[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81964-82083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31185]



[[Page 81963]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 420



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source 
Category; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65 , No. 249 / Wednesday, December 27, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 81964]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 420

[FRL-6897-8]
RIN 2040-AC90


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action presents the Agency's proposed effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater discharges from 
iron and steel facilities. The proposed regulation revises technology-
based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for wastewater 
discharges associated with the operation of new and existing iron and 
steel facilities. This action covers sites that generate wastewater 
while performing the following industrial activities: Metallurgical 
cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, non-integrated 
steelmaking, hot forming, steel finishing including electroplating, and 
other operations including direct iron reduction, briquetting, and 
forging.
    EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation as proposed 
would reduce the discharge of priority and non-conventional pollutants 
by at least 210 million pounds per year and would cost an estimated 
$56.5 million to $61.4 million (1999 $, pre-tax) on an annual basis, 
with the range reflecting two options proposed for comment. In 
addition, EPA expects that discharges of conventional pollutants would 
be reduced, by at least 31.3 million pounds per year. EPA has estimated 
that the annual quantifiable benefits of the proposal would range from 
$1.1 million to $2.7 million.

DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by midnight of 
February 26, 2001. EPA will conduct a public hearing on February 20, 
2001 at 9:00 a.m. For information on the location of the public 
hearing, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at the EPA auditorium in 
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC.
    Submit written comments to Mr. George M. Jett, Office of Water, 
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. For hand-deliveries or federal 
express, please send comments to Room 607a West Tower, 401 M Street SW, 
Washington 20460. For additional information on how to submit comments, 
see ``Supplementary Information, How to Submit to submit comments''.
    The public record for this proposed rulemaking has been established 
under docket number W-00-25 and is located in the Water Docket East 
Tower Basement, Room EB57, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The 
record is available for inspection from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 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 proposed rule, contact Mr. George M. Jett at (202) 260-7151 or 
Mr. Kevin Tingley at (202) 260-9843. For economic information contact 
Mr. William Anderson at (202) 260-5131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category               Examples of regulated entities            Primary SIC and NAICS codes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................   Facilities engaged in    SIC
                                   metallurgical cokemaking,         3312
                                   ironmaking, integrated            3316
                                   steelmaking, non-integrated      NAICS
                                   steelmaking, hot forming, steel   3311
                                   finishing including               3312
                                   electroplating, and other
                                   operations including direct
                                   iron reduction, briquetting,
                                   and forging.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated 
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by promulgation of this proposed 
rule. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
regulated. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by 
promulgation of this proposed rule, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 420.1 of today's proposed rule and in 
the applicability subsection of each proposed subpart. You should also 
examine the description of the proposed scope of each subpart elsewhere 
in this document. If you still have questions regarding the 
applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, consult 
one of the persons listed for technical information in the preceding 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

How To Submit Comments

    EPA requests an original and three copies of your comments and 
enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Please submit 
any references cited in your comments.
    Comments may also be sent via e-mail to [email protected]. 
Electronic comments must specify docket number W-00-55 and must be 
submitted as an ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic comments on 
this notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. 
No confidential business information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Protection of Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    EPA notes that certain information and data in the record 
supporting the proposed rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, 
are not included in the record that is available to the public in the 
Water Docket. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some 
data not claimed as CBI because release of this information could 
indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential. To support 
the proposed rulemaking, EPA is presenting in the public record certain 
information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is masking facility 
identities or employing other strategies in order to preserve 
confidentiality claims. This approach assures that the

[[Page 81965]]

information in the public record both explains the basis for today's 
proposal and allows for a meaningful opportunity for public comment, 
without compromising CBI claims.
    Some tabulations and analyses of facility-specific data claimed as 
CBI are available to the company that submitted the information. To 
ensure that all data or information claimed as CBI is protected in 
accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for release of such 
company-specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead 
and signed by a responsible official authorized to receive such data. 
The request must list the specific data requested and include the 
following statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer 
confidential business information submitted by my company, and that I 
am authorized to receive it.''

Overview

    The preamble describes the background documents that support this 
proposed regulation; the legal authority for the proposal; a summary of 
the proposal; background information; the technical and economic 
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these proposed regulations 
and, in an appendix, the definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations used 
in this notice. This preamble also solicits comment and data on 
specific areas of interest.

Table of Contents

I. Legal Authority
II. Legislative Background
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. Section 304(m) Consent Decree
III. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Regulation
    A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 420
    B. Interface with Metal Products and Machinery Rule
    C. Centralized Treatment Provision
IV. Rulemaking Background
    A. Iron and Steel Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History
    B. Preliminary Study
    C. Industry Profile
    D. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts
    1. Industry Surveys
    a. Descriptions
    b. Development of Survey Mailing List
    c. Sample Selection
    d. Survey Response
    2. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
    3. Analytical Methods
    4. Database Sources
    5. Summary of Public Participation
    E. Subcategorization
    1. Methodology and Factors Considered in Developing Proposed 
Subcategorization
    2. General Description of Manufacturing Processes
    3. Proposed Subcategories
    F. Wastewater Characterization
    1. Cokemaking
    a. Wastewater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates
    2. Ironmaking
    a. Wastewater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates
    3. Integrated Steelmaking
    a. Wastewater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates
    4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
    a. Wastewater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates
    5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
    a. Wastewater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates
    6. Steel Finishing
    a. Wastewater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates
    7. Other Operations
    a. Wasterwater Sources
    b. Pollutants of Concern
    c. Wasterwater Flow Rates
V. Technology Options, Costs, and Pollutant Reductions
    A. Introduction
    1. Focused Rulemaking Approach
    2. Available Technologies
    B. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions 
Achieved by Model Treatment Technologies
    C. Technology Options, Regulatory Costs, and Pollutant 
Reductions
    1. Cokemaking
    2. Ironmaking
    3. Integrated Steelmaking
    4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
    5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
    6. Steel Finishing
    7. Other Operations
VI. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction and Overview
    B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry and 
Baseline Conditions
    C. Economic Impact Methodology
    D. Economic Costs of Impact of Technology Options by Subcategory
    E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of Regulatory Options
    F. Firm Level Impacts
    G. Community Impacts
    H. Foreign Trade Impacts
    I. Small Business Analysis
    J. Cost-Benefit Analysis
    K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    L. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis
VII. Water Quality Analysis 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. Effect an POTW Operations
    F. Other Benefits not Quantified
    G. Summary of Benefits
VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
    A. Air Pollution
    B. Solid Waste
    C. Energy Requirements
IX. Options Selected for Proposal
    A. Introduction
    1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
    2. Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment Standards
    3. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW 
Performance
    4. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    5. BPT
    6. BCT
    7. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BAT, PSES, NSPS, and 
PSNS Technology Options Selection
    B. Cokemaking
    1. By-Product Cokemaking
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
    C. Ironmaking
    1. Blast Furnace
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    2. Sintering
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    b. Technologies Selected
    i. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
    D. Integrated Steelmaking
    1. Regulated Pollutants
    a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
    2. Technology Selected
    a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
    E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
    1. Carbon and Alloy
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES/PSNS
    iii. NSPS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    2. Stainless
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES/PSNS
    iii. NSPS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES/PSNS

[[Page 81966]]

    iii. NSPS
    F. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
    1. Carbon and Alloy
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS/PSNS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS/PSNS
    G. Finishing
    1. Carbon and Alloy
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS
    iv. PSNS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS/PSNS
    2. Stainless
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS/PSNS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BAT
    ii. PSES
    iii. NSPS/PSNS
    H. Other
    1. Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)
    a. Regulated Pollutants
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BPT/BCT/NSPS
    ii. PSES/PSNS
    2. Forging
    a. Regulated Pollutants and Limits
    i. (Direct Pollutants and Limits) BPT/BCT/NSPS
    ii. Indirect Discharges PSES/PSNS
    b. Technology Selected
    i. BPT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
    3. Briquetting
    a. Technology Selected
X. Regulatory Implementation
    A. Implementation of Part 420 through the NPDES Permit and 
National Pretreatment Programs
    B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
    C. Variances and Removal Credits
    D. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations
    1. Background
    2. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations
    E. Water Bubble
XI. Other Coinciding Agency Activities
    A. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L--National Air Emission Standard for 
Coke Oven Batteries
    B. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Proposed 
Rule
    C. Steel Pickling--HCL Process
    D. Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing NESHAP
XII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Process
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.
    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. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. Plain Language Directive
XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
    A. Introduction and General Solicitation
    B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Notice

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are proposed 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. Legislative 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 from facilities that discharge wastewater 
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly owned treatment works 
(POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) & (c). National 
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in 
wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere 
with or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Generally, 
pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from 
direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar 
levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs are required to implement local 
treatment limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to 
satisfy any local requirements. See 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. Effluent 
limitations in NPDES permits are derived from effluent limitations 
guidelines and new source performance standards promulgated by EPA. 
These effluent limitations guidelines 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)--Sec. 
304(b)(1) of the CWA
    EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limits for conventional, priority, 
and non-conventional pollutants. (Priority pollutants consist of a 
specified list of toxic pollutants. For more information, see section 
IV.D.3 below.) 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, engineering 
aspects of the control technologies, application of various types of 
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including 
energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate. See CWA 304(b)(1)(B). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT 
effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of 
facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, 
processes, or other common characteristics. Where, however, existing 
performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may establish limitations 
based on higher levels of control than currently in place in an 
industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology is 
available in another category or subcategory, and can be practically 
applied.
2. Best Control Technology for Conventional Pollutants (BCT)--Sec. 
304(b)(4) of the CWA
    The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify additional 
levels of effluent reduction for conventional pollutants associated 
with BCT technology for discharges from existing industrial point 
sources. In addition to other factors specified in Section 
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires

[[Page 81967]]

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)--Sec. 
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 CWA establishes BAT as a principal 
national means of controlling the direct discharge of toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants. 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, and such other factors as the Administrator deems 
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning 
the weight to be accorded these factors. An additional statutory factor 
considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally, EPA 
determines economic achievability on the basis of total costs to the 
industry and the effect of compliance with BAT limitations on overall 
industry and subcategory financial conditions. As with BPT, where 
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect 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)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
    New Source Performance Standards 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 (that is, conventional, 
nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is 
directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent 
reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy 
requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of 
the CWA
    Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources 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). Pretreatment standards are technology-based and are 
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
    The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework 
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found 
at 40 CFR part 403. These regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of 
pass-through and establishes pretreatment standards that apply to all 
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, 1987).
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(c) of the 
CWA
    Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for new sources at the same time it promulgates new source 
performance standards. Such pretreatment standards must prevent the 
discharge of any pollutant into a POTW that may interfere with, pass 
through, or may otherwise be incompatible with the POTW. EPA 
promulgates categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources 
based principally on BAT technology for existing sources. EPA 
promulgates pretreatment standards for new sources based on best 
available demonstrated technology for new sources. 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) Consent Decree

    Section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every two years that 
consists of three elements. First, under section 304(m)(1)(A), EPA is 
required to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of 
existing effluent guidelines in accordance with section 304(b). Section 
304(b) applies to effluent limitations guidelines for direct 
dischargers and requires EPA to revise such regulations as appropriate. 
Second, under section 304(m)(1)(B), EPA must identify categories of 
sources discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA 
has not published BAT effluent limitations guidelines under 304(b)(2) 
or new source performance standards under section 306. Finally, under 
304(m)(1)(C), EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation of BAT 
and NSPS for the categories identified under subparagraph (B) not later 
than three years after being identified in the 304(m) plan. Section 
304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect 
dischargers, which EPA promulgates pursuant to sections 307(b) and 
307(c) of the Clean Water Act.
    On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and 
Public Citizen, Inc., filed an action against EPA in which they 
alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to comply with CWA 
section 304(m). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement of that 
action in a consent decree entered on January 31, 1992. The consent 
decree, which has been modified several times, established a schedule 
by which EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point 
source categories identified by name in the decree and for eight other 
point source categories identified only as new or revised rules, 
numbered 5 through 12. After completing a preliminary study as required 
by the decree, EPA selected the iron and steel industry as the subject 
for New or Revised Rule #5. Under the decree, as modified, the 
Administrator was required to sign a proposed rule for the iron and 
steel industry no later than October 31, 2000, and must take final 
action on that proposal no later than April 30, 2002.

III. Scope/Applicability of the Proposed Regulation

    EPA solicits comments on various issues specifically identified in 
the preamble as well as any other applicability issues that are not 
specifically addressed in today's notice.

A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 420

    EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
seven subcategories of Iron and Steel facilities. Generally speaking, 
the universe of facilities that would be potentially subject to EPA's 
proposed guideline include facilities engaged in iron and steel making, 
whether through the use of blast furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces 
(BOFs), or through electric arc

[[Page 81968]]

furnaces (EAFs); metallurgical cokemaking facilities; stand-alone 
facilities engaged in hot forming and/or finishing of steel, including 
electroplating; and facilities engaged in other related operations such 
as direct iron reduction, forging, and iron briquetting.
    A detailed discussion of Iron and Steel wastewaters is provided in 
Section IV.F. In summary, all wastewater discharges to a receiving 
stream or the introduction of wastewater to a publicly owned treatment 
works from a facility that falls within the scope of one of the 
proposed subparts would be subject to the provisions of this proposed 
rule unless specifically excluded as discussed in the following 
sections.
    The following proposed technology options serve as the basis for 
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards being proposed today 
for the iron and steel industry. For descriptions of the subcategories, 
see Section IV.E. For descriptions of the technologies, see Section 
V.A.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subcategory (segment)          Regulatory level       Option chosen            Technical components
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A. Cokemaking:
    (By-Product Recovery)........  BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS..  BAT-3(PSES-3)......  tar removal, equalization, ammonia
                                                                               stripping, temperature control,
                                                                               equalization, single-stage
                                                                               biological treatment with
                                                                               nitrification, alkaline
                                                                               chlorination, and sludge
                                                                               dewatering.
                                   co-proposed.........  PSES-1.............  tar removal, equalization, ammonia
                                   PSES................                        stripping.
    (Non-Recovery)...............  BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS..  zero discharge.....  no wastewater generated.
Subpart B. Ironmaking: (Blast      BAT/NSPS............  BAT-1..............  solids removal with high-rate
 Furnaces) and (Sintering).                                                    recycle and metals precipitation,
                                                                               alkaline chlorination, mixed-
                                                                               media filtration of the blowdown
                                                                               wastewater, and sludge
                                                                               dewatering.
                                   PSES/PSNS...........  PSES-1.............  solids removal with high-rate
                                                                               recycle and metals precipitation,
                                                                               and sludge dewatering.
Subpart C. Integrated Steelmaking  BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS..  BAT-1..............  solids removal and high-rate
                                                                               recycle, with metals
                                                                               precipitation for blowdown
                                                                               wastewater, cooling towers for
                                                                               process wastewaters from vacuum
                                                                               degassing or continuous casting
                                                                               operations, and sludge
                                                                               dewatering.
Subpart D. Integrated and Stand
 Alone Hot Forming:.
    (Carbon & Alloy Steel).......  BAT/NSPS............  BAT-1..............  scale pit with oil skimming,
                                                                               roughing clarifier, cooling tower
                                                                               with high rate recycle, mixed-
                                                                               media filtration of blowdown, and
                                                                               sludge dewatering.
                                   PSES/PSNS...........  N/A................  no proposed modification from
                                                                               existing PSES/PSNS.
    (Stainless Steel)............  BAT/NSPS............  BAT-1..............  scale pit with oil skimming,
                                                                               roughing clarifier, cooling tower
                                                                               with high rate recycle, mixed-
                                                                               media filtration of blowdown, and
                                                                               sludge dewatering.
                                   PSES/PSNS...........  N/A................  no proposed modification from
                                                                               existing PSES/PSNS.
Subpart E. Non-Integrated
 Steelmaking and Hot Forming:
    (Carbon & Alloy Steel).......  BAT.................  BAT-1..............  solids removal, cooling tower,
                                                                               high rate recycle, mixed-media
                                                                               filtration of recycled flow or of
                                                                               low volume blowdown flow, and
                                                                               sludge dewatering.
                                   PSES................  N/A................  no proposed modification from
                                                                               existing PSES.
                                   NSPS/PSNS...........  zero discharge.....  water re-use, evaportion, or
                                                                               contract hauling.
    (Stainless Steel)............  BAT/PSES............  BAT-1..............  solids removal, cooling tower,
                                                                               high-rate recycle, mixed-media
                                                                               filtration of recycled flow or of
                                                                               low volume blowdown flow, and
                                                                               sludge dewatering.
                                   NSPS/PSNS...........  zero discharge.....  water re-use, evaportion, or
                                                                               contract hauling.
Subpart F. Steel Finishing:
    (Carbon & Alloy Steel).......  BAT/NSPS/PSNS.......  BAT-1..............  recycle of fume scrubber water,
                                                                               diversion tank, oil removal,
                                                                               hexavalent chrome reduction
                                                                               (where applicable), equalization,
                                                                               metals precipitation,
                                                                               sedimentation, sludge dewatering,
                                                                               and counter-current rinses.
                                   PSES................  N/A................  no proposed modification from
                                                                               existing PSES.
    (Stainless Steel)............  BAT/NSPS/PSNS.......  BAT-1..............  recycle of fume scrubber water,
                                                                               diversion tank, oil removal,
                                                                               hexavalent chrome reduction
                                                                               (where applicable), equalization,
                                                                               metals precipitation,
                                                                               sedimentation, sludge dewatering,
                                                                               counter-current rinses, and acid
                                                                               purification.
                                   PSES................  ...................  no proposed modification from
                                                                               existing PSES
Subpart G. Other Operations:
    (Direct Reduced Ironmaking)..  BPT/BCT/NSPS........  BPT-1..............  solids removal, clarifier, high
                                                                               rate recycle, with filtration of
                                                                               blow-down, and sludge dewatering.
                                   BAT/PSES/PSNS.......  ...................  reserved.
    (Forging)....................  BPT/BCT/NSPS........  BPT-1..............  high rate recycle, with oil/water
                                                                               separator for blowdown.
                                   BAT/PSES/PSNS.......  ...................  reserved.

[[Page 81969]]

 
    (Briquetting)................  BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS/     zero discharge.....  no wastewater generated
                                    PSES/PSNS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Interface With Metal Products and Machinery Rule

    In preparation for this rulemaking, the Agency determined that 
certain facilities currently covered by the current Iron and Steel rule 
have manufacturing processes that more closely resemble those in 
facilities to be covered by the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) 
rule than those found in what are normally considered to be steel 
facilities. So that these facilities might be addressed under a 
regulation that fits them better, EPA proposes to move these types of 
facilities into the MP&M category, which will be regulated under part 
438. The notice proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
for the MP&M category was also required to be signed by the 
Administrator by October 31, 2000. EPA is required to take final action 
on that rule by December 31, 2002 (eight months later than the date for 
final action on the iron and steel rule). In developing the MP&M rule, 
EPA will consider survey data and sampling data collected for these 
types of facilities under Iron and Steel auspices.
    For operations that are currently subject to part 420, EPA proposes 
to retain certain operations in part 420 but move others to part 438, 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Retained in Part 420 (Iron and Steel)       Moved to Part 438 (MP&M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cold forming for steel sheet and strip.  Cold forming for steel bar,
                                          rod, wire, pipe or tube.
Pipe and tube mills with hot forming...  Batch steel electroplating.
Finishing with continuous                Continuous electroplating or
 electroplating of flat products (e.g.    hot dip coating of long steel
 plate, sheet, strip).                    products (e.g. wire, rod,
                                          bar).
Continuous hot dip coating of flat       Batch hot dip coating of steel.
 steel products (e.g. plate, sheet,
 strip).
Hot forming............................  Wire drawing and coating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For facilities with both iron and steel operations and MP&M or 
other operations discharging process wastewaters to the same wastewater 
treatment system, NPDES permit writers would need to use a building 
block approach to develop the technology-based effluent limitations. 
Similarly, pretreatment permit writers would need to use a building 
block approach or the combined wastestream formula to develop 
appropriate pretreatment requirements for facilities with process 
operations in more than one category. Permit writers and pretreatment 
control authorities should refer to the applicability of the proposed 
MP&M rule for further clarification.
    EPA solicits comment on the proposed applicability of the Iron and 
Steel (Part 420) rule and on the proposed building block approach in 
regulating facilities with both iron and steel and MP&M or other 
operations.

C. Centralized Treatment Provision

    Under the applicability section of the current regulation, 40 CFR 
420.01(b), EPA identified 21 plants that were temporarily excluded from 
the provisions of Part 420 because of economic considerations, provided 
that the owner or operator of the facility requested the Agency to 
consider establishing alternative effluent limitations and provided the 
Agency with certain information consistent with 40 CFR 420.01(b)(2) on 
or before July 26, 1982. See 47 FR 23285 (May 27, 1982).
    Today, each of the facilities identified in that section has a 
permit that includes effluent limitations derived from part 420. 
Today's proposed rule would establish new BAT limitations that EPA 
believes are economically achievable for each subcategory as a whole. 
Therefore, EPA believes that the alternate effluent limitations 
provisions of Sec. 420.01(b) are no longer necessary for these 
facilities, and proposes to withdraw this exclusion from part 420.

