[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 247 (Friday, December 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81242-81313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24565]



[[Page 81241]]

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

Part IX





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 136 and 437



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point Source 
Category; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 247 / Friday, December 22, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 81242]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 136 and 437

[FRL-6863-8]
RIN 2040-AB78


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Point 
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's 
effort to develop Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards for wastewater discharges from the centralized waste 
treatment industry. This final regulation generally applies to 
wastewater discharges associated with the operation of new and existing 
centralized waste treatment facilities which accept hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial wastes, wastewater, and/or used material from off-
site for treatment of the wastes and/or recovery of materials from the 
wastes.
    EPA expects compliance with this regulation to reduce the discharge 
of conventional pollutants by at least 9.7 million pounds per year and 
toxic and non-conventional pollutants by at least 9.3 million pounds 
per year. EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule will be $35.1 
million (pre-tax $1997). EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the 
rule will range from $2.56 million to $8.09 million ($1997).
    This final rule also amends EPA's Guidelines Establishing Test 
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants (40 CFR Part 136) to add 10 
semivolatile organic pollutants to Method 625 and 6 semivolatile 
organic pollutants to Method 1625.

DATES: This regulation shall become effective January 22, 2001. In 
accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this action is considered promulgated for 
purposes of judicial review as of 1 pm Eastern Daylight Time on January 
5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The public record for this rulemaking has been established 
under docket number W-98-21 and is located in the Water Docket, East 
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is 
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, call 
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a 
reasonable fee for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning 
today's final rule, contact Ms. Jan Matuszko at (202) 260-9126 or Mr. 
Timothy Connor at (202) 260-3164. For economic information contact Dr. 
William Wheeler at (202) 260-7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of 
the following types that discharge pollutants to waters of the U.S.:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................   Discharges from stand-alone waste
                            treatment and recovery facilities receiving
                            materials from off-site. These facilities
                            may treat hazardous or non-hazardous waste,
                            hazardous or non-hazardous wastewater, and/
                            or used material from off-site, for
                            disposal, recycling, or recovery.
                            Certain discharges from waste
                            treatment systems at facilities primarily
                            engaged in other industrial operations.
                            Thus, industrial facilities which process
                            their own, on-site generated, process
                            wastewater with hazardous or non-hazardous
                            wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material
                            received from off-site, in certain
                            circumstances, may be subject to this rule
                            with respect to a portion of their
                            discharge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria listed in Section 437.1 and the definitions in 
Section 437.2 of the rule and detailed further in Section V of this 
preamble. If you still have questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity (after consulting Section V), 
consult one of the persons listed for technical information in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Compliance Dates

    Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on 
the best practicable technology currently available, the best 
conventional pollutant control technology, and the best available 
technology economically achievable as soon as their National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) permits includes such limitations. 
Existing indirect dischargers subject to today's regulations must 
comply with the pretreatment standards for existing sources no later 
than December 22, 2003. New direct and indirect discharging sources 
must comply with applicable guidelines and standards on the date the 
new sources begin discharging.

Supporting Documentation

    The final regulations are supported by several major documents:
    1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines 
and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (EPA-821-
R-00-020) referred to in the preamble as the final technical 
development document (TDD). This TDD presents the technical information 
that formed the basis for EPA's decisions concerning the final rule. In 
it, EPA describes, among other things, the data collection activities, 
the wastewater treatment technology options considered, the pollutants 
found in CWT wastewaters, and the estimation of costs to the industry 
to comply with final limitations and standards.
    2. ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' (EPA-821-R-00-
024) referred to in this preamble as the Final EA. The EA estimates the 
economic and financial costs of compliance with the final regulation on 
individual process lines, facilities and companies.
    3. ``Detailed Costing Document for the Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' 
(EPA-821-R-00-021) referred to in this preamble as the Final Costing 
Document. This document presents the methodology used to estimate 
compliance costs for this final rule.
    4. ``Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste

[[Page 81243]]

Treatment Industry'' (EPA-821-R-00-023) referred to in this preamble as 
the Cost Effectiveness Report.
    5. ``Environmental Assessment for the Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' 
(EPA-821-R-00-022) referred to as the Final Environmental Assessment in 
this preamble.

How To Obtain Supporting Documents

    All of the supporting documents are available from the Office of 
Water Resource Center, MC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for publication requests.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available 
(BPT)--Section 304(b)(1) of the CWA
    2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Section 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--
Section 304(b)(2) of the CWA
    4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Section 306 of the 
CWA
    5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) --Section 
307(b) of the CWA
    6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Section 307(b) 
of the CWA
    B. Section 304(m) Requirements
    C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program
    1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
    2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste 
Treatment Industry Effluent Guidelines
III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline 
Rulemaking History
    A. January 27, 1995 Proposal
    B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability
    C. January 13, 1999 Supplemental Proposal
IV. Re-consideration of Significant Proposal Issues and Summary of 
Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Oils Subcategory--Consideration of Regulatory Options on the 
Basis of the RCRA Classification of the Waste Receipts
    B. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Revenue
    C. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Flow
    D. Consideration of Indicator Parameters for the Oils 
Subcategory
    E. Consideration of Reduced Monitoring for Small Businesses
    F. Multiple Wastestream Subcategory Consideration
    G. Analytical Methods
    H. Statistical Methodology Changes
    1. Metals Option 4 Long-Term Average and Limitations 
Calculations
    2. Variability Factors
    I. Significant Changes in Treatment Technology Cost Estimates
    1. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
    2. Altered DAF Costs for Oils Subcategory Includes Increased 
Holding Tank Capacity
    3. Nutrient Addition, Heating, and Sludge Disposal Costs 
Included in the Organic Subcategory Compliance Cost Estimates
    J. Significant Changes in the Oils Subcategory Loadings 
Estimates
    K. Changes in POTW Percent Removal Estimates
V. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation
    A. Overview
    B. Manufacturing Facilities
    C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)
    D. Product Stewardship
    E. Federally Owned Facilities
    F. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
    G. Marine Generated Wastes
    H. Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids
    I. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners
    J. Landfill Wastewaters
    K. Incineration Activities
    L. Solids, Soils, and Sludges
    M. Scrap Metal Recyclers or Auto Salvage Operations
    N. Transfer Stations
    O. Stabilization/Solidification
    P. Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Re-use
    Q. Recovery and Recycling Operations
    R. Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic and X-Ray 
Materials
    S. High Temperature Metals Recovery
    T. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending
    U. Re-refining
    V. Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent Recycling
    W. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes
    X. Food Processing Wastes
    Y. Sanitary Waste and/or Chemical Toilet Wastes
    Z. Treatability, Research and Development, and Analytical 
Studies
VI. Subcategorization
VII. Industry Description
VIII. The Final Regulation
    A. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
    1. Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory
    2. Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory
    3. Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory
    4. Subcategory D--Multiple Wastestream Subcategory
    B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
    C. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
    D. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
    E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
    F. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
IX. Compliance Cost and Pollutant Reduction Estimates
    A. Regulatory Costs
    1. BPT Costs
    2. BCT/BAT Costs
    3. PSES Costs
    B. Pollutant Reductions
    1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    2. Priority and Non-conventional Pollutant Reductions
    a. Direct Facility Discharges
    b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs
X. Economic Analyses
    A. Introduction
    B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimate
    C. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline 
Conditions
    D. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology
    1. Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
    2. Comments on Economic Methodology
    E. Costs and Impacts of BPT
    F. Results of BCT Cost Test
    G. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options
    H. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options
    I. Economic Impacts for New Sources
    J. Firm Level Impacts
    K. Community Impacts
    L. Foreign Trade Impacts
    M. Small Business Analysis
    N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
XI. Water Quality Analyses and Environmental Benefits
    A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk
    B. Reduced Lead Health Risk
    C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard
    D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity
    E. Improved POTW Operations
    F. Other Benefits Not Quantified
    G. Summary of Benefits
XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste
    C. Energy Requirements
XIII. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards
    1. Introduction
    2. Compliance Dates
    3. Applicability
    4. Subcategorization Determination
    5. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple CWT Subcategories
    a. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory A, B, 
and/or C
    b. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory D
    6. Implementation for Metals Subcategory Facilities with Cyanide 
Subset
    7. Implementation for CWT Facilities Subject to Multiple 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
    8. Internal Monitoring Requirements
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Modifications
    1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
    2. Water Quality Variances
    3. Permit Modifications
XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.

[[Page 81244]]

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    G. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Appendix 1: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

I. Legal Authority

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 that 
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works 
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National 
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or 
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are 
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial 
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition, 
POTWs are required to implement local pretreatment 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 regulations, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for 
conventional, priority,\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 characteristic. 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 limitations 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 pollutants 
under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to include 
limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 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 for 
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other 
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA 
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the 
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
    Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional 
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids 
(TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by the 
Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and 
grease as an additional conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 
44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Section 
304(b)(2) of the CWA
    In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best 
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial 
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT 
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of 
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential 
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including 
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in 
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may 
be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a 
facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing 
performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may require a higher level of 
performance than is currently being achieved based on technology 
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based 
upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies 
are not common industry practice.
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 most stringent controls attainable through the 
application of the best available 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.

[[Page 81245]]

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 (POTW). 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 for existing sources are 
technology-based and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of national effluent guidelines and 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 discharges.
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. Section 304(m) Requirements

    Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising 
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent 
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January 
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that 
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent 
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for 
which the Agency established a schedule was the Hazardous Waste 
Treatment Industry.
    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen, 
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section 
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of 
effluent guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)). 
Under the terms of the consent decree in that case, as amended, EPA 
agreed, among other things, to propose effluent guidelines for the 
``Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' category by April 31, 1994 and 
take final action by August 2000.

C. The Land Disposal Restrictions Program

1. Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
    The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted on November 8, 1984, 
largely prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. Once 
a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute 
provides only two options for legal land disposal: Meet the treatment 
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste 
in a land disposal unit that has been found to satisfy the statutory 
no-migration-test. A no-migration-unit is one from which there will be 
no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains 
hazardous (RCRA Sections 3004(d),(e),(g)(5)).
    Under section 3004, the treatment standards that EPA develops may 
be expressed as either constituent concentration levels or as specific 
methods of treatment. The criteria for these standards is that they 
must substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially 
reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the 
waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the 
environment are minimized (RCRA Section 3004(m)(1)). For purposes of 
the restrictions, the RCRA program defines land disposal to include any 
placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, waste 
pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, 
salt bed formation, or underground mine or cave. Land disposal 
restrictions are published in 40 CFR Part 268.
    EPA has used hazardous waste treatability data as the basis for 
land disposal restrictions standards. First, EPA has identified Best 
Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology (BDAT) for each listed 
hazardous waste. BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA finds to be 
the most effective for a waste, which is also readily available to 
generators and treaters. In some cases, EPA has designated, for a 
particular wastestream, a treatment technology which has been shown to 
successfully treat a similar, but more difficult to treat, wastestream. 
This ensured that the land disposal restrictions standards for a listed 
wastestream were achievable since they always reflected the actual 
treatability of the waste itself or of a more refractory waste.
    As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Universal 
Treatment Standards (UTS) were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase 
two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a series of concentrations 
for wastewaters and non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment 
standard for each constituent. Previously, the LDR regulated 
constituents according to the identity of the original waste; thus, 
several numerical treatment standards might exist for each constituent. 
The UTS simplified the standards by having only one treatment standard 
for each constituent in any waste residue.
    The LDR treatment standards established under RCRA may differ from 
the Clean Water Act effluent guidelines published here today both in 
their format and in the numerical values set for each constituent. The 
differences result from the use of different legal criteria for 
developing the limits and resulting differences in the technical and 
economic criteria and data sets used for establishing the respective 
limits.
    The difference in format between the LDR and effluent guidelines is 
that LDR establishes a single daily limit for each pollutant parameter 
whereas the effluent guidelines generally establish monthly and daily 
limits. Additionally, the effluent guidelines provide for several types 
of discharge, including new vs. existing sources, and indirect vs. 
direct discharge.
    The differences in numerical limits established under the Clean 
Water Act may differ, not only from LDR and UTS, but also from point-
source category to point-source category (for example, Electroplating, 
40 CFR Part 413; and Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part 433). The effluent 
guidelines and standards are industry-specific, subcategory-specific, 
and technology-based. The numerical limits are typically based on 
different data sets that reflect the performance of specific wastewater 
management and treatment practices. Differences in the limits reflect 
consideration of the CWA statutory factors that the Administrator is 
required to evaluate in developing technically and economically 
achievable limitations and standards. A consequence of these differing 
approaches is that similar wastestreams can be regulated at different 
levels.

[[Page 81246]]

2. Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste Treatment 
Industry Effluent Guidelines
    EPA's survey for this guideline identified no facilities 
discharging wastewater effluent to land disposal units. There is, 
consequently, no overlap between this regulation for the CWT Industry 
and the Universal Treatment Standards. Any CWT facility, however, 
discharging effluent to a land disposal unit that meets these 
limitations and standards would meet the Universal Treatment Standards.

III. Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline 
Rulemaking History

A. January 27, 1995 Proposal

    On January 27, 1995, EPA proposed regulations (60 FR 5464) to 
reduce discharges to navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and non-
conventional pollutants in wastewater from facilities defined in the 
proposal as ``centralized waste treatment facilities.'' As proposed, 
these effluent limitations guidelines and standards would have applied 
to ``any facility that treats any hazardous or non-hazardous industrial 
waste received from off-site by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, 
drums, barge or other forms of shipment.'' The proposal did not extend 
to facilities that received waste from off-site solely via pipeline. 
Facilities proposed for regulation included both stand-alone waste 
treatment and recovery facilities that treat waste received from off-
site, as well as those facilities that treat on-site generated process 
wastewater with wastes received from off-site.
    The Agency proposed limitations and standards for an estimated 85 
facilities in three subcategories. EPA proposed limitations and 
standards for three subcategories for the centralized waste treatment 
(CWT) industry: metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery, oily waste 
treatment and recovery, and organic waste treatment and recovery. EPA 
based the BPT effluent limitations proposed in 1995 on the technologies 
listed in Table III.A-1 below. EPA based BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS 
on the same technologies as BPT.

           Table III.A-1.--Technology Basis for 1995 Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proposed subpart       Name of subcategory       Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................  Metal-Bearing Waste      Selective Metals
                          Treatment and Recovery.  Precipitation,
                                                   Pressure Filtration,
                                                   Secondary
                                                   Precipitation, Solid-
                                                   Liquid Separation,
                                                   and Tertiary
                                                   Precipitation.
                                                  For Metal-Bearing
                                                   Waste Which Includes
                                                   Concentrated Cyanide
                                                   Streams: Pretreatment
                                                   by Alkaline
                                                   Chlorination at
                                                   Elevated Operating
                                                   Conditions.
B......................  Oily Waste Treatment     Emulsion Breaking/
                          and Recovery.            Gravity Separation
                                                   and Ultrafiltration;
                                                   or Emulsion Breaking/
                                                   Gravity Separation,
                                                   Ultrafiltration,
                                                   Carbon Adsorption,
                                                   and Reverse Osmosis.
C......................  Organic Waste Treatment  Equalization, Air
                          and Recovery.            Stripping, Biological
                                                   Treatment, and
                                                   Multimedia
                                                   Filtration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability

    Based on comments received on the 1995 proposal and new 
information, EPA reexamined its conclusions about the Oily Waste 
Treatment and Recovery subcategory, or ``oils subcategory.'' (The 1995 
proposal had defined facilities in this subcategory as ``facilities 
that treat, and/or recover oil from oily waste received from off-
site.'') Subsequently, in September 1996 EPA announced the availability 
of the new data on this subcategory (61 FR 48800). EPA explained that 
it had underestimated the size of the oils subcategory, and that the 
data used to develop the original proposal may have mischaracterized 
this portion of the CWT industry. EPA had based its original estimates 
on the size of this segment of the industry on information obtained 
from the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The basis year 
for the questionnaire was 1989. However, many of the new oils 
facilities discussed in this notice began operation after 1989. EPA 
concluded that many of these facilities may have started up or modified 
their existing operations in response to requirements in EPA 
regulations, specifically, the provisions of 40 CFR 279, promulgated on 
September 10, 1992 (Standards for the Management of Used Oil). These 
regulations govern the handling of used oils under the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA's 1996 notice discussed 
the additional facilities, provided a revised description of the 
subcategory, and described how the 1995 proposal limitations and 
standards, if promulgated, would have affected such facilities. The 
notice, among other items, also solicited comments on the use of 
dissolved air flotation as a treatment technology for this subcategory.

C. January 13, 1999 Supplemental Proposal

    On January 13, 1999 (64 FR 2280), EPA published a supplemental 
proposal that represented the Agency's second look at Clean Water Act 
national effluent guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges 
from centralized waste treatment facilities. The supplemental proposal 
presented revised limitations and standards based on the new 
information obtained from comments to the 1996 Notice of Data 
Availability and additional field sampling data. It also included 
changes to the scope of the rule.
    In the supplemental proposal, the Agency proposed limitations and 
standards that EPA estimated would apply to 206 facilities in three 
subcategories. These subcategories were the same as those proposed in 
1995: metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery, used/waste oil 
treatment and recovery, and organic waste treatment. EPA based the BPT 
effluent limitations proposed in 1999 on different technologies than 
those selected at the time of the 1995 proposal. The technology bases 
for the supplemental proposal are listed in Table III.C-1 below.

[[Page 81247]]



           Table III.C-1.--Technology Basis for 1999 Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proposed subpart       Name of subcategory       Technology basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................  Metal-Bearing Waste      Batch Precipitation,
                          Treatment and Recovery.  Liquid-Solid
                                                   Separation, Secondary
                                                   Precipitation,
                                                   Clarification, and
                                                   Sand Filtration.
                                                  For Metal-Bearing
                                                   Waste Which Includes
                                                   Concentrated Cyanide
                                                   Streams: Alkaline
                                                   Chlorination in a two
                                                   step process.
 
B......................  Used/Waste Oil           Emulsion Breaking/
                          Treatment and Recovery.  Gravity Separation,
                                                   Secondary Gravity
                                                   Separation and
                                                   Dissolved Air
                                                   Flotation.
C......................  Organic Waste Treatment  Equalization and
                                                   Biological Treatment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the metals subcategory, EPA proposed limitations and standards 
for BCT, BAT, and PSES based on the same technologies as BPT, but based 
NSPS and PSNS on a different technology: selective metals 
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary precipitation, 
liquid-solid separation, tertiary precipitation, and clarification.
    For the oils subcategory, EPA proposed to base BCT, BAT, NSPS, and 
PSNS on the same technologies as BPT, but based PSES on a different 
technology: emulsion breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air 
flotation.
    For the organics subcategory, EPA proposed to base BCT, BAT, NSPS, 
PSES, and PSNS on the same technologies as BPT.

IV. Re-Consideration of Significant Proposal Issues and Summary of 
Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Oils Subcategory--Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis 
of the RCRA Classification of the Waste Receipts

    As explained in the 1999 proposal, among other alternatives, EPA 
was considering whether it should develop limitations and standards for 
two categories (rather than a single category) of oils treatment 
facilities. The Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel for this 
rule, convened by EPA in November 1997, discussed this option. For a 
detailed summary of the panel's findings and discussion, see the 1999 
proposal and ``Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy 
Review Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' 
(DCN 21.5.1). Under this approach EPA would establish different 
limitations and standards for oils subcategory facilities depending on 
whether they treat RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes (either exclusively 
or in combination with non-hazardous wastes) or treat only non-
hazardous wastes.
    At the time of the SBAR Panel, EPA had collected certain 
information on facilities that treat a mixture of hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes as well as facilities that treat non-hazardous wastes 
only. The bulk of the data was from RCRA facilities treating RCRA 
subtitle C hazardous waste together with non-hazardous waste. The data 
on wastestreams did not show a significant difference in the types of 
pollutants for the streams being treated at RCRA and at non-RCRA 
permitted facilities or the treatability of those pollutants. Although 
the data did suggest that pollutant concentrations tended to be 
somewhat higher in raw waste going to RCRA permitted facilities, which 
in turn suggested that treatment would be more cost-effective at such 
facilities, the information EPA had collected from non-RCRA permitted 
facilities was insufficient to support the conclusion that EPA should 
differentiate between oils facilities on the basis of RCRA 
classification of the wastes treated at the facility. Consequently, EPA 
did not propose different regulatory requirements for facilities based 
on distinctions between hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
    EPA, following the SBAR panel, collected wastewater samples at 
twelve other facilities that treat only non-hazardous materials. EPA 
collected the samples in order to broaden the database with additional 
information on the pollutant profiles of the wastes that are treated at 
these facilities. While EPA included the analytical results of the 
sampling efforts in the Appendix of the technical development document 
for the proposal, EPA had not, at the time of the proposal, reviewed 
the data in detail or compared the data to the earlier data it had 
collected. As the proposal also explained, EPA planned to review the 
data in detail and present a preliminary assessment of its findings at 
a public hearing during the comment period for the proposal.
    At a public hearing on February 18, 1999, EPA described the 
relevant sampling data, the constraints of evaluating this data, and a 
comparison of data from hazardous and non-hazardous wastestreams. This 
data showed that, while the mean and median values of influent 
concentration of hazardous wastestream data are greater than for non-
hazardous wastestreams for most pollutants examined, the ranges of 
concentration for the hazardous and non-hazardous wastestreams overlap 
for most pollutants. In its presentation, EPA indicated that it planned 
to re-examine the oils subcategory in terms of pollutant loadings, 
removals, limitations and standards, costs, impacts, and benefits. EPA 
requested comment on this issue, and extended the comment period for 
this issue to 30 days after the public hearing. EPA's presentation is 
included in the public record for this rulemaking as DCN 28.1.1. [Other 
supporting information is in Section 28.]
    Five commenters provided specific input on basing regulatory 
options for the oils subcategory on the RCRA classification of the 
waste receipts. Two commenters supported differentiation on this basis. 
They asserted that there are significant differences between facilities 
that accept non-hazardous wastes and those that accept a combination of 
hazardous and non-hazardous waste in terms of pollutant loadings and 
the number and type of pollutants, the types of treatment methods 
employed, and price structures. Three commenters opposed 
differentiation based on RCRA classification. These commenters do not 
believe that RCRA classification is a critical distinction, but rather 
believe that RCRA classification often has no impact on the 
treatability of the waste or final effluent quality. They commented 
that non-hazardous waste receipts have approximately the same 
constituents as hazardous waste receipts. From an environmental 
perspective, they believe that it is irrelevant whether the source of 
the pollutants of concern is a hazardous or non-hazardous facility.
    EPA has reexamined this data using the same standards it applied 
earlier in this rulemaking for determining pollutants of concern for 
this industry (see Chapter 6 of the Final Technical

[[Page 81248]]

Development Document). Based on this review, EPA determined that the 
pollutants of concern for non-hazardous facilities are largely the same 
as those previously identified for the oils subcategory (EPA had based 
its earlier conclusion on data from facilities processing a mix of 
hazardous and non-hazardous waste receipts).
    EPA also looked to see if the treatment technologies at strictly 
non-hazardous facilities differ from those at facilities that accept 
both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA's database shows that the 
range of treatment technologies employed at both types of facilities is 
similar.
    Essentially, the only operational difference EPA has observed 
between hazardous and non-hazardous oils treatment facilities is that 
hazardous oils waste facilities treat wastes with higher influent 
concentrations. EPA's data show that the average pollutant 
concentrations in non-hazardous wastes are lower than in hazardous 
wastes. Consequently, pollutant loadings, removals and treatment cost 
estimates will differ to some extent depending on the RCRA 
classification of the wastes that are treated. As explained above, 
however, both types of facilities treat for the same pollutants and the 
concentration ranges of these pollutants overlap at hazardous and non-
hazardous operations. In these circumstances, the characteristics of 
wastes treated at hazardous operations do not require a different 
treatment technology from that used at non-hazardous operations. The 
choice of treatment technology for a particular facility is a function 
primarily of the effluent concentration required, not of any inherent 
differences in the wastes being treated. As a result, EPA concluded 
that there is no basis in the chemistry of the wastewaters being 
treated which supported development of different limitations and 
standards for hazardous and non-hazardous oils facilities. Furthermore, 
after evaluating treatment technology costs, EPA found that the costs 
for RCRA permitted facilities were equivalent to those for non-RCRA 
facilities, although, as noted above, loadings reductions at the non-
RCRA permitted facilities will generally be lower. Given these factors, 
EPA decided that it should not develop different limitations and 
standards for RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous oils facilities. DCN 
33.1.1 discusses the determination in more detail. EPA notes, however, 
that its estimates of loadings, removals, and revenue generated from 
treating the different types of wastes take account of differences in 
the type of wastes treated.

B. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Revenue

    As detailed in the 1999 proposal, among other alternatives, EPA 
looked at whether it should develop alternative regulatory requirements 
for the oils subcategory facilities based on revenue because of 
potential adverse economic consequences to small businesses. The SBAR 
Panel, convened by EPA, discussed this option. Among the regulatory 
alternatives discussed by the panel and detailed in the 1999 proposal 
was limiting the scope of the rule to minimize impacts. Under this 
approach, EPA would not establish national pretreatment standards for 
indirect dischargers owned by small companies with less than $6 million 
in annual revenue. EPA did not propose to limit the scope of the rule 
based on this approach but did request comment on the issue.
    Concerning the recommendation that EPA establish alternative 
limitations and standards on the basis of revenue, commenters largely 
supported EPA's conclusion that this approach should not be adopted. 
Commenters stated that small businesses should be subject to the same 
standards and requirements as other industrial users in this category 
because:
     The limitations and standards are economically achievable 
for small CWT facilities;
     The perception that small CWT facilities do not have the 
potential to cause significant impacts to the environment is not true;
     The quantity of pollutants present and the toxicity of the 
pollutants are the only relevant factors for determining impacts to 
receiving streams and POTWs from CWT discharges;
     The business size is irrelevant to the impact of a 
facility's discharges;
     A small facility can have as great an impact on the 
environment as a large facility;
     There would be no incentive to ensure wastes are 
adequately treated at all CWT facilities;
     Small facilities could operate at a fraction of the cost 
(since they would not have to meet the limitations and standards) and 
capture more market share leading to more wastes going to the POTW 
untreated; and
     Large facilities could easily manipulate their corporate 
structure to take advantage of small business exemptions.
    None of the commenters supported a small business exclusion, but a 
few noted that EPA should look at reducing monitoring requirements for 
small businesses in order to reduce their costs of compliance without 
compromising effective treatment. None of the commenters provided EPA 
with any other suggestions on ways to mitigate small business concerns 
that EPA had not already considered. After careful consideration of the 
comments and its database, EPA has decided that it should not limit the 
scope of today's rule based on revenue . EPA did reassess the costs for 
all of the alternatives discussed in the proposal for the final rule. 
Chapter 8 of the Final EA includes a full presentation of the costs of 
the alternatives.

C. Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Flow

    As detailed in the 1999 proposal, among other alternatives, EPA 
looked at whether it should develop alternative regulatory requirements 
for the oils subcategory facilities based on wastewater flow level 
because of potential adverse economic consequences to small businesses. 
The SBAR Panel, convened by EPA, discussed this option. Among the 
regulatory alternatives discussed by the panel and detailed in the 1999 
proposal was limiting the scope of the rule to minimize impacts. Under 
this approach, EPA would not establish national pretreatment standards 
for indirect oils dischargers with flows under 3.5 million gallons per 
year, or alternately for non-hazardous oils facilities with flows under 
either 3.5 or 7.5 MGY. The SBAR Panel noted, in particular, that 
excluding indirect dischargers with flows of less than 3.5 MGY would 
significantly reduce the economic impact of the rule on small 
businesses while reducing pollutant removals by an estimated 6%. (See 
Section X.M of this preamble for a more detailed discussion of 
regulatory flexibility options and their projected impacts.) EPA did 
not propose to limit the scope of the rule based on these approaches 
but did request comment on the issue.
    Concerning the recommendation that EPA establish alternative 
limitations and standards on the basis of flow, commenters largely 
supported EPA's conclusion that this approach should not be adopted. 
Commenters stated that low flow facilities should be subject to the 
same standards and requirements as other industrial users in this 
category because:
     The perception that small CWT facilities do not have the 
potential to cause significant impacts to the environment is not true;
     The amount of pollutants in wastewater for a CWT facility 
is not a function solely of the volume of wastes that the facility 
receives;

[[Page 81249]]

     The quantity of pollutants present and the toxicity of the 
pollutants are the only relevant factors for determining impacts to 
receiving streams and POTWs from CWT discharges;
     A small facility can have as great an impact on the 
environment as a large facility;
     There would be no incentive to ensure wastes are 
adequately treated at all CWT facilities; and
     Small facilities could operate at a fraction of the cost 
(since they would not have to meet the limitations and standards) and 
capture more market share leading to more wastes going to the POTW 
untreated.
    None of the commenters supported an exclusion based on flow, but a 
few noted that EPA should look at reducing monitoring requirements for 
small businesses in order to reduce their costs of compliance without 
compromising effective treatment. None of the commenters provided EPA 
with any other suggestions on ways to mitigate small business concerns 
that EPA had not already considered. After careful consideration of the 
comments and its database, EPA has decided that it should not limit the 
scope of today's rule based on flow. EPA did reassess the costs for all 
of the alternatives discussed in the proposal for the final rule. 
Chapter 8 of the Final EA includes a full presentation of the costs of 
the alternatives.

D. Consideration of Indicator Parameters for the Oils Subcategory

    As detailed in the proposal, EPA looked at various ways to reduce 
the costs of this rule (particularly the costs to small businesses) 
while ensuring proper treatment of off-site wastes. One of the options 
considered by EPA and discussed in the proposal was providing an 
alternative compliance-monitoring regime for indirect discharging 
facilities. Under this alternative monitoring approach, facilities 
could choose to (1) monitor for all regulated pollutants, or (2) 
monitor for the conventional parameters, metal parameters, and monitor 
for the regulated organic pollutants in this subcategory using an 
indicator parameter such as hexane extractable material (HEM) or silica 
gel treated-hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM). The proposal further 
noted that EPA was conducting a study to determine which organic 
pollutants are measured by SGT-HEM and HEM and solicited comment on the 
use of indicator parameters.
    Many commenters responded to EPA's request with essentially an 
equivalent number opposing and favoring the use of indicator 
parameters. The commenters that supported its use cited the decreased 
analytical costs and the wide range of organic compounds that can be 
measured with these analyses. Commenters that did not support the use 
of SGT-HEM or HEM as indicator pollutants raised a number of concerns 
including the following:
     These measurements are non-specific and highly subject to 
interferences;
     No direct and quantified correlation has ever been 
developed between HEM (or SGT-HEM) and specific organic pollutants;
     There is no evidence that regulating HEM or SGT-HEM would 
result in adequate regulation of toxics;
     The determination has not been made that the organic 
pollutants of interest are measured by either HEM or SGT-HEM; and
     SGT-HEM does not measure all of the regulated pollutants, 
particularly polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
    None of the commenters suggested possible alternative indicator 
parameters.
    During its development of proposed effluent limitations guidelines 
and pretreatment standards for the industrial laundries point source 
category, EPA evaluated the suitability of SGT-HEM and HEM as indicator 
parameters for that rulemaking. EPA presented the results of its study 
in a Notice of Data Availability on December 23, 1998 (63 FR 71054). In 
the study, EPA attempted to identify compounds present in HEM/SGT-HEM 
extracts from industrial laundry wastewaters using gas chromatography/
mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) in order to determine which pollutants of 
concern might be components of, and therefore measured by, HEM or SGT-
HEM. However, EPA was only able to identify approximately two percent 
of the constituents present in the wastestream. Most of these 
constituents identified were alkanes. In general, the data from this 
study also do not support the use of SGT-HEM as an appropriate 
indicator parameter for the organic pollutants present in CWT 
wastewaters since few of these pollutants were identified in the HEM/
SGT-HEM extract.
    As part of its consideration of the use of an indicator parameter 
for this rule, EPA again reviewed the data from the industrial 
laundries study as well as the data collected here. EPA statistically 
analyzed the relationship between seven organic pollutants and SGT-HEM 
or HEM. EPA's data show general trends of increasing concentrations of 
HEM and SGT-HEM with increasing concentrations of organic pollutants. 
However, the data demonstrate substantial variability and, despite this 
general trend, EPA noted that the non-detected values for organics were 
associated with just about every level of HEM and SGT-HEM and 
conversely, that high levels of some organic pollutants were associated 
with low levels of HEM/SGT-HEM. As a result, EPA cannot demonstrate 
that establishing a numerical limit for SGT-HEM or HEM would provide 
consistent control of the organic pollutants by the model treatment 
technologies.
    Therefore, while EPA is cognizant of the cost savings that can be 
achieved in some instances by using indicator parameters, EPA has 
rejected this alternative monitoring approach for CWT wastewaters.

E. Consideration of Reduced Monitoring for Small Businesses

    Another alternative discussed in the proposal which could reduce 
costs to small businesses was to develop different limitations and 
pretreatment standards for small businesses based on an assumption of 
less frequent monitoring for facilities owned and operated by small 
businesses. The proposal explained that there were three major issues 
presented by this approach. First, EPA NDPES and pretreatment 
regulations (applicable to State-authorized program as well) do not 
require facilities to indicate whether they are small or large 
businesses in obtaining NPDES or POTW local pretreatment program 
discharge permits. EPA was concerned about the manner in which the 
small business determination could be made. Second, EPA does not 
generally establish nationally applicable monitoring frequency 
requirements. EPA expressed concern that permitting authorities would 
be reluctant to reduce monitoring frequencies on EPA's recommendation 
alone. Third, while the technology basis and the long-term averages for 
the limitations would be the same, the monthly average limitations 
based upon reduced monitoring assumptions would be higher. EPA 
expressed concern that higher monthly average limitations for 
facilities with less frequent required monitoring might allow these 
facilities to target a less stringent level of treatment than that 
reflected by the long-term average. EPA solicited comment on all these 
issues as well as ways to ensure that any monitoring relief the Agency 
might provide would not jeopardize treatment performance or the 
environment.
    EPA only received direct comments on this issue from state and 
local control authorities. These commenters did not support reduced 
monitoring frequencies

[[Page 81250]]

for small businesses. They believe that the control authority should 
continue to establish monitoring frequencies on a case by case basis 
taking into account the probable impact of the discharge to the surface 
water or POTW, compliance history of the facility, and other relevant 
factors. Further they expressed concern over the burden of verifying 
and maintaining the confidentiality of the economic information 
provided by facilities claiming the small business status.
    Therefore, after careful consideration of comments and its 
database, EPA has rejected adopting alternative limitations and 
standards based on reduced monitoring requirements for small 
businesses.

F. Multiple Wastestream Subcategory Consideration

    In the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed to establish limitations and 
standards for three subcategories of CWT facilities: facilities 
treating either metal, oily, or organic wastes and wastewater. Section 
VII of the proposal detailed this subcategorization scheme. See 64 FR 
2300 (1999). While EPA did not propose limitations and standards for a 
multiple wastestream subcategory, the proposal did discuss EPA's 
consideration of a multiple wastestream subcategory. The proposal 
explained that multiple wastestream subcategory limitations, if 
adopted, would apply to facilities that treat wastes in more than one 
subcategory. EPA would establish limitations and standards for the 
multiple wastestream subcategory by combining pollutant limitations 
from the three subcategories, where relevant, and selecting the most 
stringent value where they overlap.
    EPA's consideration of this option responded to comments to the 
1995 proposal and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability. The primary 
reason some members of the waste treatment industry favored development 
of a multiple wastestream subcategory was to simplify implementation 
for facilities treating wastes covered by multiple subcategories. As 
detailed in the proposal, EPA's primary reason for not proposing (and 
adopting) this option was its concern that facilities that accept 
wastes in multiple subcategories need to provide effective treatment of 
all waste receipts. This concern was based on EPA's data that showed 
such facilities did not currently have adequate treatment-in-place. 
While these facilities meet their permit limitations, EPA concluded 
that compliance was likely achieved through co-dilution of dissimilar 
wastes rather than treatment. As a result, EPA determined that adoption 
of ``multiple wastestream subcategory'' limitations as described above 
could arguably encourage ineffective treatment.
    EPA solicited comments on ways to develop a ``multiple wastestream 
subcategory'' which ensures treatment rather than dilution. The vast 
majority of comments on the 1999 proposal supported the establishment 
of a multiple wastestream subcategory for this rule, and re-iterated 
their concerns about implementing the three-subcategory scheme at 
multiple-subcategory facilities. One commenter suggested a way to 
implement a fourth subcategory while ensuring treatment. This commenter 
suggested that EPA follow the approach taken for the Pesticide 
Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging (PFPR) Point Source category (40 
CFR Part 455). Under this approach, multiple wastestream subcategory 
facilities would have the option of (1) monitoring for compliance with 
the appropriate subcategory limitations after each treatment step or 
(2) monitoring for compliance with the multiple wastestream subcategory 
limitations at a combined discharge point and certifying that 
equivalent treatment to that which would be required for each 
subcategory waste separately is installed and properly designed, 
maintained, and operated. This option would eliminate the use of the 
combined wastestream formula or building block approach in calculating 
limits or standards for multiple wastestream subcategory CWT facilities 
(The combined wastestream formula and the building block approach are 
discussed in more detail in Chapter 14 of the Final Technical 
Development Document). Commenters suggested that an equivalent 
treatment system could be defined as a wastewater treatment system that 
is demonstrated to achieve comparable removals to the treatment system 
on which EPA based the limitations and standards. Ways of demonstrating 
equivalence might include data from recognized sources of information 
on pollution control, treatability tests, or self-monitoring data 
showing comparable removals to the applicable pollution control 
technology.
    EPA has now concluded that the approaches adopted in the PFPR rule 
address the concerns identified earlier. EPA agrees with commenters 
that developing appropriate limitations on a site-specific basis for 
multiple wastestream facilities presents many challenges and that the 
use of a multiple wastestream subcategory would simplify implementation 
of the rule. Moreover, the limits applied to multiple wastestream 
treaters would be a compilation of the most stringent limits from each 
applicable subcategory and would generally be similar to or stricter 
than the limits calculated via the application of the combined 
wastestream formula or building block approach. Most significantly, the 
equivalent treatment certification requirement would address EPA's 
concerns that the wastes receive adequate treatment.
    Therefore, for today's final rule, EPA has established a fourth 
subcategory: the multiple wastestream subcategory. Section XIII.A.5.b 
details the manner in which EPA envisions the multiple wastestream 
subcategory will be implemented. Further, EPA is preparing a guidance 
manual to aid permit writers/control authorities and CWT facilities in 
implementing the certification process.

G. Analytical Methods

    Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate 
guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants. 
These test procedures (methods) are used to determine the presence and 
concentration of pollutants in wastewater, and are used 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. EPA 
publishes test procedures for the wastewater program at 40 CFR 136.3. 
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 the centralized waste treatment (CWT) industry, unless 
specified otherwise in part 437 or by the permitting authority.
    Today's final rule amends 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, to specify 
the applicability of certain methods for specific wastestreams. The 
amendments accomplish several objectives, which are outlined in the 
following paragraphs. Briefly, the amendments clarify EPA's intent 
regarding the applicability of Methods 625 and 1625 for some of the 
pollutant parameters in today's rule for Centralized Waste Treatment 
facilities and also for some of

[[Page 81251]]

the pollutant parameters in 40 CFR 445 (Landfills Point Source 
Category).
    The 1999 CWT proposal (at 64 FR 2297) stated that 11 CWT 
semivolatile organic pollutants and two CWT volatile organic pollutants 
(2-butanone and 2-propanone) were not listed in Table I-C at 40 CFR 
136.3. Even though these 13 analytes were not shown in Table I-C, there 
were already approved test methods for six of these 13, as follows: EPA 
Method 1624 lists 2-butanone and 2-propanone, provides performance data 
for these two analytes, and is an approved method for these two 
analytes. EPA Method 1625 lists four of the 11 CWT semivolatile organic 
pollutants with relevant performance data and is an approved method for 
these four analytes (alpha-terpineol, carbazole, n-decane, and n-
octadecane).
    In the 1999 CWT proposal, EPA proposed to expand the analyte list 
for the already-approved methods and also to allow modified versions of 
Methods 625 and 1625. The Docket for the proposed rulemaking included 
the proposed modifications to Methods 625 and 1625 regarding expansion 
of the analyte list. The expanded list covered 17 pollutants in total, 
including all of the proposed CWT semivolatile organic pollutants. For 
7 of those analytes, performance data were not available for either 
method and these data were not included in the Docket at proposal. EPA 
also noted its plans for further validation of the method 
modifications.
    Since proposal, EPA has gathered performance data on the additional 
seven CWT analytes and additional analytes of interest for other 
industry categories. In January 2000, EPA amended Methods 625 and 1625 
by adding the performance data for the additional analytes. The 
amendments consist of text, performance data, and quality control (QC) 
acceptance criteria for the additional analytes. This information will 
allow a laboratory to practice the methods with the additional analytes 
as an integral part. The QC acceptance criteria for the additional 
analytes were validated in single-laboratory studies. The January 2000 
amendments were part of the rulemaking notice for the effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for the Landfills Point Source 
Category (65 FR 3008, January 19, 2000). EPA's intent was to promulgate 
amendments to Methods 625 and 1625 that would allow the use of those 
methods for specific pollutants regulated in 40 CFR Part 445 (i.e., 
Landfills) for purposes of that rule only. Some of the pollutants had 
also been included in the CWT proposal. Subsequent to the Landfills 
promulgation, EPA received inquiries about the scope and applicability 
of the amendments to the test methods. In response to those inquiries, 
EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) and request for 
comment on the data collected for the additional analytes (see 65 FR 
41391, July 5, 2000).
    The NODA clarified EPA's intent regarding the method amendments by 
explaining that the amendments published on January 19, 2000 ``* * * 
are applicable only to the five regulated pollutants in the Landfills 
rule when found in the wastestreams regulated under that rule.'' (65 FR 
41392) The NODA also announced EPA's plans to further amend the methods 
in the final CWT rulemaking (i.e., today's rulemaking) to specify that 
the revisions to Methods 625 and 1625 apply to the pollutants 
promulgated in today's rule and only for the wastestreams regulated in 
today's rule. In today's amendments to 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A, EPA 
thus clarifies its intent regarding the scope of method amendments. 
Specifically, the amendments include additional text to the 
Introduction section of the attachment at the end of Methods 625 and 
1625 and footnotes to Tables in the attachment. The amendments 
delineate the scope of Methods 625 and 1625 regarding compliance with 
monitoring requirements for the wastestreams covered by 40 CFR Parts 
437 and 445. In addition, EPA deleted from the attachment to the 
methods those analytes not covered by the Landfills and CWT final 
rules.

