wastewater discharges.
    Effluent limitation--Any restriction, including schedules of 
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, 
rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other 
constituents which are discharged from point sources into

[[Page 4380]]

navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean. (CWA 
sections 301(b) and 304(b).)
    EA--Economic Analysis.
    EPA--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    Facility--A facility is all contiguous property owned, operated, 
leased or under the control of the same person. The contiguous property 
may be divided by public or private right-of-way.
    Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewaters defined as 
hazardous under RCRA or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
    Incinerator--means any enclosed device that:
    (1) Uses controlled flame combustion and neither meets the criteria 
for classification as a boiler, sludge dryer, or carbon regeneration 
unit, nor is listed as an industrial furnace; or
    (2) Meets the definition of infrared incinerator or plasma arc 
incinerator.
    Indirect discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
    Industrial Furnace means any of the following enclosed devices that 
are integral components of manufacturing processes and that use thermal 
treatment to accomplish recovery of materials or energy:
    (1) Cement kilns.
    (2) Lime kilns.
    (3) Aggregate kilns.
    (4) Phosphate kilns.
    (5) Coke ovens.
    (6) Blast furnaces.
    (7) Smelting, melting and refining furnaces (including 
pyrometallurgical devices such as cupolas, reverberator furnaces, 
sintering machine, roasters, and foundry furnaces).
    (8) Titanium dioxide chloride process oxidation reactors.
    (9) Methane reforming furnaces.
    (10) Pulping liquor recovery furnaces.
    (11) Combustion devices used in the recovery of sulfur values from 
spent sulfuric acid.
    (12) Halogen acid furnaces (HAFs) for the production of acid from 
halogenated hazardous waste generated by chemical production facilities 
where the furnace is located on the site of a chemical production 
facility, the acid product has a halogen acid content of at least 3 
percent, the acid product is used in a manufacturing process, and 
except for hazardous waste burned as fuel, hazardous waste fed to the 
furnace has a minimum halogen content of 20 percent as generated.
    (13) Such other devices as the Administrator may, after notice and 
comment, add to this list on the basis of one or more of the following 
factors:
    (i) The design and use of the device primarily to accomplish 
recovery of material products;
    (ii) The use of the device to burn or reduce raw materials to make 
a material product;
    (iii) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary materials 
as effective substitutes for raw materials, in processes using raw 
materials as principal feedstocks;
    (iv) The use of the device to burn or reduce secondary materials as 
ingredients in an industrial process to make a material product;
    (v) The use of the device in common industrial practice to produce 
a material product; and,
    (vi) Other factors, as appropriate.
    Intracompany--A facility that treats, disposes, or recycles/
recovers wastes generated by off-site facilities under the same 
corporate ownership. The facility may also treat on-site generated 
wastes. If any waste from other facilities not under the same corporate 
ownership is accepted for a fee or other remunerations, the facility is 
considered commercial.
    Long-term average (LTA)--For purposes of the effluent guidelines, 
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a facility, 
subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in developing the 
limitations and standards in today's final regulation.
    Minimum level--The level at which an analytical system gives 
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
    Municipal Facility--A facility which is owned or operated by a 
municipal, county, or regional government.
    New Source--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29 
for direct discharging facilities and at 40 CFR 403.3 for facilities 
discharging to a POTW.
    Non-commercial facility--A facility that accepts waste from off-
site for treatment only from facilities under the same ownership.
    Non-conventional pollutants--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants listed at 40 CFR 401.16 nor the 126 priority 
pollutants listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 423.
    Non-detect value--A concentration-based measurement reported below 
the sample-specific minimum level that can reliably be measured by the 
analytical method for the pollutant.
    Non-hazardous waste--All waste not defined as hazardous under RCRA 
regulations.
    Non-water quality environmental impact--An environmental impact of 
a control or treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
    NPDES--The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
authorized under section 402 of the CWA. NPDES requires permits for 
discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United 
States.
    NSPS--New Source Performance Standards.
    OCPSF--Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers industry 
or Effluent Guideline (40 CFR part 414).
    Off-site--``Off-site'' means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    On-site--``On-site'' means within the boundaries of a facility.
    Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which 
a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters or POTWs.
    Point source category--A category of sources of water pollutants.
    Pollutant (to water)--Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator 
residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, 
chemical wastes, biological materials, certain radioactive materials, 
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and 
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
    POTW or POTWs--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR 
403.3(o).
    Pretreatment standard--A regulation that establishes industrial 
wastewater effluent quality required for discharge to a POTW. (CWA 
section 307(b).)
    Priority pollutants--The pollutants designated by EPA as priority 
in 40 CFR part 423 Appendix A.
    Process wastewater--``Process wastewater'' is defined at 40 CFR 
122.2.
    PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under section 307(b) of the CWA.
    PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect 
discharges, under section 307 (b) and (c) of the CWA.
    RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Pub. L. 94-580) of 
1976, as amended.
    Residuals--The material remaining after a natural or technological 
process has taken place, e.g., the sludge remaining after initial 
wastewater treatment.
    Sewage Sludge--Sludge generated by a sewage treatment plant or 
POTW.
    Sludge--The accumulated solids separated from liquids during 
processing.
    Solids--For the purpose of this notice, a waste that has a very low 
moisture content, is not free-flowing, and does not release free 
liquids. This definition deals with the physical state of the waste, 
not the RCRA definition.
    SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical

[[Page 4381]]

categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or group 
of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an 
operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group establishments by 
the economic activities in which they are engaged. SIC codes often 
denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic 
activities.
    Small business--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than $6 
million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of small 
business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch. I, 
Sec. 121.601).
    Treatment--Any activity designed to change the character or 
composition of any waste so as to prepare it for transportation, 
storage, or disposal; render it amenable for recycling or recovery; or 
reduce it in volume.
    TSS--Total Suspended Solids. A measure of the amount of particulate 
matter that is suspended in a water sample. The measure is obtained by 
filtering a water sample of known volume. The particulate material 
retained on the filter is then dried and weighed.
    Waste Receipt--Wastes received for treatment or recovery.
    Waters of the United States--See 40 CFR 122.2.
    Wastewater treatment system--A facility, including contiguous land 
and structures, used to receive and treat wastewater. The discharge of 
a pollutant from such a facility is subject to regulation under the 
Clean Water Act.
    Zero discharge--No discharge of pollutants to waters of the United 
States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are 
``alternative'' discharges of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 444

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

    Dated: November 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding part 444 to read as 
follows:

PART 444--WASTE COMBUSTORS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Subpart A--Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory
Sec.
444.10  Applicability.
444.11  Definitions.
444.12  Monitoring requirements.
444.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practical control technology currently available (BPT).
444.14  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
444.15  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
444.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
444.17  New source performance standards (NSPS).
444.18  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Authority:  Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the 
Clean Water Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 
1342, and 1361.

Subpart A--Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory


Sec. 444.10  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this part apply only to that portion of 
wastewater discharges that are associated with Commercial Hazardous 
Waste Combustor (CHWC) wastewater.
    (b) The discharge from a CHWC of wastewater that is not CHWC 
wastewater, may be subject to other applicable provisions of EPA's CWA 
effluent guidelines and standards regulations at Subchapter N of Title 
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.


Sec. 444.11  Definitions.

    As used in this part the general definitions and abbreviations in 
40 CFR part 401 shall apply.
    Commercial hazardous waste combustor means any thermal unit, except 
a cement kiln, that is subject either to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; 40 
CFR part 265, subpart O; or 40 CFR part 266, subpart H if the thermal 
unit burns RCRA hazardous wastes received from off-site for a fee or 
other remuneration in the following circumstances. The thermal unit is 
a commercial hazardous waste combustor if the off-site wastes are 
generated at a facility not under the same corporate structure or 
subject to the same ownership as the thermal unit and
    (1) The thermal unit is burning wastes that are not of a similar 
nature to wastes being burned from industrial processes on site or
    (2) There are no wastes being burned from industrial processes on 
site. Examples of wastes of a ``similar nature'' may include the 
following: Wastes generated in industrial operations whose wastewaters 
are subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N or wastes 
burned as part of a product stewardship activity. The term commercial 
hazardous waste combustor includes the following facilities: a facility 
that burns exclusively waste received from off-site; and, a facility 
that burns both wastes generated on-site and wastes received from off-
site. Facilities that may be commercial hazardous waste combustors 
include hazardous waste incinerators, rotary kiln incinerators, lime 
kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and boilers. A facility not 
otherwise a commercial hazardous waste combustor is not a commercial 
hazardous waste combustor if it burns RCRA hazardous waste for 
charitable organizations, as a community service or as an accommodation 
to local, state or government agencies so long as the waste is burned 
for no fee or other remuneration.
    Commercial hazardous waste combustor wastewater means wastewater 
attributable to commercial waste combustion operations, but includes 
only wastewater from air pollution control systems and water used to 
quench flue gas or slag generated as a result of commercial hazardous 
waste combustor operations.
    Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
    Parameters are defined as Parameters at 40 CFR 136.2 in Table 1B, 
which also cites the approved methods of analysis.
    (1) Arsenic means total arsenic, Parameter 6.
    (2) Cadmium means total cadmium, Parameter 12.
    (3) Chromium means total chromium, Parameter 19.
    (4) Copper means total copper, Parameter 22.
    (5) Lead means total lead, Parameter 32.
    (6) Mercury means total mercury, Parameter 35.
    (7) pH means hydrogen ion, Parameter 28.
    (8) Silver means total silver, Parameter 62.
    (9) Titanium means total titanium, Parameter 72.
    (10) TSS means total suspended solids, Parameter 55.
    (11) Zinc means total zinc, Parameter 75.
    POTW means a publicly owned treatment works.