IV. Rulemaking Background

A. Iron and Steel Industry Effluent Guideline Rulemaking History

    EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS for the iron and steel 
category in June 1974 for basic steelmaking operations (Phase I). See 
39 FR 24114 (June 28, 1974), codified at CFR part 420, subparts A-L. 
EPA promulgated iron and steel effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards (Phase II) in March 1976 that established BPT, BAT, NSPS, and 
PSNS for forming and finishing operations. See 41 FR 12990 (March 29, 
1976), codified at 40 CFR part 420, subparts M-Z.
    In response to petitions for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit remanded portions of the Phase I regulation in 
November 1975. See American Iron and Steel Institute, et. al., v. EPA, 
526 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1975). The Court rejected all technical 
challenges to BPT, but ruled that BAT and NSPS for certain 
subcategories in Phase I were not demonstrated. The Court also ruled 
that EPA had not adequately considered the impact of plant age on the 
cost or feasibility of retrofitting pollution control equipment, did 
not assess the impact of the regulation on water scarcity in arid and 
semi-arid regions, and failed to make adequate ``net/gross'' provisions 
for pollutants found in intake waters.
    In response to petitions for review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Third Circuit also remanded portions of the Phase II regulation in 
September 1977. See American Iron and Steel Institute, et. al., v EPA, 
568 F.2d 284 (3d Cir. 1977). The Court again rejected all technical 
challenges to BPT; however, it ruled that EPA had not adequately 
considered age/retrofit and water scarcity issues for BAT. The Court 
also invalidated the regulation as it applied to the specialty steel 
industry for lack of proper notice. The Court directed EPA to 
reevaluate its estimates of compliance costs with regard to certain 
``site-specific'' factors and to reexamine its economic impact analysis 
for BAT. The Court also ruled that EPA had no authority to exempt 
certain steel facilities located in the Mahoning Valley of Ohio from 
the regulation.
    The current iron and steel rule, 40 CFR part 420, was promulgated 
in May 1982, see 47 FR 23258 (May 27, 1982), and was amended in May 
1984 as part of a Settlement Agreement among EPA, the iron and steel 
industry, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. See

[[Page 81970]]

49 FR 21024 (May 17, 1984). In promulgating part 420 in 1982, aside 
from the temporary central treatment exclusion for 21 specified steel 
facilities at 40 CFR 420.01(b), EPA provided no exclusions for 
facilities on the basis of age, size, complexity, or geographic 
location as a result of the remand issues. EPA also revised the 
subcategorization from that specified in the 1974 and 1976 regulations 
to more accurately reflect major types of production operations and to 
attempt to simplify implementation of the regulation by permit writers 
and the industry. The factors EPA considered in establishing the 1982 
subcategories were: Manufacturing processes and equipment; raw 
materials; final products; wastewater characteristics; wastewater 
treatment methods; size and age of facilities; geographic location; 
process water usage and discharge rates; and costs and economic 
impacts. Of these, EPA found that the type of manufacturing process was 
the most significant factor and employed this factor as the basis for 
dividing the industry into the twelve process subcategories currently 
in part 420.
    The 1984 amendment to part 420 affected three portions of the rule: 
The water bubble (see Section X.E), effluent limitations guideline 
modifications for BPT, BAT, BCT, and NSPS, and modifications to the 
pretreatment standards for PSES and PSNS for the Sintering, Ironmaking, 
Acid Pickling, Cold Forming, and Hot Coating Subcategories.

B. Preliminary Study

    EPA was required by the terms of the consent decree described in 
section II.B to initiate preliminary reviews of a number of categorical 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards on a set schedule. The 
``Preliminary Study of the Iron and Steel Category'' (EPA 821-R-95-037) 
was completed in 1995.
    In the preliminary study, EPA assessed the status of the industry 
with respect to the regulation promulgated in 1982 and amended in 1984; 
identified better performing facilities that use conventional and 
innovative in-process pollution prevention and end-of-pipe 
technologies; estimated possible effluent reduction benefits if the 
industry were upgraded to the level of better performing facilities; 
discussed regulatory and implementation issues associated with the 
current regulation; and identified possible solutions to those issues.
    Comparisons of long-term average effluent quality data for a number 
of better performing facilities (data represent time periods ranging 
from six months to more than one year) with the long-term average 
performance data underlying the current effluent limitations in part 
420 revealed that, in all subcategories, some facilities are achieving 
substantially greater reductions than is required by the current 
regulation. In a limited number of cases, zero discharge of pollutants 
is being approached through pollution prevention practices. This 
performance reflects increased high-rate process water recycle, 
advances in application of treatment technologies, and advances in 
treatment system operations. At the same time, however, the study 
showed that a number of facilities fail to achieve the effluent 
limitations currently required by part 420.
    The study also found that, because most process wastewaters from 
basic steelmaking operations are generated as a result of air emission 
control and gas cleaning, there are substantial pollutant transfers 
from the air media to the water and solid waste media. Also, there 
appear to be many pollution prevention opportunities in the areas of 
increased process water recycle and reuse, the cascade of process 
wastewaters from one operation to another, residuals management, and 
nondischarge disposal methods.
    The Preliminary Study can be found on-line at www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel.

C. Industry Profile

    The Agency estimates that in 1997, the iron and steel industry 
consisted of 252 facilities owned by at least 109 companies. This 
estimate is based upon responses to EPA's data gathering efforts, as 
described in Section IV.D. Many of these companies are joint ventures 
with both domestic and foreign owners, including partners located in 
Japan, Great Britain, Germany, and India.
    Although there are several iron and steel manufacturing processes 
(described in Section IV.E.3), the Agency has identified nine general 
types of sites in the Iron and Steel Category based on the operations 
present at each site. Table IV.C.1 shows the estimated number of 
facilities for each of the nine types of sites. Each facility is likely 
to engage in more than one manufacturing process. For instance, 
integrated facilities engaged in iron and steel making using blast 
furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces may also have one or more of the 
manufacturing operations, such as vacuum degassing or continuous 
casting, on site. Non-integrated sites engaged in steelmaking with the 
use of electric arc furnaces may also have vacuum degassing, ladle 
metallurgy, casting, hot forming, and finishing processes on site. On 
the other hand, stand-alone finishers that produce cold-rolled and/or 
coated products from hot rolled steel produced elsewhere tend to have 
only finishing operations on site. Finally, there are stand-alone pipe 
and tube facilities producing pipe and/or tube from materials 
manufactured off site. It is worth noting that only those pipe and tube 
facilities that produce hot formed pipe and tube are to be included in 
the Iron and Steel Category. These sites have hot forming operations 
and may also have finishing processes.

   Table IV.C.1.--General Types of Iron and Steel Sites in the United
                                 States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                                                               Number of
                         Type of site                            sites
                                                               operating
                                                                in 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated with Cokemaking...................................          9
Integrated without Cokemaking................................         11
Stand-alone Cokemaking \1\...................................         15
Stand-alone Sintering \2\....................................          2
Stand-alone Direct-Reduced Ironmaking \3\....................          1
Non-integrated...............................................         94
Stand-alone Hot Forming......................................         39
Stand-alone Finishing........................................         70
Stand-alone Pipe and Tube....................................         11
                                                              ----------
    Total....................................................       252
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One of the stand-alone cokemaking plants is a nonrecovery cokemaking
  plant. One additional nonrecovery cokemaking plant started operations
  after 1997 and is not reflected in this table.
\2\ One of these stand-alone sinter plants has been shut down
  indefinitely since 1997.
\3\ One additional stand-alone direct-reduced ironmaking plant started
  operations after 1997.

    As shown Table IV.C.1, non-integrated facilities outnumber 
integrated facilities by more than four to one, and stand-alone 
finishing facilities form the second largest group. This reflects a 
trend that has affected the industry for the past 25 years--a shift of 
steel production from generally larger, older integrated facilities to 
newer, smaller non-integrated facilities, and the emergence of 
specialized, stand-alone finishing facilities that process semi-
finished sheet, strip, bars, and rods obtained from integrated or non-
integrated facilities.
    Integrated steel facilities are primarily located east of the 
Mississippi River in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and Alabama; one integrated steel 
facility operates in Utah. Coke plants, either stand-alone or co-
located at integrated steel facilities, are located in Illinois, 
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,

[[Page 81971]]

New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, and Utah. Non-
integrated steel facilities are located throughout the continental 
U.S., and smaller stand-alone forming and finishing facilities are 
generally located near steel manufacturing sites. Process wastewater 
discharges in 1997 ranged from less than 200 gallons per day for a 
stand-alone finisher to more than 50 million gallons per day for an 
integrated facility.

D. Summary of EPA Activities and Data Gathering Efforts

1. Industry Surveys
    EPA developed an Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled 
``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Collection of 1997 Iron and 
Steel Industry Data'' that explains the regulatory basis and usefulness 
of the industry surveys. The ICR was approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) in August 1998. The Agency published three 
Federal Register Notices announcing (1) the intent to distribute the 
surveys, see 62 FR 54453 (October 20, 1997), (2) the submission of the 
ICR to the OMB, see 63 FR 16500 (April 3, 1998), and (3) OMB's approval 
of the survey instrument, see 63 FR 47023 (August 3, 1998). The Agency 
consulted with the major industry trade associations to develop a 
useful survey instrument and to ensure an accurate mailing list.
    a. Descriptions. EPA obtained approval to distribute four industry 
surveys. The first two surveys were similar in content and purpose; 
both were designed to collect detailed technical and financial 
information from iron and steel sites, but they differed in size and 
were mailed to different facilities. In October 1998, EPA mailed the 
first survey, entitled ``U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel 
Industry Data'' (detailed survey) to 176 iron and steel sites and the 
second survey, entitled ``U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel 
Industry Data (Short Form),'' to 223 iron and steel sites. The short 
form is an abbreviated version of the detailed survey and was designed 
for those iron and steel sites known not to produce or process liquid 
steel (e.g., stand alone hot forming or steel finishing mills). EPA 
mailed the third and fourth surveys to subsets of facilities to obtain 
more detailed information on wastewater treatment system costs, 
analytical data, and facility production. EPA mailed the third survey, 
entitled ``U.S. EPA Collection of Iron and Steel Industry Wastewater 
Treatment Capital Cost Data'' (cost survey), to 90 iron and steel 
sites. EPA mailed the fourth survey, entitled ``U.S. EPA Analytical and 
Production Data Follow-Up to the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel 
Industry Data'' (analytical daily data and production survey), to 38 
iron and steel sites.
    The detailed survey and short form were divided into two parts: 
Part A: Technical Information and Part B: Financial and Economic 
Information. The technical questions in the detailed survey were 
divided into four sections, with Sections 3 and 4 being combined in the 
short form:
     Section 1: General site information
     Section 2: Manufacturing process information
     Section 3: In-process and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment 
and pollution prevention information
     Section 4: Wastewater outfall information
    The financial and economic information in the detailed survey was 
divided into four sections:
     Section 1: Site identification
     Section 2: Site financial information
     Section 3: Business entity financial information
     Section 4: Corporate parent financial information
    The financial and economic information part of the short form 
contained a single section for site identification and financial 
information.
    The general information questions asked the site to identify 
itself, characterize itself by certain parameters (including 
manufacturing operations, age, and location), and confirm that it was 
engaged in iron and steel activities. The Agency used this information 
to develop the subcategorization of the industry proposed today.
    The manufacturing process section included questions about 
products, types of steel produced, production levels, unit operations, 
chemicals and coatings used, wastewater discharge from unit operations, 
miscellaneous wastewater sources, pollution prevention activities, and 
air pollution control. The Agency used data received in response to 
these questions to evaluate manufacturing processes, wastewater 
generation, and to develop regulatory options. EPA also used these data 
to develop the subcategorization proposed today and to estimate 
compliance costs and pollutant removals associated with proposed 
regulatory options.
    EPA requested detailed information (including diagrams) on the 
wastewater treatment systems and discharge flow rates; monitoring 
analytical data; and operating and maintenance cost data (including 
treatment chemical usage). The Agency used data received in response to 
these questions to identify treatment technologies in place, to 
determine the feasibility of regulatory options, and to estimate 
compliance costs, pollutant removals, and potential environmental 
impacts associated with the regulatory options EPA considered for this 
proposal.
    The outfall information questions covered permit information, 
discharge location, wastewater sources to the outfall, flow rates, 
regulated parameters and limits, and permit monitoring data. The Agency 
used this information to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards and pollutant loadings associated with the regulatory 
options that EPA considered for this proposal.
    The financial and economic questions requested general information, 
such as location and employment, information on the sites's finances, 
and corporate structure. EPA used data received in response to these 
questions to estimate economic impacts on sites and companies from the 
regulatory options EPA considered for this proposal.
    EPA used the cost survey to request detailed capital cost data on 
selected wastewater treatment systems installed since 1993, including 
equipment, engineering design, and installation costs. EPA incorporated 
these data into a cost model and used them to calculate compliance 
costs associated with the regulatory options EPA considered for this 
proposal.
    The analytical and production survey requested detailed daily 
analytical and flow rate data for selected sampling points and monthly 
production data and operating hours for selected manufacturing 
operations. The Agency used the analytical data to estimate baseline 
pollutant loadings and pollutant removals from facilities with 
treatment in place resembling projected regulatory options and to 
evaluate the variability associated with iron and steel industry 
discharges. The Agency used the production data collected to evaluate 
the production basis for applying today's proposed rule in NPDES 
permits and pretreatment control mechanisms.
    b. Development of Survey Mailing List. EPA has collected industry 
supplied data from the iron and steel industry through survey 
questionnaires. The iron and steel industry survey questionnaires were 
sent by mail to a random sample of facilities that were identified from 
the following sources:
    Association of Iron and Steel Engineers 1997 Directory: Iron and 
Steel Plants Volume 1, Plants and Facilities;

[[Page 81972]]

    Iron and Steel Works of the World (12th edition) directory;
    Iron and Steel Society's Steel Industry of Canada, Mexico, and the 
United States: Plant Locations map;
    Member lists from the following trade associations:

--American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
--American Galvanizers Association
--American Iron and Steel Institute
--American Wire Producers Association
--Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute
--Specialty Steel Industry of North America
--Steel Manufacturers Association
--Steel Tube Industry of North America
--Wire Association International;
    Dun and Bradstreet Facility Index database; EPA Permit Compliance 
System (PCS) database;
    EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database;
    Iron and Steelmaker Journal ``Roundup'' editions;
    33 Metalproducing Journal ``Roundup'' editions;
    33 Metalproducing Journal ``Census of the North American Steel 
Industry''.
    These sources were cross-referenced with one another to obtain site 
level information and to ensure the accuracy and applicability of each 
site's information before inclusion in the questionnaire mailing list. 
Based on these sources, EPA estimated there were 822 facilities 
generating iron and steel wastewater. These facilities include the ones 
that EPA proposes to include in the MP&M category regulated under part 
438.
    c. Sample Selection. To minimize the burden on the respondents to 
the survey questionnaire, EPA grouped the facilities into 12 strata by 
the type of manufacturing processes that took place in each facility, 
or if the facility presented a unique feature (strata 5 & 8). EPA 
intends that each stratum encompasses facilities with similar 
operations. This grouping of similar facilities is known as 
stratification. The stratification of the iron and steel industry is 
described in Table IV.D.1-1.

              Table IV.D.1--Iron And Steel Industry Strata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            No. of sites
 Stratum No.                  Stratum name                   in stratum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1       Integrated steel sites with cokemaking......        9
      2       Integrated steel sites without cokemaking...       12
      3       Stand-alone cokemaking sites................       16
      4       Stand-alone direct-reduced ironmaking and           5
               sintering sites............................
      5       Detailed survey certainty stratum \1\.......       60
      6       Non-integrated steel sites..................       69
      7       Stand-alone finishing sites and stand-alone        54
               hot forming sites..........................
      8       Short survey certainty stratum \2\..........       13
      9       Stand-alone cold forming sites..............       62
     10       Stand-alone pipe and tubes sites............      164
     11       Stand-alone hot coating sites...............      106
     12       Stand-alone wire sites......................      252
                                                           -------------
  Total         ..........................................      822
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This straturm encompasses facilities that otherwise would have
  included within stratum 6 and stratum 7.
\2\This stratum encompasses facilities that otherwise would have been
  included within strata 9 to 12.

    Depending on the amount/type of information EPA determined it 
needed for this rulemaking and the number of facilities in a stratum, 
EPA either solicited information from all facilities within a stratum 
(i.e., performed a census) or selected a random sample of facilities 
within each stratum. EPA sent a survey to all the facilities in strata 
5 and 8 because of the size, complexity, or uniqueness of the steel 
operations present at these sites. EPA also sent surveys to all the 
facilities in strata 1 though 4 because of their manageable numbers and 
because of the size, complexity, and uniqueness of steel operation 
present. The remaining sites in strata 6, 7, and 9 through 12 were 
statistically sampled. If the stratum was censused, those facilities 
based on the facility's probability of selection represent themselves 
only. For statistically sampled strata, the selected facility is given 
a survey weight that allows it to represent itself and other 
facilities, within that stratum, that were not selected to receive a 
survey questionnaire. See the Statistical Support Document for the 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Iron and Steel 
Industry.
    d. Survey Response. Of the 822 facilities generating iron and steel 
wastewater, 399 facilities were mailed either a detailed survey or a 
short survey questionnaire.
    Eleven sites receiving a survey did not return a completed survey 
and thus are considered non-respondents. Ten sites receiving surveys 
were not considered for further review: seven of these sites were 
closed, two sites were considered part of another site owned by the 
same company, and one site received two surveys under two mailing 
addresses. EPA received 378 completed surveys, including 33 sites that 
certified that they were not engaged in iron and steel activities.
    One hundred fifty-four of the completed surveys were from sites 
that EPA later determined to be within the scope of the MP&M Category; 
EPA did not consider those responses for this proposal. Similarly, two 
recipients of MP&M surveys were determined to be within the scope of 
the Iron and Steel Category. See Section III.B for a discussion of the 
applicability interface between these two rules. Therefore, 191 
completed iron and steel surveys and the two MP&M surveys were used in 
the development of today's proposed rule.
    In addition to the Detailed and Short Form surveys, follow-up 
surveys regarding treatment system capital costs and analytical and 
production data were also mailed. Of the 90 Cost Surveys mailed, 88 
were completed. All of the 38 Analytical and Production Surveys were 
completed. EPA has included in the public record all information 
collected for which the site has not asserted a claim of Confidential 
Business Information.
2. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
    EPA visited 70 iron and steel sites in 19 states and Canada between 
1997 and 1999 to collect information about each site's operations, 
process wastewater management practices, and wastewater treatment 
systems, and to evaluate each facility for potential inclusion in the

[[Page 81973]]

sampling program. Site visit selection was based on the type of site 
(as described in Section IV.C), the manufacturing operations at each 
facility, the type of steel produced (carbon, alloy, stainless), and 
the wastewater treatment operations.
    EPA collected detailed information from the sites visited such as 
the operations associated with each manufacturing process, wastewater 
generation, in-process treatment and recycling systems, end-of-pipe 
treatment technologies, and, if the facility was a candidate for 
sampling, the logistics of collecting samples. EPA has included in the 
public record all information collected during site visits for which 
the site has not asserted a claim of Confidential Business Information.
    Based on the information obtained during site visits, EPA selected 
16 facilities to perform wastewater sampling. EPA selected sites for 
sampling using the following criteria:
     The site performed iron and steel operations 
representative of iron and steel industry facilities;
     The site performed high-rate recycling, in-process 
treatment, or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA was 
considering for technology option development; and
     The site's compliance monitoring data indicated that it 
was operating among the better performing treatment systems in the 
industry or that it contained wastewater treatment process for which 
EPA sought data for option development.
    During each sampling episode, EPA collected samples of untreated 
process wastewater, treatment system effluents, and other samples that 
would demonstrate the performance of individual treatment units. 
Samples were analyzed for approximately 300 analytes spanning the 
following pollutant classes: conventional and nonconventional 
pollutants, metals, volatile organics, semivolatile organics, and 
dioxins and furans. Analytical results from untreated samples 
contributed to EPA's characterization of the industry, development of 
the list of pollutants of concern, and development of raw wastewater 
characteristics. EPA used all collected data to evaluate treatment 
system performance and to develop discharge concentrations, pollutant 
loadings, and the treatment technology options for the iron and steel 
industry (see Section V). EPA used data collected from the effluent 
points to calculate the long-term averages (LTAs) and limitations for 
each of the proposed regulatory options (see Section IX.A.3); EPA also 
used industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey 
to complement the sampling data for these calculations. During each 
sampling episode, EPA also collected flow rate data corresponding to 
each sample collected and production information from each associated 
manufacturing operation for use in calculating pollutant loadings and 
production-normalized flow rates. EPA has included in the public record 
all information collected for which the site has not asserted a claim 
of Confidential Business Information.
3. Analytical Methods
    Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate 
guidelines establishing test procedures (methods) for the analysis of 
pollutants. These methods allow the analyst 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. To date, EPA has promulgated methods for all conventional and 
toxic pollutants and for several nonconventional pollutants. Table I-B 
at 40 CFR part 136 lists the analytical methods approved for the five 
conventional pollutants. Part 136 also sets forth the analytical 
methods for toxic pollutants. EPA has listed, pursuant to section 
307(a)(1) of the Act, 65 metals and organic pollutants and classes of 
pollutants as ``toxic pollutants'' at 40 CFR 401.15. From the list of 
65 classes of toxic pollutants, EPA identified a list of 126 ``Priority 
Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is shown at 40 CFR part 
423, appendix A. The list includes non-pesticide organic pollutants, 
metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, and pesticide pollutants.
    Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide are included in 
the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table 
I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods for measurement 
of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D lists approved 
methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other pesticide 
pollutants. Direct and indirect dischargers must use the test methods 
approved under 40 CFR 136.3, where available, to monitor pollutant 
discharges from the Iron and Steel industry, unless specified otherwise 
in part 420 or by the permitting authority. See 40 CFR 122.44 
(i)(1)(iv) and 403.12(b)(5)(vi). Sometimes, methods in part 136 apply 
only to waste streams from specified point source categories. For 
pollutants with no methods approved under 40 CFR part 136, the 
discharger must use the test procedure specified in the permit or, in 
the case of indirect dischargers, other validated methods or applicable 
procedures. See 40 CFR 122.44 (i)(1)(iv) and 403.12(b)(5)(vi).
4. Data Sources
    EPA evaluated existing data sources to gather technical and 
financial information and to identify potential survey recipients and 
facilities for site visits.
    The Agency gathered technical information from iron and steel 
industry trade journals published from 1985 through 1997 as well as 
information from Iron and Steel Society Conference Proceedings. Trade 
journals included Iron and Steel Engineer, published by the Association 
of Iron and Steel Engineers (AISE); Iron and Steelmaker, published by 
the Iron and Steel Society (ISS); and New Steel (formerly Iron Age), 
published by Chilton Publications. These sources provided background 
information on industry storm water and wastewater issues; new and 
existing wastewater treatment technologies; wastewater treatment and 
manufacturing equipment upgrades and installations; company mergers, 
acquisitions, and joint ventures; and identified potential survey 
recipients and facilities for site visits.
    EPA consulted the U.S. Bureau of Census publications, Census 
Manufacturers--Industry Series and Current Industrial Reports; the 
Paine Webber publication, World Steel Dynamics; and the American Iron 
and Steel Institute (AISI) publication, The Annual Statistical Report. 
These sources provided a variety of financial information, ranging from 
aggregate data on employment and payroll to steel shipments by product, 
grade, and market.
    The Agency performed searches on the following on-line databases: 
Pollution Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Engineering Index, 
Materials Business File, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 
Enviroline, Compendex, and Metadex. The Agency also searched EPA's 
Toxic Release Inventory and Permit Compliance System. In addition, the 
Agency conducted a review of secondary sources, which include data, 
reports, and analyses published by government agencies; reports and 
analyses published by the iron and steel industry and its associated 
organizations; and publicly available financial information compiled by 
both government and private organizations.