H. Statistical Methodology Changes

    Chapter 10 of the Final Technical Development Document provides a 
detailed description of the data and methodology used to develop long-
term averages, variability factors and limitations and standards for 
today's final rule. Today's final rule encompasses the following 
changes in the statistical methodology since the 1999 proposal.
1. Metals Option 4 Long-Term Average and Limitations Calculations
    EPA used two different data sets collected at a single facility in 
developing long-term averages and limitations for Option 4 in the 
Metals Subcategory. At the time of the proposal, EPA analyzed these 
data sets separately. That is, even though these data were collected 
from the same facility, EPA averaged each data set separately and then 
used the medians of the two sets of averages, just as if the data were 
from two different facilities. In other effluent guidelines, EPA has 
often taken this approach when the data were collected by two different 
data sources. Following comment on this issue, EPA reviewed the data 
and determined that the data were collected in overlapping time 
periods. As such, for the final rule, EPA has combined this data 
together into a single data set and calculated averages accordingly. 
This has the effect of giving more weight than in the original analysis 
to the data set with more observations and the result, in most 
instances, is that the final metals subcategory limitations are less 
stringent than those proposed in January 1999.
2. Variability Factors
    The proposal discussed two different approaches to calculating 
variability factors--one based on pollutant variability factors and one 
based on group variability factors. The pollutant variability factor is 
the average of the variability factors from facilities with the model 
technologies for the option, and the group variability factor is the 
median of the pollutant variability factors from pollutants with 
similar chemical structures. At the time of the proposal, EPA generally 
used the product of the group variability factor and the pollutant 
long-term average in calculating each pollutant limitation and 
solicited comment on this approach. After receiving comments that 
supported using the pollutant variability factors, EPA assessed the 
range of values for the pollutant variability factors within each 
group. Contrary to EPA's expectations for chemically similar pollutants 
to be treated similarly by each treatment technology, EPA noted a wide 
range of values for the pollutant variability factors within each 
group. EPA determined that it is more likely that such ranges resulted 
from unique features in the data rather than differences in treatment 
between chemically similar pollutants. But, because of the range in 
values, EPA concluded that pollutant limitations would be best 
calculated using the pollutant variability factors. Because it 
determined that pollutant variability factors were the most appropriate 
choice for calculating limitations, EPA relaxed its dataset 
requirements slightly to allow calculation of a few additional 
pollutant variability factors beyond those in the proposal. For the few 
pollutants where pollutant variability factors still could not be 
calculated because the datasets contained too few detected values 
(which are used to establish variance estimates for the variability 
factors), EPA concluded that its use of group variability factors 
provides reasonable estimates of pollutant specific

[[Page 81252]]

variability factors. After a final review and evaluation of the data 
and resulting limitations, EPA determined that the final limitations 
appropriately incorporate the variability of the pollutant 
concentrations discharged by the CWT industry.

I. Significant Changes in Treatment Technology Cost Estimates

    Chapter 11 of the Final Technical Development Document provides a 
detailed description of the data and methodology used to develop 
compliance cost estimates for the final CWT regulation. This section 
provides a summary of major changes in the costing methodology since 
the 1999 proposal.
1. RCRA Permit Modification Costs Removed
    In estimating compliance costs for the proposed regulation, EPA 
included RCRA permit modification capital costs as one component of the 
total capital costs. This was an error. The wastewater treatment unit 
exemption at 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), 40 CFR 265.1(c)(10), and 40 CFR 
270.1(c)(2)(v) exempts, from RCRA permit modification requirements, 
wastewater treatment units at facilities that are subject to NPDES or 
pretreatment requirements under the Clean Water Act. Thus, CWT 
facilities would not need to modify their RCRA permits as a result of 
this rule and would not incur these RCRA permit modification costs. The 
final rule does not include these RCRA permit modification costs.
2. Altered DAF Costs for Oils Subcategory Includes Increased Holding 
Tank Capacity
    At the time of the proposal, for facilities with flow rates less 
than 20 gallons per minute (gpm), EPA included cost estimates for a 
holding tank. EPA included the holding tank because it assumed that 
facilities with flow rates less than 20 gpm would not operate their DAF 
systems every day.
    Regardless of the flow rate, EPA's design assumption for the 
holding tank was one day of storage. EPA received comment that many 
oils subcategory facilities may require more than 24 hours of storage 
and thus, EPA did not allow adequate holding capacity for all 
facilities. In response to this comment, EPA has altered the DAF 
capital costs to include holding tanks capable of retaining enough flow 
volume to operate the minimum size DAF system for one 24-hour period, 
in addition to the holding tank capacity costed at proposal.
3. Nutrient Addition, Heating, and Sludge Disposal Costs Included in 
the Organic Subcategory Compliance Cost Estimates
    At the time of the proposal, EPA estimated operational costs for 
the technology option selected as the basis for the organics 
subcategory limitations on the actual practices used at the facility 
sampled during EPA's sampling episode. This did not include chemical 
addition or heating of wastes. In response to public comment concerning 
the need, on occasion, for chemical addition (nutrient addition, pH 
control, etc.) and heating of the waste during cold temperature months, 
EPA modified its capital and O&M cost estimates for sequencing batch 
reactor (SBR) treatment to include costs for nutrient addition and 
adjustments for cold operating conditions. These adjustments are 
detailed in Section 3.1 of the ``Final Costing Document.''
    Additionally, at the time of the proposal, EPA included capital 
costs and O&M costs for sludge processing equipment associated with the 
organics subcategory, but failed to include costs for sludge disposal. 
EPA has corrected this oversight, and added a separate cost estimate 
for SBR system sludge disposal.

J. Significant Changes in Oils Subcategory Loadings Estimates

    At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA did not distinguish between 
facilities with RCRA permits and facilities without RCRA permits when 
it estimated current pollutant loadings for the oils subcategory. 
Rather, EPA had seven sets of data representing effluent from emulsion 
breaking/gravity separation that were collected at various types of 
oils subcategory facilities. For each pollutant of concern, and for 
each data set, EPA calculated the mean concentration of the data 
collected over the sampling episode. Then, for the remaining facilities 
in the oils subcategory (i.e., those facilities for which EPA did not 
have facility-specific information), EPA randomly assigned one of the 
seven data sets. For facilities that had additional treatment-in-place, 
EPA then reduced these current loadings estimates as detailed in 
Chapter 12 of the Final Technical Development Document.
    For the final CWT rule, EPA has altered this approach. In 
estimating loadings and removals for the oils subcategory, EPA used 
data specific to either RCRA or non-RCRA permitted facilities. EPA no 
longer estimates current performance by randomly assigning a data set 
as described above. Rather, for each pollutant of concern, EPA has 
calculated a single concentration value for RCRA permitted facilities 
and a single concentration value for non-RCRA permitted facilities; 
both values represent effluent from emulsion breaking/gravity 
separation. (This is assumed to be the minimum treatment in-place at 
all oils facilities; only removals beyond this and any other in-place 
treatment are projected to result from this rule.) The specific 
methodology used to calculate these values and EPA's final methodology 
used to estimate pollutant loadings and removals for the entire CWT 
industry are detailed in Chapter 12 of the Final Technical Development 
Document.

K. Changes in POTW Percent Removal Estimates

    EPA establishes pretreatment standards for those BAT pollutants 
that pass through POTWs. Therefore, for indirect dischargers, before 
establishing pretreatment standards, EPA examines whether the 
pollutants discharged by the industry ``pass through'' POTWs to waters 
of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations or sludge disposal 
practices. Generally, to determine if pollutants pass through POTWs, 
EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant removed by well-operated 
POTWs achieving secondary treatment with the percentage of the 
pollutant removed by facilities meeting BAT effluent limitations.
    The primary source of the POTW percent removal data is the ``Fate 
of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-
82/303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study.'' 
The 50-POTW Study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated 
POTWs that employ secondary biological treatment in removing 
pollutants.
    At the time of the 50-POTW sampling program, which spanned 
approximately 2\1/2\ years (July 1978 to November 1980), EPA collected 
samples at selected POTWs across the U.S. The samples were subsequently 
analyzed by either EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using test 
procedures (analytical methods) specified by the Agency or in use at 
the laboratories. Laboratories typically reported the analytical method 
used along with the test results. However, for those cases in which the 
laboratory specified no analytical method, EPA was able to identify the 
method based on the nature of the results and knowledge of the methods 
available at the time.
    Each laboratory reported results for the pollutants for which it 
tested. If the

[[Page 81253]]

laboratory found a pollutant to be present, the laboratory reported a 
result. If the laboratory found the pollutant not to be present, the 
laboratory reported either that the pollutant was ``not detected'' or a 
value with a ``less than'' sign () indicating that the pollutant was 
below that value. The value reported along with the ``less than'' sign 
was the lowest level to which the laboratory believed it could reliably 
measure. EPA subsequently established these lowest levels as the 
``minimum levels'' of quantitation (MLs). In some instances, different 
laboratories reported different MLs for the same pollutant using the 
same analytical method.
    Because of the variety of reporting protocols among the 50-POTW 
Study laboratories (pages 27 to 30, 50-POTW Study), EPA reviewed the 
percent removal calculations used in the pass-through analysis for 
previous industry studies, including those performed when developing 
the CWT proposal and effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals, 
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Manufacturing, Landfills, and Commercial 
Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for 12 parameters, 
different analytical MLs were reported for different rulemaking studies 
(10 of the 25 metals, cyanide, and one of the 41 organics).
    To provide consistency for data analysis and establishment of 
removal efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50-POTW Study, standardized the 
reported MLs for use in the CWT final rules and other rulemaking 
efforts. (This review of the 50-POTW Study analytical laboratory 
reporting practices and standardization of ML values is described 
further in DCN 33.3.1).
    In using the 50-POTW Study data to estimate percent removals, EPA 
has established data editing criteria for determining pollutant percent 
removals. Some of the editing criteria are based on differences between 
POTW and industry BAT treatment system influent concentrations. For 
many toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower 
than those of BAT treatment systems. For many pollutants, particularly 
organic pollutants, the effluent concentrations from both POTW and BAT 
treatment systems, were below the level that could be found or 
measured. As noted in the 50-POTW Study, analytical laboratories 
reported pollutant concentrations below the analytical ML, 
qualitatively, as ``not detected'' or ``trace,'' and reported a 
measured value above this level. Subsequent rulemaking studies such as 
the 1987 OCPSF study used the analytical method ML established in 40 
CFR Part 136 for laboratory data reported below the analytical ML. Use 
of the nominal ML may overestimate the effluent concentration and 
underestimate the percent removal. Because the data collected for 
evaluating POTW percent removals included both effluent and influent 
levels that were close to the analytical MLs, EPA devised hierarchal 
data editing criteria to exclude data with low influent concentration 
levels, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW removals might 
simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of being a true 
measure of treatment effectiveness.
    EPA has generally used hierarchic data editing criteria for the 
pollutants in the 50-POTW Study. For the final CWT rule, the editing 
criteria include
    (1) Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical ML 
for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,'' ``less than 
[followed by a number],'' or a number less than the standardized 
analytical ML,
    (2) Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent values if 
the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal to 10 
times the pollutant ML (10xML), and
    (3) If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations are at 
least 10 times the ML, then retain average influent values greater than 
or equal to two times the ML (2xML) along with the corresponding 
average effluent values. (EPA used 2xML for the final rule, instead of 
the 20 g/l criterion used at proposal, because it more 
accurately reflects the pollutant-specific data than using a fixed 
numerical cut-off. For 67 percent of the of pollutants, 2xML is 20 
g/l.)
    EPA then calculates each POTW percent removal for each pollutant 
based on its average influent and its average effluent values. The 
national POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-
through test is the median value of all the POTW pollutant specific 
percent removals.
    The 50-POTW study provided performance data for 48 pollutants of 
concern for both the 1999 proposal and today's final rule (15 metals, 
31 organics, cyanide, and ammonia). These corrections resulted in lower 
national POTW performance (median percent removal) for 5 metals and 
ammonia; in higher performance for 5 metals; and no change for the 
remaining 5 metals, 31 organics, and cyanide.

V. Scope/Applicability of the Regulation

    Many of the commenters had questions about what waste treatment 
facilities were subject to the guideline and in what circumstances. The 
sections which follow address these issues.

A. Overview

    A broad spectrum of facilities engage in waste treatment and waste 
recovery operations. For some, waste treatment and recovery is their 
only business. Many of these facilities treat wastes generated in a 
variety of industries. In addition, there are also a significant number 
of facilities that are dedicated exclusively to the recovery of a 
single metal. For other facilities, waste treatment is merely an 
ancillary component of the industrial operation at the facility. There 
are still others engaged in industrial activities that the acceptance 
and treatment of waste (not generated in their own production 
operations) represents a substantial and integral aspect of the 
business.
    EPA has always intended that these guidelines would regulate the 
first category of waste treaters. It has struggled, however, with how 
to draw the line, for purposes of applying this rule between the other 
types of operations. For example, as noted above, there are certain 
industries that recover a single metal. EPA has already developed 
guidelines specifically addressing their particular industrial 
processes and pollutants. In those circumstances it would make little 
sense to subject them to regulations developed for waste treatment 
operations treating a mixture of different wastes.\2\ The data 
collected for this effort, however, clearly show that there are other 
industrial operations whose waste treatment operations treat a variety 
of wastes from on-site and off-site sources. The wastes treated at 
these industries do not look substantially different from those being 
treated at facilities engaged exclusively in waste treatment. The 
discussion below explains how EPA has decided to strike the balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA has already established national effluent guidelines and 
standards for certain metals recovery operations. See, for example, 
subpart C of 40 CFR part 421--Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point 
Source Category that establishes limitations and standards 
applicable to discharges resulting from the recovery, processing and 
remelting of aluminum scraps to produce metallic aluminum alloys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The universe of facilities which are potentially subject to this 
guideline generally includes the following. First, except where noted 
otherwise, EPA is establishing limitations and standards for stand-
alone waste treatment and recovery facilities receiving materials from 
off-site--classic ``centralized waste treaters.'' These facilities may 
treat either for disposal or for recovery or recycle hazardous or non-
hazardous waste, hazardous or non-hazardous

[[Page 81254]]

wastewater, or used material received from off-site. Second, while EPA 
is generally not subjecting discharges from waste treatment systems at 
facilities primarily engaged in other industrial operations to the 
scope of this rule, the rule will regulate at least a portion of their 
wastewater in certain circumstances. Thus, industrial facilities which 
process their own, on-site generated, process wastewater along with 
hazardous or non-hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used material 
received from off-site may be subject to this rule with respect to a 
portion of their discharge unless certain conditions are met.
    The wastewater flows covered by this rule include some or all flows 
related to off-site waste receipts and on-site CWT wastewater generated 
as a result of CWT operations. The kinds of on-site CWT wastewater 
generated at these facilities include, for example, the following: 
solubilization wastewater, emulsion breaking/gravity separation 
wastewater, used oil processing wastewater, treatment equipment washes, 
transport washes (tanker truck, drum, and roll-off boxes), laboratory-
derived wastewater, air pollution control wastewater, landfill 
wastewater from on-site landfills, and contaminated storm water. 
Chapter 14 of the technical development document provides detailed 
discussion of CWT wastewaters.
    The way EPA has expressed the applicability provisions of the final 
rule is to apply the provisions of this rule to all wastewater 
discharges to a receiving stream or the introduction of wastewater to a 
publicly owned treatment works from a facility that this regulation 
defines as a centralized waste treatment facility unless specifically 
excluded. The following sections discuss the applicability of the CWT 
rule to various wastewater discharges associated with centralized waste 
treatment operations.
    EPA received numerous comments on the 1995 proposal and 1996 Notice 
of Data Availability concerning the applicability of this rule to 
various operations. Consequently, EPA devoted significant discussion in 
the 1999 supplemental proposal to applicability issues. Again, in 
response, EPA received numerous comments on applicability issues. Many 
commenters were simply seeking clarification of the coverage of this 
rule to a specific operation. Table V.A-1 below provides a general 
summary of regulated and non-regulated CWT operations. EPA presents a 
detailed discussion of these operations in V.B through V.Z.

                      Table V.A-1.--Examples of Regulated and Non-Regulated CWT Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Centralized waste  treatment                                Not regulated by this    For further information
              activity                 Regulated by this rule            rule                      see
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those performed at federally owned    All federally owned CWT  None...................  V.E
 facilities.                           operations.
POTWs...............................  None...................  All....................  V.F
Thermal drying of POTW biosolids....  None...................  All....................  V.H
Sanitary wastes or toilet wastes....  None...................  All....................  V.Y
Food processing wastes..............  None...................  All....................  V.X
Manufacturing facilities............  Those that accept off-   All others.............  V.B
                                       site wastes for
                                       treatment and/or
                                       recovery that are not
                                       generated in a
                                       manufacturing process
                                       subject to the same
                                       limitations/standards
                                       as on-site generated
                                       waste and that the
                                       permit writer
                                       determines are not
                                       similar to, and
                                       compatible with
                                       treatment of, the on-
                                       site waste.
Product stewardship.................  Those that accept waste  Those that accept back   V.D
                                       materials from use of    their unused products,
                                       their products that      shipping and storage
                                       are not similar to,      containers with
                                       and compatible with,     product residues, and
                                       treatment of waste       off-specification
                                       generated on-site.       products.
Petroleum refineries (SIC Code 2911)  For off-site materials   Those that receive and   V.B
 and petroleum distribution            other than those         manage off-site
 terminals (SIC Code 4612, 4613,       listed in the next       petroleum-containing
 5171, 5172).                          column, see discussion   materials generated by
                                       for manufacturing        petroleum exploration,
                                       facilities.              production,
                                                                transportation,
                                                                refining and marketing
                                                                activities.
Pulp and paper off-site landfill      Those that accept off-   All others.............  V.B
 leachates.                            site landfill
                                       leachates for
                                       treatment and/or
                                       recovery that are not
                                       generated in a
                                       manufacturing process
                                       subject to the same
                                       limitations/standards
                                       as on-site generated
                                       waste and that the
                                       permit writer
                                       determines are not
                                       similar to, and
                                       compatible with, the
                                       on-site waste.
Pipeline materials..................  Materials received via   All other piped          V.C
                                       pipeline from waste      materials and POTWs.
                                       consolidators or
                                       commingled with other
                                       covered CWT
                                       wastewaters.
Recycle/recovery activities.........  All unless specifically  .......................  V.Q
                                       excluded elsewhere.
Traditional solvent recovery........  None...................  All....................  V.T
Fuel blenders.......................  Those that generate a    ``Dry'' operations.....  V.T
                                       wastewater.
Scrap metals recyclers..............  None...................  All....................  V.M
Silver recovery.....................  Only included where      All others.............  V.R
                                       wastewater generated
                                       from these activities
                                       is commingled with
                                       other covered wastes.
Used oil filters & only absorbent     Those that generate a    ``Dry'' operations.....  V.V
 recycling.                            wastewater.
High Temperature Metals Recovery      Those that generate a    ``Dry'' operations.....  V.S
 (HTMR).                               wastewater.

[[Page 81255]]

 
Used glycol recovery................  All....................  None...................  V.Q
Re-refining.........................  All....................  None...................  V.U
Solids, soils, and sludges..........  Those activities which   ``Dry'' operations.....  V.L
                                       generate a wastewater
                                       unless specifically
                                       excluded.
Stabilization/Solidification........  Those that generate a    ``Dry'' operations.....  V.O
                                       wastewater.
Transfer stations and recycling       None...................  All....................  V.N
 centers.
Incineration activities.............  Only included when the   All others.............  V.K
                                       wastewater generated
                                       from these activities
                                       is received from off-
                                       site and commingled
                                       with other covered
                                       wastewater.
Transportation and/or transportation  Only included where      All others.............  V.I
 equipment cleaning.                   wastewater generated
                                       from these activities
                                       is commingled with
                                       other covered waters.
Landfills...........................  Only included where      All others.............  V.J
                                       wastewater generated
                                       from these activities
                                       is commingled with
                                       other covered waters.
Grease trap/interceptor wastes......  Those which contain      Those which contain      V.W
                                       petroleum based oils.    animal or vegetable
                                                                fats/oils.
Marine generated wastes.............  Off-loaded and           All others.............  V.G
                                       subsequently sent to a
                                       CWT facility at a
                                       separate location and
                                       commingled with other
                                       covered wastewater.
Waste, wastewater or used material    Those activities not     Not covered if the       V.P
 re-use.                               listed in the next       wastewater is accepted
                                       column or excluded       for use in place of
                                       elsewhere.               potable water or if
                                                                materials are accepted
                                                                in place of virgin
                                                                treatment chemicals.
Treatability, research and            Only included where      All others.............  V.Z
 development, or analytical            wastewater generated
 activities.                           from these activities
                                       is commingled with
                                       other covered waters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Manufacturing Facilities

    Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has contemplated that 
the rule would apply to wastewater discharges from facilities that, 
while primarily engaged in other industrial operations, also may treat 
and/or treat for recovery or recycle off-site wastes or used materials. 
These facilities primarily treat wastes generated as a result of their 
own on-site manufacturing operations. Their wastewater discharges are, 
by and large, already subject to effluent guidelines and standards. 
(Some treatment operations, however, may be located at manufacturing 
facilities which are not subject to effluent guidelines and standards). 
All of these facilities also accept off-site generated wastes for 
treatment. In some instances, a facility under the same corporate 
ownership generates these off-site wastes. The facility treats these 
intra-company transfers on a non-commercial basis. In other instances, 
the off-site wastestreams originate from a company under a different 
ownership-- an inter-company transfer. In some instances, the off-site 
wastes received at these industrial facilities are generated by a 
facility performing the same manufacturing operations, while in other 
instances, the off-site wastestreams are generated by facilities 
engaged in entirely unrelated manufacturing operations. Some receive a 
constant wastestream from only a handful of customers and some receive 
a wide variety of wastestreams from hundreds of customers.
    EPA received extensive comment concerning how the CWT rule should 
apply to facilities that provide waste treatment and/or recovery 
operations for off-site generated wastes, but whose primary business is 
something other than waste treatment or recovery. In general, 
commenters urged EPA to limit the scope of the regulation in one of 
several ways. Commenters suggested restricting the scope either to:
     Facilities whose sole purpose is the treatment of off-site 
wastes and wastewaters; or
     Facilities which only accept off-site wastes on a 
commercial basis; or
     Facilities which accept off-site wastes which are not 
produced as a result of industrial operations subject to the same 
effluent guidelines and standards as the on-site generated wastes or 
off-site wastes which are not compatible with the on-site generated 
wastes and the on-site wastewater treatment system; or
     Manufacturing facilities which accept off-site wastes in 
excess of a de minimis level.
    In the supplemental proposal, EPA proposed subjecting centralized 
waste treatment operations at manufacturing facilities to the 
provisions of the rule unless one of the following conditions was met:
     In the case of manufacturing facilities subject to 
national effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources, 
standards of performance for new sources, or pretreatment standards for 
new and existing sources (national effluent guidelines and standards), 
if the process or operation generating the wastes received from off-
site for treatment is subject to the same national effluent guidelines 
and standards as the process or operation generating the on-site 
wastes; or
     In the case of manufacturing facilities not subject to 
existing national effluent guidelines and standards, if the process or 
operation generating the waste received from off-site is from the same 
industry (other than the waste treatment industry) and of a similar 
nature to the waste generated on-site.
    After careful consideration of comments and further review of its 
database, EPA continues to regard this approach as appropriate, with 
some modifications. EPA has concluded that many manufacturing 
facilities, even though they are engaged primarily in another business, 
are also engaged in traditional CWT activities and, therefore, should 
be subject to this rule.

[[Page 81256]]

EPA has been unable to establish any direct correlation between the 
source of the off-site waste (intra-company or inter-company) and the 
similarity (or compatibility with) of the off-site waste to the on-site 
generated wastes that would support a blanket exclusion from this rule 
for intra-company waste treatment. EPA further concludes that all off-
site wastewaters should be treated effectively irrespective of their 
volume, or their volume in relation to the volume of on-site generated 
waste and, thus, has rejected any exception for small volumes. As 
explained in the 1999 proposal, EPA's primary concern is that the 
effluent guidelines and standards currently in place for one industry 
may not ensure adequate treatment for wastes generated at another 
industry.
    EPA has, however, concluded that there are circumstances where an 
off-site waste will receive adequate treatment at the treating facility 
even though the off-site waste may be generated by a manufacturing 
process that (if treated at the generating location) would be subject 
to a different set of effluent guidelines and standards than the 
effluent guidelines and standards applicable to the treating site. The 
record for this rule provides information and data on such facilities 
that support EPA's conclusion. An example is a pesticide formulating 
and packaging facility (PFPR), subject to 40 CFR 455 Subpart C, which 
sends its wastewaters off-site for treatment to a facility which 
manufactures the pesticide active ingredients. (The manufacturing 
facility is subject to a separate set of effluent guidelines and 
standards specific to pesticide manufacturers, 40 CFR 455 Subpart A and 
B). In this case, the same pollutants are likely to be present in the 
off-site and on-site generated wastewaters, even though the wastewaters 
are subject to different regulations. Therefore, the treating facility 
will need to use treatment appropriate for efficient removal of these 
pollutants. This situation would not be covered by this rule.
    As a second example, consider a petroleum refinery that accepts 
off-site wastewaters. If the petroleum refinery (SIC Code 2911) accepts 
wastes generated off-site at petroleum distribution terminals (SIC Code 
4612, 4613, 5171, and 5172), then the former is subject to effluent 
guidelines and standards for petroleum refineries (40 CFR 419), but the 
latter is not currently subject to any national effluent guidelines. 
However, the wastewaters generated at petroleum marketing terminals are 
based on materials manufactured at the refineries, and therefore would 
likely reflect the same pollutant profile. This situation would not be 
covered by this rule.
    A third example involves clean-up activities at manufacturing 
sites. As part of clean-up operations at its facility, one commenter 
(called facility A) noted that it accepts contaminated groundwater from 
a different manufacturing facility located next door (facility B). The 
contaminated groundwater site (while not located on facility A, the 
treating facility) was contaminated by the manufacturing process at the 
treating site (facility A) and not at the site where located (facility 
B). As such, the contaminated wastewater would be similar and 
compatible with the on-site generated wastewater at facility A. In this 
case, the CWT rule would not apply.
    EPA received information on each of the examples provided in 
comment on the rule. The comments detail instances in which the off-
site wastewaters, while not subject to the same national effluent 
guidelines and standards as the wastewater generated on-site, are 
similar to the on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and 
compatible with the on-site treatment system. In these cases, EPA 
concluded that the application of the CWT rule may not result in 
increased environmental protection, but simply add an additional layer 
of complexity for the treating facility and the permit writer or 
control authority.
    Furthermore, EPA determined there are other instances of off-site 
waste acceptance at manufacturing facilities in which the off-site 
wastes, while not from the same industrial category, are similar to the 
on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and compatible with the 
manufacturing wastewater treatment system. Consequently, for purposes 
of this rule, EPA has decided that, where the dischargers establishes 
that the wastes being treated are of similar nature and compatible with 
treatment of the on-site wastes, the CWT limitations and standards will 
not apply to the resulting discharge. EPA concluded that, in those 
circumstances, the permit writer or control authority should instead 
apply the limitations or standards applicable to the treatment of on-
site wastewater to wastewaters generated through treatment of the off-
site waste. Under the approach adopted for the final rule, the permit 
writer or control authority will determine whether the off-site 
generated waste accepted for treatment and/or recovery at a 
manufacturing facility (whether subject to national effluent guidelines 
and standards or not) and commingled for treatment in the on-site 
treatment system is similar to the on-site generated wastes and 
compatible with the on-site treatment system. If it is, then the 
discharge of the treated effluent should be subject to the applicable 
on-site limitations (or standards) even if the off-site wastes would be 
subject to a different set of national effluent guidelines and 
standards as the on-site generated wastes (or no national effluent 
guidelines and standards) if treated where generated. In the event that 
the permit writer or control authority makes this determination, the 
treating facility would be subject to the on-site limits only and not 
subject to the CWT guideline.
    For this final rule, EPA has not rigidly defined when a waste is of 
similar character and the treatment of it is compatible with the 
treatment of the on-site wastes, believing that permit writers and 
control authorities are in the best position to determine this term. 
Permit writers and control authorities should compare the wastewaters 
at the manufacturing facility to the off-site generated wastewaters 
(constituents and concentrations) and the appropriateness of the 
treatment system to the off-site generated wastewaters on a case by 
case basis. The final guideline commits the decision that an off-site 
wastewater is similar and compatible (and thus whether CWT limitations 
or standards would apply) to the permit writer or control authority. A 
treating facility must submit information demonstrating to the permit 
writer or control authority that the off-site waste is similar and 
compatible. EPA cautions permit writers and control authorities that 
the judgment of ``similar and compatible'' should be made based only on 
the development of a full record on this issue. If the treating 
facility has not clearly established that the off-site wastewaters are 
similar to the on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and 
compatible with the treatment system in the permit writer's or control 
authority's best judgment, the permit writer or control authority must 
apply the CWT limitations (or standards) to the treating facility.
    Therefore, EPA has concluded that centralized waste treatment 
operations at manufacturing facilities will be subject to provisions of 
the rule unless one of the following conditions is met:
     In the case of a facility subject to national effluent 
limitation guidelines for existing sources, standards of performance 
for new sources, or pretreatment standards for new and existing 
sources, if the facility demonstrates that the wastes received

[[Page 81257]]

from off-site for treatment and/or recovery are generated in a process 
or operation that would be subject to the same national effluent 
guidelines and standards as the process or operation generating the on-
site wastes; or
     In the case of a facility subject to national effluent 
guidelines and standards if the facility demonstrates that the waste 
received from off-site is similar in nature to the waste generated on-
site and compatible with the on-site treatment system; or
     In the case of a facility not subject to national effluent 
limitations and standards, if the facility demonstrates that the waste 
received from off-site is similar in nature to the waste generated on-
site and compatible with the on-site treatment system.
    EPA contemplates that this approach would be implemented in the 
following manner. A facility that is currently subject to national 
effluent limitation guidelines or pretreatment standards receives 
wastewater from off-site for treatment. The wastewater is commingled 
for treatment with manufacturing wastewater generated on-site. If the 
off-site wastewater is subject to the same limitations or standards as 
the onsite wastewater (or would be if treated where generated) or if 
the off-site wastewater is similar to the onsite wastewater and 
compatible with the treatment system, the CWT limitations or standards 
would not apply to the discharge associated with the off-site 
wastewater flows. In that case, another guideline or standard applies. 
If, however, the off-site wastewater is not subject to the same 
national limitation guidelines or standards (or if none exist) and if 
the off-site wastewater is not similar to the onsite wastewater and 
compatible with the treatment system, that portion of the discharge 
associated with the off-site flow would be subject to CWT requirements. 
(Of course, the portion of the wastewater generated on-site remains 
subject to applicable limitations and standards for the facility. If 
the off-site and on-site wastewaters are commingled prior to discharge, 
the permit writer or control authority would use the ``combined 
wastestream formula'' or ``building block approach'' to determine 
limitations for the commingled wastestream).
    Certain facilities that are subject to the CWT regulations because 
they accept wastes whose treatment is not compatible with the treatment 
of wastes generated on-site may nevertheless be subject to limitations 
and standards based on the otherwise applicable provisions of 40 CFR 
Subchapter N. Thus, the final regulations provide for the permit writer 
or pretreatment control authority to develop ``alternative limitations 
and standards'' for certain facilities in a narrow set of 
circumstances. See e.g., 40 CFR 437.10(b). Under this approach, which 
EPA discussed in the 1999 proposal, permit writers or control 
authorities could require manufacturing facilities that treat off-site 
wastes to meet all otherwise-applicable categorical limitations and 
standards for the industries from which the waste was generated. This 
approach would also determine limitations or standards for any 
commingled on-site and off-site wastewater using the ``combined 
wastestream formula'' or ``building block approach.'' The permit writer 
or control authority would apply the categorical limitations or 
standards from the industries generating the wastewater, rather than 
the CWT limitations or standards, to the off-site portion of the 
commingled wastestream. The use of the combined wastestream formula and 
building block approaches for CWT wastes is discussed further in 
Section XIV.F of the 1999 proposal (64 FR 2342-2343). The permit writer 
(or pretreatment control authority) may establish alternative 
limitations and standards only when a facility receives continuous 
flows of process wastewaters with relatively consistent pollutant 
profiles from no more than five customers. EPA's information shows 
that, in practice, permit writers are currently following this approach 
for facilities that treat off-site waste for no more than five 
facilities. This approach is not appropriate for facilities that 
receive variable off-site wastewaters or that service more than a 
handful of customers.
    After further consideration of the above described alternative and 
careful consideration of comments received on this alternative, EPA 
determined that the permit writer (or local pretreatment authority) 
should have the option in a limited set of circumstances of applying 
the applicable categorical limitations or standards to the off-site 
wastestreams. This is the approach described above. Thus, the final 
rule authorizes permit writers or control authorities (at their 
discretion) to subject the wastewater associated with the treatment of 
the off-site wastes to limitations or standards based on the 
categorical limitations or standards from the industries generating the 
wastewater, rather than applying the CWT limitations or standards to 
the off-site portion of the commingled wastestream. Consequently, the 
applicability provisions of Subparts A, B, C and D provide for such 
authority. See 40 CFR 437.10(b), 437.20(b), 437.30(b) & 437.40(b).

C. Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems)

    EPA did not propose to apply CWT limitations and standards to 
facilities that receive off-site wastes for treatment solely via an 
open or enclosed conduit (for example, pipeline, channels, ditches, 
trenches, etc.). EPA did not propose to include pipeline facilities 
because, based on information obtained by the Agency, facilities that 
receive all their wastes through a pipeline or trench (fixed delivery 
systems) from the original source of waste generation receive 
continuous flows of process wastewater with relatively consistent 
pollutant profiles. These wastewaters are traditional wastewaters from 
the applicable industrial category that generally remain constant from 
day to day in terms of the concentration and type of pollutant 
parameters. Unlike traditional CWT facilities, their customers and 
wastewater sources do not change and are limited by the physical and 
monetary constraints associated with pipelines. The preamble to the 
1999 proposal provides additional detail on the characteristics of CWT 
facilities that accept waste for treatment through pipelines only (64 
FR 2286-2287). The preamble also explained that permit writers were 
applying the ``building block approach,'' in writing current discharge 
permits for pipeline facilities and that in all cases examined, the 
treating facility was required to comply with otherwise applicable 
effluent guidelines and standards.
    EPA did not receive any information in response to the 1999 
proposed rule that has convinced the Agency to change its treatment of 
pipeline facilities for purposes of this rule. Consequently, the scope 
of this final rule excludes wastes that are piped to waste treatment 
facilities. See 40 CFR 437.1(b)(3). These wastes will continue to be 
subject to otherwise applicable effluent guidelines and standards. In 
EPA's view, it is more appropriate for permit writers and control 
authorities to develop restrictions for treatment facilities that 
receive wastewater by pipeline on an individual basis by applying the 
``combined wastestream formula'' or ``building block'' approach.
    There are two exceptions to this approach. The first is for 
facilities that receive waste via conduit (that is, pipeline, trenches, 
ditches, etc.) from facilities that are acting merely as waste 
collection or consolidation centers that are not the original source of 
the waste. These wastewaters are subject to the CWT rule. The basis for 
EPA's exclusion

[[Page 81258]]

of waste treatment facilities receiving wastes by pipeline from the 
scope of the rule was that such facilities did not receive the same 
types of varying wastes as CWT facilities receiving wastes by truck or 
tanker. Pipeline facilities receive flows of wastes with consistent 
pollutant profiles. Waste consolidators, on the other hand, which send 
their flows to a treatment facility via pipeline are delivering wastes 
like those typically received by CWT facilities in tanks or trucks. See 
40 CFR 437.1(b)(3). The second is for facilities that serve as both CWT 
facilities and pipeline facilities (i.e., receive waste from off-site 
via pipeline as well as some other mode of transportation such as 
trucks). If this type of facility commingles the trucked and piped 
waste prior to discharge, then both the trucked and piped wastewaters 
at these facilities are subject to the CWT rule. The basis for the 
pipeline exclusion no longer applies because the addition of hauled 
waste introduces variability in pollutant concentrations and 
characteristics that are not true for the piped wastes. See 40 CFR 
437.1(b)(3). However, if such a facility discharges these wastewaters 
separately, then only the trucked off-site wastewater is subject to 
provisions of the CWT rule and the piped waste subject to limitations 
and standards based on the applicable 40 CFR Subchapter N limitations 
and standards. POTWs are not considered CWTs and are not subject to the 
limitations and standards of this rule. However, as discussed more 
fully in Section V.F, POTWs should not be receiving wastes from 
industrial users subject to national effluent guidelines and standards 
(either by pipeline or otherwise) that do not comply with applicable 
pretreament standards.

