[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 157 (Monday, August 14, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49666-49706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15841]
[[Page 49665]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 442
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Point
Source Category; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 157 / Monday, August 14, 2000 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 49666]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 442
[FRL--6720-6]
RIN 2040-AB98
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, and
pretreatment standards for the discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States and into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by
existing and new facilities that perform transportation equipment
cleaning operations. Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) facilities
are defined as those facilities that generate wastewater from cleaning
the interior of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail tank cars,
closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges,
closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to transport
materials or cargos that come into direct contact with the tank or
container interior. Facilities which do not engage in cleaning the
interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of this rule.
EPA is subcategorizing the TEC Point Source Category into the
following four subparts based on types of cargos carried and
transportation mode: Subpart A--Tank Trucks and Intermodal Tank
Containers Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart B--Rail
Tank Cars Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos; Subpart C--Tank
Barges and Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical & Petroleum Cargos;
Subpart D--Tanks Transporting Food Grade Cargos.
For all four subparts, EPA is establishing effluent limitations
guidelines for existing facilities and new sources discharging
wastewater directly to surface waters. EPA is establishing pretreatment
standards for existing facilities and new sources discharging
wastewater to POTWs in all subparts except for Subpart D, applicable to
Food Grade Cargos. EPA is not establishing effluent limitations
guidelines or pretreatment standards for facilities that generate
wastewater from cleaning the interior of hopper cars.
The TEC limitations do not apply to wastewaters associated with
tank cleanings performed in conjunction with other industrial,
commercial, or POTW operations so long as the facility cleans only
tanks and containers that have contained raw materials, by-products,
and finished products that are associated with the facility's on-site
processes.
The wastewater flows covered by this rule include all washwaters
which have come into direct contact with the tank or container interior
including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions,
and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule covers wastewater
generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and floor washings,
and TEC contaminated stormwater at those facilities subject to the TEC
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Compliance with this
rule is estimated to reduce the annual discharge of priority pollutants
by at least 60,000 pounds per year and result in annual benefits
ranging from $1.5 million to $5.5 million. The total annualized
compliance cost of the rule is projected to be $16.1 million (pre-tax).
DATES: This regulation shall become effective September 13, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The public record is available for review in the EPA Water
Docket, 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The public record for
this rulemaking has been established under docket number W-97-25, and
includes supporting documentation, but does not include any information
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 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 Mr. John Tinger at (202) 260-4992 or send E-mail to:
[email protected]. For additional economic information contact Mr.
George Denning at (202) 260-7374 or send E-mail to:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated Examples of
Category entities common SIC codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................... Facilities that SIC 7699, SIC
generate wastewater 4741, SIC 4491.
from cleaning the
interior of tank
trucks, rail tank
cars, intermodal tank
containers, tank
barges, or ocean/sea
tankers used to
transport materials
or cargos that come
into direct contact
with tank or
container interior,
except where such
tank cleanings are
performed in
conjunction with
other industrial,
commercial, or POTW
operations..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This 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, should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 442.1 of the rule language. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed for technical information in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 23.2, this rule will be considered
promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on
August 28, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act,
judicial review of this regulation can be obtained only by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120
days after the regulation is considered promulgated for purposes of
judicial review. Under section 509 (b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the
requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Compliance Dates
The compliance date for Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Standards (PSES) is as soon as possible, but no later than August 14,
2003. Deadlines for compliance with Best Practicable
[[Page 49667]]
Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), and Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) are established in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The compliance dates for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources (PSNS) are the dates the new source commences discharging.
Supporting Documentation
The regulations promulgated today are supported by several major
documents:
1. ``Final Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category'' (EPA
821-R-00-0012). Hereafter referred to as the Technical Development
Document, the document presents EPA's technical conclusions concerning
the rule. EPA describes, among other things, the data-collection
activities in support of the regulation, the wastewater treatment
technology options, wastewater characterization, and the estimated
costs to the industry.
2. ``Final Economic Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category'' (EPA
821-R-00-0013).
3. ``Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' (EPA 821-R-00-0014).
How To Obtain Supporting Documents
All documents are available from the National Service Center for
Environmental Publications, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419,
(800) 490-9198. The Technical Development Document and previous
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Federal Register Notices can also be
obtained on the Internet, located at WWW.EPA.GOV/OST/GUIDE. This
website also links to an electronic version of today's notice.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Profile of the Industry
C. Proposed Rule
D. Notice of Availability
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Concentration-Based Limitations
B. Modification to Subcategorization Approach
C. Low Flow Exclusion
D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates
E. Overlap With Other Guidelines
F. Modification to Pollutants Selected For Regulation
G. Technology Options
IV. Applicability of Final Regulation
V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation
A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
D. Food Subcategory
E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
VI. Development of Effluent Limitations
A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for Final Regulation
B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations
VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal
B. Compliance Costs
C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction Analysis Since Proposal
D. Pollutant Reductions
VIII. Economic Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since Proposal
B. Impacts Analysis
C. Small Business Analysis
D. Market Analysis
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
F. Cost-Benefit Analysis
IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since Proposal
B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
E. Food Subcategory
X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Energy Impacts
B. Air Emission Impacts
C. Solid Waste Impacts
XI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
J. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
XII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits &
Monitoring Requirements
E. Analytical Methods
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
I. Legal Authority
EPA is promulgating these regulations under the authority of
Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361.
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Sections 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).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--
Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent
[[Page 49668]]
limits for conventional, toxic,\1\ and non-conventional pollutants. In
specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers
the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment
and facilities, the processes employed and any required process
changes, engineering aspects of the control technologies, non-water
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)).
Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the
average of the best performances of facilities within the industry of
various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher
levels of control than currently in place in an industrial category if
the Agency determines that the technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However,
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging
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 processes
employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional statutory
factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally,
the achievability is determined on the basis of the total cost to the
industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule on the
industry's financial health. BAT limitations may be based upon effluent
reductions attainable through changes in a facility's processes and
operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BAT may be based upon technology transferred from a
different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial
category. BAT may be based upon process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section
304(b)(4) of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. 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).
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best available demonstrated control technology
for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Section 307(b)
of the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for implementing categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass through
that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through
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.
B. Profile of the Industry
The TEC industry includes facilities that generate wastewater from
cleaning the interiors of tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks, rail
tank cars, closed-top hopper rail cars, intermodal tank containers,
tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers used to
transport cargos or commodities that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. Transportation equipment cleaning is
performed to prevent cross-contamination between products or
commodities being transported in the tanks, containers, or hoppers, and
to prepare transportation equipment for repair and maintenance
activities, such as welding. The cleaning activity is a necessary part
of the transportation process.
Based upon responses to EPA's 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry (see discussion in Section
V.B of the proposal (63 FR 34686)), the Agency estimates that there are
approximately 2,405 facilities in the United States that perform TEC
activities. This includes approximately
[[Page 49669]]
1,166 facilities that perform tank cleaning operations on site, but
which are excluded from this rule because of their association with
other industrial, commercial, or POTW operations. There are 1,239 TEC
facilities not associated with other industrial, commercial, or POTW
operations. Of these facilities, EPA estimates that 692 facilities
discharge to either a POTW or to surface waters. The remaining 547
facilities are considered zero dischargers.
The TEC industry consists of distinct transportation sectors: the
trucking sector, the rail sector, and the barge shipping sector. Each
one of these sectors has different technical and economic
characteristics. The transportation industry transports a wide variety
of commodities, and TEC facilities therefore clean tanks and containers
with residues (i.e., heels) from a broad spectrum of commodities, such
as food-grade products, petroleum-based commodities, organic chemicals,
inorganic chemicals, soaps and detergents, latex and resins, hazardous
wastes, and dry bulk commodities.
TEC facilities vary greatly in the level of wastewater treatment
that they currently have in place. Treatment at existing TEC facilities
ranges from no treatment to tertiary treatment. The majority of TEC
facilities discharging to surface waters currently employ primary
treatment, such as oil/water separation or gravity separation, followed
by biological treatment. Indirect discharging facilities typically
employ some form of primary treatment, such as oil/water separation,
gravity separation, dissolved air flotation, or coagulation and
flocculation. A relatively small number of direct and indirect
facilities currently employ tertiary treatment, such as activated
carbon adsorption.
C. Proposed Rule
On June 25, 1998 (63 FR 34685), EPA published proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States and into POTWs by existing
and new facilities that perform transportation equipment cleaning
operations.
EPA received comments on many aspects of the proposal. The majority
of comments related to the use of mass-based rather than concentration-
based limits; the subcategorization approach; the technology options
used as the basis for setting effluent limitations; the selection of
pollutants proposed for regulation; the costs associated with the
regulation; the cost effectiveness of the regulation; the lack of a low
flow exclusion from the regulation; and the applicability of the rule.
EPA evaluated all of these issues based on additional information
collected by EPA or received during the comment period following the
proposal. EPA then discussed the results of most of these evaluations
in a Notice of Availability discussed below.
D. Notice of Availability
On July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38863), EPA published a Notice of
Availability (NOA) in which the Agency presented a summary of new data
collected by EPA or received in comments on the proposed rule. EPA
discussed the major issues raised during the proposal comment period
and presented several alternative approaches to address these issues.
EPA solicited comment on these approaches and on the new data and
analyses conducted in response to comments.
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
This section describes the most significant changes to the rule
since proposal. The majority of these changes have been in response to
comments on the proposal. All of these changes were discussed in the
Notice of Availability.
A. Concentration-Based Limitations
EPA proposed mass-based limitations. In the proposal and NOA, EPA
discussed a change to the format of the rule that would establish
concentration-based rather than mass-based limits. EPA received many
comments on the proposal and on the NOA from regulatory authorities,
industry stakeholders, and POTWs strongly supporting the concentration-
based format of the rule. EPA received only one comment on the proposal
supporting mass-based limits. In the NOA, EPA presented concentration-
based limitations and explained its rationale for the change. Comments
on the NOA were unanimously supportive of concentration-based limits.
The final limitations and standards being promulgated today are
concentration-based.
B. Modification to Subcategorization Approach
EPA proposed separate subcategories for the Truck/Chemical, Truck/
Petroleum, Rail/Chemical, and Rail/Petroleum Subcategories. In the
proposal and NOA, EPA discussed combining the Truck/Chemical
Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum Subcategory into the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, and combining the Rail/Chemical Subcategory and
Rail/Petroleum Subcategory into the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory. In the NOA, EPA presented the preliminary conclusion for
making this change, and presented the costs, loadings, and economic
impacts that would result if this change were made.
The majority of the commenters on the NOA, including regulatory
authorities, industry stakeholders, and POTWs, supported combining
these subcategories. EPA received only one comment supporting separate
subcategories. EPA concluded that the proposed definitions of the
chemical and petroleum subcategories did not adequately define the
difference between chemical and petroleum commodities. For the final
regulation, EPA has combined the proposed chemical and petroleum
subcategories in both the truck and rail segments of the industry.
Additionally, EPA has combined the Truck/Food, Rail/Food, and
Barge/Food Subcategories into one subcategory, the Food Subcategory.
For the proposed rule, subcategorization by transportation mode was
necessary because the truck, rail, and barge facilities had different
regulatory flows per tank cleaned, which resulted in different mass-
based limits for each subcategory. Subcategorization of the Food
Subcategory by transportation mode for the final regulation is
unnecessary because the limits are all based on the same BPT
technology, and the final concentration-based limits are identical for
all TEC facilities cleaning food grade cargos.
C. Low Flow Exclusion
In the proposal, EPA considered establishing a minimum flow level
for defining the scope of the regulation but did not propose a low-flow
exclusion. EPA conducted an analysis to determine an appropriate flow
exclusion level based on the economic impacts of low flow facilities,
the economic impacts on small businesses, and the relative efficiency
of treatment technologies for low flow facilities, in terms of pounds
of pollutants removed.
Based on comments on the proposal, EPA re-evaluated a low-flow
exclusion based on 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater
and presented the results in the NOA. EPA presented the costs,
loadings, and economic impacts that would result if this exclusion was
adopted. EPA's analyses demonstrated that 26 low flow facilities
generated much less than one percent of the baseline loadings to the
industry. EPA received numerous comments which supported the adoption
of a low flow exclusion due to the low amounts of toxics generated by
these facilities.
[[Page 49670]]
EPA also received comments supporting establishing a low flow
exclusion at 200,000 gallons of TEC process wastewater per year. In the
NOA, EPA noted that one model facility (representing nine facilities)
excluded at proposal would be added to the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory and would therefore be subject to the TEC limitations. EPA
noted that an exclusion set at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude
this model facility from the regulation. Consequently, EPA evaluated
establishing the cutoff at 200,000 gallons per year. Establishing a low
flow cutoff at 200,000 gallons per year would exclude an additional
nine facilities in the combined Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
which discharge a combined total of 680 pound equivalents. This equates
to 3.1 percent of facilities discharging 2.3 percent of the loadings in
the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA determined that the
facilities discharging between 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year
contribute a proportional amount of toxic loadings to the industry.
Additionally, EPA found that if the low flow exclusion was raised from
100,000 to 200,000 gallons per year, there would be no decrease in the
number of facilities projected to close or experience financial stress.
For the final regulation, EPA is excluding facilities that
discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC process wastewater.
Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year will remain
subject to limitations and standards established on a case-by-case
basis using Best Professional Judgement by the permitting authority.
D. Revision of Pollutant Loading Estimates
In the NOA, EPA discussed a revision to the methodology for
calculating pesticide and herbicide loadings. This revision was in
response to a comment claiming that EPA overestimated pollutant
reductions by using calculations based on a small number of data points
detected at levels close to the pesticide/herbicide quantification
levels. Specifically, EPA revised the proposed methodology by using the
same editing criteria for pesticide/herbicide pollutants as were used
for all other parameters. EPA made this change to the editing criteria
which resulted in excluding parameters that were not detected in at
least two samples and with average concentrations greater than five
times the detection limit. The revised loadings were presented in the
NOA.
EPA continued to receive comment from the industry that EPA had
misidentified several pesticides and herbicides that were contributing
to the calculation of toxic pound equivalent removals in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Based on an extensive analysis of the
pesticide data collected in support of the regulation, the EPA must
concur that the laboratory analysis does not conclusively support the
presence of several pesticides that were believed to be present in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory wastewater. Therefore, the
Agency has labeled the analytical results for EPN and disulfoton as
``questionable'' and has subsequently removed these pesticides from the
cost effectiveness analysis and benefits analysis. This approach has
resulted in a significant decrease in toxic pound equivalent removals
when compared to the approach used at proposal.
However, EPA believes that pesticides and herbicides are present in
TEC wastewater. As evidenced by responses to the Detailed
Questionnaire, only 5% of tank truck facilities prohibit the cleaning
of tank trucks that have contained pesticides and herbicides, meaning
that 95% of tank truck facilities may potentially clean a cargo that
has contained pesticides or herbicides. As documented by comments
submitted by the industry, site visit reports, and a recent trade
association journal article, the TEC industry is a service industry
that cleans out tank trucks as needed by customers. EPA has identified
over 3,000 cargo types that are cleaned at tank truck facilities, and
these cargos have been documented to include pesticide and herbicides.
E. Overlap With Other Guidelines
EPA proposed language for excluding certain commercial and
industrial facilities from the TEC guideline. Many commenters believed
that this language was too restrictive and that the TEC rule, as
proposed, would encompass many industrial facilities that EPA did not
intend to cover. In the NOA, EPA described several situations where it
concurred with commenters that the proposed language was overly
restrictive. These included industrial or manufacturing facilities that
clean a small number of tank cars on site but that are not covered by
an existing Clean Water Act categorical effluent guideline. EPA
presented revised regulatory language for excluding certain industrial
and commercial facilities which the Agency believed addressed the
concerns raised by commenters and more clearly defined the exclusion.
The majority of commenters supported the revised language, and no
commenter opposed the language. Therefore, EPA has adopted language
similar to that presented in the NOA for the final regulation. The
final rule does not apply to wastewaters associated with tank cleanings
performed in conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or POTW
operations so long as the facility cleans only tanks and containers
that have contained raw materials, by-products, and finished products
that are associated with the facility's on-site processes.
EPA also received comments requesting that EPA specifically exclude
TEC wastewaters generated by POTWs that clean out garbage trucks,
biosolid waste haulers, tankers that contained landfill leachate, and
street cleaning trucks. EPA does not believe that wastewater generated
from cleaning garbage trucks, biosolids trucks, landfill leachate
tankers, or street cleaning trucks meets EPA's definition of cleaning a
tank that has contained a chemical, petroleum, or food grade product.
However, in order to address the concern that POTWs would unnecessarily
be subject to the TEC rule, EPA has added language in the final
applicability section which states that wastewater cleaning operations
performed at POTWs (in addition to other commercial and industrial
operations) are not subject to the TEC guidelines. Additionally, EPA
has adopted a low flow exclusion of 100,000 gallons per year to exclude
from this rule those facilities which may perform a minimal amount of
tank cleaning activities (see Section III.C).
In the proposal, EPA stated that facilities that are predominantly
engaged in Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) operations and clean
ocean/sea tankers, tank barges, rail tank cars, or tank trucks as part
of those activities would likely be included in the upcoming MP&M
regulations and, thus, are excluded from the TEC guideline. EPA
received numerous comments asking EPA to more clearly define what is
meant by ``predominantly engaged.'' In the NOA, EPA attempted to
address these concerns by clarifying the distinction between MP&M
wastewaters and TEC wastewaters based on the purpose of cleaning. All
commenters supported the revised language presented in the NOA as
addressing their concerns. Therefore, EPA is adopting the following
language for the final regulation: ``Wastewater generated from cleaning
tank interiors for purposes of shipping products (i.e., cleaned for
purposes other than maintenance and repair) is considered
[[Page 49671]]
TEC process wastewater. Wastewater generated from cleaning tank
interiors for the purposes of maintenance and repair on the tank is not
considered TEC process wastewater.'' It is possible that some
facilities, or wastewater generated from some unit operations at these
facilities, will be subject to the Metals Products & Machinery (MP&M)
effluent guideline currently being developed by EPA. Facilities that
clean tank interiors solely for the purposes of repair and maintenance
would not be regulated under the TEC guideline.
Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for purposes of
shipping products (i.e., cleaned for purposes other than maintenance
and repair) is considered TEC process wastewater and is subject to the
TEC guideline. It is possible that a facility may be subject to both
the TEC regulations and the MP&M regulations. If a facility generates
wastewater from MP&M activities which is subject to the MP&M guideline
and also discharges wastewater from cleaning tanks for purposes other
than repair and maintenance of those tanks, then that facility may be
subject to both guidelines.
F. Modification to Pollutants Selected for Regulation
EPA proposed limitations for a number of conventional, priority,
and non-conventional pollutants. Many commenters requested that EPA
establish oil and grease (measured as Hexane Extractable Material
(HEM)) and non-polar oil and grease (measured as Silica-gel Treated
Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)) as indicator pollutants for a
number of other pollutants proposed to be regulated. In the NOA, EPA
presented its evaluation for establishing indicator pollutants, and
concluded that oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar oil and grease (SGT-
HEM) could serve as indicator pollutants for the straight chain
hydrocarbons proposed to be regulated. Comments on the NOA generally
supported this conclusion. For the final regulation, EPA has
established limits for oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material
(SGT-HEM) as indicator pollutants. EPA has therefore not established
limits for any straight chain hydrocarbon, but has established limits
for polyaromatic hydrocarbons for certain subcategories.
Furthermore, as described in Section VI. of this notice, EPA has
decided to promulgate effluent limitations and pretreatment standards
for mercury in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and in the
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA has also eliminated zinc as
regulated pollutant in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and
has decided to eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant in all
subcategories.
G. Technology Options
EPA presented revised costs and loads in the NOA for the technology
options considered for the proposal. The costs and loads were revised
due to a number of changes, which were discussed in the NOA. In
summary, EPA revised the cost model; reduced the monitoring costs;
revised the list of pollutants effectively removed; combined the Truck/
Chemical and Truck/Petroleum Subcategories; combined the Rail/Chemical
and Rail/ Petroleum Subcategories; and adopted a low flow exclusion.
EPA also discussed in the NOA several options it was considering in
lieu of the proposed options for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories, including the associated
costs, loads, economic impacts, and environmental benefits. Based on
the revised analysis, EPA is selecting Option I instead of Option II
for PSES and PSNS in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. For
the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting Option II
for BPT, BAT, BCT and NSPS. EPA had proposed Option I for BPT, BAT, and
BCT and Option III for NSPS. For indirect dischargers in the Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is selecting Option II for both
PSES and PSNS instead of Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS.
Additionally, EPA has decided to establish PSES based on Option II for
the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory in order to prevent pass
through or interference at a POTW.
EPA has eliminated flow reduction from the technology options for
all subcategories because it is promulgating concentration-based rather
than mass-based limitations. Note, however, that EPA has retained flow
reduction as a cost-effective compliance strategy for several
subcategories.
Sections VII, VIII, and IX of this notice present the final costs,
pollutant reductions, economic impacts, and water quality impacts for
EPA's selected options. The technology options are described in Section
V of this notice. A description of the wastewater treatment technology
components of the options can be found in Section VIII of the proposal
and in the Technical Development Document.
IV. Applicability of Final Regulation
EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from facilities
engaged in cleaning the interiors of tanks including tank trucks, rail
tank cars, intermodal tank containers, tank barges, and ocean/sea
tankers used to transport commodities that come into direct contact
with the tank or container interior. Facilities which do not engage in
cleaning the interior of tanks are not considered within the scope of
this rule.
The wastewater flows covered by the rule include all washwaters
that come into direct contact with the tank or container interior
including pre-rinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions,
and final rinse solutions. Additionally, the rule would cover
wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and
floor washings, and TEC contaminated wastewater only at those
facilities subject to the TEC guidelines and standards.
EPA evaluated the following subcategorization approach for the
final regulation: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Rail/Chemical
& Petroleum Subcategory; Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory; Food
Subcategory; Truck/Hopper Subcategory; Rail/Hopper Subcategory; and
Barge/Hopper Subcategory. Table 1 presents the final regulatory
approach.
Table 1.--Regulatory Approach for the TEC Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT and
Subcategory BCT BAT NSPS PSES PSNS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum......................................... X X X X X
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum.......................................... X X X X X
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum......................................... X X X X X
Food............................................................... X ....... X ....... .......
Truck/Hopper....................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
[[Page 49672]]
Rail/Hopper........................................................ ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Barge/Hopper....................................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is establishing effluent limitations guidelines for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater directly to surface
waters in the following subcategories: Truck/Chemical & Petroleum,
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum, and Food
Subcategory. EPA is establishing pretreatment standards for existing
facilities and new sources discharging wastewater to POTWs in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum, and Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.