Sec. 444.12  Monitoring Requirements

    (a) Both direct and indirect discharges must monitor to establish 
compliance with their limitations and standards. Thus, all the permits 
of all direct

[[Page 4382]]

dischargers must include requirements to monitor, according to EPA-
approved test procedures, each pollutant limited in the permit, the 
volume of effluent discharged from each outfall, and other appropriate 
measurements subject to notification requirements. See 40 CFR 
122.44(i). EPA's pretreatment regulations similarly require indirect 
dischargers to monitor to demonstrate compliance with pretreatment 
standards. See 40 CFR 403.12(g).
    (b) Incorporation by reference:
    (1) Compliance with the monitoring requirements may be accomplished 
using approved test procedures listed in the table to this paragraph. 
Most of these test procedures have previously been incorporated by 
reference at 40 CFR 136.3(a), Table IB. The test procedures for the 
regulated pollutants (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (total), copper, pH, 
lead, mercury, TSS, silver, titanium, and zinc) listed in the table to 
this paragraph are also incorporated by reference into this regulation. 
The full texts of the test procedures listed in this paragraph are 
available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (2) In addition to those test procedures incorporated by reference 
at 40 CFR 136.3(a), Table IB, you may also use EPA Method 200.8, 
``Determination of Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively 
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' from ``Methods for Determination of 
Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement I,'' EPA-600/R-94-111, May 
1994, and ASTM Method D 5673-96, ``Standard Test Method for Elements in 
Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma--Mass Spectrometry,'' from 1999 
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, for determination of arsenic, cadmium, 
chromium (total), copper, lead, silver, and zinc. The full texts of 
these methods are incorporated by reference into this regulation and 
may be obtained from the sources identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.