D. Product Stewardship

    As detailed in the proposed rule (64 FR 2287), many members of the 
manufacturing community have adopted ``product stewardship'' programs 
as an additional service for their customers to promote recycling and 
reuse of products and to reduce the potential for adverse environmental 
impacts from chemical products. Commenters defined ``product 
stewardship'' in this way: ``Taking back spent, used, or unused 
products, shipping and storage containers with product residues, off-
specification products and waste materials from use of products.'' 
Generally, whenever possible, these manufacturing plants recover and 
reuse materials from these products in chemical processes at their 
facilities. Manufacturing companies that cannot reuse the spent, used, 
or unused materials treat these materials/wastewaters in their 
wastewater treatment plants. EPA's review of the comments suggests 
that, with few exceptions, the materials treated in the on-site 
wastewater treatment systems were produced at facilities subject to the 
same effluent limitations guidelines as the materials being 
manufactured on-site. In industry's view, such materials are inherently 
compatible with the treatment system.
    In the proposal, EPA explained that it had decided it would treat 
wastewater generated from materials that are taken back for recycle or 
re-use under a product stewardship program in the same way it proposed 
to treat wastewater generated in treating any other off-site waste. If 
the materials received from off-site under the product stewardship 
program are produced at an industrial operation subject to the same 
limitations and standards in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the on-site 
generated manufacturing wastes, the treating facility would not be 
subject to CWT requirements with respect to the resulting wastewaters. 
Because EPA remained concerned that circumstances exist in which used 
materials or waste products may not be compatible with the otherwise 
existing treatment system, EPA did not propose a blanket exemption for 
product stewardship activities from the scope of this rulemaking. Under 
the proposal, wastewater from the treatment of used products or waste 
materials would be subject to the CWT rule if it were not produced at 
facilities subject to the same provisions of Subchapter N as wastewater 
from the treatment of the other on-site generated wastes.
    EPA received numerous comments on this approach. Many commenters 
claimed that the proposed rule would deter product stewardship 
activities, and that EPA should not extend the rule to cover wastewater 
from certain product stewardship activities. Some commented that these 
materials are generally not ``treated,'' but re-used or recovered, and 
for that reason they were fundamentally different from other wastes in 
the CWT industry. Others commented that while EPA's intent seemed to be 
appropriate, the language was much too restrictive. For example, 
commenters noted that when a product goes off-site to another 
manufacturing facility that is subject to different effluent limitation 
guidelines and standards, the product (while it remains unchanged) 
would then be subject to a different set of effluent limitations or 
standards. If the manufacturing facilities which originally produced 
the product took back the off-spec product from its customer, the 
proposal as written, would require that the treating facility be 
subject to CWT even though the off-spec waste would clearly be the same 
as those generated on-site.
    EPA applauds the efforts of manufacturing facilities to reduce 
pollution and the environmental impacts of their products and does not 
want to discourage these practices. Consequently, the final rule does 
not cover product stewardship activities in certain circumstances. 
Product stewardship activities at a manufacturing facility which 
involve taking back their unused products, shipping and storage 
containers with product residues, and off-spec products will not be 
subject to provisions of the CWT rule.
    Certain other recovery activities may, however, remain subject to 
this rule. EPA is concerned about the treatment of spent, used or waste 
materials returned to the original manufacturer when it is treated with 
on-site wastewater. In some cases, wastewater from these recovery 
processes may not be compatible with the existing treatment system. The 
mere fact that these materials may be accepted for re-use or recycling 
rather than ``treatment'' does not ensure that resulting wastewaters 
would be inherently compatible with the treatment system. EPA is unable 
to see how such activities differ from waste recovery operations that 
the Agency has concluded should be subject to these guidelines. Here is 
an illustrative example. An inorganic chemical manufacturer produces 
industrial chemicals that one of its customers uses in the manufacture 
of printed circuit boards. The chemical manufacturer accepts spent 
etchants (waste materials from use of product) from its customer for 
recovery and re-use of certain metals in its inorganic chemical 
manufacturing process. (Note that CWT facilities not located at 
manufacturing sites also accept spent etchants). The recovery process 
generates a wastewater. Recovery may have introduced into the 
wastewater many pollutants that were not present in the wastewater 
generated in producing the inorganic chemical. These pollutants may not 
be compatible with, or effectively treated, in the treatment process at 
the inorganic chemical manufacturing facility. The same may be true if 
the accepting facility determined that spent etchant could not be 
effectively reused and recovered and directed the material to their 
wastewater treatment system.
    Therefore, EPA has concluded that product stewardship activities 
that involve taking back spent, used or waste materials from use of 
products should,

[[Page 81259]]

as a general matter, be subject to provisions of this rule unless any 
of the exclusions established for manufacturing facilities as explained 
in V.B. would apply. See 40 CFR Sec. 437.1(b)(2) & (4). Thus, those 
activities that involve used products or waste materials that are not 
subject to effluent guidelines or standards from the same category as 
the on-site generated wastes or that are not similar to the on-site 
generated manufacturing wastes and compatible with the treatment 
systems (as determined by the permit writer or control authority) are 
subject to today's rulemaking under 40 CFR Sec. 437.1(b)(2). EPA 
concluded that this approach will not curtail product stewardship 
activities, in general, but will ensure that all wastes are treated 
effectively.

E. Federally Owned Facilities

    Throughout development of this rule, EPA's database has included 
information on CWT facilities owned by the federal government. It has 
always been EPA's intention that federal facilities which accept 
wastes, wastewater, or used material from off-site for treatment and/or 
recovery of materials would be subject to provisions of this rule 
unless they meet the conditions under which the rule would not apply, 
e.g. treated off-site wastes subject to the same 40 CFR Subchapter N 
provisions as the federal facility.
    EPA's database contains information on 23 federally owned 
facilities that operate treatment systems. EPA has determined that 15 
of these facilities are not subject to provisions of the CWT rule 
because they do not accept off-site wastes. Of the remaining 
facilities, 6 are not subject to provisions of the CWT rule because 
they perform CWT activities to which the rule would not apply. 
Therefore, EPA has identified 1 federally owned CWT facility that is 
subject to this rule. EPA has included this facility in all of its 
analyses.

F. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

    Comments to the 1995 and 1999 CWT proposals establish that large 
and small POTWs accept a large volume of hauled wastes. A special 
discharge survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage 
Agencies (AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of POTW respondents accept 
hauled industrial wastes. More recent comments suggest that this may 
underestimate the volume of hauled wastes POTWs receive.
    A large quantity of the wastes trucked to POTWs is septage and 
chemical toilet wastes. EPA did not evaluate these wastes for 
regulation and they are not subject to this rule. EPA would expect that 
POTWs would adequately treat these sanitary waste flows because EPA 
would expect septage and chemical toilet wastes to closely resemble 
sewage with respect to organic content.
    POTWs also receive significant volumes of trucked industrial and 
commercial wastes. Examples of these include wastes subject to 
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR subchapter N, as well as wastes not 
subject to national effluent guidelines and standards. These wastes may 
include oil-water emulsions or mixtures, coolants, tank cleaning water, 
bilge water, restaurant grease trap wastes, groundwater remediation 
water, contaminated storm water run-off, interceptor wastewaters, and 
used glycols. CWT facilities also treat many of these wastes and 
discharges from these operations may be subject to the final CWT 
limits.
    EPA received numerous comments on how the CWT rule should apply to 
POTWs. Commenters were largely divided on the applicability of the CWT 
rule to POTWs. All of the POTWs that commented on the proposal agreed 
that the CWT rule should not apply to POTWs. They stated that under the 
CWA, effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards do not apply to 
POTWs. Rather, as established by the CWA, POTWs are subject to 
secondary treatment and water quality standards. These commenters 
further stated that POTWs generally accept trucked wastes as a service 
to their community to insure that these wastes receive proper 
treatment. Commenting POTWs further cited that trucked wastes comprise 
a de minimis portion of the total volume of wastewater treated at their 
facilities.
    Non-POTW commenters were, on the other hand, unanimously of the 
view that the CWT rule should apply to POTWs. These commenters asserted 
that POTWs and CWT facilities are competing for many of the same 
wastestreams, and therefore POTWs should be subject to the same 
standards as CWT facilities. These commenters stated that POTWs are 
actively competing for wastestreams not subject to national effluent 
guidelines and standards, and cautioned that EPA should be concerned 
that this hauled waste is being accepted with little or no 
documentation regarding the source, little or no monitoring of the 
shipments when they arrive, and no pretreatment before mixing with the 
normal POTW influent. They also expressed concern that POTWs often do 
not have equivalent treatment compared to CWT facilities and that 
pollutant reductions are often due to dilution rather than treatment. 
Finally, many CWT facilities commented that by not including POTWs in 
the scope of the CWT rule, EPA might actually increase the discharge of 
pollutants to the nation's waters since waste generators will have an 
incentive to ship directly to POTWs thus skipping what would have been 
effective pretreatment at the CWT facility.
    It is clear from reviewing the comments that many commenters may 
misunderstand the interaction between effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards, and they are consequently confused about how 
this guideline will affect POTW operations. The following discussion is 
intended as clarification. Under the CWA, all direct dischargers must 
comply with technology-based effluent guidelines and any more stringent 
limitations necessary to meet State water quality standards. In the 
case of certain pollutants and for certain categories and classes of 
direct dischargers, EPA promulgates guidelines that establish these 
technology-based limitations. In the case of POTWs, the CWA 
specifically identifies the technology--secondary treatment that is the 
basis for POTW effluent limitations.
    In addition, the CWA also requires EPA to establish pretreatment 
standards for indirect dischargers--those introducing wastewater to a 
POTW either by pipe or sewer or by transporting the waste by truck or 
rail to the POTW. These standards are designed to prevent the 
discharges of pollutants that pass-through, interfere or are otherwise 
incompatible with POTW operations. The standards are technology-based 
and analogous to technology-based effluent limitations applicable to 
direct dischargers. Once EPA has established pretreatment standards, no 
indirect discharger may introduce wastewater to a POTW for which there 
are pretreatment standards except in compliance with the standard. The 
CWA specifically prohibits the owner or operator of any source from 
violating a pretreatment standard. See section 307(d) of the CWA. This 
prohibition applies whether the wastewater is discharged through a 
sewer system or sent to a POTW by truck or rail.
    The CWA does authorize a POTW, in limited circumstances, to revise 
pretreatment standards for a discharger to take account of the POTW's 
actual removal of a particular pollutant. ``Removal credits'' may be 
available to a discharger generally under the following conditions. 
First, the granting of the removal credit by the POTW must not cause a 
violation of the POTW's permit limitations or conditions.

[[Page 81260]]

Second, the POTW's treatment of the pollutant must not result in a 
sewage sludge that cannot be use of disposed of in accordance with 
sewage sludge regulations promulgated pursuant to section 405 of the 
CWA. See section 307(b) of the CWA.
    EPA has promulgated regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 (General 
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution) 
that establish pretreatment standards and requirements that apply to 
any source introducing pollutants from a non-domestic source into a 
POTW. These standards include a general prohibition on the introduction 
of any pollutant that might pass through or interfere as well as 
prohibitions on specific pollutants such as those that may create a 
fire or explosion hazard or corrosive structural damage. EPA has also 
promulgated national effluent pretreatment standards (like the 
pretreatment standards promulgated here today) for specific industry 
categories as separate regulations at 40 CFR subchapter N.
    The regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 also require all POTWs with a 
design flow greater than 5 MGD per day to develop a pretreatment 
program. Moreover, EPA or a State may require a POTW with a design flow 
that is less than or equal to 5 MGD to develop a pretreatment program 
if warranted by circumstances in order to prevent pass through or 
interference. See 40 CFR 403.8(a). These pretreatment programs must 
require compliance with all applicable pretreatment standards and 
requirements by industrial users of the POTW. See 40 CFR 403.8(f)(ii). 
Furthermore, each POTW developing a pretreatment program must develop 
and enforce specific local limits to implement the general and specific 
prohibition against pass-through and interference. See 40 CFR 403.5(c). 
Thus, any POTW subject to the requirement to develop a pretreatment 
program that accepts waste that does not comply with a general or 
specific prohibition or with national effluent pretreatment standards 
is in violation of the regulations.
    Consequently, following promulgation of today's rule, POTWs with 
pretreatment programs that receive wastestreams both subject to and not 
regulated by national effluent standards and limitations must ensure 
the wastestreams do not violate these requirements. In practice, with 
respect to the wastestreams discussed by commenters, this means that a 
POTW may not accept untreated wastestreams subject to national effluent 
guidelines and standards. These would include wastestreams subject to 
pretreatment standards in 40 CFR subchapter N (e.g., electroplating 
wastes). Moreover, a POTW may not accept certain other streams not 
subject to national guidelines and standards such as oil-water 
emulsions or mixtures if those streams contain pollutants that would 
pass through or interfere with POTW operation. Note that 40 CFR 
403.5(b)(5) specifically prohibits the introduction into a POTW of 
petroleum oil that will cause pass-through or interference. Given EPA's 
conclusion here that oily wastewaters contain pollutants that will pass 
through POTWs, it is likely that many POTWs are accepting wastes for 
treatment that contain pollutants that will pass through.
    EPA is concerned that wastestreams accepted at POTWs, both those 
subject to and those not regulated by national effluent guidelines and 
standards, receive proper treatment. In 1999, EPA's Office of 
Wastewater Management published the ``Guidance Manual for the Control 
of Wastes Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 833-B-98-003, 
September 1999). This document again stresses that national effluent 
pretreatment standards apply to waste generated by national effluent 
guidelines and standards (40 CFR parts 401 to 471), whether the waste 
is introduced to the POTW through the sewer system or hauled to the 
POTW. Moreover, EPA regulations require that POTWs must ensure 
pretreatment of wastes subject to national effluent standards received 
at the POTW regardless of the mode of transportation.
    Similarly, because a POTW must ensure that no user is introducing 
pollutants into the POTW that would pass-through the POTW into the 
receiving waters or interfere with the POTW operation, EPA strongly 
recommends that each POTW should document and monitor all hauled 
wastestreams to ensure that necessary pretreatment steps have been 
performed. The guidance establishes a waste acceptance procedure that 
clearly resembles that generally performed at CWT facilities. Further, 
in the case of wastestreams not subject to national guidelines and 
standards, the POTW should also monitor the hauled wastestreams to 
ensure that pollutant reductions at the POTW will be achieved through 
treatment and not dilution.
    Based on the types of hauled wastewater that commenters have 
indicated POTWs accept, EPA shares the concern of many commenters that 
pollutant reductions in these hauled wastewaters at POTWs are largely 
due to dilution. EPA reminds POTWs that wastewaters that contain 
significant quantities of metal pollutants, significant quantities of 
petroleum-based oil and grease, or significant quantities of non-
biodegradable organic constituents should be pretreated by the 
generating facility or an appropriate treatment facility prior to 
acceptance at the POTW. EPA further reminds POTWs that this remains 
true regardless of whether or not these wastewaters comprise a de 
minimis portion of the total volume of the wastewaters treated at their 
facility. EPA concluded that if POTWs monitor hauled wastes 
appropriately and additionally ensure that all hauled wastes not 
subject to national effluent guidelines and standards can be 
effectively treated with their biological treatment systems then many 
of the issues raised by non-POTW commenters will be alleviated.
    EPA is aware of a POTW that plans to open a wastewater treatment 
system to operate in conjunction with its POTW operations. This 
facility would accept wastewaters subject to national guidelines and 
standards, treat them, and then discharge them to the POTW's treatment 
plant. The acceptance by a POTW of wastes subject to national effluent 
guidelines and standards that do not comply with pretreatment standards 
would seem to violate the requirements noted above unless the POTW has 
revised the applicable standards to take account of its removal of 
certain pollutants. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Sec. 403.7 describe the 
process for obtaining removal credits and identifying the pollutants 
for which removal credits may be available. Under the current 
regulations, removal credits are only available for a limited number of 
pollutants. The 1999 notice described the removal credits program and 
when and for what pollutants such credits might be available at 64 FR 
2339-10. EPA would note that the new wastewater treatment system would 
itself be a POTW (or part of the POTW) and, thus, any wastewater 
introduced to it must meet all applicable pretreatment standards. 
However, because POTWs are already covered by the technology 
requirements (i.e., secondary treatment) specified in the CWA (40 CFR 
133), they are not considered CWT facilities and are not within the 
scope of today's rule.

G. Marine Generated Wastes

    In the proposed rule (64 FR 2291), EPA defined marine waste as 
waste generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a 
ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal or open waters. Such 
wastes may include ballast water, bilge water, and other wastes 
generated as part of routine ship operations. The proposal further 
explained that EPA considered

[[Page 81261]]

wastewater off-loaded from a ship as being generated on-site at the 
point where it is off-loaded provided that the waste is generated as 
part of the routine maintenance and operation of the ship on which it 
originated while at sea. The waste is not considered an off-site 
generated waste (and thus subject to CWT requirements) as long as it is 
treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility where it is off-
loaded. Therefore, EPA proposed not to include these facilities as CWT 
facilities. The proposal further clarified that if marine generated 
wastes are off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility at a 
separate location and commingled with other covered wastewater, these 
facilities and their wastestreams would be subject to provisions of 
this rule.
    After careful consideration of comments, EPA has not modified its 
approach for marine generated waste with one exception. For today's 
rule, EPA defines marine waste as waste generated as part of the normal 
maintenance and operation of a ship, boat, or barge operating on 
inland, coastal or open waters, or while berthed. See 40 CFR 
Sec. 437.1(c)(2). In response to commenters' requests for 
clarification, EPA has changed the definition to clarify that wastes 
generated while ships are berthed are part of normal maintenance and 
operational activities and are thus ``on-site.'' As a further point of 
clarification, waste generated while a ship is berthed is not an off-
site generated waste so long as it is treated and discharged at the 
ship servicing facility where it is off-loaded. If, however, marine 
generated wastes are off-loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility 
at a separate location and commingled with other covered wastewater, 
these facilities and their wastestreams are subject to provisions of 
this rule.

H. Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids

    The thermal drying of POTW biosolids was not a focus of EPA's 
initial regulatory effort to develop this guideline. Consequently, EPA 
did not target thermal dryers during its data collection activities. 
However, commenters to the 1999 proposal provided information on 
thermal drying activities and requested EPA's views as to whether such 
operations would be subject to this rule. Thermal dryers accept off-
site generated POTW biosolids (sludges that remain after wastewater 
treatment at a POTW) and treat these biosolids with a variety of 
technologies (e.g. rotary drum dryers) to form pellets. These biosolids 
can then be land applied. The thermal drying process generates two 
primary wastewater streams: facility water wash down and blowdown from 
wet scrubbers. These wastewaters are discharged back to the POTW that 
produced the biosolids.
    Commenters to the 1999 proposal requested that EPA not include 
these activities within the scope of this rule for the following 
reasons:
     The POTW and the thermal dryer form a closed loop system. 
POTWs are the sole source of off-site waste received by thermal dryers. 
All wastewaters generated from the treatment of these biosolids are 
returned to the generator (the POTW).
     All storage and processing areas at these facilities are 
enclosed. Therefore, this material poses very little or no threat to 
storm water.
     Thermal drying activities bear little resemblance to the 
other regulated activities. Mandated testing parameters and other 
requirements under the CWT rule have little applicability to biosolids 
processing.
    EPA agrees with commenters that thermal drying of biosolids should 
not be subject to provisions of the CWT rule. Because the only source 
of off-site wastes received at these drying facilities is biosolids 
produced at the POTW, the wastewater being generated from thermal 
drying of these biosolids should contain the same pollutants being 
treated at the POTW. As a result, the wastewater should be completely 
compatible with the treatment system at the POTW and should not cause 
any pass-through or interference. Consequently, thermal drying of POTW 
biosolids is not subject to provisions of the CWT rule. See 40 CFR 
437.1(b)(4).

I. Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners

    Facilities that treat wastewater that results from cleaning tanker 
trucks, rail tank cars, or barges may be subject to the provisions of 
this rule if not subject to the Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) 
Point Source Category guidelines (40 CFR Part 442). Thus, for example, 
the CWT rule does not apply to discharges from wastewater treatment at 
facilities engaged exclusively in cleaning the interiors of 
transportation equipment covered by the TEC regulation. EPA promulgated 
these guidelines on August 14, 2000 at 65 FR 49666. The TEC regulation 
applies to facilities that solely accept tanks which have been 
previously emptied or that contain a small amount of product, called a 
``heel,'' typically accounting for less than one percent of the volume 
of the tank. A facility that accepts for cleaning a tank truck, rail 
tank car, or barge not ``empty'' for purposes of TEC may be subject to 
the provisions established for the CWT rule.
    There are some facilities that are engaged in traditional CWT 
activities and also engaged in traditional TEC activities. If the 
wastewaters from the two operations are commingled, under the approach 
adopted for TEC, the commingled wastewater flow from the transportation 
equipment cleaning activities would be subject to CWT limits. 
Therefore, a facility performing transportation equipment cleaning as 
well as other CWT services that commingles these wastes is a CWT 
facility and all of the wastewater discharges are subject to provisions 
of this rule. If, however, a facility is performing both operations and 
the wastestreams are not commingled (that is, transportation equipment 
cleaning process wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are 
treated in a second, separate system), both the TEC rule and CWT rule 
apply to the respective wastewaters. See 40 CFR 437.1(b)(10).
    As a further point of clarification, the CWT rule does apply to 
transportation equipment cleaning wastewater received from off-site. 
Transportation equipment cleaning wastes received from off-site that 
are treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site wastes are 
subject to provisions of this rule.

J. Landfill Wastewaters

    EPA published effluent limitations guidelines for Landfills, (40 
CFR Part 445) at 65 FR 3007, (January 19, 2000). There, EPA established 
limits for facilities which operate landfills subject to the provisions 
established in 40 CFR Parts 257, 258, 264, and 265. The final Landfills 
rule limitations do not apply to wastewater associated with landfills 
operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations 
in most circumstances.
    In the CWT industry, there are some facilities that are engaged 
both in CWT activities and in operating landfills. For the CWT final 
rule, EPA's approach to facilities which treat mixtures of CWT 
wastewater and landfill wastewater is consistent with that established 
for the landfill guideline. Therefore, a facility performing landfill 
activities as well as other CWT services that commingles the wastewater 
is a CWT facility only, and all of the wastewater discharges are 
subject to the provisions of this rule. If a facility is performing 
both operations and the wastestreams are not commingled (that is, 
landfill wastewater is treated in one treatment system and CWT 
wastewater is treated in a second, separate, treatment system), the 
provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT

[[Page 81262]]

rule apply to their respective wastewater.
    Additionally, under the approach established in the Landfills 
rulemaking, CWT facilities which are dedicated to landfill wastewater 
only, whether they are located at a landfill site or not, are subject 
to the effluent limitations for Landfills. These dedicated landfill CWT 
facilities are not subject to provisions of the CWT rulemaking.
    As a further point of clarification, landfill wastewater is not 
specifically excluded from provisions of this rule. Landfill wastewater 
that is treated at CWT facilities along with other covered off-site 
wastestreams are subject to provisions of this rule. Furthermore, a 
landfill that commingles for treatment its own landfill wastewater with 
other landfill wastewater only is subject to the Landfill limits in the 
circumstances described in V.B above.

K. Incineration Activities

    In January of this year, EPA promulgated effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from a limited segment 
of the waste combustion industry. 65 FR 4360 (January 27, 2000). This 
regulation, codified at 40 CFR Part 444, applies to the discharge from 
a ``commercial hazardous waste combustor'' (CHWC). CHWCs are commercial 
incinerators that treat or recover energy from hazardous industrial 
waste.
    There may be certain industrial facilities (for whom EPA has 
established guidelines limitations or standards in 40 CFR subpart N) 
which are subject to the CWT regulation that also operate incinerators 
or CHWCs. For the CWT final rule, EPA has adopted the same approach it 
has followed for other industrial facilities subject to national 
limitations and standards. Where a facility treats CHWC (or other 
incinerator wastewater) with CWT wastewater, the permit writer (or 
local control authority) would establish discharge limitations (or 
pretreatment standards) by using a flow-weighted combination of the 
CHWC limitations/standards (or BPJ incinerator wastewater limitations/
standards) and the CWT limitations/standards. Thus, an organic chemical 
facility with an on-site CHWC (or other incinerator) that is also a CWT 
would be subject to combined wastestream formula pretreatment standards 
or building block limitations based on all three 40 CFR subpart N 
regulations.
    Additionally, a facility which only treats CHWC wastewater (or 
other incinerator wastewaters or waste that is similar in nature as 
determined by the permitting authority, see Section V.B), whether 
located at a CHWC site or not, would be subject not to the CWT 
regulations but to the otherwise applicable limitations or standards 
(either CHWC or, in the case of non-CHWC incinerator wastewater, 
limitations or standards developed by the permit writer or local 
control authority). EPA notes, however, that it has not identified any 
CWT facilities that are dedicated to CHWC (or other incineration) 
wastewaters only.
    Further, incineration wastewaters are not specifically excluded 
from provisions of this rule. Incineration wastewaters received from 
off-site that are treated at CWT facilities along with other covered 
off-site wastestreams are subject to CWT limitations and provisions of 
this rule.

L. Solids, Soils and Sludges

    EPA did not distinguish in its information gathering efforts 
between those waste treatment and recovery facilities treating aqueous 
waste and those treating non-aqueous wastes or a combination of both. 
Thus, EPA's 308 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and related CWT 
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) asked for information on CWT 
operations without regard to the type of waste treated. EPA's sampling 
program also included facilities that accepted both aqueous and solid 
wastes for treatment and/or recovery. In fact, the facility that forms 
the technology basis for the metals subcategory limitations treats both 
liquid and solid wastes. A facility that accepts wastes from off-site 
for treatment and/or recovery that generates a wastewater is subject to 
the CWT rule regardless of whether the wastes are aqueous or non-
aqueous. Therefore, wastewater generated in the treatment of solids 
received from off-site is subject to the CWT rule.
    As a further point of clarification, the main concern in the 
treatment or recycling of off-site ``solid wastes'' is that pollutants 
contained in the solid waste may be transferred to a process or contact 
water resulting in a wastewater that may require treatment. Examples of 
such wastewaters include, but are not limited to:
     Entrained water directly removed through dewatering 
operations (for example, sludge dewatering);
     Contact water added to wash or leach contaminants from the 
waste material; and
     Storm water that comes in direct contact with waste 
material which contain liquids.
    The treatment or recovery of solids that remain in solid form when 
contacted with water and which do not leach any chemicals into the 
water are not subject to this rule. Examples of excluded solids 
recovery operations are the recycling of aluminum cans, glass and 
plastic bottles. As a further point of clarification, any wastewater 
generated at a municipal recycling center is not subject to provisions 
of this rule.

M. Scrap Metal Processors and Auto Salvage Operations

    During development of this regulation, EPA did not examine 
facilities engaged in scrap metal processing or auto salvage operations 
as part of its study. EPA did not attempt to collect information on 
these types of operations. However, commenters to the 1999 proposal 
provided some information on these activities. Commenters noted that 
these operations often generate contaminated wastewaters as a secondary 
part of their operations. As described by commenters, wastewater is 
often produced when rainwater comes in contact with the scrap metal 
and/or automobiles during collection and storage. This rainwater then 
becomes contaminated with oily residue from the scrap metal and/or 
automobiles. Contaminated storm water is the only wastewater resulting 
from these operations.
    Because contaminated storm water generated from centralized scrap 
metal processing or auto salvage operations would, as the regulatory 
language is specified, be subject to regulation, EPA considered whether 
it had a basis for regulating wastewaters from these operations. Other 
than the limited information supplied by commenters, EPA has very 
little data concerning these activities and the facilities that conduct 
these activities. As a result, EPA concluded that it should not include 
within the scope of the guideline wastewaters generated from 
centralized scrap metal processing or auto salvage at this time. EPA 
would expect that permit writers and control authorities would develop 
limitations or local limits to establish site-specific permit 
requirements for any centralized scrap metal processing or auto salvage 
operations generating and discharging a contaminated stormwater.

N. Transfer Stations

    During the initial stages of development of this rule, EPA did not 
envision transfer stations as part of the centralized waste treatment 
industry. As such, EPA did not attempt to collect information on the 
operation of transfer stations. However, EPA received comment to the 
1999 proposal asking

[[Page 81263]]

that EPA clarify its coverage of these facilities by this rule.
    EPA has very little information on the operation of transfer 
stations. Based on comments, while transfer stations could fall within 
the definition of a CWT since they accept off-site industrial wastes, 
they do not perform any treatment or recovery of the off-site wastes. 
Transfer stations simply facilitate the distribution of wastes for 
disposal. Consequently, EPA has concluded that transfer stations should 
not be subject to provisions of the CWT rule.

O. Stabilization/Solidification

    As explained in the 1999 proposal, EPA concluded that, by 
definition, stabilization/solidification operations are ``dry'' and do 
not produce any wastewater. As such, EPA did not propose to include 
stabilization/solidification processes in the CWT rule. At that time, 
EPA also explained that it was considering a subcategory for 
stabilization operations with a zero discharge requirement, and 
requested comment on this approach.
    EPA received very little comment on stabilization/solidification 
and no new data from industry following the 1999 proposal. One 
commenter suggested EPA require stabilization/solidification operations 
to be zero discharge. Another suggested EPA use the same approach 
proposed for facilities handling used oil filters. A third commented 
that EPA should not promulgate a zero discharge requirement because, in 
the event that a wastewater is produced by stabilization/solidification 
operations, the facility would not have the option to treat the 
wastewater on-site.
    EPA re-examined its database and concluded that while 
``solidification/stabilization'' processes do not themselves produce 
any wastewater, there are often wastewaters associated with these 
processes. The major wastewater reported by questionnaire respondents 
associated with stabilization/solidification operations is equipment 
wash down. Further, the database shows that many of the wastes accepted 
from off-site for stabilization/solidification are the same or similar 
to wastes accepted for other covered CWT operations.
    Consequently, EPA is not promulgating a subcategory for 
stabilization/solidification with a zero discharge requirement. EPA 
agrees with commenters that, in the event that there are wastewaters 
produced by or associated with these operations, facilities should have 
the option of choosing whether to treat the wastes on-site or through 
other means. If these operations produce a wastewater, then the 
discharge of wastewater from these facilities should be subject to 
provisions of this rule. Therefore, ``dry'' stabilization/
solidification operations themselves are not subject to provisions of 
the CWT rule. However, wastewater discharges from stabilization/
solidification operations that are performed on waste received from off 
site are subject to provisions of this rule. This approach is 
consistent with EPA's approach to fuel blending operations and used oil 
filter management.

P. Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Re-Use

    EPA recognizes that some facilities accept wastewater from off-site 
for re-use rather than treatment or recovery. The intent in accepting 
these off-site ``treated'' wastewaters is to replace potable water or 
more expensive pure water obtained from wells, surface waters, etc. 
Examples include, but are not limited to:
     The acceptance of wastewater from off-site for use in 
place of potable water in industrial processes;
     The use of secondary POTW effluents as non-contact cooling 
water; and
     The use of storm water in place of potable water at shared 
industrial facilities located in industrial parks.
    Likewise, EPA is also aware that some facilities accept used 
materials such as spent pickle liquor for re-use as a treatment 
chemical in place of virgin treatment chemicals.
    EPA applauds all pollution prevention activities, especially those 
that allow treated wastewater or spent chemicals to be re-used rather 
than discharged. EPA does not define this type of activity as treatment 
or recovery. Therefore, the acceptance of off-site wastewater or spent 
chemicals for re-use in the treatment system or other industrial 
process is not a CWT activity and is not subject to provisions of this 
rule.

Q. Recovery and Recycling Operations

    Many CWT facilities perform recovery activities that lead to 
recycling of materials either at the recovering site or at another 
location. The purpose of these activities is to recycle product back 
into a use for which it was originally intended, not the treatment and 
disposal of wastewater streams. Examples of such activities include but 
are not limited to: used oil processing, used glycol recovery, fuel 
blending, metals recovery, and re-refining. Many commenters to both the 
1995 proposal and the 1999 proposal noted that these activities should 
not be included under the scope of this rule because they are not 
``treatment,'' but ``recovery'' activities.
    EPA applauds efforts to reduce pollution and the ancillary adverse 
consequences to the environment associated with product disposal and 
does not want to discourage these practices. However, EPA also 
recognizes that while the intent of these activities is not treatment 
of a ``wastewater,'' but rather recovery of a used or waste material, 
wastewater is usually generated from these recovery processes. 
Generally, the facility performing the recovery activity also performs 
on-site treatment of the resulting wastewater. EPA wants to ensure that 
these wastewaters receive appropriate treatment.
    From the beginning of its data gathering activities associated with 
the development of this rule, EPA has included recycling and recovery 
activities along with wastewater treatment activities. In fact, EPA 
developed sections of the 308 Questionnaire to specifically target the 
collection of information on metals, solids, oils, and organics 
recovery activities. Many of the facilities visited and sampled by EPA 
perform recovery operations. Some of these facilities refer to 
themselves as ``recyclers'' and not ``wastewater treatment 
facilities.'' EPA's sampling data show that in many instances the 
pollutants and concentrations of pollutants in wastewaters generated 
from recycling/recovery activities are very similar or more 
concentrated than wastewaters accepted for ``treatment'' only. In fact, 
many facilities that perform recovery operations combine the wastewater 
generated from the recovery operations with other off-site wastewater 
received for treatment. Consequently, EPA has concluded that recovery 
operations are included in the scope of this rule. Therefore, unless 
specifically stated elsewhere, facilities that recycle and recover off-
site waste, wastewaters and/or used materials are considered 
``centralized waste treatment facilities'' and are subject to 
provisions of this rule. However, if metals recovery operations are 
subject to the secondary metals provisions of 40 CFR 421, the 
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, then the 
provisions of this part do not apply. These secondary metals 
subcategories are Subpart C (Secondary Aluminum Smelting Subcategory), 
Subpart F (Secondary Copper Subcategory), Subpart L (Secondary Silver 
Subcategory), Subpart M (Secondary Lead Subcategory), Subpart P 
(Primary and Secondary Germanium and Gallium Subcategory), Subpart Q 
(Secondary Indium

[[Page 81264]]

Subcategory), Subpart R (Secondary Mercury Subcategory), Subpart T 
(Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium Subcategory), Subpart V (Secondary 
Nickel Subcategory), Subpart X (Secondary Precious Metals Subcategory), 
Subpart Z (Secondary Tantalum Subcategory), Subpart AA (Secondary Tin 
Subcategory), Subpart AB (Primary and Secondary Titanium Subcategory), 
Subpart AC (Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory), and Subpart AD 
(Secondary Uranium Subcategory).

R. Silver Recovery Operations From Used Photographic and X-Ray 
Materials

    At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed not to include 
electrolytic plating/metallic replacement silver recovery operations of 
used photographic and x-ray materials within the scope of this rule. 
The Agency based its conclusion on the fundamental difference in 
technology used to recover silver at facilities devoted exclusively to 
treatment of photographic and x-ray wastes. However, for off-site 
wastes that are treated/recovered at these facilities through any other 
process and/or waste generated at these facilities as a result of any 
other centralized treatment/recovery process, the Agency proposed that 
these wastewaters would be subject to provisions of this rule.
    The Agency received many comments to the 1999 proposal that 
supported EPA's decision to not include electrolytic plating/metallic 
replacement silver recovery operation of used photographic and x-ray 
materials within the scope of this rule. However, commenters 
additionally noted that while many of these facilities primarily use 
electrolytic plating followed by metallic replacement in silver 
recovery operations, there are other processes that are also utilized. 
Commenters further noted that new silver recovery technologies are 
emerging and being studied and developed on a regular basis. As such, 
commenters asked EPA to not include silver recovery operations from 
used photographic and x-ray materials regardless of the method used to 
recover the silver.
    EPA agrees with commenters that facilities that are devoted 
exclusively to the centralized recovery of silver from photographic and 
x-ray wastes should not be covered by this rule, regardless of the type 
of process used to recover the silver. As such, facilities that 
exclusively perform centralized silver recovery from used photographic 
and x-ray wastes are not subject to provisions of this rule. EPA would 
expect that, as is the case now with wastewater discharges associated 
with this operation, the control authority or permit writer would 
determine whether to apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 421, Subpart L 
(the Secondary Silver Subcategory of the Nonferrous Metals 
Manufacturing Regulation) or establish BPJ, site-specific permit 
requirements.
    There are some facilities, however, which are engaged in 
traditional CWT activities and also engaged in centralized silver 
recovery from photographic and x-ray materials. If the wastewaters from 
the two operations are commingled, the commingled silver recovery 
wastewater flow would be subject to CWT limitations or standards. 
Therefore, a facility performing centralized silver recovery from used 
photographic and x-ray materials as well as some other covered CWT 
services that commingles these wastes are subject to provision of the 
CWT rule. All of the wastewater discharges are subject to provisions of 
this rule. If, however, a facility is performing both operations and 
the wastestreams are not commingled (that is, silver recovery 
wastewater is treated in one system and CWT wastes are treated in a 
second, separate system), the permit writer or control authority should 
apply the provision of 40 CFR part 421, if applicable, or continue to 
establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements for the discharge 
associated with the silver recovery operations and apply the CWT rule 
to the wastewaters associated with the other covered CWT activities.
    As a further point of clarification, wastewater generated as a 
result of centralized silver recovery operations are not specifically 
excluded from provisions of this rule. Silver recovery wastewaters that 
are treated at CWT facilities with other covered off-site wastestreams 
are subject to provisions of this rule.

S. High Temperature Metals Recovery

    EPA is aware of three facilities in the U.S. that recover metal 
using a ``high temperature metals recovery'' process (HTMR). HTMR 
facilities recycle metal-bearing materials in a pyrometallurgical 
process that employs very high temperature furnaces. These facilities 
do not use the water-based precipitation/filtration technologies to 
recover metals from wastewater observed at metals subcategory 
facilities throughout the CWT industry. At the time of the proposal, 
EPA believed that all HTMR processes were ``dry'' (i.e., did not 
produce a wastewater). Consequently, in the 1999 proposal, EPA proposed 
not to include facilities that perform high temperature metals recovery 
(HTMR) within the coverage of this rule. EPA further requested comment 
on whether EPA should promulgate a zero discharge requirement for 
facilities that utilize the HTMR process.
    Based on comment to the proposal, EPA has concluded that while most 
HTMR processes are dry, one of the three known HTMR facilities produces 
a wastewater (scrubber blowdown). As such, EPA has concluded that a 
zero discharge requirement for HTMR facilities is inappropriate and has 
not included it in the final CWT rule. However, upon further 
examination of the comments and its database, EPA has concluded that 
HTMR facilities that generate a wastewater should be included within 
the scope of the CWT rule. While the HTMR process is different from 
other recycling technologies studied by EPA for this rulemaking, EPA 
has concluded that the wastewater produced from HTMR operations 
contains many of the CWT metals subcategory pollutants of concern and 
that the concentration of these pollutants falls solidly within the 
range of wastewaters in the CWT metals subcategory. As such, while the 
HTMR process may be different from water-based precipitation 
technologies, the resulting wastewaters are similar (see DCN 33.2.1). 
Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA to establish limits for HTMR 
wastewaters using the metals subcategory technology basis and these 
limits will be achievable. EPA has revised all of its analysis to 
reflect the inclusion of these ``non-dry'' HTMR facilities within the 
scope of the CWT rule. However, if high temperature metals recovery 
operations are subject to any of the secondary metals provisions of 40 
CFR 421, the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, 
then the provisions of this part do not apply. See Section V.Q for a 
list of the secondary metals subcategories.

T. Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending

    EPA studied the solvent recycling industry in the 1980s. EPA 
published its findings in the ``Preliminary Data Summary for the 
Solvent Recycling Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/102) in September 1989 that 
describes this industry and its recycling processes. There, EPA has 
explained solvent recovery as ``the recycling of spent solvents that 
are not the byproduct or waste product of a manufacturing process or 
cleaning operation located on the same site.'' Facilities generally 
recycle spent solvents in two main operations. Traditional solvent 
recovery involves pretreatment of the wastestream (in some cases) and 
separation of the solvent mixtures by specially constructed 
distillation columns. In most cases, traditional

[[Page 81265]]

solvent recovery is performed at organic chemical manufacturing 
facilities. As a result, wastewater discharges resulting from this 
process are subject to effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
for the organic chemicals industry (often abbreviated as OCPSF) (40 CFR 
part 414).
    EPA is aware that there are a few facilities that accept solvents 
from other facilities for commercial solvent recovery operations. Some 
perform solvent recovery of spent or contaminated chemicals received 
from pharmaceutical and other chemical manufacturing companies. Some 
recycle spent solvents generated by parts washers and other cleaning 
devices operated by automotive shops, dry cleaners, and other small 
businesses. Because these commercial solvent recovery facilities are 
not located at an organic manufacturing facility, the provisions of 40 
CFR 414, as written, do not apply to them.
    Based on comments to the 1999 CWT proposal, EPA considered whether 
it should regulate commercial solvent recovery facilities under the 
provisions of this rule. EPA has determined, however, not to include 
these commercial solvent recovery operations within the scope of this 
rule at this time. Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has 
clearly stated that traditional solvent recovery operations would not 
be included within the scope of this rule. In developing its database 
to support this rule, while EPA did collect limited information on 
these activities, EPA intentionally excluded known solvent recoverers 
from its data collection activities. As such, EPA has only limited data 
on solvent recovery activities that are not already subject to OCPSF. 
It did not obtain information to characterize the wastewaters generated 
at such operations. Thus, EPA has no basis for determining whether or 
not such operations are sufficiently similar to the organic waste 
subcategory so that they may properly be regulated as organic 
wastestreams. Therefore, wastewaters resulting from traditional solvent 
recovery activities as defined above are not subject to these effluent 
guidelines.
    For wastewaters associated with traditional solvent recovery 
activities located at organic chemical manufacturing facilities, permit 
writers (and local control authorities) will, of course, use the 
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) guideline to 
establish discharge requirements. For commercial traditional solvent 
recovery activities (not located at an organic chemical manufacturing 
site), permit writers (and local control authorities) should carefully 
examine the wastewater to see if it also contains pollutants regulated 
by the OCPSF guidelines when the permit writer establishes case-by-case 
limitations under NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.3 or the control 
authority establishes local limits under the General Pretreatment 
Regulations at 40 CFR 403.5. Permit writers or local control 
authorities must include technology-based limits for any toxic 
pollutant which is or may be discharged at a level greater than the 
level which can be achieved by treatment requirements appropriate to 
the permittee, or any pollutant which may pass through or interfere 
with POTW operations. (See 40 CFR 122.44(e), 125.3. See also 40 CFR 
403.5).
    Fuel blending is a type of solvent recovery. Fuel blending is the 
process of mixing wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for 
reuse. At the time of the 1995 proposal, EPA did not include fuel-
blending operations within the scope of the CWT rule because EPA 
believed the fuel blending process was ``dry'' (that is, no wastewaters 
were produced). Based on comments to the original proposal and the 
Notice of Data Availability and its review of data it has obtained, EPA 
has reconfirmed its conclusion that true fuel blenders do not generate 
any process wastewaters and are, therefore, zero dischargers. EPA is 
concerned, however, that the term ``fuel blending'' may be loosely 
applied to any process where recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a 
fuel product. Such operations occur at nearly all used oil and fuel 
recovery facilities.
    EPA has, therefore, not included ``dry'' fuel blending operations 
within the scope of the CWT rule. In the event that wastewater is 
generated at a CWT fuel blending facility, the discharge of wastewaters 
associated with these operations is subject to this rule.

