[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