For the Food Subcategory, EPA is establishing effluent limitations
guidelines for existing and new facilities discharging directly to
surface waters. These limitations and standards are established to
control discharges of conventional pollutants which may adversely
affect waterways when discharged directly to surface waters. Few
priority pollutants were found in food wastewaters; thus, EPA has
chosen to not establish BAT limitations for the Food Subcategory.
Because POTWs have the ability to treat conventional pollutants, EPA
concluded that it was unnecessary to establish pretreatment standards
for the Food Subcategory. Comments received on the proposal
predominantly supported EPA's regulatory approach for the Food
Subcategory.
EPA is not establishing effluent limitations guidelines or
standards for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories. Closed-top hopper trucks, rail cars, and barges are used
to transport dry bulk materials such as coal, grain, and fertilizers.
Raw wastewater generated from cleaning the interiors of hoppers was
found to contain very few priority pollutants at treatable levels. This
is likely due to the fact that the residual materials (heels) from dry
bulk goods are easily removed prior to washing, and that relatively
little wastewater is generated from cleaning the interiors of hopper
tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials transported. These facts
result in low pollutant loadings being present in the wastewater
discharges from hopper tank cleaning. Based on the low pollutant
loadings associated with wastewater discharge from the hopper
subcategories, the Agency concluded that it is not necessary to
establish nationally-applicable effluent limitations for these
subcategories. Rather, direct dischargers will remain subject to
effluent limitations established on a case-by-case basis using Best
Professional Judgement, and indirect dischargers may be subject to
local pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass through or
interference. EPA received comments supporting this conclusion.
EPA received comments on the proposal requesting that EPA include
wastewater from cleaning the interiors of intermediate bulk containers
(IBCs) within the scope of this regulation. The commenter believed that
IBCs generate a significant amount of loadings in the industry;
therefore, excluding IBCs would give an economic advantage to
facilities that clean only IBCs because these facilities would not be
covered by the TEC regulation. In response to these comments, EPA
collected additional data on IBC cleaning performed by the TEC industry
and then conducted an economic analysis on the impact of IBC cleaning
on the tank truck industry. This information and analysis were
presented in the NOA. Based on the analysis presented in Section VII of
the NOA, EPA concluded that wastewater generated from IBC cleaning
should not be included in the scope of this guideline. As discussed in
the NOA, EPA will continue to evaluate the Industrial Container and
Drum Cleaning Industry as a potential candidate for future regulation.
TEC process wastewater includes all wastewaters associated with
cleaning the interiors of tanks including: tank trucks; rail tank cars;
intermodal tank containers; tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to
transport commodities or cargos that come into direct contact with the
tank or container interior. At those facilities subject to the TEC
guidelines and standards, TEC process wastewaters also include
wastewater generated from washing vehicle exteriors, equipment and
floor washings, and TEC-contaminated stormwater. TEC process wastewater
is defined to include only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC
subcategory. Therefore, TEC process wastewater does not include
wastewater generated from the hopper facilities, or from food grade
facilities discharging to a POTW.
EPA is adopting a low flow exclusion for this regulation. A
facility that discharges less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC
process wastewater is not subject to the TEC guidelines. EPA is
adopting this exclusion due to the very low pollutant loadings
associated with facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per
year.
Facilities discharging less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC
process wastewater will remain subject to limitations and standards
established on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement
by the permitting authority.
V. Technology Options Selected for Basis of Regulation
All of the treatment technologies considered for the final
regulations were discussed in the proposal. In the NOA, EPA presented
the costs, loads, and impacts for one option in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory that were not presented in the proposal. This
option, consisting of equalization and oil/water separation only, was a
component of other options in the proposal but had not been evaluated
separately as a regulatory option.
The following sections summarize the technology options that EPA
considered for each subcategory. The costs, loads, economic impacts,
and environmental benefits for the selected options are also presented.
All results presented in this notice are expressed in 1998 dollars.
A. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory
EPA evaluated the following treatment options for the final
regulation:
Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological Treatment, and
Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Biological Treatment,
[[Page 49673]]
Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed to establish BPT limits based on Option II, and to
establish BCT, BAT, and NSPS equivalent to BPT. In the proposal, EPA
stated that all three model facilities have equalization, coagulation/
clarification, biological treatment, and activated carbon in place. Two
of the three facilities in the cost model have sufficient treatment in
place; therefore, costs for additional monitoring only are attributed
to these facilities. The third facility was costed for flow reduction,
sludge dewatering, and monitoring. Flow reduction and sludge dewatering
generates net cost savings for the facility's entire treatment train.
In addition, these net cost savings are larger than the monitoring
costs incurred by the other two facilities.
EPA determined that Option II is economically achievable because it
will result in a net cost savings to the industry, and will not cause
any facility closures, revenue impacts, or employment impacts. EPA did
not identify any more stringent treatment technology option which it
considers to represent NSPS level of control.
EPA did not consider any changes to the option selected for this
subcategory in the NOA. EPA did not receive any comments specific to
option selection for direct discharging facilities in this subcategory
in the proposal or the NOA. EPA has therefore established BPT, BCT,
BAT, and NSPS based on Option II.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA evaluated the following treatment options for the final
regulation:
Option A: Equalization and Oil/Water Separation.
Option I: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Equalization, Oil/Water Separation, Chemical Oxidation,
Neutralization, Coagulation, Clarification, Activated Carbon
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
In response to comments received, EPA has also considered a
pollution prevention approach as a compliance option, as discussed
below.
EPA proposed to establish PSES and PSNS at Option II. In the NOA,
EPA presented revised costs, loads and impacts for each option, and
stated that Options I and A were also being considered for PSES and
PSNS. EPA is today promulgating a pollution prevention compliance
option for this subcategory as well as promulgating a traditional
compliance option (i.e. a set of numeric pretreatment standards) based
on Option I.
EPA received comments on the proposed technology options from the
affected industry and from other stakeholders. Several commenters
expressed concern that Option II, which includes activated carbon
adsorption, was an excessive and costly level of treatment for indirect
dischargers in the tank cleaning industry. Commenters also expressed
concern that Option A level of control may be inadequate to control
tank cleaning wastewater discharges. Several commenters were concerned
with the discrepancy of treatment options proposed for the truck and
rail segments of the industry.
EPA also received technical comment questioning the presence of
specific pesticides in raw tank truck cleaning wastewater, and the
pollutant removals associated with these pesticides for the various
options.
EPA also received comments from stakeholders that encouraged EPA to
explore the use of pollution prevention plans as an alternative to
extensive treatment. Generally, EPA seeks to encourage practices that
reduce pollutant generation or minimize the extent to which they enter
treatment systems because of the substantial opportunities for reducing
both treatment costs and the total pollutant load to the environment.
Specifically, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) ``declares it to be
the national policy of the United States that pollution should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as
a last resort * * *''.
As described in Section VIII.A of the proposal, EPA identified and
evaluated a number of pollution prevention controls applicable to the
industry, including the use of dedicated tanks, heel (residual cargo
remaining in tanks following unloading) minimization, water
conservation practices, and reduction in the toxicity and amount of
chemical cleaning solutions. These controls were also described in more
detail in Chapter 8 of the proposed Technical Development Document. EPA
identified these controls as voluntary practices that many facilities
in the industry were already incorporating. POTWs have also required
such practices as part of their local pretreatment requirements. For
example, some POTWs have required that facilities segregate specific
wastewaters such as cleaning solutions or pesticide residues, or have
prohibited the discharge of wastewaters associated with acid
brighteners.
EPA believes that pollution prevention and effective pollutant
management is an appropriate and effective way of reducing pollutant
discharges from this subcategory. Further, the Agency believes that
providing a pollution prevention compliance option may be less costly
than the technology options considered for regulation. Therefore EPA is
providing both a pollution prevention option based on development and
implementation of a Pollutant Management Plan (PMP) and a set of
numeric limits allows facility owners and operators to choose the less
expensive compliance alternative. Based on its economic analysis of
technology Option I, EPA believes that PSES and PSNS based on a choice
between effective pollution prevention and limits based on Option I is
economically achievable for this subcategory. For the portion of the
industry that already has extensive treatment in place, it may be more
cost effective to comply with the numeric limits. Conversely, for those
facilities already utilizing good pollution prevention practices and/or
operating in accordance with a PMP, it may be more cost effective to
use the pollution prevention compliance alternative.
Nationally applicable pretreatment standards are designed to
prevent pass through or interference with a POTW. The legislative
history of the 1972 Act indicates that pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for removal of toxic pollutants. EPA conducted a pass
through analysis for the pollutants of concern. EPA determined that
several pollutants would pass through a POTW. The results of this
analysis are presented in Section VI. of this notice. Today's rule
includes numeric limits for several of these pollutants for facilities
which choose not to use the pollution prevention compliance option.
Without considering a pollution prevention compliance option,
Option A has a post-tax annualized cost of $5.2 million ($8.1 million
pre-tax) for 286 facilities. Option I's cost is $9.2 million ($14.4
million pre-tax), and Option II's cost is $20.9 million ($32.9 million
pre-
[[Page 49674]]
tax). Costs for any of the options in combination with a pollution
prevention compliance option would likely be lower.
For the final regulation, EPA projects that there will be no
closures or employment impacts for any option (even without a Pollution
prevention compliance option) when a positive cost pass through
assumption is made. When zero cost pass through is assumed, EPA's
economic analysis indicates that 14 facilities may experience financial
stress at Option I, and that 22 facilities may experience financial
stress at Option II. At Option I, none of the 14 facilities
experiencing financial stress are small businesses; at Option II, 7 of
the 22 facilities experiencing financial stress are small businesses.
In addition to the financial stress analysis, EPA also evaluated
revenue impacts at small businesses. EPA projects that the compliance
cost would not be greater than three percent of revenue for any small
businesses at Option I, but would exceed that percentage for 14 small
business at Option II under the positive cost pass through assumption.
For the zero cost pass through assumption, 14 small businesses are
projected to exceed revenue impacts of three percent at Option A; 29
small businesses at Option I; and 36 small businesses at Option II.
Option A is projected to result in no monetized benefits. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option I will result in significantly
higher benefits than Option A, ranging from $1.5 million to $5.2
million annually. However, EPA estimates that Option II would not
result in any significant additional monetized benefits incremental to
Option I.
EPA also examined the projected pollutant removals and cost
effectiveness of each option. In assessing removals of toxic
pollutants, EPA estimates actual reductions that would be achieved by
the treatment option under consideration, adjusts these to account for
removals that occur at the POTW anyway, and then converts the actual
pounds removed to toxic pound equivalents using a standardized set of
toxic weighting factors. For Option A, EPA projects total removals for
this subcategory of 1,500 toxic pound equivalents. For Option I, EPA
projects total removals for this subcategory of 11,700 toxic pound
equivalents. For Option II, EPA projects total removals for this
subcategory of 20,900 toxic pound equivalents.
Section X of the preamble for the proposed rule describes EPA's
cost effectiveness analysis. EPA uses cost effectiveness to evaluate
the relative efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants.
The cost effectiveness of Option A is estimated to be $3,200/PE. The
average cost effectiveness of Option I is estimated to be $740/PE , and
the incremental cost effectiveness over Option A is estimated to be
$370/PE . The average cost effectiveness of Option II is estimated to
be $940/PE , and the incremental cost effectiveness over Option I is
estimated to be $1,200/PE .
EPA notes that these cost-effectiveness estimates do not include
any credit for reductions of a number of pesticides, herbicides, or
other toxic agents that may be present in TEC wastewater at some
facilities but that were not found at the time of EPA's sampling.
According to the detailed questionnaire responses, EPA notes that over
3,000 types of cargos are being cleaned at tank truck facilities.
However, absent better estimates, EPA based its analysis on those toxic
substances that were confirmed present by its sampling protocols. Based
on the number presented above, EPA was concerned that the cost
effectiveness estimates were high and the toxic removal estimates were
low when compared to those calculated for many of the primary
manufacturing industries for which EPA has promulgated pretreatment
standards.
As the Agency evaluated whether or not to establish pretreatment
standards for this subcategory, and at what technology option, EPA
compared its information on this subcategory to that for the Industrial
Laundries point source category (64 FR 45072), which EPA ultimately
decided not to regulate at the national level.
First, EPA found that the estimated pollutants were similarly low
for both industries. However, in contrast to the Industrial Laundries
decision, the TEC record identifies a wide range of pollutants of
concern to POTWs, and identified problems (past and recent) with TEC
facilities that have included interference and pass through, upsets due
to slug loads, not meeting local limits, and sludge contamination.
These problems have generally been addressed by the application of
appropriate local limits. Pretreatment authorities submitting comments
on the proposal generally supported regulation of this industry.
Already, 44% of the industry has been required to install technology
equivalent to Option I, and 86% of the industry has been required to
install technology equivalent to Option A.
Second, for industrial laundries, EPA estimated a reduction of 32
PE per facility at an average cost of $84,000 ($1998 post-tax) for the
preferred option among the technology options. EPA estimates that under
the preferred option for this TEC subcategory (Option I), a reduction
of 40 PE per facility would be achieved at an average cost of $30,000
($1998 post-tax).
Third, in terms of the cost effectiveness analysis, the
economically achievable options for both industries had costs per PE
that are high. However, the CE for laundries (at $2,360/PE) was
significantly higher than the CE for this subcategory of the TEC
industry (at $740/PE).
Finally, in terms of economic impacts, EPA determined that the
preferred option was economically achievable in both cases. However,
EPA also noted that 44 laundry facilities were projected to close under
the preferred option, and no firms were projected to experience stress.
No facility closures are projected under the preferred option for this
TEC subcategory, and no facilities were projected to experience
financial stress if they are able to pass some costs through to
customers. If the facilities were unable to pass costs through to
customers, 14 facilities are projected to occur financial stress.
EPA also notes that the cost-benefit analysis for the preferred
treatment option for the industrial laundries industry indicated that
the rule, if published, would have annual pre-tax costs of $131.2
million (1993$) and annual monetized benefits of $0.07-$0.35 million
(1993$). The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory has an annual pre-
tax cost of $14.4 million and annualized monetized benefits of $1.5-
$5.2 million (1998$) annually.
In summary, EPA has determined that in some respects, this
subcategory is similar to the industrial laundries industry that EPA
decided not to regulate (e.g. small pollutant removals) but in other
respects it is significantly different (e.g. greater potential for POTW
interference and less significant economic impacts).
While EPA believes that pretreatment standards are appropriate for
the TEC industry, EPA acknowledges that costs for some facilities may
be high relative to removals. For the 14% of facilities with no
treatment in place, EPA estimated that the average cost per facility
could be as high as $100,000 per year on a pre-tax basis, and would
remove 67 PE per facility per year. The Agency also does not want to
establish an inflexible regulation that may not be able to offer the
most environmentally responsible yet cost effective solution to a
particular wastestream at a individual TEC facility. In light of this,
and considering the wide variety of tanker cargos accepted for
cleaning, EPA recognizes that one of the most
[[Page 49675]]
successful means of reducing the discharge of pollutants in wastewater
may be pollution prevention and source reduction.
EPA evaluated potential regulatory structures for pollution
prevention practices and concluded that the Agency should promulgate a
regulatory option that would reduce the pollutant loadings being
discharged and also prevent pass through and interference, but that may
allow more opportunities for pollution prevention than nationally
applicable numeric pretreatment standards. In evaluating a pollution
prevention alternative, EPA considered a number of factors that
included public comments received, industry support, costs, and
environmental benefits. EPA believes that the pass through and
interference of pollutants of concern to EPA and to the pretreatment
authorities can be appropriately controlled through effective pollution
prevention and pollutant management tailored to the circumstances of
the individual facility through a Pollutant Management Plan. EPA
believes these pollutants can also be controlled through compliance
with the numeric limits based on technology Option I. EPA is thus
offering both options for compliance with PSES and PSNS.
EPA has had discussions with industry stakeholders and the U.S.
Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and EPA believes that
it has sufficient support from stakeholders to proceed with this dual
approach, and that this approach will provide effective pollutant
reductions that prevent pass through, interference, and sludge
contamination at the POTWs.
EPA has chosen to establish a pollution prevention compliance
option, as well as tradition PSES and PSNS limits based on Option I.
EPA does not believe that the lower cost Option A removed enough toxics
to justify its selection as the basis for pretreatment standards.
Additionally, EPA agrees with comments received from pretreatment
authorities, including the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA), that oil/water separation alone is not effective for
achieving appropriate reductions of the pollutants which may be
discharged by TEC facilities. AMSA also indicated its support for
effective pollution prevention practices as an alternative to numeric
limits for these facilities.
Although Option II removed significantly more pound equivalents
than Option I, Option II does not achieve significant incremental
reductions for any regulated pollutant and is not projected to result
in any increased monetized benefits. Also, EPA notes that Option II has
the potential to cause more economic impacts than Option I. EPA does
not believe that the considerable cost increase for Option II
incremental to Option I is justified. Therefore, EPA decided that
limits based on Option II are not appropriate for this subcategory.
EPA believes that a dual approach which offers facilities a choice
between Pollution prevention and compliance with numeric limits based
on Option I is economically achievable and will significantly reduce
pollutant loadings. Option I does not result in any projected closures,
even with a zero cost pass through assumption. Although 14 facilities
are projected to incur financial stress under this assumption, this is
a relatively small percentage of the subcategory population (two
percent of the industry) and none of these facilities are small
businesses. Under the assumption of some cost pass through to
customers, no facilities are projected to experience financial stress.
Additionally, EPA believes that it has responded to many commenters'
concerns by requiring similar levels of control for the truck and rail
subcategories and by providing the pollution prevention compliance
option for both subcategories and by omitting granular activated
carbon, a potentially costly treatment addition, from the selected PSES
and PSNS treatment option for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory. Also, EPA has made a finding of no barrier to entry
associated with Option I level of control for new sources (discussed in
Section VIII). Therefore, EPA is establishing PSES and PSNS based on a
dual approach involving a pollution prevention compliance option and
traditional limits based on Option I technologies.
The Agency believes that the implementation of a Pollutant
Management Plan that ensures that heels, chemicals, and mixtures that
are incompatible with POTW systems are not discharged to POTWs, and
ensures appropriate handling of such materials (by recycle, reuse,
effective pretreatment, or off-site treatment or disposal) would
provide comparable effluent reductions. Wastewaters resulting from heel
removals, prerinse solutions, and cleaning solutions normally contain
the highest concentrations of pollutants in TEC wastewater. Some
facilities will find it less costly to implement pollution prevention
and pollutant management controls, while others will find it less
costly to meet numeric limits. As a regulatory compliance alternative,
facility owners and operators would be given the flexibility to choose
the less expensive compliance alternative, i.e. either meeting the
specific numeric pretreatment standards, or by implementing a Pollutant
Management Plan.
The management plan would require facilities to implement
procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is likely to
result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible with
treatment at the POTW. This would include cargos containing pesticides,
herbicides, and other toxic compounds that are not effectively treated
by biological treatment. The plan would also require facilities to
fully drain heels from such cargos, segregate those heels from other
wastewaters, and handle them in an appropriate manner. Appropriate
handling of heels could include return of the heel to the customer,
off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has been
demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass through
or interference. The plan would likewise require facilities to prerinse
or presteam such cargos as appropriate, segregate the prerinse/presteam
wastewaters from other wastewaters as appropriate and handle in an
appropriate manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a
discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW.
Appropriate handling of prerinse/presteam wastewaters could include
recycle/reuse, off-site treatment or disposal, or pretreatment that has
been demonstrated to result in sufficient reductions to prevent pass
through or interference.
In addition, the plan would require that all spent cleaning
solutions be segregated as appropriate and handled in an appropriate
manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. Spent cleaning
solutions include interior caustic washes, interior presolve washes,
interior detergent washes, interior acid washes, and exterior acid
brightener washes. Appropriate handling of spent cleaning solutions
could include regeneration of the solutions, off-site treatment or
disposal, or pretreatment that has been demonstrated to result in
sufficient reductions to prevent pass through or interference.
The plan would also require the appropriate recycling or reuse of
cleaning agents; the minimization of toxic cleaning agent use; and the
maintenance of appropriate records on heel management, prerinse/
presteam management, cleaning agent management, operator training, and
[[Page 49676]]
proper operation and maintenance of any pretreatment systems.
The plans would also provide information on the volumes, content,
and chemical characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or
brightening operations.
EPA has identified these pollution prevention practices through its
data collection efforts in support of this rulemaking, and EPA believes
that it has developed the most appropriate combination of Pollution
prevention practices that provides maximum flexibility while ensuring
significant pollutant reductions.
B. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA evaluated three treatment options for the final regulation:
Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Biological Treatment, and
Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Biological Treatment and Sludge
Dewatering.
Option III: Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Biological Treatment, Organo-
Clay/Activated Carbon Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT and
BAT equivalent to BPT. EPA proposed Option III for NSPS. EPA did not
receive any comments following the proposal or the NOA specific to
establishing limits for direct discharging facilities in this
subcategory.
All regulated toxic parameters were treated to the same level at
Options I, II, and III. As discussed in Section VI, EPA did not have
sampling data for direct dischargers in this subcategory because EPA
only identified one direct discharger and it does not have the
treatment technology used as the basis for BPT. EPA has therefore
relied on technology transfer from the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory to establish limits for conventionals, and data from
indirect dischargers in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to
establish limits for toxic pollutants. Although EPA believes that the
treatment in place at the one rail direct discharging facility
(consisting of oil/water separation, equalization, pH adjustment,
biological treatment, and a filter press) is sufficient to meet the
limitations, EPA has decided to establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS based
on Option II, which includes dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA
believes that this is the most appropriate technology because the
dataset used to transfer limits (from both the rail indirect facilities
and the barge direct facilities) includes DAF treatment. Therefore, EPA
has included the additional costs of DAF treatment for the one direct
discharging rail facility, even though this has not changed the
limitations presented in the NOA.
As discussed in Section VIII.B.1.c of the proposal, EPA evaluated
the costs, loads, and impacts of the one model direct discharging
facility. EPA estimates that the cost of implementing Option I, for
monitoring only, is about $4,900 annually on a post-tax basis ($7,600
pre-tax). EPA's estimate of costs for Option II is $40,800 annually on
a post-tax basis ($59,000 pre-tax), and for Option III is $60,600
annually on a post-tax basis ($89,000 pre-tax). EPA projects that this
facility would not close or experience revenue impacts, employment
impacts, or financial stress at Option I or Option II level of control.
EPA's economic analysis indicates that Option III would have higher
costs for the existing facility used as the basis for today's
regulation. The single direct discharge facility used for analysis
would not close under Option III, but this facility would have
annualized costs that exceed three percent of annual revenue. The
results of the annualized costs to sales analysis shows a high impact
that should be avoided if possible since these additional costs would
not provide incremental pollutant removals in comparison to Option II.