U. Re-Refining

    When EPA initially proposed guidelines and standards for CWT 
facilities, the regulations would have limited discharges from used oil 
reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not specifically include or exclude 
discharges from used oil re-refiners. During review of information 
received on the 1995 proposal and assessment of the information 
collected, the Agency, at one point, considered limiting the scope of 
this regulation to reprocessors/reclaimers only because it was not 
clear whether re-refiners actually generated wastewater. However, 
further data gathering efforts have revealed that re-refiners may 
generate wastewater and that the principal sources of re-refining 
wastewaters are essentially the same as for reprocessors/reclaimers. 
Consequently, the final guidelines will apply to re-refining 
wastewater.
    EPA studied the used oil reclamation and re-refining industry in 
the 1980s. In September 1989, EPA published the ``Preliminary Data 
Summary for the Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining Industry'' (EPA 
440/1-89/014) that describes this industry and the processes utilized. 
This document generally characterizes the industry in terms of the 
types of equipment used to process the used oil. Minor processors 
(reclaimers) generally separate water and solids from the used oil 
using simple settling technology, primarily in-line filtering, and 
gravity settling with or without heat addition. Major processors 
(reclaimers) generally use various combinations of more sophisticated 
technology including screen filtration, heated settling, 
centrifugation, and light fraction distillation primarily to remove 
water. Re-refiners generally use the most sophisticated systems that 
include, in addition to the previous technologies, a vacuum 
distillation step to separate the oil into different components.
    Today's final rule applies to the process wastewater discharges 
from used oil re-refining operations. The principal sources of 
wastewater include oil-water gravity separation (often accompanied by 
chemical/thermal emulsion breaking) and dehydration unit operations 
(including light distillation and the first stage of vacuum 
distillation). EPA has, to date, identified two re-refining facilities.

V. Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent Recycling

    EPA did not obtain information on used oil filter or oily-absorbent 
(oil soaked or contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads) recycling 
through the Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. However, in 
response to the September 1996 Notice of Data Availability and the 1999 
proposal, EPA received comments from facilities which recycle used oil 
filters and oily absorbents. In addition, EPA also visited several used 
oil reprocessors that recycle used oil filters or oily absorbents as 
part of their operations.
    Used oil filter and oily absorbent recycling processes range from 
simple crushing and draining of entrained oil to more involved 
processes where filters or absorbent materials are shredded and the 
metal and filter material are separated. Generally, the resulting used 
oil is recycled, the separated metal product is sold to a smelter, and 
the

[[Page 81266]]

separated filter material is sold as a solid fuel. Based on information 
collected during EPA's site visits and comments on the 1999 proposal, 
wastewater may be generated during all phases of the recycling activity 
including collection activities, plant maintenance, and air pollution 
control. EPA notes, however, that based on its observations, many of 
these activities are ``dry'' and do not produce associated wastewaters. 
In fact, at the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA believed these 
activities were largely ``dry'' and requested comment on whether EPA 
should promulgate a zero discharge requirement for facilities 
performing used oil filter recovery.
    As detailed above, based on comment on the proposal, EPA has 
learned that not all used oil filter and absorbent recycling activities 
are dry. Consequently, EPA has decided that it should not adopt a zero 
discharge requirement for these activities. Upon further examination of 
the comments and its database, EPA has concluded that it should include 
used oil filter and absorbent recovery facilities that generate a 
wastewater within the scope of the CWT rule. While EPA does not have 
data specific to used oil filter recovery on the characteristics of 
these wastewaters, these wastewaters are often combined with other 
covered CWT wastewaters for treatment. Further, since the material 
being recovered is primarily used oil, EPA has concluded that any 
resulting wastewaters will be similar (in terms of constituents and 
concentration) to wastewaters generated from used oil recovery. As a 
result, EPA has concluded that these operations should be regulated as 
are other centralized used oil recovery activities. Where information 
is available to EPA on these operations, EPA has revised its analysis 
to reflect the inclusion of these ``non-dry'' used oil filter and 
absorbent facilities within the scope of the CWT rule.

W. Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes

    EPA received comments suggesting that the scope of the CWT rule 
should not include grease, sand, and oil interceptor wastes. Some of 
these wastes are from non-industrial sources and some are from 
industrial sources. Some are treated at central locations designed to 
treat grease trap/interceptor wastes exclusively and some of these 
wastes are treated at traditional CWT facilities with traditional CWT 
wastes. Examples of the types of customers which generate these grease 
trap/interceptor wastes include, but are not limited to auto and truck 
maintenance and repair shops; auto body and parts shops; car washes; 
gas stations; commercial bottling facilities; food and produce 
distribution shops; restaurants; and tire shops.
    Throughout the development of this rule, EPA has directed its 
efforts to CWT operations that treat and/or recover off-site industrial 
wastes and not to food-related wastes. Grease trap/interceptor wastes 
are defined as animal or vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or 
interceptors generated by facilities engaged in food service 
activities. Such facilities include, but are not limited to 
restaurants, cafeterias, caterers, commercial bottling facilities, and 
food and distribution shops. EPA has concluded that these wastes are 
fundamentally different from the types of wastes examined for this rule 
and are outside the scope of this rule. Grease trap/interceptor wastes 
should not contain any hazardous chemicals or materials that would 
prevent the fats/oils from being recovered and recycled.
    Wastewater discharges from the centralized treatment of wastes 
produced from oil interceptors, however, which are designed to collect 
petroleum-based oils, sand, etc. from industrial type processes, are a 
different case and EPA has determined that this wastewater is properly 
subject to this rule. Examples of facilities that produce oil 
interceptor waste include, but are not limited to, auto and truck 
maintenance and repair shops; auto body and parts shops; car washes; 
and gas stations. EPA collected data on the types and concentrations of 
pollutants in oil interceptor wastes through comments and EPA sampling. 
The data show, that like other CWT wastes, the concentration of 
pollutants can vary greatly from one wastestream to another. EPA's 
sampling data show that these materials can be very similar in nature 
and concentration to other wastes covered by this rule. Consequently, 
EPA has determined these wastes should be included within the scope of 
this rule.

X. Food Processing Wastes

    During development of this rule, EPA did not collect information 
from facilities engaged in centralized waste treatment of food 
processing wastes. As detailed in V.W, EPA envisioned that this rule 
would be limited to the treatment and/or recovery of off-site 
industrial wastes. While food processing may be an ``industrial'' 
activity, these wastes do not contain heavy metals, concentrated 
organics, or petroleum based oils. In terms of contaminants of concern, 
these wastes are similar to those generated by cafeterias, restaurants, 
etc. Consequently, the final guidelines will not apply to animal and 
vegetable fats/oils wastewaters at CWT facilities, specifically those 
generated by food processors/manufacturers.

Y. Sanitary Wastes and/or Chemical Toilet Wastes

    The provisions of the CWT rule, as previously explained, will not 
cover sanitary wastes (such as septage), nor will they cover chemical 
toilet wastes. EPA expects that permit writers and control authorities 
would develop BPJ limitations or local limits to establish site-
specific permit requirements for any commercial sanitary waste 
treatment facility.
    Similarly, sanitary wastes or chemical toilet wastes received from 
off-site and treated at an industrial facility or a CWT facility are 
not subject to the provisions of the CWT rule. If these wastes are 
mixed with industrial wastes, EPA would expect that, as is the case now 
with ancillary sanitary waste flows mixed for treatment at facilities 
subject to national effluent guidelines and standards, the permit 
writer would establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.

Z. Treatability, Research and Development, and Analytical Studies

    During the initial stages of development of this rule, EPA did not 
envision regulation of facilities which accept off-site wastes for 
treatability studies, research and development, or chemical or physical 
analysis. As such, EPA did not attempt to collect information on these 
activities. However, EPA received comment to its proposals asking that 
EPA clarify its coverage of these activities by this rule.
    EPA has very little information on these activities. Based on 
comments, these activities, arguably, would fall within the definition 
of Centralized Waste Treatment since they accept off-site wastes. The 
purpose of these activities is not treatment or recovery, but rather 
the evaluation of different treatment techniques. Consequently, EPA has 
concluded that treatability, research and development or analytical 
activities should not be subject to provisions of the CWT rule.
    Permit writers and local authorities should use their Best 
Professional Judgment (BPJ) and local limits authority to establish 
limitations and standards for these wastestreams. Under EPA's 
regulations, permit writers or local control authorities must include 
technology-based limits either for any toxic pollutant which is or may 
be discharged at a level greater than the level which can be achieved 
by treatment requirements appropriate to

[[Page 81267]]

the permittee or for any pollutant which may pass through or interfere 
with POTW operations. (See 40 CFR 122.44(e), 125.3.) See also 40 CFR 
403.5. EPA would expect that, in some cases, wastewater associated with 
these activities might look very much like the wastestreams regulated 
under this rule. In those circumstances, permit writers (and local 
control authorities) may want to consider the technical development 
document developed for the CWT guideline when the permit writer 
establishes case-by-case limitations under NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 
125.3 or the control authority establishes local limits under the 
General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.5.
    EPA notes that if a CWT facility accepts off-site wastes for 
treatability, research and development, or analytical activities, and 
commingles any resulting wastewaters with other covered wastewaters 
prior to discharge, these wastewaters would be subject to provisions of 
this rule.

VI. Subcategorization

    EPA developed different limitations and standards for the CWT 
operations depending on the type of waste received for treatment or 
recovery. EPA remains convinced this is the most appropriate basis for 
subcategorizing the CWT industry. EPA has determined that there are 
four subcategories appropriate for the CWT industry:
     Subcategory A: Facilities that treat or recover metal from 
metal-bearing waste, wastewater, or used material received from off-
site (``metals subcategory'');
     Subcategory B: Facilities that treat or recover oil from 
oily waste, wastewater, or used material received from off-site (``oils 
subcategory'');
     Subcategory C: Facilities that treat or recover organics 
from organic waste, wastewater, or used material received from off-site 
(``organics subcategory''); and
     Subcategory D: Facilities that treat or recover some 
combination of metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste, wastewater, or 
used material received from off-site (''multiple wastestream 
subcategory'').
    For a detailed explanation of EPA's subcategorization methodology 
and factors considered as the basis for today's subcategorization, see 
the 1999 proposal (64 FR 2300-2301) and Chapter 5 of the Final 
Technical Development Document.

VII. Industry Description

    As detailed in Section V above, the universe of CWT facilities in 
the United States is broad. The development of this industry is largely 
a result of the adoption of the increased pollution control measures 
required by the CWA and RCRA. The 1999 proposal (64 FR 2293-2294) and 
Chapter 4 of the technical development document provide a detailed 
description of the development of this industry and its operation. 
EPA's 1999 proposal (64 FR 2301-2302) and Chapter 5 of the Final 
Technical Development Document also provide detailed descriptions of 
operations at facilities by subcategory.
    EPA now estimates that there are 223 CWT facilities. Changes in the 
estimate of the total number of CWT facilities since the proposal 
reflect facilities that were included or excluded because of scope 
changes/clarifications. EPA is aware that CWT facilities have entered 
or left the centralized waste treatment market. This is expected in a 
service industry. Even so, EPA is comfortable that its estimate of 
facilities is reasonable and has not adjusted it, other than to account 
for scope changes/clarifications. Of these 223 CWT facilities, 
approximately 14 discharge directly to surface waters of the U.S., 151 
discharge indirectly to POTWs, and 58 are zero or alternative 
dischargers. The zero or alternative discharge methods include (1) 
wastewater is disposed of by alternate means such as deep well 
injection or incineration; (2) wastewater is sent off-site for 
treatment, generally to another CWT; (3) wastewater is evaporated; and 
(4) no wastewater is generated. There are 62, 178, and 32 facilities in 
the metals, oils, and organics subcategories, respectively. Thirty-
seven facilities accept wastes from multiple subcategories and could be 
subject to the multiple wastestream subcategory.

VIII. The Final Regulation

    For a detailed discussion of all technology options considered in 
the development of today's final rule, see the proposal (64 FR 2305-
2315) and Chapter 9 of the technical development document.

A. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)

1. Subcategory A--Metals Subcategory
    EPA is establishing BPT limitations for the metals subcategory for 
19 pollutants, including cyanide. The technology basis for these BPT 
limitations is metals option 4: primary precipitation, liquid-solid 
separation, secondary precipitation, clarification, and sand 
filtration. This is the same technology that was the basis for the 1999 
proposed limitations. Under option 4, the treater varies pH levels and 
treatment chemicals in order to promote optimal removal of the wide 
range of metal pollutants found in CWT metals wastewaters. Different 
metals are preferentially removed with different treatment chemicals 
and different pH levels. Generally, BPT limitations based on option 4 
will require some facilities to more carefully control their treatment 
systems, increase the quantities of treatment chemicals they use, 
perform an additional precipitation step, and add a clarification and 
sand filtration step. In the case of complex cyanide, metal-bearing 
streams, EPA's limitations require cyanide removal prior to metals 
treatment. EPA based the cyanide limitations on cyanide option 2 
treatment, which is alkaline chlorination in a two-step process.
    The Agency concluded that this treatment system represented the 
best practicable technology currently available and should be the basis 
for the BPT metals limitations for the following reasons. First, the 
option 4 technology is one that is readily applicable to all facilities 
that are treating metal-bearing wastestreams. It is based on a 
technology including two-stage chemical precipitation that is currently 
used at approximately 25 percent of the facilities in this subcategory. 
Second, the adoption of this level of control would represent a 
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by 
facilities in this subcategory. Option 4 would annually remove 
approximately 4.1 million pounds of TSS and metals now discharged to 
the Nation's waters. Third, the Agency assessed the total cost of water 
pollution controls likely to be incurred for option 4 in relation to 
the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were 
reasonable--$0.40 per pound ($1997). In the 1999 proposal, EPA 
explained why it rejected the other options it considered for BPT. See 
64 FR 2280 at 2306.
    Although EPA is not changing the technology basis from that 
proposed, EPA is revising all of the BPT metals subcategory 
limitations. This is due to changes in the statistical methodology used 
to calculate pollutant long-term averages and limitations as detailed 
in Section IV.H above.
    The Agency used chemical precipitation treatment technology 
performance data from the Metal Finishing regulation (40 CFR Part 433) 
to establish direct discharge limitations for TSS because the facility 
from which the option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect 
discharger and the treatment system is not necessarily designed for

[[Page 81268]]

optimum removal of conventional parameters, due to the lack of 
stringent local limits for these parameters. EPA has concluded that the 
transfer of this data is appropriate given the absence of adequate 
treatment technology for this pollutant at the only otherwise well-
operated BPT CWT facility examined by EPA. Based on a review of the 
data, EPA concluded that similar wastes (in terms of TSS 
concentrations) are being treated at both metal finishing and 
centralized waste treatment facilities, and that the use of the metal 
finishing data to derive TSS limits for this subcategory is warranted. 
Because the technology basis for the transferred limitations includes 
clarification rather than sand filtration, the Agency also included a 
clarification step prior to sand filtration (which the option 4 
facility does not have) in the technology basis for option 4 for 
facilities subject to BPT. Therefore, because the technology basis for 
CWT is based on primary chemical precipitation, primary clarification, 
secondary chemical precipitation, secondary clarification, and sand 
filtration and the technology basis for Metal Finishing is based on 
primary precipitation and clarification only, EPA concluded that CWT 
facilities will perform similarly (or better) when treating TSS in 
wastes in this subcategory.
    BPT limitations established by option 4 (except TSS) are based on 
data from a single, well-operated system. Generally, for purposes of 
defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks at the performance of the 
best treatment technology and calculates limitations from some level of 
average performance measured at facilities that employ this ``best'' 
treatment technology. In reviewing technologies currently in use in 
this subcategory, however, EPA found that facilities generally utilize 
a single stage chemical precipitation step--a technology which does not 
achieve adequate metals removals for the wastestreams observed at these 
operations. EPA did identify facilities that utilize additional metals 
wastewater treatment, generally secondary chemical precipitation, but 
without the final multimedia filtration step. Also, EPA found that only 
the BPT model facility accepts a full spectrum of waste, often with 
extremely high metals concentrations and provides, therefore, a 
suitable basis to determine the performance that a well-designed and 
operated system can achieve for a wide range of raw waste 
concentrations. Consequently, EPA is adopting BPT limitations based on 
performance data from this facility. For further discussion, see the 
1999 proposal at 64 FR 2280-2357.
    Cyanide Subset. EPA is adopting BPT limitations for the metals 
subcategory for cyanide bearing streams. The presence of high cyanide 
concentrations detrimentally affects the performance of metal 
precipitation processes due to the formation of metal-cyanide 
complexes. Effective treatment of such wastes typically requires a 
cyanide destruction step prior to any metal precipitation steps. 
Consequently, in the case of metal streams which contain concentrated 
cyanide complexes, EPA based BPT limitations on an additional treatment 
step to destroy cyanide before metals precipitation: alkaline 
chlorination in a two-step process (cyanide option 2). This is the same 
technology that was the basis for the 1999 proposed limitations. In the 
first step, cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in a pH range of 9 to 11. 
The second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a 
controlled pH of 8.5.
    There are several reasons supporting the selection of limitations 
based on cyanide option 2, as explained in detail in the 1999 proposal 
at 64 FR 2309. First, the facility achieving cyanide option 2 removals 
accepts a full spectrum of cyanide waste. Consequently, the treatment 
used by the cyanide option 2 facility can be readily applied to all 
facilities in the subset of this subcategory. Second, adoption of this 
level of control would represent a significant reduction in pollutants 
discharged into the environment by facilities in this subset. Finally, 
the Agency assessed the total cost for cyanide option 2 in relation to 
the effluent reduction benefits and determined these costs were 
economically reasonable.
2. Subcategory B--Oils Subcategory
    The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the oils 
subcategory for 22 pollutants. The technology basis for the BPT 
limitations is oils option 9: emulsion breaking/gravity separation, 
secondary gravity separation and dissolved air flotation. This is the 
same technology that was the basis for the 1999 proposed limitations. 
EPA's data indicate that all oils treatment facilities currently 
utilize some form of emulsion breaking and/or gravity separation 
system. Secondary gravity separation involves using a series of tanks 
to separate the oil and water and then skimming the oily component off. 
The resulting water moves to the next step. The gravity separation 
steps are then followed by dissolved air flotation (DAF). DAF separates 
solid or liquid particles from a liquid phase by introducing air 
bubbles into the liquid phase. The bubbles attach to the particles and 
rise to the top of the mixture. Often, chemicals are added to increase 
the removal of metal constituents. BPT limitations based on this option 
will likely require some facilities to more carefully control their 
treatment systems, perform additional gravity separation steps, or 
install and operate a DAF system. For oils streams with relatively high 
concentrations of metals, these limitations will also require some 
facilities to use increased quantities of treatment chemicals to 
enhance the removal of metals.
    EPA developed the final limitations for this option using sampling 
data from facilities both with and without the secondary gravity 
separation step. EPA's data show that the secondary gravity separation 
step may not always be necessary to meet the final limitations, 
depending on the level of treatment in the initial gravity-separation/
emulsion-breaking step. EPA's data show there is a wide range of 
pollutants being discharged from this initial treatment step. EPA 
concluded that if many of the facilities optimize treatment at this 
level, the secondary gravity separation step may not be required. 
However, EPA estimated the costs to comply with the limitations with 
the secondary gravity separation step included to ensure this 
technology option's economic achievability.
    The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the oils 
subcategory based on Option 9, emulsion breaking/gravity separation, 
secondary gravity separation and dissolved air flotation for two 
reasons. First, the adoption of this level of control would represent a 
significant reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by 
facilities in this subcategory. Second, the Agency assessed the total 
costs of water pollution controls likely to be incurred for this option 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits and determined these 
costs were reasonable at $0.63/lb ($1997). In the 1999 proposal, EPA 
explained why it rejected the other options it considered for BPT for 
this subcategory. See 64 FR 2280 at 2309-11.
    EPA believes it is important to note that BPT limitations for 
conventional parameters established by Option 9 are based on data from 
a single, well-operated, indirect-discharging system. Generally, for 
purposes of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks at the 
performance of the best treatment technology and calculates limitations 
from some level of average performance measured at facilities that 
employ this ``best'' treatment technology. The

[[Page 81269]]

facilities sampled as the technology basis for this subcategory, 
however, were not required to optimize their oil and grease or TSS 
removals because they discharge to POTWs. Current POTW/local permit 
limitations for oil and grease in this subcategory range from 100 mg/L 
to 2,000 mg/L and for TSS from 250 mg/L to 10,000 mg/L. Many have no 
oil and grease or TSS limits at all. EPA concluded that only one of the 
systems in this subcategory for which EPA has data was designed to 
remove oil and grease and TSS effectively. EPA concluded that the oil 
and grease and TSS removals are uniformly inadequate at the other 
facilities included in the BPT limitations calculations for other 
parameters. Consequently, EPA based the oil and grease and TSS 
limitations on data from a single facility.
3. Subcategory C--Organics Subcategory
    The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the organics 
subcategory for 17 pollutants. The technology basis for the BPT 
limitations is organics option 4: equalization and biological 
treatment. Biological treatment for this option is in the form of a 
sequential batch reactor. This is the same technology that was the 
basis for the 1999 proposed limitations. The preamble to the proposal 
provided further explanation of EPA's decision (64 FR 2311-12).
    The Agency concluded that this treatment system represented the 
best practicable technology currently available and should be the basis 
for the BPT organics limitations for several reasons. The technology is 
already used at the four direct discharging facilities that treat 
organic wastes and results in the removal of 28,700 lbs annually of 
conventional pollutants (at baseline). Moreover, because the treatment 
is in place, the cost of compliance with the limitations will obviously 
be reasonable.
    Unlike the other BPT limitations adopted today, the adoption of 
limitations based on option 4 will not, in all probability, result in 
any significant change in the quantity of pollutants discharged into 
the environment by facilities in this subcategory. As noted, EPA's data 
suggests that all direct discharging facilities in this subcategory 
currently employ equalization and biological treatment systems, and EPA 
assumed that all those facilities will be able to meet the BPT 
limitations without additional capital or operating costs. If any 
facilities were to incur increased operating costs associated with the 
limits, EPA concluded these increases are negligible and has not 
quantified them. Many of these facilities are not currently required to 
monitor for organic parameters or are only required to monitor a couple 
of times a year. Thus, the estimated costs for complying with BPT 
limitations for this subcategory are associated with additional 
monitoring only. The Agency determined the additional monitoring is 
warranted, and will promote more effective and consistent treatment at 
these facilities. In the 1999 proposal, EPA explained why it rejected 
the other options it considered for BPT for this subcategory. See 64 FR 
2280 at 2311-12.
    The selected BPT option is based on the performance of a single 
indirect discharging facility. While EPA identified four direct 
discharging organics subcategory facilities that utilize biological 
treatment, EPA did not use data from these facilities to establish 
limitations because they commingle organics subcategory wastewaters 
with other CWT subcategory wastewaters or wastewaters subject to other 
national effluent guidelines and standards. Many facilities that are 
treating wastes that will be subject to effluent limitations for the 
organics subcategory also operate other industrial processes that 
generate much larger amounts of wastewater than the quantity of off-
site generated organic waste receipts. The off-site generated organic 
waste receipts are directly mixed with the wastewater from the other 
industrial processes for treatment. Therefore, identifying facilities 
to sample for limitations development was difficult because the waste 
received for treatment and treatment unit effectiveness could not be 
properly characterized for off-site generated waste. The treatment 
system on which EPA based option 4 was one of the few facilities 
identified which treated organic waste receipts separately from other 
on-site industrial wastewater.
    The Agency used biological treatment performance data from the 
Thermosetting Resin Subcategory of the OCPSF regulation to establish 
direct discharge limitations for BOD5 and TSS because the 
facility from which Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect 
discharger and the treatment system is not operated to effectively 
remove conventional pollutants. EPA has concluded that the transfer of 
this data is appropriate given the absence of adequate treatment 
technology for these pollutants at the only otherwise well-operated BPT 
CWT facility in this subcategory that the Agency was able to evaluate. 
Moreover, EPA concluded that the biological treatment systems at CWT 
facilities will perform similarly to those at OCPSF facilities. EPA 
based this conclusion on its review of the NPDES permits for the four 
direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. Two of these 
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities that commingle their 
wastewater for treatment and are already subject to OCPSF. The other 
two facilities have conventional pollutant limits which are lower than 
those adopted today. EPA has concluded that all of these facilities 
should be able to comply with the transferred limitations without 
incurring additional costs. Likewise, EPA has not estimated any 
additional pollutant removals associated with this data transfer.
4. Subcategory D--Multiple Wastestream Subcategory
    The Agency is today adopting BPT limitations for the multiple 
wastestream subcategory for up to 38 pollutants. EPA developed four 
sets of limitations for each of the possible combinations of the three 
subcategories of wastestreams: oils and metals, oils and organics, 
metals and organics, and oils, metals and organics. The multiple 
wastestream subcategory limitations were derived by combining BPT 
pollutant limitations from up to all three subcategories selecting the 
most stringent values where they overlap.\3\ Therefore, the technology 
basis for the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations reflects the 
technology basis for the applicable subcategories as detailed in 
VIII.A.1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA selected the most stringent maximum monthly average 
limitations and its corresponding maximum daily limitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed in IV.F, multiple wastestream subcategory limitations 
are only available to CWT facilities which accept waste in multiple 
subcategories. These facilities must certify as well as demonstrate 
that their treatment system obtains equivalent removals to those which 
are the basis for the separate subcategory limits. The multiple 
wastestream subcategory allows the facility to monitor for compliance 
just prior to discharge rather than directly following treatment of a 
each subcategory's wastestream. For multiple subcategory facilities, 
this option simplifies implementation and reduces monitoring costs. EPA 
has, however, estimated additional burden associated with the 
certification process in ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR 
(No.1427.05) for direct dischargers and ``National Pretreatment Program 
(40 CFR part 403)'' ICR (No. 0002.08) for indirect dischargers.
    EPA has determined these limitations are also best practicable 
technology

[[Page 81270]]

limitations for facilities that operate in one or more CWT categories 
for the following reasons. EPA has concluded that, for multiple 
subcategory facilities, the limitations adopted in this subcategory in 
combination with the certification process will provide pollutant 
removals equal to or greater than those projected if the facility 
elects to comply with the individual subcategory limitations. Further, 
analysis shows that the costs for multi-subcategory facilities to 
comply with the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations are 
generally equal to or less than the costs associated with complying 
with each applicable subcategory's limitations individually. Because 
EPA determined that costs of complying with the individual subcategory 
limits are achievable and costs of complying with the multiple 
subcategory limits are no greater, EPA concluded that the multiple 
subcategory wastestream limits are economically achievable.

B. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)

    In today's rule, EPA adopts BCT limitations equivalent to BPT for 
all subcategories. In deciding whether to adopt different BCT limits, 
EPA considered whether there are technologies that achieve greater 
removals of conventional pollutants than adopted for BPT, and whether 
those technologies are cost-reasonable under the standards established 
by the CWA, and implemented through regulation. EPA generally refers to 
the decision criteria as the ``BCT Cost Test.'' For all four 
subcategories, EPA identified no technologies that can achieve greater 
removals of conventional pollutants than those that are the basis for 
BPT that are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost Test. Accordingly, 
EPA is adopting BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent 
limitations. For additional information on the results of the BCT Cost 
Test, refer to Section X.F.

C. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

    EPA today is adopting BAT effluent limitations for all 
subcategories of the CWT industry based on the same technologies 
selected as the basis for BPT for each subcategory. The BAT limitations 
are the same as the BPT limitations for priority and non-conventional 
pollutants. As described in the BPT discussion, in general, the 
adoption of this level of control will represent a significant 
reduction in pollutants discharged into the environment by facilities 
in this industry. Additionally, EPA has evaluated the economic impacts 
associated with compliance and found the technologies to be 
economically achievable. The economic analysis is discussed in Section 
X.G.
    With the exception of the metals subcategory, EPA has not 
identified any more stringent treatment technology option different 
from those evaluated for BPT that might represent best available 
technology economically achievable for this industry.
    For the metals subcategory, EPA did consider as BAT technology a 
treatment technology that it had evaluated for the 1999 proposal, 
option 3, based on the use of selective metals precipitation. However, 
as detailed in the proposal (64 FR 2307-2308, 2312), there is little 
additional toxic removal associated with option 3 while the costs to 
the industry for are four times greater than the cost of the BPT 
option, option.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's data show that option 3 would remove approximately 6% 
more additional toxic pound-equivalents than option 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has concluded that it should not adopt BAT limitations based on 
Option 3 for several reasons. First, the option 3 technology may not be 
the best ``available'' technology for existing metals subcategory 
facilities because physical constraints may prevent its use at certain 
facilities. Currently, only one facility in the metals subcategory is 
employing selective metals precipitation, which requires the separation 
and holding of wastestreams in numerous treatment tanks. EPA is aware 
that some facilities do not have, and may not be able to obtain, 
sufficient space to install the additional treatment tanks that would 
be needed for selective metals precipitation. Second, while the 
removals associated with option 4 are not as great as those calculated 
for option 3, achievement of limitations based on the option 4 
technology will still represent a significant advance in removals for 
the industry over those obtained from conventional precipitation 
technology. Given these factors, EPA has concluded it should adopt BAT 
limitations based on the option 4 technology.
    For the oils and organics subcategories, as detailed in the 
proposal (64 FR 2312-2313), EPA has evaluated treatment technologies 
for BAT limitations, which theoretically should provide greater removal 
of pollutants of concern. For example, EPA identified an add-on 
treatment technology to technologies considered for BPT--carbon 
adsorption--that should have further increased removals of pollutants 
of concern. However, EPA's data show increases rather than decreases in 
concentrations of specific pollutants of concern. EPA has found that 
the treatment performance of activated carbon is sometimes unreliable 
due to the competitive adsorption and desorption of pollutants that 
have different affinities for adsorption on activated carbon. Also, pH 
changes of the wastewater going through the carbon adsorption system 
may cause stable metal complexes to dissolve and thus cause an increase 
in some metal concentrations through the adsorption system. 
Consequently, EPA is not adopting BAT limitations based on this 
technology.

D. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

    As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act, EPA must propose 
and promulgate Federal standards of performance of for categories of 
new sources. Section 306(e) provides that, after the effective date of 
the standards of performance, the owner or operator of a new source may 
not operate the source in violation of any applicable standard of 
performance. The statute defines ``standard of performance'' as a 
standard for the control of the discharge of pollutants which reflects 
the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through 
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies, 
processes, operating methods or other alternatives, including, where 
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. See 
Section 306(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1316(a)(1). Congress envisioned 
that new treatment systems could meet tighter controls than existing 
sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient 
processes and treatment systems into plant design. See general 
discussion of legislative history in American Iron and Steel Institute 
v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1057-59 (3rd Cir. 1975). In establishing these 
standards, Congress directed EPA to consider the cost of achieving the 
effluent reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and 
energy requirements. As the legislative history of the CWA makes clear, 
consideration of cost in establishing new source standards is given 
less weight than in establishing BAT limitations because pollution 
control alternatives are available to new sources that would not be 
available to existing sources. See Legis. Hist. (Sen. Muskie statement 
of House-Senate Conference Report on 1972 Act).
    For the oils and the organics subcategory, EPA is promulgating NSPS 
that would control the same

[[Page 81271]]

conventional, priority, and non-conventional pollutants as the BPT 
effluent limitations. The technologies used to control pollutants at 
existing facilities are fully applicable to new facilities. Therefore, 
EPA is promulgating NSPS oils and organics subcategory limitations that 
are identical to BPT/BCT/BAT.
    For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is promulgating NSPS 
effluent limitations based on a technology which is different from that 
used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT limitations. EPA is promulgating NSPS for 
the metals subcategory based on the NSPS technology proposed in 1999--
selective metals precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary 
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, and tertiary precipitation and 
clarification. This technology (option 3) provides the most stringent 
controls attainable through the application of demonstrated technology. 
EPA has concluded that this technology is the best demonstrated 
controlled technology for removing metals from the metal wastestreams 
typically treated in the CWT industry. Additionally, EPA has concluded 
that there is no barrier to entry for new sources to install, operate, 
and maintain treatment systems that will achieve discharge levels 
associated with these option 3 technologies. See X.I for a more 
detailed discussion of EPA's barrier to entry analysis.
    An additional critical factor in EPA's decision is that new 
facilities will not face the same constraints on using selective metals 
precipitation that existing facilities may. Thus, new facilities in 
configuring their operation will have the opportunity to provide 
sufficient space to operate the multiple tanks associated with the 
option 3 technology.
    EPA's determination to establish new source limitations based on 
option 3 is also tied to its conclusion that facilities using this 
technology have the technical capability to recover and reuse metals, 
whereas facilities employing technologies to comply with option 4 
limitations do not generally have the capability to reuse the metals 
and will dispose of metal-bearing sludges in landfills. EPA's analysis 
shows that in the event that a new facility elects to recover and re-
use metals rather than simply treating the wastes, the start-up costs 
for the option 3 technology may actually be less than the start-up 
costs for the option 4 technology. This is because of the significant 
reduction in RCRA permitting costs associated with recycling activities 
versus wastewater treatment activities. Furthermore, EPA has examined 
the market for re-use of metals and has concluded that these markets 
exist. Consequently, EPA has concluded that metals re-use with option 3 
is viable. As such, this technology selection promotes the objectives 
of both the Clean Water Act and the Pollution Prevention Act. While EPA 
has concluded there is no barrier to entry associated with the option 3 
technology, EPA recognizes that a CWT metals recycling facility will be 
required to be somewhat more selective about the waste receipts it 
accepts than a CWT treatment facility. However, EPA's data show that 
the vast majority of metal-bearing wastewaters accepted at CWT 
facilities are not dilute. In EPA's view, this is because generating 
facilities elect to treat dilute metal-bearing wastestreams on-site 
because of the ease in treating these wastes and the costs associated 
with the transport and treatment of these dilute wastes off-site. Also, 
there is a large amount of capacity available at existing CWT metals 
subcategory facilities. Consequently, EPA has concluded that existing 
CWT metals subcategory facilities already provide adequate capacity for 
dilute metal-bearing wastestreams in the event that the frequency of 
dilute wastes being transferred off-site for treatment increases. 
Finally, EPA notes that new CWT metals subcategory facilities are not 
required to install the option 3 technology or to recover metals. 
However, EPA's economic analyses show that new sources should carefully 
consider recycling as an alternative to wastewater treatment.
    The Agency used performance data from the CWT metals subcategory 
BAT limitations data set to promulgate NSPS limitations for oil and 
grease because the facility from which the NSPS limitations were 
derived did not have oil and grease in its influent at treatable levels 
during EPA's sampling episodes. EPA has concluded that transfer of this 
data is appropriate given that the technology basis for NSPS includes 
selective metals precipitation and an additional precipitation step. As 
such, EPA has every reason to conclude that facilities employing the 
NSPS technology could achieve the limitations, given the fact that the 
oil and grease limitations are based on performance at a facility 
employing fewer treatment steps.
    As was the case for BPT/BAT, the technology basis for the multiple 
wastestream subcategory new source limitations reflects the technology 
basis for the applicable subcategories.

E. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)

    Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to promulgate 
pretreatment standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to 
treatment by POTWs or which would interfere with the operation of 
POTWs. EPA looks at a number of factors in deciding whether a pollutant 
is not susceptible to treatment at a POTW or would interfere with POTW 
operations--the predicate to establishment of pretreatment standards. 
First, EPA assesses the pollutant removals achieved by directly 
discharging CWT facilities using BAT treatment. Second, for CWT 
facilities that are indirect dischargers, EPA estimates the quantity of 
pollutants likely to be discharged to receiving waters after POTW 
removals. Third, EPA studies whether any of the pollutants introduced 
to POTWs by CWT facilities interfere with or are otherwise incompatible 
with POTW operations. In some cases, EPA also looks at the costs, other 
economic impacts, likely effluent reduction benefits, and treatment 
systems currently in-place at CWT facilities.
    As noted above, among the factors EPA considers before establishing 
pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants discharged by an 
industry pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or 
sludge disposal practices. One of the tools traditionally used by EPA 
in evaluating whether pollutants pass through a POTW, is a comparison 
of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage 
of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. In 
most cases, EPA has concluded that a pollutant passes through the POTW 
when the median percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs 
(those meeting secondary treatment requirements) is less than the 
median percentage removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent 
limitations guidelines for that pollutant. For a full explanation of 
how EPA performs its removal analysis, see Chapter 7 of the Technical 
Development Document. Based on EPA's evaluation of pass-through 
potential, 16 of the 19 BAT pollutants regulated by the metals 
subcategory, 14 of the 22 BAT pollutants regulated by the oils 
subcategory, 5 of the 17 BAT pollutants regulated by the organics 
subcategory, and up to 27 of the 38 potential BAT pollutants regulated 
by the multiple wastestream subcategory would pass through. EPA has 
accordingly adopted PSES for these pollutants. The BAT pollutants in 
each subcategory that were determined to pass-through are listed in 
Tables 7-6 through 7-8 in the TDD.
    For the metal and organics subcategories, the Agency today is 
promulgating pretreatment standards for

[[Page 81272]]

existing sources (PSES) based on the same technologies as adopted for 
BPT and BAT.\5\ EPA has determined that the technology that forms the 
basis for PSES for this final rule is economically achievable for both 
subcategories. These standards will apply to existing facilities in the 
metals and organics subcategories of the CWT industry that introduce 
wastewater to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). These standards 
will prevent pass-through of pollutants from POTWs into receiving 
streams and also help control contamination of POTW sludge. Today's 
pretreatment standards represent a national baseline for treatment of 
CWT wastewaters. Local authorities may establish stricter limitations 
(based on site-specific water quality concerns or other local factors) 
where necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the metals subcategory, the technology basis for PSES 
does not include the second clarification step since this step was 
only included to meet the transferred TSS limitations that apply to 
direct dischargers only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the oils subcategory, EPA proposed to base PSES on option 8 
even though option 9 (the BAT technology) achieved greater removals. 
Option 8 is the same technology as option 9, but does not include the 
secondary gravity separation step. At that time, the economic analysis 
showed that the additional costs associated with option 9 resulted in 
higher economic impacts for the subcategory. In particular, EPA 
expressed concerns about the economic impacts of the more expensive 
technology for small businesses in the oils subcategory. Furthermore, 
EPA estimated that pollutant removals (in pound-equivalents) for option 
9 were only one percent higher than the removals for option 8.
    Following proposal, EPA finalized its estimates of costs, loadings 
reductions, and economic impacts, and then re-examined its technology 
selection for PSES in the oils subcategory. As part of this 
examination, EPA carefully considered the impacts of both option 8 and 
option 9 and the differences between them. EPA also looked at subsets 
of the oils facilities, including the set of small businesses. Based on 
an evaluation of all factors, EPA has not changed the technology basis 
from the 1999 proposal and today sets PSES standards for the oils 
subcategory based on option 8.
    The Agency's economic analysis is discussed in detail in Section X 
of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the final EA. Briefly, in evaluating 
economic impacts, EPA looks at a variety of impacts to facilities and 
firms (in particular, small businesses). For this industry, EPA 
determined that the most relevant economic impacts are on CWT processes 
and facilities. Waste industries such as the CWT industry are difficult 
to model economically; EPA's first attempts to model CWT operations as 
part of a larger facility greatly overestimated closures (see Section 
7.2 of the 1995 EA and 64 FR 2326). EPA therefore decided to examine 
the impacts on the CWT operations and, in particular, the profitability 
of individual CWT processes and facilities (note that a CWT 
``facility'' is all of the CWT processes at a given facility and does 
not include the non-CWT operations at a given facility).
    EPA estimates that option 8 will cost $8.2 million per year while 
option 9 would cost $11.9 million per year. As discussed in Section 
X.H, based on these costs EPA projects 10 process closures (4.7 percent 
of indirect oils processes) and 12 facility closures (9.4 percent of 
indirect oils facilities) associated with option 8. EPA projects 15 
process closures (7.0 percent of indirect oils processes) and 12 
facility closures associated with option 9. The incremental economic 
impact of option 9 relative to option 8 for oils indirect dischargers 
is thus five process closures. For small businesses, however, EPA 
projects two process closures (2.1 percent of indirect oils processes 
owned by small businesses) and eight facility closures (14.0 percent of 
indirect oils facilities owned by small businesses) for option 8. EPA 
projects seven process closures (7.4 percent of indirect oils processes 
owned by small businesses) and eight facility closures for option 9. 
Thus, small businesses represent a significant share of facility 
closures and all of the additional process closures associated with 
moving from option 8 to option 9. However, EPA estimates lower 
additional pollutant removals between option 8 and option 9 than 
estimated in 1999. Today, EPA estimates an incremental pollutant 
reduction of only 2,644 pound-equivalents between option 8 and option 
9, compared to 3,658 pound equivalents estimated at the 1999 proposal 
(see Section IV.J for a discussion of changes in estimated pollutant 
reductions). EPA has determined that achieving these slight additional 
pound-equivalent removals does not warrant imposition of the additional 
cost and impacts of option 9. All of these reasons support the 
selection of option 8 as the PSES technology basis. Therefore, EPA is 
promulgating PSES standards for the oils subcategory technology based 
on option 8.
    In determining economic achievability for indirect dischargers in 
the oils subcategory, EPA acknowledges that its estimates of the 
impacts are not trivial (e.g., an almost 10% facility closure rate). 
However, EPA has determined that the standards are economically 
achievable for the oils subcategory as a whole. EPA has concluded that, 
in the circumstances of this industry, the costs reflect appropriate 
levels for PSES control for a number of reasons. First, costs are high 
because a significant number of facilities in the oils subcategory will 
require major upgrades to their in-place treatment. The information 
collected for this rulemaking shows that many of the facilities with 
the larger impacts have little effective treatment in place. Second, 
this rule represents the first time EPA has established limitations and 
standards for this industry, so some economic impact may be expected. 
(American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,1052 (3rd Cir. 
1975)).
    As was the case for BPT/BAT, the technology basis for pretreatment 
standards for the multiple wastestream subcategory reflect the 
technology bases for the applicable subcategories.

F. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)

    EPA is today establishing pretreatment standards for new sources 
that are equal to NSPS for priority and non-conventional pollutants for 
the oils and organics subcategories. Since the pass-through analysis 
remains unchanged, for these subcategories, the Agency is establishing 
PSNS for the same priority and non-conventional pollutants as are being 
established for PSES. EPA considered the cost of the PSNS technology 
for new oils and organics facilities. EPA concluded that such costs are 
not so great as to present a barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the 
fact that currently operating facilities are using these technologies. 
The Agency considered energy requirements and other non-water quality 
environmental impacts and found no basis for any different standards 
than the selected PSNS.
    For the metals subcategory, however, EPA is establishing PSNS based 
on a different technology than that proposed in 1999. At that time, EPA 
proposed to base PSNS on the option 3 technology. For the final rule, 
however, EPA based the pretreatment standards for new sources on the 
option 4 technology. EPA concluded the additional removals projected 
with the option 3 technology for indirect dischargers do not justify 
the selection of option 3. This is because, unlike in the case of 
direct dischargers, a significant share of the additional pollutant 
removals associated

[[Page 81273]]

with option 3 for indirect dischargers will occur at the POTW anyway.
    As was the case for PSES, the technology basis for the multiple 
wastestream subcategory new source limitations reflects the technology 
basis for the applicable subcategories.

IX. Compliance Cost and Pollutant Reduction Estimates

A. Regulatory Costs

    The Agency estimated the cost for CWT facilities to achieve each of 
the effluent limitations and standards promulgated today. Chapter 11 of 
the Final Technical Development Document provides information on the 
methodologies used to estimate these costs. More detailed information, 
including the cost curves for all treatment technologies considered as 
the basis for today's rule, are located in the ``Detailed Costing 
Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.'' This section summarizes 
these estimated costs. All cost estimates in this section are expressed 
in terms of 1997 dollars. The cost components reported in this section 
represent estimates of the investment cost of purchasing and installing 
equipment, the annual operating and maintenance costs associated with 
that equipment, land costs associated with equipment, and additional 
costs for discharge monitoring.
1. BPT Costs
    Table IX.B-1 summarizes, by subcategory, the total capital 
expenditures, and annual O&M costs for implementing BPT (on a pre-tax, 
annualized basis). The total capital expenditures for BPT are estimated 
to be $5.32 million with annual O&M costs of $3.75 million.

                               Table IX.B-1.--Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations
                                                [In 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Pre-tax
                   Subcategory                       Number of     Total capital     Annual O&M     annualized
                                                  facilities \1\  and land costs       costs           costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Metals Treatment and Recovery..................               9       4,069,600       3,103,200       3,544,900
 Oils Treatment and Recovery....................               5       1,168,100         432,100         542,400
 Organics Treatment.............................               4          80,000         215,800         221,900
 Multiple wastestream Subcategory \2\...........               3       1,836,200       3,618,300       4,357,000
     Total for All Subcategories \3\............              14       5,317,700       3,751,100      4,309,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 14 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one
  subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
  facilities.
\2\ This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with
  the single Subcategory limitations.
\3\ This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each
  set of limitations separately.

2. BCT/BAT Costs
    The costs of compliance for implementing BCT/BAT are identical to 
the cost of compliance with BPT because the technology used to develop 
BCT/BAT limitations is identical to BPT.
3. PSES Costs
    The Agency estimated the cost for implementing PSES applying the 
same assumptions and methodology used to estimate the cost of 
implementing BPT. Table IX.B-2 summarizes, by subcategory, the capital 
expenditures and annual O&M costs for implementing PSES. The total 
capital expenditures for PSES are estimated to be $52.6 million with 
annual O&M costs of $25.5 million.

                               Table IX.B-2.--Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations
                                                [In 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of     Total capital    Annual O&M        Pre-tax
                   Subcategory                    facilities \1\  and land costs       costs        annualized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Metals Treatment and Recovery..................              44      11,111,100      10,242,100      11,449,600
 Oils Treatment and Recovery....................             127      23,834,000      12,484,400      14,797,600
 Organics Treatment.............................              16      17,709,200       2,766,200       4,592,800
 Multiple wastestream Subcategory \2\...........              24      44,576,100      20,392,700      24,875,900
     Total for All Subcategories \3\............             151      52,654,300      25,792,700     30,840,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 151 indirect dischargers. Because some indirect dischargers include operations in more than one
  subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
  facilities.
\2\ This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with
  the single waste subcategory limitations.
\3\ This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each
  set of limitations separately.

B. Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for CWT activities 
achieving each of the effluent limitations and standards promulgated 
today. This section summarizes these estimated reductions and Chapter 
12 of the technical development document discusses the methodology in 
detail. For multiple subcategory facilities, EPA estimated pollutant 
reductions assuming facilities will elect to comply with each 
subcategory's limitations separately. Table IX.C-1 summarizes, by 
subcategory, the reduction in discharge of pollutants for implementing 
BPT/BAT. For multiple subcategory facilities which elect to comply with 
the multiple wastestream subcategory limitations, EPA estimates 
pollutant removals will be equal to or greater than those presented 
here.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    The Agency estimates that this regulation will reduce 
BOD5 discharges by approximately 5.0 million pounds per 
year, TSS discharges by approximately 4.4 million pounds per year, and 
oil and grease discharges by

[[Page 81274]]

approximately 0.3 million pounds per year.
2. Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutant Reductions
    Today's rule will reduce discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants. Because EPA has promulgated BAT limitations 
equivalent to BPT, EPA estimates pollutant reductions associated with 
BPT and BAT will be equal.
    a. Direct Discharge Facilities (BPT/BAT). The estimated reductions 
in priority and non-conventional pollutants directly discharged in 
treated final effluent resulting from implementation of BPT/BAT are 
listed in Table IX.C-1. The Agency estimates that promulgated BPT/BAT 
regulations will reduce direct discharges of priority and non-
conventional pollutants by approximately 2.7 million pounds per year.

 Table IX.C-1--Reduction in Direct Discharge of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation of
                                               BPT/BAT Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Non-priority
                                                  Priority metal     metal and      Total metal     Total lbs-
                   Subcategory                     and organics       organic       and organic     equivalent/
                                                  compounds lbs/  compounds lbs/  compounds lbs/       year
                                                       year            year            year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...................         981,200       1,708,600       2,689,800         377,800
Oils Treatment and Recovery.....................           2,100          23,100          25,200           1,800
Organics Treatment 1............................               0               0               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Removals for all Subcategories............         983,300       1,731,700       2,715,000        379,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 EPA estimates there will be no additional removal of organic compounds for the organics subcategory, because
  all facilities had the treatment-in-place for removal of organic compounds.

    b. PSES Effluent Discharges to POTWs. Table IX.C-2 lists the 
estimated reductions in priority and non-conventional pollutants 
indirectly discharged to POTWs resulting from implementation of PSES. 
The Agency estimates that promulgated PSES regulations will reduce 
indirect facility discharge to POTWs by 1.9 million pounds per year. 
These figures are not adjusted for pollutant removals expected from 
POTWs, and thus do not reflect reductions in discharges to waters of 
the U.S. Estimated reductions in pollutants discharged indirectly to 
surface waters are provided on a subcategory basis in Tables 12-10 
through 12-13 of the technical development document.

 Table IX.C-2--Reduction in Discharges to POTWs of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants After Implementation
                                               of PSES Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Non-priority
                                                  Priority metal     metal and      Total metal     Total lbs-
                   Subcategory                     and organics       organic       and organic     equivalent/
                                                  compounds lbs/  compounds lbs/  compounds lbs/       year
                                                       year            year            year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Treatment and Recovery...................          61,897         419,667         481,564          37,539
Oils Treatment and Recovery.....................          82,359         752,429         834,788          50,803
Organics Treatment..............................         163,664         447,620         611,283          19,876
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Removals for All Subcategories............         307,920       1,619,716       1,925,543         108,218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

X. Economic Analyses

A. Introduction

    EPA's economic analysis for this regulation assesses the costs and 
a variety of impacts. The record for the final rule contains the 
detailed results of this analysis. This section reviews that analysis. 
A report titled ``Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry'' 
(hereinafter ``final EA'') summarizes the results of that assessment. 
The EA estimates the economic and financial costs of compliance with 
the final regulation on individual process lines, facilities and 
companies. The EA also considers impacts on new sources. Community 
impacts, foreign trade impacts, market impacts, and an ``environmental 
justice'' analysis are also presented there. The EA also includes a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis detailing the effects on small CWT 
businesses. The results of a cost-effectiveness analysis are in a 
report titled ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry.'' EPA has 
used the same methodology for estimating compliance costs and impacts 
of the final rule as it used for the 1999 proposal except for 
adjustments to costs discussed under section IV.I above.

B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimate

    As discussed previously, EPA identified 223 CWT facilities, 
including 14 direct dischargers, 151 indirect dischargers, and 58 zero 
discharge facilities. EPA calculated the economic impact on each of the 
facilities based on the cost of compliance using the selected 
technology basis for the final limitations and standards. For direct 
dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for compliance with the selected 
BPT/BCT/BAT; for indirect dischargers, EPA calculated impacts for 
compliance with PSES. As detailed previously in Section VIII, EPA based 
the final limitations on metals option 4, oils option 9, and organics 
option 4 and the final standards on metals option 4, oils

[[Page 81275]]

option 8, and organics option 4. EPA conservatively assigned costs to a 
facility with processes in multiple subcategories for meeting the 
limits or standards in each subcategory although an alternative costing 
scheme was also applied.
    The technologies that are the basis for today's final rule are 
estimated to have a total pre-tax annualized cost of $35.1 million 
(unlike the costs presented in Section IX.B, these costs are annualized 
to represent the yearly cost of compliance). Table X.B-1 presents the 
total annualized costs for BPT/BCT/BAT and PSES in 1997 dollars for the 
entire CWT industry. This table differentiates between pre-tax 
annualized costs and post-tax annualized costs. The pre-tax annualized 
costs are the engineering estimates of annualized control costs, but 
the post-tax costs more accurately reflect the costs businesses will 
incur. For that reason, post-tax costs are used in the economic impact 
analysis. Pre-tax costs, however, more accurately reflect the total 
cost to society of the rule and are used in the cost-effectiveness 
analysis and elsewhere.

                   Table X.B-1--Total Annualized Costs
                                 ($1997)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Pre-tax    Post-tax
                                                   costs ($    costs ($
                                                   million)    million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT/BCT/BAT Costs (Direct Dischargers)..........        4.31        2.68
PSES Costs (Indirect Dischargers)...............       30.8        17.1
                                                 -----------------------
Total Costs.....................................       35.1        19.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Economic Description of the CWT Industry and Baseline Conditions

    The 1999 proposal and Chapter 2 of the Final EA detail the current 
economic conditions in the industry and the data sources used in 
determining these conditions. This section updates the information 
presented at the time of the 1999 proposal.
    EPA now estimates that there are 223 CWT facilities. EPA includes 
211 CWT facilities in its economic baseline,\6\ 207 facilities are 
commercial, accepting waste generated by other facilities and/or 
generators for treatment and/or recovery for a fee. Three facilities 
are non-commercial facilities that accept waste from off-site for 
treatment and/or recovery exclusively from facilities under the same 
ownership, and one is owned by the Federal government and is treated as 
noncommercial. Some facilities perform both commercial and non-
commercial operations. For the purposes of this analysis, a facility's 
commercial status refers only to the operations subject to today's 
final rule and not other operations at that facility. That is, a 
facility that performs non-commercial CWT operations along with other 
non-CWT commercial operations would still be considered a non-
commercial facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Twelve zero dischargers were identified after proposal for 
which EPA does not have adequate data to perform modeling. They are 
therefore not included in the economic baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 167 companies owning CWT facilities range from large, multi-
facility companies to small companies that operate only a single 
facility. Company-level sales information is available or estimated for 
208 facilities. Company level profit information is available for 144 
facilities. One hundred and nine companies own these 144 facilities. 
EPA currently estimates that 82 companies owning CWT facilities 
(including zero discharge facilities) are small businesses (for the 
purposes of this analysis, EPA has defined small businesses as 
companies with less than $6 million in annual revenues--see Section 
X.M). Sixty-three small companies own two direct discharging facilities 
and 61 indirect discharging facilities.

D. Economic Impact and Closure Methodology

1. Overview of Economic Impact Methodology
    There are no differences between the economic methodology used for 
the 1999 proposal and the current methodology. Standard economic and 
financial analysis methods are used to assess the economic effects of 
the proposed regulation. These methods incorporate an integrated view 
of CWT facilities, the companies that own these facilities, the markets 
the facilities serve, and the communities where they are located.
    CWT facilities are divided into two groups: commercial (those that 
charge a fee for their services) and noncommercial (those that handle 
intra-company waste). Impacts on commercial CWT facilities are 
estimated based on the results of a market model that allows facilities 
to adjust operations in response to changes in operating costs. The 
market model predicts adjustments in market prices and quantities and 
facility-level changes in revenues and employment. (EPA also performed 
sensitivity analysis in which prices do not adjust.) After the markets 
and facilities have responded to the regulation, facilities are assumed 
to close CWT treatment operations (or processes) for which operating 
costs (including compliance costs) exceed operating revenues. Because 
non-commercial CWT facilities do not operate in the markets defined by 
the model, impacts on these facilities are estimated at the company 
level, assuming that the firm must absorb the full cost of compliance. 
For a detailed description of the economic methodology see the 1999 
proposal (64 FR 2324) and Chapter 5 of the Final EA.
    In the economic analysis, EPA examines impacts on commercial CWT 
facilities in terms of closures, but focuses on potential closures of 
CWT processes by examining the costs and revenues of each waste 
treatment or recovery operation with the regulation in effect. (This 
isolates the analysis to examine only CWT operations and not overall 
facility operations). If with-regulation costs of the operation exceed 
revenues, then the model predicts (assumes) that the operation shuts 
down. This is called a ``process closure.'' If all the CWT treatment 
processes at a facility are estimated to shut down, this is called a 
``facility closure.'' This does not mean that if a CWT facility with 
other non-CWT operations experiences a facility closure that the entire 
facility shuts down; other operations at a facility are not included in 
the economic modeling, only CWT operations. Employment losses are 
calculated from process closures, facility closures, and from 
reductions in waste treated by process lines that do not close. In all 
cases, the reduction in employment is calculated as a percentage 
decrease of the facility's total CWT employment proportionate to the 
percentage reduction in waste treated (this does not account for any 
possible increases in employment due to the regulations).
    EPA notes that its model for the 1999 proposal and the final rule, 
unlike the market model used for the 1995 proposal, does not assume 
that wastewater from processes or facilities that close will be 
transferred to another facility in the market. Although the model 
assumes the price increase caused by increased compliance costs forces 
the total quantity of waste treated in the market to decline (the 
amount of this decline is governed by the elasticity of demand for a 
market), some of the waste previously treated at a facility that closes 
will be treated at other facilities. By assuming that all changes in 
quantity occur at the highest-priced facilities and that waste is not 
sent to other facilities, EPA is assuming an all-or-nothing impact. The 
model may overstate impacts at those facilities that could

[[Page 81276]]

accept waste from another facility that closes. Conversely, the model 
may understate impacts at those facilities that cannot raise their 
price as much as projected. (EPA solicited comments on this issue and 
on appropriate ways to model this transfer but received none, so no 
changes were made to the methodology.)
    Changes in facility revenues and costs result in changes in the 
revenues and costs of the companies owning the facilities, and thus 
changes in company profits. Increased borrowing and changes in the 
assets owned by the companies, together with changes in profits, result 
in changes in overall company financial health. EPA evaluates company-
level impacts by examining changes in company profit margins and 
returns-to-assets test. These results are presented separately for 
small businesses. For small businesses, EPA also evaluates the economic 
impacts using a cost-to-sales test, comparing company compliance costs 
to baseline sales (unadjusted for cost pass-through).
    Finally, the communities where the CWT facilities are located may 
be affected. Obviously, if facilities cut back operations, employment 
and income may fall, sending ripple effects throughout the local 
community. On the other hand, there may be increased employment 
associated with operating the pollution controls associated with the 
regulation, resulting in increased community employment and income. 
Facility-level changes in employment are used to calculate total 
employment changes. At the same time, for the communities in which CWT 
facilities are located, water quality may be expected to improve.

2. Comments on Economic Methodology

    During the SBAR Panel consideration of the 1999 proposal, the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) expressed concern that EPA's economic 
methodology understates impacts. In particular, SBA questioned the 
elasticity of demand assumption used by the Agency, which affects the 
extent to which facilities will be able to pass on cost increases to 
their customers. As discussed in the final EA and this notice, the 
elasticity of demand (which varies depending on the number of 
facilities in each market) is based on economic reasoning that the 
Agency determines to be sound and reflects the limited empirical 
evidence available in the literature. In response to SBA's comment (but 
prior to the 1999 proposal), EPA reexamined the literature and 
attempted to contact waste generators to obtain further information on 
their responsiveness to the price of CWT services. EPA identified 
several additional empirical studies that support the elasticity 
parameters used in the EA. The Agency has not been successful, however, 
in eliciting information from waste generators. In the 1999 proposal, 
EPA solicited comment on the elasticity parameter and requested data 
that EPA could use to calculate the parameter, but received neither. 
EPA is therefore not altering its choice of parameters. For a complete 
discussion of the elasticity parameters used in this analysis, see 
Appendix E of the proposal EA.
    In Appendix E to the proposal EA, EPA presents a sensitivity 
analysis that assumes that CWT facilities are unable to pass costs to 
their customers. In this analysis, impacts on direct dischargers are 
unchanged, but impacts on indirect dischargers increase from 13 to 16 
facility closures and from 16 to 29 process closures.

E. Costs and Economic Impacts of BPT

    For BPT, EPA evaluates treatment options first by calculating pre-
tax total annualized costs and total pollutant removals in pounds. The 
ratios of the costs to the removals for each option considered for the 
final rule are presented in Table X.E-1. (EPA is no longer considering 
two options considered in the 1999 proposal: metals option 2 and 
organics option 3. See 64 FR 2308 and 64 FR 2312.) In all cases 
throughout section X, estimated costs and impacts for facilities with 
operations in multiple operations are presented assuming that the 
facilities comply with the limits for each subcategory separately, 
rather than with the limits for the multiple wastestream subcategory. 
See section VIII.A.4)
    EPA based the selected BPT options for the metals, oils, and 
organics subcategories on option 4, option 9, and option 4, 
respectively. As detailed in Section VIII.A.3, all direct dischargers 
in the organics subcategory employ the BPT technology basis. As such, 
other than monitoring costs, EPA assigned no compliance costs to these 
facilities nor did it estimate incremental pollutant removals.

                                         Table X.E-1.--BPT Cost Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pre-tax total   Conventional
                                                                    annualized       pollutant     Average cost
                             Option                                costs  ($1997     removals     reasonableness
                                                                     million)      (million lbs)    (1997 $/lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................................           $3.54            8.77           $0.40
3...............................................................            14.8            9.33            1.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 \1\...........................................................           0.542           0.865            0.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................................           0.222               0            n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
  separation, EPA did not consider the Option 8 technology.

    Table X.E-2 presents the economic impact results for the selected 
BPT options. Options in the Metals and Organics subcategories more 
stringent than promulgated BPT are evaluated in Sections X.F and X.G. 
Impacts are presented for process closures, facility closures, and 
employment losses. Process closures are a direct output of the market 
model. EPA concludes that a facility will close if all of the processes 
at a facility close.

[[Page 81277]]



                                  Table X.E-2.--Economic Impacts of BPT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
                                                    annualized        Process        Facility          Total
                     Option                        costs  ($1997     closures        closures       employment
                                                        M)                                            losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           $2.19               1               1              39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 \1\...........................................           0.348               2               0               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           0.138               2               0              0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
  separation, EPA did not consider the Option 8 technology.

    EPA projects that the selected BPT regulations will result in only 
one process closure and one facility closure in the metals subcategory; 
two process closures, but no facility closures, in the oils 
subcategory; and only 2 process closures, but no facility closures, in 
the organics subcategory. The summed job losses for the BPT options are 
47. (There are no job losses associated with the organics subcategory 
even though there are two process closures because job losses are 
proportional to flow. The organics flow at the facilities with the 
process closures is so low compared to the facility flow that there are 
no proportional job losses.)
    Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than 
one subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated the impacts of a combined BPT 
option on all direct dischargers. The combined impacts of this option 
are presented in Table X.E-3.

                              Table X.E-3.--Economic Impacts of Combined BPT Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
                                                    annualized        Process        Facility          Total
                     Option                        costs  ($1997     closures        closures       employment
                                                        M)                                            losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      All Direct Dischargers--14 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined........................................           $2.68               3               2              47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA projects that the final BPT regulations will result in three 
process closures, two facility closures, and a total employment loss of 
47 jobs. The totals for the individual subcategories shown in Table 
X.E-2 do not add to the totals shown in Table X.E-3 because a facility 
may have operations in more that one subcategory. For example, a 
closure is counted when all of the processes at a given facility close, 
and a process closure is counted when one, but not all, of the 
processes close. Therefore, for facilities with process closures in 
more than one subcategory, the analysis of the combined option can show 
a lower number of process closures and a higher number of facility 
closures.

F. Results of BCT Cost Test

    In July 1986, EPA explained how it developed its methodology for 
setting effluent limitations based on BCT (51 FR 24974). EPA evaluates 
the reasonableness of BCT candidate technologies--those that remove 
more conventional pollutants than BPT--by applying a two-part cost 
test: a POTW test and an industry cost-effectiveness test.
    EPA first calculates the cost per pound of conventional pollutant 
removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a BCT 
candidate technology, and then compares this cost to the cost per pound 
of conventional pollutants removed in upgrading POTWs to advanced 
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the 
POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars) (i.e. ``the POTW 
test''). In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the 
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry 
must be less than 1.29 (that is, the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent).
    Table X.F-1 presents the calculations for the BCT cost test for the 
metals subcategory. For option 3 (the only more stringent option 
considered for the metals subcategory in the final rule), the table 
presents costs and conventional pollutant removals and compares them to 
the BPT baseline, option 4. For a candidate BCT option to pass the POTW 
test, the ratio of costs to removals for that option must be less than 
$0.71 ($1997) per pound. Option 3's ratio is $20.11, well above the 
benchmark of $0.71, so it fails the POTW test. This option therefore 
does not pass the BCT cost test and it is not necessary to perform the 
industry cost-effectiveness test. Thus, BCT is set equal to BPT.
    For the final CWT rule, EPA did not consider any technologies for 
the oils and organics subcategories that are more stringent than the 
selected BPT technology basis. As such, EPA did not perform a BCT cost 
test for these subcategories and set BCT equal to BPT.

[[Page 81278]]



                                    Table X.F-1.--BCT Cost Test Calculations
                                              [Metals Subcategory]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Ratio of costs
                                                   Pre-tax total   Conventional     to removals    Does the BCT
                     Option                         annualized       pollutant        for BCT     candidate pass
                                                   costs  ($1997   removals  (M   candidate  ($/    POTW test?
                                                        M)             lbs)             lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 (BPT).........................................           $3.54            8.77             n/a             n/a
3 (BCT Candidate)...............................            14.8            9.33          $20.11              no
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Costs and Economic Impacts of BAT Options

    EPA also evaluated options more stringent than BPT in the metals 
subcategory for BAT (in the oils and organics subcategories, EPA set 
BPT equal to the most stringent option that it considered for the final 
rule). This is metals option 3. For a given technology to be the basis 
for BAT limitations it must be economically achievable. EPA is today 
adopting BAT limitations equivalent to BPT for all subcategories; 
economic impacts are, therefore, equivalent to those presented in 
Section X.E for the final BPT limits. Table X.G-1 presents the economic 
impact results for the options considered for BAT.

                                  Table X.G-1.--Economic Impacts of BAT Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
                                                    annualized        Process        Facility          Total
                     Option                        costs  ($1997     closures        closures       employment
                                                        M)                                            losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metals Subcategory--8 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           $2.19               1               1              39
3...............................................            9.01               1               1              40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 1.............................................           0.348               2               0               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................................           0.263               2               0              0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
  separation, EPA did not consider the option 8 technology.

    EPA projects (see Table X.E-3) that the selected BAT regulations 
will result in three process closures, two facility closures and 47 job 
losses. The projected closure impacts for the rejected metals option 
are equivalent to the impacts for the selected option, although there 
are slightly more employment losses for the rejected metals options. 
However, as discussed in Section VIII.C, EPA did not select this option 
for BAT.

H. Costs and Economic Impacts of PSES Options

    In addition to evaluating impacts to direct dischargers for BPT/
BCT/BAT, EPA evaluated the impacts to indirect dischargers for 
complying with PSES. For the metals and organics subcategory, EPA is 
selecting the same options for PSES that were selected for BPT/BAT: 
metals option 4 and organics option 4. For the oils subcategory, EPA 
selected oils option 8 for PSES. The impacts of the PSES options are 
presented in Table X.H-1. Impacts are presented for process closures, 
facility closures, and employment losses. Process closures are a direct 
output of the market model; facility closures are designated if all of 
the processes at a facility close. Employment losses are calculated 
from process closures, facility closures, and from reductions in waste 
treated by process lines that do not close. In all cases, the reduction 
in employment is calculated as a decrease of the facility's total CWT 
employment proportionate to the reduction in waste treated.

                                      Table X.H-1.--Impacts of PSES Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
                                                    annualized        Process        Facility          Total
                     Option                        costs  ($1997     closures        closures       employment
                                                        M)                                            losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metals Subcategory--47 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           $6.25               6               0             152
3...............................................            26.8               9               1             289
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Oils Subcategory--127 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................................            8.23              10              12             224

[[Page 81279]]

 
9...............................................            11.9              15              12             233
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Organics Subcategory--16 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................            2.67               7               0              30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the metals subcategory, EPA projects that Option 4, the selected 
PSES technology basis, will result in six process closures, no facility 
closures, and 152 job losses. For the oils subcategory, EPA projects 
that option 8, the selected PSES technology basis, results in 10 
process closures, 12 facility closures, and 224 job losses. For the 
organics subcategory, EPA projects that Option 4 results in seven 
process closures and no facility closures, with 30 job losses.
    Many facilities in the CWT industry have operations in more than 
one subcategory. EPA therefore evaluated the impacts of a combined PSES 
option on all indirect dischargers. This option consists of metals 
option 4, oils option 8, and organics option 4. The projected impacts 
of the combined option are presented in Table X.H-2. The impacts of the 
selected PSES options shown in Table X.H-1 do not add to the impacts 
shown in Table X.H-2 because a facility closure is counted if all of 
the processes at a given facility close while a process closure is 
counted if one, but not all, processes close. Therefore, in the 
combined options, the number of process closures can go down while 
facility closures go up if processes in different subcategories close. 
The employment losses also do not add up because of rounding.

                             Table X.H-2.--Economic Impacts of Combined PSES Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
                                                    annualized        Process        Facility          Total
                     Option                        costs  ($1997     closures        closures       employment
                                                        M)                                            losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     All Indirect Discharges--151 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined........................................           $17.1              15              15             414
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Economic Impacts for New Sources

    EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations 
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for both the organics and oils 
subcategories. These limitations are economically achievable because, 
in general, EPA concludes that new sources will be able to comply at 
costs that are similar to, or less than, the costs for existing 
sources. They may be able to comply at lower cost since new sources can 
apply control technologies more efficiently than sources that need to 
retrofit for those technologies. Therefore, NSPS limitations will not 
present a barrier to entry for new facilities in these subcategories.
    For the metals subcategory, EPA is establishing NSPS limitations 
based on the option 3 technology. EPA's analysis shows that the start-
up costs for the option 3 technology for new sources may be less than 
the start-up costs for the option 4 technology. Consequently, EPA has 
concluded that compliance with limitations based on this option would 
not constitute a barrier to entry for new direct discharging metals 
subcategory sources. EPA also investigated the extent of the market for 
recycling or reuse of the metals-rich sludge generated by option 3 to 
determine if a market exists for these materials (since promoting 
recycling was part of the justification for option 3). EPA has 
determined that there is a wide market for a number of metals that 
could be recycled through this process, though as discussed previously, 
EPA recognizes that there are some metal bearing wastestreams that may 
not be suitable for recycling because of the low concentrations of 
metals. Also, for some metals, such as aluminum, there are no current 
markets for recycling.
    EPA is setting PSNS equal to PSES limitations for existing sources 
for the metals and organics subcategories. Given EPA's finding of 
economic achievability for PSES in those two subcategories, EPA also 
finds that the PSNS regulation will be economically achievable and will 
not constitute a barrier to entry for new sources.
    For the oils subcategory, EPA is establishing pretreatment 
standards for new sources that are equal to NSPS for priority and non-
conventional pollutants. EPA concluded there is no barrier to entry for 
new indirect discharging facilities in the oils subcategory because 
existing oils indirect dischargers are using the technology.

J. Firm Level Impacts

    Complying with the selected effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards affects the revenues and profitability of firms owning CWT 
facilities. In Section 6.1.4 of the Final EA, the Agency examines two 
financial ratios to assess the magnitude of these impacts: firm profit 
margin (profit/revenues) and return on assets or ROA (profit/total 
assets). Baseline values are compared to post-regulation values that 
are determined by calculating changes in profits based on output from 
the market model. EPA does not have complete data for all firms, but 
the two measures decline for more than half of the firms for which EPA 
has data. EPA also examined these measures by size categories, 
including a category for small businesses. For most size categories, 
median profit margin and median ROA decline or stay approximately the 
same (although for some size categories the medians may increase). EPA 
has profit data on 56 small firms and asset data for 26 small

[[Page 81280]]

firms; profit margin declines for 33 of the 56 firms and ROA declines 
for 15 of the 26 firms. As discussed more fully in the EA, these 
results are dependent on the assumptions used in the market model and 
the market in which EPA placed the facilities.

K. Community Impacts

    EPA estimated impacts on communities in which CWT facilities were 
located by estimating the overall change in employment in the community 
as a result of the CWT rule. EPA estimated the change in employment at 
each CWT facility associated with reductions in the quantity of waste 
treated at facilities incurring economic impacts. Then, EPA applied 
state-specific direct-effect employment multipliers to estimate the 
total change in employment. Most of the change in employment will occur 
in the community where the CWT facility is located. Thus, EPA estimated 
the change in community employment as a result of the rule by assigning 
all of the change in employment to the community. Table X.K-1 shows a 
distribution of the estimated changes in community employment resulting 
from the economic impacts of the regulation. Community employment 
losses range from zero to 213 full time equivalents. Even the largest 
reduction in employment represents only 0.7 percent of the baseline 
employment in that community. Thus, the Agency expects the negative 
employment impacts of the regulation to be extremely small. In fact, 
EPA estimates that most facilities that do not close or scale back 
their CWT operations will have to hire from one to three additional 
workers to comply with the regulation (although this is not taken into 
account in Table X.K-1). Taking these impacts into effect, almost all 
of these facilities will experience increases in employment due to the 
regulation. The overall impact of the regulation on community 
employment may, therefore, be either positive or negative.

     Table X.K-1.--Estimated Community Employment Impacts of the CWT
                             Regulation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reductions in community employment as a result of        Number of
              process and facility closures                 communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Greater than 50 full time equivalents..................               5
 20 to 50...............................................              11
 1 to 20................................................              14
 0 to 1.................................................              12
 Zero...................................................            100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not account for employment gains associated with compliance.

    The Agency also examined the distribution of benefits across 
communities with different socioeconomic and ethnic characteristics. 
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, EPA must, to the greatest extent 
practicable and permitted by law, make achieving environmental justice 
part of its mission. Environmental justice concerns arise when 
disadvantaged or minority communities experience disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts. CWT facilities 
are frequently located in industrial areas; as such, the communities 
frequently have higher minority populations and greater poverty than 
the rest of their state or the nation as a whole. Reductions in 
pollutant exposures to these populations would, benefit such 
communities, but they may bear a disproportionate share of the costs of 
attaining these reductions. Table X.K-2 characterizes the communities 
in which CWT facilities are located.

     Table X.K-2.--Socioeconomic Profile of Communities in Which CWT
                         Facilities Are Located
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
                        Percentage                          communities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Percent of the Population that are Non-Caucasian (National
                            Percentage=16.8%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Less than 10...........................................              32
 10 to 20...............................................              17
 20 to 30...............................................              35
 30 to 50...............................................              39
 over 50................................................              23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Percent of the Population With Incomes Below Poverty Level (National
                            Percentage=13.5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Less than 7............................................              19
 7 to 13................................................              33
 13 to 20...............................................              56
 20 to 30...............................................              31
 over 30................................................               7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the most recent census data, in 1990, the nation as a whole 
had a population that was 16.8 percent non-Caucasian. Of the 
communities in which CWT facilities were located, on the other hand, 38 
percent had populations that were at least 30 percent minority, and 54 
percent of communities had populations whose minority percentage 
exceeded that of the state in which they were located by more than five 
percentage points. In 1990, 13.5 percent of the U.S. population had 
incomes below the poverty level, 22 percent of communities with CWT 
facilities had at least 20 percent of their residents in poverty, and 
33 percent had percentages of the population in poverty that exceeded 
by at least 5 percentage points the percentage of the population in 
poverty for the states in which they were located. Thus, environmental 
justice is a concern for these communities. The costs of the rule fall 
disproportionately on facilities in minority and low-income 
communities. Benefits may also accrue to these communities as a result 
of this rule, but a large share of benefits are likely to accrue to 
communities downstream from the CWT or POTW, which may not be the same 
community.

L. Foreign Trade Impacts

    The EA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of 
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Many of the affected 
CWT facilities treat waste that is considered hazardous under RCRA and 
international trade in CWT services for treatment of hazardous wastes 
is virtually nonexistent. Furthermore, there is very little, if any, 
international trade in treatment of non-hazardous CWT wastes.

M. Small Business Analysis

    The Agency prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis to 
assess the impacts on small businesses owning CWT facilities. No small 
governmental jurisdictions or small organizations own and/or operate 
CWT facilities. For purposes of this analysis, EPA defines small CWT 
businesses as those having sales less than $6 million--the Small 
Business Administration definition of a small business for SIC code 
4953, Refuse Systems. This is the SIC code that most CWT facilities 
listed in their questionnaire responses (see final EA Chapter 3). Two 
small companies own facilities that discharge directly. There are 61 
small companies that own facilities that discharge indirectly. (The 
total number of small companies includes applying weights to some of 
the facilities). EPA evaluated the impact on small CWT companies using 
a cost-to-sales test, which compares baseline sales to compliance costs 
(adjusted for inflation so that the costs and sales are expressed in 
the same year's dollars). This assessment does not account for any 
ability of the companies to pass any increase in operating costs 
through to their customers. EPA recognizes that for many industries, 
costs-to-sales ratios in excess of one percent may correspond to much 
higher ratios of cost to pre-compliance profits, and, thus, serve as a 
signal for additional analysis. EPA sought to identify those small 
business that would experience costs in excess of one percent of sales 
and those experiencing costs exceeding three

[[Page 81281]]

percent of sales. However, EPA does not believe that the cost-to-sales 
ratio is a particularly precise measure of economic impact for this 
industry.
    The two small companies that own direct discharging facilities, 
both in the oils subcategory, have cost-to-sales ratios of over three 
percent. Results of the cost-to-sales test for the PSES options are 
presented in Table X.M-1 for the number of facilities with estimated 
costs exceeding one percent and three percent of sales.

 Table X.M--1.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for PSES Options for Small
                               Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            # of small      # of small
                                          companies with  companies with
                 Option                    cost/sales >    cost/sales >
                                                1%              3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Metals Subcategory--4 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.......................................               4               2
3.......................................               4               4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Oils Subcategory--57 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.......................................              47              25
9.......................................              53              36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Organics Subcategory--2 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.......................................               2               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from Table X.M-1, the bulk of the small businesses 
are in the oils subcategory. Oils option 8 has 47 firms (82 percent of 
the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent 
and 25 firms (44 percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales 
ratios in excess of 3 percent (without adjustment for pass-through of 
costs). On the other hand, oils option 9 has 53 firms (93 percent of 
the small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent 
and 36 firms (63 percent of the small businesses) with cost-to-sales 
ratios in excess of 3 percent (without adjustment for pass-through of 
costs).
    Many of the facilities owned by small businesses operate processes 
in more than one subcategory so, as with the economic impact analyses 
presented earlier in this section, cost-to-sales test results are 
presented for combined PSES options. In order to be consistent with the 
1999 proposal, there are two combined options: one based on oils option 
8 and one based on oils option 9. These results are presented in Table 
X.M-2.

  Table X.M-2.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Combined PSES Options
                          for Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            # of small      # of small
                                          companies with  companies with
             Combined option               cost/sales >    cost/sales >
                                                1%              3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
w/Oils Option 8.........................              51              28
w/Oils Option 9.........................              57              38
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PSES combined option with Oils Option 8 has 51 firms (84 
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 
percent and 28 firms (46 percent of small businesses) with cost-to-
sales ratios in excess of 3 percent. On the other hand, the combined 
option with Oils Option 9 has 57 firms (93 percent of small businesses) 
with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 1 percent and 38 firms (62 
percent of small businesses) with cost-to-sales ratios in excess of 3 
percent.
    EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel during 
the development of this rule and also considered several regulatory 
alternatives to provide relief for small businesses. These alternatives 
are summarized below, and are discussed in other sections of the 
preamble along with EPA's conclusions (See Sections IV.A-IV.E).
    EPA examined several criteria for establishing an exclusion for 
small businesses such as the volume of wastewater flow, employment, or 
annual revenues. The objective was to minimize the impacts on small 
businesses, still achieve the environmental benefits, and stay 
responsive to the Clean Water Act. EPA is defining small CWT businesses 
according to the SBA size definition of $6 million in annual revenue, 
but considered other criteria that would be easier to implement in 
practice, such as wastewater flow. To target relief to small 
businesses, EPA examined the correlation between these criteria and the 
size definition.
    Because most CWT facilities have similar numbers of employees 
regardless of their size (i.e., revenue), EPA first eliminated 
employment as a basis for establishing a small business exclusion. 
While EPA also found no correlation between annual volume of wastewater 
and the size of a facility, EPA retained this criterion in the 1999 
proposal due to the anticipated ease in implementing an exclusion based 
on this criterion. However, if an exclusion based on volume of 
wastewater had ultimately been selected, the regulation would have 
excluded both small and large businesses.
    EPA evaluated three alternatives based on wastewater flow and size 
as

[[Page 81282]]

potential bases for limiting the scope of the regulation to: (i) 
Indirect dischargers with flows greater than 3.5 million gallons per 
year (MGY), or (ii and iii) indirect dischargers that manage non-
hazardous wastes only with flows greater than either 3.5 MGY or 7.5 
MGY. EPA also considered limiting the applicability of the proposed 
regulation to indirect dischargers not owned by small businesses 
without any specific reference to flow (referred to as ``no smalls'', 
below). The justification for EPA's consideration of these particular 
exclusion alternatives is included in the record in materials submitted 
to the SBAR Panel.
    For each alternative, EPA estimated the projected economic impacts, 
both in absolute terms and in relative terms (that is, whether the 
impacts were higher, proportionately, for small businesses). The 
economic impacts that EPA considered for small companies include 
process closures, facility closures, employment losses, and the cost-
to-sales test. Table X.M-3 shows the results of the facility-level 
analyses (if current facility receipts do not change) and the results 
of the analyses for the selected options for comparison purposes for 
all indirect dischargers. Table X.M-4 shows the results of the cost-to-
sales test, which are company-level impacts for small companies that 
own indirect dischargers. Preliminary versions of these results were 
provided to the small entity representatives (SERs) who provided advice 
to the SBAR Panel.