[[Page 81974]]

5. Summary of Public Participation
    EPA has strived to encourage the participation of all interested 
parties throughout the development of the proposed iron and steel 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. EPA has conducted 
outreach with the following trade associations (which represent the 
vast majority of the facilities that will be affected by this 
guideline): American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), Steel 
Manufacturers Association (SMA), Specialty Steel Industry of North 
America (SSINA), Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute (CFSBI), the Wire 
Association International, Incorporated (WAI), the American Wire 
Producers Association (AWPA), the Steel Tube Institute of North America 
(STINA), the American Galvanizers Association, Incorporated (AGA), and 
the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Association (ACCCI). EPA has met 
on several occasions with various industry representatives, including 
the AISI, SMA, AWPA, and STINA, to discuss aspects of the regulation 
development. EPA has also participated in industry meetings, giving 
presentations on the status of the regulation development on numerous 
occasions.
    Because some facilities affected by this proposal are indirect 
dischargers, the Agency also conducted outreach to publicly owned 
treatment works (POTWs). EPA also made a concerted effort to consult 
with pretreatment coordinators and state and local entities that will 
be responsible for implementing this regulation.
    EPA sponsored five stakeholders' meetings between December 1998 and 
January 2000. Four were in Washington, DC, and the fifth was in 
Chicago, IL. The primary objectives of the meetings were to present the 
Agency's current thinking regarding the technology bases for today's 
proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 420 and to solicit comments, issues, 
and new ideas from interested stakeholders, including members of 
environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
Environmental Defense Fund (now Environmental Defense), Atlantic States 
Legal Foundation, Friends of the Earth, and Save the Dunes.
    During the meetings, EPA presented process flow diagrams showing 
preliminary technology options and potential best management practices 
(BMPs) that may be incorporated into a revised part 420 and/or included 
in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and 
pretreatment guidance. The presentations were organized by type of 
manufacturing process. A discussion period followed each presentation. 
In addition to soliciting comments on the preliminary options, EPA 
requested ideas from the stakeholders to identify useful incentives for 
greater pollution control.
    At the meeting, EPA encouraged participants to supplement their 
oral statements with written comments and supporting data. In that 
regard, EPA provided a set of data-quality protocols for use when 
submitting data for this rulemaking effort. This handout, along with 
all other handouts and meeting summaries, are posted on the EPA Iron 
and Steel web site at http://www.epa.gov/OST/ironsteel/. All of the 
materials presented at the stakeholders' meetings, as well as meeting 
summaries and any written comments from participants, also may be found 
in the public record for today's proposal.

E. Subcategorization

1. Methodology and Factors Considered in Developing Proposed 
Subcategorization
    The CWA requires EPA, when developing effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards, to consider a number of different factors. 
For example, when developing limitations that represent the best 
available technology economically achievable for a particular industry 
category, EPA must consider, among other factors, the age of the 
equipment and facilities in the category, location, manufacturing 
processes employed, types of treatment technology to reduce effluent 
discharges, the cost of effluent reductions and non-water quality 
environmental impacts. See section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 
1314(b)(2)(B). The statute also authorizes EPA to take into account 
other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate and requires BAT 
model technology chosen by EPA to be economically achievable, which 
generally involves consideration of both compliance costs and the 
overall financial condition of the industry.
    EPA took these factors into account in considering whether 
different effluent limitations guidelines and standards were 
appropriate for subcategories within the industry. For example, EPA 
broke down categories of industries into separate classes with similar 
characteristics. This classification recognized the major differences 
among companies within an industry that may reflect, for example, 
different manufacturing processes, economies of scale, or other 
factors. Subdividing an industry by subcategories results in developing 
more tailored regulatory standards, thereby increasing regulatory 
practicability and diminishing the need to address variations among 
facilities through a variance process. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 
590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    For this iron and steel rulemaking, EPA used industry survey data 
and EPA sampling data for the subcategorization analysis. Various 
subcategorization criteria were analyzed for trends in discharge flow 
rates, pollutant concentrations, and treatability to determine where 
subcategorization was warranted. Equipment and facility age were not 
found to impact wastewater generation or wastewater characteristics; 
therefore, age was not used as a basis for subcategorization. Location 
impacts iron and steel facilities only in that facilities located in 
arid regions tend to experience greater water loss through evaporation, 
resulting in reduced discharge in some cases. EPA addressed this 
difference by selecting flow allowances for today's proposed regulation 
that are achievable in all regions of the country irrespective of 
climate. Therefore, the Agency deemed location to be insufficient 
grounds for subcategorization. Size (e.g., acreage, number of 
employees) was not used as a subcategorization criterion because it did 
not have an influence on production-normalized wastewater flow rates or 
pollutant loadings. Economic impacts are discussed in Section VI and 
with one exception did not show a need for subcategorization on this 
basis. The exception is subpart E (the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot 
Forming subcategory) for which EPA is proposing alternative BAT 
approaches to account for possible economic issues. See Section IX.E.1. 
While non-water quality environmental characteristics (solid waste and 
air emission effects) are of concern to EPA, these characteristics did 
not constitute a basis for subcategorization. Environmental impacts 
from solid waste disposal and from the transport of potentially 
hazardous wastewater are dependant on individual facility practices; 
EPA could not identify any common characteristics particular to a given 
segment of the industry. Air emissions also provided EPA with no basis 
for different treatment than those suggested by the prevailing factors.
    EPA identified manufacturing processes as the determinative factor 
for subcategorization. In addition, EPA used manufacturing processes, 
type of product, and wastewater characteristics (i.e., production-
normalized flow rates, pollutants present) to establish segments within 
each subcategory where

[[Page 81975]]

appropriate. The following section describes the iron and steel 
manufacturing processes.
2. General Description of Manufacturing Processes
    The Iron and Steel Category covers sites that generate wastewater 
while performing one or more of the following industrial activities: 
Cokemaking, sintering, ironmaking, steelmaking, vacuum degassing, ladle 
metallurgy, casting, hot forming, finishing processes (which include 
salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold rolling, annealing, alkaline 
cleaning, hot coating, and electroplating), direct-reduced ironmaking, 
briquetting, and forging. The following is a brief description of each 
of these manufacturing processes.
    Cokemaking: Carbon in the form of metallurgical coke is used to 
reduce beneficiated iron ores and other forms of iron oxides to 
metallic iron in blast furnaces. In by-product coke plants, coal is 
distilled in refractory-lined, slot-type ovens at high temperatures in 
the absence of air. The moisture and volatile components of the coal 
are collected and processed to recover by-products, including crude 
coal tars, crude light oil (aromatics, paraffins, cycloparaffins and 
naphthenes, sulfur compounds, nitrogen and oxygen compounds), anhydrous 
ammonia or ammonium sulfate, naphthalene, and sodium phenolate. 
Wastewater is generated from moisture contained in the coal charge to 
the coke ovens (waste ammonia liquor) and from some of the by-product 
recovery operations.
    Two cokemaking operations in the U.S. use nonrecovery technology. 
Both plants use Sun Coke Company's proprietary non-recovery technology. 
These plants use negative pressure coke ovens to prevent leakage of 
air/smoke to the atmosphere, and higher temperatures to destroy 
volatile organics. The organic compounds are destroyed within the oven 
during the cokemaking process. The nonrecovery cokemaking process does 
not generate any process wastewater.
    Sintering: Sinter plants are used to beneficiate (upgrade the iron 
content of) iron ores and to recover iron values from wastewater 
treatment sludges and mill scale generated at integrated steel mills. A 
mixture of coke breeze (fine coke particles), iron ores, sludges, mill 
scales, and limestone are charged to a traveling grate furnace. The 
mixture is ignited and air is drawn through the bed as it travels 
toward the exit end. Sinter of suitable size and weight is formed for 
charging to the blast furnace. Wastewaters are generated from wet air 
pollution control devices on the wind box and discharge ends of the 
sinter machine.
    Ironmaking: Blast furnaces are used to produce molten iron, which 
makes up about two-thirds of the charge to basic oxygen steelmaking 
furnaces. The raw materials charged to the top of the blast furnace 
include coke, limestone, beneficiated iron ores, and sinter. Hot blast 
(preheated air) is blown into the bottom of the furnace. Molten iron is 
tapped into refractory-lined cars for transport to the steelmaking 
furnaces. Molten slag, which floats on top of the molten iron, is also 
tapped and processed for sale as a by-product.
    The hot blast exits the furnace top as blast furnace gas in 
enclosed piping and is cleaned and cooled in a combination of dry dust 
catchers and high-energy venturi scrubbers. Direct contact water used 
in the gas coolers and high-energy scrubbers comprises nearly all of 
the wastewater from blast furnace operations.
    Steelmaking: Steelmaking in the U.S. is conducted either in basic 
oxygen furnaces (BOFs) or electric arc furnaces (EAFs). BOFs are 
typically used for high tonnage production of carbon steels at 
integrated mills; EAFs are used to produce carbon steels and low 
tonnage alloy and specialty steels at non-integrated mills.
    Integrated steel mills use BOFs to refine a metallic charge 
consisting of approximately two-thirds molten iron and one-third steel 
scrap by oxidizing silicon, carbon, manganese, phosphorus and a portion 
of the iron. Oxygen is injected into the molten bath. Off-gases from 
BOFs in the U.S. are controlled by one of three methods:

    Semi-wet: Furnace off-gases are conditioned with moisture prior 
to processing in electrostatic precipitators;
    Wet-open combustion: Excess air is admitted to the off-gas 
collection system allowing carbon monoxide to combust prior to high-
energy wet scrubbing for air pollution control; and
    Wet-suppressed combustion: Excess air is not admitted to the 
off-gas collection system prior to high-energy wet scrubbing for air 
pollution control.

    Non-integrated mills use EAFs to melt and refine a metallic charge 
of scrap steel. Most EAFs are operated with dry air cleaning systems 
with no process wastewater discharges. There are a small number of wet 
and semi-wet systems.
    Vacuum degassing: In this batch process, molten steel is subjected 
to a vacuum for composition control, temperature control, deoxidation, 
degassing, decarburization, and to otherwise remove impurities from the 
steel. Oxygen and hydrogen are the principal gases removed from the 
steel. In most degassing systems, vacuum is provided by barometric 
condensers; thus, direct contact between the gases and the barometric 
water occurs.
    Ladle metallurgy: In this batch process, molten steel is refined in 
addition to, or in place of, vacuum degassing. These operations include 
argon bubbling, argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD), electroslag 
remelting (ESR), and lance injection. These additional refining 
operations do not use process water.
    Casting: Molten steel is tapped from the BOF or EAF into ladles for 
transport. From the ladles, the molten steel is either processed in 
ladle metallurgy stations and/or vacuum degassers prior to casting into 
semi-finished shapes in continuous casters. Less than ten per cent of 
the steel produced in the United States is cast into ingots. Steel cast 
into ingot molds must undergo cooling, mold stripping, reheating, and 
primary hot rolling to produce the same semi-finished shape that can be 
produced with continuous casting. The continuous casting machine 
includes a tundish (receiving vessel for molten steel), water-cooled 
molds, secondary cooling water sprays, containment rolls, oxygen-
acetylene torches for cutoff, and a runout table. Molten steel is 
transferred from the ladle to the tundish and then to the water-cooled 
molds at controlled rates. The steel solidifies as it passes through 
the molds and is cut to length on the runout table. Wastewater is 
generated by a direct contact water system used for spray cooling and 
for flume flushing to transport scale from below the caster runout 
table.
    Hot forming: Ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, or rounds are heated 
to rolling temperatures in gas-fired or oil-fired reheat furnaces, and 
formed under mechanical pressure with work rolls to produce semi-
finished shapes for further hot or cold rolling, or finished shapes for 
shipment. Process water is used for scale breaking, flume flushing, and 
direct contact cooling.
    Finishing processes: These processes include salt bath and 
electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling, acid pickling, cold forming, 
annealing, cleaning, and hot coating and electroplating:
    Salt bath descaling--Oxidizing and reducing molten salt baths are 
used to remove heavy scale from specialty and high-alloy steels. 
Process wastewaters originate from quenching and rinsing operations 
conducted after processing in the molten salt baths.
    Electrolytic sodium sulfate descaling is performed on stainless 
steels for

[[Page 81976]]

essentially the same purposes as salt bath descaling.
    Acid pickling--Solutions of hydrochloric, sulfuric, hydrofluoric/
nitric and nitric acids are used to remove oxide scale from the 
surfaces of semi-finished products prior to further processing by cold 
rolling, cold drawing, and subsequent cleaning and coating operations. 
Process wastewaters include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and 
pickling line fume scrubbers.
    Cold rolling--Cold rolling is conducted on hot rolled and pickled 
steels at ambient temperatures to impart desired mechanical and surface 
properties in the steel. Process wastewater results from using 
synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions, many of which are 
proprietary.
    Annealing--Annealing is a heat treatment process performed to 
relieve stresses, increase softness, ductility, and toughness, and/or 
to produce a specific microstructure to the steel. It is performed in a 
batch or continuous process. Batch processes do not use process water. 
Wastewaters from continuous processes result principally from 
associated alkaline cleaning operations and quenching.
    Hot coating--Immersion of precleaned steel into baths of molten 
metal. Common metal types include: Tin, zinc (galvanizing), 
combinations of lead and tin (terne coating), and combinations of 
aluminum and zinc. Hot coating is typically used to improve resistance 
to corrosion, and for some products, to improve appearance and 
paintability. Wastewaters result principally from cleaning operations 
prior to the molten bath.
    Electroplating--Immersion of precleaned steel into baths for the 
purpose of electrodepositing a metal onto the steel surface. Common 
metal types include: tin, chromium, zinc, and nickel. Process 
wastewaters include spent plating baths, rinse waters, and blowdowns 
from fume scrubbers.
    Direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI): This process produces relatively 
pure iron by reducing iron ore in a furnace below the melting point of 
the iron produced. DRI is used as a substitute for scrap steel in EAFs 
to minimize contaminant levels in the melted steel and to allow 
economic steel production when market prices for scrap are high. 
Process wastewaters are generated from air pollution control devices.
    Briquetting: The process of agglomerating or forming materials into 
discrete shapes of sufficient size, strength, and weight for charging 
to a subsequent process (e.g., briquetting wastewater sludges for 
charging to a blast furnace). Briquetting does not generate process 
wastewaters.
    Forging: A hot forming operation in which a metal piece is shaped 
by hammering. Process wastewaters are generated in the form of direct 
contact cooling water.
3. Proposed Subcategories
    In today's notice, EPA proposes to discard the current 
subcategorization scheme and to establish seven new subcategories for 
the iron and steel industry. The proposed revised subcategorization not 
only reflects the modern state of the industry, in terms of both 
process and wastewater management, but it also incorporates the 
experience that the Agency and other regulatory entities have gained 
from implementing the current iron and steel effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards. Additionally, the proposed revised 
subcategorization simplifies the regulatory structure by reflecting co-
treatment of compatible wastewaters, which is currently practiced by 
the industry. This practice also provides economic advantage because 
compatible pollutants from different manufacturing processes can be 
treated in a single treatment unit. The seven revised subcategories 
proposed for the iron and steel rulemaking are as follows:
     Cokemaking
     Ironmaking
     Integrated Steelmaking
     Integrated Hot Forming--Stand Alone Hot Forming Mills
     Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Operations
     Steel Finishing Operations
     Other Operations
    The following table presents a comparison of the current 
subcategorization scheme and the one being proposed today:

                    Table IV.E.1.--Subcategory Comparison of Current And Proposed Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Current regulation                        Proposed regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Cokemaking                              A. Cokemaking
B. Sintering                               B. Ironmaking
C. Ironmaking                              ........................................
D. Steelmaking                             C. Integrated Steelmaking                 E. Non-Integrated
                                                                                      Steelmaking and Hot
                                                                                      Forming
E. Vacuum Degassing
F. Continuous Casting
G. Hot Forming                             D. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot
                                            Forming
H. Salt Bath Descaling                     F. Steel Finishing
I. Acid Pickling
J. Cold Forming
K. Alkaline Cleaning
L. Hot Coating
                                           G. Other Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each subcategory is described in more detail immediately below in 
terms of its manufacturing processes and wastewater characteristics. 
Some subcategories are further segmented to reflect differences in 
manufacturing operations, wastewater characteristics, or required 
treatment technologies.

Cokemaking--Subpart A

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Cokemaking Operations..................  By-Product
                                            Other (Non-recovery, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cokemaking is proposed as a subcategory because of the uniqueness 
of the manufacturing processes within the iron and steel industry and 
the characteristics of wastewaters generated by by-product cokemaking 
operations. EPA proposes to drop the current segmentation on the basis 
of ``iron and steel'' and ``merchant'' coke plants because differences 
in wastewater flow rates observed in the 1982 rulemaking

[[Page 81977]]

are no longer apparent within the current population of by-product coke 
plants.
    Cokemaking operations are segmented into by-product and other 
operations, which comprise currently non-recovery and heat-recovery 
coke plants. Any new cokemaking technologies would fall in this 
segment. This segmentation reflects the fundamental differences in the 
respective manufacturing processes. The by-product cokemaking 
technology provides for extensive processing of materials derived from 
the coal charged to the coke ovens, including coke oven gas and coal 
tars, as well as light oils and ammonia or ammonia compounds. The 
cokemaking process itself generates a waste ammonia liquor made up of 
the moisture from the coal and volatile and semi-volatile organic 
compounds. Other wastewaters are generated from the by-product recovery 
operations. Non-recovery and heat-recovery coke plants, on the other 
hand, do not generate process wastewaters. Only limited amounts of non-
process wastewaters in the form of boiler blowdown result from these 
operations.

Ironmaking--Subpart B

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B: Ironmaking Operations..................  Blast Furnace
                                            Sintering
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed ironmaking subcategory comprises sintering and blast 
furnace operations. Wastewaters result from wet air pollution control 
systems at sinter plants and wet gas cleaning systems for blast 
furnaces. The wastewaters are similar in character in terms of the 
pollutants present (ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds and metals) 
and are universally co-treated where wet sinter plants are co-located 
with blast furnaces. The subcategory is segmented to take into account 
differences in the model treatment system flow rates used to develop 
the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

Integrated Steelmaking--Subpart C

    The proposed integrated steelmaking subcategory comprises four 
manufacturing processes: Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) steelmaking, ladle 
metallurgy, vacuum degassing, and continuous casting. Section IV.E.2 
describes these processes in more details. The wastewater generated 
from the integrated steelmaking operations originates from wet 
scrubbing for air pollution control of the BOF process, direct contact 
water with gases from the vacuum degassing process, and direct contact 
water used for spray cooling and for flume flushing to transport scale 
from the casting process. Although these processes differ in wastewater 
flow rates per ton of production, their wastewaters can be and are 
commonly co-treated. The proposed limitations for this subcategory are 
based on a single treatment technology but reflect different production 
normalized flow rates for each process.
    This proposed subcategory would encompass steelmaking operations at 
integrated mills and at non-integrated mills operating basic oxygen 
furnaces. Currently, one BOF shop is operated at a non-integrated mill 
and would be included in this proposed subcategory.

Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming Mills--Subpart D

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D: Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming   Carbon and Alloy
 Mills.                                     Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed subcategory would encompass hot forming operations at 
integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills. The wastewater generated 
from the proposed integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory 
originates from process water used for scale braking, flume flushing, 
and direct contact cooling. Although these processes differ in 
wastewater flow rates per ton of production, their wastewaters can be 
and are commonly co-treated. The proposed limitations for this 
subcategory are based on a single treatment technology but reflect 
different production normalized flow rates for each process.
    EPA proposes to divide the integrated and stand-alone hot forming 
mills subcategory into two segments--carbon and alloy steel and 
stainless steel--in order to account for the different product types 
and wastewater characteristics. Both segments produce steel in primary, 
section, flat, pipe, or tube.

Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Operations---Subpart E

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E: Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot       Carbon and Alloy
 Forming Operations.                        Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed subcategory would encompass steelmaking and hot 
forming operations at non-integrated mills. The wastewater generated 
from this proposed subcategory originates from the air pollution 
control process of EAFs, direct contact water with gases in the vacuum 
degassing process; direct contact water used for spray cooling and for 
flume flushing to transport scale in the casting process; and process 
water used for scale braking, flume flushing, and direct contact 
cooling in the hot forming process. EPA proposes to divide the non-
integrated steelmaking and hot forming operations subcategory into two 
segments--carbon and alloy steel operations and stainless steel 
operations--because of the difference in product types and in the 
wastewater characteristics. Each segment encompasses the following 
manufacturing processes: EAF steelmaking, ladle metallurgy, vacuum 
degassing, continuous casting, and hot forming. Although these 
processes differ in wastewater flow rates per ton of production, their 
wastewaters can be and are commonly co-treated. The proposed 
limitations for this subcategory are based on a single treatment 
technology but reflect different production normalized flow rates for 
each process.

Steel Finishing Operations--Subpart F

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F: Steel Finishing Operations.............  Carbon and Alloy
                                            Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed subcategory would encompass all finishing operations 
that take place at integrated, non-integrated, and stand-alone mills. 
The wastewater generated from the proposed steel finishing subcategory 
originates from cleaning, rinsing, and quenching operations, spent 
solution from the acid pickling, alkaline cleaning, and electroplating 
operations, fume scrubber wastewater, and process water resulting from 
the use of synthetic or animal-fat based solutions. EPA proposes to 
segment the steel finishing subcategory into carbon and alloy steel 
operations and stainless steel operations because of the nature of the 
steel finishing operations and the associated wastewater 
characteristics. Each segment may include a combination of the 
following processes: acid pickling and other descaling, cold forming, 
alkaline cleaning, hot coating, and electroplating. Section IV.E.2 
describes these manufacturing processes in more detail. Although these 
processes differ in wastewater flow rates per ton of production, their 
wastewaters can be and are commonly co-treated. The proposed 
limitations for this subcategory are based on a single treatment 
technology but reflect different production normalized flow rates for 
each process.

[[Page 81978]]

Other Operations--Subpart G

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subcategory                            Segment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G: Other Operations.......................  Direct-Reduced Ironmaking
                                            Forging
                                            Briquetting
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to combine the three remaining iron and steel 
operations in a single catch-all subcategory with segments for three 
specific operations: direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI), forging, and 
briquetting. Section IV.E.2 describes these manufacturing processes in 
more detail. The three segments differ in manufacturing operations and 
in waste generation and characteristics. DRI operations currently take 
place at stand-alone facilities and non-integrated mills. Forging 
operations take place at stand-alone and non-integrated mills. 
Briquetting operations take place at integrated and non-integrated 
mills. The wastewater generated from this proposed subcategory 
originates from fume scrubbers from the DRI process and direct contact 
cooling water from the forging process.

F. Wastewater Characterization

    The following sections present wastewater sources, pollutants of 
concern, and flow rates for each proposed subcategory. Estimates for 
pollutant loadings are presented in Section V.C.
    The principal purpose of identifying subcategory-specific 
pollutants of concern (POCs) is to screen pollutants for possible 
regulation. Such pollutants may be either conventional, priority, or 
non-conventional pollutants as defined by the Clean Water Act, and may 
be limited directly in part 420, or limited indirectly through control 
of other pollutants. The Agency took the following approach to identify 
POCs and, thereafter, to narrow that list to those pollutants that are 
proposed for regulation.
    As the first step, EPA conducted a sampling and analytical program 
at 16 steel industry sites. EPA sampled and analyzed a broad list of 
pollutants for purposes of identifying pollutants present in 
wastewaters from each type of process operation and determining their 
fate in industry wastewater treatment systems. As the next step, EPA 
determined for each pollutant subject to the sampling and analytical 
program whether it met the following detection criteria in wastewaters 
from that subcategory:
     The pollutant was detected at greater than or equal to ten 
times the analytical minimum level (ML) concentration in at least 10 
percent of all untreated process wastewater samples; and
     The mean detected concentration in untreated process 
wastewater samples was greater than the mean detected concentration in 
the source water samples.
    EPA identified as pollutants of concern all pollutants that met 
these screening criteria. EPA's final step was to determine which of 
these pollutants to regulate, either directly through promulgated 
limitations and standards or indirectly through the control of another 
pollutant (e.g., an indicator or surrogate). Of the POCs identified by 
EPA, the Agency is proposing not to regulate those that were detected 
at environmentally insignificant concentrations; those typically not 
associated with process wastewaters from specific process operations; 
and those that were detected at low concentrations, but determined to 
be below treatability levels for those pollutants.
    The Agency considered three pollutants as POCs for all 
subcategories, independent of the above criteria: total suspended 
solids (TSS), Oil and Grease measured as hexane extractable material 
(HEM), and total petroleum hydrocarbons measured as silica gel treated-
hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM). These pollutants are present to 
some degree in nearly all steel industry process wastewaters and are 
important indicators of overall wastewater treatment system 
performance. The pH level is also an important wastewater 
characteristic and an important indicator of wastewater treatment 
system performance in many applications in the steel industry. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to regulate pH in today's proposed rule. 
However, EPA did not evaluate pH for the purposes of the Agency's 
effluent reduction benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses, since pH is 
not expressed in terms of quantity or concentration.
    This section also discusses the Agency's methodology for selecting 
the process wastewater flow rate for each manufacturing operation that 
corresponds to the best available technology for the particular 
subcategory or segment. These flow rates are expressed in terms of 
gallons of water discharged per ton of production (gpt) for all 
operations except with respect to certain wet air pollution control 
devices for steel finishing operations where the flow rates are 
expressed in gallons per minute (gpm).
    For those manufacturing operations where high-rate recycle is a 
principal component of the model BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS treatment 
systems, the Agency has selected production-normalized flow rates 
(PNFs) on the basis of best demonstrated flows achievable by the 
subcategory or segment as a whole. (For some segments, the best 
demonstrated flow for the subcategory as a whole is zero.) In these 
systems, the owner or operator directly controls the volume of the 
discharge by controlling the process water treatment and recycle 
system. This is accomplished by managing the amounts of make-up water 
and storm water entering the system; removing and/or minimizing the 
potential for once-through non-process wastewaters entering the system; 
and by controlling recirculating water chemistry to prevent fouling and 
scaling, where necessary. In general, the PNFs for these subcategories/
segments have been significantly reduced for the proposed standards, 
relative to those on which the original standards are based. This means 
that the proposed mass-based standards are significantly tighter than 
existing standards, even where the wastewater treatment technology on 
which the standards are based has not changed. A detailed presentation 
of the PNFs on which the existing standards are based can be found in 
Section VII of the Technical Development Document.
    For those manufacturing operations where high-rate recycle is not a 
principal component of the model BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS treatment 
systems, the Agency has chosen to use a PNF representing the PNFs 
reported by the better performing facilities in those subcategories and 
segments. In general, these also represent reductions in the PNFs used 
to derive the existing standards, although not by as much as for the 
subcategories/segments where high-rate recycle is part of the proposed 
technology basis. EPA recognizes that in some cases, the PNFs selected 
by the Agency may not be appropriate for all mills within a subcategory 
or manufacturing process subdivision. Therefore, the Agency solicits 
comments and supporting information and data regarding alternative PNFs 
that may be appropriate for particular manufacturing operations.
1. Cokemaking
    a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Cokemaking Subcategory 
encompasses segments for by-product and non-recovery cokemaking. Non-
recovery cokemaking does not generate process wastewater. Wastewater 
from by-product cokemaking operations is generated from a number of 
sources. The greatest volume of wastewater

[[Page 81979]]

generated at every by-product site is excess ammonia liquor, which is 
the condensed combination of coal moisture and volatile compounds 
liberated from the coal during the coking process. Nearly all sites 
reported other sources of wastewater, including: coke oven gas 
desulfurization, crude light oil recovery, ammonia still operation, 
final gas coolers, NESHAP controls for benzene, barometric condensers, 
coke oven gas condensates, equipment cleaning, and wet air pollution 
control devices used to control emissions from coal charging and coke 
pushing. Excess water used for coke quenching is another wastewater 
source. Water used for coke quenching is typically plant service water 
or treated coke plant wastewater. EPA does not advocate the practice of 
coke quenching with untreated wastewater because of potential air 
pollution and ground water contamination associated with this practice. 
Most plants now collect and treat some process area storm water and at 
least one facility collects and treats contaminated ground water from 
its coke plant ground water remediation system.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. From sampling data and industry-provided 
data from the Analytical and Production Survey, EPA determined that by-
product cokemaking wastewaters contain oil & grease, ammonia-N, 
cyanides, thiocyanates, phenolics, benzene, toluene, xylene, 
benzo(a)pyrene, and numerous other volatile organic compounds and 
polynuclear aromatic compounds. From these data, EPA identified 74 POCs 
for the Cokemaking Subcategory: 4 conventionals, 1 non-conventional 
metal, 30 non-conventional organics, 10 other non-conventionals, 22 
priority organics, 3 priority metals, 1 other priority pollutant (total 
cyanide), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen 
(TKN), and nitrate/nitrite-N as POCs (the last three because of their 
importance as indicators of biological treatment effectiveness).
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. The median volume of process wastewater 
generated at well-operated by-product coke plants is approximately 100 
to 110 gallons per ton (gpt) of coke and coke breeze produced. 
Approximately 30 to 40 gpt is excess ammonia liquor; the remaining flow 
comprises the other sources listed above. Operators of some direct 
discharging facilities often add up to 50 gpt of control water to their 
biological treatment systems to dilute wastewater toxicity and, to some 
extent, control temperature. The Agency is using a PNF for the by-
product recovery cokemaking segment of 158 gpt. EPA is proposing that 
supplemental allowances be available to sites operating wet coke oven 
gas desulfurization systems (15 gpt) or NESHAP control systems (10 
gpt). EPA believes that these PNFs can be achieved by all by-product 
recovery coke plants with good water management practices.
    The Agency is using a PNF of 0 gpt of process wastewater for the 
non-recovery cokemaking segment.
2. Ironmaking
    a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Ironmaking Subcategory 
encompasses segments for sintering and blast furnace ironmaking. Wet 
air pollution control systems are the primary source of process 
wastewater at sinter plants. All of the sinter plants generating 
process wastewater reported using scrubbers to control wind box 
emissions and some sites also used scrubbers to control emissions at 
the discharge end of the sinter strand.
    Gas cleaning systems that utilize high-energy scrubbers and gas 
coolers are the primary sources of process wastewater for blast furnace 
operations. Other, relatively minor sources of process wastewater 
include blast furnace gas seals, blast furnace drip legs. Some sites 
reported excess water from slag quenching.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis sampling data and 
industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey, EPA 
determined that sintering wastewaters contain the following principal 
pollutants: TSS, O&G, ammonia-N, cyanide, phenolic compounds, and 
metals (principally lead and zinc), while the principal pollutants from 
blast furnaces are TSS, ammonia-N, cyanides, phenolic compounds, and 
metals (copper, lead, and zinc). EPA also found that sintering 
wastewaters contain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and 
polychlorinated dibenzofurnas (PCDDs and PCDFs, or dioxins and furans).
    EPA identified 28 POCs for the blast furnace segment of the 
Ironmaking Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 7 non-conventional metals, 1 
non-conventional organic, 10 other non-conventionals, 6 priority 
metals, 1 other priority pollutant (total cyanide), and TKN because of 
its direct relationship to ammonia-N, a principal pollutant in 
ironmaking wastewaters.
    EPA identified 66 POCs for the sintering segment of the Ironmaking 
Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6 non-conventional metals, 24 non-
conventional organics, 11 other non-conventionals, 11 priority 
organics, 10 priority metals, 1 other priority pollutant (total 
cyanide), and TKN because of its direct relationship to ammonia-N, a 
principal pollutant in ironmaking wastewaters.
    EPA documented dioxins and furans in air emissions from two U.S. 
sinter plants, one with dry and one with wet air pollution control. 
These findings of PCDDs/PCDFs (dioxins) in air emissions from sintering 
are consistent with the results of studies in Europe and Scandinavia 
during the 1980s. On the basis of process considerations (e.g., feed 
materials, combustion), EPA sampled for dioxins and furans in 
wastewaters from the following primary steelmaking operations: by-
product coke plants, sinter plants, blast furnaces, and steelmaking 
basic oxygen furnaces. EPA found several dioxin and furan congeners in 
one of two sampled sinter plant treatment effluents. EPA did not find 
2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is considered to be the most toxic of all dioxin 
and furan congeners. However, EPA did detect a furan congener in the 
form of 2,3,7,8-TCDF, as well as other congeners. In order to evaluate 
the toxicity of all of these congeners, EPA converted the detected 
quantities into values equivalent to the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 
Taken together, these dioxin and furan congeners are equivalent in 
toxicity to 0.09 nanograms/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. EPA thus considers these 
dioxin and furan congeners to be Pollutants of Concern for sinter 
plants with wet air pollution control technology under the ironmaking 
subcategory.
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Nearly half of the operating sinter 
plants use dry air pollution control systems and, therefore, do not 
generate process wastewater. Discharge flow rates below 75 gpt are 
demonstrated at two of the six sinter plants with wet air pollution 
controls. Eight of the 24 blast furnaces achieve blowdown rates of 25 
gpt and lower by operating high-rate (>95%) gas cleaning recycle 
systems. Several sites report zero discharge by using blowdown from gas 
cleaning systems for slag quenching. EPA does not advocate slag 
quenching with blast furnace process wastewaters because of documented 
ground water contamination associated with this practice. EPA is using 
a 75 gpt PNF for the sintering segment, representing a flow achievable 
by sites operating their process water systems at recycle rates equal 
to or greater than 95%, and 25 gpt for the blast furnaces segment, 
representing a flow achievable by sites operating their process water 
systems at recycle rates equal to or greater than 98%. The Agency 
believes that all sites can achieve these selected PNFs through good 
water management practices in

[[Page 81980]]

blast furnace and sinter plant process water treatment and recycle 
systems.
3. Integrated Steelmaking
    a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Integrated Steelmaking 
Subcategory encompasses the following operations: BOF steelmaking, 
ladle metallurgy, vacuum degassing and continuous casting. Wet air 
pollution control systems are the primary process wastewater source 
from BOF steelmaking. Three types of wet air pollution control systems 
are used to control BOF emissions: Semi-wet, wet-open combustion, and 
wet-suppressed combustion. Some sites reported other BOF process 
wastewater sources including excess slag quenching water, and equipment 
cleaning water. Vacuum systems (e.g., barometric condensers, steam 
ejectors) are the process wastewater source from vacuum degassing 
systems. Spray contact water systems used for product cooling and flume 
flushing are the largest process wastewater sources from continuous 
casters. Some sites reported other continuous casting process 
wastewater sources including torch table water and equipment cleaning 
water. Other process wastewater sources include intermittent water 
losses from closed caster mold and machine noncontact cooling water 
systems.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis of sampling data 
and industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey, 
EPA determined that the principal pollutants from BOFs are TSS and 
metals (lead and zinc). Vacuum degassing wastewaters contain low levels 
of TSS and metals (lead and zinc) which volatilize from the steel. 
Casting wastewaters typically contain TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and low 
levels of particulate metals.
    Using the POC selection criteria presented above, EPA identified 
the following 28 POCs for the Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory: 2 
conventionals, 9 non-conventional metals, 6 other non-conventionals, 1 
priority organic, and 10 priority metals.
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Three types of wet air pollution control 
systems (semi-wet, wet-suppressed combustion, wet-open combustion) are 
commonly used in the BOF steelmaking operations, and each system has a 
different wastewater flow rate. EPA is using a PNF of 10 gpt for BOFs 
operating semi-wet systems. Half the operating BOFs operating semi-wet 
systems are discharging less than this amount. Some operators report 
achieving zero discharge by balancing the applied water for gas 
conditioning with evaporative losses. Two of eight BOFs operating wet-
open combustion gas cleaning systems discharge less than 20 gpt, and 
two of the seven BOFs operating wet-suppressed combustion gas cleaning 
systems discharge less than 20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for recycle 
system blowdown of 20 gpt at BOFs with wet-open combustion gas cleaning 
systems, and 20 gpt for BOFs equipped with wet-suppressed combustion 
gas cleaning systems. A small number of BOFs report achieving zero 
discharge, or very low discharge, but not all sites are able to achieve 
this because of safety considerations. Four of 12 sites operating 
vacuum degassing systems report a flow rate less than 15 gpt, and six 
of 29 continuous casters report a wastewater discharge rate less than 
or equal to 20 gpt. EPA is using a PNF of 15 gpt for vacuum degassing 
operations, and a PNF of 20 gpt for continuous casting operations.
4. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming
    a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot 
Forming subcategory consists of two segments: Carbon and alloy, and 
stainless. The primary process wastewater source for facilities in both 
segments is contact water systems used for scale removal, roll cooling, 
product cooling, flume flushing, and other line operations. Some sites 
reported other wastewater sources, including roll shops, basement 
sumps, lubricating oil conditioning systems, strip coilers, scarfer 
water, wet air pollution control systems, and equipment cleaning water.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis of sampling data 
and industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey, 
EPA determined that the principal pollutants from integrated and stand-
alone hot forming facilities are TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and low 
levels of particulate metals.
    EPA identified the following 12 POCs for the carbon and alloy 
segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot Forming Subcategory: 1 
conventional metal, 4 non-conventional metals, 4 other non-
conventionals, and 3 priority metals. EPA identified the following 16 
POCs for the stainless segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot 
Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 4 non-conventional metals, 4 
other non-conventionals, and 6 priority metals. Although EPA found lead 
at relatively low concentrations in sampled hot forming wastewaters, 
lead is considered as a POC for both segments of this subcategory 
because extensive industry-supplied data indicates lead exists in 
appreciable quantities in many hot forming wastewaters across the 
industry.
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. High-rate recycle, with recycle rates in 
excess of 95%, is a standard pollution prevention technique for all 
types of hot forming operations. Twenty-one of 68 integrated and stand-
alone hot forming mills have reported flow rates less than or equal to 
100 gpt. EPA is using a 100 gpt PNF at integrated and stand-alone hot 
forming mills. EPA has determined that 100 gpt PNF represents the best 
demonstrated flows at integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills that 
operate at a 95% recycle rate.
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
    a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Non-Integrated Steelmaking and 
Hot Forming Subcategory consists of two segments: carbon and alloy, and 
stainless. These segments encompass the following operations: EAF 
(electric arc furnace) steelmaking, ladle metallurgy, vacuum degassing, 
continuous casting, and hot forming. All but one EAF in the United 
States are equipped with dry or semi-wet air pollution controls and 
operate with no process wastewater discharges. The process wastewater 
source from the one EAF with a wet air pollution control system is the 
scrubber water; however that facility is being converted to a dry air 
cleaning system, and no new EAFs are likely to be constructed with wet 
air controls. Accordingly, the Agency is not proposing separate limits 
for EAFs with wet air pollution controls. Any EAF constructed in the 
future with wet air controls will have to meet the limits for dry 
systems. The wastewater sources for non-integrated vacuum degassing, 
non-integrated continuous casting, and non-integrated hot forming are 
the same as those listed for operations at integrated and stand-alone 
facilities.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. From sampling data and industry-provided 
data from the Analytical and Production Survey, EPA determined that the 
principal pollutants for vacuum degassing operations, continuous 
casters and hot forming mills are TSS and metals. O&G (measured as HEM 
and SGT-HEM) is found in process wastewaters from continuous casting 
and hot forming operations.
    EPA identified the following 11 POCs for the carbon and alloy 
segment of the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Subcategory: 
2 conventionals, 1 non-conventional metal, 5 other non-conventionals, 
and 3 priority metals. EPA selected lead as a POC for the reasons set 
out above for integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills. EPA