                                                       List of Approved Inorganic Test Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Reference (method number or page)
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Parameter, units and  method                 Standard Methods [18th
                                 EPA \1\           Edition] \6\                    ASTM                      USGS \2\                    Other
-----------------------------------\16\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Arsenic--Total,\4\ mg/L:
    Digestion \4\ followed by        206.5  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  .........................
    AA gaseous hydride.......        206.3  3114B 4.d                   D2972-93(B)                 I-3062-85                  .........................
    AA furnace...............        206.2  3113B                       D2972-93(C)                 .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES \15\.............    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    Colorimetric (SDDC), or..        206.4  3500-As C                   2972-93(A)                  I-3060-85                  .........................
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................
2. Cadmium--Total,\4\ mg/L;
 Digestion \4\ followed by:
    AA direct aspiration \15\        213.1  3111 B or C                 D3557-90(A or B)            I-3135-85 or               974.27,\3\ p. 37.
                                                                                                    I-3136-85
    AA furnace...............        213.2  3113 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES \15\.............    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      D3557-90(D)                 .........................  .........................
    DCP \15\.................  ...........  ..........................  ..........................  I-1472-85                  (14)
    Voltametry \9\...........  ...........  ..........................  D4190-82(88)                .........................  .........................
    Colorimetric (Dithizone),  ...........  3500-Cd D                   D3557-90(C)                 .........................  .........................
     or.
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................
3. Chromium-Total,\4\ mg/L;
 Digestion \4\ followed by:
    AA direct aspiration \15\        218.1  3111 B                      D1687-92(B)                 I-3236-85                  974.27.\3\
    AA chelation-extraction..        218.3  3111 C                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    AA furnace...............        218.2  3113 B                      D1687-92(C)                 .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES \15\.............    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    DCP \15\.................  ...........  ..........................  D4190-82(88)                .........................  (14)
    Colorimetric               ...........  3500-Cr D                   ..........................  .........................  .........................
     (Diphenylcarbazide), or.
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................
4. Copper--Total,\4\ mg/L;
 Digestion \4\ followed by:
    AA direct aspiration \15\        220.1  3111 B or C                 D1688-90(A or B)            I-3270-85 or I-3271-85     974.27 \3\ p. 37.\8\
    AA furnace...............        220.2  3113 B                      D1688-90(C)                 .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES \15\.............    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    DCP \15\ or..............  ...........  ..........................  D4190-82(88)                .........................  (14)
    Colorimetric               ...........  3500-Cu D                   ..........................  .........................  .........................
     (Neocuproine) or.
    (Bicinchoninate), or.....  ...........  or E                        ..........................  .........................  (10)
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................
5. Hydrogen ion (pH), pH
 units:
    Electrometric measurement        150.1  4500-H+B                    D1293-84 (90)(A or B)       I-1586-85                  973.41.
    Automated electrode......  ...........  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  (11)
6. Lead--Total,\4\ mg/L;
 Digestion \4\ followed by:
    AA direct aspiration \15\        239.1  3111 B or C                 D3559-90(A or B)            I-3399-85                  974.27.\3\
    AA furnace...............        239.2  3113 B                      D3559-90(D)                 .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES \15\.............    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    DCP \15\.................  ...........  ..........................  D4190-82(88)                .........................  (14)
    Voltametry \9\...........  ...........  ..........................  D3559-90(C)                 .........................  .........................
    Colorimetric (Dithizone),  ...........  3500-Pb D                   ..........................  .........................  .........................
     or.
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................

[[Page 4383]]