In addition, the incremental economic impacts projected at Option
III may create a barrier to entry for new sources. Therefore, EPA does
not believe that there are additional removals or benefits to be
obtained by establishing NSPS at a more stringent level of control, and
EPA decided to establish NSPS equivalent to BPT, BCT, and BAT.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA considered three options for the final regulation:
Option I--Oil/Water Separation.
Option II--Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), and Sludge Dewatering.
Option III--Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Dissolved Air Flotation
(with Flocculation and pH Adjustment), Organo-Clay/Activated Carbon
Adsorption, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option I for PSES and Option III for PSNS. As
discussed in Section VIII.B.5.d of the proposal, the economic impacts
to the industry played a large role in EPA's selection of Option I for
pretreatment standards. EPA noted that its preliminary conclusion was
that Option II was projected to result in six facility closures and was
not considered to be economically achievable.
EPA received several comments on the pollutant control technologies
proposed for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA received
comments from several entities, including AMSA, who argued that oil/
water separation alone is not sufficient pretreatment for the
pollutants in Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory wastewaters.
Additionally, many commenters have expressed concern about the
discrepancy in treatment technology proposed for the rail and truck
facilities. Several commenters argued that the wastewater
characteristics are similar for truck and rail facilities, and that the
treatment options should therefore be similar for facilities which
potentially compete with each other.
EPA has determined that a Pollutant Management Plan is an
appropriate compliance alternative to the numerical pretreatment
standards also being promulgated in today's rule for the rail/chemical
and petroleum subcategory. As explained elsewhere in today's notice,
the Agency believes this Pollutant Management Plan alternative is
consistent with the CWA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; is
comparable to the numerical standards in terms of pollutant removal and
costs incurred by facilities; is economically achievable; and will
allow an appropriate level of flexibility to facility owners and
operators on how to best achieve a reduction in pollutants being
discharged to the POTW. The full discussion of the Agency's reasoning
is set forth in section V.A of today's notice.
In the proposal, EPA also noted this discrepancy, and noted that
there were many similarities between the truck and rail subcategory
wastewaters, and that the most significant reason for proposing
dissimilar technology options in the truck and rail subcategories was
due to economic considerations. EPA's analysis showed that several rail
facilities were unable to incur the costs of a more stringent
regulatory option without sustaining significant economic impacts.
However, all of the financially
[[Page 49677]]
stressed rail facilities will now qualify for the low flow exclusion
(see Section III.C of this notice). Additionally, as discussed in
Section VI, EPA has reduced monitoring costs by establishing indicator
parameters. Removing low flow facilities and some monitoring costs from
EPA's analysis has affected the total costs, loads, and economic
impacts of the technology options for this subcategory.
For the final regulation, EPA estimates that Option I will have an
annualized cost of $589,000 post-tax ($897,000 pre-tax), Option II will
cost $1.0 million post-tax ($1.5 million pre-tax), and Option III will
cost $1.6 million post-tax ($2.5 million pre-tax). EPA projects that
Option I and Option II will both result in monetized benefits of
$54,000 to $285,000 annually, and that Option III would result in
benefits of $1.0 to $3.9 million annually.
EPA conducted a pass through analysis for the pollutants selected
for regulation under BAT. EPA determined that several pollutants would
pass through a POTW. The results of this analysis are presented in
Section VI. of this notice.
For Options I, II, and III, EPA anticipates no closures, revenue
impacts, or employment impacts at even the most conservative assumption
of no cost pass through. Additionally, EPA does not anticipate any
facilities will experience financial stress at Options I, II, or III.
EPA also considers the cost effectiveness to evaluate the relative
efficiency of each option in removing toxic pollutants. Option I is
projected to remove 6,600 pound equivalents, Option II will remove
7,300 pound equivalents, and Option III will remove 7,800 pound
equivalents.
EPA has decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II.
Although Option III is projected to remove more pound equivalents and
also result in higher monetized benefits then Option II, Option III was
not demonstrated to achieve significant reductions incremental to
Option II for any regulated pollutant. The increase in monetized
benefits in Option II was due to the removal of several pesticides not
proposed for regulation. EPA has discussed its rationale for not
establishing limitations for pesticides in Section VI. Therefore, EPA
does not believe that the higher costs for Option III justify its
selection for pretreatment standards for new sources.
As noted in the NOA, the cost of Option II is 70 percent higher
than the costs for Option I, and the corresponding increase in pound
equivalents removed is approximately 10 percent. Comparatively, the
cost of Option III is 65 percent higher than the costs for Option II,
and the corresponding increase in pound equivalents removed is
approximately six percent. While this results in a relatively high
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for both Options II and III, EPA
has decided to establish PSES based on Option II for the reasons
discussed above. Option II, which is analogous to Option I in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, achieves a significant
reduction in toxic loadings and results in no closures, financial
stress, or revenue impacts. Additionally, EPA has modified the proposal
to decrease costs for the industry, and the final costs for Option II
are roughly equivalent to the costs estimated for Option I at proposal.
EPA has therefore decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on Option
II.
C. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory
EPA considered two options for the final regulation:
Option I: Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press,
Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option II: Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press,
Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option I for BPT, and proposed to establish BCT, BAT
and NSPS equivalent to BPT. EPA estimates the annualized costs for
Option I at $89,500 annually post-tax ($146,300 pre-tax) and Option II
at $345,700 annually post-tax ($540,900 pre-tax). EPA estimates that
both Option I and Option II remove 19,300 pounds of BOD5 and
TSS. Based on the treatment technologies in place at the model
facilities, coupled with the biological treatment system upgrades
estimated by EPA to achieve Option I performance levels, EPA predicts
that Option II would not result in any additional removal of toxic
pollutants because most pollutants are already treated to very low
levels, often approaching or below non-detect levels. EPA did not
receive any support for establishing BPT, BCT, BAT, or NSPS at Option
II.
EPA has therefore decided to establish BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS
based on Option I.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
EPA considered three options for the final regulation:
Option I--Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, and Filter
Press.
Option II--Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter Press,
Biological Treatment, and Sludge Dewatering.
Option III--Oil/Water Separation, Dissolved Air Flotation, Filter
Press, Biological Treatment, Reverse Osmosis, and Sludge Dewatering.
EPA proposed Option II for PSNS. EPA did not propose PSES for the
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory because EPA identified only one
facility discharging to a POTW. However, since the proposal, EPA has
identified four facilities which previously discharged directly to
surface waters and have since either switched or plan to switch
discharge status. EPA noted this change in discharge status for these
four barge facilities in the NOA, and EPA now estimates that there are
five facilities in EPA's model which discharge wastewater to a POTW.
EPA evaluated the treatment in place and levels of control
currently achieved by the model indirect discharging Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum facilities. EPA was able to evaluate effluent discharge
concentrations of BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease from each of
these model facilities (EPA did not have the data to evaluate the
discharge concentrations of other parameters). Based on the discharge
concentrations of these conventional pollutants, EPA believes that all
model indirect discharging facilities are meeting the levels of control
that would be established under PSES, and that the effluent
concentrations of other pollutants of interest would also be similarly
controlled.
Therefore, EPA estimates that the cost of implementing PSES
standards equivalent to PSNS would be solely for increased monitoring
costs, totaling approximately $67,000 (pre-tax) annually. EPA believes
that all indirectly discharging facilities have sufficient treatment in
place to meet standards that would be established under PSES. EPA
predicts that there would be no incremental removals or benefits
associated with establishing PSES standards. EPA has not received any
comments that disagreed with the Agency's assessment that existing
facilities would meet the standards.
EPA evaluated the pass through of pollutants regulated under BAT.
As was
[[Page 49678]]
discussed at proposal for establishment of NSPS, and in the NOA for
SGT-HEM, EPA found that a number of pollutants would in fact pass
through a POTW based on BAT treatment. Due to the pass through of a
number of pollutants, and due to the number of facilities that have
switched discharge status since proposal, EPA concluded that it should
establish PSES and PSNS based on Option II. EPA believes that PSES is
necessary in order to establish similar levels of control for direct
and indirect dischargers, and especially to establish similar levels of
control for those facilities which may decide to switch discharge
status.
As noted under NSPS for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,
EPA believes that Option III, consisting of reverse osmosis treatment,
would not result in a significant reduction of toxic pollutants,
because most pollutants are already treated to low levels based on
Option II level of control. Option II was demonstrated to treat many
regulated pollutants to effluent levels approaching the detection
limit. EPA has therefore decided to establish PSES and PSNS based on
Option II.
D. Food Subcategory
EPA proposed to establish separate subcategories for the Truck/
Food, Rail/Food, and Barge/Food subcategories due to the differences in
the amount of water generated per cleaning by truck, rail, and barge
facilities. The different volumes of wastewater were used to establish
distinct mass-based limits in each of the subcategories. However, EPA
is establishing concentration-based instead of mass-based limits,
making further subcategorization of food facilities by transportation
mode unnecessary.
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Food Subcategory
EPA considered the following options for the final regulation:
Option I--Oil/Water Separation.
Option II--Oil/Water Separation, Equalization, Biological Treatment,
and Sludge Dewatering.
Based on screener survey results, EPA estimates that there are 19
direct discharging facilities in the Food Subcategory.
EPA proposed Option II for BPT, BCT, and NSPS. In the proposal, EPA
stated that no additional pollutant removals and no additional costs to
the industry were projected because all facilities identified by EPA
currently have the proposed technology in place. EPA has not received
any comment objecting to the assumptions or conclusions contained in
the proposal. EPA therefore continues to believe that all food grade
facilities currently have the proposed treatment technology in place,
and that Option II represents the average of the best treatment. EPA
has decided to establish BPT at Option II, and to establish BCT and
NSPS equivalent to BPT. Based on the analysis of existing facilities,
EPA concluded that there would be no barrier to entry for new sources
based on Option II. Additionally, EPA did not identify any treatment
technology for the Food Subcategory that would achieve significant
pollutant removals or would establish effluent limitations
significantly more stringent than those being established under BPT.
EPA is not establishing BAT because EPA did not identify toxic or non-
conventional pollutants at levels sufficient to merit regulation.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Food Subcategory
In the Agency's engineering assessment of pretreatment of
wastewaters for the Food Subcategory, EPA considered the types and
concentrations of pollutants found in raw wastewaters in this
subcategory. As expected, food grade facilities did not discharge
significant quantities of toxic pollutants to POTWs. In addition,
conventional pollutants present in the wastewater are amenable to
treatment at a POTW. As a result, EPA did not propose to establish
pretreatment standards for any of the food subcategories. Comments
received on the proposal predominantly supported EPA's regulatory
approach for the Food Subcategory. Therefore, EPA is not establishing
PSES or PSNS for the Food Subcategory in the final regulation.
E. Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper Subcategories
1. BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and
Barge/Hopper Subcategories.
EPA did not propose to establish BPT, BAT, BCT, or NSPS regulations
for any of the hopper subcategories. EPA concluded that hopper
facilities discharge very few pounds of conventional or toxic
pollutants. This is based on EPA sampling data, which showed very few
priority toxic pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater.
Additionally, very little wastewater is generated from cleaning the
interiors of hopper tanks due to the dry nature of bulk materials
transported. EPA estimates that nine hopper facilities discharge 21
pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about two pound
equivalents per year per facility. Comments on the proposal generally
supported EPA's conclusion on the hopper subcategories. Therefore, EPA
concluded that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary and
hopper facilities will remain subject to limitations established on a
case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement.
2. PSES and PSNS for the Truck/Hopper, Rail/Hopper, and Barge/Hopper
Subcategories
EPA also did not propose to establish PSES or PSNS for any of the
hopper subcategories. EPA estimates that there are 42 indirect
discharging hopper facilities which discharge a total of 3.5 pound
equivalents to the nation's waterways, or less than one pound-
equivalent per facility. Additionally, EPA estimates that the total
cost to the industry to implement PSES would be greater than $350,000
annually. The estimated costs to control the discharge of these small
amounts of pound equivalents were not considered to be reasonable. EPA
also evaluated the levels of pollutants in raw wastewaters and
concluded that none were present at levels that are expected to cause
inhibition to the receiving POTW.
Therefore, EPA concluded that nationally-applicable regulations are
unnecessary and hopper facilities will remain subject to local
pretreatment limits as necessary to prevent pass through or
interference.
VI. Development of Effluent Limitations
A. Selection of Pollutant Parameters for Final Regulation
EPA based its decision to select specific pollutants for regulation
on a rigorous evaluation of available sampling data. This evaluation
included factors such as the concentration and frequency of detection
of the pollutants in the industry raw wastewater, the relative toxicity
of pollutants as defined by their toxic weighting factors, the
treatability of the pollutants in the modeled treatment systems, and
the potential of the pollutants to pass through or interfere with POTW
operations. Particular attention has been given to priority pollutants
which have been detected at treatable levels. EPA has attempted to
select several pollutants which have been frequently detected at
sampled facilities, which are possible indicators of the presence of
similar pollutants, and whose control through some combination of
physical, chemical, and biological treatment will be indicative of a
well-operated
[[Page 49679]]
treatment system capable of removing a wide range of pollutants.
EPA proposed to establish limits for a list of pollutants that
included classical pollutants, semivolatile organics, and metals. EPA
solicited and received numerous comments from stakeholders on the
pollutants selected for regulation in each subcategory. In the NOA, EPA
presented several changes being considered based on the comments
received.
EPA did not propose to establish effluent limitations for any
pesticide, herbicide, dioxin, or furan. These pollutants were not found
in concentrations high enough to merit regulation, the cost associated
with monitoring for these parameters is very high, and EPA's sampling
data have shown that the discharge concentrations of pesticides,
herbicides, dioxins, and furans are generally treated by the proposed
technology options. In the case of dioxins and furans, the most highly
toxic congeners were treated to nondetect values based on oil/water
separation and coagulation/clarification. In its evaluation of
treatment technologies, EPA compared the TEC treatment data to known
characteristics of dioxins and furans, and to the correlation of TSS
and oil & grease removals. Dioxins and furans are lipophilic and
hydrophobic and are most often associated with suspended particulates
and/or oils in wastewater matrices. Treatment technologies for dioxins
and furans vary depending on the characteristics of the matrix. If
wastes such as oils and greases are present, dioxins will tend to bind
with the oil and can be effectively removed by treatments such as
dissolved air flotation. If oils are not present, dioxins will tend to
bind with particulates and can be effectively removed by treatments
such as clarification and filtration.
The removal efficiencies for dioxins and furans across oil/water
separation and coagulation/clarification ranged from 65-97 percent,
(they would be 100 percent if the effluent nondetect value were set at
zero), and paralleled the removal efficiencies of oil & grease and/or
TSS.
In summary, EPA decided not to establish limitations for dioxin or
furan congeners for several reasons: (1) the congeners found in TEC
wastewater are not priority pollutants and were found at very low
levels in raw wastewater, (2) the selected technology options were
demonstrated to treat dioxin and furans to nondetect levels (due to
control of TSS and oil and grease), and (3) dioxin and furan monitoring
is very expensive (monitoring alone would increase the cost per
facility by approximately $12,000 per year, compared to the average per
facility cost of the regulation of approximately $30,000 per year).
Several commenters disagreed with the Agency's conclusion and
thought that EPA should establish limitations for these parameters due
to their toxicity. However, most comments received by EPA supported
EPA's conclusion not to regulate these parameters due to the high costs
associated with monitoring and due to the fact that these pollutants
are generally treated by the technologies identified in this rule. EPA
has decided not to establish limitations for pesticides, herbicides,
dioxins, or furans in the final regulation. However, NDPES permits for
any individual TEC facility must include certain other pollutants in
given circumstances. For example, permits must include limitations that
are necessary to ensure compliance with water quality standards and
State requirements. See 40 CFR 122.44(d). Moreover, TEC industry
permittees must submit with their permit application detailed
monitoring information on an extensive list of pollutants. See 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7). Their permits must include technology-based limits for
any toxic pollutant which the permit writer determines is or may be
discharged at a level greater than the level which can be achieved by
treatment requirements appropriate to the permittee. The permit writer
would establish case-by-case limits for such pollutants. See 40 CFR
Part 125.3 (c)(3).
EPA proposed to establish limitations for chemical oxygen demand
(COD). EPA received numerous comments opposed to the Agency's
preliminary decision to regulate COD and, based on these comments, EPA
has decided to eliminate COD as a regulated pollutant. The majority of
comments received were from POTW operators who did not want EPA to
establish pretreatment standards for COD. The commenters believed that
COD pollutant loads generated from tank cleaning facilities were easily
treated biologically in a POTW. EPA has agreed with commenters that the
levels of COD generated from tank cleaning facilities are adequately
treated in a POTW and, thus, will not pass through or interfere with
its operation. Additionally, EPA believes COD would be adequately
controlled through the regulation of other conventional pollutants,
including BOD and oil and grease for direct dischargers. EPA did not
receive any comments in opposition to this change, and EPA has not
included limits for COD in the final regulation. Permit writers and
local authorities should carefully examine the concentration and/or
treatability of COD in TEC wastewater to determine if local limits are
necessary.
EPA received comments from pretreatment authorities that EPA should
regulate pollutants identified in TEC wastewater that may pass through
the POTW or which may accumulate in the POTW sludge. The commenter
specifically identified copper, lead, and mercury as pollutants of
concern to the POTW. The commenter was especially concerned that
mercury was identified in the proposal as a constituent of raw TEC
wastewater and was identified as a pollutant of concern for the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, but was not proposed for regulation in either subcategory.
In response to these comments, EPA reevaluated the frequency of
detection, the level of concentrations found in raw wastewater, and the
pass through analysis for each of the regulated subcategories for the
pollutants copper, lead, and mercury.
In the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, neither copper, lead,
nor mercury was detected at significant concentrations in raw
wastewater to merit national regulation.
In the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, lead was detected at
very low concentrations and EPA determined that lead did not merit
national regulation. However, copper was detected in 10 out of 10
samples, with an average concentration of 1,100 g/L, and a
maximum concentration of 9,200 g/L. Due to the frequency of
detects, relatively high raw wastewater concentrations, and toxicity of
copper, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations for copper. EPA
conducted a pass through analysis, and determined that copper does pass
through a POTW. Therefore, EPA has established pretreatment standards
for copper. Mercury was detected 8 out of 10 times, with an average
concentration of 1.8 g/L and a maximum concentration of 5.0
g/L. Mercury was also determined to pass through a POTW. Due
to the high toxicity of mercury, the high frequency of detects,
relatively high raw wastewater concentrations, and pass through
analysis, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for mercury in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, mercury was detected
three out of six times, with an average concentration of 5.4
g/L and a maximum concentration of 81 g/L. Although
the detection frequency was only 50%, the raw wastewater concentrations
reached high enough
[[Page 49680]]
levels to be of concern, especially for a pollutant as toxic as
mercury. Mercury was also determined to pass through a POTW. Therefore,
EPA has decided to promulgate effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for mercury in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
Additionally, both lead and copper were detected at significant
concentrations in raw wastewater to merit regulation and were
determined to pass through a POTW. Due to the toxicity, frequency of
detects, and relatively high raw wastewater concentrations of lead and
copper, EPA has promulgated effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards for lead and copper.
EPA did not propose to regulate mercury in either the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory or the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory. However, mercury was identified as a pollutant of concern
in each of these subcategories and EPA developed long term averages and
variability factors for mercury at the time of proposal, which were
included in the proposed statistical support document (EPA-832-B-98-
014). In calculating limits for the final regulation, EPA has used the
same methodology as descibed in Section VIII of the proposal and as
finalized in Section VI of this notice. Based on comments, EPA has
concluded that it should establish effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for mercury.
EPA also received comments from pretreatment authorities and
stakeholders on EPA's decision to establish limits for parameters such
as zinc and chromium which are found in potable water supply systems,
and which may be found at levels higher than the proposed limitations.
The commenters questioned if the presence of these parameters in TEC
wastewaters was the result of cleaning cargos, or the result of source
water contamination. The commenter noted that maximum contaminant
levels for zinc and chromium in drinking water are 5 mg/L and 0.1 mg/l,
respectively, and that the proposed limitations were low in comparison
to drinking water standards. In response, EPA evaluated sampling data
from TEC wastewater and source water from the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
Based on a data review of the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, EPA concluded that one of the highest concentrations of
zinc found in truck/chemical process water was actually from source
water supplied from a domestic water distribution system. Furthermore,
all of the levels of zinc found in truck/chemical process water were
within the range of concentrations that the commenter describes as
being present in drinking water (i.e. less than 5 mg/l.) Therefore, EPA
has concluded that zinc is not a pollutant of concern for this
subcategory because the zinc levels present in dischargers from Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facilities may be due to source water
contamination rather than a direct result of cleaning tanks. Therefore,
EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent limitations or pretreatment
standards for zinc in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
However, the average raw wastewater concentration of chromium in raw
wastewater was 2.4 mg/L, and the maximum concentration was 18.6 mg/L.
The levels of chromium in the source water at these facilities was much
lower than raw wastewater concentrations, and were all less than 0.01
mg/L. Therefore, EPA concluded that chromium is a pollutant of interest
in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. However, based on the
discussion in Section VI.A of this notice, EPA is not promulgating
effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium. However,
with respect to the comment that the chromium limits are too low, EPA
has recalculated the limits based on additional self monitoring data
received from industry after publication of the NOA. The industry data
represents the effluent levels attainable at a facility over a much
longer time period that was represented by EPA's original data set.
Because this data more accurately accounts for the variability present
in tank cleaning wastewater, the limits have become less stringent.
In the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the average raw
wastewater concentration of zinc was 19 mg/L, and the maximum
concentration found was 78.5 mg/L. The highest level of zinc in source
water at barge facilities was 0.114 mg/L. Additionally, all source
water concentrations of chromium were non-detect. Therefore, EPA
concluded that the levels of zinc and chromium present in barge process
water were the result of barge cleaning operations, and not due to
source water contamination. EPA concluded that, due to the high levels
present in raw wastewater, that zinc and chromium are pollutants of
interest. EPA has decided to retain the effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards for zinc and chromium in the Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory.
EPA received numerous comments from POTWs, industry trade
associations, and affected facilities suggesting that EPA use oil and
grease (measured as HEM) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as indicator
pollutants for straight chain hydrocarbons proposed for regulation. As
descibed in the NOA, EPA has revised the name of ``total petroleum
hydrocarbons'' in Method 1664 to ``non-polar material'' to indicate
that the new test method is different from previous versions. (64 FR
26315 May 14, 1999). Non-polar materials are measured by Silica-gel
Treated n-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM). Oil and Grease
continues to be synonymous with the Method 1664 for n-Hexane
Extractable Material (HEM). EPA proposed to regulate oil and grease
(HEM) for direct discharging facilities, and non-polar oil and grease
(SGT-HEM) for indirect discharging facilities. As discussed in Section
XIII.G of the proposal, EPA recognizes that HEM analysis can include
edible oils (such as animal fats and vegetable oils) in addition to
petroleum-based oils, which are the primary constituents measured by
the SGT-HEM analysis. As discussed in Section VIII.B of the NOA, EPA
has deemed non-polar material (SGT-HEM) to pass through a POTW due to
the prevalence of petroleum-based compounds.