[[Page 81981]]

identified the following 23 POCs for the stainless segment of the Non-
Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 6 
non-conventional metals, 7 other non-conventionals, 1 priority organic, 
and 7 priority metals. EPA selected lead as a POC for the reasons set 
out above for integrated and stand-alone hot forming mills.
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. Non-integrated mills have demonstrated 
lower discharge volumes than hot forming at integrated and stand alone 
mills because less water is used at these mills. Two types of air 
pollution control systems (semi-wet, and dry) are commonly used in the 
EAF steelmaking operations, and each system has a different wastewater 
flow rate. Dry air cleaning systems generate no process wastewater. In 
addition, the hot-forming manufacturing process produces steel in 
primary, section, flat, pipe, or tube; each product type generates a 
different wastewater flow rate. Ten of 25 non-integrated vacuum 
degassing systems and 30 of 73 non-integrated continuous casting 
systems reported discharge rates less than 10 gpt. EPA is using PNFs 
for non-integrated vacuum degassing systems and continuous casters of 
10 gpt each. Forty-two of 94 non-integrated hot forming operations 
report flows less than or equal to 50 gpt. EPA is using a PNF of 50 gpt 
for non-integrated hot forming operations, which represents the best 
demonstrated flows for non-integrated hot forming operations operating 
at a 95% recycle rate. Many non-integrated sites report zero discharge 
of process wastewater using high-rate recycle systems for the entire 
mill and alternative disposal methods, although available data suggests 
that it would not be economically achievable for the entire 
subcategory, or even any definable sub-group of the existing 
facilities, to be able to achieve zero discharge of process wastewater.
6. Steel Finishing
    a. Wastewater Sources. The proposed Steel Finishing Subcategory 
consists of two segments: Carbon and Alloy Steels and Stainless Steels. 
The Carbon and Alloy segment comprises acid pickling (typically with 
hydrochloric or sulfuric acids), cold forming, alkaline cleaning, hot 
coating, and electroplating operations. The Stainless segment includes 
salt bath and electrolytic sodium sulfate (ESS) descaling, acid 
pickling (typically with sulfuric, nitric, and nitric/hydrofluoric 
acids), cold forming, and alkaline cleaning. Salt bath descaling 
process wastewaters are generated from quenching and rinsing operations 
conducted after the steel is processed in the molten salt baths and 
from fume scrubbers. ESS descaling wastewaters result from spent baths, 
rinse waters, and fume scrubbers. Acid pickling process wastewaters 
include spent pickling acids, rinse waters, and pickling line fume 
scrubbers. Process wastewaters from cold rolling processes result from 
spent synthetic or animal-fat based rolling solutions and equipment 
cleaning. Continuous annealing wastewaters originate from associated 
alkaline cleaning operations. Alkaline cleaning process wastewaters 
include cleaning solution and rinse water blowdown. Wastewaters from 
hot coating operations result from product rinses, fume scrubbers, and 
cleaning operations. Wastewaters from electroplating operations result 
from acid and alkaline cleaning operations, plating solution losses, 
plating solution conditioning and treatment, and fume scrubbers. Tank 
clean-outs and equipment cleaning are other wastewater sources reported 
by a number of sites.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. Based on its analysis of sampling data 
and industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey, 
EPA determined that the principal pollutants from salt bath descaling 
in the stainless segment are TSS, cyanides, hexavalent and trivalent 
chromium, and nickel. The principal pollutants from acid pickling in 
both segments are TSS and metals, although for carbon steel operations, 
the principal metals are lead and zinc; and for stainless steel, 
chromium and nickel. The principal pollutants in cold rolling 
wastewaters are TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and metals (lead and zinc for 
carbon steels and chromium and nickel for stainless steels; chromium 
may also be a contaminant from cold rolling of carbon steels resulting 
from wear on chromium-plated work rolls). Toxic organic pollutants 
including naphthalene, other polynuclear aromatic compounds, and 
chlorinated solvents have been found in cold rolling wastewaters.
    Because alkaline cleaning baths do not attack or dissolve the 
surface of the steel processed, the principal pollutants generated from 
alkaline cleaning operations are O&G removed from the steel. There is 
the potential for the presence of low levels of toxic organic 
pollutants found in cold rolling solutions. The principal hot coating 
pollutants are usually those associated with the coating metal or metal 
combinations and hexavalent chromium for lines with chromium 
brightening or passivation operations. Typical electroplating 
pollutants are TSS and O&G generated from the precleaning operations 
and the plated metals from plating solution losses, rinsing, and fume 
scrubbers.
    In addition to these pollutants which EPA identified through its 
POC selection criteria process, EPA selected sulfate and total cyanide 
as POCs because these pollutants are present in sulfuric acid pickling 
wastewaters and reducing salt bath descaling wastewaters, respectively. 
(EPA did not sample these two wastewaters during the sampling program 
and therefore did not apply its POC selection criteria.)
    EPA identified a total of 38 POCs for the carbon and alloy segment 
of the Steel Finishing Subcategory: 2 conventionals, 10 non-
conventional metals, 7 non-conventional organics, 9 other non-
conventionals, 2 priority organics, and 8 priority metals. EPA 
identified a total of 51 POCs for the stainless segment of the Steel 
Finishing Subcategory: 11 non-conventional metals, 17 non-conventional 
organics, 9 other non-conventionals, 4 priority organics, 9 priority 
metals, and one other priority pollutant (total cyanide).
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. EPA subdivided manufacturing operations 
by product type to capture differences in flow associated with 
different types of products and different metals coated. This approach 
should address product quality issues associated with water use. 
Although a number of mills engaging in certain finishing operations 
claim to need a relatively high PNF, information in today's record did 
not support a different PNF for the subcategory as a whole.
    The acid pickling, other descaling, and alkaline cleaning 
operations are performed on various steel products such as sheet, 
strip, coil, bar, billet, rod, pipe, tube, and plate; and each product 
type generates a different wastewater flow rate. For cold forming, the 
manufacturing process could be conducted in either single or multiple 
mill stands, and the rolling solutions can be applied in a once-
through, recirculated, or a combined manner; and the various 
application technique generates a different wastewater flow rate. For 
the electroplating process, either chrome/tin or other metals can be 
applied to sheet, strip, coil, and plate; and each product type 
generates a different wastewater flow rate.
    No stand-alone salt bath descaling lines were found during the 
analysis of the iron and steel industry, and the industry did not 
report isolated flows for salt bath descaling lines that are co-located 
with combination acid pickling lines. Therefore, flow rates for salt 
bath descaling are included in the flow rates for combination acid 
pickling.

[[Page 81982]]

Wastewater discharge rates for acid pickling vary by product and steel 
type. Wastewater discharge rates for acid pickling vary by product and 
steel type, as well as acid used (in the case of carbon and alloy 
steels). For hydrochloric acid pickling of carbon and alloy steel, EPA 
is using a PNF of 50 gpt for sheet and strip (achieved by 18 of 47 
lines), 490 gpt for bar, billet, rod, and coil, and 1020 gpt for pipe 
and tube. For sulfuric acid pickling of carbon and alloy steel, EPA is 
using a PNF of 230 gpt for strip and sheet (achieved by five of nine 
lines), 280 gpt for bar, billet, rod, and coil, and 500 gpt for pipe 
and tube. For acid pickling of stainless steel, EPA is using a PNF of 
230 gpt for bar and billet (representing the median flow rate), 700 gpt 
for sheet and strip (achieved by 19 of 50 lines), and 35 gpt for plate 
(representing the median flow rate). For all pickling operations with 
fume scrubbers, EPA is using a normalized flow rate of 15 gallons per 
minute (gpm). The PNFs for hydrochloric and sulfuric acid pickling for 
bar, billet, rod, and coil and pipe and tube are retained from the 1982 
Iron and Steel regulation. The Agency obtained current PNFs for the 
other four pickling operations. EPA is using a PNF of 100 gpm for acid 
regeneration.
    Wastewater discharge rates for cold forming vary by the number of 
mill stands, steel type, and whether rolling solutions are 
recirculated. EPA is using the following PNFs: single stand, direct 
application--3 gpt; single stand, recirculation--1 gpt; multi-stand, 
direct application--275 gpt; multi-stand, recirculation--25 gpt; multi-
stand, combination--143 gpt. EPA is using a PNF for the alkaline 
cleaning sections of continuous annealing lines of 20 gpt (achieved by 
seven of 16 stand alone annealing lines). Wastewater discharge rates 
for alkaline cleaning vary by product and steel type. For carbon and 
alloy steel, EPA is using a PNF of 350 gpt for sheet and strip and 20 
gpt for pipe and tube. EPA is using a PNF of 2,500 gpt for stainless 
sheet and strip. EPA is using a PNF of 550 gpt for hot dip coating 
operations. With the exception of continuous annealing, each of these 
represents the median of PNFs observed.
    Discharge rates for electroplating vary by the type of metal 
applied. EPA is using a PNF of 1,100 gpt for tin and chromium sheet and 
strip lines; 550 gpt for other sheet and strip lines. EPA is using a 
PNF of 35 gpt for electroplating of steel plate. Each of these 
represents the median of PNFs observed. For all electroplating 
operations with fume scrubbers, EPA is using a normalized flow rate of 
15 gpm.
7. Other Operations
    a. Wastewater Sources. The subcategory EPA proposes for other 
operations encompasses segments for direct-reduced ironmaking, forging, 
and briquetting. Wet air pollution control systems are the primary 
process wastewater source for DRI operations. Contact water comprises 
the majority of the process wastewater from forging operations. Some 
sites identified equipment cleaning as another source of wastewater 
from forging operations. Briquetting operations use dry air pollution 
controls and do not generate process wastewater.
    b. Pollutants of Concern. EPA has only limited sampling and 
industry-provided data from the Analytical and Production Survey for 
forging, briquetting, and DRI operations. EPA solicits comments and 
additional data for these operations.
    Based on all available data, EPA found that the principal pollutant 
parameter from DRI facilities is TSS. For forging, the principal 
pollutants are TSS, O&G measured as HEM, and metals. All briquetting 
operations are dry.
    Using the POC selection criteria presented above, EPA identified 8 
POCs for the Other Operations Subcategory: 1 conventional, 4 non-
conventional metals, and 3 other non-conventionals.
    c. Wastewater Flow Rates. The Agency found forging operations to be 
similar to other hot forming operations, and therefore used a 96% 
recycle rate, as demonstrated for other hot forming operations, as the 
basis for PNF determination, giving a PNF for forging operations of 100 
gpt. EPA is using a PNF for DRI operations of 90 gpt, which was 
demonstrated by two of three DRI plants engaged in high rate recycling 
of their scrubber wastewater.

V. Technology Options, Costs, and Pollutant Reductions

A. Introduction

    This section describes the technology options and associated costs 
and pollutant reductions that EPA evaluated in developing the effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards proposed today for the seven 
subcategories. To determine the technology basis and performance level 
for the proposed regulations, EPA developed a database consisting of 
daily effluent data collected from the Analytical and Production Survey 
and the EPA wastewater sampling program. EPA used this database to 
support the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards proposed today. While EPA has proposed 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on a combination of 
processes and treatment technologies, EPA is not proposing to require a 
discharger to use those processes or technologies in treating the 
wastewater. Rather, the processes and technologies used to treat iron 
and steel wastewaters are left to the discretion of each facility; EPA 
would require only that the numerical discharge limits are achieved.
    In order to establish the proposed limits, EPA reviewed data from 
treatment systems in operation at a number of iron and steel facilities 
and used the data to calculate concentration limits that are achievable 
based on a well-operated system using the proposed model processes and 
wastewater treatment technologies. In Section C below, EPA presents a 
summary of the technology options EPA considered for the proposed 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards in each subcategory.
1. Focused Rulemaking Approach
    EPA is developing this regulation using a focused rulemaking 
approach, which involves conducting several aspects of data gathering 
and analysis activities in parallel and assessing only a limited number 
of regulatory options. This is unlike the traditional approach where 
EPA conducts these efforts in a serial manner and considers a wider 
range of regulatory options. The focused rulemaking approach is 
feasible for the iron and steel regulation because the Agency has 
acquired a good understanding of the industry, its associated 
pollutants, and the available control and treatment technologies from 
its prior rulemaking efforts. Furthermore, EPA also adopted the focused 
approach for the iron and steel regulation in order to meet a court-
ordered schedule (see Section II.B). In general, the focused approach 
allows EPA to have a more focused data gathering process and reduces 
the time spent investigating marginal regulatory options. EPA then 
evaluates each option it identifies in accordance with the statutory 
factors, e.g., the removal efficiencies and economic achievability of 
various model treatment technologies.
    A successfully implemented focused rulemaking process involves a 
combination of early analysis of available information, focused data 
collection effort, and extensive stakeholder involvement. A key 
component of the data gathering process was using a questionnaire 
distributed under authority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act. See 
Section IV.D. EPA worked with stakeholders in developing

[[Page 81983]]

this questionnaire, which was approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For the iron and steel rulemaking, EPA utilized its 1997 
questionnaire results from individual facilities, in conjunction with 
EPA's field sampling data, to assess the wastewater characteristics and 
the effectiveness of various pollution control and treatment 
technologies for the industry. In addition, EPA also supplemented the 
database with information voluntarily submitted by industry, permitting 
and pretreatment authorities, and vendors. Furthermore, by involving 
the stakeholders early in the rulemaking, the Agency also developed a 
good understanding of the experience that the industry has gained from 
pollution control technologies implemented since the 1980's, when the 
current rule was promulgated.
    In addition to early information gathering and analysis, extensive 
stakeholder involvement is also an important element of the focused 
rulemaking process. EPA met with the industry, environmental groups and 
other stakeholders at various stages of the rulemaking process to 
discuss the preferred options and identify issues of concern. For 
instance, between December 1998 and January 2000, EPA sponsored five 
stakeholder meetings to present the technology bases for the Agency's 
preliminary options and to solicit comments and ideas from the 
stakeholders. Section IV.D.5 contains additional information regarding 
the various stakeholder meetings. EPA also expects to gather additional 
information through the public comment process.
    As the result of this focused process, the Agency is proposing a 
streamlined group of seven subcategories that will be used as the 
framework for revising the existing effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards. Section IV.E explains the basis for the proposed 
subcategorization. Section V.C and IX contain detailed information on 
technology options that were considered and the selected technologies, 
respectively.
    During the public comment period on today's proposed rule, EPA 
plans to continue its data gathering and analysis efforts for support 
of the final rule. EPA may publish in the Federal Register a subsequent 
notice of data availability for data and information that the Agency 
may use to support the final rule. Such data may be generated by EPA or 
submitted by stakeholders in response to this proposal.
    EPA encourages full public participation in developing the final 
Iron and Steel Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards. EPA 
welcomes comment on all options and issues and encourages commenters to 
submit additional data during the comment period. EPA also is willing 
to talk with interested parties during the comment period to ensure 
that EPA considers the views of all stakeholders and the best possible 
data upon which to base a decision for the final regulation. EPA will 
conduct a public hearing during the public comment period.
2. Available Technologies
    The treatment technologies used by the iron and steel industry 
consist of in-process treatment and reuse of process solutions and 
process waters, and end-of-pipe physical-chemical and biological 
treatment.
    The in-process, physical-chemical, and biological treatment 
technologies in use at Iron and Steel facilities include:
     Acid purification: An in-process resin technology applied 
to spent acid baths to adsorb acid and allow contaminants to pass into 
a waste stream. The process produces an acid which is reused for acid 
pickling.
     Acid Regeneration: Thermal decomposition of spent pickle 
liquor, which contains free hydrochloric acid, ferrous chloride, and 
water.
     Alkaline Chlorination: Chemical addition of chlorine in a 
two-stage, pH-adjusted system to oxidize cyanide, ammonia, phenols, and 
other organic compounds.
     Biological Treatment: There are several forms of 
biological treatment. For the purpose of this regulation, biological 
treatment refers to an activated sludge system with nitrification; a 
continuous flow, aerobic treatment process which employs suspended-
growth aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants and 
oxidize ammonia to nitrate. A portion of the biomass is collected and 
returned to the activated sludge system.
     Clarification: Usually a circular, cone-bottom steel or 
concrete tank with a center stilling well and mechanical equipment at 
the bottom for settling and subsequent removal of suspended solids from 
the wastewater stream.
     Classification: Any device, such as a dragout tank or 
screw classifier, used to aggregate and remove large suspended solids 
from wastewater.
     Coagulation/flocculation: Coagulation/flocculation causes 
small suspended solids such as precipitated metal hydroxides and 
biological mixed liquor solids to aggregate into larger particles with 
a density greater than water. The particles are then separated from the 
wastewater by gravity settling.
     Cooling Tower: Direct cooling through evaporative heat 
transfer to lower the temperature of non-contact cooling water or 
process water prior to further treatment or recycle.
     Countercurrent Rinses: The use of a series of rinse tanks 
to minimize the amount of water used to clean the surface of steel 
products. Rinse water overflows from one tank to another in a direction 
opposite the flow of steel product.
     Cyanide Precipitation: Cyanide precipitation combines free 
cyanide with iron to form an insoluble iron-cyanide complex that can be 
precipitated and removed by gravity settling.
     Diversion Tank: Tank used to handle hydraulic or waste 
loading surges in cases of emergency overflow.
     Emulsion Breaking: Addition of de-emulsifying agents such 
as heat, acid, metal coagulants, polymers, and clays to oily 
wastewaters to break down emulsions and produce a mixture of water and 
free oil and/or an oily floc.
     Equalization: Equalization through proper retention and 
mixing in a tank dampens variation in hydraulic and pollutant loadings, 
thereby reducing shock loads and increasing treatment facility 
performance.
     Free and Fixed Ammonia Still: Ammonia distillation is the 
transfer of gas (ammonia) dissolved in a liquid (coke plant excess 
flushing liquor) into a gas stream (steam). In the coke industry, 
flushing liquor is pumped to the top of a tray-type distillation tower 
while steam is injected into the base. As the rising steam passes 
through the boiling flushing liquor moving down the tray tower, ammonia 
is transferred from the liquid to the gas phase, eventually passing out 
the top of the tower. A ``free'' still operates with steam only, with 
no alkali addition, to remove ammonia and acid gases (hydrogen cyanide, 
hydrogen sulfide). A ``fixed'' still is similar to a ``free'' still 
except lime or sodium hydroxide is added to the liquor to convert the 
water soluble ammonium ion to ammonia which can be removed as a gas.
     Granular Activated Carbon : The use of granular activated 
carbon to remove dissolved organic compounds from wastewater. When the 
attractive forces at the carbon surface overcome the attractive forces 
of the liquid, organic pollutants adsorb to the carbon particle 
surface. Pollutants in the water phase will continue to bond to the 
activated carbon until all surface bonding sites are occupied. When all 
bonding sites are occupied, the carbon is considered to be ``spent'' 
and is either disposed or regenerated.

[[Page 81984]]

     Heat Exchanger: Device which allows indirect cooling 
through the use of noncontact cooling water to lower the temperature of 
wastewater prior to biological treatment.
     Hexavalent Chromium Reduction: The use of a reducing agent 
to convert hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.
     High-Rate Recycle: A system of pumps and piping which 
return treated and temperature adjusted process water back to a steel 
manufacturing process or air pollution control unit. For purposes of 
this proposed rule, high-rate recycle means recycle of the circulating 
flow at 95 percent or higher.
     Metals Precipitation: The removal of metal contaminants 
from aqueous solutions by converting soluble, metal ions to insoluble 
metal hydroxides. The precipitated solids are then removed from 
solution by coagulation/flocculation (see definition above) followed by 
clarification and/or filtration. Precipitation is caused by the 
addition of chemical reagents such as sodium hydroxide, lime or 
magnesium hydroxide to adjust the pH of the water to the minimum 
solubility of the metal.
     Mixed-media Filtration: Mixed-media filtration involves a 
fixed (gravity or pressure) or moving bed of porous media that traps 
and removes suspended solids from water passing through the media.
     Oil/water Separation: Oil/water separators are usually 
long rectangular tanks in which free oil floats to the surface, where 
it can be skimmed off. Often inclined parallel plates are added to 
serve as collecting surfaces for oil globules. Oil/water separation is 
typically preceded by emulsion breaking (see definition above).
     pH Control: The use of chemical addition and mixing to 
adjust the pH of wastewater to a desired pH level, usually in the range 
of 8.5 to 9.0 for effective metals precipitation.
     Roughing Clarifiers: High surface loading clarifiers 
designed to remove settleable solids from wastewater prior to 
filtration or other treatment.
     Scale Pit: An in-ground basin constructed of concrete for 
recovery of scale from process wastewaters used in hot forming and 
continuous casting operations.
     Sludge Dewatering: Gravity thickening is first 
accomplished in a tank equipped with a slowly rotating rake mechanism 
which breaks the bridge between sludge particles, thereby increasing 
settling and compaction. A sludge dewatering device such as a belt 
pressure filter, plate-and-frame pressure filter, or vacuum filter is 
then used to mechanically remove excess water from the sludge.
     Tar/oil Removal: Tar and oils are recovered from coke 
plant flushing liquor by gravity separation in a flushing liquor 
decanter and subsequent tar separation devices including storage tanks 
or filtration systems.

B. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved 
by Model Treatment Technologies

    EPA estimated industry-wide compliance costs and pollutant 
reductions associated with today's proposed rule from data collected 
through survey responses, site visits, sampling episodes, data 
collected from state agencies, comments submitted during the 
stakeholder process, and computerized cost and pollutant loadings 
models developed for each of the technology options considered. EPA 
calculated facility specific compliance costs and pollutant reductions 
for facilities in the Cokemaking, Ironmaking, Steelmaking, and 
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming Subcategories. For all other 
subcategories, EPA used statistically calculated survey weights to 
develop national estimates of these results.
    EPA evaluated wastewater treatment technology performance for each 
survey respondent using effluent data provided in the Detailed and 
Short Form Surveys, effluent data collected from state agencies for 
sites that have made significant wastewater treatment modifications 
since 1997, and effluent data collected during Agency site visits and 
sampling episodes conducted from 1996 to 1999. EPA assumed that 
facilities whose current pollutant loadings exceeded the pollutant 
loadings associated with each technology option would incur costs as a 
result of compliance with that option. To determine the wastewater 
treatment upgrades or modifications necessary for each facility to 
achieve compliance, the Agency performed an analysis of wastewater 
treatment technology in place using data provided in the Detailed and 
Short Form Surveys and information collected during Agency site visits 
and sampling episodes conducted from 1996 through 1999. Based on this 
evaluation, EPA developed a computerized design and cost model to 
estimate the following capital costs and one-time consulting fees for 
each technology option under consideration.
     Major equipment: purchased equipment costs, including 
freight.
     Installation: mechanical equipment installation, piping 
installation, civil/structural (site preparation/grading, foundations, 
etc.), and electrical and process control.
     Indirect costs: costs for temporary facilities, spare 
parts, engineering procurement and contract management and other costs.
     Contingency: additional costs included in estimate to 
account for unforeseen items in vendor and/or contractor estimates.
     Consultant costs: single-occurrence costs associated with 
hiring an outside consultant to upgrade wastewater treatment system 
performance (e.g., improve operating and maintenance to optimize 
biological treatment system performance).
    EPA developed major equipment costs using data from the Cost Survey 
and vendor quotes. An engineering and design firm that has performed 
wastewater treatment installations for the iron and steel industry 
estimated indirect costs, installation, and contingency. Based on Cost 
Survey data and the estimates provided by the engineering and design 
firm, the Agency estimated installation costs separately for each 
technology option; indirect costs were assumed to be 28% of total 
direct costs; contingency costs were assumed to be 20% of total direct 
and indirect costs. EPA used engineering judgment to estimate 
consultant costs, based on its review of consultant costs.
    The Agency also designed the cost model to estimate incremental 
operating and maintenance costs associated with the following cost 
items:
     Labor (operating and maintenance)
     Maintenance (materials and vendors)
     Chemical costs
     Energy costs
     Steam costs
     Sludge/residuals (hazardous/nonhazardous) disposal costs
     Oil disposal costs
     Sampling/monitoring costs
    EPA developed incremental operating and maintenance costs using 
data provided in the Detailed and Short Form Surveys, Perry's Chemical 
Engineers Handbook--Sixth Edition, U.S. Department of Energy--Average 
Industrial Electrical Costs in 1998, the 1998 Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, and the 1997 Chemical Market Reporter.
    EPA evaluated the hydraulic capacity of the process water treatment 
and recycle systems. Where the system was found to be capable of 
recirculating the incremental flow necessary to achieve the model BAT 
discharge flow, EPA assigned no investment cost for new equipment in 
the main treatment and recycle circuit. In most instances, the increase 
in recycle rate was only a few percent of the total recirculating flow

[[Page 81985]]

rate. For these cases, EPA assigned a one-time cost of $50,000 for 
consultant and mill services to conduct an evaluation of the treatment 
and recycle system and to modify water management practices and 
operations to achieve the model BAT discharge flow rate.
    For those mills described above where one-time costs were assigned 
to achieve the model BAT discharge flow rate for the main process water 
treatment and recirculation circuit, incremental operation and 
maintenance costs were not assigned. The Agency assumed the increased 
costs associated with modifying the recycle rate (power costs) would be 
minimal and offset by likely savings in recirculating process water 
chemical treatment.
    EPA requests that interested stakeholders comment on this costing 
approach and offer suggestions for improvements.
    To determine the pollutant loading reduction associated with 
process and treatment upgrades, EPA estimated the baseline load and the 
post-compliance load expected from sites after treatment improvements 
and process changes associated with each technology option. The post-
compliance reduction in pollutant mass is attributable to both improved 
treatment and process changes, most notably high-rate recycle for 
several subcategories. Improved treatment resulted in lower 
concentrations for some pollutants. EPA estimated that sites with high-
rate recycle have a lower discharge flow and a subsequent lower 
pollutant mass discharged. EPA calculated the pollutant loading 
reduction as the difference between the estimated baseline load and the 
post-compliance load for each technology option. All pounds reported 
below are annual estimates.
    EPA compared production normalized flows, as described in Section 
IV.F, with the facilities' actual process wastewater flow rates to 
determine what level of additional treatment facilities would have to 
add to achieve the level of pollution control described in the 
technology options (e.g., through reducing flow rates). This was 
especially important when a component of the technology option was high 
rate recycle. In this way a facility's flow rate had a direct impact on 
both the expected cost to the facility and on the pollutant removal EPA 
estimated for the facility.
    Information on EPA's compliance cost and pollutant loading 
estimates and methodologies, including the cost curves for all 
treatment technologies considered as the basis for today's proposed 
rule, is located in the public record. Some of the information EPA used 
to estimate compliance costs and pollutant loadings was claimed by 
survey recipients as CBI. This information is not in the public record. 
However, EPA provides in the public record a number of publicly 
available documents that set forth its methodology, assumptions and 
rationale for developing its cost estimates and that also present as 
much data as possible through the use of aggregations, summaries and 
other techniques to mask CBI. EPA encourages all interested parties to 
refer to the record and to provide comment on any aspect of the 
methodology or the data used to estimate compliance costs associated 
with today's proposal.

C. Technology Options, Regulatory Costs, and Pollutant Reductions

    The Agency estimated the costs and pollutant loading reductions 
associated with iron and steel facilities to achieve compliance for 
each proposed technology option under consideration. This section 
summarizes the proposed technology options under consideration and the 
estimated costs and pollutant reductions associated with each option, 
by subcategory. For each option the capital cost, operating and 
maintenance costs, and other one-time costs are presented. See Section 
VI for a listing of total annualized costs by subcategory. All cost 
estimates in this section are expressed in terms of pre-tax 1997 
dollars. Note that BPT technology options are discussed where 
applicable.
1. Cokemaking
    a. By-product cokemaking. For the by-product cokemaking segment of 
this subcategory, EPA considered several different BAT, PSES, NSPS, and 
PSNS technologies.
    EPA estimates that by-product cokemaking sites currently discharge 
approximately 2.3 million pounds of conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, 
and O&G) directly. By-product cokemaking operations discharge 
approximately 2.7 million pounds of total priority and non-conventional 
pollutants directly and approximately 550,000 pounds indirectly.
    Table V.C.1-1 presents the various options considered for by-
product cokemaking, Table V.C.1-2 presents the associated costs, and 
Table V.C.1-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction estimates.

                                       Table V.C.1.-1.--Proposed By-Product Cokemaking BAT/PSES Technology Options
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Treatment options
                        Technology units                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    BAT-1      BAT-2      BAT-3      BAT-4      PSES-1     PSES-2     PSES-3     PSES-4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tar/oil removal.................................................         X          X          X          X          X          X          X          X
Equalization/still feed tank....................................         X          X          X          X          X          X          X          X
Free and fixed ammonia still....................................         X          X          X          X          X          X          X          X
Heat exchanger..................................................         X          X          X          X   .........  .........         X          X
Cyanide precipitation...........................................  .........         X   .........  .........  .........         X   .........  .........
Equalization tank...............................................         X          X          X          X   .........  .........         X          X
Biological treatment with secondary clarification...............         X          X          X          X   .........  .........         X          X
Sludge dewatering...............................................         X          X          X          X   .........         X          X          X
Alkaline chlorination...........................................  .........  .........         X          X   .........  .........  .........         X
Mixed-media filtration..........................................  .........  .........  .........         X   .........         X   .........  .........
Granular activated carbon.......................................  .........  .........  .........         X   .........  .........  .........  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 81986]]


                              Table V.C.1-2.--Cost of Implementation for Cokemaking
                                      [In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Treatment options
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BAT-1     BAT-2     BAT-3     BAT-4    PSES-1    PSES-2    PSES-3    PSES-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills.................        14  ........  ........  ........         8  ........  ........  ........
Capital costs...................       8.0      12.4      42.3      66.5         0       6.0      18.6      32.1
Annual O&M costs................       0.1       3.0       7.2      14.9       0.3       1.8       3.3       5.8
One-time costs..................       0.3       0.3       0.3       0.3       0.2       0.2       0.2       0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      Table V.C.1-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Cokemaking
                                            [In million pounds/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Treatment options
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BAT-1     BAT-2     BAT-3     BAT-4    PSES-1    PSES-2    PSES-3    PSES-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of                 0.21      0.21      0.21      0.68  ........  ........  ........  ........
 Conventional Pollutants (BOD,
 TSS, and O&G)..................
Removal of Priority and Non-          0.39      0.39      0.43      0.43      0.18      0.18      0.54      0.54
 conventional Pollutants........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. BAT
    The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the same 
technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for by-product 
cokemaking, but with significant improvements in design and operation. 
Each of the other BAT options builds on this foundation. Under the 
first BAT option, water usage can be reduced by 1.6 million gallons per 
year from current levels and the rate of removing non-conventional 
pollutants can increase by 14% over those levels. The second BAT option 
results in no further reduction in flow beyond BAT-1 levels, but does 
result in the additional removal of 24% of the total cyanide from 
direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams through the use of cyanide 
precipitation. The third BAT option also results in no further 
reduction in flow beyond BAT-1 levels, but does result in the 
additional removal of 29% of the total cyanide (as well as additional 
removal of other pollutants) from direct discharging cokemaking 
wastestreams beyond BAT-1 levels through the use of alkaline 
chlorination. The fourth BAT option, which was included in the analysis 
as a potential means to achieve significant pollutant reduction, 
results in no further reduction in flow beyond that to be achieved by 
any of the BAT options, and does not lead to significant additional 
pollutant removal beyond that to be achieved by BAT-3.
    EPA performed a preliminary assessment of including non-recovery 
cokemaking as a technology option for this segment. While this 
technology would result in a zero discharge of process wastewater and 
would reduce air emissions, the Agency did not consider it as an option 
for this segment for the following reasons:

--Non-recovery cokemaking has not reliably demonstrated the ability to 
produce foundry coke. Therefore, it is not an available technology for 
the segment as a whole.
--Non-recovery cokemaking processes preclude the production of coal by-
products. Therefore, it is not an available technology for facilities 
in this segment that produce these by-products.
--Choosing non-recovery cokemaking processes as BAT to the exclusion of 
by-product processes would have significant adverse secondary economic 
effects on coal by-products markets and consuming industries. For 
example, the domestic coal tar refining industry, which consists of 5 
companies with 13 facilities in 10 states as of 1997, is dependent upon 
the coke by-product production of crude coal tar as a feedstock.
--The estimated capital cost of replacing current cokemaking capacity 
with non-recovery coke plants is at least $3 billion. The estimate does 
not include full scale heat recovery for power generation and flue gas 
scrubbing. The estimated additional capital cost for heat recovery co-
generation is at least $2.5 billion.
--The estimated operating costs are uncertain. The recently constructed 
non-recovery coke plant with associated heat recovery was the final 
coke plant to qualify for a federal alternative energy tax credit, 
which expired in June 1998. The presence of this tax credit clouds 
comparisons of operating costs between traditional by-product 
cokemaking and non-recovery cokemaking. Further, it is uncertain 
whether heat recovery co-generation is a necessary component of non-
recovery cokemaking in the comparison of relative operating costs of 
by-product and non-recovery cokemaking.
--The economic viability of non-recovery cokemaking is impacted by 
site-specific factors, including land availability and local energy 
markets. For example, the local cost of electricity is a key 
determinant of the economic viability of heat recovery co-generation. 
Economic viability also depends on the presence of a large industrial 
energy user that would purchase electrical power and/or steam from co-
generation. In cases where steel production and coke production are co-
located, this condition is met; however, a number of existing coke 
plants are not co-located with steel production.
ii. PSES
    Table V.C.1-1 shows the technical bases for the PSES options EPA 
examined. Except as noted, the technology basis for PSES-1 consists of 
the same technologies and processes comprising the current PSES for 
cokemaking with significant improvements in design and operation. This 
technology option would control the pollutants EPA has determined pass 
through. See Section IX. Unlike the current PSES model technology, 
however, PSES-1 does not include a dephenolizer. EPA collected 
information through its sampling program and technical surveys that 
shows that a dephenolizer is unnecessary to control the pollutants that 
EPA has determined pass through.

[[Page 81987]]

The technology basis for PSES-2 consists of PSES-1 plus cyanide 
precipitation, sludge dewatering, and mixed-media filtration. The 
technology basis for PSES-3 is identical to BAT-1. The technology basis 
for PSES-4 is identical to BAT-3.
    The technology options for BAT and PSES are different because they 
are designed to control different parameters, based on EPA's pass-
through analysis (see Section IX.A.2). For a discussion of the 
different technologies, refer to Section V.A.3.
    Under PSES-1, water use can be reduced by 30% over the current 
levels, and the rate of removal of ammonia can increase by 62% over 
current levels. Under PSES-2, water use can be decreased by an 
additional 3.5% over that expected under PSES-1, and removal of cyanide 
can increase by 45% over that expected under PSES-1. Under PSES-3, the 
removal of ammonia can increase by 95% over that expected under PSES-2. 
Under PSES-4, there are virtually no additional removals.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical 
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other 
treatment technologies are demonstrated. The Agency, however, did 
perform a preliminary assessment of non-recovery cokemaking as a 
technology option for NSPS for the by-product cokemaking segment but 
did not consider it as an option for the reasons discussed in the BAT 
section (Section V.C.1.a.i). Therefore, all technology options 
presented as BAT or PSES options also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
    b. Non-recovery cokemaking. For the non-recovery cokemaking segment 
of this subcategory, EPA considered only one BPT, BAT, PSES, NSPS and 
PSNS technology option, i.e., the technology in place at the two sites 
currently using the non-recovery method for cokemaking. For a 
discussion of this technology, see Section 4 of the technical 
development document. The non-recovery cokemaking process results in 
zero discharge because the non-recovery cokemaking process does not 
generate process wastewater.
2. Ironmaking
    This proposed subcategory encompasses two segments: sintering and 
blast furnace operations. The subcategory is segmented to take into 
account differences in the model treatment system flow rates used to 
develop the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. 
However, EPA considered the same technologies for both segments (with 
the exception of cooling towers, which are not used for sinter 
operations). EPA did so because, where co-located, the wastewaters from 
both these processes are generally co-treated. BAT and PSES 
technologies would apply to either separate or combined treatment of 
wastewater from sintering and blast furnace operations. Technology 
options, costs, and pollutant loading reduction estimates for these two 
segments are presented on a combined basis below because of co-
treatability of the wastewaters.
    EPA estimated that Ironmaking operations discharge approximately 
2.4 million pounds of conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G) directly. 
Ironmaking operations directly discharge approximately 5 million pounds 
of total priority and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency does not 
present results for indirect dischargers, because there is only one 
indirect discharger in this proposed subcategory and data aggregation 
or other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of 
information claimed as confidential business information.
    Table V.C.2-1 presents the options considered, Table V.C.2-2 
presents the associated costs, and Table V.C.2-3 presents the 
associated pollutant reduction estimates.
    a. Blast Furnaces. Some blast furnace operations achieve zero 
discharge by evaporating wastewater on slag. EPA does not advocate the 
practice of slag quenching with blast furnace wastewater because runoff 
from the process can lead to documented ground water contamination; 
therefore, the various treatment options do not include slag quenching. 
The Agency considered sites performing slag quenching to be zero 
discharge sites in the cost and pollutant reduction estimates because 
that practice, however undesirable, would allow them to achieve 
compliance with today's proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the blast furnace segment.
    b. Sintering. The source of pollutants in sinter wastewater is from 
the sinter plant's air pollution control system. Of the eight sinter 
plants operating in 1997, three have achieved zero discharge by using 
baghouses in place of wet air pollution control. The other five sinter 
plants generate wastewater as a result of wet air pollution control and 
therefore have installed treatment systems for that wastewater. The 
various components of typical treatment systems are identified in Table 
V.C.2-1. EPA considered whether to explore baghouses as a technology 
option, in place of wet air pollution controls, in an effort to achieve 
zero discharge. EPA concluded that the use of baghouses would not be a 
viable option because of significant retrofit costs and the potential 
for adverse non-water quality environmental impacts, which are 
discussed in detail in the iron and steel technical development 
document.
i. BAT
    The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the same 
technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for ironmaking, 
but with significant improvements in design and operation. EPA intended 
to evaluate a second BAT option, building on this foundation by 
including granular activated carbon to the blowdown treatment. However, 
EPA did not pursue the option because all significant POCs in the 
effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at 
levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-on 
technology.

              Table V.C.2-1.--Ironmaking Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
               Treatment units               ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal..............................            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X             X
Cooling tower1..............................            X             X
High-rate recycle...........................            X             X
Blowdown treatment
Metals precipitation........................            X             X
Alkaline chlorination.......................            X

[[Page 81988]]

 
Mixed-media filtration......................           X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applies to blast furnace process wastewater only


           Table V.C.2-2.--Cost of Implementing for Ironmaking
                  [In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Technology
                                                               options
                                                              (BAT-1 and
                                                               PSES-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills............................................         15
Capital costs..............................................         25.8
Annual O&M costs...........................................          2.7
One-time costs.............................................          0.7 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.


  Table V.C.2-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Ironmaking
                        [In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Technology
                                                               options
                                                              (BAT-1 and
                                                               PSES-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G)          2.3
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants........          3.5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.

    Under BAT-1, water usage can be reduced by 5% from current levels, 
and total loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants can be 
reduced by 68%.
ii. PSES
    The technology option identified as PSES-1 consists of the same 
technologies and processes comprising the current PSES for ironmaking, 
but with significant improvements in design and operation. This 
technology option would control the pollutants EPA has determined pass 
through. See Section IX. Unlike the current PSES model technology or 
BAT-1, however, PSES-1 does not include alkaline chlorination or mixed-
media filtration. Data from EPA's iron and steel sampling program and 
survey responses indicated that alkaline chlorination and mixed-media 
filtration are unnecessary to control the pollutants that EPA has 
determined pass through.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical 
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other 
treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all technology 
options presented in Table V.C.2-1 as BAT or PSES options also describe 
NSPS and PSNS options.
3. Integrated Steelmaking
    EPA is not proposing to further segment this subcategory. EPA 
considered BAT and PSES technologies for treatment of wastewater for 
this subcategory. EPA estimates that integrated steelmaking operations 
directly discharge approximately 2.5 million pounds of conventional 
pollutants (TSS and (O&G) and approximately 6.2 million pounds of total 
priority and non-conventional pollutants. The Agency does not present 
results for indirect dischargers, because there is only one indirect 
discharger in this proposed subcategory and data aggregation or other 
masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information 
claimed as confidential business information.
    Table V.C.3-1 presents the options considered for integrated 
steelmaking, Table V.C.3-2 presents the associated costs, and Table 
V.C.3-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction estimates.

        Table V.C.3-1.--Integrated Steelmaking Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
               Treatment units               ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with classifier and clarifier            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X             X
Cooling tower1..............................            X             X
High-rate recycle...........................            X             X
Blowdown treatment
Metals precipitation........................            X            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and was
  costed accordingly.


    Table V.C.3-2.--Cost of Implementation for Integrated Steelmaking
                  [In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                            options (BAT-
                                                             1 and PSES-
                                                                 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills...........................................          21
Capital costs.............................................          16.8
Annual O&M costs..........................................           2.9
One-time costs............................................           2.1 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.


  Table V.C.2-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Steelmaking
                        [In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Technology
                                                               options
                                                              (BAT-land
                                                               PSES-1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants (TSS and O&G)         19
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants........          4.1 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data aggregated to protect confidential business information.

    a. BAT. The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the 
same technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for 
steelmaking, but with significant improvements in design and operation. 
EPA intended to evaluate a second BAT option, building on this 
foundation by including mixed-media filtration to the blowdown 
treatment. However, EPA did not pursue the option because all 
significant POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are 
projected to exist at levels too low to be further treated by this or 
any other add-on technology.
    Under the BAT-1, water usage can be reduced by 83% over current 
levels, and total loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants can 
be reduced by 66%. b.
    b. PSES. The technology option identified as PSES-1 consists of the 
same technologies and processes comprising the current PSES for 
steelmaking (which is also the same technical basis as BAT-1), but with 
improvements to design and

[[Page 81989]]

performance. This technology option would control the pollutants EPA 
determined pass through. See Section IX.
    c. NSPS/PSES. The technology options EPA considered for new sources 
are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers because 
no other treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all 
technology options presented in Table V.C.3-1 as BAT or PSES options 
also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
4. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot Forming
    EPA proposes dividing this subcategory into two segments: carbon 
and alloy steels, and stainless steels. See Section IV.E above. The 
treatment options for the two segments are identical. For this proposed 
subcategory, EPA considered BAT and PSES technologies for treatment of 
wastewater from hot forming operations located at integrated and stand-
alone facilities.
    Table V.C.4.-1 presents the options considered for integrated and 
stand-alone hot forming, Table V.C.4-2 presents the associated costs, 
and Table V.C.4-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction 
estimates.

    Table V.C.4-1.--Integrated And Stand-alone Hot Forming Technology
                                 Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
               Treatment units               ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale pit with oil skimming.................            X             X
Roughing clarifier with oil removal.........            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X             X
Mixed-media filtration \1\..................            X             X
High-rate recycle...........................            X             X
Blowdown treatment..........................  ............  ............
Mixed-media filtration \1\..................            X             X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale pit with oil skimming.................            X             X
Roughing clarifier with oil removal.........            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X             X
Mixed-media filtration \1\..................            X             X
High-rate recycle...........................            X             X
Blowdown treatment
Mixed-media filtration \1\..................            X            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow.