 
7. Mercury--Total,\4\ mg/L:
    Cold vapor, manual or....        245.1  3112 B                      D3223-91                    I-3462-85                  977.22.\3\
    Automated................        245.1  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  .........................
8. Residue--nonfilterable
 (TSS), mg/L:
    Gravimetric, 103-105-            160.2  2540 D                      ..........................  I-3765-85                  .........................
     post washing of residue.
9. Silver--Total,\4\ mg/L:
 Digestion 4,12 followed by:
    AA direct aspiration.....        272.1  3111 B or C                 ..........................  I-3720-85                  974.27 \3\ p. 37. \8\
    AA furnace...............        272.2  3113 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES..................    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    DCP, or..................  ...........  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  (14)
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................
10. Titanium--Total,\4\ mg/L;
 Digestion \4\ followed by:
    AA direct aspiration.....        283.1  3111 D                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    AA furnace, or...........        283.2  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  .........................
    DCP......................  ...........  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  (14)
11. Zinc--Total,\4\ mg/L;
 Digestion \4\ followed by:
    AA direct aspiration \15\        289.1  3111 B or C                 D1691-90(A) or B)           I-3900-85                  974.27,\3\ p. 37.\8\
    AA furnace...............        289.2  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  .........................
    ICP/AES \15\.............    \5\ 200.7  3120 B                      ..........................  .........................  .........................
    DCP \15\.................  ...........  ..........................  ..........................  .........................  (14)
    Colorimetric (Dithizone)   ...........  3500-Zn E                   D4190-82(88)                .........................  .........................
     or.
    (Zincon), or.............  ...........  3500-Zn F                   ..........................  .........................  (13)
    ICP/MS...................    \7\ 200.8  ..........................  D5673-96 \17\               .........................  .........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table Notes:
\1\ ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory--Cincinnati
  (EMSL-CI), EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983 and 1979 where applicable.
\2\ Fishman, M.J., et al. ``Methods for Analysis of Inorganic Substances in Water and Fluvial Sediments,'' U.S. Department of the Interior, Techniques
  of Water--Resource Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, Revised 1989.
\3\ ``Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists,'' methods manual, 15th ed. (1990).
\4\ For the determination of total metals the sample is not filtered before processing. A digestion procedure is required to solubilize suspended
  material and to destroy possible organic-metal complexes. Two digestion procedures are given in ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
  1979 and 1983''. One (Section 4.1.3), is a vigorous digestion using nitric acid. A less vigorous digestion using nitric and hydrochloric acids
  (Section 4.1.4) is preferred; however, the analyst should be cautioned that this mild digestion may not suffice for all samples types. Particularly,
  if a colorimetric procedure is to be employed, it is necessary to ensure that all organo-metallic bonds be broken so that the metal is in a reactive
  state. In those situations, the vigorous digestion is to be preferred making certain that at no time does the sample go to dryness. Samples containing
  large amounts of organic materials may also benefit by this vigorous digestion, however, vigorous digestion with concentrated nitric acid will convert
  antimony and tin to insoluble oxides and render them unavailable for analysis. Use of ICP/AES as well as determinations for certain elements such as
  antimony, arsenic, the noble metals, mercury, selenium, silver, tin, and titanium require a modified sample digestion procedure and in all cases the
  method write-up should be consulted for specific instructions and/or cautions. Note.--If the digestion procedure for direct aspiration AA included in
  one of the other approved references is different than the above, the EPA procedure must be used.
Dissolved metals are defined as those constituents which will pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter. Following filtration of the sample, the
  referenced procedure for total metals must be followed. Sample digestion of the filtrate for dissolved metals (or digestion of the original sample
  solution for total metals) may be omitted for AA (direct aspiration or graphite furnace) and ICP analyses, provided the sample solution to be analyzed
  meets the following criteria:
a. Has a low COD (20)
b. Is visibly transparent with a turbidity measurement of 1 NTU or less
c. Is colorless with no perceptible odor, and
d. Is of one liquid phase and free of particulate or suspended matter following acidification.
\5\ EPA Method 200.7, ``Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Element Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' from ``Methods
  for Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement I,'' EPA-600/R-94-111, May 1994.
\6\ ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 18th Edition (1992).
\7\ EPA Method 200.8, ``Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry,'' from ``Methods for
  Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples--Supplement I,'' EPA-600/R-94-111, May 1994.
\8\ American National Standard on Photographic Processing Effluents, Apr. 2, 1975. Available from ANSI, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
\9\ The use of normal and differential pulse voltage ramps to increase sensitivity and resolution is acceptable.
\10\ Copper, Biocinchoinate Method, Method 8506, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, Hach Chemical Company, PO Box 389, Loveland, CO 80537.
\11\ Hydrogen ion (pH) Automated Electrode Method, Industrial Method Number 378--75WA, October 1976, Bran & Luebbe (Technicon) Autoanalyzer II. Bran &
  Luebbe Analyzing Technologies, Inc., Elmsford, NY 10523.
\12\ Approved methods for the analysis of silver in industrial wastewaters at concentrations of 1 mg/L and above are inadequate where silver exists as
  an inorganic halide. Silver halides such as the bromide and chloride are relatively insoluble in reagents such as nitric acid but are readily soluble
  in an aqueous buffer of sodium thiosulfate and sodium hydroxide to pH of 12. Therefore, for levels of silver above 1 mg/L, 20 mL of sample should be
  diluted to 100 mL by adding 40 mL each of 2 M Na2S2O3 and NaOH. Standards should be prepared in the same manner. For levels of silver below 1 mg/L the
  approved method is satisfactory.
\13\ Zinc, Zincon Method, Method 8009, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, pages 2-231 and 2-333, Hach Chemical Company, Loveland, CO 80537.
\14\ ``Direct Current Plasma (DCP) Optical Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Elemental Analysis of Water and Wastes, Method AES0029,'' 1986--
  Revised 1991, Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation, 27 Forge Parkway, Franklin, MA 02038.

[[Page 4384]]

 
\15\ ``Closed Vessel Microwave Digestion of Wastewater Samples for Determination of Metals,'' CEM Corporation, PO. Box 200, Matthews, NC 28106-0200,
  April 16, 1992. Available from the CEM Corporation.
\16\ Precision and recovery statements for the atomic absorption direct aspiration and graphite furnace methods, and for the spectrophotometric SDDC
  method for arsenic are provided in Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 136 and titled, ``Precision and Recovery Statements for Methods for Measuring Metals.''
\17\ This method does not include the digestion for solids given in Method 200.8. Not using the solids digestion procedure could affect the determined
  concentrations. Therefore, this method may not be used for analysis of aqueous samples with suspended solids greater than 1%.