Many commenters argued that straight chain hydrocarbons are
components of oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar material (SGT-HEM),
and that their regulation as individual pollutants would be redundant
and would impose additional, unnecessary costs on the industry. These
straight chain hydrocarbons include n-Hexadecane, n-Hexacosane, n-
Decane, n-Docosane, n-Dodecane, n-Eicosane, n-Octacosane, n-Octadecane,
n-Tetracosane, n-Tetradecane, and n-Triacontane. EPA does not
necessarily agree that regulation of such individual pollutants is
redundant but has considered the comment and performed the evaluation
described below.
EPA reviewed the treatment effectiveness data collected in support
of this regulation, and found that the treatment effectiveness of these
parameters is related to the treatment effectiveness of HEM and SGT-
HEM. This is consistent with the chemical characteristics of HEM and
SGT-HEM, which by definition include the straight chain hydrocarbons as
constituents. In cases where oil and grease (HEM) and non-polar
material (SGT-HEM) were effectively controlled, all of the pollutants
listed above were treated to very low levels, such as in PSES/PSNS
Option II in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, which consists
of oil/water separation and dissolved air flotation. This system
achieved substantial removals of HEM and SGT-
[[Page 49681]]
HEM, along with the straight chain hydrocarbons listed above. Treatment
effectiveness in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
demonstrated similar results.
Additionally, EPA reviewed data from a characterization study of
the HEM and SGT-HEM test methods conducted for the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards for the Industrial
Laundries Point Source Category (63 FR 71054 December 23, 1998). This
study was performed to characterize the individual constituents
measured by method 1664 (HEM and SGT-HEM); the study is available for
review in Section 16 of the regulatory record for the Industrial
Laundries Effluent Guideline. The laundries data demonstrate that the
HEM and SGT-HEM test methods provide a general indication of the
presence of the straight chain hydrocarbons listed above in wastewater
samples.
EPA proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for
chromium in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory based on EPA
sampling data from one BAT facility. to develop long term averages. At
the time of the NOA (July 20, 1999) EPA continued to propose effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium based on the
proposal methodology.
However, during the comment period on the NOA, the industry
submitted additional self-monitoring data from the wastewater treatment
plant that EPA had sampled, and from which EPA had developed the
proposed limits. The data submitted by the facility demonstrated that
it would actually exceed the proposed limitations on numerous
occasions. Although a significant number of effluent monitoring
chromium concentrations were similar to the concentrations observed by
EPA during its sampling episode, a few data points were significantly
higher than the values observed by EPA.
The facility only provided EPA copies of its DMRs and associated
laboratory analyses, and did not provide any information on raw
wastewater concentrations, treatment system operation, or lists of
cleaning operations that were performed during the time of the self-
monitoring sampling. Therefore, EPA cannot evaluate the effectiveness
of treatment on those days with high chromium effluent concentrations.
However, based on its knowledge of the industry, EPA hypothesizes that
the high concentrations of chromium in the effluent are the result of
the facility performing exterior acid washes on those days. Exterior
acid washing is a common service that tank truck facilities provide to
their customers to brighten and remove the tarnish from the chrome
parts of a tank truck. This service leaches chromium from the external
truck parts.
On the days that EPA sampled the facility, it did not perform acid
brightener washes. Therefore EPA's sampling data did not include high
concentrations of chromium. EPA believes that its chromium data is not
representative of the practices that may be performed by tank truck
facilities, and that the chromium limits based on EPA's sampling data
may not be achievable for facilities that are performing acid washes
for their customers.
However, because the facility provided no data about its raw
wastewater concentrations, treatment effectiveness, or treatment unit
operations on the days it reported self-monitoring data, EPA does not
believe that it would be appropriate to establish long term averages
based on the industry supplied self monitoring data. EPA is unable to
evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment system.
Therefore, EPA has decided not to promulgate the effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards for chromium in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and leave the establishment of any
chromium limitations and standards to the BPJ of the permit writer.
As described in detail in Section X of this notice, EPA has spent a
considerable amount of effort in developing an alternative pollution
prevention option in lieu of national pretreatment standards for the
industry. Specific to the concern of chromium in tank truck washwater,
and realizing the potential for pollution prevention practices in lieu
of national numeric standards, EPA has included in the P2 practices the
segregation of exterior acid brighteners from other wastewaters, and
has specified that these wastewaters must be handled in an appropriate
manner to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW. While EPA is not
promulgating this pollution prevention alternative for chromium for
facilities that decided to meet the numeric limitations, EPA believes
that the control authority may wish to incorporate pollution prevention
in lieu of BPJ numeric limitations for chromium. EPA has received
comments from a POTW that currently employs such a pollution prevention
practice in order to prevent high levels of chrome from being
discharged to its system.
Due to concerns about its own data, insufficient documentation of
the industry's self monitoring data, inadequate time for additional
field sampling and public notice of any sampling efforts, and the
opportunities for appropriate pollution prevention practices, EPA is
not establishing limitations or pretreatment standards for chromium and
the control authority may establish BPJ chromium standards, or require
chromium pollution prevention practices, based on an evaluation of site
specific factors.
For direct discharging facilities, EPA is establishing limitations
for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for BOD5,
TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Copper, Mercury, and pH. For the Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is establishing limitations for
BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene,
and pH. For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA is
establishing limitations for BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease
(HEM), Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc, and pH.
Additionally, EPA is establishing limits for the Food Subcategory for
BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), and pH.
Finally, EPA conducted a pass-through analysis on the pollutants
selected for regulation under BPT and BAT to determine if the Agency
should establish pretreatment standards for any pollutant. (The pass-
through analysis is not applicable to conventional parameters such as
BOD5, TSS, and Oil and Grease (HEM). EPA is establishing
pretreatment standards for those pollutants which the Agency has
determined to pass through a POTW. In addition, as discussed in the
NOA, EPA has concluded that non-polar material (SGT-HEM) does pass
through a POTW in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum, Rail/Chemical &
Petroleum, and Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. EPA did not
receive any comments on this pass through determination, and EPA has
retained its conclusion for the final regulation.
Based on the pass-through analysis, EPA is establishing PSES and
PSNS in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar
material (SGT-HEM), Copper and Mercury. EPA is establishing PSES and
PSNS in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory for non-polar
material (SGT-HEM), Fluoranthene, and Phenanthrene. Finally, EPA is
establishing PSES and PSNS in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory for non-polar material (SGT-HEM), Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc.
Regulated facilities can meet the final limitations through the use
of any
[[Page 49682]]
combination of physical, chemical, or biological treatment, or
implementation of pollution prevention strategies (e.g., good heel
removal and water conservation). Additional information on the
development of effluent limitations and the technology options
considered for regulation is included in Section VIII of the proposed
rule, Section V of this notice and the Technical Development Document.
B. Calculation of Effluent Limitations
1. Changes in Methodology Since Proposal
The data and methodology used to calculate effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards are located in Section 21 of the regulatory
record. The data and methodology are the same as proposed with several
exceptions.
One, EPA has calculated concentration-based instead of mass-based
limits. EPA received many comments on the proposal criticizing EPA for
proposing mass-based standards. EPA described these comments in the NOA
and described an alternative methodology which would establish
concentration-based limits. EPA received almost unanimous comment in
support of concentration-based limits and has adopted concentration-
based limits for the final regulation.
Two, EPA has used data provided by industry to calculate final
effluent limitations. EPA used data from two additional Barge/Chemical
& Petroleum facilities for the calculation of BOD5 and TSS
limits, as discussed in Section II of the NOA. EPA has received no
comment on the use of this additional data, and EPA has continued to
use these data for developing the final BOD5 and TSS
limitations. EPA has used additional data from one Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory facility for the calculation of variability
factors for copper, and mercury. The data provided consisted of self
monitoring data for a facility that was sampled by EPA and used to
calculate proposed effluent limitations. EPA had already determined
this site to represent BAT treatment. EPA has used this additional
self-monitoring data to determine variability factors because it
represents treatment performance over a much longer time period (4
years) than was demonstrated from EPA sampling data. The complete
dataset, including lab reports and certified monitoring reports, can be
found in Section 15.2.2 of the regulatory record.
Third, EPA has used the pollutant-specific variability factor where
available, and then calculated group and fraction-level variability
factors by taking a median of all pollutants effectively removed in a
chemical class, rather than using the median of only those pollutants
selected for regulation in a chemical class. EPA believes this revised
methodology is appropriate because the Agency believes that all
pollutants in a chemical class will behave similarly, regardless of
whether or not it is selected for regulation. This change was also
presented in the NOA, and EPA did not receive any comment on this
revised methodology. EPA has adopted this methodology for the final
regulation.
Fourth, EPA has used technology transfer to establish PSES
standards for non-polar material (SGT-HEM) in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory. EPA proposed pretreatment standards for SGT-HEM
in the Truck/Chemical Subcategory based on the data from two Truck/
Chemical facilities. However, EPA feels that the SGT-HEM standards
developed for this subcategory may not be achievable, because the raw
wastewater concentrations at these two facilities were 65 mg/L and 61
mg/L, whereas the average raw wastewater concentration for the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum subcategory was measured to be 150 mg/L. EPA is
aware that some facilities in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory may be generating wastewater with significantly higher
concentrations of oil and grease than EPA considered in the proposed
limitations. Therefore, EPA transferred standards for SGT-HEM from
similar treatment technologies operated in the Rail/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory. As mentioned previously, this system consisted
of oil/water separation followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF) and
achieved 98 percent removal of HEM for wastewater that had an influent
concentration of 1,994 mg/L. For SGT-HEM, the system achieved a 97
percent removal for wastewater that had an average influent
concentration of 206 mg/L. EPA believes that technology transfer of
SGT-HEM establishes limitations that are achievable for all facilities
in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. As discussed in Section
III.F and VI.A, EPA is establishing HEM (for direct dischargers) and
SGT-HEM (for indirect dischargers) as indicator pollutants for several
other constituents in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
As in the proposal, EPA has continued to use technology transfer to
establish BPT limits for conventional pollutants BOD5, TSS,
and oil and grease (HEM) in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum and Rail/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. EPA does not have sampling data
from a facility operating BPT biological treatment in either the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum or Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories.
Therefore, EPA has transferred effluent limitations for
BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease (HEM) from a biological system
in the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, as was described in
Section II of the NOA.
2. Methodology for Final Limitations
EPA based the effluent limitations and standards in today's notice
on widely-recognized statistical procedures for calculating long-term
averages and variability factors. The following presents a summary of
the statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent
limitations.
Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment
systems using the processes described in Section V (Technology Options
Selected for Basis of Regulation). The variability factors are values
that represent the ratio of a large value that would be expected to
occur only rarely to the long-term average. The purpose of the
variability factor is to allow for normal variation in effluent
concentrations. A facility that designs and operates its treatment
system to achieve a long-term average on a consistent basis should be
able to comply with the daily and monthly limitations in the course of
normal operations.
The variability factors and long-term averages were developed from
a database composed of individual measurements on treated effluent
based on EPA sampling data and from industry supplied data. EPA
sampling data reflects the performance of a system over a three to five
day period, although not necessarily over consecutive days.
The long-term average concentration of a pollutant for a treatment
system was calculated based on either an arithmetic mean or the
expected value of the distribution of the samples, depending on the
number of total samples and the number of detected samples for that
pollutant at that facility. A delta-lognormal distributional assumption
was used for all subcategories except the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory where the arithmetic mean was used. The pollutant long-term
[[Page 49683]]
average concentration for a treatment technology was the median of the
long-term averages from the sampled treatment systems within the
subcategory using the proposed treatment technology.
EPA calculated variability factors by fitting a statistical
distribution to the sampling data. The distribution was based on an
assumption that the furthest excursion from the long-term average (LTA)
that a well operated plant using the proposed technology option could
be expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent
of the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution.
The daily variability factor for each pollutant at each facility is the
ratio of the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of the daily
pollutant concentration values divided by the expected value of the
distribution of the daily values. The pollutant variability factor for
a treatment technology was the mean of the pollutant variability
factors from the facilities with that technology.
There were several instances where variability factors could not be
calculated directly from the TEC database because there were not at
least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level
for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data
is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore,
in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency
transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit
similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system.
In order to do this, pollutants were grouped on the basis of their
chemical structure and published data on relative treatability. The
median pollutant variability factor for all pollutants within a group
at that sampling episode was used to create a group-level variability
factor. When group-level variability factors were not able to be
calculated, groups that were similar were collected into analytical
method fractions and the median group-level variability factor was
calculated to create a fraction-level variability factor. Group-level
variability factors were used when available, and fraction-level
variability factors were used if group-level variability factors could
not be calculated. For the sampling episodes in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, there were not enough data to calculate
variability factors at any level from EPA sampling data and therefore
variability factors were calculated based on industry supplied data
contained in self-monitoring reports.
Limitations were based on actual concentrations of pollutants
measured in wastewaters treated by the proposed technologies where such
data were available. Actual measured value data were available for
pollutant parameters in all subcategories with the exception of
pollutants regulated for direct dischargers in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategories. Due to the small
number of direct discharging facilities identified by EPA, all of EPA's
sampling was conducted at indirect discharging facilities in these
subcategories. In the case of BPT regulation for conventional,
priority, and non-conventional pollutants, EPA concluded that
establishing limits based on indirect discharging treatment systems was
not appropriate because indirect discharging treatment systems are
generally not operated for optimal control of pollutants which are
amenable to treatment in a POTW. For example, treatment systems at
indirect discharging facilities generally do not require biological
treatment to control organic pollutants because a POTW will control
these pollutants. Therefore, in establishing limits for conventional
pollutants at direct discharging facilities, EPA has established BPT
limitations based on the treatment performance demonstrated from two
direct discharging Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities that utilized
biological treatment systems. Limitations for priority and non
conventional pollutants were based on the indirect discharging
facilities in that subcategory.
The daily maximum limitation is calculated as the product of the
pollutant long-term average concentration and the variability factor.
The monthly maximum limitation is also calculated as the product of the
pollutant long-term average and the variability factor, but the
variability factor is based on the 95 percentile of the distribution of
daily pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th percentile.
By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the LTA, EPA's
use of variability factors results in standards that are generally well
above the actual LTAs. Thus if a facility operates its treatment system
to meet the relevant LTA, EPA expects the plant to be able to meet the
standards. Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a
facility's treatment are accounted for in the limitations.
The final limitations, as presented in today's notice, are provided
as daily maximums and monthly averages for conventional pollutants.
Monitoring was assumed to occur four times per month for conventional
pollutants. Monitoring was assumed to occur once per month for all
priority and non-conventional pollutants. This has the result that the
daily maximums and monthly averages for priority and non-conventional
pollutants are the same.
Although the monitoring frequency necessary for a facility to
demonstrate compliance is determined by the local permitting authority,
EPA must assume a monitoring frequency in order to assess costs and to
determine variability of the treatment system.
EPA has assumed facilities will monitor their wastewater four times
per month for conventional pollutants or SGT-HEM to ensure that
facility TEC processes and wastewater treatment systems are
consistently and continuously operated to achieve the associated
pollutant long-term averages. EPA also assumed that facilities will
monitor wastewater once per month for toxic pollutants, providing some
economic relief to regulated facilities while ensuring that facility
TEC processes and wastewater treatment systems are designed and
operated to control the discharge of toxic pollutants.
VII. Costs and Pollutant Reductions of Final Regulation
EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant loading
removals associated with the effluent limitations and standards using a
computer cost model and data collected through survey responses,
industry submittals, site visits, and sampling episodes. Cost estimates
and pollutant removals for each regulatory option are summarized below
and in more detail in the Technical Development Document.
A. Changes to Cost Analysis Since Proposal
Following a thorough review of the cost model, EPA made several
adjustments to the costing methodology in response to comments on the
proposed rule and Notice of Availability, and to correct minor
inaccuracies identified by EPA. One of the most notable changes was to
eliminate estimated compliance costs for facilities that would meet the
low flow exclusion (i.e., discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year
of TEC process wastewater). After eliminating these facilities, EPA
evaluated the remaining 77 Detailed Questionnaire recipients, plus four
direct discharging facilities that did not receive the questionnaire,
to determine TEC operations, wastewater characteristics, daily flow
rates (process flow rates), operating schedules, tank cleaning
production (i.e., number of
[[Page 49684]]
tanks cleaned), and wastewater treatment technologies currently in
place at the site.
Facilities that did not have the technologies for the selected
option already in place were projected to incur costs as a result of
compliance with this regulation. A facility that did not have the
technology, or an equivalent technology, in place was costed for
installing and maintaining the technology. Costs include: (1) total
capital costs for installed technologies, including equipment,
shipping, indirect, and start-up costs; (2) operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs for installed technologies, including labor, electrical,
material, and chemical usage costs; (3) solids handling costs,
including capital, O&M, and disposal costs; and (4) monitoring costs.
EPA based direct capital costs for equipment, shipping,
installation, controls, and retrofit costs on information from
treatment vendors and other effluent guidelines. EPA also developed
cost factors and applied them to the direct capital costs to account
for indirect costs such as site work, interface piping, general
contracting, engineering, buildings, site improvements, legal/
administrative fees, interest, contingency, and taxes and insurance.
For the final rule, EPA increased some of the indirect capital cost
factors and included start-up costs in total capital cost estimates.
Also for the final rule, EPA made the following changes: increased
capital and annual costs for activated carbon, equalization, and filter
presses; revised the methodology to credit treatment in place; and
removed flow reduction for some facilities. EPA also significantly
reduced the monitoring costs associated with compliance by selecting
indicator parameters to replace specific pollutants proposed for
regulation and by using less expensive analytical methods.
Although EPA has eliminated flow reduction from the technology
bases for all subcategories, EPA has retained flow reduction in the
cost model for most subcategories. Flow reduction results in
significant compliance cost savings and consequently EPA assumes
facilities will incorporate flow reduction in their compliance
strategy.
The total capital costs were amortized over 16 years and added to
the total annual O&M costs (equipment and monitoring) to calculate the
total annualized costs incurred by each facility to comply with this
regulation. The costs associated with each of the 81 facilities in the
cost analysis were then modeled to represent the national population by
using statistically calculated survey weights.
All cost models, cost factors, and cost assumptions are discussed
in detail in the Technical Development Document for the final rule.
B. Compliance Costs
The final costs for the regulated subcategories are presented in
Table 2. Total capital investment, total annual (i.e., O&M), and total
annualized costs are shown in 1998 post-tax dollars. BPT, BCT, and BAT
total annual and total annualized costs include weekly monitoring of
regulated conventional pollutants and monthly monitoring of all other
regulated pollutants. PSES total annual and total annualized costs
include monthly monitoring of all regulated pollutants.
Table 2.--Total Costs of the TEC Rule, by Subcategory
[Millions of 1998 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Total Total annual annualized
Subcategory Selected option capital O&M costs cost (post-
investment tax)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum................ II 0.084 a (0) a (0)
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum................. II 0.201 0.038 0.041
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum................ I 0.093 0.138 0.089
Food...................................... II 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum................ I 56.3 8.79 9.16
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum................. II 7.70 0.722 1.02
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum................ II 0 0.067 0.041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Net annual cost savings are the result of flow reduction and sludge dewatering for one facility, which results
in a greater savings than the monitoring costs incurred by all facilities.
C. Changes to Pollutant Reduction Analysis Since Proposal
The BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES limitations will control the discharge
of conventional, priority toxic, and non-conventional pollutants from
TEC facilities. The Agency developed estimates of the post-compliance
long-term average (LTA) pollutant concentrations that would be
discharged from TEC facilities within each subcategory. These estimates
were calculated using the long-term average effluent concentrations of
specific pollutants achieved after implementation of the BPT, BCT, BAT,
and PSES technology bases. Long-term average effluent concentrations at
proposal were statistically derived using treatment performance data
collected during EPA's sampling program. For the final rule, EPA made
the following adjustments to the load removal estimates: revised the
list of pollutants for which removals were calculated; added a new
criteria to determine final effluent concentrations; and incorporated
additional treatment performance data for the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES pollutant reductions were first estimated
on a site-specific basis for affected facilities that responded to the
Detailed Questionnaire (77 facilities) and for four additional affected
facilities identified from responses to the Screener Questionnaire.
Site-specific pollutant reductions were calculated as the difference
between the site-specific baseline pollutant loadings (i.e., estimated
pollutant loadings currently discharged) and the site-specific post-
compliance pollutant loadings (i.e.,
[[Page 49685]]
estimated pollutant loadings discharged after implementation of the
regulation). The site-specific pollutant reductions were then
multiplied by statistically derived survey weighting (scaling) factors
and summed to represent pollutant reductions for the entire TEC
industry.
To estimate pollutant loadings discharged after implementation of
the regulation, EPA estimated pollutant load removals for ``pollutants
of interest'' for each subcategory. EPA identified pollutants of
interest for each subcategory using a set of data-editing criteria such
that these pollutants are typically present at treatable concentrations
in the subcategory-specific raw wastewater. These editing criteria are:
(1) The average influent technology option concentration must be at
least five times the pollutant's method detection limit, and (2) the
pollutant must be detected in at least two wastewater characterization
samples (if at least two facilities in the subcategory were sampled) or
one wastewater characterization sample (if only one facility in the
subcategory was sampled) .
For proposal and the NOA, EPA only considered those pollutants that
were removed by at least 50% by EPA's technology bases in the
subcategory-specific load removals. In the proposal, EPA described how
it used a modified approach to identify pesticide and herbicide
pollutants included in the removal estimates; however, for the final
rule, EPA applied the same approach to all pollutants. Upon further
review, for the final rule, EPA included all pollutants of interest in
the load removal estimates that had a removal efficiency greater than
0%. EPA believes its previous data-editing criteria requiring 50%
removal was incorrect because it did not accurately reflect incidental
removals of all pollutants across the various technology options. Note,
however, that EPA retained the 50% removal criteria for the purpose of
selecting regulated pollutants.
If a given pollutant met the pollutant of interest criteria, EPA
calculated the treatment effectiveness concentrations and percent
removal efficiencies from the sampling data. Treatment effectiveness
concentrations are the long-term average concentrations achievable by
the technology option. Percent removal efficiencies are the pollutant
percent removals achievable by the technology option, based on the
difference between the influent and effluent concentrations.