  Table V.C.4-2.--Cost Of Implementation For Integrated And Stand-alone
                               Hot Forming
                  [In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
                                             ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills.............................          44             7
Capital costs...............................         115.3           0.3
              Annual O&M costs                        16.1           0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills.............................           0             3
Capital costs...............................           0             1.1
Annual O&M costs............................           0             0.2
One-time costs..............................           0             0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table V.C.4-3.--Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Integrated And
                         Stand-alone Hot Forming
                        [In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
                                             ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional                    22           -
 Pollutants (TSS and 22-- O&G)..............
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional               5.2         0.02
 Pollutants.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 81990]]

 
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional                 \1\ 0           -
 Pollutants (TSS and 01-- O&G)..............
Removal of Priority and Non-Conventional          \1\ 01           0.001 
 Pollutants.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No direct discharging stainless facilities exist in this
  subcategory.

    a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA estimates that carbon and alloy 
steel hot forming operations sites directly discharge approximately 26 
million pounds of conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G). These 
operations also discharge directly approximately 12 million pounds of 
total priority and non-conventional pollutants and approximately 0.038 
million pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
    Currently, effluent limitations guidelines exists only at the BPT 
level. The technical basis of BPT is comprised of a scale pit with oil 
skimming, a roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, and filtration. EPA 
analyzed BAT-1 using the current BPT as a base, but adding on high rate 
recycle and mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This BAT option 
resembles the technical basis of the current NSPS, but with improved 
design and operation in terms of reduced flows and pollutant 
concentration. EPA estimates that implementation of limitations based 
on BAT-1 will result in a flow reduction of 84% over current 
conditions, and a reduction of 43% of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants.
ii. PSES
    The technology option for PSES is identical to that for BAT-1. The 
technical basis of PSES-1 is comprised of a scale pit with oil 
skimming, a roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, filtration, and high 
rate recycle, with mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This technology 
option would control the pollutants EPA determined pass through. See 
Section IX. EPA estimates that this would result in a flow reduction of 
74% over current conditions, and a 53% reduction in discharge of toxic 
and non-conventional pollutants.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical 
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other 
treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all technology 
options presented in Table V.C.4-1 as BAT or PSES options also describe 
NSPS and PSNS options.
    b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel integrated and stand-alone hot 
forming operations discharge indirectly approximately 5,000 pounds of 
total priority and non-conventional pollutants. No stainless steel hot 
forming sites discharge wastewater directly.
    i. BAT
    As stated above, there are no direct discharging stainless 
facilities in this subcategory, and therefore there are no anticipated 
pollutant reductions or costs associated with proposing options for 
BAT. However, EPA is proposing BAT for this segment in the event that a 
new stainless facility commences operation or if an indirect discharger 
changes its status to direct before EPA promulgates this rule. Any such 
dischargers would be subject to BAT (not NSPS) because under 306(b) and 
EPA's implementing regulations a source is a ``new source'' subject to 
NSPS only if it commences construction after the promulgation of the 
final rule in April 2002.
    As with the Carbon and Alloy segment, the technology basis of BAT-1 
for the Stainless segment consists of a scale pit with oil skimming, a 
roughing clarifier, sludge dewatering, filtration, and high rate 
recycle, with mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This BAT option 
resembles the technology basis of the current NSPS for integrated 
steelmaking and stand-alone hot forming, but with improved design and 
operation in terms of reduced flows and pollutant concentration. In 
addition to BAT-1, EPA intended to analyze a second BAT option, BAT-1 
plus metals precipitation of the blowdown, for this segment. However, 
EPA did not fully develop the costing information for this option 
because data indicated that adding on metals precipitation for this 
type of wastestream would not result in additional pollutant loadings 
removals in systems with well-operated BAT-1 technology in place.
ii. PSES
    The PSES-1 option is the same as the BAT-1 option described above. 
This technology option would control the pollutants EPA determined pass 
through. See Section IX. EPA estimates that PSES-1 would result in a 
reduction of 90% of the flow from current levels, and a 66% removal of 
toxic and non-conventional pollutants.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical 
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other 
treatment technologies are demonstrated. Therefore, all technology 
options presented in Table V.C.4-1 as BAT or PSES options also describe 
NSPS and PSNS options.
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming
    For this proposed subcategory, EPA considered BAT and PSES 
technologies for two segments: Carbon and Alloy Steels, and Stainless 
Steels. The treatment options for the two segments are identical except 
for the addition of metals precipitation of blowdown for the proposed 
Stainless Steels segment as BAT-2. Table V.C.5-1 presents the various 
options considered for non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming, 
Table V.C.5-2 presents the associated costs, and Table V.C.5-3 presents 
the associated pollutant reduction estimates.

[[Page 81991]]



       Table V.C.5-1 Non-integrated Steelmaking Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology  options
               Treatment unit                ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Carbon & Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with clarifier...............            X             X
Cooling tower \1\...........................            X             X
Mixed-media filtration \2\..................            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X             X
High-rate recycle...........................            X             X
Blowdown treatment:
    Mixed-media filtration \2\..............            X            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and
  was costed accordingly
\2\ Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow
  of hot forming wastewater


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Technology  options
        Treatment unit         -----------------------------------------
                                    BAT-1         BAT-2        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with clarifier.            X             X             X
Cooling tower \1\.............            X             X             X
Mixed-media filtration \2\....            X             X             X
Sludge dewatering.............            X             X             X
High-rate recycle.............            X             X             X
Blowdown treatment:
    Metals precipitation......  ............            X   ............
    Mixed-media filtration \2\            X             X            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cooling tower is part of the treatment system where necessary and
  was costed accordingly
\2\ Mixed-media filtration of recycled flow or low-volume blowdown flow
  of hot forming wastewater


 Table V.C.5-2 Cost Of Implementation For Non-integrated Steelmaking And
                               Hot Forming
                  [In millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Technology  options
                                               -------------------------
                                                   BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Carbon & Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills...............................           39           15
Capital costs.................................         18.9          2.5
Annual O&M costs..............................          2.0          0.4
One-time costs................................          3.9          0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Technology  options
                                  --------------------------------------
                                      BAT-1        BAT-2        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills..................            4            4            4
Capital costs....................          0.4          3.7            0
Annual O&M costs.................          0.1          0.6            0
One-time costs...................          0.2          0.2          0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 81992]]


 Table V.C.5-3 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Non-integrated
                       Steelmaking And Hot Forming
                        [In million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Technology  options
                                               -------------------------
                                                   BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Carbon & Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants           2.6  ...........
 (TSS andO&G).................................
Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants......         0.34        0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Technology options
                               -----------------------------------------
                                    BAT-1         BAT-2        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of                  0.10          0.10            --
 Conventional Pollutants (TSS
 and O&G).....................
Priority and Non-Conventional         0.018         0.018         0.012
 Pollutants...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA estimated that carbon and alloy 
steel operations directly discharge approximately 0.18 million pounds 
of conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G). These operations also 
discharge approximately 53,000 pounds of total toxic and non-
conventional pollutants directly and approximately 14,000 pounds 
indirectly.
i. BAT
    The technology option identified as BAT-1 consists of the same 
technologies and processes comprising the current BAT for non-
integrated steelmaking, but with significant improvements in design and 
operation resulting in lower flow and reduced discharge of pollutants 
of concern. EPA also investigated zero discharge as the basis for BAT 
because some facilities do achieve zero discharge. However, EPA 
believes it is not feasible for the segment as a whole or any 
identifiable subsegment to achieve zero discharge because of site-
specific circumstances, most significantly the ability to manage 
effectively process area storm water. Accordingly, the investment cost 
to retrofit zero discharge at such sites is likely to be too high to be 
economically achievable for the segment as a whole.
    EPA estimates that the BAT-1 technology would result in a reduction 
of 90% of flow and a 72% reduction in the discharge of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants.
ii. PSES
    The technology basis for PSES-1 is the same as described as BAT-1. 
The technological basis for PSES-1 is solids removal, a cooling tower, 
mixed-media filtration, sludge dewatering, high-rate recycle, and 
mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This technology option would 
control the pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX. EPA 
concludes that all existing indirect discharging facilities in this 
segment have the equipment in place to achieve this level of 
performance, and would also not incur additional operating and 
maintenance costs. See Section V.B for discussion of why EPA concludes 
that facilities can achieve pollutant reduction without incurring 
capital or O&M costs. EPA has included in its estimate of costs a one-
time fee for facilities to ascertain the changes in water management 
needed, and to implement them.
    EPA estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in a 
reduction of flow of 32%, and the reduction in the discharge of toxic 
and non-conventional pollutants by 33%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    For NSPS/PSNS in the Carbon & Alloy segment of the Non-Integrated 
Steelmaking and Hot Forming subcategory, EPA identifies process water 
and water pollution control technologies that would result in zero 
discharge. The model NSPS/PSNS technologies consist of treatment and 
high-rate recycle systems, management of process area storm water, and 
disposal of low-volume blowdown streams by evaporation through 
controlled application on electric furnace slag, direct cooling of 
electrodes in electric furnaces, and other evaporative uses. Operators 
of 24 existing non-integrated steel mills (in the subcategory as a 
whole) have reported zero discharge of process wastewater. These 
facilities are located in various states and produce various products 
such as bars, beams, billets, flats, plate, rail, rebar, rod, sheet, 
slabs, small structurals, strip, and specialty sections. EPA has 
determined that new facilities can easily incorporate new process water 
treatment and water pollution control at the design stage, thus 
providing avoiding costs associated with retrofit situations. 
Consequently, the Agency has identified zero discharge as an 
appropriate NSPS/PSNS for non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming 
operations located in any area of the United States and producing any 
product.
    b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel operations discharge directly 
approximately 180,000 pounds of total conventional pollutants (TSS and 
O&G). Stainless steel operations discharge approximately 53,000 pounds 
of total priority and non-conventional pollutants directly and 
approximately 14,000 pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
    With one exception, the technology option identified as BAT-1 
consists of the same technologies and processes comprising the current 
BAT for integrated steelmaking but with significant improvements in 
design and operation. Unlike the current BAT, however, BAT-1 does not 
have metals precipitation. In addition to BAT-1, EPA analyzed a second 
BAT option, BAT-2, which consists of the BAT-1 technology but with 
metals precipitation. Although metals precipitation of blowdown is part 
of both the current BAT and BAT-2, EPA's data indicated no additional 
decrease in pollutant loadings as a result of metals precipitation. EPA 
also investigated zero discharge as the basis for BAT because some 
facilities do achieve zero discharge. However, EPA believes it is not 
feasible for the segment as a whole or any identifiable subsegment to 
achieve zero discharge because of site-

[[Page 81993]]

specific circumstances, most significantly the ability to manage 
effectively process area storm water. Accordingly, the investment cost 
to retrofit zero discharge at such sites is likely too high to be 
economically achievable for the segment as a whole.
    EPA estimates that selection of the BAT-1 option as the technology 
basis would result in the reduction of flow by this segment of the non-
integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory by 52%, and the 
reduction in the discharge of toxic and non-conventional pollutants by 
34%.
ii. PSES
    The current technological basis for PSES is solids removal, a 
cooling tower, mixed-media filtration, sludge dewatering, high-rate 
recycle, and metals precipitation of blowdown. The technical basis for 
PSES-1 is the same as described as BAT-1. This technology option would 
control the pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX.
    EPA estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in a 
reduction of flow of 89%, and the reduction in the discharge of toxic 
and non-conventional pollutants by 86%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    Like the Carbon and Alloy segment, EPA identifies technologies that 
result in zero discharge as NSPS/PSNS for the Stainless segment of the 
Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot Forming subcategory. See discussion 
under Section V.C.5.a.iii above. The Agency has identified zero 
discharge as an appropriate NSPS for non-integrated steelmaking and hot 
forming operations located in any area of the United States and 
producing any product.
6. Steel Finishing
    For the proposed Steel Finishing subcategory, EPA considered BAT 
and PSES technologies for the Carbon and Alloy segment, and Stainless 
segment. The treatment options for the two segments are identical 
except for the addition of acid purification units for the proposed 
stainless steels segment. Table V.C.6-1 presents the options considered 
for steel finishing, Table V.C.6-2 presents the associated costs, and 
Table V.C.6-3 presents the associated pollutant reduction estimates.

            Table V.C.6-1 Steel Finishing Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
               Treatment units               ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Carbon and Alloy Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Process Controls:
Countercurrent rinses.......................            X             X
Recycle of fume scrubber water..............            X             X
Wastewater Treatment:
Diversion tank..............................            X             X
Oil/water separation........................            X             X
Equalization................................            X             X
Hexavalent chromium reduction \1\...........            X             X
Multiple-stage pH control for metals                    X             X
 precipitation..............................
Clarification...............................            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For sites with hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Technology options
               Treatment units               ---------------------------
                                                  BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-Process Controls:
Countercurrent rinsesX......................            X
Recycle of fume scrubber water..............            X             X
Acid purification units \1\.................            X             X
Wastewater Treatment:
Diversion tank..............................            X             X
Oil/water separation........................            X             X
Equalization................................            X             X
Hexavalent chromium reduction \2\...........            X             X
Multiple-stage pH control for metals                    X             X
 precipitation..............................
Clarification...............................            X             X
Sludge dewatering...........................            X            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applies to sites with sulfuric and nitric/hydrofluoric acid baths
  for stainless products.
\2\ For sites with hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater.


[[Page 81994]]


                            Table V.C.6-2 Cost Of Implementation For Steel Finishing
                                      [in millions of pre-tax 1997 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Technology options
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                                                  BAT-1              PSES-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Carbon and Alloy Steels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills...........................................................                 51                 31
Capital costs.............................................................               16.0                6.0
Annual O&M costs..........................................................                2.5                1.2
One-time costs............................................................                1.6                0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Technology options
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                                                  BAT-1              PSES-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Stainless Steels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills...........................................................                 18                 14
Capital costs.............................................................               16.4                4.0
Annual O&M costs..........................................................              (1.1)                0.2
One-time costs............................................................                0.8               0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( ) denotes cost savings due to acid purification.


 Table V.C.6-3 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction For Steel Finishing
                        [in million pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Technology options
                                               -------------------------
                                                   BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Carbon Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants           2.8  ...........
 (TSS and O&G)................................
Removal of Non-Conventionals..................         0.24       0.0017
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Technology options
                                               -------------------------
                                                   BAT-1        PSES-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Stainless Steels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental Removal of Conventional Pollutants          0.72  ...........
 (TSS and O&G)................................
Removal of Non-Conventionals..................           14        0.031
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Carbon and Alloy Steels. EPA estimated that carbon and alloy 
steel operations directly discharge approximately 4.6 million pounds of 
conventional pollutants (TSS and O&G). Carbon and alloy steel 
operations discharge approximately 1.7 million pounds of total priority 
and non-conventional pollutants directly and approximately 0.017 
million pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
    The technical basis of the current BAT limitations consists of 
recycle of fume scrubber water, a diversion tank, oil/water separation, 
equalization, hexavalent chrome reduction (where applicable), metals 
precipitation, clarification, and sludge dewatering. The technical 
basis for BAT-1 is the same as that for the existing BAT limitations, 
but with the addition of counter-current rinsing. BAT-1 also reflects 
significant improvements in design and operation that have occurred in 
the industry, which result in lower flow and reduced discharge of 
pollutants of concerns. EPA intended to evaluate a second BAT option, 
building on this foundation by including mixed-media filtration. 
However, EPA did not pursue the option because all significant POCs in 
the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist 
at levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-on 
technology. EPA considered zero discharge of regulated pollutants as a 
third BAT option, since certain facilities have demonstrated the 
ability to achieve zero discharge. These facilities generally have low 
production rates and are achieving zero discharge by off-site disposal 
of a small quantity of wastewater. EPA's data indicates that zero 
discharge would not be economically achievable for low production 
facilities as a whole, since availability of affordable off-site 
hauling and disposal may not be certain, and therefore proposes not to 
further subcategorize this segment. Zero discharge through off-site 
disposal would also be cost prohibitive for larger facilities.
    EPA estimates that, under BAT-1, flow from the Carbon and Alloy 
segment of the Steel Finishing subcategory would decrease by 59%, and 
the amount of toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged would 
decrease by 14%.

[[Page 81995]]

ii. PSES
    The technology basis for the current PSES for steel finishing is 
the same as that for the current BAT. The PSES-1 technology is the same 
as the BAT-1 technology. This technology option would control the 
pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX. EPA estimates 
that, under PSES-1, flow from this segment of the Steel Finishing 
subcategory would decrease by 30%, and the amount of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical 
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other 
treatment technologies are demonstrated (since availability of 
affordable off-site hauling and disposal may not be certain.) 
Therefore, all technology options presented in Table V.C.6-1 as BAT or 
PSES options also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
    b. Stainless Steels. Stainless steel operations discharge directly 
approximately 1.2 million pounds of total conventional pollutants (TSS 
and O&G). Stainless steel operations discharge directly approximately 
31 million pounds of total priority and non-conventional pollutants and 
approximately 0.31 million pounds indirectly.
i. BAT
    Like the Carbon & Alloy segment of the Steel Finishing subcategory, 
the technology basis of the BAT limitations currently applicable to 
Stainless Steel mills consists of recycle of fume scrubber water, a 
diversion tank, oil/water separation, equalization, hexavalent chrome 
reduction (where applicable), metals precipitation, clarification, and 
sludge dewatering. The technical basis for BAT-1 of the Stainless 
segment is the same as that for the current BAT limitations, but with 
the addition of counter-current rinsing and acid purification units. 
BAT-1 also reflects significant improvements in design and operation 
that have occurred in the industry, which result in lower flow and 
reduced discharge of pollutants of concern. EPA intended to evaluate a 
second BAT option, building on this foundation by including mixed-media 
filtration. However, EPA did not pursue the option because all 
significant POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are 
projected to exist at levels too low to be further treated by this or 
any other add-on technology. EPA considered zero discharge of regulated 
pollutants as a third BAT option, since certain facilities have 
demonstrated the ability to achieve zero discharge. EPA's data 
indicates that zero discharge would not be economically achievable for 
low production facilities as a whole, since availability of affordable 
off-site hauling and disposal may not be certain, and therefore 
proposes not to further subcategorize this segment. Zero discharge 
through off-site disposal would be cost prohibitive for larger 
facilities.
    EPA estimates that, under BAT-1, flow from this segment of the 
Steel Finishing subcategory would decrease by 47%, and the amount of 
toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 45%. 
EPA did not perform a detailed pollutant removal or costing analysis 
for BAT-2 because data indicated that mixed-media filtration achieved 
no projected pollutant reduction beyond that seen at well-operated 
facilities with BAT-1.
ii. PSES
    The technology basis for the current PSES for steel finishing is 
the same as that for the current BAT. The PSES-1 technology is the same 
as the BAT-1 technology. This technology option would control the 
pollutants EPA determined pass through. See Section IX. EPA estimates 
that, under PSES-1, flow from the stainless segment of the Steel 
Finishing subcategory would decrease by 23%, and the amount of toxic 
and non-conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    The technology options EPA considered for new sources are identical 
to those it considered for existing dischargers because no other 
treatment technologies are demonstrated. EPA's data indicates that zero 
discharge would not be economically achievable for low production 
facilities as a whole, since availability of affordable off-site 
hauling and disposal may not be certain. Zero discharge through off-
site disposal would be cost prohibitive for larger facilities. 
Therefore, all technology options presented in Table V.C.6-1 as BAT or 
PSES options also describe NSPS and PSNS options.
7. Other Operations
    The Agency considered BPT and PSES technologies for treatment of 
wastewater from three segments of this subcategory: Briquetting, 
Direct-reduced ironmaking (DRI), and Forging operations. There are no 
existing BPT limitations for these operations.
    a. Briquetting. Briquetting facilities do not generate process 
wastewater; therefore, BPT, PSES, PSNS, and NSPS technology options for 
briquetting are those that result in zero discharge.
    b. DRI. EPA identified one option for this segment, BPT/BCT-1, 
which consists of solids removal, clarifier, and high rate recycle with 
filtration for blowdown wastewater. EPA did not identify a separate BCT 
technology because nothing more advanced that the BPT technology was 
cost-reasonable as required by statute. The Agency did not identify BAT 
limits since the only POCs for the DRI segment are conventionals. Table 
V.C.7-1 presents the option considered for DRI, Table V.C.7-2 presents 
the associated costs, and Table V.C.7-3 presents the associated 
pollutant reduction estimates. The Agency does not present pollutant 
removal or costing results for DRI facilities, because there are only 
two mills in this segment and data aggregation or other masking 
techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed 
as confidential business information.

   Table V.C.7-1 Direct-reduced Ironmaking BPT/BCT Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                               options
                      Treatment units                      -------------
                                                               BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids removal with classifier and clarifier..............            X
Cooling tower.............................................            X
Sludge dewatering.........................................            X
High-rate recycle.........................................            X
Blowdown treatment:
    Mixed-media filtration................................            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table V.C.7-2 Cost of Implementation for Direct-reduced Ironmaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                               option
                                                           -------------
                                                                 BPT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills...........................................            2
Capital costs.............................................            *
Annual O&M costs..........................................            *
One-time costs............................................           *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to
  protect confidential business information.


[[Page 81996]]


 Table V.C.7-3 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Direct-reduced
                               Ironmaking
                            [In pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                               options
                                                           -------------
                                                                 BPT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conventionals (TSS and O&G as HEM)..................            *
Reduction of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants.....           *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data aggregation or other masking techniques are insufficient to
  protect confidential business information.

    c. Forging. For forging operations, EPA estimated that sites 
discharge approximately 1,100 pounds of O&G directly. EPA identified 
one option for this segment, BPT/BCT, which is an oil/water separator. 
EPA did not identify a separate BCT technology because nothing more 
advanced that the BPT technology was cost-reasonable as required by 
statute. The Agency did not identify BAT limits since the only POCs for 
the forging segment are conventionals. Table V.C.7-4 presents the 
option considered for forging, Table V.C.7-5 presents the associated 
costs, and Table V.C.7-6 presents the associated pollutant reduction 
estimates.
i. BPT/BCT
    EPA estimates that there will be a reduction of O&G of 40% from 
direct discharging forging operations as a result of implementation of 
this BPT/BCT option. See Section V.B for discussion of why EPA 
concludes that facilities can achieve pollutant reduction without 
incurring capital or O&M costs.
ii. PSES
    EPA is not proposing PSES for the forging segment because EPA 
determined that pollutants present in forging wastewaters do not pass 
through.
iii. NSPS/PSNS
    Since no other treatment technologies have been demonstrated, EPA 
identifies the same technology basis for NSPS as would be used for BPT. 
EPA is not identifying PSNS because EPA determined that pollutants 
present in forging wastewaters do not pass through.

                Table V.C.7-4 Forging Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                               options
                      Treatment units                      -------------
                                                               BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-rate recycle.........................................            X
Blowdown treatment:
    Oil/water separator...................................            X
------------------------------------------------------------------------


            Table V.C.7-5 Cost Of Implementation for Forging
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                               options
                                                           -------------
                                                               BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of mills...........................................            8
Capital costs.............................................            0
Annual O&M costs..........................................            0
One-time costs............................................          0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table V.C.7-6 Estimated Pollutant Loading Reduction for Forging
                            [in pounds/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Technology
                                                               options
                                                           -------------
                                                               BPT/BCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conventionals (O&G as HEM)..........................          440
Reduction of Priority and Non-Conventional Pollutants.....            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Economic Analysis

A. Introduction and Overview

    This section describes the capital investment and annualized costs 
of compliance with the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the iron and steel industry and the potential impacts of 
these compliance costs on the industry. EPA's economic assessment is 
presented in detail in the report titled ``Economic Analysis of the 
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing'' (hereafter ``EA'') and in the rulemaking record. 
The EA estimates the economic effect of compliance costs on subcategory 
operations at a site, the combined cost for all subcategory operations 
at a site for selected cost combinations, aggregate costs for all sites 
owned by each company, impacts on employment and output, domestic and 
international markets, and environmental justice issues. EPA also 
conducted a small business analysis, which estimates effects on small 
entities, and a cost-effectiveness analysis of all evaluated options.