                            Table X.M.-3.--Impacts of PSES Options With Limited Scope
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Post-tax total
                                                    annualized        Process        Facility          Total
                     Option                        costs  ($1997     closures        closures       employment
                                                        M)         (small/large)   (small/large)      losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    All Indirect Dischargers--151 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Option w/ Oils 8.......................          $20.83            4/11             8/7             414
reduced monitoring..............................           17.87            4/11             7/7             420
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous.........................           17.14            7/10             2/5             221
>3.5 MGY........................................           14.89             5/9             0/1              80
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous.........................           15.49            7/10             2/5             213
``No smalls''...................................           13.21            0/10             0/8             256
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table X.M-4.--Results of Cost-to-Sales Test for Small Businesses for
                     PSES Options With Limited Scope
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cost/sales >    Cost/sales >
                 Option                         1%              3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Indirect Dischargers--61 Small Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Option w/Oils Option 8.........              57              38
Reduced monitoring......................              35              14
>3.5 MGY, non-hazardous.................              30              19
>3.5 MGY................................              24              14
>7.5 MGY, non-hazardous.................              23              17
``No smalls''...........................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These results are roughly consistent with the magnitude of impacts 
presented for the same options in the 1999 proposal (see 64 FR 2332) 
with the exception of the reduced monitoring option. At the time of the 
1999 proposal, EPA estimated that the reduced monitoring option 
resulted in 5 small and 11 large process closures, 4 small and 7 large 
facility closures, and 286 job losses. Now, EPA estimates that the 
reduced monitoring option would result in 4 small and 11 large process 
closures, 7 small and 7 large facility closures, and 420 job losses.
    Some SBAR Panel members and SERs argued that these results 
supported excluding small businesses from the regulation. As described 
in the Panel's final report, these Panel members and SERs believed that 
the ``lost'' pollutant reductions associated with excluding small 
businesses would not be environmentally significant. Based on analysis 
available at the time of the Panel, limiting the applicability to 
exclude all oils facilities owned by small businesses would have 
reduced removals by 12 percent. Excluding indirect dischargers with 
flows under 3.5 MGY would have reduced removals by 6 percent. They also 
suggested that these facilities provide an important ``safety valve'' 
for an affordable and effective treatment alternative for industrial 
facilities that would otherwise find it prohibitively expensive to 
comply with industry-specific national effluent guidelines and 
standards.
    Other SERs opposed this approach. These SERs argued that excluding 
small businesses from the scope of this rule would adversely impact the 
image of the industry. One of these SERs preferred reduced monitoring 
and also suggested that small businesses might be granted additional 
time to comply with the new standards, rather than excluding those 
businesses within the scope of the rule. EPA expressed concern that the 
absence of national effluent guidelines and standards for CWT 
facilities has been a major ``loophole'' in a national program to 
control industrial pollution, allowing wastes to be treated off-site 
less effectively than would be required of the same wastes if treated 
on-site. One of EPA's primary concerns with any of the alternatives 
that limit the scope of the rule is that the limited scope encourages 
such a loophole. If a segment of the industry is not subject to 
national regulation, these companies might quickly expand, leading to 
much greater discharges within a few years. This tendency would be 
limited by the flow or size cut-off itself unless more concentrated 
wastes are funneled through plants below the cut-off. In addition, as 
demonstrated by the survey responses and public comments, almost all 
CWT facilities have substantial amounts of unused capacity. Because

[[Page 81283]]

this industry is extremely competitive, by limiting the scope of the 
CWT rule, EPA could actually be encouraging ineffective treatment while 
discouraging effective treatment.

N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    EPA also conducted an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the 
alternative treatment technology options that were considered. The 
report, ``Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines and Standards for the CWT Industry'' (hereinafter, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Report''), describes the methodology, data, and results; 
the report is included in the record of this rulemaking. The results of 
this cost-effectiveness analysis are expressed in terms of the costs 
(in 1981 dollars) per pound-equivalent removed, where pounds-equivalent 
removed for a particular pollutant is determined by multiplying the 
number of pounds of a pollutant removed by each option by a toxic 
weighting factor. The toxic weighting factors account for the 
differences in toxicity among pollutants and are derived using ambient 
water quality criteria. Cost effectiveness results are presented in 
1981 dollars as a reporting convention. Cost-effectiveness is 
calculated as the ratio of pre-tax annualized costs of an option to the 
annual pounds-equivalent removed by that option, and can be expressed 
as the average or incremental cost-effectiveness for an option.
    Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of as the ``increment'' 
between no regulation and the selected option for any given rule. For 
direct dischargers, the technologies used as the basis for BPT/BCT/BAT 
in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness ratio of $6.77/
lb-equivalent. For indirect dischargers, the technologies used as the 
basis for PSES in all subcategories have an average cost-effectiveness 
ratio of $175/lb-equivalent. These results incorporate all 
subcategories with their selected options.
    Incremental cost-effectiveness is the appropriate measure for 
comparing one regulatory option to another regulatory option for the 
same subcategory. Cost-effectiveness results by subcategory and option 
are presented for direct dischargers in Table X.N-1 and indirect 
dischargers in Table X.N-2. The options are listed in order of 
increasing removals.

                              Table X.N-1.--BPT/BCT/BAT Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pre-tax total                                    Incremental
                                                    annualized    Removals  (lbs-  Average cost        cost
                     Option                        costs  ($1981        eq)        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                        M)                        (1981 $/lb-eq)  (1981 $/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metals Subcategory--9 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           $2.15         384,416           $6.00  ..............
3...............................................            9.00         401,426           22.00            $403
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Oils Subcategory--5 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 a.............................................           0.329           1,771             186            n/a
                                       Organics Subcategory--4 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           0.135               0  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Since all direct discharging oils facilities already have treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary gravity
  separation, EPA did not consider the option 8 technology.


                                 Table X.N-2.--PSES Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pre-tax total                                    Incremental
                                                    annualized    Removals  (lbs-  Average cost        cost
                     Option                        costs  ($1981        eq)        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                        M)                        (1981 $/lb-eq)  (1981 $/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Metals Subcategory--42 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................           $6.95          39,211            $176  ..............
3...............................................            26.9          48,008             561          $2,323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Oils Subcategory--123 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................................            8.98          48,148             187  ..............
9...............................................            12.8          50,792             252           1,442
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Organics Subcategory--15 Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................................            2.79          19,814             141  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the 
discharges of 104 \7\ priority and non-conventional pollutants from 
centralized waste treatment facilities to surface waters and POTWs in 
national analyses of direct and indirect discharges. Discharges of 
these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter 
aquatic habitats, adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact 
human health through the consumption of

[[Page 81284]]

contaminated fish and drinking water. Furthermore, these pollutants may 
also interfere with POTW operations in terms of inhibition of activated 
sludge or biological treatment and contamination of sewage sludges, 
thereby limiting the method of disposal and thereby raising its costs. 
All of these pollutants have at least one toxic effect (human health 
carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant). In addition, 
many of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms and persist 
in the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA accounted for a total of 161 pollutant of concern 
analytes. However, ambient water quality criteria or toxicity 
profiles are established for only 104 analytes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has updated its analysis to reflect changes to the National 
Ambient Water Quality Criteria made after the 1999 CWT proposal was 
issued. National Ambient Water Quality Criteria have been updated for 
63 of the analytes modeled in the water quality benefits analysis. In 
some cases, water criteria for aquatic organisms were completely 
removed, while for others, criteria for human health were made more 
stringent.
    The Agency did not evaluate the effects of conventional pollutants 
since the analysis focused on priority and non-conventional pollutants. 
However, the discharge of a conventional pollutant such as total 
suspended solids (TSS) can have adverse effects on the environment. For 
example, habitat degradation can result from increased suspended 
particulate matter that reduces light penetration, and thus primary 
productivity, or from accumulation of sludge particles that alter 
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats.
    Of a total of 223 CWT facilities, for the purposes of the water 
quality and benefits analysis, EPA evaluated 12 direct dischargers and 
101 indirect dischargers. Facilities not evaluated include zero 
dischargers (58) and those with insufficient data (2 direct and 50 
indirect facilities) to conduct the water quality analysis. To estimate 
benefits from the improvements in water quality, in-stream 
concentration estimates are modeled and then compared to both aquatic 
life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or toxic 
effect levels. The analyses were first performed on a subcategory-
specific basis. The subcategory-specific analyses, however, consider 
only impacts of discharges from individual subcategories, and 
therefore, underestimate overall water quality impacts for facilities 
that treat wastes in more than one subcategory. At least 15 percent of 
facilities in the CWT industry accept wastes in multiple subcategories. 
In order to evaluate overall benefits of the final technologies, EPA 
also analyzed water quality and POTW impacts for multiple subcategory 
combinations.
    EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic 
benefits to result from these projected reductions in effluent loadings 
(see ``Environmental Assessment of the Final Effluent Guidelines for 
the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,'' (Environmental 
Assessment)). In particular, the assessment addresses the following 
benefit categories: (a) Human health benefits due to reductions in 
excess cancer risk; (b) human health benefits due to reductions in lead 
exposure; (c) human health benefits due to reductions in non-
carcinogenic hazard (systemic); (d) ecological and recreational 
benefits due to improved water quality with respect to toxic 
pollutants; and (e) benefits to POTWs from reductions in interference, 
pass through, and biosolid contamination, and elimination of some of 
the efforts associated with establishing local pretreatment limits.

A. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk

    EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters associated with 
the final rule will reduce cancer incidences by approximately 0.03 per 
year with estimated monetized benefits of $0.076 to $0.412 million 
($1997) per year. These estimated benefits are attributable to reducing 
the cancer risks associated with consuming contaminated fish tissue. 
EPA developed these benefit estimates by applying an existing estimate 
of the value of a statistical life to the estimated number of excess 
cancer cases avoided. The estimated range of the value of a statistical 
life used in this analysis is $2.3 million to 12.4 million ($1997).

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

    EPA solicited comment on, and updated its methodology used to 
estimate lead health risks due to ingestion of lead-contaminated fish 
tissues by recreational and subsistence anglers. For the proposed rule 
EPA used the 7Q10 flow (lowest seven day flow which reoccurs every ten 
years), although the harmonic mean flow would have been more 
appropriate to estimate the human health effects due to consumption of 
lead contaminated fish tissues. As a result, EPA's calculated benefit 
at the time of proposal for the reduction of lead discharges into the 
environment was overestimated.
    For the final rule, EPA used the harmonic-mean flow to estimate 
human health effects due to consumption of lead contaminated fish 
tissue. Under the final treatment levels, the ingestion of lead-
contaminated fish tissues by recreational and subsistence anglers would 
be reduced at 10 water bodies. Because elevated blood lead levels can 
cause intellectual impairment in exposed children 0 to 6 years of age, 
benefits to the at-risk child populations are quantified by estimating 
the reduced potential IQ point loss. Benefits to adults are quantified 
by estimating the reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases including 
hypertension, coronary heart disease, and strokes (the benefits of 
reduced heart disease and strokes include both fatal and non-fatal 
cases). The benefits are quantified and monetized using methodologies 
developed in the Retrospective Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Final 
Report to Congress on Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 
1990; EPA 410-R-97-002). EPA estimates that this final regulation will 
reduce cases of these adverse health effects; the total benefit for 
these reductions would range from approximately $0.488 million to $1.59 
million.

C. Reduced Noncarcinogenic Human Health Hazard

    Exposure to toxic substances poses risk of systemic and other 
effects to humans, including effects on the circulatory, respiratory or 
digestive systems, and neurological and developmental effects. This 
final rule is expected to generate human health benefits by reducing 
exposure to these substances, thus reducing the hazards of these 
associated effects. EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface waters 
would reduce the number of persons potentially exposed to non-cancer 
effects due to consumption of contaminated fish tissue by 1880 people. 
Presently EPA does not have methodology for monetizing these benefits.

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

    EPA expects this final rule to generate environmental benefits by 
improving water quality. There are a wide range of benefits associated 
with the maintenance and improvement of water quality. These benefits 
include use values (e.g., recreational fishing), ecological values 
(e.g., preservation of habitat), and passive use values. For example, 
water pollution might affect the quality of the fish and wildlife 
habitat provided by water resources, thus affecting the species using 
these resources. This in turn might affect the quality and value of 
recreational experiences of users, such as anglers fishing in the 
effected streams. EPA has estimated the value of the recreational

[[Page 81285]]

fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this final rule.
    EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to 
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range 
from $1.23 million to $3.49 million ($1997). EPA evaluates these 
recreational benefits, applying a model that considers the increase in 
value of a ``contaminant-free fishery'' to recreational anglers 
resulting from the elimination of all pollutant concentrations in 
excess of AWQC at 5 of the 43 receiving water locations. EPA's modeling 
projects that discharges from CWT facilities are responsible for 252 
AWQC violations at 43 receiving water locations and that the rule would 
eliminate all violations at 5 of these locations. Note these results 
are derived from computer modeling only. The monetized value of 
impaired recreational fishing opportunity is estimated by first 
calculating the baseline value of the receiving stream using a value 
per-person-day of recreational fishing, and the number of person-days 
fished on the receiving stream. The value of improving water quality in 
this fishery, based on the increase in value to anglers of achieving 
contaminant-free fishing, is then calculated. However, adding these 
benefits to the cancer and lead toxicity reduction benefits calculated 
above may result in double counting. Presumably reduced incidence of 
adverse health effects is one of the factors anglers considered when 
valuing a ``contaminant free fishery.''
    In addition, EPA estimates that the annual monetized intrinsic 
benefits to the general public, as a result of the same improvements in 
water quality, range from at least $0.62 million to $1.75 million 
($1997). These intrinsic benefits are estimated as half of the 
recreational benefits and may be either underestimated or 
overestimated.

E. Improved POTW Operations

    EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this 
final regulation: (1) Reductions in the likelihood of interference, 
pass through, and biosolid contamination problems; and (2) reductions 
in costs potentially incurred by POTWs in analyzing toxic pollutants 
and determining whether to, and the appropriate level at which to, set 
local limits. Although the benefits from reducing these effects at 
POTWs might be substantial, EPA is unable to quantify them.
    First, regarding potential interference, pass through and biosolid 
contamination, this final rule is expected to help reduce these 
problems by reducing pollutant loadings in the industry's effluent and 
reducing shock releases. Anecdotal evidence from POTW operators and 
sampling results indicate that such effects can occur. EPA also expects 
the final rule to improve the biosolid quality of 3900 metric tons, 
permitting the use of less expensive disposal mechanisms. The estimated 
monetized benefits for improving biosolid quality range from $0.14 
million to $0.85.
    Finally, reducing the pollutant load to local POTWs may eliminate 
some of the efforts associated with establishing local pollutant 
limits. Local limits are sometimes required to protect against pass 
through and interference, and to protect worker health and safety. 
Several POTWs indicated that establishment of more effective national 
pretreatment standards will reduce the time and effort required to 
establish local limits.

F. Other Benefits Not Quantified

    The above benefit analyses focus mainly on identified compounds 
with quantifiable toxic or carcinogenic effects. This potentially leads 
to an underestimation of benefits, since some pollutant 
characterizations are not explicitly considered. While the analysis 
does include a general estimate for non-use benefits, it is possible 
that some potential effects of reductions in certain pollutants were 
not fully captured in the monetized estimates. For example, the 
analyses do not include the benefits associated with reducing the 
particulate load (measured as TSS), or the oxygen demand (measured as 
BOD5 and COD) of the effluents. TSS loads can degrade 
ecological habitat by reducing light penetration and primary 
productivity, and from accumulation of solid particles that alter 
benthic spawning grounds and feeding habitats. BOD5 and COD 
loads can deplete oxygen levels, which can produce mortality or other 
adverse effects in fish, as well as reduce biological diversity.

G. Summary of Benefits

    EPA estimates that the annual monetized benefits resulting from 
this final rule are in the range from $2.56 million to $8.09 million 
($1997). Table XI.G-1 summarizes these benefits, by category. The range 
reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects of this final rule 
and in placing a dollar value on these effects. As indicated in Table 
XI.G-1, these monetized benefits ranges do not explicitly reflect some 
potential benefit categories, including aspects of improved ecological 
conditions from improvements in water quality; and improved POTW 
operations.
    At the same time, there may be a certain amount of double counting 
in the benefits categories that have been monetized, for example, 
between the health and recreational benefits. Therefore the reported 
benefits may understate or overestimate the total benefits of this 
final rule.

               Table XI.G-1.--Potential Economic Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Millions of 1997 dollars per
             Benefit category                           year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk......................  0.076-0.412
Reduced Lead Health Risk.................  0.49-1.59
Reduced Non-Carcinogenic Hazard..........  Unquantified
Improved Recreation Value................  1.23-3.49
Improved Intrinsic Value (including        0.62-1.75*
 ecological conditions).
Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW...  0.14-0.85
Potentially Improved POTW Operation        Unquantified
 (inhibition).
Total Monetized Benefits.................  2.56-8.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* May not fully capture all ecological effects.

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

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

A. Air Pollution

    CWT facilities generate wastewater that contain significant 
concentrations of organic compounds, some of which are also on the list 
of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) in title 3 of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These wastewaters often pass through a 
series of collection and treatment units that are open to the 
atmosphere and allow wastewater containing organic compounds to contact 
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the organic-containing wastewater 
may result in significant volatilization of both volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), which contribute to the formation of ambient ozone, 
and HAP from the wastewater.
    As discussed in 1999 proposal, EPA considered including air 
stripping in the technology basis for today's limitations and 
standards, but rejected it because it

[[Page 81286]]

would not have resulted in significantly different limitations. Because 
this rule would not allow any less stringent control of VOCs than is 
currently in place at most CWT facilities, EPA does not project any net 
increase in air emissions from volatilization of organic pollutants due 
to today's final action. As such, no adverse air impacts are expected 
to occur as a result of today's regulations.
    Although this rule does not require the use of air stripping with 
emissions control to control the emission of volatile pollutants, EPA 
encourages all facilities which accept waste containing volatile 
pollutants to incorporate air stripping with overhead recovery or 
destruction into their wastewater treatment systems. Additionally, EPA 
also notes that CWT sources of hazardous air pollutants are subject to 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-
site waste and recovery operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34140) at 40 
CFR Part 63.
    Finally, EPA notes that the increased energy requirements discussed 
below may result in increased emissions of combustion byproducts 
associated with energy production. Given the relatively small projected 
increases in energy use, however, EPA does not anticipate that this 
effect would be signficant.

B. Solid Waste

    Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the treatment 
technologies selected as the basis for today's rule. These wastes 
include sludge from biological treatment systems, chemical 
precipitation and clarification systems, and gravity separation and 
dissolved air flotation systems. EPA estimated costs for off-site 
disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills of the solid wastes generated 
due to the implementation of the technologies discussed above. These 
costs were included in the economic evaluation of the selected 
technologies.
    The precipitation and subsequent separation selected as the 
technology basis for the metals subcategory will produce a metal-rich 
filter cake which requires disposal. EPA estimates that metals 
subcategory facilities will generate annually 3.7 million gallons of 
filter cake. Dissolved air flotation and additional gravity separation 
steps selected as the technology basis \8\ for the oils subcategory 
will also produce a metal-rich filter press cake that requires 
disposal. EPA estimates that oils subcategory facilities will generate 
approximately 23 million gallons of filter press cake annually. 
Finally, the biological treatment system selected as the technology 
basis for the organics subcategory will also produce a sludge that 
requires disposal. EPA estimates that 4.3 million gallons of sludge 
will be generated annually by the organics subcategory facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The technology basis for indirect discharges in the oils 
subcategory does not include additional gravity separation steps. 
See Section VIII.E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has concluded that the disposal of these filter cakes and/or 
sludges will not have an adverse effect on the environment or result in 
the release of pollutants in the filter cake to other media. EPA made 
this conclusion for two reasons. First, EPA estimates that the 
additional solid wastes disposed in landfills as a result of this 
regulation will be less than 0.19% of the annual tonnage of waste 
currently disposed in landfills. Second, the disposal of these wastes 
into controlled Subtitle C and D landfills is strictly regulated by the 
RCRA program.

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES will 
increase energy consumption by a small increment over present industry 
use. With the exception of the oils subcategory, the projected increase 
in energy consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of 
components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, and controls. For the 
metals subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy usage of 3.5 
million kilowatt hours per year and, for the organics subcategory, an 
increased energy usage of 0.5 million-kilowatt hours per year. For the 
oils subcategory, however, the main energy requirement in today's rule 
is for the operation of dissolved air flotation units. Dissolved air 
flotation units require air sparging to help separate the wastestream. 
For the oils subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy usage of 3.4 
million kilowatt hours per year. Overall, an increase of 7.5 million 
kilowatt-hours per year would be required for today's regulation which 
equates to 4210 barrels of oil per day. In 1996, the United States 
consumed 18.3 million barrels of oil per day.

XIII. Regulatory Implementation

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

A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards

1. Introduction
    Effluent limitations and pretreatment standards act as a primary 
mechanism to control the discharges of pollutants to waters of the 
United States. These limitations and standards are applied to 
individual facilities through NPDES permits and local limits developed 
for POTWs issued by the EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of 
the Act and local pretreatment programs under Section 307 of the Act.
    In specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority or local POTW may 
elect to establish technology-based permit limits or local 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 or standards on covered pollutants to achieve 
compliance), the permitting authority must apply those limitations or 
standards.
2. Compliance Dates
    New and reissued Federal and State NPDES permits to direct 
dischargers must include the effluent limitations promulgated today. 
Existing indirect dischargers must comply with today's pretreatment 
standards no later than December 22, 2003. New direct and indirect 
discharging sources must comply with applicable limitations and 
standards on the date the new sources begin operations. As a further 
point of clarification, new direct and indirect sources are those that 
began construction of CWT operations after August 28, 2000.
3. Applicability
    EPA provided detailed information on the applicability of this rule 
to various operations in Section V. EPA also provided examples of 
regulated and non-regulated CWT operations in Table V.A-1. Also see 40 
CFR 437.1. Permit writers and pretreatment authorities should closely 
examine all CWT operations to determine if they should be subject to 
provisions of this rule.
4. Subcategorization Determination
    Each CWT facility subject to this rule will need to make an initial 
determination of which subcategories are applicable. Multiple 
subcategory facilities will need to choose to comply with each of the 
applicable subcategory limitations or standards separately (directly 
following treatment of each subcategory's waste) or to certify

[[Page 81287]]

equivalent treatment and comply with one of the four sets of 
limitations or standards in the multiple wastestream subcategory. The 
following sections provide guidance on a facility's subcategorization 
determination as well as implementation of the rule for multiple 
subcategory facilities. In addition, this section provides a procedure 
that should assist CWT facilities in determining into which category 
particular waste receipts might fall.
    EPA determined that the paperwork and analyses currently performed 
at CWT facilities, as part of their waste acceptance procedures, 
provide CWT facilities with sufficient information for them to 
determine into which of the subcategories their treated waste would 
fall. EPA based its recommended subcategorization determination 
procedure on information generally obtained during these waste 
acceptance and confirmation procedures. In EPA's view, permit writers 
and local pretreatment authorities should not (because they need not) 
require additional monitoring or paperwork solely for the purpose of 
subcategory determinations, unless the CWT facility's waste acceptance 
procedures are inadequate. EPA concluded that if CWT facilities follow 
EPA's recommendations, they should easily classify their wastes. Permit 
writers and local authorities, in these circumstances, would only need 
to satisfy themselves that the facility made a good-faith effort to 
determine the category of wastes treated. In most cases, as detailed 
below, EPA determined that the subcategory determination can be made on 
the type of waste receipt, e.g., metal-bearing sludge, used oil, or 
landfill leachate. Certainly, in EPA's estimation, all CWT facilities 
should, at a minimum, collect adequate information from the generator 
on the type of waste received at the CWT facility because this is the 
minimum information required by CWT facilities to treat off-site wastes 
effectively.
    To determine an existing facility's subcategory classification(s), 
the facility should review data for a period of one year on its 
incoming wastes (that is, at the point where the shipment is received 
at the facility). The facility should first use Table XIII.A-1 below to 
classify each of its waste receipts into a subcategory for that one-
year period.

              TABLE XIII.A-1--Waste Receipt Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Subcategory:
  Spent electroplating baths and/or sludges
  Metal finishing rinse water and sludges
  Chromate wastes
  Air pollution control blow down water and sludges
  Spent anodizing solutions
  Incineration wastewaters
  Waste liquid mercury
  Cyanide-containing wastes
  Waste acids and bases with or without metals
  Cleaning, rinsing, and surface preparation solutions from
   electroplating or phosphating operations
  Vibratory deburring wastewater
  Alkaline and acid solutions used to clean metal parts or equipment
Oils Subcategory:
  Used oils
  Oil-water emulsions or mixtures
  Lubricants
  Coolants
  Contaminated groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources
  Used petroleum products
  Oil spill clean-up
  Bilge water
  Rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources
  Interceptor wastes
  Off-specification fuels
  Underground storage remediation waste
  Tank clean-out from petroleum or oily sources
  Non-contact used glycols
  Aqueous and oil mixtures from parts cleaning operations
  Wastewater from oil bearing paint washes
Organics Subcategory:
  Landfill leachate
  Contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum sources
  Solvent-bearing wastes
  Off-specification organic product
  Still bottoms
  Byproduct waste glycol
  Wastewater from paint washes
  Wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation
  Wastewater from organic chemical product operations
  Tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the CWT facility receives the wastes listed above, the 
subcategory determination may be made solely from this information. If, 
however, the wastes are unknown or not listed above, EPA recommends 
that the facility use the following hierarchy to determine how to 
characterize the wastes it is treating, so as to identify the 
appropriate regulatory subcategory.
    (1) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease at or in excess of 
100 mg/L, the waste receipt should be classified in the oils 
subcategory;
    (2) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease 100 mg/L, and has 
any of the pollutants listed below in concentrations in excess of the 
values listed below, the waste receipt should be classified in the 
metals subcategory.

Cadmium: 0.2 mg/L
Chromium: 8.9 mg/L
Copper: 4.9 mg/L
Nickel: 37.5 mg/L

    (3) If the waste receipt contains oil and grease  100 mg/L, and 
does not have concentrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, or nickel 
above any of the values listed above, the waste receipt should be 
classified in the organics subcategory.
    Once a facility's subcategory determination has been made, in EPA's 
view, the facility would not need to repeat this annual determination 
process unnecessarily. However, if a CWT facility alters its operation 
to accept wastes from another subcategory (or to no longer accept waste 
from a subcategory), the facility should notify the appropriate permit 
writer or pretreatment authority and the subcategory determination 
should be re-visited. EPA notes that current permit regulations require 
notification to the permitting authority when significant changes 
occur. EPA also recommends that the subcategory determination be 
reevaluated whenever the permit is reissued, though this would not 
necessarily require complete characterization of a subsequent year's 
waste receipts if there were no indication that the make-up of the 
facility's receipts had significantly changed.
    For new CWT facilities, the facility should estimate the percentage 
of waste receipts expected in each subcategory. Alternatively, the 
facility could compare the treatment technologies being installed to 
the selected treatment technologies for each subcategory. After the 
initial year of operation, the permit writer or pretreatment authority 
should reassess the facility's subcategory determination and follow the 
procedure outlined for existing facilities.
5. Implementation for Facilities in Multiple CWT Subcategories
    EPA estimates that many facilities in the CWT industry accept 
wastes in two or more of the individual subcategories adopted for 
regulation here. In other words, the facilities actively accept a 
variety of waste types. This situation is different from the case in 
which metal-bearing wastestreams may include low-level organic 
pollutants or that oily wastes may include low-level metal pollutants 
due to the origin of the wastestream accepted for treatment.
    As promulgated today, multiple subcategory facilities may comply 
with this rule in one of two ways: (1)

[[Page 81288]]

Facilities may elect to comply with the limitations or standards for 
each applicable subcategory directly following treatment (before 
commingling with different subcategory wastes); or (2) facilities may 
certify equivalent treatment and comply with one of the four sets of 
limitations or standards for the multiple wastestream subcategory. Each 
of these options is discussed further below.
    a. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory A, B, and/
or C. In implementing this rule for multiple subcategory facilities in 
this manner, the permit writer or pretreatment control authority needs 
to ensure that the CWT facility has an optimal waste management 
program. First, the permit writer or control authority should verify 
that the CWT facility is identifying and segregating wastestreams 
appropriately since segregation of similar wastestreams is the first 
step in obtaining optimal mass removals of pollutants from industrial 
wastes. Next, the permit writer or control authority should verify that 
the CWT facility is employing treatment technologies designed to treat 
all off-site waste receipts effectively. Finally, the permit writer or 
control authority should establish compliance monitoring for each 
applicable subcategory directly following treatment of the each 
subcategory's waste stream. As a further point of clarification, the 
permit writer or control authority should not allow CWT facilities to 
commingle wastestreams from different subcategories prior to monitoring 
for compliance with each subcategory's limitations or standards.
    b. Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory D. First, 
facilities which desire this option would submit an initial request to 
their permit writer or local control authority certifying that their 
treatment train includes all applicable equivalent treatment systems. 
This initial certification would include, at a minimum, the applicable 
subcategories (i.e., metals, oils, organics), a listing of and 
descriptions of the treatment technologies and operating conditions 
used to treat wastes in each subcategory, and the justification for 
making an equivalent treatment determination (see Sec. 437.40 of the 
final rule). For example, a direct discharging facility which accepts 
metals subcategory and oils subcategory wastewaters could show that 
their treatment train includes two-stage oil/water separation, two-
stage chemical precipitation, and dissolved air flotation operated in a 
similar manner to that costed by EPA. Since these are the treatment 
technologies selected as the basis for this rule, the equivalent 
treatment determination could be established. However, EPA is not 
defining ``equivalent treatment'' as specific treatment technologies or 
the technology bases, but rather as a ``wastewater treatment system 
that is demonstrated in literature, treatability tests, or self-
monitoring data to remove a similar level of the appropriate pollutants 
as the applicable treatment technology selected as the basis for the 
applicable regulations''.\9\ EPA is leaving the decision as to whether 
a particular treatment train is ``equivalent treatment'' to the permit 
writer's or local control authority's best professional judgment. 
However, the requesting facility is responsible for providing the 
permit writer or local control authority with enough information and/or 
data to make the equivalent treatment determination. This initial 
certification statement must be signed by the responsible corporate 
officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(1) or 40 CFR 122.22. If the permit 
writer or local control authority determines that equivalent treatment 
is demonstrated, then the permit writers of local control authority 
will issue discharge requirements based on one of the four subsets of 
limitations or standards promulgated for the multiple wastestream 
subcategory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The pollutant removals for each treatment technology 
selected as the basis are listed in Tables 7.6 through 7.9 in the 
TDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the facility shall submit an annual certification statement 
which indicates that the treatment technologies are being utilized in 
the manner set forth in their original certification or a justification 
to allow modification of the practices listed in its initial 
certification (see Sec. 437.41 of the final rule). If the information 
contained in the initial certification statement is still applicable, a 
facility shall simply state that in a letter to the permitting 
authority or local control authority, and the letter shall constitute 
the periodic statement. However, if the facility has modified its 
treatment system in any way, it shall submit the revised information in 
a manner similar to the initial certification. Once again, the permit 
writer or local control authority would be expected to use BEJ/BPJ in 
reviewing any modifications.
    Finally, the facility shall be required to maintain on-site 
compliance paperwork. The on-site compliance paperwork should include 
information from the initial and periodic certifications, but must also 
include: (1) The supporting documentation for any modifications that 
have been made to the treatment system; (2) a method for demonstrating 
that the treatment system is well operated and maintained; and (3) a 
discussion of the rationale for choosing the method of demonstration. 
Proper operation and maintenance of a system includes a qualified 
person to operate the system, use of correct treatment chemicals in 
appropriate quantities, and operation of the system within the stated 
design parameters. For example, a facility may operate dissolved air 
flotation. The method for demonstrating the dissolved air flotation 
system is well operated can be as simple as maintaining records on the 
temperature and pH, the chemicals added (including quantity), the 
duration of treatment, recycle ratio, and physical characteristics of 
the wastewater before and after dissolved air flotation. Alternatively, 
the facility could monitor for selected parameters for the purpose of 
demonstrating effective treatment. This could include any pollutant or 
a combination of pollutants.
    Control authorities, at any time after entering into an individual 
control mechanism, or permitting authorities, or any time after 
issuing, reissuing, or modifying the NPDES permit, could inspect the 
CWT facility to confirm that the listed practices are being employed, 
that the treatment system is well operated and maintained, and that the 
necessary paperwork provides sufficient justification for any 
modifications.
6. Implementation for Metals Subcategory Facilities With Cyanide Subset
    Whenever a CWT facility accepts a waste receipt that contains more 
than 136 mg/L of total cyanide, the CWT facility must monitor for 
cyanide when the wastewater exits the cyanide destruction process 
rather than after mixing with other process wastewater. Alternatively, 
the facility may monitor for compliance after mixing if the cyanide 
limitations are adjusted using the ``building block approach'' or 
``combined wastestream formula,'' assuming the cyanide limitations do 
not fall below the minimum analytical detection limit.
7. Implementation for CWT Facilities Subject to Multiple Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines or Pretreatment Standards
    For determination of effluent limits where there are multiple 
categories, the effluent guidelines are applied using a flow-weighted 
combination of the appropriate guideline for each category (i.e., ``the 
building block approach''). Where a facility treats a CWT wastestream 
and process wastewater from other non-CWT industrial operations, the 
effluent guidelines

[[Page 81289]]

would be applied by using a flow-weighted combination of the BPT/BAT 
limitations for the CWT and the other non-CWT industrial operation to 
derive the appropriate limitations. Similarly, for indirect 
dischargers, under these circumstances, the pretreatment standards 
would be applied using the ``combined wastestream formula'' as defined 
in 40 CFR 403.6(e). The only exceptions to this are for facilities also 
subject to effluent guidelines for Landfills (40 CFR 445) and effluent 
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning (40 CFR 442). The interaction between these 
categories and the CWT rule are detailed in Section V. J and V.I, 
respectively.
8. Internal Monitoring Requirements
    Working in conjunction with the effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards are the monitoring conditions set out in the 
NPDES or POTW discharge permit. An integral part of monitoring 
conditions is the point at which a facility must demonstrate 
compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can have a 
dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility. Therefore, 
as detailed elsewhere in the implementation section, it may be 
necessary to require internal monitoring points in order to assure 
compliance. Authority to address internal wastestreams is provided in 
40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii), 122.45(h), and 40 CFR 403.6(e)(2) and (4). 
Permit writers or local control authorities may establish additional 
internal monitoring points to the extent consistent with EPA's 
regulations.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of wastestreams 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 for direct dischargers are set forth at 
40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 
and 403.17.

C. Variances and Modifications

    Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued 
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the CWT 
Industry must include the effluent limitations. In addition, the 
indirect dischargers must comply with the pretreatment standards within 
three years of issuance.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) Variances
    The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations 
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of 
section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the 
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in 
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established 
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the 
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority, 
conventional, and non-conventional pollutants.
    EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from 
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing 
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors 
considered in establishing the limitations or standards applicable to 
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a 
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
    Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from 
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and non-
conventional pollutants, and BCT limitations for conventional 
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA 
provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment standards for existing 
facilities. FDF variances for priority pollutants were challenged 
judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court (Chemical 
Manufacturers Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
    Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new 
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the 
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or national effluent 
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 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 limitations and standards, 
further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance 
requests for existing direct dischargers.
    Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) identifies six factors (for example, volume 
of process wastewater, age, and size of a discharger's facility) that 
may be considered in determining if a facility is fundamentally 
different. The Agency must determine whether, on the basis of one or 
more of these factors, the facility in question is fundamentally 
different from the facilities and factors considered by the EPA in 
developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The 
regulation also lists four other factors (for example, 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 the EPA in 
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulations 
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.

[[Page 81290]]

2. Water Quality Variances
    Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent 
guidelines for certain non-conventional pollutants due to localized 
environmental factors. These pollutants include ammonia, chlorine, 
color, iron, and total phenols.
3. Permit Modifications
    Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit 
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain 
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration, 
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit 
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could 
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the 
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person 
may request a permit modification. There are two classifications of 
modifications: major and minor. From a procedural standpoint, they 
differ primarily with respect to the public notice requirements. Major 
modifications require public notice while minor modifications do not. 
Virtually any modification that results in less stringent conditions is 
treated as a major modification, with provisions for public notice and 
comment. Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of a 
permit are described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are 
generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor 
modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.

XIV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 Federal Register 51735, (October 4, 
1993)], the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The 
Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely 
to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' 
Consequently, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made 
in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record.