For the proposed rule, EPA only estimated pollutant load removals
based on treatment effectiveness concentrations. For example, the TEC
cost model calculated the difference between the influent concentration
and the treatment effectiveness concentration achieved by the treatment
unit; the result was the pollutant reduction achieved by the treatment
unit. For the final rule, EPA incorporated pollutant percent removal
efficiencies (for all pollutants of interest), in addition to treatment
effectiveness concentrations, in the load removal calculations. For
example, for pollutants with significant removals (for pollutants of
interest with removals greater than 50% by the technology bases), the
TEC cost model compared the influent concentration to two possible
effluent concentrations, the treatment effectiveness concentration and
the effluent concentration that would be achieved after applying the
treatment unit (limited to the pollutant method detection limit)
percent removal efficiency. The model selects the lower of the two
effluent concentrations to calculate the pollutant reductions achieved
by the treatment unit. No removals were credited to a pollutant if the
influent concentration was at its detection limit. For other
pollutants, the model uses only a percent removal efficiency.
EPA obtained additional treatment performance data following the
proposed rule from two Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities operating
BPT/BAT treatment. The data consisted of influent and effluent self-
monitoring data over a one-year period. EPA used these data to
calculate BPT effluent limitations and new source performance standards
for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended
solids (TSS). These additional data and revised effluent limitations
were presented in the NOA.
EPA obtained additional treatment performance data following the
NOA from one Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory facility operating
PSES/PSNS treatment. The data consisted of effluent self-monitoring
data over a four-year period. EPA used these data to calculate
limitations and pretreatment standards for copper and mercury.
For the proposed rule, EPA did not consider dioxin and furan
removals for any subcategory because EPA assumed that any detections of
these pollutants were isolated, site-specific instances. In response to
several comments on this issue, EPA reevaluated the presence of dioxins
and furans in TEC wastewater based on the pollutants of interest
criteria described above. EPA found that several dioxins and furans
meet the editing criteria and should be considered pollutants of
interest; therefore, EPA included their removals in the load removal
estimates.
D. Pollutant Reductions
The final pollutant removals for the regulated subcategories are
presented in Table 3, by discharge type. Pollutant removals were
estimated as the difference between the subcategory baseline pollutant
loadings (i.e., estimated pollutant loadings currently discharged) and
the subcategory post-compliance pollutant loadings (i.e., estimated
pollutant loadings discharged after implementation of the regulation).
The load removals (in pounds per year) are scaled to represent the
industry but do not account for the relative toxicity between
pollutants.
Table 3.--Total Pollutant Removals of the TEC Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pounds of Pounds of Pounds of non-
conventional priority conventional Total pounds
Subcategory Selected option pollutants pollutants pollutants of pollutant
removed (lbs/ removed (lbs/ removed (lbs/ removed (lbs/
yr) yr) yr) yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT (for consistency with Table 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum..... II 47 2.3 670 720
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum...... II 22 2.2 15,000 15,000
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum..... I >19,000 (1) >69,000 >88,000
Food........................... II 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49686]]
PSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum..... I 20,000,000 60,000 21,000,000 41,000,000
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum...... II 960,000 870 4,500,000 5,500,000
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum..... II 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Not available.
VIII. Economic Impacts of Final Regulation
EPA projects that the final TEC rule will result in no facility
closures, revenue losses, nor employment losses in the industry. As set
forth below, the Agency's financial analysis found that 14 facilities
in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory may experience financial
stress as a result of this rule. In addition, the small business
analysis, using a sales test methodology, shows that some small
businesses could have compliance costs that exceed three percent of
annual sales revenues. However, these impacts are quite small relative
to the TEC industry, and EPA certifies, as discussed later, that the
regulation will not have a significant impact on substantial number of
small entities.
A. Changes to Economic Analysis Since Proposal
EPA has not changed the economic methodology used in the proposal
for the final rulemaking action. As in the proposal, the economic
methods include a cost annualization model, a market model (with a
commercial component and an outsourcing component), a closure model,
financial ratio analysis, secondary impacts analysis, small business
analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. The description of these
analytical tools can be found in Section X of the proposal.
EPA received comments in response to the proposal and the NOA from
potentially affected facilities and trade associations regarding the
economic analysis. The majority of comments reflected concerns about
the economic impacts that the effluent guideline would have on the
industry. EPA's response is that the economic analysis finds that the
regulation will not cause any facility closures, and it will not lead
to the loss of any business revenues nor the loss of any jobs in the
industry.
The comments did not generally address EPA's economic analysis
methods. The only issue raised related to the methodology was over
EPA's cost pass through analysis, which assumes that a portion of
compliance costs can be passed through to the final customers. Several
commenters disagreed with the assumption that a portion of the
compliance costs could potentially be passed through to the customer.
EPA believes that, given the relatively inelastic demand for TEC
services, a portion of compliance costs can be passed through to TEC
customers. In turn, EPA believes that, because TEC services are such a
small portion of total transportation costs, the impact on the customer
market is minimal.
The nature of the market demand for TEC services is two-fold.
First, tank cleaning services are essential services in the
marketplace, because transportation service providers must deliver
clean and safe products. Therefore, the transportation service firms
and their customers create a demand for tank cleaning services that is
relatively inelastic, i.e., customers need the services provided by the
TEC industry. Second, EPA believes that some costs can be passed
through to the customer without losing business because all facilities
transporting similar cargos will be subject to the regulation. EPA
performed a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impacts that would
occur under the most conservative assumption of zero cost pass through,
which assumes that no compliance cost can be passed through to the
final customer. EPA found that, at the most conservative cost pass
through assumption, this rule will result in no closures, revenue
losses, or employment losses.
As in the proposal, the economic baseline was established using
data from the 1993 Tank and Container Cleaning Screener Questionnaire
and the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire for the Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Industry. Anecdotal market and economic information has been
used to update trends in the industry. Details of the economic analysis
are presented in the ``Final Economic Analysis of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Category'' and in the ``Final Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Transportation Equipment
Cleaning Category''.
EPA has updated the economic analysis to reflect the changes made
by EPA since the proposal for this final rulemaking action. These
changes are summarized in Section III of this notice. Briefly, the
changes include promulgation of concentration-based rather than mass-
based limitations, modification to the subcategorization approach, a
low flow exclusion, revised pollutant loading estimates, new language
for the exclusion of facilities engaged in other commercial activities,
and changes to the technology options and regulated pollutants.
EPA has modified the subcategorization approach and reduced the
number of subcategories from eleven in the proposal to seven for this
final regulation. The economic analysis reflects the change in
subcategories. For example, the number of facilities in the proposed
Truck/Chemical Subcategory (288) are added to those in the proposed
Truck/Petroleum Subcategory (34), giving a total of 322 for the new
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. The economic analysis was
conducted for the new subcategory rather than the two separate
subcategories.
EPA has also decided to establish a flow exclusion of less than
100,000 gallons per year for process wastewater. Due to the low flow
exclusion, 36 indirect Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
facilities, 11 indirect Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
facilities, and three direct discharge Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
facilities will be excluded from the effluent guidelines.
The Agency has also revised the pollutant reduction analysis for
the final guideline which has, in turn, affected
[[Page 49687]]
the cost effectiveness of the regulation. For the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, 17 pollutants were removed and 26 pollutants
were added. For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA removed
37 pollutants and added 23 pollutants. For the Barge/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, three pollutants were removed and 18 pollutants
were added. The Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory now includes 95
pollutants of interest; the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
includes 85 pollutants of interest; and the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory includes 82 pollutants of interest.
B. Impacts Analysis
EPA estimates that the total capital costs incurred by regulated
facilities (over the sixteen year project life) for the transportation
equipment cleaning industry effluent limitations guidelines and
standards will be about $64.4 million in 1998 dollars. Total annualized
costs on a post-tax basis of the regulation for all facilities are
estimated to be about $10.4 million in 1998 dollars, which includes
$4.8 million of annualized capital costs and $5.6 million in annualized
operation and maintenance costs.
EPA estimated the total annualized compliance costs based on the
incremental capital investment, annual operation and maintenance costs,
and monitoring costs required for facilities to comply with this final
regulation. Capital costs for each TEC facility were annualized, using
EPA's cost annualization model, by spreading them over the 16 year
analytic life of the project. These annualized capital costs are then
added to the annual operation and maintenance costs and to the annual
monitoring costs for each TEC facility to estimate total annualized
post-tax costs of the selected technology alternative. EPA presented
the total annualized costs on a post-tax basis to show the full
opportunity compliance costs that facilities may incur after taxes. In
the later section on cost-benefits analysis, costs are presented on a
pre-tax basis as a proxy for social costs.
EPA's economic analysis estimates that the selected technology
alternatives will result in no facility closures. In addition, EPA
predicts that the selected technology alternatives will result in no
loss in revenues or employment. In the financial stress analysis using
the Altman Z" bankruptcy test, EPA found that 14 facilities in the
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory could experience financial
stress under the selected technology alternatives. In order to analyze
these 14 facilities more carefully, EPA conducted two additional
financial tests--current ratio analysis and times interest earned
analysis. The current ratio analysis indicated that 14 facilities could
experience financial stress as a result of the regulation. However, the
times interest earned analysis, which measures the ability of
facilities to cover their debt, gave results that no financial stress
would occur as a result of the regulation. Therefore, EPA concludes
that financial stress, if present, is minimal among 14 facilities.
1. BPT, BCT, and BAT
As described in Section V of today's notice, EPA is issuing final
effluent limitations based on BPT, BCT, and BAT for the Truck/Chemical
& Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Barge/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and Food Subcategory. The summary of
costs and economic impacts is presented here for each subcategory. For
BPT and BCT, additional information on cost and removal comparisons is
presented in the Technical Development Document.
EPA estimates that the total post-tax annualized compliance costs
for BPT, BCT, and BAT will be about $130 thousand. EPA based its
analysis on technology Option II for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, Option II for the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory,
Option I for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and Option II
for the Food Subcategory. Due to data limitations as described in the
proposed regulation and in this notice, EPA did not have data from the
detailed questionnaire for direct discharging facilities in the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory because of the very small population. Instead, EPA used
information from the screener survey to identify direct discharging
facilities. EPA assumed that the economic profile for direct
discharging facilities is similar to indirect discharging facilities.
EPA believes that this is a reasonable approach, because the Agency
does not believe that there is a correlation between annual revenue or
facility employment and the method the facility chooses to discharge
its wastewater. Rather, the decision on whether to discharge wastewater
directly or indirectly is determined by such considerations as cost,
proximity to a POTW, permitting requirements, and wastewater treatment
technology options.
EPA therefore assumed that the direct discharging Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum facilities were similar to
indirect discharging facilities in terms of annual revenue, facility
employment, and the number of tanks cleaned. Information on each of
these indices was provided to EPA by the three direct discharging
facilities in the screener questionnaire. EPA then identified indirect
discharge facilities in the detailed questionnaire database that were
similar to each of the direct dischargers in terms of revenue,
employment and tanks cleaned. EPA then simulated the financial and
economic profile for the direct discharging facilities based on data
provided by similar indirect discharging facilities in the same
subcategory. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that implementation
of BPT would result in no facility closures and anticipates that no
facilities will have revenue losses or employment losses.
For Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities, EPA estimated economic
impacts for the 10 direct discharge facilities based on responses to
the detailed questionnaire and incremental compliance costs. EPA has
projected no closures, revenue losses, or employment losses for these
facilities. EPA also described in the proposal the costs that may
accrue to Barge/Chemical & Petroleum facilities under a regulation
published under authority of the Clean Air Act. EPA analyzed this
subcategory assuming that those regulations, and possible consequent
costs, were in effect. This analysis may be found in the economic
analysis for the proposal and the final regulation.
For the Food Subcategory, EPA found that direct discharge
facilities have oil/water separators and biological treatment in place.
This is the selected BPT and BCT technology option for the Food
Subcategory, and the facilities in this subcategory will not incur
incremental compliance costs nor experience economic impacts.
2. PSES
EPA estimates that the total annualized compliance costs for PSES
will be approximately $10.2 million per year (1998 post-tax dollars).
These costs include compliance with PSES for the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory, the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and
the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. EPA is not setting PSES for
the Food and Hopper Subcategories. Total annual compliance costs are
based on the following technology alternatives: Option I for the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Option II for the Rail/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory,
[[Page 49688]]
and Option II for the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory.
EPA estimates that the selected technology options will result in
no facility closures, revenue losses, nor employment losses for PSES.
As indicated above, EPA did find that PSES may cause financial stress
for 14 facilities (4.3 percent) in the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory under the highly conservative assumption of zero cost pass
through, but confirmatory financial tests indicated that financial
stress, if present, would be minimal.
Within non-TEC industries, EPA's economic analysis indicates that
some industries that provide materials and equipment to the TEC
industry may experience revenue increases as a result of the
regulation. However, other non-TEC industries could incur revenue
losses. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the regulation would
result in net losses of 200 to 300 jobs in all industries (i.e.,
including TEC and non-TEC industries). These impacts were estimated
using EPA's input-output methodology for the U.S. economy. Details of
EPA's input-output analysis are available in the Economic Analysis.
Within the TEC industry itself, EPA determined that many
financially healthy facilities might actually experience gains in
production (and thus gains in output, revenue, and employment).
Financially healthy facilities in the local market area might expand to
take over a portion of production from a facility having financial
difficulties. In addition, some employment gains are anticipated for
installation and operation of flow reduction and wastewater treatment
facilities.
EPA has also conducted an analysis of the community impacts of the
final regulation for PSES. EPA has determined that most facility
financial stress will result in a community's unemployment rate of no
more than 0.2 percent. Because the methodology assumes that all of the
community impacts would occur in one State, the more probable impact is
considerably lower. Thus the community impact from the transportation
equipment cleaning industry regulation is estimated to be negligible.
EPA expects the rule to have minimal impact on international
markets. Domestic markets might initially be slightly affected by the
rule, because tank cleaning facilities will absorb a portion of the
compliance costs and will pass through a portion of the costs through
to their customers. For the portion of compliance costs passed through
to tank cleaning customers, EPA's market model estimates that prices
will increase about 0.1 percent to 4.3 percent. Output, or the number
of tanks cleaned, will decrease from almost zero percent to about 0.6
percent. Because tank cleaning is an essential service and is a very
small part of total transportation services costs, customers may not be
as sensitive to tank cleaning prices as they are to larger cost
elements.
EPA expects the rule will have minimal impacts on inflation,
insignificant distributional effects, and no major impacts on
environmental justice.
EPA also investigated the likelihood that customers might use
methods such as installing additional on-site wastewater treatment in
order to comply with the regulation. Substitution possibilities, such
as on-site tank washing or purchasing dedicated tanks, are associated
with potential negative impacts on customers that might deter them from
choosing these potential substitutes. On-site tank cleaning
capabilities require capital investment, operation and maintenance, and
monitoring costs. The decision to build an on-site tank cleaning
capability is more likely determined by non-pricing factors such as
environmental liability, tank-cleaning quality control, and internal
management controls than by a choice to develop alternatives to
commercial tank washing.
EPA's analysis does not indicate that transportation service
companies (i.e., TEC customers) would likely decide to build a tank
cleaning facility as a result of EPA's regulations. Further, because of
high initial capital investment ($1.0-$2.0 million for a tank cleaning
facility) and the small increase in price of transportation equipment
cleaning services discussed earlier, on-site transportation equipment
cleaning could require years before any cost savings might be realized.
Also, EPA's market model provides a means for estimating price
increases and reductions in quantity demanded for transportation
equipment cleaning services at the higher price. This analysis shows a
very small decrease in the number of tanks cleaned as a result of the
regulation, from almost zero to about 0.6 percent of baseline
production across the subcategories. Given the disincentives towards
substitutes indicated above, EPA does not expect the rule to cause
many, if any, customers to substitute on-site facilities for
transportation equipment cleaning services or to substitute dedicated
tanks. The small reduction in production is more likely to occur from
customers delaying cleaning (rather than cleaning tanks after delivery
of load) or dropping certain services such as handling toxic wastes
heels. This decline in production is negligible compared to the
approximate 10 to 20 percent per year revenue growth between 1992 and
1994, (according to data provided in the Detailed Questionnaire) in the
TEC industry.
3. NSPS and PSNS
As described in today's notice, EPA is setting NSPS equivalent to
BPT, BCT, and BAT, and PSNS equivalent to PSES, in all subcategories.
EPA uses a barrier-to-entry analysis to analyze the impacts of
effluent guideline and pretreatment standards on new sources. The
analysis focuses on whether the impact of the regulation will result in
a barrier-to-entry into the market. The methodology for the barrier-to
entry analysis is described in the proposal. Briefly, the analysis
compares the expected compliance costs to the assets of existing
facilities. This analysis is performed by analyzing the costs that each
existing facility could potentially incur as a result of the
regulations. EPA makes the assumption that new facilities will have
impacts from the regulation that are no greater than the impact of the
regulation on existing facilities. This assumption is based upon the
rationale that new facilities are better able to include regulatory
requirements in their design and construction plans. The incremental
compliance costs are compared with the dollar value of assets of the
existing facilities. The dollar value of assets of each facility
provide a measure of the size of the facility in terms of financial
capital in place. EPA has used the dollar value of assets as one
indicator, among others, of the ability of a facility to absorb
additional costs. The analytic approach is to divide the compliance
costs of each facility by the dollar value of the assets of each
facility. The result of the analysis is reviewed in comparison to
industry trends and norms. EPA has not set a threshold value for the
ratio of incremental compliance costs to the dollar value of facility
assets. However, EPA decisions in the past have generally indicated
that ratios below 10 percent indicate that there is no barrier-to-
entry. The results of this analysis show the relative impact of the
effluent guideline on existing sources.
For the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, average facility
assets are about $2.5 million ($1998). In its economic analysis, EPA
determined that the average additional facility capital costs for PSNS
in this subcategory
[[Page 49689]]
would be about $197 thousand. The ratio of average facility capital
compliance costs to average facility assets would be approximately 8.0
percent. EPA concludes that the capital cost to comply with the
standards are modest in comparison to total facility assets and would
not pose a barrier-to-entry into the market.
For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, responses to the
detailed questionnaire indicate that the average facility assets are
about $5.4 million ($1998). In its economic analysis, EPA determined
that the average additional facility capital compliance costs for PSNS
would be about $257 thousand. The ratio average facility compliance
capital costs to average facility assets would be less than five
percent of average facility assets. EPA concluded that the average
annual capital compliance costs are modest in comparison to average
facility assets and that they would not pose a barrier-to-entry into
the market.
For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the average
facility assets for a barge chemical cleaning facility are about $3.3
million. The average additional compliance capital costs for NSPS are
about $13,000, or less than one percent of average facility assets.
This percentage is expected to be lower for new facilities, because
they can include pollution control equipment in the design of new
facilities. Therefore, these costs would not pose a barrier to entry
into the market.
EPA is regulating only direct dischargers in the Food Subcategory.
The Agency is setting BPT, BCT, and NSPS for the Food Subcategory. The
direct dischargers in the Food Subcategory have treatment in place that
meets the requirements that EPA is promulgating in today's rule.
Because Food Subcategory facilities have treatment in place, these
facilities will not incur additional costs to comply with the
regulation. In addition, new sources will install treatment similar or
equivalent to treatment in place for existing facilities. New sources
will incur no costs as a result of the regulation that is not incurred
by existing facilities. Therefore, there are no costs and no barrier to
entry in this subcategory under the NSPS regulation.
EPA analyzed the number of facilities that entered the market each
year during the three year period of the Detailed Questionnaire. The
results of this analysis can be found in the proposal. In essence, new
facilities were replacing closing facilities. In addition to replacing
existing facilities, the industry also experienced modest growth during
the three year period of the Detailed Questionnaire.
Similar to PSNS, EPA concludes that no barrier-to-entry exists for
new direct discharge facilities to construct, operate, and maintain
these technologies. EPA also analyzed the impact on new, small
facilities in the TEC industry. The analysis shows that there are no
small facility closures for direct discharging small businesses. New,
small businesses will incur costs no higher than costs for existing,
small businesses. Therefore there will be no barrier to entry for new,
small businesses in the TEC industry.
4. Economic Analysis of Accepted and Rejected Options
As discussed in Section V of this notice, EPA considered several
technology options for each subcategory. A summary of costs and impacts
for all BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS options are shown in Table
4. The annualized costs in Table 4 are presented on a post-tax basis.
EPA also conducted an economic analysis under the zero cost pass
through assumption as a sensitivity analysis. Although these analyses
estimated higher impacts than the analyses using positive cost pass
though analysis, EPA believes that the most conservative economic and
financial assumptions are highly unlikely and that all facilities will
be able to pass through a portion of any incremental compliance cost
that they may incur. Cost pass through is more likely to occur, because
the entire industry will be required to comply with the new regulation.
Table 4.--Summary of Impacts for Final BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
costs ($1998 Facility Financial Employee
Subcategory Option millions closures stress losses
post-tax)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) Option I.............. 0 0 0 0
Option II (BPT, BCT, 0 0 0 0
BAT, NSPS).
Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Option A.............. 5.2 N/A N/A N/A
(Indirect).
Option I (PSES, PSNS). 9.2 0 14 0
Option II............. 20.9 0 22 0
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct). Option I.............. 0.005 0 0 0
Option II (BPT, BCT, 0.041 0 0 0
BAT, NSPS).
Option III............ 0.61 0 0 0
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Option I.............. 0.589 0 0 0
(Indirect).
Option II (PSES, PSNS) 1.02 0 0 0
Option III............ 1.61 0 0 0
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum (Direct) Option I (BPT, BCT, 0.089 0 0 0
BAT, NSPS).
Option II............. 0.346 0 0 0
Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Option I.............. 0.04 0 0 0
(Indirect).
Option II (PSES, PSNS) 0.04 0 0 0
Option III............ 0.240 0 0 0
Food (Direct)...................... Option I.............. 0 0 0 0
Option II (BPT, BCT, 0 0 0 0
NSPS).
Food (Indirect).................... Option I (no 0 0 0 0
regulation).
Truck/Hopper (Direct and Indirect). Option I (no 0 0 0 0
regulation).
Rail/Hopper (Direct and Indirect).. Option I (no 0 0 0 0
regulation).
Barge/Hopper (Direct and Indirect). Option I (no 0 0 0 0
regulation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49690]]
C. Small Business Analysis
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as a business that has annual
revenues of less than $5,000,000.
EPA provided the initial results of the small business analysis in
the proposal. As described in the proposal, a key aspect of the small
business analysis was to identify options that would minimize the
economic impacts for small businesses. The Agency considered exclusions
based upon business size and wastewater flow as ways to provide relief
to small businesses. In the proposal, EPA did not identify criteria for
a facility exclusion to the regulation. Since the proposal, however,
the Agency has continued to assess possible criteria for facility
exclusions from the regulations. For this final regulation, the Agency
is excluding from coverage all facilities discharging less than 100,000
gallons per year of TEC process wastewater.
In the small business analyses for the proposal, EPA applied a
conservative set of assumptions, i.e., zero cost past through, to
analyze the options available to provide relief to small businesses.