    (2) The full texts of the methods from the following references 
which are cited in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section are 
incorporated by reference into this regulation and may be obtained from 
the sources identified. All costs cited are subject to change and must 
be verified from the indicated sources. The full texts of all the test 
procedures cited are available for inspection at the Analytical Methods 
Staff, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 or at the Office of the Federal 
Register, 800 North Capital Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington DC.
    Appendix to Sec. 444.12(b)--References, Sources, Costs, and Table 
Citations:
    (1) ``Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983 
and 1979 where applicable. Available from: ORD Publications, CERI, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. [Note 1]
    (2) ``Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and 
Wastewater.'' Joint Editorial Board, American Public Health 
Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment 
Federation, 18th Edition, 1992. Available from: American Public Health 
Association, 1015 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. [Note 6]
    (3) ``Annual Book of ASTM Standards--Water and Environmental 
Technology,'' Section 11, Volumes 11.01 (Water I) and 11.02 (Water II), 
1994. [1996 for D5673-96; see Note 17]. American Society for Testing 
and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    (4) ``Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental 
Samples--Supplement I'', National Exposure Risk Laboratory, Office of 
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600 R-94/111, May 1994. [Notes 5 and 7]
    (5) ``Methods for Determination of Inorganic Substances in Water 
and Fluvial Sediments,'' by M.J. Fishman and Linda C. Friedman, 
Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological 
Survey, Book 5 Chapter A1 (1989). Available from: U.S. Geological 
Survey, Denver Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Cost: 
$108.75 (subject to change). [Note 2]
    (6) ``Closed Vessel Microwave Digestion of Wastewater Samples for 
Determination of Metals,'' CEM Corporation, P.O. Box 200, Matthews, 
North Carolina 28106-0200, April 16, 1992. Available from the CEM 
Corporation. [Note 15]
    (7) ``Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC--International, 15th 
Edition,'' 1990. Price: $359.00. Available from: AOAC--International, 
1970 Chain Bridge Rd., Dept. 0742, McLean, VA 22109-0742. [Note 3]
    (8) ``American National Standard on Photographic Processing 
Effluents,'' April 2, 1975. Available from: American National Standards 
Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036. [Note 8]
    (9) Bicinchoninate Method for Copper. Method 8506, Hach Handbook of 
Water Analysis, 1979, Method and price available from Hach Chemical 
Company, P.O. Box 300, Loveland, Colorado 80537. [Note 10]
    (10) Hydrogen Ion (pH) Automated Electrode Method, Industrial 
Method Number 378-75WA. October 1976. Bran & Luebbe (Technicon) Auto 
Analyzer II. Method and price available from Bran & Luebbe Analyzing 
Technologies, Inc. Elmsford, N.Y. 10523. [Note 11]
    (11) Zincon Method for Zinc, Method 8009. Hach Handbook for Water 
Analysis, 1979. Method and price available from Hach Chemical Company, 
P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80537. [Note 13]
    (12) ``Direct Current Plasma (DCP) Optical Emission Spectrometric 
Method for Trace Elemental Analysis of Water and Wastes,'' Method AES 
0029, 1986 Revised 1991, Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation (508-520-1880), 
27 Forge Parkway, Franklin, MA 02038. [Note 14]


Sec. 444.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

                        Effluent Limitations \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                     daily       avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSS.............................................     113,000      34,800
Arsenic.........................................          84          72
Cadmium.........................................          71          26
Chromium........................................          25          14
Copper..........................................          23          14
Lead............................................          57          32
Mercury.........................................         2.3         1.3
Silver..........................................          13           8
Titanium........................................          60          22
Zinc............................................          82          54
pH..............................................         (2)        (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Micrograms per liter (ppb)
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 444.14  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: Limitations 
for TSS and pH are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in Sec. 444.13.


Sec. 444.15  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations 
for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium 
and zinc are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 444.13.


Sec. 444.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any source that 
introduces wastewater pollutants into a POTW must comply with part 403 
and achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                       Pretreatment Standards \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Maximum
              Regulated  parameter                  Maximum     monthly
                                                     daily       avg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.........................................          84          72
Cadmium.........................................          71          26
Chromium........................................          25          14
Copper..........................................          23          14
Lead............................................          57          32

[[Page 4385]]

 
Mercury.........................................         2.3         1.3
Silver..........................................          13           8
Titanium........................................          60          22
Zinc............................................          82         54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Micrograms per liter (ppb)

Sec. 444.17  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
performance standards: Standards for TSS, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 
copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium, zinc and pH are the same as 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 444.13.


Sec. 444.18  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any source that introduces 
wastewater pollutants into a POTW must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and 
achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards for arsenic, 
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, titanium and zinc are 
the same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 444.16.
[FR Doc. 00-2019 Filed 1-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P