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

1. Background
    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for 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 impact of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as (1) a small business with gross 
revenue under $6 million (based on Small Business Administration size 
standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population 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.
    In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and 
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice 
and recommendations of representatives of affected small entities in 
accordance with section 609(b) of the RFA. See 64 FR 2298-2300, 2332-33 
(January 13, 1999). A detailed discussion of the SBAR Panel's advice 
and recommendations can be found in the Panel Report which is available 
in the docket for this rule (DCN 21.5.1). The 1999 proposal provides a 
summary of the Panel's recommendation. See 64 FR 2298-2300.
2. Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, EPA also prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for today's rule. The FRFA 
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA, which was 
part of the proposal of this rule. The FRFA is available for review in 
the docket (in Section 8 of the Final EA) and is summarized below.
    a. Need for and Objectives of the Regulation. A detailed discussion 
of the need for the regulation is presented in Section V of the 1999 
preamble (64 FR 2293-2295). A summary may also be found in Section 
9.1.2 of the Final EA. A detailed discussion of the objectives and 
legal basis for the rule is presented in Sections I and II of this 
preamble and Chapter 1 of the final development document. Very briefly, 
the Clean Water Act requires EPA to establish effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards to control pollutant discharges to the 
nation's waters. The CWT industry is not currently subject to national 
standards that provide for an adequate level of control.
    b. Significant Comments on the IRFA. The significant comments on 
the IRFA all addressed the following regulatory alternatives: 
exemptions for small businesses, exemptions based on flow cutoffs, 
reduced monitoring frequency for small businesses, and the use of an 
indicator parameter for compliance monitoring. These alternatives are 
discussed more fully in Section 8.3.6 of the EA and Section IV of this 
preamble.
    Most commenters who discussed the small business exemptions, the 
flow cutoffs, and the reduced monitoring alternatives were opposed to 
them. Many commenters argued that size and flow were not necessarily 
related to the environmental impact of the facility. Others asserted 
that company revenue was a difficult basis for implementing an 
exemption. Other commenters noted that exempted facilities would have 
lower operating costs; they could, therefore, capture more market share 
which would lead to more untreated wastes going to a POTW. With respect 
to reduced monitoring, commenters stated that permit writers and 
control authorities should continue to establish monitoring frequencies 
on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the probable impact of the 
discharge to surface waters or a POTW, compliance history of the 
facility, and other relevant factors.
    Many commenters responded on the subject of indicator parameters, 
with essentially an equivalent number opposing and favoring the use of 
an

[[Page 81291]]

indicator parameter for compliance monitoring for indirect discharging 
oils subcategory facilities. Commenters that did not support the use of 
oil and grease (either SGT-HEM or HEM) as indicator parameters raised a 
number of technical concerns. Commenters that supported their use cited 
the decreased analytical costs and the wide range of organic compounds 
that can be measured with these analyses.
    EPA shared the concerns of some of these commenters. In the final 
rule, EPA is not adopting any of these alternatives, but is taking 
steps to minimize the impacts on small businesses (see XIV.B.2.e). See 
Section IV of this preamble for more information on the comments, EPA's 
responses to those comments, and EPA's justification for final 
decisions on these options. EPA's detailed responses to comments, and 
the comments themselves, are contained in the Comment Response Document 
in response categories SBREFA, Small Business, and Indicator 
Parameters.
    c. Description and Estimation of Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Regulation Will Apply. The small entities subject to this rule are 
small businesses. There are no nonprofit organizations or small 
governmental operations that operate CWT facilities. For purposes of 
assessing the impacts of today's rule on small businesses, EPA relied 
on the SBA size standard for SIC code 4953, ``Refuse Systems,'' and 
applied that standard to companies owning CWT facilities. For this SIC 
code, SBA defines a small business as one receiving less than $6 
million/year, averaged over the most recent three fiscal years.
    The CWT industry is composed of an estimated 167 companies (as 
discussed in Section 3, this number is scaled up to reflect the total 
number of CWT companies). Small companies make up approximately half of 
all companies in the CWT industry (an estimated 82 of 167). All of 
these small companies, except for one, operate single CWT facilities. 
One company in the analysis operates two facilities. Sixty-three small 
companies own discharging facilities (61 own indirect dischargers and 2 
own direct dischargers) that are subject to the requirements of this 
rule. Fifty-nine of these small companies are in the oil treatment/
recovery business. The number of employees at each of these companies 
ranges from 2 to 115, with a median of 18. Fifty-three out of the 63 
companies have costs greater than one percent of sales; 30 out of the 
63 companies have costs greater than three percent of sales. Section 
X.M provides more detail on the impacts to small businesses.
    d. Description of the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. For almost all of the small businesses subject 
to the final CWT rule, this regulation does not contain any specific 
new requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting. 
Regulations for the existing NPDES and national pretreatment programs 
already contain minimum requirements; and permit writers and control 
authorities establish the monitoring regime for individual facilities. 
Consequently, for almost all of the CWT facilities owned by small 
businesses, there are similarly no new professional skills required to 
meet any new requirements.
    However, for CWT facilities that accept waste in more than one CWT 
subcategory that elect to comply with the multiple wastestream 
subcategory limitations or standards, the final rule does include new 
requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These 
requirements and the multiple wastestream subcategory are described in 
Sections IV.F and XIII.A.5 of the final preamble. See also Sec. 437.41. 
EPA concluded that CWT facilities already have the professional skills 
to meet these new requirements. Based on the information in EPA's 
database, only two CWT facilities owned by small businesses may be 
subject to these new requirements.
    e. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impacts on Small Entities. 
EPA went to some length to explore and analyze a variety of regulatory 
alternatives to minimize impacts on small businesses. Today's notice 
includes extensive discussions of the alternatives, EPA's analysis of 
those alternatives, and the rationale for EPA's decisions. EPA selected 
the least expensive option that was considered for the final rule as 
the technology basis for the standards and limitations for existing 
sources. Furthermore, EPA selected oils option 8 as the technology 
basis for PSES in the oils subcategory (which contains most of the 
small businesses affected by the final rule), in part, based on the 
incremental economic impact to small businesses. For EPA's option 
selection rationale, see Section VIII. Most of the other regulatory 
alternatives incorporated exemptions for groups of facilities. EPA 
rejected those options for multiple reasons, including implementation 
difficulty and concerns about environmental impacts. For a detailed 
discussion of EPA's rationale for rejection of these options, see 
Sections IV.A-IV.E.
3. Compliance Guide
    As required by section 212 of SBREFA, EPA is also preparing a small 
entity compliance guide to help small businesses comply with this rule. 
To request a copy, use any of the contacts shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, above. EPA expects that 
the guide will be available in January 2001.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 
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 the final rule with an explanation of why that 
alternative was 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

[[Page 81292]]

the final rule as $35.1 million ($1997). Thus, today's rule is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. No small governments are subject to this rule. The final 
rule, at most, imposes only minimal administrative requirements on 
small local governments that are administering approved pretreament 
programs. The final rule does not uniquely affect small governments 
because small and large governments are affected in the same way. Thus, 
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the 
UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., EPA must submit an information collection request 
covering information collection requirements in proposed rules to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. There 
are no new information collection reporting requirements for facilities 
that comply with the limits for the metals-bearing, oily waste, and/or 
organics waste subcategories separately. The information collection 
reporting requirements and the burden estimates for these subcategories 
are contained in the ``National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES)/Compliance Assessment/Certification Information'' ICR (No. 
1427.05; OMB Approval No. 2040-0110) and in the ``National Pretreatment 
Program (40 CFR Part 403)'' ICR (No. 0002.081; OMB Approval No. 2040-
0009).
    EPA established a fourth multiple wastestream subcategory to 
simplify implementation and reduce burden for facilities treating 
wastes covered by more than one subcategory. EPA notes that no facility 
is required to use this subcategory and its requirements unless the 
facility chooses to. The new information reporting requirements under 
this subcategory, described at Sec. 437.41, include submission of an 
initial certification statement and annual certification statements 
thereafter, and maintenance of on-site compliance paperwork. These 
requirements are the same as those previously approved by OMB for 
facilities in the pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging 
category that choose to comply with the pollution prevention 
alternative. OMB is in the process of approving the extension of these 
requirements to multiple wastestream facilities in the CWT category, as 
part of the revisions to the ICRs listed above.
    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 numbers for the information collection requirements in this 
rule will be listed in an amendment(s) to 40 CFR part 9 in a subsequent 
Federal Register document(s) after OMB approves the ICRs.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), Pub L. 104-113, 
section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. 
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA performed a 
search of the technical literature to identify any applicable 
analytical test methods from industry, academia, voluntary consensus 
standard bodies and other parties that could be used to measure the 
analytes in today's rulemaking. EPA's search revealed that there are 
consensus test procedures for many of the analytes in today's rule 
already specified in the tables at 40 CFR 136.3. Even prior to 
enactment of the NTTAA, EPA has traditionally included any applicable 
consensus test methods in its regulations. Consistent with the 
requirements of the CWA, those applicable consensus test methods are 
incorporated by reference in the tables at 40 CFR Part 136.3. The 
consensus test methods in these tables include American Society for 
Testing Materials (ASTM) and ``Standard Methods.''
    Today's rule requires dischargers to monitor for up to 17 metals, 
16 organics, BOD5, total cyanide, Oil and Grease (HEM), and 
TSS. Examples of pollutants with consensus methods already in place 
include the metals, total cyanide, BOD5, TSS, and some 
organic pollutants such as fluoranthene and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
    In addition, EPA noted in the 1999 proposed rule that EPA was 
developing additional data for certain additional pollutants not 
included in the Tables at 40 CFR 136.3. EPA asked commenters to 
identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards for 
those pollutants. No commenters identified any such standards. 
Therefore, EPA has amended existing EPA test procedures included in 40 
CFR 136.3 to cover the additional pollutants in today's rule.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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 risk or safety risk that the Agency 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 an 
economically significant rule as defined under Executive Order 12866. 
Further, EPA does not believe this rule concerns an environmental or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. This rule sets technology based limits according to 
the requirements of the Clean Water Act. However, EPA did evaluate 
children's health effects (specifically, impaired IQ) in its analysis 
of environmental benefits of this rule (see Section XI.B). EPA 
estimates that this rule will reduce the number of children that might 
otherwise experience reduced IQ.

G. 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,

[[Page 81293]]

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 CWT wastewater containing residual 
and dilute quantities of petroleum and non-petroleum oils is 
significantly different from an uncontrolled spill of pure petroleum or 
non-petroleum oil products.
    CWT facilities that would be subject to the rule do not typically 
accept wastes with appreciable amounts of animal fats and oils, etc. 
The exception are grease trap wastes. Today's rule will not apply to 
that portion of wastewater treated at CWT facilities that represents 
grease trap wastes.

H. 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. EPA has not identified any 
facilities covered by today's rule that are owned and/or operated by 
Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. 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 establishes effluent 
limitations and pretreatment standards imposing requirements that apply 
to CWT facilities when they discharge wastewater or introduce 
wastewater to a POTW. EPA has determined that there are no CWT 
facilities owned and operated by State or local governments that are 
subject to today's rule so the rule will not impose any treatment 
technology costs on State or local governments. Further, the rule will 
only affect State and local governments incidentally in their capacity 
as implementers of CWA permitting programs. Therefore, the final rule, 
at most, imposes only minimal administrative costs on States that have 
authorized NPDES programs and on local governments that are 
administering approved pretreatment programs. (These States and 
localities must incorporate the new limitations and standards in new 
and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or permits). 
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    Even though section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this rule, EPA did consult with representatives of State and local 
governments in developing this rule. The concerns raised during those 
consultations and EPA's response to their concerns are reflected in the 
Response to Comments section and elsewhere in the administrative 
record.

J. 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 January 22, 2001.

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

    ADMINISTRATOR--The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    AGENCY--The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    AVERAGE MONTHLY DISCHARGE LIMITATION--The highest allowable 
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as 
the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during the calendar 
month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured during 
the month.
    BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, 
applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by March 31, 1984, 
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec. 
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
    BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, 
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing 
industrial point sources, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently 
available, applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 
1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by 
Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
    CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY--Any facility that treats 
(for disposal, recycling, or recovery of materials) or recycles any 
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste, hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or used material from off-site. 
``CWT facility'' includes both a facility that treats waste received 
from off-site exclusively, and a facility that treats wastes 
generated on-site as well as waste received from off-site. For 
example, an organic chemical manufacturing plant may, in certain 
circumstances, be a CWT facility if it treats industrial wastes 
received from offsite as well as industrial waste generated at the

[[Page 81294]]

organic chemical manufacturing plant. CWT facilities include re-
refiners and may be owned by the federal government.
    CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT WASTEWATER--Any wastewater generated 
as a result of CWT activities. CWT wastewater sources may include, 
but are not limited to: liquid waste receipts, solubilization water, 
used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-off 
box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-
down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site landfill wastewaters, 
and contaminated storm water.
    CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended.
    CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) SECTION 308 QUESTIONNAIRE--A questionnaire 
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA, 
which requests information to be used in the development of national 
effluent guidelines and standards.
    COMMERCIAL FACILITY--A CWT facility that accepts off-site 
generated wastes, wastewaters, or used material from other 
facilities not under the same ownership as this facility. Commercial 
operations are usually made available for a fee or other 
remuneration.
    CONTAMINATED STORM WATER--Storm water which comes in direct 
contact with off-site waste, the waste handling and treatment areas, 
or other centralized waste treatment wastewater.
    CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Constituents of wastewater as 
determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including, but not limited 
to, pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total 
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
    CWT--Centralized Waste Treatment
    DAILY DISCHARGE--The discharge of a pollutant measured during 
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a 
calendar day.
    DETAILED MONITORING QUESTIONNAIRE (DMQ)--Questionnaires sent to 
collect daily monitoring data from 20 selected CWT facilities based 
on responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
    DIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
    EXISTING SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a 
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced 
before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a 
standard of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
    FACILITY--All contiguous property owned, operated, leased, or 
under the control of the same person or entity
    FUEL BLENDING--The process of combining waste, wastewater, or 
used material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
    HAZARDOUS WASTE--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as 
hazardous under RCRA.
    HIGH TEMPERATURE METALS RECOVERY (HTMR)--A metals recovery 
process in which solid forms of metal containing materials are 
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce 
metal products.
    INDIRECT DISCHARGER--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
    INTERCOMPANY--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover 
waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-site 
facilities not under the same corporate ownership. These facilities 
are also referred to as ``commercial'' CWT facilities.
    INTRACOMPANY TRANSFER--Facilities that treat and/or recycle/
recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-
site facilities under the same corporate ownership. These facilities 
are also referred to as ``non-commercial'' CWT facilities.
    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 proposed 
regulation.
    MARINE-GENERATED WASTE--Any waste, wastewater, and/or used 
material generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation 
of a ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open 
waters, or while berthed.
    METAL-BEARING WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial 
operations that contain significant quantities of metal pollutants, 
but not significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less 
than 100 mg/L), from manufacturing or processing facilities or other 
commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are as follows: 
spent electroplating baths and sludges, metal finishing rinse water 
and sludges, chromate wastes, air pollution control blow down water 
and sludges, spent anodizing solutions, incineration air pollution 
control wastewaters, waste liquid mercury, cyanide containing wastes 
greater than 136 mg/L, and waste acids and bases with or without 
metals.
    MINIMUM LEVEL--the lowest level at which the entire analytical 
system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration 
point for the analyte.
    MIXED COMMERCIAL/NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that treat 
and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater, and/or used material 
generated by off-site facilities both under the same corporate 
ownership and different corporate ownership.
    MULTIPLE WASTESTREAM CWT FACILITY--A CWT facility that accepts 
waste in more than one CWT subcategory (metals, oils, or organics) 
and combines any portion of these different subcategory wastes at 
any point prior to the compliance discharge sampling location.
    NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT--
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States 
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, 
authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
    NEW SOURCE--Any facility from which there is or may be a 
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced 
after the promulgation of regulations prescribing a standard of 
performance under section 306 of the Act and 403.3(k).
    NON-COMMERCIAL FACILITY--Facilities that accept waste from off-
site for treatment and/or recovery from generating facilities under 
the same corporate ownership as the CWT facility.
    NON-CONTAMINATED STORMWATER--Stormwater that does not come into 
direct contact with the waste, the waste handling and treatment 
areas, or other centralized waste treatment wastewater.
    NON-CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR 
Section 401.
    NON-DETECT VALUE--The analyte is below the level of detection 
that can be reliably measured by the analytical method. This is also 
known, in statistical terms, as left-censoring.
    NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT--Deleterious aspects of 
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source 
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise, 
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
    NSPS--New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to 
industrial facilities whose construction is begun after the 
publication of the proposed regulations, as defined by Sec. 306 of 
the CWA.
    OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers 
manufacturing point source category. (40 CFR Part 414).
    OFF SITE--Outside the boundaries of a facility.
    OILY ABSORBENT RECYCLING--The process of recycling oil soaked or 
contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads for the purpose of 
regenerating a fuel for reuse.
    OILY WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain oil and 
grease (generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or 
processing facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of 
these wastes are as follows: used oils, oil-water emulsions or 
mixtures, lubricants, coolants, contaminated groundwater clean-up 
from petroleum sources, used petroleum products, oil spill clean-up, 
bilge water, rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources, interceptor 
wastes, off-specification fuels, underground storage tank 
remediation waste, and tank clean out from petroleum or oily 
sources.
    ON SITE--Within the boundaries of a facility. A facility may 
encompass land areas that are bisected by public thoroughfares but 
are under the control of a common owner.
    ORGANIC WASTES--Wastes and/or used materials that contain 
organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil and grease 
(generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing 
facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of these wastes 
are as follows: landfill leachate, contaminated groundwater clean-up 
from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-
specification organic product, still bottoms, waste byproduct 
glycols, wastewater from paint washes, wastewater

[[Page 81295]]

from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation, wastewater from chemical 
product operations, and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum 
sources.
    OUTFALL--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from 
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
    OUT-OF-SCOPE--Out-of-scope facilities are facilities that only 
perform centralized waste treatment activities that EPA has not 
determined to be subject to provisions of this guideline or 
facilities that do not accept off-site waste for treatment.
    PIPELINE--Pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the 
conveyance of material. A conduit includes a channel, pipe, tube, 
trench, ditch, or fixed delivery system.
    PASS THROUGH--A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' a 
POTW when the national average percentage removed by efficiently 
operated POTWs is less than the average percentage removed by the 
industry's direct dischargers that are using well-defined, well-
operated BAT technology.
    POINT SOURCE--Any discernable, confined, and discrete 
conveyances from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
    POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in 
centralized waste treatment wastewaters. For the purposes of this 
guideline, a POC is a pollutant that is detected at or above a 
treatable level in influent wastewater samples from centralized 
waste treatment facilities. Additionally, a CWT POC must be present 
in at least ten percent of the influent wastewater samples.
    PRIORITY POLLUTANT--One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a 
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined 
in Section 307 of the CWA. The priority pollutants are specified in 
the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et 
al. v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 
[D.D.C. 1979]).
    PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP--For purposes of this final rule, product 
stewardship means a manufacturer's treatment or recovery of its own 
unused products, shipping and storage containers with product 
residues, off-specification products, and does not include spent or 
used materials from use of its products.
    PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
    PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect 
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
    PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW)--Any device or system, 
owned by a state or municipality, used in the treatment (including 
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes 
of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This 
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey 
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
    RCRA--The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 
(42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, 
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous 
wastes.
    RE-REFINING--Distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment 
employing acid, caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals of used oil 
in order to produce high quality base stock for lubricants or other 
petroleum products.
    RECOVERY--The recycling or processing of a waste, wastewater, or 
used material such that the material, or a portion thereof, may be 
reused or converted to a raw material, intermediate, or product.
    SIC--Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)--A numerical 
categorization system used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to 
catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or 
group of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered 
by an operating establishment. SIC codes are used to group 
establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged. 
SIC codes often denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, 
etc. economic activities.
    SMALL BUSINESS--Businesses with annual sales revenues less than 
$6 million. This is the Small Business Administration definition of 
small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR Ch.1, 
Sec. 121.601) which is being used to characterize the CWT industry.
    SOLIDIFICATION--The addition of sorbents to convert liquid or 
semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of adsorption, absorption or 
both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
    SOLVENT RECOVERY--Fuel blending operations and the recycling of 
spent solvents through separation of solvent mixtures in 
distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional, 
pretreatment step prior to distillation.
    STABILIZATION--A waste process that decreases the mobility of 
waste constituents by means of a chemical reaction. For the purpose 
of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for 
stabilization.
    SUBCHAPTER N--Refers to Subchapter N of Chapter I of Title 40 of 
the Federal Regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, the 
industrial effluent limitation guidelines and standards included in 
40 CFR Parts 405 through 471.
    TREATMENT--Any method, technique, or process designed to change 
the physical, chemical or biological character or composition of any 
metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to neutralize such 
wastes, to render such wastes amenable to discharge or to recover 
energy or recover metal, oil, or organic content from the wastes.
    USED OIL FILTER RECYCLING--The process of crushing and draining 
of used oil filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and separation 
of used oil filters.
    VARIABILITY FACTOR--Used in calculating a limitation (or 
standard) to allow for reasonable variation in pollutant 
concentrations when processed through extensive and well-designed 
treatment systems. Variability factors assure that normal 
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the 
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the 
long-term average, EPA's use of variability factors results in 
limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term 
averages.
    WASTE--Includes aqueous, non-aqueous, and solid waste, 
wastewater, and/or used material.
    WASTE RECEIPT--Wastes, wastewater, or used material received for 
treatment and/or recovery. Waste receipts can be liquids or solids.
    ZERO OR ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE--No discharge of pollutants to 
waters of the United States or to a POTW. Also included in this 
definition is disposal of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-
well injection, off-site transfer, and land application.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 136

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Water pollution control.

40 CFR Part 437

    Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water 
pollution control.

    Dated: August 28, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 136--TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS

    1. The authority citation for Part 136 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and 501(a) Pub. L. 95-217, 91 
Stat. 1566, et seq. (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.).

Appendix A--[Amended]

    2. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended by revising Attachment 1 of 
Method 625 to read as follows:

Appendix A To Part 136--Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of 
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater

* * * * *

Method 625--Base/Neutrals and Acids

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 625

Introduction

    To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA 
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 625.\1\ The 
modifications listed in this attachment are approved only for 
monitoring wastestreams from the Centralized Waste Treatment Point 
Source Category (40 CFR Part 437) and the Landfills Point Source 
Category (40 CFR Part 445). EPA Method 625 (the Method) involves 
sample extraction with methylene chloride followed by analysis of 
the extract using either packed or capillary column gas

[[Page 81296]]

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment addresses 
the addition of the semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 
2, to all applicable standard, stock, and spiking solutions utilized 
for the determination of semivolatile organic compounds by EPA 
Method 625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids, 40 CFR Part 136, 
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0  EPA METHOD 625 MODIFICATION SUMMARY

    The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1 
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other 
solutions utilized in the determination of base/neutral and acid 
compounds by EPA Method 625. The instrument is to be calibrated with 
these compounds, using a capillary column, and all procedures and 
quality control tests stated in the Method must be performed.

2.0   SECTION MODIFICATIONS

    Note: All section and figure numbers in this Attachment 
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 625 unless noted 
otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7  The stock standard solutions described in this section 
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the 
Method.
Section 7.2  The calibration standards described in this section are 
modified to include the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment.
Section 8.2  The precision and accuracy requirements are modified to 
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment. 
Additional performance criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this 
attachment.
Section 8.3  The matrix spike is modified to include the analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 8.4  The QC check standard is modified to include the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment. Additional 
performance criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this attachment.
Section 16.0  Additional method performance information is supplied 
with this attachment.

                   Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Parameter                             CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone 1.............................................      98-86-2
alpha-terpineol 3..........................................      98-55-5
aniline 2..................................................      62-53-3
carbazole 1................................................      86-74-8
o-cresol 1.................................................      95-48-7
n-decane 1.................................................     124-18-5
2,3-dichloroaniline 1......................................     608-27-5
n-octadecane 1.............................................     593-45-3
pyridine 2.................................................    110-86-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
1 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment industry.
2 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment and Landfills industries.
3 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Landfills
  industry.


                       Table 2.--Acid Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Parameter                             CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol 1.................................................    106-44-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
1 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment and Landfills industries.


   Table 3.--Chromatographic Conditions,\1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Base/
                                              Neutral Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Characteristic m/z's
                                                 Retention   MDL  (g/L)                Electron impact
                                                    \2\                   --------------------------------------
                                                                             Primary     Secondary    Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pyridine \3\..................................         4.93           4.6           79           52           51
N-Nitro sodimethylamine.......................         4.95  ............           42           74           44
aniline \3\...................................        10.82           3.3           93           66           65
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether.......................        10.94  ............           93           63           95
n-decane \4\..................................        11.11           5.0           57  ...........  ...........
1,3-Dichlorobenzene...........................        11.47  ............          146          148          113
1,4-Dichlorobenzene...........................        11.62  ............          146          148          113
1,2-Dichlorobenzene...........................        12.17  ............          146          148          113
o-creso \1\...................................        12.48           4.7          108          107           79
Bis(2-chloro- isopropyl)ether.................        12.51  ............           45           77           79
acetophenone \4\..............................        12.88           3.4          105           77           51
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine.....................        12.97  ............          130           42          101
Hexachloroethane..............................        13.08  ............          117          201          199
Nitrobenzene..................................        13.40  ............           77          123           65
Isophorone....................................        14.11  ............           82           95          138
Bis (2-chloro ethoxy)methane..................        14.82  ............           93           95          123
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene........................        15.37  ............          180          182          145
alpha-terpineol...............................        15.55           5.0           59  ...........  ...........
Naphthalene...................................        15.56  ............          128          129          127
Hexachlorobutadiene...........................        16.12  ............          225          223          227
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene.....................        18.47  ............          237          235          272
2,3-dichloroaniline \4\.......................        18.82           2.5          161          163           90
2-Chloronaphthalene...........................        19.35  ............          162          164          127
Dimethyl phthalate............................        20.48  ............          163          194          164
Acenaphthylene................................        20.69  ............          152          151          153
2,6-Dinitrotoluene............................        20.73  ............          165           89          121
Acenaphthene..................................        21.30  ............          154          153          152
2,4-Dinitrotoluene............................        22.00  ............          165           63          182
Diethylphthalate..............................        22.74  ............          149          177          150
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether...................        22.90  ............          204          206          141
Fluorene......................................        22.92  ............          166          165          167
N-Nitro sodiphenylamine.......................        23.35  ............          169          168          167
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether....................        24.44  ............          248          250          141
Hexachlorobenzene.............................        24.93  ............          284          142          249
n-octadecane \4\..............................        25.39           2.0           57  ...........  ...........

[[Page 81297]]

 
Phenanthrene..................................        25.98  ............          178          179          176
Anthracene....................................        26.12  ............          178          179          176
Carbazole \4\.................................        26.66           4.0          167  ...........  ...........
Dibutyl phthalate.............................        27.84  ............          149          150          104
Fluoranthene..................................        29.82  ............          202          101          100
Benzidine.....................................        30.26  ............          184           92          185
Pyrene........................................        30.56  ............          202          101          100
Butyl benzyl phthalate........................        32.63  ............          149           91          206
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine........................        34.28  ............          252          254          126
Benzo(a)anthracene............................        34.33  ............          228          229          226
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate...................        34.36  ............          149          167          279
Chrysene......................................        34.44  ............          228          226          229
Di-n-octyl-phthalate..........................        36.17  ............          149  ...........  ...........
Benzo(b)fluoranthene..........................        37.90  ............          252          253          125
Benzo(k)fluoranthene..........................        37.97  ............          252          253          125
Benzo(a)pyrene................................        39.17  ............          252          253          125
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene.......................        44.91  ............          278          139          279
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene.......................        45.01  ............          276          138          277
Benzo(ghi)perylene............................        46.56  ............          276          138         277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
 
 Column--30 5 meters  x  0.25 .02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl, bonded phase
  fused silica capillary column (DB-5).
Temperature program--Five minutes at 30  deg.C; 30-280  deg.C at 8  deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280  deg.C
  until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
Gas velocity--305 cm/sec at 30  deg.C.
 
 \2\ Retention times are from Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
  consistent for all analytes in Tables 4 and 5 of this attachment.
\3\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.
\4\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.


    Table 4.--Chromatographic Conditions,\1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Acid
                                                  Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Characteristic m/z's
                                                 Retention   MDL  (g/L)                Electron impact
                                                   (min)                  --------------------------------------
                                                                             Primary     Secondary    Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenol........................................        10.76  ............           94           65           66
2-Chlorophenol................................        11.08  ............          128           64          130
p-cresol \3\..................................        12.92           7.8          108          107           77
2-Nitrophenol.................................        14.38  ............          139           65          109
2,4-Dimethylphenol............................        14.54  ............          122          107          121
2,4-Dichlorophenol............................        15.12  ............          162          164           98
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol.......................        16.83  ............          142          107          144
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.........................        18.80  ............          196          198          200
2,4-Dinitrophenol.............................        21.51  ............          184           63          154
4-Nitrophenol.................................        21.77  ............           65          139          109
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol....................        22.83  ............          198          182           77
Pentachlorophenol.............................        25.52  ............          266          264         268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
 Column--30 +/-5 meters  x  0.25 +/-.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl silicone bonded phase fused
  silica capillary column (DB-5).
 Temperature program--Five minutes at 30  deg.C; 30-280  deg.C at 8  deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280  deg.C
  until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
 Gas velocity--30+/-5 cm/sec at 30  deg.C
\2\ Retention times are from EPA Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
  consistent for all analytes in Tables 3 and 4 of this attachment.
\3\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.


                                         Table 5.--QC Acceptance Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Test
                                                          conclusion   Limits for s   Range for X   Range for
                        Analyte                          (g/   (g/ (g/    P, Ps(%)
                                                              L)            L)            L)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone \1\.......................................           100            51        23-254       61-144
alpha-terpineol........................................           100            47        46-163       58-156
aniline \2\............................................           100            71        15-278       46-134

[[Page 81298]]

 
carbazole \1\..........................................           100            17        79-111       73-131
o-cresol \1\...........................................           100            23        30-146       55-126
p-cresol \2\...........................................           100            22        11-617       76-107
n-decane \1\...........................................           100            70         D-651         D-ns
2,3-dichloroaniline \1\................................           100            13        40-160       68-134
n-octadecane \1\.......................................           100            10        52-147       65-123
pyridine \2\...........................................           100            ns         7-392      33-158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 s = Standard deviation for four recovery measurements, in g/L (Section 8.2)
 X = Average recovery for four recovery measurements in g/L (Section 8.2)
 P,Ps = Percent recovery measured (Section 8.3, Section 8.4)
 D = Detected; result must be greater than zero.
 ns = no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.
\1\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.
\2\ Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.


    3. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended by revising Attachment 1 of 
Method 1625 to read as follows:
* * * * *

Method 1625--Revision B--Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope 
Dilution GC/MS

* * * * *

Attachment 1 to Method 1625

Introduction

    To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA 
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 1625B.\1\ The 
modifications listed in this attachment are approved only for 
monitoring wastestreams from the Centralized Waste Treatment Point 
Source Category (40 CFR Part 437) and the Landfills Point Source 
Category (40 CFR Part 445). EPA Method 1625B (the Method) employs 
sample extraction with methylene chloride followed by analysis of 
the extract using capillary column gas chromatography-mass 
spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment addresses the addition of the 
semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2 to all applicable 
standard, stock, and spiking solutions utilized for the 
determination of semivolatile organic compounds by EPA Method 1625B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Method 1625 Revision B, Semivolatile Organic Compounds 
by Isotope Dilution GC/MS, 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.0  EPA METHOD 1625 REVISION B MODIFICATION SUMMARY

    The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1 
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other 
solutions utilized in the determination of semivolatile compounds by 
EPA Method 1625. The instrument is to be calibrated with these 
compounds, and all procedures and quality control tests described in 
the Method must be performed.

2.0  SECTION MODIFICATIONS

    Note: All section and figure numbers in this Attachment 
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 1625 Revision B 
unless noted otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.

Section 6.7  The stock standard solutions described in this section 
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the 
Method.
Section 6.8  The labeled compound spiking solution in this section 
is modified to include the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 
6 of this attachment.
Section 6.9  The secondary standard is modified to include the 
additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 6.12  The solutions for obtaining authentic mass spectra are 
to include all additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this 
attachment.
Section 6.13  The calibration solutions are modified to include the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed 
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.14  The precision and recovery standard is modified to 
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled 
compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.15  The solutions containing the additional analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment are to be analyzed for 
stability.
Section 7.2.1  This section is modified to include the analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables 
5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 7.4.5  This section is modified to include the analytes 
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables 
5 and 6 in the calibration.
Section 8.2  The initial precision and recovery (IPR) requirements 
are modified to include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and 
the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment. 
Additional IPR performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of this 
attachment.
Section 8.3  The labeled compounds listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this 
attachment are to be included in the method performance tests. 
Additional method performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of 
this attachment.
Section 8.5.2  The acceptance criteria for blanks includes the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.2  The labeled compound solution must include the 
labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.3  The precision and recovery standard must include the 
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed 
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 12.5  Additional QC requirements for calibration 
verification are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.
Section 12.7  Additional QC requirements for ongoing precision and 
recovery are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.

              Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Pollutant
                                                 -----------------------
                    Compound                          CAS
                                                   Registry     EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone 1..................................     98-86-2         758

[[Page 81299]]

 
aniline 2.......................................     62-53-3         757
-2,3-dichloroaniline1...........................    608-27-5         578
-o-cresol 1.....................................     95-48-7         771
pyridine 2......................................    110-86-1       1330
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
1 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment industry.
2 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment and Landfills industries.


                  Table 2.--Acid Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Pollutant
                                               -------------------------
                   Compound                         CAS
                                                  Registry     EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol 1....................................    106-44-5        1744
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry.
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
1 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment and Landfills industries.


                                          Table 3.--Gas Chromatography 1 of Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Retention time 2                                                  Retention time 2
                                                  ------------------------------------------------ Minimum  level  EGD           ----------------------
         EGD No.                  Compound                                                         3  (g/ No.  Compound   Mean  EGD
                                                     Mean  (sec)       EGD Ref        Relative           L)                       (sec)  Ref  Relative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
758.....................  acetophenone 4.........             818             658     1.003-1.005              10
757.....................  aniline 5..............             694             657     0.994-1.023              10
578.....................  2,3-dichloroaniline 4..            1160             164     1.003-1.007              10
771.....................  o-cresol 4.............             814             671     1.005-1.009              10
1330....................  pyridine 5.............             378            1230     1.005-1.011             10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
1 The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
2 Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in EPA Method 1625B.
3 See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
4 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.
5 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.


                          Table 4.--Gas Chromatography 1 of Acid Extractable Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Retention time 2                 Minimum  level
         EGD No.                 Compound        ------------------------------------------------  (/L)
                                                    Mean  (sec)       EGD Ref        Relative            3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1744....................  p-cresol 4............             834            1644     1.004-1.008             20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
1 The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to
  Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
2 Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes in
  EPA Method 1625B.
3 See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
4 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.


    Table 5.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Primary  m/
                 Compound                    Labeled Analog      z 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetophenone 2............................  d5                   105/110
aniline 3.................................  d7                    93/100
o-cresol 2................................  d7                   108/116
2,3-dichloroaniline 2.....................  n/a                      161
pyridine 3................................  d5                    79/84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z = mass to charge ratio.
1 Native/labeled.
2 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment industry.
3 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment and Landfills industries.


[[Page 81300]]


        Table 6.--Acid Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Primary  m/
                 Compound                    Labeled Analog      z 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-cresol 2................................  d7                  108/116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z = mass to charge ratio.
1 Native/labeled.
2 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste
  Treatment and Landfills industries.


                               Table 7.--Acceptance Criteria for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Acceptance criteria
                                             ----------------------------------------
                                                Initial precision and                  Calibration    On-going
                                                 accuracy section 8.2      Labeled    verification    accuracy
        EGD No.               Compound              (g/L)         compound     sec. 12.5    sec. 12.7 R
                                             ---------------------------   recovery    g/  (g/
                                               s (g/L)          X        and 14.2 P
                                                                          (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758...................  acetophenone 1......            34       44-167  ...........        85-115        45-162
658...................  acetophenone-d 5 1..            51       23-254       45-162        85-115        22-264
757...................  aniline 2...........            32       30-171  ...........        85-115        33-154
657...................  aniline-d 7 2.......            71       15-278       33-154        85-115        12-344
771...................  o-cresol 1..........            40       31-226  ...........        85-115        35-196
671...................  o-cresol-d 7 1......            23       30-146       35-196        85-115        31-142
1744..................  p-cresol 2..........            59       54-140  ...........        85-115        37-203
1644..................  p-cresol-d7 2.......            22       11-618       37-203        85-115        16-415
578...................  2,3-dichloroaniline             13       40-160  ...........        85-115        44-144
                         1.
1330..................  pyridine 2..........            28       10-421  ...........        83-117        18-238
1230..................  pyridine-d 5 2......            ns        7-392       19-238        85-115        4-621
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s = Standard deviation of four recovery measurements.
X = Average recovery for four recovery measurements.
EGD = Effluent Guidelines Division.
ns = no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.
1 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry.
2 Analysis of this pollutant is approved only for the Centralized Waste Treatment and Landfills industries.


    4. Part 437 is added to read as follows:

PART 437--THE CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

Sec.
437.1  General applicability.
437.2  General definitions.
437.3  General pretreatment standards.
437.4  Monitoring requirements.
Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery
437.10  Applicability.
437.11  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery
437.20  Applicability.
437.21  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.23  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Organics Treatment and Recovery
437.30  Applicability.
437.31  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.32  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.33  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.34  New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.35  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.36  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Multiple Wastestreams
437.40  Applicability.
437.41   Special Definitions.
437.42   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
437.43   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
437.44   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
437.45   New source performance standards (NSPS).
437.46   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
437.47   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

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


Sec. 437.1  General applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this 
section, this part applies to that portion of wastewater discharges 
from a centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility that results from any 
of the following activities:
    (1) Treatment and recovery of hazardous or non-hazardous industrial

[[Page 81301]]

metal-bearing wastes, oily wastes and organic-bearing wastes received 
from off-site; and
    (2) The treatment of CWT wastewater.
    (b) This part does not apply to the following discharges of 
wastewater from a CWT facility:
    (1) Wastewater from the treatment of wastes that are generated on-
site when the wastes generated on-site are otherwise subject to another 
part of subchapter N.
    (2) Wastewater from the treatment of wastes that are generated off-
site if the discharger: a) demonstrates that the off-site wastes are 
generated at a facility that is subject to the same provisions in 40 
CFR subchapter N as non-CWT wastes generated at the CWT facility or b) 
demonstrates that the off-site wastes are of similar nature and the 
treatment of such wastes are compatible with the treatment of non-CWT 
wastes generated and treated at the CWT.
    (3) Wastewater from the treatment of wastes received from off-site 
via conduit (e.g., pipelines, channels, ditches, trenches, etc.) from 
the facility that generates the wastes unless the resulting wastewaters 
are commingled with other wastewaters subject to this provision. A 
facility that acts as a waste collection or consolidation center is not 
a facility that generates wastes.
    (4) Wastewater from product stewardship activities, the treatment 
of sanitary wastes and wastes of domestic origin including chemical 
toilet wastes, septage, and restaurant wastes or thermal drying of POTW 
biosolids. Product stewardship activities for purposes of this 
provision are limited to the following activities at a manufacturing 
facility: acceptance for treatment or recovery of its unused products, 
shipping and storage containers with product residues and off-spec 
products.
    (5) Wastewater from solids recovery operations so long as the 
wastes recovered are from non-industrial sources, and recovery of the 
wastes does not generate a wastewater or leach appreciable metal or 
organic chemicals or petroleum-based oil and grease into the water. 
Examples of solids recovery operations to which this subpart would not 
apply include, but are not limited to, the recycling of aluminum cans, 
glass and plastic bottles.
    (6) Wastewater from scrap metal processing or auto salvage 
operations.
    (7) Wastewater from transfer stations or municipal recycling 
centers.
    (8) Wastewater from the treatment of, or recovery of material from, 
animal or vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or interceptors 
generated by facilities engaged in food service activities.
    (9) Wastewater from the treatment of, or recovery of material from, 
off-site wastes generated by facilities engaged only in food 
processing.
    (10) Wastewater from facilities that are subject to 40 CFR part 
442. Wastewater resulting from the treatment of off-site wastewater 
generated in cleaning transportation equipment (or on-site wastewater 
generated in cleaning equipment) along with other off-site wastes 
(subject to this part) not generated in cleaning transportation 
equipment is, however, subject to this part.
    (11) Wastewater resulting from solvent recovery operations if the 
solvent recovery operations involve the separation of solvent mixtures 
by distillation.
    (12) Wastewater from facilities that are engaged exclusively in 
centralized silver recovery from used photographic or x-ray materials 
activities. The discharge resulting from centralized silver recovery 
from used photographic or x-ray materials that is treated at a CWT 
facility along with other off-site wastestreams (subject to this part) 
is subject to this part.
    (13) Wastewater from facilities that accept off-site wastes only 
for treatability studies, research and development, or chemical or 
physical analysis. The wastewater resulting from treatability studies, 
research and development, or chemical or physical analysis that is 
treated at a CWT facility along with other off-site wastestreams 
(subject to this part) is subject to this part.
    (c) This part also does not apply to the following activities:
    (1) ``Dry'' fuel blending operations, ``dry'' waste solidification/
stabilization operations, ``dry'' used oil filter or oily absorbents 
recycling operations, or ``dry'' high temperature metals recovery 
operations. However, this part does apply to wastewater discharges from 
a CWT resulting from any of these operations that do produce 
wastewater.
    (2) The discharge of marine generated wastes including wash water 
from equipment and tank cleaning, ballast water, bilge water, and other 
wastes generated (while operating on inland, coastal, or open waters or 
while berthed) as part of routine ship maintenance and operation as 
long as they are treated and discharged at the ship servicing facility 
where it is off-loaded. The discharges resulting from the treatment of 
marine generated wastes that are off-loaded and subsequently sent to a 
centralized waste treatment facility at a separate location are, 
however, subject to this part.
    (3) Discharge of wastewater from land treatment units or land 
application operations.
    (4) Discharge of wastewater from facilities that are engaged 
exclusively in landfilling activities and/or the treatment of landfill 
wastewaters (whether generated on or off-site). The discharge resulting 
from the treatment of landfill wastewater, whether generated on-site or 
off-site, treated at CWT facilities along with other off-site waste is, 
however, subject to this part.
    (5) Discharge of wastewater from facilities that are engaged 
exclusively in incineration activities. The discharge resulting from 
the treatment of off-site wastewater generated in the incineration of 
industrial waste that is treated at a CWT facility along with other 
off-site wastestreams (subject to this part) is subject to this part.
    (d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the provisions 
of this part are not applicable to any metals treatment and recovery 
wastewater discharges which are subject to the secondary metals 
provisions of 40 CFR part 421, the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 
Point Source Category. These secondary metals subcategories are Subpart 
C (Secondary Aluminum Smelting Subcategory), Subpart F (Secondary 
Copper Subcategory), Subpart L (Secondary Silver Subcategory), Subpart 
M (Secondary Lead Subcategory), Subpart P (Primary and Secondary 
Germanium and Gallium Subcategory), Subpart Q (Secondary Indium 
Subcategory), Subpart R (Secondary Mercury Subcategory), Subpart T 
(Secondary Molybdenum and Vanadium Subcategory), Subpart V (Secondary 
Nickel Subcategory), Subpart X (Secondary Precious Metals Subcategory), 
Subpart Z (Secondary Tantalum Subcategory), Subpart AA (Secondary Tin 
Subcategory), Subpart AB (Primary and Secondary Titanium Subcategory), 
Subpart AC (Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory), and Subpart AD 
(secondary Uranium Subcategory).