Among the analyses the Agency conducted was a sales test analysis that
compares the post-tax cost of compliance with the regulation with the
annual revenues of each facility in the sample survey. EPA conducted
similar sales test analyses for this final regulation using both
positive cost pass through and zero cost pass through assumptions. For
the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, using the positive cost
pass through analysis, 29 of 79 (37 percent) small businesses exceed
the one percent sales test and zero small businesses exceed the three
percent sales test. Using the zero cost pass through assumption, 29 of
79 (37 percent) small businesses exceed the one percent sales and 29 of
79 (37 percent) small businesses exceed the three percent sales test.
For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, 6 of 12 (50 percent)
small businesses exceed the one percent sales test under both zero cost
pass and positive cost pass through assumptions. No small businesses
exceed the three percent sales test under either zero or positive cost
pass through scenarios.
For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, no small businesses
exceed either the one or three percent sales test under positive cost
pass through. Using the zero cost pass through analysis, three of six
small businesses exceed the one percent sales test and no facilities
exceed the three percent sales test.
For the Food Subcategory, facilities will not incur additional
costs, because they have the required treatment in place. Therefore,
the sales test was not conducted on the 19 facilities in the Food
Subcategory. There are no facilities in the Food Subcategory that will
have an economic impact or have a sales test greater than zero.
EPA believes that the sales test serves as an indication of
relative cost of the regulation but alone is not sufficient to
determine the economic achievability for this rule. However, EPA has
concluded that the rule is economically achievable, because there are
no impacts on small businesses in terms of closures or employment
losses. In addition, EPA has determined that there will not be a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, because
the number of small business affected by this rule is relatively low
and the impact is modest for most of the affected small businesses. The
impact on small businesses is even less when a portion of the costs are
passed through to the final transportation industry customers.
D. Market Analysis
EPA conducts a market analysis using the market model (with
commercial and out source components) developed for the transportation
equipment cleaning industry. The market analysis provides information
on the changes in the marketplace as a result of the regulation. For
the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, EPA predicts that the
regulation may increase the price of tank cleaning from about $279 to
about $285 per tank, or about a two percent price increase. In response
to the price increase, there could be a small adjustment in the number
of tanks cleaned from a baseline of 774,000 to about 772,000 (a
decrease of less than 0.5 percent). The projected price increases are
modest relative to the market price and market response is expected to
be minimal.
For the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the market analysis
shows that the cost for cleaning rail tank cars could increase from
about $781 to about $815 per tank cleaned or about 4.3 percent. The
market response would be a decrease in the number of rail tank cars
cleaned from about 33,000 to about 32,800 (about 0.5 percent). The
projected market price relative the market price of cleaning rail tank
cars is modest and the expected market response is minimal.
For the Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the market analysis
indicates that there would be a price increase from about $6,448 to
about $6,456 per tank barge cleaned (or about 0.1 percent change in the
price). The market response is anticipated to be an imperceptible
change in the quantity of tank barges cleaned.
For the Food Subcategory, EPA's economic analysis indicates that
all direct discharging facilities have treatment in place. Therefore,
they will not have to install treatment technology or change operation
and management practices as a result of today's promulgation. The Food
Subcategory facilities will not incur costs that exceed those that they
have already incurred for currently installed treatment. The market
analysis indicates that there will be no impacts on the markets served
by these facilities as a result of the regulation.
Although transportation cleaning services is a small part of the
overall transportation services sector, cleaning services are essential
for delivery of safe, quality products in the marketplace. Because
these services are essential, transportation services companies must
have clean tanks, cleaned by their in-house cleaning services, or
provided by commercial cleaning service companies. Given the necessity
of cleaning tanks to provide safe, quality products, the price may
increase in the marketplace with little if any response by cleaning
customers. This finding suggests that prices could increase, in some
cases significantly, with little if any reduction in the number of
tanks cleaned.
E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
EPA conducts the cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis to determine the
cost per pound of pollutant removed as a result of the regulation. The
Agency identifies the pounds of each pollutant removed by each
technology considered as a basis for regulation. These removals are
added for each technology option and compared to the incremental costs
of each technology option. EPA estimates the average and incremental
cost effectiveness of each regulatory option. Pounds removed are
adjusted for the removal by POTWs and for the toxic weights of the
specific pollutants. After these two adjustments, the analysis provides
pound equivalents. The results of the cost effectiveness analysis for
this rule are presented in 1981 dollars, the latter for comparing with
other effluent guidelines if appropriate. EPA's incremental cost-
effectiveness analysis for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
indicates a cost effectiveness ratio of $370 in 1981 dollars. For the
Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, the CE analysis indicated a
result of $492 in 1981 dollars. Further information about the
[[Page 49691]]
cost effectiveness analysis is provided in ``Final Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Transportation Equipment Cleaning Category''.
F. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to prepare a cost-benefit
analysis for Federal regulations that may have economic impacts on
industry. Table 5 presents the costs and benefits of the TEC final
regulation. The details of the cost-benefit analysis are discussed in
the Economic Analysis. Total social costs for the cost-benefit analysis
are estimated by using pre-tax dollars as an approximation for the
total social costs of the regulation. The benefits of the regulation
are derived from improvements in water quality resulting from
reductions in the amount of pollutants discharged.
This rule is expected to have a total annual social cost of $17.0
million (1998 dollars), which includes $16. 4 million in pre-tax
compliance costs, $0.6 million in administrative costs, and almost zero
costs for administering unemployment benefits. Total annual benefits
are expected to range from $1.5 million to $5.5 million (1998 dollars).
This includes $1.0 million to $3.5 million for recreational benefits,
$0.5 million to $1.7 million associated with nonuse values benefits,
and $56,000 to $300,000 associated with cancer benefits. The derivation
of annual benefits is discussed in more detail in Section IX.
Table 5.--Summary of the Cost-Benefit Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs and
benefits
Category ($1998
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (pre-tax)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Costs........................................ $16.4
Administrative Costs.................................... $0.6
Administrative Costs of Unemployment.................... $0.0
---------------
Total Social Costs.................................... $17.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Benefits
Cancer Benefits......................................... $0.056-$0.30
Recreational Benefits................................... $1.0-$3.5
Nonuse Benefits......................................... $0.5-$1.7
---------------
Total Monetized Benefits.............................. $1.5-$5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation
A. Changes to Benefits Analysis Since Proposal
EPA has not changed the methodology described in the proposal to
evaluate the environmental benefits of controlling discharges of
pollutants for the final rulemaking action. As in the proposal, the
methodology includes evaluation of projected in-stream concentrations
of pollutants relative to aquatic criteria, analysis of potential
interference with POTW operations in terms of inhibition of activated
sludge and contamination of sludges, and the potential for human health
impacts resulting from the ingestion of drinking water and fish
containing pollutants discharged by TEC facilities. A detailed
description of the methodology can be found in the Environmental
Assessment of the Final Effluent Guidelines for the Transportation
Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Industry.
Several changes made to the rule since proposal have affected this
analysis, resulting in removal of a few facilities, the removal of some
pollutants, and the addition of other pollutants assessed in the
analysis for the proposal. These changes include: (1) The modification
to the subcategorization approach, in which EPA combined the Truck/
Chemical Subcategory and Truck/Petroleum Subcategory into the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, and also combined the Rail/Chemical
Subcategory and Rail/Petroleum Subcategory into the Rail/Chemical &
Petroleum Subcategory; (2) the establishment of a low flow exclusion,
which excludes facilities that discharge less than 100,000 gallons per
year of TEC process wastewater; (3) the clarification of the definition
of the exclusion of facilities engaged in activities covered elsewhere
(e.g., the proposed MP&M guideline); and (4) a revision to the
methodology for calculating pesticide and herbicide loadings.
B. Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. Direct Dischargers
EPA projects that no additional removals of toxics will be achieved
by the regulatory option because all three modeled facilities have
sufficient treatment in place to meet BAT limits. EPA therefore
predicts that there are no additional benefits to be obtained as a
result of the selected BAT regulatory option.
2. Indirect Dischargers
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of a representative sample of 40 indirect wastewater dischargers of the
286 facilities subject to the guidelines in the Truck/Chemical &
Petroleum indirect subcategory to receiving waters at current levels of
treatment and at pretreatment levels. These 40 modeled facilities
discharge 84 pollutants in wastewater to 34 POTWs, which then discharge
to 34 receiving streams.
At the national level, 286 facilities discharge wastewater to 255
POTWs, which then discharge into 255 receiving streams. EPA projects
that in-stream concentrations of one pollutant will exceed aquatic life
or human health criteria (for both water and organisms) in seven
receiving streams at current discharge levels. The selected
pretreatment regulatory option eliminates excursions of aquatic life or
human health criteria in all seven streams. Estimates of the increase
in value of recreational fishing to anglers as a result of this
improvement range from $975,000 to $3,484,000 annually (1998 dollars).
In addition, the nonuse value (e.g. option, existence, and bequest
value) of the improvement is estimated to range from $488,000 to
$1,742,000 (1998 dollars).
The reduction of excess annual cancer cases from the ingestion of
contaminated fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated
generate a benefit to society of $2,200 to $13,000 (1998 dollars). (A
monetary value of this benefit to society was not projected at
proposal.) No systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer adverse health
effects such as reproductive toxicity) are projected for anglers
fishing the receiving streams at current discharge levels. Therefore,
no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
3. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and
contamination of sewage sludge at the 34 modeled POTWs that receive
wastewater from the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. At current
discharge levels, EPA projects no inhibition or sludge contamination
problems at any of the POTWs at current loadings. Therefore, no further
analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
[[Page 49692]]
C. Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. Direct Dischargers
EPA projects that no additional removals of toxics will be achieved
by the regulatory option because the one model facility has sufficient
treatment in place to comply with BAT. EPA therefore predicts that
there are no additional benefits to be obtained as a result of the
selected BAT regulatory option.
2. Indirect Dischargers
EPA evaluated the potential effect on aquatic life and human health
of a representative sample of 10 indirect wastewater dischargers of the
30 facilities in the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory to receiving
waters at current levels of treatment and at pretreatment levels. These
10 modeled facilities discharge 74 pollutants in wastewater to nine
POTWs, which discharge to nine receiving streams.
At the national level, 30 facilities discharge wastewater to 28
POTWs, which then discharge into 28 receiving streams. EPA projects
that in-stream pollutant concentrations will exceed human health
criteria (for both water and organisms) in 13 receiving streams at both
current and pretreatment discharge levels. Since the selected
pretreatment regulatory option is not expected to eliminate all
occurrences of pollutant concentrations in excess of human health
criteria at any of the receiving streams, no increase in value of
recreational fishing to anglers is projected as a result of this
pretreatment.
The reduction of excess annual cancer cases from the ingestion of
contaminated fish and drinking water by all populations evaluated
generate a benefit to society of $55,000 to $290,000 (1998 dollars). (A
monetary value of this benefit to society was not projected at
proposal.) No systemic toxicant effects (non-cancer adverse health
effects such as reproductive toxicity) are projected for anglers
fishing the receiving streams at current discharge levels. Therefore,
no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
3. POTWs
EPA also evaluated the potential adverse impacts on POTW operations
(inhibition of microbial activity during biological treatment) and
contamination of sewage sludge at the nine modeled POTWs that receive
wastewater from the Rail/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory. Model
results were then extrapolated to the national level, which included 28
POTWs.
At current discharge levels, EPA projects inhibition problems at 13
of the POTWs, caused by two pollutants. At the selected pretreatment
regulatory option, EPA projects continued inhibition problems at these
13 POTWs because these two pollutants are not treated to sufficiently
low levels to affect the POTW inhibition level. The Agency projects
sewage sludge contamination at none of the POTWs at current loadings.
Therefore, no further analysis of these types of impacts was performed.
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. EPA used these values to determine whether the
pollutants interfere with POTW operations. The pretreatment standards
today are not based on these values; rather, they are based on the
performance of the selected technology basis for each standard.
However, the values used in this analysis help indicate the potential
benefits for POTW operations that may result from the compliance with
pretreatment discharge levels.
D. Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory
1. Direct Dischargers
EPA projects that BAT would not result in any additional removals
of toxic pollutants because most pollutants are already treated to very
low levels, often approaching the detection levels. EPA therefore did
not quantify additional benefits obtained as a result of the selected
BAT regulatory option.
2. Indirect Dischargers
Based on the discharge concentrations of several conventional
pollutants, EPA believes that all five modeled indirect discharging
facilities are meeting the levels of control that would be established
under PSES. EPA therefore did not additional benefits obtained as a
result of the selected PSES regulatory option.
E. Food Subcategory
1. Direct Dischargers
EPA estimates no additional pollutant removals and no additional
costs to the industry because all 19 facilities identified by EPA
currently have the proposed BPT technology in place. EPA is not
establishing BAT because EPA is not regulating any toxic parameters.
2. Indirect Dischargers
EPA is not establishing PSES or PSNS for the Food Subcategory.
X. Non-Water Quality Impacts of Final Regulation
As required by Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
has considered the non-water quality environmental impacts associated
with the treatment technology options for the TEC industry. Non-water
quality environmental impacts are impacts of the final rule on the
environment that are not directly associated with wastewater, such as
changes in energy consumption, air emissions, and solid waste
generation of sludge and oil. In addition to these non-water quality
environmental impacts, EPA examined the impacts of the final rule on
noise pollution, and water and chemical use. Based on these analyses,
EPA finds the relatively small increase in non-water quality
environmental impacts resulting from the rule to be acceptable. EPA's
estimates have not changed significantly from the proposed rule.
A. Energy Impacts
Energy impacts resulting from the regulatory options include energy
requirements to operate wastewater treatment equipment such as
aerators, pumps, and mixers. However, flow reduction technologies
reduce energy requirements by reducing the number of operating hours
per day and/or operating days per year for wastewater treatment
equipment currently operated by the TEC industry. For some regulatory
options, energy savings resulting from flow reduction exceed
requirements for operation of additional wastewater treatment
equipment, resulting in a net energy savings for these options. EPA
estimates a net increase in electricity use of approximately 5 million
kilowatt hours annually for the TEC industry as a result of the rule,
which is an insignificant increase in U.S. industrial electrical energy
purchase. Therefore, the Agency concludes that the effluent pollutant
reduction benefits from the technology options exceed the potential
adverse effects from the estimated increase in energy consumption.
B. Air Emission Impacts
TEC facilities generate wastewater containing concentrations of
volatile and semivolatile organic pollutants, some of which are also on
the list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in Title 3 of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. These waste streams pass through treatment
units open to the atmosphere, which may
[[Page 49693]]
result in the volatilization of organic pollutants from the wastewater.
Emissions from TEC facilities also occur when tanks are opened and
cleaned, with cleaning typically performed using hot water or cleaning
solutions. Prior to cleaning, tanks may be opened with vapors vented
through the tank hatch and air vents in a process called gas freeing.
At some facilities, tanks used to transport gases or volatile material
are filled to capacity with water to displace vapors to the atmosphere
or a combustion device. Some facilities also perform open steaming of
tanks.
Other sources of emissions at TEC facilities include heated
cleaning solution storage tanks as well as emissions from TEC
wastewater as it falls onto the cleaning bay floor, flows to floor
drains and collection sumps, and conveys to wastewater treatment.
In order to quantify the impact of the regulation on air emissions
at proposal, EPA performed a model analysis to estimate the amount of
organic pollutants emitted to the air. EPA estimated the increase of
air emissions at TEC facilities as a result of the wastewater treatment
technology to be approximately 153,000 kilograms per year of organic
pollutants (volatile and semivolatile organics), which represented
approximately 35 percent of the total organic pollutant wastewater load
of raw TEC wastewater. Since the final technology options are fairly
similar to the proposed technology options, EPA estimates that these
estimates would not change significantly. EPA's estimate of air
emissions reflects the increase in emissions at TEC facilities, and
does not account for baseline air emissions that are currently being
released to the atmosphere at the POTW or as the wastewater is conveyed
to the POTW. It is expected that much of the increased emissions at
indirect TEC facilities calculated for this rule are currently being
released at POTWs or during conveyance to the POTW. To a large degree,
this rule will merely shift the location at which the air emissions are
released, rather than increasing the total air emissions from TEC
wastewater. As a result, air emission from TEC wastewater at POTWs are
expected to be reduced somewhat following implementation of this rule.
EPA's model analysis was performed based on the most stringent
regulatory options considered for each subcategory in order to create a
``worst case scenario'' (i.e., the more treatment technologies used,
the more chance of volatilization of compounds to the air). For some
subcategories, EPA is not promulgating the most stringent regulatory
option; therefore, for these subcategories, air emission impacts are
overestimated.
In addition, to the extent that facilities currently operate
treatment in place, the results overestimate air emission impacts from
the regulatory options. Additional details concerning EPA's model
analysis to estimate air emission impacts are included in ``Estimated
Air Emission Impacts of TEC Industry Regulatory Options'' in the
rulemaking record.
Based on the sources of air emissions in the TEC industry and
limited data concerning air pollutant emissions from TEC operations
provided in response to the 1994 Detailed Questionnaire (most
facilities did not provide air pollutant emissions estimates), EPA
estimates that the incremental air emissions resulting from the
regulatory options are a small percentage of air emissions generated by
TEC operations. For these reasons, air emission impacts of the
regulatory options are acceptable.
C. Solid Waste Impacts
Solid waste impacts resulting from the regulatory options include
additional solid wastes generated by wastewater treatment technologies.
These solid wastes include wastewater treatment residuals, including
sludge and waste oil.
1. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
Wastewater treatment sludge is generated in two forms: dewatered
sludge (or filter cake) generated by a filter press and/or wet sludge
generated by treatment units such as oil/water separators, coagulation/
clarification, dissolved air flotation, and biological treatment. Many
facilities that currently operate wastewater treatment systems do not
dewater wastewater treatment sludge. Storage, transportation, and
disposal of greater volumes of un-dewatered sludge that would be
generated after implementing the TEC industry regulatory options is
less cost-effective than dewatering sludge on site and disposing of the
greatly reduced volume of resulting filter cake. However, in estimating
costs for the rule, EPA has included the costs for TEC facilities to
install sludge dewatering equipment to handle increases in sludge
generation. For these reasons, EPA estimates net decreases in the
volume of wet sludge generated by the industry and net increases in the
volume of dry sludge generated by the industry.
EPA estimates that the rule will result in a decrease in wet sludge
generation of approximately 17 million gallons per year, which
represents an estimated 98 percent decrease from current wet sludge
generation. In addition, EPA estimates that the rule will result in an
increase in dewatered sludge generation of approximately 35 thousand
cubic yards per year, which represents an estimated 120 percent
increase from current dewatered sludge generation. However, this
results in a net decrease of sludge volume that will be deposited in
landfills.
Compliance cost estimates for the TEC industry regulatory options
are based on disposal of wastewater treatment sludge in nonhazardous
waste landfills. EPA sampling of sludge using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test verified the sludge as
non-hazardous. Such landfills are subject to RCRA Subtitle D standards
found in 40 CFR parts 257 or 258.
The Agency concludes that the effluent benefits and the reductions
in wet sludge generation from the technology options exceed the
potential adverse effects from the estimated increase in wastewater
treatment sludge generation.
2. Waste Oil
EPA estimates that compliance with the regulation will result in an
increase in waste oil generation at TEC sites based on removal of oil
from wastewater via oil/water separation. EPA estimates that this
increase in waste oil generation will be approximately 670,000 gallons
per year, which represents no more than an estimated 330 percent
increase from current waste oil generation. EPA assumes, based on
responses to the Detailed Questionnaire, that waste oil disposal will
be via oil reclamation or fuels blending on or off site. Therefore, the
Agency does not estimate any adverse effects from increased waste oil
generation.
XI. 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 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;
[[Page 49694]]
(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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations have been documented in
the public record.
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, a small entity is defined as (1) a small business that has
less than $5 million in annual revenue (based on SBA size standards);
(2) a small government 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.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule (see 63 FR
34685) and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain
advice and recommendations from representatives of small entities that
would potentially be regulated by the rule in accordance with section
609(b) of the RFA. A detailed discussion of the Panel's advice and
recommendations is found in the Panel Report (DCN T10301). A summary of
the Panel's recommendations is presented in the preamble to the
proposed rule at 63 FR 34730.
In the final rule, EPA made changes to the proposal that reduced
the level of impacts to small entities. The final regulation excludes
all facilities that discharge less than 100,000 gallons per year of TEC
process wastewater and excludes facilities that are engaged in non-TEC
industrial, commercial, or POTW activities. In addition, EPA projects
fewer economic impacts to small entities as a result of selecting a
less stringent technology option in one subcategory. These and other
changes made to the proposal are described in Section III of this
notice.
In particular, EPA acknowledges the SBAR Panel's recommendations
regarding regulatory alternatives, applicability of the final rule, and
comment solicitation in the proposal. EPA carefully considered and
adopted many of the recommendations made by the SBAR Panel as discussed
in the proposal. EPA evaluated comments received on the proposal during
the notice and comment period and decided to adopt several of the
alternatives supported by commenters and the SBAR Panel. As discussed
throughout this notice, EPA has decided to exclude drums and
Intermediate Bulk Containers from the rule; to establish a less
stringent regulatory option for the Truck/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory; to establish similar levels of control for the Truck/
Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory and Rail/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory; and to adopt a low flow exclusion.
EPA's Economic Analysis includes an assessment of the impacts on
small entities. EPA projects that no small businesses will close as a
result of this rule. Using two sets of assumptions related to the
ability of a business to pass the additional costs to customers, EPA
projects that 35 to 38 small businesses would incur costs exceeding one
percent of revenues, and that zero to 29 small businesses would incur
costs exceeding three percent of revenues. This is approximately a 50
percent reduction in the impacts projected at proposal for EPA's most
conservative cost pass through assumption. Due to the ability to
recover all or a portion of regulatory costs by passing them through to
customers, the number of small TEC operators affected at these levels
is likely to fall in the lower end of the ranges.
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 September 13, 2000.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
As discussed in Section V of this notice, EPA is promulgating a
pollution prevention alternative as a regulatory compliance option and
the final rule contains information collection requirements as a part
of this compliance option. Therefore, the information collection
requirements for this rule will be submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
will be prepared by EPA and published in a subsequent Federal Register
notice. The information requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them. EPA will incorporate new reporting and record keeping
requirements and associated burden into a previously approved ICR
(2040-0009) for the National Pretreatment Program with an amendment.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The OMB
control number for the information collection requirements in
[[Page 49695]]
this rule will be listed in an amendment to 40 CFR Part 9 in a
subsequent Federal Register document after OMB approves the ICR.
Because of the delayed compliance date for the pretreatment standards
in today's rule, indirect dischargers will not be subject to the
information collection burden associated with the alternative Pollutant
Management Plan provisions for the rail and tank/truck subcategories
until three years from now. The Agency will provide burden estimates
for the paperwork compliance components of the Pollutant Management
Plan alternative (submission of a certification statement and the
Pollutant Management Plan to the local control authority, preparation
and maintenance of the plan and certain records at the facility) and
obtain ICR clearance for these estimates prior to the end of that
three-year time frame.
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
rule as $11.1 million (1998$, 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 projects that no small governments will be affected by
this rule. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
Section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments nor does it impose substantial
direct compliance costs on them. EPA has determined that no communities
of Indian tribal governments are affected by this rule. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.
G. 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.''
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 or local governments. The rule establishes
effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards imposing
requirements that apply to TEC facilities when they discharge
wastewater or introduce wastewater to a POTW. The rule does not apply
directly to States and local governments 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
that have an authorized NPDES programs and on local governments that
are administering approved pretreatment programs. (These States and
local governments must incorporate the new limitations and standards in
new and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or
permits). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 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 (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. No.
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, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
[[Page 49696]]
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The rule requires
dischargers to measure for seven metals, two organic contaminants,
BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM), non-polar material (SGT-HEM), and pH.
EPA performed a search to identify potentially voluntary consensus
standards that could be used to measure the analytes in today's final
guideline. EPA's search revealed that consensus standards exist and are
already specified in the tables at 40 CFR Part 136.3 for measurement of
many of the analytes. Pollutants in today's rule for which there are
voluntary consensus methods include: seven metals; two organics; BOD5;
TSS; Oil and Grease (HEM); non-polar material (SGT-HEM); and pH.
I. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act, Public Law 104-55, requires
most Federal agencies to differentiate between and establish separate
classes for (1) animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine
mammal oils, and oils of vegetable origin, and (2) other greases and
oils, including petroleum, when issuing or enforcing any regulation or
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the
transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a
fat, oil or grease.
The Agency believes that vegetable oils and animal fats pose
similar types of threats to the environment as petroleum oils when
spilled to the environment (62 FR 54508 Oct. 20, 1997). The deleterious
environmental effects of spills of petroleum and non-petroleum oils,
including animal fats and vegetable oils, are produced through physical
contact and destruction of food sources (via smothering or coating) as
well as toxic contamination (62 FR 54511). However, the permitted
discharge of TEC process wastewater containing residual and dilute
quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is significantly
different than an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or non-petroleum
oil products.
As discussed in Section VI of the proposal, and in accordance with
the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform, EPA has grouped facilities which
clean transportation equipment that carry vegetable oils or animal fats
as cargos into separate subcategories (Food Subcategory) from those
facilities that clean equipment that had carried petroleum products
(Truck/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory, Rail/Chemical & Petroleum
Subcategory, Barge/Chemical & Petroleum Subcategory).
J. 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, and because the
rule does not concern an environmental health or safety risk that may
have a disproportional effect on children.
XII. Regulatory Implementation
Upon promulgation of these regulations, the effluent limitations
for the appropriate subcategory must be applied in all Federal and
State NPDES permits issued to affected direct dischargers in the TEC
industry. In addition, the pretreatment standards are directly
applicable to affected indirect dischargers. This section discusses the
relationship of upset and bypass provisions, variances and
modifications, and monitoring requirements.
A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the TEC
industry must include the effluent limitations for the appropriate
subcategory. Permit writers should be aware that EPA has now finalized
revisions to 40 CFR 122.44(a) which could be particularly relevant to
the development of NPDES permits for the TEC point source category (see
65 FR 30989, May 15, 2000). As finalized, the revision would require
that permits have limitations for all applicable guidelines-listed
pollutants but allows for the waiver of sampling requirements for
guideline-listed pollutants on a case-by-case basis if the discharger
can certify that the pollutant is not present in the discharge or
present in only background levels from intake water with no increase
due to the activities of the dischargers. New sources and new
dischargers are not eligible for this waiver for their first permit
term, and monitoring can be re-established through a minor modification
if the discharger expands or changes its process. Further, the
permittee must notify the permit writer of any modifications that have
taken place over the course of the permit term and, if necessary,
monitoring can be reestablished through a minor modification.
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 (upset) and 403.17 (bypass).
C. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. 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.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations guidelines 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 guidelines 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
[[Page 49697]]
modifications from pretreatment standards for existing facilities. FDF
variances for priority pollutants were challenged judicially and
ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical Manufacturers
Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standards.
Section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may
establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an
application for approval of an 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 125 Subpart D, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative guidelines 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 EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other 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 dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct
dischargers.
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 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. Removal Credits
The CWA establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant
``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. This credit in the
form of a less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased
concentration of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger's
facility to the POTW (See 40 CFR 403.7). EPA has promulgated removal
credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations.
The following discussion provides a description of the existing
removal credit regulations. Under EPA's existing pretreatment
regulations, the availability of a removal credit for a particular
pollutant is linked to the POTW method of using or disposing of its
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits are only
available for certain pollutants regulated in EPA's 40 CFR Part 503
sewage sludge regulations (58 FR 9386). The pretreatment regulations at
40 CFR Part 403 provide that removal credits may be made potentially
available for the following pollutants:
(1) If a POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial
uses, disposes of it on surface disposal sites or incinerates it,
removal credits may be available, depending on which use or disposal
method is selected (so long as the POTW complies with the requirements
in Part 503). When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits
may be available for ten metals. When sewage sludge is disposed of on a
surface disposal site, removal credits may be available for three
metals. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may be
available for seven metals and for 57 organic pollutants (40 CFR
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
(2) In addition, when sewage sludge is used on land or disposed of
on a surface disposal site or incinerated, removal credits may also be
available for additional pollutants so long as the concentration of the
pollutant in sludge does not exceed a concentration level established
in Part 403. When sewage sludge is applied to land, removal credits may
be available for two additional metals and 14 organic pollutants. When
the sewage sludge is disposed of on a surface disposal site, removal
credits may be available for seven additional metals and 13 organic
pollutants. When the sewage sludge is incinerated, removal credits may
be available for three other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
(3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) that meets the criteria of 40 CFR Part 258,
removal credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage
sludge (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)). Thus, given compliance with the
requirements of EPA's removal credit regulations,\2\ following today's
promulgation of the pretreatment standards, removal credits may be
authorized for any pollutant subject to pretreatment standards if the
applying POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a MSWLF that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. If the POTW uses or disposes of its
sewage sludge by land application, surface disposal or incineration,
removal credits may be available for the following metal pollutants
(depending on the method of use or disposal): arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and
zinc. Given compliance with Section 403.7, removal credits may be
available for the following organic pollutants (depending on the method
of use or disposal) if the POTW uses or disposes of its sewage sludge:
benzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, ethylbenzene, methylene
chloride, toluene, tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane and trans-1,2-dichloroethene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under 40 CFR 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give removal
credits only under certain conditions. These include applying for,
and obtaining, approval from the Regional Administrator (or Director
of a State NPDES program with an approved pretreatment program), a
showing of consistent pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment
program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some facilities may be interested in obtaining removal credit
authorization for other pollutants being regulated by
[[Page 49698]]
this rulemaking for which removal credit authorization would not
otherwise be available under Part 403. Under Sections 307(b) and 405 of
the CWA, EPA may authorize removal credits only when EPA determines
that, if removal credits are authorized, that the increased discharges
of a pollutant to POTWs resulting from removal credits will not affect
POTW sewage sludge use or disposal adversely. As discussed in the
preamble to amendments to Part 403 regulations (58 FR 9382-83), EPA has
interpreted these sections to authorize removal credits for a pollutant
only in one of two circumstances. Removal credits may be authorized for
any categorical pollutant (1) for which EPA have established a
numerical pollutant limit in Part 503; or (2) which EPA has determined
will not threaten human health and the environment when used or
disposed in sewage sludge. The pollutants described in paragraphs (1)-
(3) above include all those pollutants that EPA either specifically
regulated in Part 503 or evaluated for regulation and determined would
not adversely affect sludge use and disposal.
D. 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 EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations for this regulation to
cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial category. 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.
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 ensure 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.
An important component of the monitoring requirements established
by the permitting authority is the frequency at which monitoring is
required. In costing the various technology options for the TEC
industry, EPA assumed monthly monitoring for priority and non-
conventional pollutants and weekly monitoring for conventional
pollutants. These monitoring frequencies may be lower than those
generally imposed by some permitting authorities, but EPA believes
these reduced frequencies are appropriate due to the relative costs of
monitoring when compared to the estimated costs of complying with the
proposed limitations.
E. Analytical Methods
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate
guidelines establishing test methods for the analysis of pollutants.
TEC facilities use these methods to determine the presence and
concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and EPA, State and local
control authorities use them for compliance monitoring and for filing
applications for the NPDES program under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44
and 123.25, and for the implementation of the pretreatment standards
under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA has promulgated methods
for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and for some non-
conventional pollutants. In 40 CFR 401.16, EPA defines the five
conventional pollutants. Table I-B at 40 CFR 136 lists the analytical
methods approved for these pollutants. The 65 toxic metals and organic
pollutants and classes of pollutants are defined at 40 CFR 401.15. From
the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants EPA identified a list of 126
``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is shown, for
example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The list includes non-
pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, and
pesticide pollutants. Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide
are included in the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40
CFR 136.3, Table I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods
for measurement of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D
lists approved methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other
pesticide pollutants. Dischargers must use the test methods promulgated
at 40 CFR Part 136.3 or incorporated by reference in the tables to
monitor pollutant discharges from TEC facilities, unless specified
otherwise by the permitting authority.
The final rule would require facilities in the TEC point source
category to monitor for BOD5, TSS, Oil and Grease (HEM),
non-polar material (SGT-HEM), Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury,
Nickel, Zinc, Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, and pH. EPA has approved test
methods for all these pollutants at 40 CFR Part 136.3. EPA recently
published an amendment to EPA Methods 625 and 1625 that expands the
list of analytes that can be measured using these methods, (see
Landfills final rule, 65 FR 3008, January 19, 2000).
As stated in the proposal (see Table 10 at 63 FR 34736, June 25,
1998), EPA used Method 1625C to collect analytical data for the
semivolatile organics. The proposal further stated that commenters
should use these methods or equivalent methods for analyses. In 1998,
EPA also proposed to amend Methods 625 and 1625 to include additional
pollutants to be measured under effluent guidelines for the Centralized
Waste Treatment point source category (64 FR 2345). Since then, EPA has
gathered data on the capacity of these methods to measure the
additional pollutants. The modifications to EPA Methods 625 and 1625
consist of text, performance data, and quality control (QC) acceptance
criteria for the additional analytes. EPA validated the QC acceptance
criteria for the additional analytes in single-laboratory studies that
included TEC wastewater. The collected data are summarized in a report
contained in the docket for today's rulemaking.
In today's rule, EPA is approving the use of EPA Method 1625
(published at 40 CFR part 136.3, appendix A) for Fluoranthene and
Phenanthrene. Method 625 (also published at 40 CFR part 136.3, appendix
A) may also be used to monitor for Fluoranthene and Phenanthrene since
these two analytes are listed in that method for general application.
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This
Notice
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.
BOD5--Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand. A measure
of biochemical decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It
is determined by measuring the dissolved oxygen consumed by
microorganisms to oxidize the organic matter in a water sample under
standard laboratory
[[Page 49699]]
conditions of five days and 70 deg. C, see Method 405.1. BOD5 is not
related to the oxygen requirements in chemical combustion.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, as described in Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
CARGO--Any chemical, material, or substance transported in a
tank truck, closed-top hopper truck, intermodal tank container, rail
tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, tank barge, closed-top hopper
barge, or ocean/sea tanker that comes in direct contact with the
chemical, material, or substance. A cargo may also be referred to as
a commodity.
CLOSED-TOP HOPPER RAIL CAR--A completely enclosed storage vessel
pulled by a locomotive that is used to transport dry bulk
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. Closed-top hopper
rail cars are not designed or contracted to carry liquid commodities
or cargos and are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy
meal, soda ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and
similar commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos transported
come in direct contact with the hopper interior. Closed-top hopper
rail cars are typically divided into three compartments, carry the
same commodity or cargo in each compartment, and are generally top
loaded and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers on closed-top hopper
rail cars are typically longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole
covers.
CLOSED-TOP HOPPER TRUCK--A motor-driven vehicle with a
completely enclosed storage vessel used to transport dry bulk
commodities or cargos over roads and highways. Closed-top hopper
trucks are not designed or constructed to carry liquid commodities
or cargos and are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy
meal, soda ash, lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and
similar commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos transported
come in direct contact with the hopper interior. Closed-top hopper
trucks are typically divided into three compartments, carry the same
commodity or cargo in each compartment, and are generally top loaded
and bottom unloaded. The hatch covers used on closed-top hopper
trucks are typically longitudinal hatch covers or round manhole
covers. Closed-top hopper trucks are also commonly referred to as
dry bulk hoppers.
CLOSED-TOP HOPPER BARGE--A non-self-propelled vessel constructed
or adapted primarily to carry dry commodities or cargos in bulk
through rivers and inland waterways, and may occasionally carry
commodities or cargos through oceans and seas when in transit from
one inland waterway to another. Closed-top hopper barges are not
designed to carry liquid commodities or cargos and are typically
used to transport corn, wheat, soy beans, oats, soy meal, animal
pellets, and similar commodities or cargos. The commodities or
cargos transported come in direct contact with the hopper interior.
The basic types of tops on closed-top hopper barges are telescoping
rolls, steel lift covers, and fiberglass lift covers.
COD--Chemical oxygen demand--A non-conventional bulk parameter
that measures the oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory organic
and inorganic matter present in water or wastewater. COD is
expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed from a chemical oxidant
in a specific test, see Methods 410.1 through 401.4.
COMMODITY--Any chemical, material, or substance transported in a
tank truck, closed-top hopper truck, intermodal tank container, rail
tank car, closed-top hopper rail car, tank barge, closed-top hopper
barge, ocean/sea tanker, or similar tank that comes in direct
contact with the chemical, material, or substance. A commodity may
also be referred to as a cargo.
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 Commentors, and pH).
CWA--CLEAN WATER ACT--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended.
CWA--Centralized Waste Treaters Effluent Guideline.
DIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that conveys or may convey
untreated or facility-treated process wastewater or nonprocess
wastewater directly into waters of the United States, such as
rivers, lakes, or oceans. (See United States Surface Waters
definition.)
DRUM--A metal or plastic cylindrical container with either an
open-head or a tight-head (also known as bung-type top) used to hold
liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct
contact with the container interior. Drums typically range in
capacity from 30 to 55 gallons.
FOOD GRADE CARGO--Food grade cargos include edible and non-
edible food products. Specific examples of food grade products
include but are not limited to: alcoholic beverages, animal by-
products, animal fats, animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring,
chocolate, corn syrup and other corn products, dairy products,
dietary supplements, eggs, flavorings, food preservatives, food
products that are not suitable for human consumption, fruit juices,
honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic beverages, salt, sugars,
sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, vinegar, and pool water.
HEEL--Any material remaining in a tank or container following
unloading, delivery, or discharge of the transported cargo. Heels
may also be referred to as container residue, residual materials or
residuals.
HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (HEM)--A method-defined parameter
that measures the presence of relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons,
vegetable oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and related
materials that are extractable in the solvent n-hexane. See Method
1664.
HEM is also referred to as oil and grease.
INDIRECT DISCHARGER-A facility that discharges or may discharge
pollutants into a publicly-owned treatment works.
INTERMEDIATE BULK CONTAINER (IBC OR TOTE)--A completely enclosed
storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or
cargos which are in direct contact with the tank interior.
Intermediate bulk containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either
truck or rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport.
IBCs are portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000
liters (793 gallons) capacity. IBCs are also commonly referred to as
totes or tote bins.
INTERMODAL TANK CONTAINER--A completely enclosed storage vessel
used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which
come in direct contact with the tank interior. Intermodal tank
containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. Containers larger
than 3000 liters capacity are considered intermodal tank containers.
Containers smaller than 3000 liters capacity are considered IBCs.
LTA--LONG-TERM AVERAGE--For purposes of the effluent guidelines,
average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time by a
facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in
developing the limitations and standards in today's final
regulation.
NEW SOURCE--``New source'' is defined at 40 CFR 122.2 and
122.29(b).
NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT--Pollutants other than those
specifically defined as conventional pollutants (identified in
Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act) or priority pollutants
(identified in 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A).
NON-DETECT VALUE--A concentration-based measurement reported
below the sample specific detection limit that can reliably be
measured by the analytical method for the pollutant.
NON-POLAR MATERIAL--A method-defined parameter that measures the
presence of mineral oils that are extractable in the solvent n-
hexane and not absorbed by silica gel. See Method 1664.
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.
NONPROCESS WASTEWATER--Wastewater that is not generated from
industrial processes or that does not come into contact with process
wastewater. Nonprocess wastewater includes, but is not limited to,
wastewater generated from restrooms, cafeterias, and showers.
NSPS--New Source Performance Standards, under Section 306 of the
CWA.
OCEAN/SEA TANKER--A self- or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted to transport commodities or cargos in bulk in
cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans and seas, where the commodity
or cargo carried comes in direct contact with the tank interior.
There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
OFF SITE--``Off site'' means outside the contiguous and non-
contiguous established boundaries of the facility.
OIL AND GREASE--A method-defined parameter that measures the
presence of relatively nonvolatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils,
animal fats, waxes, soaps, greases, and related materials that are
extractable in either n-hexane (referred to as HEM, see Method 1664)
or Freon 113 (1,1,2-tricholoro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, see Method
413.1). Data collected by EPA in support of the TEC effluent
guideline utilized method 1664.
[[Page 49700]]
ON SITE--``On site'' means within the contiguous and non-
contiguous established boundaries of the facility.
PETROLEUM CARGO--Petroleum cargos include the products of the
fractionation or straight distillation of crude oil, redistillation
of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking, or other refining
processes. For purposes of this rule, petroleum cargos also include
products obtained from the refining or processing of natural gas and
coal. For purposes of this rule, specific examples of petroleum
products include but are not limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar;
crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives;
fuel oils; gasoline; greases; heavy, medium, and light oils;
hydraulic fluids, jet fuel; kerosene; liquid petroleum gases (LPG)
including butane and propane; lubrication oils; mineral spirits;
naphtha; olefin, paraffin, and other waxes; tall oil; tar; toluene;
xylene; and waste oil.
POTW--Publicly-owned treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(0).
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.
PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources, under Section
307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources, under Section
307(b) and (c) of the CWA.
RAIL TANK CAR--A completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by a
locomotive that is used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. A rail tank car
storage vessel may have one or more storage compartments and the
stored commodities or cargos come in direct contact with the tank
interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580) of
1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.).
SILICA GEL TREATED HEXANE EXTRACTABLE MATERIAL (SGT-HEM)--A
method-defined parameter that measures the presence of mineral oils
that are extractable in the solvent n-hexane and not adsorbed by
silica gel. See Method 1664. SGT-HEM is also referred to as non-
polar material.
TANK--A generic term used to describe any closed container used
to transport commodities or cargos. The commodities or cargos
transported come in direct contact with the container interior,
which is cleaned by TEC facilities. Examples of containers which are
considered tanks include : tank trucks, closed-top hopper trucks,
intermodal tank containers, rail tank cars, closed-top hopper rail
cars, tank barges, closed-top hopper barges, and ocean/sea tankers.
Containers used to transport pre-packaged materials are not
considered tanks, nor are 55-gallon drums or pails or intermediate
bulk containers.
TANK BARGE--A non-self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted
primarily to carry commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo spaces (or
tanks) through rivers and inland waterways, and may occasionally
carry commodities or cargos through oceans and seas when in transit
from one inland waterway to another. The commodities or cargos
transported are in direct contact with the tank interior. There are
no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
TANK TRUCK--A motor-driven vehicle with a completely enclosed
storage vessel used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous materials
over roads and highways. The storage vessel or tank may be
detachable, as with tank trailers, or permanently attached. The
commodities or cargos transported come in direct contact with the
tank interior. A tank truck may have one or more storage
compartments. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank
volumes. Tank trucks are also commonly referred to as cargo tanks or
tankers.
TEC INDUSTRY--Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry.
TOTES OR TOTE BINS--A completely enclosed storage vessel used to
hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which come in
direct contact with the vessel interior. Totes may be loaded onto
flat beds for either truck or rail transport, or onto ship decks for
water transport. There are no maximum or minimum values for tote
volumes, although larger containers are generally considered to be
intermodal tank containers. Totes or tote bins are also referred to
as intermediate bulk containers or IBCs. Fifty-five gallon drums and
pails are not considered totes or tote bins.
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, see Method 160.2.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)--Any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic
carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates
in atmospheric photochemical reactions. See 40 CFR Part 51.100 for
additional detail and exclusions
ZERO DISCHARGE FACILITY--Facilities that do not discharge
pollutants to waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also
included in this definition are discharge of pollutants by way of
evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site transfer to a treatment
facility, and land application.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 442
Environmental protection, Barge cleaning, Rail tank cleaning, Tank
cleaning, Transportation equipment cleaning, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: June 15, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Accordingly, part 442 is added to 40 CFR chapter I to read as
follows:
PART 442--TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Sec.
442.1 General applicability.
442.2 General definitions.
442.3 General pretreatment standards.
Subpart A--Tank Trucks and Intermodal Tank Containers Transporting
Chemical and Petroleum Cargos
442.10 Applicability.
442.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
442.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Rail Tank Cars Transporting Chemical and Petroleum Cargos
442.20 Applicability.
442.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
442.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Tank Barges and Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical and
Petroleum Cargos
442.30 Applicability.
442.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
442.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
442.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
442.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
442.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Tanks Transporting Food Grade Cargos
442.40 Applicability.
442.41 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
442.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
442.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
[[Page 49701]]
442.44 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
Sec. 442.1 General applicability.
(a) As defined more specifically in each subpart, and except for
discharges specified in paragraph (b) of this section, this part
applies to discharges resulting from cleaning the interior of tanks
used to transport chemical, petroleum or food grade cargos. This part
does not apply to facilities that clean only the exteriors of
transportation equipment. Operations which may be subject to this part
typically are reported under a wide variety of Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes. Several of the most common SIC codes
include: SIC 7699, SIC 4741, or SIC 4491 (1987 SIC Manual).
(b) This part is not applicable to the following discharges:
(1) Wastewaters associated with tank cleanings operated in
conjunction with other industrial, commercial, or Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) operations, provided that the cleaning is
limited to tanks that previously contained raw materials, by-products,
or finished products that are associated with the facility's on-site
processes.
(2) Wastewaters resulting from cleaning the interiors of drums,
intermediate bulk containers, or closed-top hoppers.
(3) Wastewater from a facility that discharges less than 100,000
gallons per year of transportation equipment cleaning process
wastewater.
Sec. 442.2 General definitions.