Sec. 437.2  General definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 
apply to this part.
    (b) Alternative effluent limitations or pretreatment standards mean 
effluent limitations determined on a case-by-case basis under section 
402(a)(1) of the CWA or pretreatment standards developed as local 
limits by the control authority under 40 CFR Sec. 403.6(c) that apply 
to the discharge of wastewater subject to this provision. The permit 
writer (or control authority) will

[[Page 81302]]

calculate these limitations or standards using a ``building block'' 
approach or the ``combined wastestream formula.'' Under this approach, 
the permit writer (or control authority) will develop flow-weighted 
effluent limitations or standards for the treated combined wastestream 
by applying the limitations or standards in 40 CFR subchapter N that 
would otherwise apply to a particular wastestream received from off-
site if the wastestream were treated and discharged from the facility 
at which it was generated.
    (c) Centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility means any facility 
that treats (for disposal, recycling or recovery of material) any 
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastes, hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or used material received from 
off-site. ``CWT facility'' includes both a facility that treats waste 
received exclusively from off-site and a facility that treats wastes 
generated on-site as well as waste received from off-site. For example, 
an organic chemical manufacturing plant may, in certain circumstances, 
be a CWT facility if it treats industrial wastes received from offsite 
as well as industrial waste generated at the organic chemical 
manufacturing plant. CWT facilities may also include re-refiners and 
may be owned by the federal government.
    (d) Centralized waste treatment wastewater means any wastewater 
generated as a result of CWT activities. CWT wastewater sources may 
include, but are not limited to: liquid waste receipts, solubilization 
water, used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-
off box washes, equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-
down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site landfill wastewaters, and 
contaminated storm water.
    (e) Contaminated storm water means storm water which comes in 
direct contact with CWT wastes, the waste handling and treatment areas, 
or other centralized waste treatment wastewater as defined in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (f) Discharger means a facility that discharges wastewater directly 
to waters of the United States or introduces wastewater to a publicly-
owned treatment works.
    (g) Dry means not producing a wastewater.
    (h) Equivalent treatment means a wastewater treatment system that 
achieves comparable pollutant removals to the applicable treatment 
technology selected as the basis for the limitations and pretreatment 
standards. Comparable removals may be demonstrated through literature, 
treatability tests, or self-monitoring data.
    (i) Fuel blending means the process of combining waste, wastewater, 
or used material for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse. 
However, fuel blending may be loosely applied to any process where 
recovered hydrocarbons are combined as a fuel product where some 
pretreatment operations generate wastewater.
    (j) High temperature metals recovery means a metals recovery 
process in which solid forms of metal-containing materials are 
processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce a 
metal product.
    (k) Marine generated waste means any waste, wastewater, and/or used 
material generated as part of the normal maintenance and operation of a 
ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open waters, or 
while berthed.
    (l) Metal-bearing wastes means wastes and/or used materials from 
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations 
that contain significant quantities of metal pollutants, but not 
significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100 mg/
L). Examples of these wastes are spent electroplating baths and 
sludges, metal-finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate wastes, 
blow-down water and sludges from air pollution control, spent anodizing 
solutions, incineration air pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid 
mercury, cyanide containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L, and waste 
acids and bases with or without metals.
    (m) Multiple wastestream CWT facility means a CWT facility which 
accepts waste in more than one CWT subcategory (metals, oils, or 
organics) and combines any portion of these different subcategory 
wastes at any point prior to the compliance discharge sampling 
location.
    (n) Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
    (o) Oily absorbent recycling means the process of recycling oil-
soaked or contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads for the purpose 
of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
    (p) Oily wastes means wastes and/or used materials that contain oil 
and grease (generally at or in excess of 100 mg/L) from manufacturing 
or processing facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of 
these wastes are used oils, oil-water emulsions or mixtures, 
lubricants, coolants, contaminated groundwater clean-up from petroleum 
sources, used petroleum products, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, 
rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources, interceptor wastes, off-
specification fuels, underground storage tank remediation waste, and 
tank clean out from petroleum or oily sources.
    (q) On-site means within the boundaries of a facility. A facility 
may encompass land areas that are bisected by public thoroughfares but 
are under the control of a common owner.
    (r) Organic wastes means wastes and/or used materials that contain 
organic pollutants, but not a significant quantity of oil and grease 
(generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing 
facilities or other commercial operations. Examples of these wastes are 
landfill leachate, contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum 
sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-specification organic product, 
still bottoms, byproduct glycols, wastewater from paint washes, 
wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies, wastewater from chemical 
product operations, and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum 
sources.
    (s) The following regulated parameters are listed with approved 
methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, and are defined as 
follows:
    (1) Antimony means total antimony.
    (2) Arsenic means total arsenic.
    (3) Barium means total barium.
    (4) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand.
    (5) Cadmium means total cadmium.
    (6) Chromium means total chromium.
    (7) Cobalt means total cobalt.
    (8) Copper means total copper.
    (9) Cyanide means total cyanide.
    (10) Lead means total lead.
    (11) Mercury means total mercury.
    (12) Molybdenum means total molybdenum.
    (13) Nickel means total nickel.
    (14) O&G means total recoverable oil and grease (n-hexane 
extractable material).
    (15) Selenium means total selenium.
    (16) Silver means total silver.
    (17) Tin means total tin.
    (18) Titanium means total titanium.
    (19) TSS means total suspended solids.
    (20) Vanadium means total vanadium.
    (21) Zinc means total zinc.
    (t) The following regulated parameters are listed with approved 
methods of analysis in Table 1C at 40 CFR 136.3:
    (1) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
    (2) Butylbenzyl phthalate.
    (3) Fluoranthene.
    (4) Phenol.
    (5) 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
    (u) The following regulated parameters are listed with approved 
methods of analysis (Methods 625 and 1625) at 40 CFR 136.3, Appendix A:
    (1) Acetone.
    (2) Acetophenone.

[[Page 81303]]

    (3) Aniline.
    (4) 2-Butanone.
    (5) Carbazole.
    (6) o-Cresol.
    (7) p-Cresol.
    (8) n-Decane.
    (9) 2,3-dichloroaniline.
    (10) n-Octadecane.
    (11) Pyridine.
    (v) Pipeline means an open or closed conduit used for the 
conveyance of material. A pipeline includes a channel, pipe, tube, 
trench, or ditch, or fixed delivery system.
    (w) Product stewardship means a manufacturer's treatment or 
recovery of its own unused products, shipping and storage containers 
with product residues, off-specification products, and does not include 
spent or used materials from use of its products.
    (x) Re-refining means the processing of used oil using 
distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment employing acid, 
caustic, solvent, clay and/or chemicals in order to produce high 
quality base stock for lubricants or other petroleum products.
    (y) Recovery means the recycling or processing of a waste, 
wastewater or used material such that the material, or a portion 
thereof, may be reused or converted to a raw material, intermediate, or 
product. Recovery does not include the re-use of treated or untreated 
wastewater in place of potable or pure water in industrial processes 
such as the use of secondary POTW effluents as non-contact cooling 
water, storm water in place of process water, or the re-use of spent 
chemicals in place of virgin treatment chemicals.
    (z) Solidification means the addition of sorbents to convert liquid 
or semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of adsorption, absorption or 
both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
    (aa) Solvent recovery includes fuel blending operations and the 
recycling of spent solvents through separation of solvent mixtures in 
distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional, 
pretreatment step prior to distillation.
    (bb) Stabilization means a waste process that decreases the 
mobility of waste constituents by means of a chemical reaction. For the 
purpose of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for 
stabilization.
    (cc) Treatment means any method, technique, or process designed to 
change the physical, chemical or biological character or composition of 
any metal-bearing, oily, or organic wastes to neutralize such wastes; 
to render such wastes amenable to discharge; or to recover energy or 
recover metal, oil, or organic content from the wastes. Treatment does 
not include (a) the re-use of treated or untreated wastewater in place 
of potable or pure water in industrial processes such as the use of 
secondary POTW effluents as non-contact cooling water or storm water in 
place of process water or (b) the re-use of treated or untreated spent 
chemicals (such as pickle liquor) as treatment chemicals.
    (dd) Non-contaminated storm water means storm water which does not 
come in direct contact with CWT wastes, the waste handling and 
treatment areas, or other CWT wastewater that is defined in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (ee) Used oil filter recycling means crushing and draining of used 
oil filters of entrained oil and/or shredding and separation of used 
oil filters.
    (ff) Waste includes aqueous, non-aqueous, and solid waste, 
wastewater, and/or used material.


Sec. 437.3  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.


Sec. 437.4  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Permit compliance monitoring is required for each regulated 
parameter.
    (b) Any CWT facility that discharges wastewater resulting from the 
treatment of metal-bearing waste, oily waste, or organic-bearing waste 
must monitor as follows:
    (1) Facilities subject to more than one subpart of this part must 
monitor for compliance for each subpart after treatment and before 
mixing of the waste with wastes of any other subpart. Alternatively, a 
multiple wastestream subcategory facility may certify that it provides 
equivalent treatment as defined in Sec. 437.2(h) for the applicable 
waste and monitor for compliance with the applicable set of multiple 
wastestream subcategory limitations after mixing.
    (2) Facilities subject to one or more subpart of this part must 
monitor for compliance with the applicable subpart after treatment and 
before mixing of the waste with wastes of any other subpart, 
uncontaminated storm water, or wastewater subject to another effluent 
limitation or standard in Subchapter N. If, however, the facility can 
demonstrate to the receiving POTW or permitting authority the 
capability of achieving the effluent limitation or standard for each 
subpart after treatment and before mixing with other wastestreams, the 
facility may monitor for compliance after mixing. In the case of a 
facility which elects to comply with the applicable set of multiple 
wastestream subcategory limitations or standards, it is only subject to 
one subpart.
    (3) When a CWT facility treats any waste receipt that contains 
cyanide at a concentration higher than 136 mg/L, the CWT facility must 
monitor for cyanide after cyanide treatment and before dilution with 
other wastestreams. If, however, the facility can demonstrate to the 
receiving POTW or permitting authority the capability of achieving the 
cyanide limitation or standard after cyanide treatment and before 
mixing with other wastestreams, the facility may monitor for compliance 
after mixing.

Subpart A--Metals Treatment and Recovery


Sec. 437.10  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in 
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to that portion of 
the discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that results from the 
treatment of, or recovery of metals from, both metal-bearing wastes 
received from off-site and other CWT wastewater associated with the 
treatment of, or recovery of metal-bearing wastes.
    (b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution 
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may 
require a new source or an existing facility subject to this subpart to 
achieve alternative effluent limitations and standards as defined in 
Sec. 437.2(b) in the following circumstances:
    (1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process 
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N 
limitations and standards; and
    (2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the 
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.


Sec. 437.11  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

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

[[Page 81304]]



                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G.........................................     205           50.2
pH..........................................   (\2\)        (\2\)
TSS.........................................      60.0         31.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.249        0.206
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................      15.5          3.07
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       4.14         1.06
Lead........................................       1.32         0.283
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

    (b) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 437.12  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 or 437.10(b), 
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BCT: 
Limitations for oil and grease, pH, and TSS are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.11(a).


Sec. 437.13  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 
437.10(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application 
of BAT: Limitations for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, 
vanadium, and zinc are the same as the corresponding limitation 
specified in Sec. 437.11(a).
    (b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).


Sec. 437.14  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.10(b), any new source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following performance standards:

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum    monthly avg.
                                                 daily 1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Contentional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G.........................................    205            50.2
pH..........................................    (2)           (2)
TSS.........................................     29.6          11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................      0.111         0.0312
Arsenic.....................................      0.0993        0.0199
Cadmium.....................................      0.782         0.163
Chromium....................................      0.167         0.0522
Cobalt......................................      0.182         0.0703
Copper......................................      0.659         0.216
Lead........................................      1.32          0.283
Mercury.....................................      0.000641      0.000246
Nickel......................................      0.794         0.309
Selenium....................................      0.176         0.0698
Silver......................................      0.0318        0.0122
Tin.........................................      0.0955        0.0367
Titanium....................................      0.0159        0.00612
Vanadium....................................      0.0628        0.0518
Zinc........................................      0.657         0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

    (b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).


Sec. 437.15  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or 437.10(b), and no 
later than December 22, 2003, any existing source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards 
for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, 
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zinc 
are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 437.11(a).
    (b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).


Sec. 437.16  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or 437.10(b), any new source 
subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment 
standards: Standards for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, tin, titanium, 
vanadium, and zinc are the same as the corresponding limitation 
specified in Sec. 437.11(a)
    (b) In-plant standards for cyanide are the same as the limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.11(b).

Subpart B--Oils Treatment and Recovery


Sec. 437.20  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in 
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to that portion of 
the discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that results from the 
treatment or recovery of oil from both oily wastes received from off-
site and other CWT wastewater associated with the treatment of, or 
recovery of oily wastes.
    (b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution 
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may 
require a new source or an existing source subject to this subpart to 
achieve alternative effluent limitations and standards, as defined in 
Sec. 437.2(b), in the following circumstances:
    (1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process 
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N 
limitations and standards; and
    (2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the 
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.


Sec. 437.21  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 or 437.20(b), 
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations representing the application of BPT:

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                 daily 1        avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G.........................................     127           38.0
pH..........................................     (2)          (2)
TSS.........................................      74.1         30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       2.95         1.33
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.0172       0.0102
Chromium....................................       0.746        0.323
Cobalt......................................      56.4         18.8
Copper......................................       0.500        0.242
Lead........................................       0.350        0.160

[[Page 81305]]

 
Mercury.....................................       0.0172       0.00647
Molybdenum..................................       3.50         2.09
Tin.........................................       0.335        0.165
Titanium....................................       0.0510       0.0299
Zinc........................................       8.26         4.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................       0.215        0.101
Butylbenzyl phthalate.......................       0.188        0.0887
Carbazole...................................       0.598        0.276
n-Decane....................................       0.948        0.437
Fluoranthene................................       0.0537       0.0268
n-Octadecane................................       0.589        0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.22  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 or 437.20(b), 
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations attainable by the application of BCT: 
Limitations for O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 437.21.


Sec. 437.23  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 437.20(b), 
any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the 
following effluent limitations by the application of BAT: Limitations 
for antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, 
mercury, molybdenum, tin, titanium, zinc, butylbenzyl phthalate, 
carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, fluoranthene, and n-
octadecane are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 437.21.


Sec. 437.24  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Except as provided in Sec. 437.20(b), any new source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following performance standards: 
Standards for oil and grease, pH, TSS, antimony, arsenic, barium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, tin, 
titanium, zinc, butylbenzyl phthalate, carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, fluoranthene, and n-octadecane are the same as 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.21.


Sec. 437.25  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or Sec. 437.20(b), and 
no later than December 22, 2003, any existing source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................         0.237         0.141
Barium......................................         0.427         0.281
Chromium....................................         0.947         0.487
Cobalt......................................        56.4          18.8
Copper......................................         0.405         0.301
Lead........................................         0.222         0.172
Molybdenum..................................         3.50          2.09
Tin.........................................         0.249         0.146
Zinc........................................         6.95          4.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................         0.267         0.158
Carbazole...................................         0.392         0.233
n-Decane....................................         5.79          3.31
Fluoranthene................................         0.787         0.393
n-Octadecane................................         1.22          0.925 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

Sec. 437.26  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or Sec. 437.20(b), any new 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment 
standards: Standards for antimony, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, 
lead, molybdenum, tin, zinc, carbazole, n-decane, bis(2-ethylhexyl) 
phthalate, fluoranthene, and n-octadecane are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.21.

Subpart C--Organics Treatment and Recovery


Sec. 437.30  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in 
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to that portion of 
the discharge of wastewater from a CWT facility that results from the 
treatment of, or recovery of organic material from, both organic wastes 
received from off-site and other CWT wastewater associated with the 
treatment of, or recovery of organic wastes.
    (b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution 
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may 
require a new source or an existing facility subject to Sec. 437.30 to 
achieve alternative effluent limitations and standards as defined in 
Sec. 437.2 (h) in the following circumstances:
    (1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process 
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N 
limitations and standards; and
    (2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the 
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.


Sec. 437.31  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 or 
Sec. 437.30(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application 
of BPT:

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................      163            53.0
pH..........................................    (\2\)         (\2\)
TSS.........................................      216            61.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................        0.928         0.679
Copper......................................        0.865         0.757
Molybdenum..................................        1.01          0.965
Zinc........................................        0.497         0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Acetone....................................       30.2           7.97
 Acetophenone...............................        0.114         0.0562
 Aniline....................................        0.0333        0.0164
 2-Butanone.................................        4.81          1.85
 o-Cresol...................................        1.92          0.561
 p-Cresol...................................        0.698         0.205
 2,3-Dichloroaniline........................        0.0731        0.0361
 Phenol.....................................        3.65          1.08
 Pyridine...................................        0.370         0.182
 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol......................        0.155         0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.32  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 or 
Sec. 437.30(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the application 
of BCT: Limitations for BOD5, pH, and TSS are the same as 
the corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.31.

[[Page 81306]]

Sec. 437.33  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 
Sec. 437.30(b), any existing point source subject to this subpart must 
achieve limitations representing the application of BAT: Limitations 
for antimony, copper, molybdenum, zinc, acetone, acetophenone, aniline, 
2-butanone, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline, phenol, pyridine, 
and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding limitation 
specified in Sec. 437.31.


Sec. 437.34  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Except as provided in Sec. 437.30(b), any new source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following new source performance 
standards: Standards for BOD5, pH, TSS, antimony, copper, 
molybdenum, zinc, acetone, acetophenone, aniline, 2-butanone, o-cresol, 
p-cresol, 2,3-dichloroaniline, phenol, pyridine, and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in Sec. 437.31.


Sec. 437.35  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or Sec. 437.30(b), and 
no later than December 22, 2003, any existing source subject to this 
subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards: Standards 
for molybdenum, 2,3-dichloroaniline, o-cresol, p-cresol, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding limitation specified 
in Sec. 437.31.


Sec. 437.36  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or Sec. 437.30(b), any new 
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment 
standards: Standards for molybdenum, 2,3-dichloroaniline, o-cresol, p-
cresol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 437.31.

Subpart D--Multiple Wastestreams


Sec. 437.40  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.1(b), (c), or (d) or in 
paragraph (b) of this section, facilities that treat wastes subject to 
more than one of the previous Subparts must comply with either 
provisions of this subpart or the applicable provisions of Subpart A, 
B, or C. The provisions of this subpart are applicable to that portion 
of wastewater discharges from a centralized waste treatment facility 
that results from mixing any combination of treated or untreated waste 
otherwise subject to Subpart A, Subpart B, or Subpart C of this part 
only if a facility requests the permit writer or control authority to 
develop Subpart D limitations (or standards) and establishes that it 
provides equivalent treatment as defined in Sec. 437.2(h).
    (b) In order to ensure appropriate treatment rather than dilution 
of dissimilar wastes, an NPDES permit writer or control authority may 
require a new or existing facility subject to paragraph (a) of this 
section to achieve alternative effluent limitations or standards as 
defined in Sec. 437.2 (b) in the following circumstances:
    (1) The facility receives, on a continuing basis, flows of process 
wastewater from five or fewer facilities subject to 40 CFR Subchapter N 
limitations and standards; and
    (2) The process wastewater flows received for treatment at the 
facility have relatively consistent pollutant profiles.


Sec. 437.41  Special definitions.

    (a) Initial Certification Statement for this subpart means a 
written submission to the appropriate permitting authority (either the 
local control authority (the POTW) or NPDES permit writer) that is 
signed by the responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR 
403.12(l) or 40 CFR 122.22. The statement must:
    (1) List and describe the subcategories of wastes accepted for 
treatment at the facility;
    (2) List and describe the treatment systems in-place at the 
facility and conditions under which the treatment systems are operated 
for the subcategories of wastes accepted for treatment at the facility;
    (3) Include information and supporting data establishing that these 
treatment systems will achieve equivalent treatment.
    (b) Periodic Certification Statement for this subpart means a 
written submission to the appropriate permitting authority (the local 
control authority (the POTW) or NPDES permit writer) which certifies 
that the facility is operating its treatment systems to provide 
equivalent treatment as set forth in the initial certification. In the 
event that the facility has modified its treatment systems, the 
facility should submit a description of the modified systems and 
information and supporting data to establish that the modified system 
will achieve equivalent treatment. The periodic certification statement 
must be signed by the responsible corporate officer as defined in 40 
CFR 403.12(l) or 40 CFR 122.22.
    (c) On-site Compliance Paperwork for this subpart means data or 
information retained in the offices of the facility which supports the 
initial and periodic certification statements. This Paperwork must:
    (1) List and describe the subcategory wastes being accepted for 
treatment at the facility;
    (2) List and describe the treatment systems in-place at the 
facility, modifications to the treatment systems and the conditions 
under which the systems are operated for the subcategories of wastes 
accepted for treatment at the facility;
    (3) Provide information and supporting data establishing that these 
treatment systems will achieve equivalent treatment;
    (4) Describe the procedures it follows to ensure that its treatment 
systems are well-operated and maintained; and
    (5) Explain why the procedures it has adopted will ensure its 
treatment systems are well-operated and maintained.


Sec. 437.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 
Sec. 437.40(b), any existing facility subject to this subpart which 
combines treated or untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this 
part may be subject to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory effluent 
limitations representing the application of BPT set forth in paragraphs 
(b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section if the discharger agrees to the 
following conditions in its NPDES permit:
    (1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory limitations set forth in (b), (c), (d) or (e);
    (2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time 
of renewal or modification of its permit, of its desire to be subject 
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit 
writer an initial certification statement as described in 
Sec. 437.41(a);
    (3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a 
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a 
year; and
    (4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and 
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as 
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
    (b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B, and C of this part. 
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to 
this paragraph must achieve the following effluent

[[Page 81307]]

limitations representing the application of BPT:

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                 daily 1        avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................     163           53.0
O&G.........................................     127           38.0
pH..........................................     (2)          (2)
TSS.........................................      74.1         30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.0172       0.0102
Chromium....................................       0.746        0.323
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.500        0.242
Lead........................................       0.350        0.160
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       1.01         0.965
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0510       0.0299
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       0.497        0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.....................................      30.2          7.97
Acetophenone................................       0.114        0.0562
Aniline.....................................       0.0333       0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................       0.215        0.101
2-Butanone..................................       4.81         1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate.......................       0.188        0.0887
Carbazole...................................       0.598        0.276
o-Cresol....................................       1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................       0.698        0.205
n-Decane....................................       0.948        0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................       0.0731       0.0361
Fluoranthene................................       0.0537       0.0268
n-Octadecane................................       0.589        0.302
Phenol......................................       3.65         1.08
Pyridine....................................       0.370        0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................       0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 OSC Within the range 6 to 9.

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily 1       avg. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to 
this paragraph must achieve the following effluent limitations 
representing the application of BPT:

                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum    monthly avg.
                                                 daily 1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G.........................................     127           38.0
pH..........................................     (2)          (2)
TSS.........................................      74.1         30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.0172       0.0102
Chromium....................................       0.746        0.323
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.500        0.242
Lead........................................       0.350        0.160
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       3.50         2.09
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0510       0.0299
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................       0.215        0.101
Butylbenzyl phthalate.......................       0.188        0.0887
Carbazole...................................       0.598        0.276
n-Decane....................................       0.948        0.437
Fluoranthene................................       0.0537       0.0268
n-Octadecane................................       0.589        0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to 
this paragraph must achieve the following effluent limitations 
representing the application of BPT:

                              BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum    monthly avg.
                                                daily \1\        \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5.......................................     163            3.0
O&G.........................................     205           50.2
pH..........................................     (2)          (2)
TSS.........................................      60.0         31.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.249        0.206
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................      15.5          3.07
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.865        0.757
Lead........................................       1.32         0.283
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       1.01         0.965
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       0.497        0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.....................................      30.2          7.97
Acetophenone................................       0.114        0.0562
Aniline.....................................       0.0333       0.0164
2-Butanone..................................       4.81         1.85
o-Cresol....................................       1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................       0.698        0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................       0.0731       0.0361
Phenol......................................       3.65         1.08
Pyridine....................................       0.370        0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................       0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily 1       avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L )ppm).

    (e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As 
provided in Sec. 437.42(a), any existing point source subject to this 
paragraph must achieve the following effluent limitations representing 
the application of BPT:

[[Page 81308]]



                             BPT Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                Maximum    monthly avg.
                                                daily \1\        \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................      163           53.0
 O&G........................................      127           38.0
 pH.........................................    (\2\)        (\2\)
 TSS........................................       74.1         30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Antimony...................................        0.237        0.141
 Arsenic....................................        2.95         1.33
 Barium.....................................        0.427        0.281
 Cadmium....................................        0.0172       0.0102
 Chromium...................................        0.746        0.323
 Cobalt.....................................       56.4         18.8
 Copper.....................................        0.500        0.242
 Lead.......................................        0.350        0.160
 Mercury....................................        0.0172       0.00647
 Molybdenum.................................        1.01         0.965
 Tin........................................        0.335        0.165
 Titanium...................................        0.0510       0.0299
Zinc........................................        0.497        0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Acetone....................................       30.2          7.97
 Acetophenone...............................        0.114        0.0562
 Aniline....................................        0.0333       0.0164
 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................        0.215        0.101
 2-Butanone.................................        4.81         1.85
 Butylbenzyl phthalate......................        0.188        0.0887
 Carbazole..................................        0.598        0.276
 o-Cresol...................................        1.92         0.561
 p-Cresol...................................        0.698        0.205
 n-Decane...................................        0.948        0.437
 2,3-Dichloroaniline........................        0.0731       0.0361
 Fluoranthene...............................        0.0537       0.0268
 n-Octadecane...............................        0.589        0.302
 Phenol.....................................        3.65         1.08
 Pyridine...................................        0.370        0.182
 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol......................        0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.43  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 
437.40(b), any existing facility subject to this subpart which combines 
treated or untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this part may 
be subject to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory effluent limitations 
representing the application of BCT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), 
(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger agrees to the following 
conditions in its NPDES permit:
    (1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory limitations set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of 
this section;
    (2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time 
of renewal or modification of its permit, of its desire to be subject 
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit 
writer an initial certification statement as described in 
Sec. 437.41(a);
    (3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a 
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a 
year; and
    (4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and 
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as 
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
    (b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part: 
Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(b).
    (c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part: 
Limitations for O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the corresponding 
limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(c).
    (d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part: 
Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(d).
    (e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part: 
Limitations for BOD5, O&G, pH, and TSS are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(e).


Sec. 437.44  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32 or 
437.40(b), any existing facility subject to this subpart which combines 
treated or untreated wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this part may 
be subject to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory effluent limitations 
representing the application of BAT set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), 
(d), or (e) of this section if the discharger agrees to the following 
conditions in its NPDES permit:
    (1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory limitations set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of 
this section;
    (2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time 
of renewal or modification of its permit, of its desire to be subject 
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit 
writer an initial certification statement as described in 
Sec. 437.41(a);
    (3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a 
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a 
year; and
    (4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and 
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as 
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
    (b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part. 
(1) Limitations for the following parameters are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(b)(1):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Organic parameters                    Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone...................................  Antimony.
Acetophenone..............................  Arsenic.
Aniline...................................  Barium.
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............  Cadmium.
2-Butanone................................  Chromium.
Butylbenzyl phthalate.....................  Cobalt.
Carbazole.................................  Copper.
o-Cresol..................................  Lead.
p-Cresol..................................  Mercury.
n-Decane..................................  Molybdenum.
2,3-dichloroaniline.......................  Nickel.
Fluoranthene..............................  Selenium.
n-Octadecane..............................  Silver.
Phenol....................................  Tin.
Pyridine..................................  Titanium.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.....................  Vanadium.
                                            Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The in-plant limitations that apply to metal-bearing wastewater 
containing cyanide are the same as the corresponding limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.42(b)(2).
    (c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1) 
Limitations for the following parameters are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(c)(1):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Organic parameters                    Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate..............  Antimony.
Butylbenzyl phthalate.....................  Arsenic.
Carbazole.................................  Barium.
n-Decane..................................  Cadmium.
Fluoranthene..............................  Chromium.
n-Octadecane..............................  Cobalt.
                                            Copper.
                                            Lead.
                                            Mercury.
                                            Molybdenum.
                                            Nickel.
                                            Selenium.
                                            Silver.
                                            Tin.
                                            Titanium.
                                            Vanadium.
                                            Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The in-plant limitations that apply to metal-bearing wastewater 
containing cyanide are the same as the corresponding limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.42(c)(2).
    (d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1) 
Limitations for the following parameters

[[Page 81309]]

are the same as the corresponding limitation specified in 
Sec. 437.42(d)(1):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Organic parameters                    Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone...................................  Antimony.
Acetophenone..............................  Arsenic.
Aniline...................................  Cadmium.
2-Butanone................................  Chromium.
o-Cresol..................................  Cobalt.
p-Cresol..................................  Copper.
Phenol....................................  Lead.
Pyridine..................................  Mercury.
2,4,6-trichlorophenol.....................  Molybdenum.
                                            Nickel.
                                            Selenium.
                                            Silver.
                                            Tin.
                                            Titanium.
                                            Vanadium.
                                            Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The in-plant limitations that apply to metal-bearing wastewater 
containing cyanide are the same as the corresponding limitations 
specified in Sec. 437.42(e)(2).
    (e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. 
Limitations for the following parameters are the same as the 
corresponding limitation specified in Sec. 437.42(e):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Organic parameters                    Metal parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone...................................  Antimony.
Acetophenone..............................  Arsenic.
Aniline...................................  Barium.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...............  Cadmium.
2-Butanone................................  Chromium.
Butylbenzyl phthalate.....................  Cobalt.
Carbazole.................................  Copper.
o-Cresol..................................  Lead.
p-Cresol..................................  Mercury.
n-Decane..................................  Molybdenum.
2,3-dichloroaniline.......................  Tin.
Fluoranthene..............................  Titanium.
n-Octadecane                                Zinc.
Phenol
Pyridine
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 437.45  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. 437.40(b), any new source subject to 
this subpart which combines treated or untreated wastes from subparts 
A, B, or C of this part may be subject to Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory effluent limitations representing the application of NSPS 
set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section if the 
discharger agrees to the following conditions in its NPDES permit:
    (1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory limitations set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of 
this section;
    (2) The discharger will notify its NPDES permit writer at the time 
of submitting its application for permit, of its desire to be subject 
to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to the NPDES permit 
writer an initial certification statement as described in 
Sec. 437.41(a);
    (3) The discharger will submit to its NPDES permitting authority a 
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a 
year; and
    (4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and 
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as 
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
    (b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part. 
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this 
paragraph must achieve the following performance standards:

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                 daily 1        avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5.......................................    163            53.0
O&G.........................................    127            38.0
pH..........................................    (2)           (2)
TSS.........................................     29.6          11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................      0.111         0.0312
Arsenic.....................................      0.0993        0.0199
Barium......................................      0.427         0.281
Cadmium.....................................      0.0172        0.0102
Chromium....................................      0.167         0.0522
Cobalt......................................      0.182         0.0703
Copper......................................      0.659         0.216
Lead........................................      0.350         0.160
Mercury.....................................      0.000641      0.000246
Molybdenum..................................      1.01          0.965
Nickel......................................      0.794         0.309
Selenium....................................      0.176         0.0698
Silver......................................      0.0318        0.0122
Tin.........................................      0.0955        0.0367
Titanium....................................      0.0159        0.00612
Vanadium....................................      0.0628        0.0518
Zinc........................................      0.657         0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.....................................     30.2           7.97
Acetophenone................................      0.114         0.0562
Aniline.....................................      0.0333        0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................      0.215         0.101
2-Butanone..................................      4.81          1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate.......................      0.188         0.0887
Carbazole...................................      0.598         0.276
o-Cresol....................................      1.92          0.561
p-Cresol....................................      0.698         0.205
n-Decane....................................      0.948         0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................      0.0731        0.0361
Fluoranthene................................      0.0537        0.0268
n-Octadecane................................      0.589         0.302
Phenol......................................      3.65          1.08
Pyridine....................................      0.370         0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................      0.155         0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily 1       avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this paragraph 
must achieve the following standards:

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                 daily1         avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&G.........................................    127            38.0
pH..........................................    (2)           (2)
TSS.........................................     29.6          11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................      0.111         0.0312
Arsenic.....................................      0.0993        0.0199
Barium......................................      0.427         0.281
Cadmium.....................................      0.0172        0.0102
Chromium....................................      0.167         0.0522
Cobalt......................................      0.182         0.0703
Copper......................................      0.659         0.216
Lead........................................      0.350         0.160
Mercury.....................................      0.000641      0.000246
Molybdenum..................................      3.50          2.09
Nickel......................................      0.794         0.309
Selenium....................................      0.176         0.0698
Silver......................................      0.0318        0.0122
Tin.........................................      0.0955        0.0367
Titanium....................................      0.0159        0.00612
Vanadium....................................      0.0628        0.0518
Zinc........................................      0.657         0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................      0.215         0.101
Butylbenzyl phthalate.......................      0.188         0.0887
Carbazole...................................      0.598         0.276
n-Decane....................................      0.948         0.437
Fluoranthene................................      0.0537        0.0268

[[Page 81310]]

 
n-Octadecane................................      0.589         0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                   daily1       avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 mg/L (ppm).

    (d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this paragraph 
must achieve the following performance standards:

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Maximum        Maximum
           Regulated  parameter                daily 1     monthly avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5......................................    163             53.0
O&G.......................................    205             50.2
pH........................................    (2)            (2)
TSS.......................................     29.6           11.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony..................................      0.111          0.0312
Arsenic...................................      0.0993         0.0199
Cadmium...................................      0.782          0.163
Chromium..................................      0.167          0.0522
Cobalt....................................      0.182          0.0703
Copper....................................      0.659          0.216
Lead......................................      1.32           0.283
Mercury...................................      0.000641       0.000246
Molybdenum................................      1.01           0.965
Nickel....................................      0.794          0.309
Selenium..................................      0.176          0.0698
Silver....................................      0.0318         0.0122
Tin.......................................      0.0955         0.0367
Titanium..................................      0.0159         0.00612
Vanadium..................................      0.0628         0.0518
Zinc......................................      0.657          0.252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone...................................     30.2            7.97
Acetophenone..............................      0.114          0.0562
Aniline...................................      0.0333         0.0164
2-Butanone................................      4.81           1.85
o-Cresol..................................      1.92           0.561
p-Cresol..................................      0.698          0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline.......................      0.0731         0.0361
Phenol....................................      3.65           1.08
Pyridine..................................      0.370          0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.....................      0.155          0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily 1       avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As 
provided in Sec. 437.45(a), any new source subject to this paragraph 
must achieve the following performance standards:

                          Performance Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum    monthly avg.
                                                 daily 1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Conventional Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................      163           53.0
O&G.........................................      127           38.0
pH..........................................      (2)          (2)
TSS.........................................       74.1         30.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................        0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................        2.95         1.33
Barium......................................        0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................        0.0172       0.0102
Chromium....................................        0.746        0.323
Cobalt......................................       56.4         18.8
Copper......................................        0.500        0.242
Lead........................................        0.350        0.160
Mercury.....................................        0.0172       0.00647
Molybdenum..................................        1.01         0.965
Tin.........................................        0.335        0.165
Titanium....................................        0.0510       0.0299
Zinc........................................        0.497        0.420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone.....................................       30.2          7.97
Acetophenone................................        0.114        0.0562
Aniline.....................................        0.0333       0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................        0.215        0.101
2-Butanone..................................        4.81         1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate.......................        0.188        0.0887
Carbazole...................................        0.598        0.276
o-Cresol....................................        1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................        0.698        0.205
n-Decane....................................        0.948        0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................        0.0731       0.0361
Fluoranthene................................        0.0537       0.0268
n-Octadecane................................        0.589        0.302
Phenol......................................        3.65         1.08
Pyridine....................................        0.370        0.182
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................        0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).
2 Within the range 6 to 9.

Sec. 437.46  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, 403.13 or 437.40(b), any 
new source subject to this subpart which combines treated or untreated 
wastes from subparts A, B, or C of this part may be subject to Multiple 
Wastestream Subcategory pretreatment standards representing the 
application of PSES set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of 
this section if the discharger agrees to the following conditions in 
its permit:
    (1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream
    Subcategory standards set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) 
of this section;
    (2) The discharger will notify its local control authority of its 
desire to be subject to the Multiple Waste Subcategory by submitting to 
the local control authority an initial certification statement as 
described in Sec. 437.41(a);
    (3) The discharger will submit to its local control authority a 
periodic certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a 
year; and
    (4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and 
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as 
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
    (b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part. 
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than [Insert date--
three years after publication], any existing source subject to this 
paragraph must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962

[[Page 81311]]

 
Chromium....................................       0.947        0.487
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.405        0.301
Lead........................................       0.222        0.172
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       1.01         0.965
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................       0.267        0.158
Carbazole...................................       0.392        0.233
o-Cresol....................................       1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................       0.698        0.205
n-Decane....................................       5.79         3.31
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................       0.0731       0.0361
Fluoranthene................................       0.787        0.393
n-Octadecane................................       1.22         0.925
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................       0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than December 22, 2003, any 
existing source subject to this paragraph must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily\1\       avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................       0.947        0.487
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.405        0.301
Lead........................................       0.222        0.172
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       3.50         2.09
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................       0.267        0.158
Carbazole...................................       0.392        0.233
n-Decane....................................       5.79         3.31
Fluoranthene................................       0.787        0.393
n-Octadecane................................       1.22         0.925
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily\1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than December 22, 2003, any 
existing source subject to this paragraph must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.249        0.206
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................      15.5          3.07
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       4.14         1.06
Lead........................................       1.32         0.283
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       1.01         0.965
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o-Cresol....................................       1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................       0.698        0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................       0.0731       0.0361
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................       0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As 
provided in Sec. 437.46(a), and no later than December 22, 2003, any 
existing source subject to this paragraph must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................        0.237         0.141
Barium......................................        0.427         0.281
Chromium....................................        0.947         0.487
Cobalt......................................       56.4          18.8
Copper......................................        0.405         0.301
Lead........................................        0.222         0.172
Molybdenum..................................        1.01          0.965
Tin.........................................        0.249         0.146
Zinc........................................        6.95          4.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................        0.267         0.158
Carbazole...................................        0.392         0.233
o-Cresol....................................        1.92          0.561
p-Cresol....................................        0.698         0.205
n-Decane....................................        5.79          3.31
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................        0.0731        0.0361
Fluoranthene................................        0.787         0.393
n-Octadecane................................        1.22          0.925
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................        0.155         0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).


[[Page 81312]]

Sec. 437.47  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 or 437.40(b), any new source 
subject to this subpart which combines treated or untreated wastes from 
subparts A, B, or C of this part may be subject to Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory pretreatment standards representing the application of PSNS 
set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section if the 
discharger agrees to the following conditions in its permit:
    (1) The discharger will meet the applicable Multiple Wastestream 
Subcategory standards set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of 
this section;
    (2) The discharger will notify its local control authority at the 
time of submitting its application for an individual control mechanism 
or pretreatment agreement of its desire to be subject to Multiple Waste 
Subcategory by submitting to the local control authority an initial 
certification statement as described in Sec. 437.41(a);
    (3) The discharger will submit to its local control authority a 
periodic certification statements as described in Sec. 437.41(b) once a 
year; and
    (4) The discharger will maintain at the office of the facility and 
make available for inspection the on-site compliance paperwork as 
described in Sec. 437.41(c).
    (b) Combined waste receipts from subparts A, B and C of this part. 
(1) As provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this 
paragraph must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................       0.746        0.323
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.500        0.242
Lead........................................       0.350        0.160
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       1.01         0.965
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................       0.215        0.101
Carbazole...................................       0.598        0.276
o-Cresol....................................       1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................       0.698        0.205
n-Decane....................................       0.948        0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................       0.0731       0.0361
Fluoranthene................................       0.0537       0.0268
n-Octadecane................................       0.589        0.302
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................       0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                 daily \1\     avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (c) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and B of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this paragraph 
must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                daily \1\      avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Paratmeters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.237        0.141
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Barium......................................       0.427        0.281
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................       0.746        0.323
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       0.500        0.242
Lead........................................       0.350        0.160
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       3.50         2.09
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate................       0.215        0.101
Carbazole...................................       0.598        0.276
n-Decane....................................       0.948        0.437
Fluoranthene................................       0.0537       0.0268
n-Octadecane................................       0.589        0.302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily 1       avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).

    (d) Combined waste receipts from subparts A and C of this part. (1) 
As provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this paragraph 
must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                 daily 1        avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................       0.249        0.206
Arsenic.....................................       0.162        0.104
Cadmium.....................................       0.474        0.0962
Chromium....................................      15.5          3.07
Cobalt......................................       0.192        0.124
Copper......................................       4.14         1.06
Lead........................................       1.32         0.283
Mercury.....................................       0.00234      0.000739
Molybdenum..................................       1.01         0.965
Nickel......................................       3.95         1.45
Selenium....................................       1.64         0.408
Silver......................................       0.120        0.0351
Tin.........................................       0.409        0.120
Titanium....................................       0.0947       0.0618
Vanadium....................................       0.218        0.0662
Zinc........................................       2.87         0.641
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o-Cresol....................................       1.92         0.561
p-Cresol....................................       0.698        0.205
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................       0.0731       0.0361
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................       0.155        0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).

    (2) The following in-plant limitations apply to metal-bearing 
wastewater containing cyanide:

                          In-Plant Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
             Regulated  parameter                 Maximum      monthly
                                                  daily 1       avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyanide.......................................          500         178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 mg/L (ppm).

    (e) Combined waste receipts from subparts B and C of this part. As 
provided in Sec. 437.47(a), any new source subject to this paragraph 
must achieve the following pretreatment standards:

[[Page 81313]]



                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
            Regulated  parameter                 Maximum       monthly
                                                 daily 1        avg.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Metal Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................        0.237         0.141
Barium......................................        0.427         0.281
Chromium....................................        0.746         0.323
Cobalt......................................       56.4          18.8
Copper......................................        0.500         0.242
Lead........................................        0.350         0.160
Molybdenum..................................        1.01          0.965
Tin.........................................        0.335         0.165
Zinc........................................        8.26          4.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Organic Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.................        0.215         0.101
Carbazole...................................        0.598         0.276
o-Cresol....................................        1.92          0.561
p-Cresol....................................        0.698         0.205
n-Decane....................................        0.948         0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline.........................        0.0731        0.0361
Fluoranthene................................        0.0537        0.0268
n-Octadecane................................        0.589         0.302
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.......................        0.155         0.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ mg/L (ppm).

[FR Doc. 00-24565 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U