(a) In addition to the general definitions and abbreviations at 40
CFR part 401, the following definitions shall apply to this part:
Chemical cargos mean, but are not limited to, the following: latex,
rubber, plastics, plasticizers, resins, soaps, detergents, surfactants,
agricultural chemicals and pesticides, hazardous waste, organic
chemicals including: alcohols, aldehydes, formaldehydes, phenols,
peroxides, organic salts, amines, amides, other nitrogen compounds,
other aromatic compounds, aliphatic organic chemicals, glycols,
glycerines, and organic polymers; refractory organic compounds
including: ketones, nitriles, organo-metallic compounds containing
chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, zinc; and inorganic chemicals
including: aluminum sulfate, ammonia, ammonium nitrate, ammonium
sulfate, and bleach. Cargos which are not considered to be food grade
or petroleum cargos are considered to be chemical cargos.
Closed-top hopper means a completely enclosed storage vessel used
to transport dry bulk cargos, either by truck, rail, or barge. Closed-
top hoppers are not designed or constructed to carry liquid cargos and
are typically used to transport grain, soybeans, soy meal, soda ash,
lime, fertilizer, plastic pellets, flour, sugar, and similar
commodities or cargos. The cargos transported come in direct contact
with the hopper interior. Closed-top hoppers are also commonly referred
to as dry bulk hoppers.
Drums mean metal or plastic cylindrical containers with either an
open-head or a tight-head (also known as bung-type top) used to hold
liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct
contact with the container interior. Drums typically range in capacity
from 30 to 55 gallons.
Food grade cargos mean edible and non-edible food products.
Specific examples of food grade cargos include, but are not limited to,
the following: alcoholic beverages, animal by-products, animal fats,
animal oils, caramel, caramel coloring, chocolate, corn syrup and other
corn products, dairy products, dietary supplements, eggs, flavorings,
food preservatives, food products that are not suitable for human
consumption, fruit juices, honey, lard, molasses, non-alcoholic
beverages, sweeteners, tallow, vegetable oils, and vinegar.
Heel means any material remaining in a tank following unloading,
delivery, or discharge of the transported cargo. Heels may also be
referred to as container residue, residual materials or residuals.
Intermediate bulk container (``IBC'' or ``Tote'') means a
completely enclosed storage vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or
gaseous commodities or cargos which are in direct contact with the
container interior. IBCs may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck
or rail transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. IBCs are
portable containers with 450 liters (119 gallons) to 3000 liters (793
gallons) capacity. IBCs are also commonly referred to as totes or tote
bins.
Intermodal tank container means a completely enclosed storage
vessel used to hold liquid, solid, or gaseous commodities or cargos
which come in direct contact with the tank interior. Intermodal tank
containers may be loaded onto flat beds for either truck or rail
transport, or onto ship decks for water transport. Containers larger
than 3000 liters capacity are considered intermodal tank containers.
Containers smaller than 3000 liters capacity are considered IBCs.
Ocean/sea tanker means a self or non-self-propelled vessel
constructed or adapted to transport liquid, solid or gaseous
commodities or cargos in bulk in cargo spaces (or tanks) through oceans
and seas, where the commodity or cargo carried comes in direct contact
with the tank interior. There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank
volumes.
On-site means within the contiguous and non-contiguous established
boundaries of a facility.
Petroleum cargos mean products of the fractionation or straight
distillation of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleum
derivatives, cracking, or other refining processes. For purposes of
this rule, petroleum cargos also include products obtained from the
refining or processing of natural gas and coal. For purposes of this
rule, specific examples of petroleum products include but are not
limited to: asphalt; benzene; coal tar; crude oil; cutting oil; ethyl
benzene; diesel fuel; fuel additives; fuel oils; gasoline; greases;
heavy, medium, and light oils; hydraulic fluids, jet fuel; kerosene;
liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including butane and propane; lubrication
oils; mineral spirits; naphtha; olefin, paraffin, and other waxes; tall
oil; tar; toluene; xylene; and waste oil.
Pollution Prevention Allowable Discharge for this subpart means the
quantity of/concentrations of pollutants in wastewaters being
discharged to publicly owned treatment works after a facility has
demonstrated compliance with the Pollutant Management Plan provisions
in Secs. 442.15(b), 442.16(b), 442.25(b), or 442.26(b) of this part.
Prerinse/presteam means a rinse, typically with hot or cold water,
performed at the beginning of the cleaning sequence to remove residual
material from the tank interior.
Presolve wash means the use of diesel, kerosene, gasoline, or any
other type of fuel or solvent as a tank interior cleaning solution.
Rail Tank Car means a completely enclosed storage vessel pulled by
a locomotive that is used to transport liquid, solid, or gaseous
commodities or cargos over railway access lines. A rail tank car
storage vessel may have one or more storage compartments and the stored
commodities or cargos come in direct contact with the tank interior.
There are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
Tank barge means a non-self-propelled vessel constructed or adapted
primarily to carry liquid, solid or gaseous commodities or cargos in
bulk
[[Page 49702]]
in cargo spaces (or tanks) through rivers and inland waterways, and may
occasionally carry commodities or cargos through oceans and seas when
in transit from one inland waterway to another. The commodities or
cargos transported are in direct contact with the tank interior. There
are no maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes.
Tank truck means a motor-driven vehicle with a completely enclosed
storage vessel used to transport liquid, solid or gaseous materials
over roads and highways. The storage vessel or tank may be detachable,
as with tank trailers, or permanently attached. The commodities or
cargos transported come in direct contact with the tank interior. A
tank truck may have one or more storage compartments. There are no
maximum or minimum vessel or tank volumes. Tank trucks are also
commonly referred to as cargo tanks or tankers.
Transportation equipment cleaning (TEC) process wastewater means
all wastewaters associated with cleaning the interiors of tanks
including: tank trucks; rail tank cars; intermodal tank containers;
tank barges; and ocean/sea tankers used to transport commodities or
cargos that come into direct contact with the interior of the tank or
container. At those facilities that clean tank interiors, TEC process
wastewater also includes wastewater generated from washing vehicle
exteriors, equipment and floor washings, TEC-contaminated stormwater,
wastewater prerinse cleaning solutions, chemical cleaning solutions,
and final rinse solutions. TEC process wastewater is defined to include
only wastewater generated from a regulated TEC subcategory. Therefore,
TEC process wastewater does not include wastewater generated from
cleaning hopper cars, or from food grade facilities discharging to a
POTW. Wastewater generated from cleaning tank interiors for purposes of
shipping products (i.e., cleaned for purposes other than maintenance
and repair) is considered TEC process wastewater. Wastewater generated
from cleaning tank interiors for the purposes of maintenance and repair
on the tank is not considered TEC process wastewater. Facilities that
clean tank interiors solely for the purposes of repair and maintenance
are not regulated under this Part.
(b) The parameters regulated in this part and listed with approved
methods of analysis in Table IB at 40 CFR 136.3, are defined as
follows:
(1) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
(2) Cadmium means total cadmium.
(3) Chromium means total chromium.
(4) Copper means total copper.
(5) Lead means total lead.
(6) Mercury means total mercury
(7) Nickel means total nickel.
(8) Oil and Grease (HEM) means oil and grease (Hexane-Extractable
Material) measured by Method 1664.
(9) Non-polar material (SGT-HEM) means the non-polar fraction of
oil and grease (Silica Gel Treated Hexane-Extractable Material)
measured by Method 1664.
(10) TSS means total suspended solids.
(11) Zinc means total zinc.
(c) The parameters regulated in this part and listed with approved
methods of analysis in Table IC at 40 CFR 136.3, are as follows:
(1) Fluoranthene.
(2) Phenanthrene.
Sec. 442.3 General pretreatment standards.
Any source subject to this part that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
Subpart A--Tank Trucks and Intermodal Tank Containers Transporting
Chemical and Petroleum Cargos
Sec. 442.10 Applicability.
This subpart applies to discharges resulting from the cleaning of
tank trucks and intermodal tank containers which have been used to
transport chemical or petroleum cargos.
Sec. 442.11 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:
(a) Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily 1 avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................... 61 22
TSS.......................................... 58 26
Oil and grease (HEM)......................... 36 16
Copper....................................... 0.84 ...........
Mercury...................................... 0.0031 ...........
pH........................................... (2) (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Mg/L (ppm)
2 Within 6 to 9 at all times.
Sec. 442.12 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 BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM) and pH are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.11.
Sec. 442.13 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for copper, mercury, and oil and grease (HEM) are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.11.
Sec. 442.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards: Standards for BOD5, TSS,
oil and grease (HEM), copper, mercury, and pH are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.11.
Sec. 442.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph
(b) of this section, no later than August 14, 2003, any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must achieve PSES as follows:
Table--Pretreatment Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter daily 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar material (SGT-HEM).............................. 26
Copper.................................................... 0.84
Mercury................................................... 0.0031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Mg/L (ppm).
(b) As an alternative to achieving PSES as defined in paragraph (a)
of this section, any existing source subject to paragraph (a) of this
section may have a pollution prevention allowable discharge of
wastewater pollutants, as defined in Sec. 442.2, if the source agrees
to control mechanism with the control authority as follows:
(1) The discharger shall prepare a Pollutant Management Plan that
satisfies the requirements as specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section, and the
[[Page 49703]]
discharger shall conduct its operations in accordance with that plan.
(2) The discharger shall notify its local control authority prior
to renewing or modifying its individual control mechanism or
pretreatment agreement of its intent to achieve the pollution
prevention allowable discharge pretreatment standard by submitting to
the local control authority a certification statement of its intent to
utilize a Pollutant Management Plan as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The certification statement must be signed by the
responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);
(3) The discharger shall submit a copy of its Pollutant Management
Plan as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the
appropriate control authority at the time he/she applies to renew, or
modify its individual control mechanism or pretreatment agreement; and
(4) The discharger shall maintain at the offices of the facility
and make available for inspection the Pollutant Management Plan as
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) The Pollutant Manager Plan shall include:
(i) procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is
likely to result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible
with treatment at the POTW;
(ii) for cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels be fully drained,
segregated from other wastewaters, and handled in an appropriate
manner;
(iii) for cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that the tank be prerinsed or
presteamed as appropriate and the wastewater segregated from
wastewaters to be discharged to the POTW and handled in an appropriate
manner, where necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute
to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(iv) all spent cleaning solutions, including interior caustic
washes, interior presolve washes, interior detergent washes, interior
acid washes, and exterior acid brightener washes shall be segregated
from other wastewaters and handled in an appropriate manner, where
necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(v) provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of cleaning
agents;
(vi) provisions for minimizing the use of toxic cleaning agents
(solvents, detergents, or other cleaning or brightening solutions);
(vii) provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of segregated
wastewaters (including heels and prerinse/pre-steam wastes);
(viii) provisions for off-site treatment or disposal, or effective
pre-treatment of segregated wastewaters (including heels, prerinse/pre-
steam wastes, spent cleaning solutions);
(ix) information on the volumes, content, and chemical
characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or brightening
operations; and
(x) provisions for maintaining appropriate records of heel
management procedures, prerinse/pre-steam management procedures,
cleaning agent management procedures, operator training, and proper
operation and maintenance of any pre-treatment system;
Sec. 442.16 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph
(b) of this section, any new source subject to this subpart which
introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must
achieve PSNS as follows:
Table--Pretreatment Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter daily \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar material (SGT-HEM).............................. 26
Copper.................................................... 0.84
Mercury................................................... 0.0031
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
(b) As an alternative to achieving PSNS as defined in paragraph (a)
of this section, any existing source subject to paragraph (a) of this
section may have a pollution prevention allowable discharge of
wastewater pollutants, as defined in Sec. 442.2, if the source agrees
to a control mechanism with the control authority as follows:
(1) The discharger shall prepare a Pollutant Management Plan that
satisfies the requirements as specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section, and the discharger shall conduct its operations in accordance
with that plan.
(2) The discharger shall notify its local control authority prior
to obtaining, renewing, or modifying its individual control mechanism
or pretreatment agreement of its intent to achieve the pollution
prevention allowable discharge pretreatment standard by submitting to
the local control authority a certification statement of its intent to
utilize a Pollutant Management Plan as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The certification statement must be signed by the
responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);
(3) The discharger shall submit a copy of its Pollutant Management
Plan as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the
appropriate control authority at the time he/she applies to renew, or
modify its individual control mechanism or pretreatment agreement; and
(4) The discharger shall maintain at the offices of the facility
and make available for inspection the Pollutant Management Plan as
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) The Pollutant Management Plan shall include:
(i) Procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is
likely to result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible
with treatment at the POTW;
(ii) For cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels be fully drained,
segregated from other wastewaters, and handled in an appropriate
manner;
(iii) For cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that the tank be prerinsed or
presteamed as appropriate and the wastewater segregated from
wastewaters to be discharged to the POTW and handled in an appropriate
manner, where necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute
to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(iv) All spent cleaning solutions, including interior caustic
washes, interior presolve washes, interior detergent washes, interior
acid washes, and exterior acid brightener washes shall be segregated
from other wastewaters and handled in an appropriate manner, where
necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(v) Provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of cleaning
agents;
(vi) Provisions for minimizing the use of toxic cleaning agents
(solvents, detergents, or other cleaning or brightening solutions);
(vii) Provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of segregated
wastewaters (including heels and prerinse/pre-steam wastes);
(viii) Provisions for off-site treatment or disposal, or effective
pre-treatment of
[[Page 49704]]
segregated wastewaters (including heels, prerinse/pre-steam wastes,
spent cleaning solutions);
(ix) Information on the volumes, content, and chemical
characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or brightening
operations; and
(x) Provisions for maintaining appropriate records of heel
management procedures, prerinse/pre-steam management procedures,
cleaning agent management procedures, operator training, and proper
operation and maintenance of any pre-treatment system;
Subpart B--Rail Tank Cars Transporting Chemical and Petroleum
Cargos
Sec. 442.20 Applicability.
This subpart applies to discharges resulting from the cleaning of
rail tank cars which have been used to transport chemical or petroleum
cargos.
Sec. 442.21 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:
Table--Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily \1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................... 61 22
TSS.......................................... 58 26
Oil and grease (HEM)......................... 36 16
Fluoranthene................................. 0.076
Phenanthrene................................. 0.34
pH........................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within 6 to 9 at all times.
Sec. 442.22 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 BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM) and pH are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.21.
Sec. 442.23 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and oil and grease (HEM) are the same
as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.21.
Sec. 442.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards: Standards for BOD5, TSS,
oil and grease (HEM), fluoranthene, phenanthrene and pH are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.21.
Sec. 442.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph
(b) of this section, no later than August 14, 2003 any existing source
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must achieve PSES as follows:
Table--Pretreatment Standards'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter daily\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar material (SGT-HEM).............................. 26
Fluoranthene.............................................. 0.076
Phenanthrene.............................................. 0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
(b) As an alternative to achieving PSES as defined in paragraph (a)
of this section, any existing source subject to paragraph (a) of this
section may have a pollution prevention allowable discharge of
wastewater pollutants, as defined in Sec. 442.2, if the source agrees
to a control mechanism with the control authority as follows:
(1) The discharger shall prepare a Pollutant Management Plan that
satisfies the requirements as specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section, and the discharger shall conduct its operations in accordance
with that plan.
(2) The discharger shall notify its local control authority prior
to renewing or modifying its individual control mechanism or
pretreatment agreement of its intent to achieve the pollution
prevention allowable discharge pretreatment standard by submitting to
the local control authority a certification statement of its intent to
utilize a Pollutant Management Plan as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The certification statement must be signed by the
responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);
(3) The discharger shall submit a copy of its Pollutant Management
Plan as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the
appropriate control authority at the time he/she applies to renew, or
modify its individual control mechanism or pretreatment agreement; and
(4) The discharger shall maintain at the offices of the facility
and make available for inspection the Pollutant Management Plan as
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) The Pollutant Management Plan shall include:
(i) Procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is
likely to result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible
with treatment at the POTW;
(ii) For cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels be fully drained,
segregated from other wastewaters, and handled in an appropriate
manner;
(iii) For cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that the tank be prerinsed or
presteamed as appropriate and the wastewater segregated from
wastewaters to be discharged to the POTW and handled in an appropriate
manner, where necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute
to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(iv) All spent cleaning solutions, including interior caustic
washes, interior presolve washes, interior detergent washes, interior
acid washes, and exterior acid brightener washes shall be segregated
from other wastewaters and handled in an appropriate manner, where
necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(v) Provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of cleaning
agents;
(vi) Provisions for minimizing the use of toxic cleaning agents
(solvents, detergents, or other cleaning or brightening solutions);
(vii) Provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of segregated
wastewaters (including heels and prerinse/pre-steam wastes);
(viii) Provisions for off-site treatment or disposal, or effective
pre-treatment of segregated wastewaters (including heels, prerinse/pre-
steam wastes, spent cleaning solutions);
(ix) Information on the volumes, content, and chemical
characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or brightening
operations; and
(x) Provisions for maintaining appropriate records of heel
management
[[Page 49705]]
procedures, prerinse/pre-steam management procedures, cleaning agent
management procedures, operator training, and proper operation and
maintenance of any pre-treatment system;
Sec. 442.26 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph
(b) of this section, any new source subject to this subpart which
introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must
achieve PSNS as follows:
Table--Pretreatment Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter daily\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar material (SGT-HEM).............................. 26
Fluoranthene.............................................. 0.076
Phenanthrene.............................................. 0.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
(b) As an alternative to achieving PSNS as defined in paragraph (a)
of this section, any new source subject to paragraph (a) of this
section may have a pollution prevention allowable discharge of
wastewater pollutants, as defined in Sec. 442.2, if the source agrees
to a control mechanism with the control authority as follows:
(1) The discharger shall prepare a Pollutant Management Plan that
satisfies the requirements as specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this
section, and the discharger shall conduct its operations in accordance
with that plan.
(2) The discharger shall notify its local control authority prior
to obtaining, renewing, or modifying its individual control mechanism
or pretreatment agreement of its intent to achieve the pollution
prevention allowable discharge pretreatment standard by submitting to
the local control authority a certification statement of its intent to
utilize a Pollutant Management Plan as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The certification statement must be signed by the
responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l);
(3) The discharger shall submit a copy of its Pollutant Management
Plan as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to the
appropriate control authority at the time he/she applies to obtain,
renew, or modify its individual control mechanism or pretreatment
agreement; and
(4) The discharger shall maintain at the offices of the facility
and make available for inspection the Pollutant Management Plan as
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(5) The Pollutant Management Plan shall include:
(i) procedures for identifying cargos, the cleaning of which is
likely to result in discharges of pollutants that would be incompatible
with treatment at the POTW;
(ii) for cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that heels be fully drained,
segregated from other wastewaters, and handled in an appropriate
manner;
(iii) for cargos identified as being incompatible with treatment at
the POTW, the Plan shall provide that the tank be prerinsed or
presteamed as appropriate and the wastewater segregated from
wastewaters to be discharged to the POTW and handled in an appropriate
manner, where necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute
to a discharge that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(iv) all spent cleaning solutions, including interior caustic
washes, interior presolve washes, interior detergent washes, interior
acid washes, and exterior acid brightener washes shall be segregated
from other wastewaters and handled in an appropriate manner, where
necessary to ensure that they do not cause or contribute to a discharge
that would be incompatible with treatment at the POTW;
(v) provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of cleaning
agents;
(vi) provisions for minimizing the use of toxic cleaning agents
(solvents, detergents, or other cleaning or brightening solutions);
(vii) provisions for appropriate recycling or reuse of segregated
wastewaters (including heels and prerinse/pre-steam wastes);
(viii) provisions for off-site treatment or disposal, or effective
pre-treatment of segregated wastewaters (including heels, prerinse/pre-
steam wastes, spent cleaning solutions);
(ix) information on the volumes, content, and chemical
characteristics of cleaning agents used in cleaning or brightening
operations; and
(x) provisions for maintaining appropriate records of heel
management procedures, prerinse/pre-steam management procedures,
cleaning agent management procedures, operator training, and proper
operation and maintenance of any pre-treatment system;
Subpart C--Tank Barges and Ocean/Sea Tankers Transporting Chemical
and Petroleum Cargos
Sec. 442.30 Applicability.
This subpart applies to discharges resulting from the cleaning of
tank barges or ocean/sea tankers which have been used to transport
chemical or petroleum cargos.
Sec. 442.31 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:
Table--Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................... 61 22
TSS.......................................... 58 26
Oil and grease (HEM)......................... 36 16
Cadmium...................................... 0.020 ...........
Chromium..................................... 0.42 ...........
Copper....................................... 0.10 ...........
Lead......................................... 0.14 ...........
Mercury...................................... 0.0013 ...........
Nickel....................................... 0.58 ...........
Zinc......................................... 8.3 ...........
pH........................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within 6 to 9 at all times.
Sec. 442.32 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 BOD5, TSS, oil and grease (HEM) and pH are the same as
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.31.
Sec. 442.33 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations
for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc are the
same as the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.31.
[[Page 49706]]
Sec. 442.34 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards: Standards for BOD5, TSS,
oil and grease (HEM), cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
zinc and pH are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in
Sec. 442.31.
Sec. 442.35 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment
standards:
Table--Pretreatment Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter daily\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-polar material (SGT-HEM).............................. 26
Cadmium................................................... 0.020
Chromium.................................................. 0.42
Copper.................................................... 0.10
Lead...................................................... 0.14
Mercury................................................... 0.0013
Nickel.................................................... 0.58
Zinc...................................................... 8.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
Sec. 442.36 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards
for non-polar materials (SGT-HEM), cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel and zinc are the same as the corresponding standard
specified in Sec. 442.35.
Subpart D--Tanks Transporting Food Grade Cargos
Sec. 442.40 Applicability.
This subpart applies to discharges resulting from the cleaning of
tank trucks, intermodal tank containers, rail tank cars, tank barges
and ocean/sea tankers which have been used to transport food grade
cargos. If wastewater generated from cleaning tanks used to transport
food grade cargos is mixed with wastewater resulting from cleaning
tanks used to transport chemical or petroleum cargos, then the combined
wastewater is subject to the provisions established for the
corresponding tanks (i.e., truck, railcar or barge) in Subparts A, B,
or C of this part.
Sec. 442.41 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:
Table--Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly
daily\1\ avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................... 56 24
TSS.......................................... 230 86
Oil and grease (HEM)......................... 20 8.8
pH........................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within 6 to 9 at all times.
Sec. 442.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). s
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 BOD5, TSS, oil & grease (HEM) and pH are the same as the
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 442.41.
Sec. 442.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
available technology economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
Sec. 442.44 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following performance standards: Standards for BOD5, TSS,
oil and grease (HEM) and pH are the same as the corresponding
limitation specified in Sec. 442.41.
[FR Doc. 00-15841 Filed 8-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F