B. Economic Description of the Iron and Steel Industry and Baseline 
Conditions

    The United States is the third largest steel producer in the world 
with 12 percent of the market, an annual output of approximately 105 
million tons per year, and nearly 145,000 employees. Major markets for 
steel are service centers and the automotive and construction 
industries. A service center is an operation that buys finished steel, 
processes it in some way, and then sells it. Together these three 
markets account for about 58 percent of steel shipments. The remaining 
42 percent is dispersed over a wide range of products and activities, 
such as agricultural, industrial, and electrical machinery; cans and 
barrels; and appliances. The building of ships, aircraft, and railways 
and other forms of transport is included in this group as well.
    The iron and steel rulemaking includes sites within the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 324199 (coke 
ovens, now part of ``All other petroleum and coal product 
manufacturing''), 331111 (iron and steel mills), 331210 (steel pipes 
and tubes), and 331221 (cold finishing of steel shapes). The iron and 
steel and metal products and machinery effluent guideline rulemakings 
both may have sites in the last two NAICS codes. Section III.C 
describes the dividing line between sites with iron and steel 
operations and sites with metal products and machinery operations.
    The iron and steel effluent guideline would apply to approximately 
254 iron and steel sites. Of these 254 sites, approximately 216 can be 
analyzed for post-regulatory compliance impacts at the site level. the 
remaining 38 sites, 13 did not report data at the site level, and 15 
could not be analyzed due to being jointly owned sites or foreign owned 
sites or newly constructed sites, and 10 were in poor financial health 
prior to the regulation and are treated as closures under the 
prevailing baseline conditions. Approximately 60 sites are owned by 
small business entities.
    The 254 sites are owned by 115 companies, as estimated by the EPA 
survey. The global nature of the industry is illustrated by the fact 
that 18 companies have foreign ownership. Twelve other companies are 
joint entities with at least one U.S. company partner. Excluding joint 
entities and foreign ownership, the data base contains 85 U.S. 
companies, more than half of which are privately owned. Responses to 
the EPA survey are the only sources of financial information for these 
privately-held firms.

[[Page 81997]]

    The EPA survey collected financial data for the 1995-1997 time 
period (the most recent data available at the time of the survey). This 
three-year time frame marks a period of high exports (six to eight 
million tons per year). This high point in the business cycle allowed 
companies to replenish retained earnings, retire debt, and take other 
steps to reflect this prosperity in their financial statements. Even 
so, an initial analysis of the pre-regulatory condition of 115 
companies in the EPA survey indicated that 27 of them would be 
considered ``financially distressed'' for reasons ranging from start-up 
companies and joint ventures to established firms that still showed 
losses.
    The financial situation changed dramatically between 1997 and 1998 
due to the Asian financial crisis and slow economic growth in Eastern 
Europe. The following analysis of economic conditions occurring after 
the 1995-1997 time frame is based upon sources such as trade journal 
reports, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, and trade 
case filings with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. 
International Trade Commission (ITC).
    When these countries' currencies fell in value, their steel 
products fell in price relative to U.S. producers. While the U.S. is 
and has been the world's largest steel importer (and a net importer for 
the last two decades), the U.S. was nearly the only viable steel market 
to which other countries could export during 1998. U.S. imports jumped 
by 13.3 million tons from 41 million to 54.3 million tons--a 32 percent 
increase--from 1997 to 1998. About one out of every four tons of steel 
consumed in 1998 was imported. At least partly due to increased 
competition from foreign steel mills, the financial health of the 
domestic iron and steel industry also experienced a steep decline after 
1997. This decline is not reflected in the survey responses to the 
questionnaire, which covered the years 1995 through 1997 and which were 
the most recent data available at the time the questionnaire was 
administered in 1998. Based upon publically available sources, EPA 
learned that, after 1997, at least four companies went into Chapter 11 
bankruptcy while at least four additional companies merged with 
healthier ones.
    The flood of imports affected the industry disproportionately. 
Integrated steelmakers manufacture semi-finished and intermediate 
products, such as slabs and hot rolled sheet, as well as finished 
products, such as cold rolled sheet and plate. Integrated steelmakers 
were hurt most severely during 1998, as imports increased dramatically 
across most of their product line (for example, slabs, hot rolled sheet 
and strip, plate, and cold rolled sheet and strip). Mini-mills suffered 
as well, albeit to a lesser extent financially. The low-priced imports, 
however, benefitted some companies that purchase semi-finished and 
intermediate products for further processing.
    The industry filed numerous countervailing duty and antidumping 
cases with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. ITC charging 
various countries (for example, Japan, Russia, Brazil) with unfair 
trade practices concerning carbon and stainless steel products. The ITC 
found for the U.S. industry in some cases (for example, hot rolled 
carbon sheet, carbon plate, stainless plate) meaning that it determined 
that the domestic industry was materially injured or threatened with 
material injury by the imports. In the case of Russia, the threat of 
trade remedies was sufficient to have Russia agree to voluntarily limit 
exports of a variety of steel products to the U.S.
    The Clinton administration launched an initiative to address the 
economic concerns of the steel industry in 1999. The Steel Action Plan 
includes initiatives focused on eliminating unfair trade practices that 
support excess capacity, enhanced trade monitoring and assessment, and 
maintenance of strong trade laws. Further in a separate action on 
August 17, 1999, President Clinton signed into law an act providing 
authority for guarantees of loans to qualified steel companies. The 
Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-51) established 
the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program (13 CFR part 400) for 
guaranteeing loans made by private sector lending institutions to 
qualified steel companies. The Program will provide guarantees for up 
to $1 billion in loans to qualified steel companies. These loans will 
be made by private sector lenders, with the Federal Government 
providing a guarantee for up to 85 percent of the amount of the 
principal of the loan. A qualified steel company is defined in the Act 
to mean: any company that is incorporated under the laws of any state, 
is engaged in the production and manufacture of a product defined by 
the American Iron and Steel Institute as a basic steel mill product, 
and has experienced layoffs, production losses, or financial losses 
since January 1998 or that operates substantial assets of a company 
that meets these qualifications. Certain determinations must be made in 
order to guarantee a loan, including that credit is not otherwise 
available to a qualified steel company under reasonable terms or 
conditions sufficient to meet its financing needs, that the prospective 
earning power of the qualified company together with the character and 
value of the security pledged must furnish reasonable assurance of 
repayment of the loan to be guaranteed, and that the loan must bear 
interest at a reasonable rate. All loans guaranteed under this Program 
must be paid in full not later than December 31, 2005 and the aggregate 
amount of loans guaranteed with respect to a single qualified steel 
company may not exceed $250 million. According to a March 1, 2000 press 
release from U.S. Department of Commerce, thirteen companies have 
applied for loan guarantees totaling $ 901 million.

C. Economic Impact Methodology

1. Introduction

    This section (and, in more detail, the EA and record for the 
proposed rule) evaluates several measures of economic impacts that 
result from the estimated compliance costs. The analysis in the EA 
consists of nine major components: (1) An assessment of the number of 
facilities that could be affected by this rule; (2) an estimate of the 
annualized aggregate cost for these facilities to comply with the rule 
using site-level capital, one-time non-capital, and annual operating 
and maintenance (O&M) costs; (3 and 4) two separate site-level closure 
analyses to evaluate the impacts of compliance costs for operations in 
individual subcategories at the site and for the combined cost of the 
options for all subcategories at the site; (5) an evaluation of the 
corporate financial distress incurred by the companies in the industry 
as a result of combined compliance costs for all sites owned by the 
company; (6) an industry-wide market analysis of the impacts of the 
compliance costs; (7) an evaluation of secondary impacts such as those 
on employment and economic output; (8) an analysis of the effects of 
compliance costs on small entities; and (9) a cost-benefit analysis 
pursuant to E.O. 12866.
    All costs are reported in this section of the preamble in 1999 
dollars, with the exception of cost-effectiveness results, which, by 
convention, are reported in 1981 dollars. The primary source of data 
for the economic analysis is the Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel 
Industry Data (Section 308 Survey). Other sources include government 
data from the Bureau of the Census, industry trade journals, and EPA's 
Development Document for this rulemaking.

[[Page 81998]]

2. Methodology Overview

    The starting point for the economic analysis is the cost 
annualization model, which uses site-specific cost data and other 
inputs to determine the annualized capital, one-time non-capital, and 
O&M costs of improved wastewater treatment. This model uses these costs 
along with the company-specific real cost of capital (discount rate) 
and corporate tax rate over a 16-year analytic time frame to generate 
the annual cost of compliance for each option EPA considered. EPA based 
the 16-year time frame for analysis on the depreciable life for 
equipment of this type--15 years according to Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) rules--plus a mid-year convention for putting the new equipment 
in operation (i.e., six months between purchase, installation and 
operation). The model generates the present value and annualized post-
tax cost for each option for each site in the survey, which are then 
used in the subcategory, site, and company analyses, discussed below. 
In the base case, the Agency adopts an assumption of zero ``cost pass-
through'' of compliance costs. The Agency also estimates a ``cost pass-
through'' factor from the market model discussed below and uses the 
result to examine the sensitivity of the impact analysis to the ``cost 
pass-through'' assumption.
    In the subcategory analysis, EPA models the economic impacts of 
regulatory costs from individual subcategories on a site. The site 
analysis evaluates the combined costs on the profitability of the site. 
In both, the model compares the present value of forecasted cash flow 
over 16 years with the present value of the regulatory option over the 
same 16-year period. If the present value of the regulatory costs 
exceeds that of the projected cash flow, it does not make financial 
sense to upgrade the site. That is, if the present value of projected 
cash flow is positive before, but negative after, the incurrence of 
regulatory costs, the site is presumed to close. the analysis, cash 
flow at the site-level is defined as the sum of net income and 
depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in evaluating 
capital investment decisions because both net income and depreciation 
(which is an accounting offset against income, but not an actual cash 
expenditure) are potentially available to finance future investment. 
However, assuming that total cash flow is available over an extended 
time horizon (for example, 15 years) to finance investments related to 
environmental compliance could overstate a site's ability to comply. 
EPA requests comment (see Section XIV for an amplified discussion) on 
its use of cash flow as a measure of resources available to finance 
environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies.
    EPA developed three forecasting models for the iron and steel 
industry. None of these methods assume any growth in real terms and are 
calculated in terms of constant 1997 dollars. This conservative 
approach precludes any site from ``growing'' its way out of financial 
difficulties imposed by the regulation. Site-specific data are only 
available for 1995 to 1997. The period form 1998 to 2001 is the 
rulemaking period and the forecasting methods begin. Promulgation is 
scheduled for 2002; this is taken as the first year of implementation 
and the beginning of the 16-year period over which to consider the 
regulatory impact on projected earnings. The first two models 
explicitly address the sharp downturn in the industry after 1997 but 
differ in the strength and duration of recovery and subsequent 
downturns. That is, both address the cyclicality seen in the iron and 
steel industry, but with differing magnitudes and timing. The third 
forecasting method is a three-year average (1995 through 1997) to 
provide an ``upper bound'' analysis.
    EPA calculates the post-regulatory status of a site as the present 
value of forecasted earnings minus the after-tax present value of 
regulatory costs. With three forecasting methods, there are three ways 
to evaluate each site. If a site's post-regulatory status is less than 
zero, EPA assigned a score of ``1'' for that forecasting method. A 
site, then, may have a score ranging from zero to three. Closure is the 
most severe and irrecoverable impact for the site. Such a decision is 
not made lightly. A business would examine a site's future in several 
ways and would likely make a determination to close a site only when 
the weight of evidence so indicated. EPA followed the same decision-
making logic; a score of 2 or 3 is interpreted to identify the long-
term non-viability of the site.
    EPA could not perform an economic analysis of a number of sites at 
the subcategory and site levels, even though the annualized costs were 
calculated. these sites, the analysis defaults to the company level. A 
site may be in this category for several reasons: It is a cost center; 
it is a ``captive'' site that exists primarily to produce products 
transferred to other sites under the same ownership; components for the 
analysis are not recorded on the site's books, only those of the 
company; or the site's cash flow is negative for at least two years 
(sufficient to project a negative present value for earnings). 
Consistent with OMB guidance, EPA estimated postcompliance closures by 
counting projected closures due solely to the effect of the proposed 
rule. Direct impacts, such as loss in employment, revenues, production, 
and (possibly) exports are calculated from projected closures.
    EPA evaluated many methods to estimate corporate financial distress 
reported in the economic literature of the last ten years and chose the 
``Altman's Z''' model. This well-known and well-tested model was 
developed to analyze the financial health of both private and public 
manufacturing firms. It is based on empirical data and creates a 
weighted average of financial ratios, thus avoiding the difficulty in 
interpreting multiple ratios with differing implications for financial 
health. The single index, Z', is compared against the ranges developed 
by Altman to indicate ``good,'' ``indeterminate,'' and ``distressed'' 
financial conditions. EPA examines 1997 financial data (the most recent 
collected in the survey) to estimate the pre-regulatory company 
conditions. EPA then aggregates costs for all sites belonging to that 
company. EPA recalculates Altman's Z' after incorporating the effects 
of the pollution control compliance costs into the income statement and 
balance sheet for the company. All companies whose ``Altman's Z' '' 
score changes such that the company goes from a ``good'' or 
``indeterminate'' baseline category to a ``distressed'' postcompliance 
category are classified as impacted. Such companies may have 
significant difficulties raising the capital needed to comply with the 
proposed rule, which can indicate the likelihood of bankruptcy, loss of 
financial independence, or shedding of assets.
    EPA uses input-output analyses to determine the effects of the 
regulation using national-level employment and output multipliers. 
Input-output multipliers allow EPA to estimate the effect of a loss in 
output in the iron and steel industry on the U.S. economy as a whole. 
Every projected closure has direct impacts in lost employment and 
output. These direct losses also have repercussions throughout the rest 
of the economy and the input-output multipliers allow EPA to calculate 
the national losses in output and employment based on the direct 
impacts.
    EPA also determines the impacts on regional-level employment. The 
increase in metropolitan statistical area (MSA) unemployment level, or 
county if

[[Page 81999]]

non-metropolitan, is calculated for each MSA or county in which there 
is at least one projected closure.
    EPA investigated the industry-wide market effects of the 
regulation. EPA performed a 3-stage non-linear least-squares 
econometric estimation of a single-product translog cost model based on 
20 years of U.S. Census and industry data. The market supply 
relationship is derived from the cost function and accounts for the 
effect of imperfect competition in the steel market. The model also 
incorporates international trade. The model estimates the supply shift, 
and the resulting changes in: domestic price, domestic consumption, 
export demand, and import supply. The model results may be used to 
estimate a ``cost pass-through'' factor indicating the portion of the 
increased cost that the iron and steel industry can pass through to the 
customers.

D. Economic Costs and Impacts of Technology Options by Subcategory

    In this section, EPA presents the capital costs and post-tax total 
annualized costs for each technology option in each subcategory. As 
discussed above in Section VI.C.2, the cost annualization model derives 
total post-tax annualized costs from site-specific capital costs, one-
time noncapital costs, and operating and maintenance costs, but only 
capital costs are reported here. a detailed presentation of all costing 
information, see Section V. As noted in Section VI.B, ten facilities 
are projected to close under baseline conditions and are not included 
further in the economic analysis. this reason, the costs and removals 
reported in Section VI. will differ from the results reported in the 
engineering analysis in Section V.
    The Agency evaluates the first stage of the impact analysis by 
projecting the impacts associated with the regulatory costs for a 
single subcategory (or segment) at a site. example, a fully integrated 
facility may have cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, hot 
forming and finishing operations, but the postcompliance cash flow 
analysis only reflects the regulatory costs associated with a single 
subcategory. This stage of the analysis serves as a screening mechanism 
for potentially significant impacts for facilities which may be 
impacted by options in multiple subcategories. Alternatively, for any 
facility with operations in a single subcategory such as a stand-alone 
coke plant, this stage represents the complete facility level analysis.
1. Cokemaking
    a. By-product Cokemaking.
    i. BAT. The regulatory compliance costs associated with BAT options 
1 and 2 for by-product cokemaking are not projected to result in any 
postcompliance facility closures. The regulatory compliance costs 
associated with BAT Options 3 and 4 are projected to result in one 
postcompliance closure, with a potential job loss of less than 500 full 
time equivalent employees (FTEs).

                     Table VI.D.1 BAT Options, Costs, and Impacts for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                OPTION                  Pre-tax capital  cost   annualized cost  (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)              Closures/Job  losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................                     $8.3                     $1.0                      0/0
2....................................                     12.9                      4.1                      0/0
3....................................                     35.8                      7.2                    1/500
4....................................                     56.1                     12.2                    1/500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. PSES. The regulatory compliance costs associated with PSES 
options 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not projected to result in any 
postcompliance closures.

                     Table VI.D.2 PSES Options, Costs, and Impacts for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                OPTION                  Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)              Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................                     $0.0                     $0.2                      0/0
2....................................                      6.2                      1.8                      0/0
3....................................                     19.3                      4.1                      0/0
4....................................                     33.4                      6.7                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
    b. Non-recovery Cokemaking. i. BAT and PSES. The technology option 
for both BAT and PSES is zero discharge. No compliance costs are 
associated with these options as all existing sources currently meet 
the zero discharge requirement. Since there are no compliance costs, 
there are no impacts resulting from the BAT and PSES option.
    ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology option EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
No compliance costs are associated with the zero discharge option, just 
as in the case of existing sources. Likewise, no impacts are projected 
to result from the new source requirements, just as in the case of 
existing sources.

[[Page 82000]]

2. Ironmaking

    a. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs associated with 
the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to result in any 
postcompliance closures. The Agency does not separately present costs 
for direct and indirect dischargers, because there are less than 3 
indirect dischargers and data aggregation or other masking techniques 
are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as 
confidential business information.

                     Table VI.D.3 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Ironmaking Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Post-tax  Total               Impacts
                                      Pre-tax  Capital cost    Annualized Cost (1999 $ -------------------------
                                           (1999 $ M)                    M)               Closures/Job  losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES......................                    $26.8                      $4.5                       0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.

3. Integrated Steelmaking

    a. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs associated with 
the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to result in any 
postcompliance closures. The Agency does not separately present costs 
for direct and indirect dischargers, because there are less than 3 
indirect dischargers and data aggregation or other masking techniques 
are insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as 
confidential business information.

                     Table VI.D.4 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Integrated Steelmaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Post-tax  Total               Impacts
                                      Pre-tax capital cost     annualized cost (1999$  -------------------------
                                            (1999$ M)                    M)               Closures/ Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES......................                    $17.5                      $3.6                       0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
4. Integrated and Stand-alone Hot ming
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance 
costs associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not 
projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

                 Table VI.D.5 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Integrated and Hot ming, Carbon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Post-tax  Total               Impacts
                                      Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$  -------------------------
                                            (1999$ M)                    M)                Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT...............................                   $116.3                     $21.2                       0/0
PSES..............................                      0.3                       0.1                       0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
    b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs 
associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to 
result in any postcompliance closures.

               Table VI.D.6 BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Integrated and Hot ming, Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Post-tax  total               Impacts
                                      Pre-tax  Capital cost    annualized cost (1999$  -------------------------
                                            (1999$ M)                    M)                Closures/Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT:
    PSES..........................                     $0.8                      $0.1                       0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82001]]

    ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
5. Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance 
costs associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not 
projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

   Table VI.D.7.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming, Carbon and Alloy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                                        Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)             Closures/  Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT..................................                    $19.0                     $2.8                      0/0
PSES.................................                      2.6                      0.4                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers, 
with the addition of a zero discharge option. A substantial number of 
recently constructed facilities have been able to achieve zero 
discharge. EPA believes the zero discharge new source option would not 
present a barrier to entry because as of 1997, a total of 24 
nonintegrated facilities of all types have been able to achieve zero 
discharge.
    b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs 
associated with either BAT option and the PSES option are not projected 
to result in any postcompliance closures.

      Table VI.D.8.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming, Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                                        Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)             Closures/  Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 1................................                     $0.4                     $0.1                      0/0
BAT 2................................                      3.8                      0.7                      0/0
PSES.................................                      0.0                     0.02                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. NSPS and PSES. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers, 
with the addition of a zero discharge option. A substantial number of 
recently constructed facilities have been able to achieve zero 
discharge. EPA believes the zero discharge new source option would not 
present a barrier to entry because as of 1997, a total of 24 
nonintegrated facilities of all types have been able to achieve zero 
discharge.
6. Steel Finishing
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance 
costs associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not 
projected to result in any postcompliance closures.

               Table VI.D.9.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Steel Finishing, Carbon and Alloy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                                        Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)             Closures/  Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT..................................                    $14.8                     $2.9                      0/0
PSES.................................                      6.2                      1.7                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
    b. Stainless i. BAT and PSES. The regulatory compliance costs 
associated with the BAT option and the PSES option are not projected to 
result in any postcompliance closures.

[[Page 82002]]



                  Table VI.D.10.--BAT and PSES Costs and Impacts for Steel Finishing, Stainless
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                                        Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)             Closures/  Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT..................................                    $15.8                     $0.2                      0/0
PSES.................................                      4.2                      0.4                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. NSPS and PSNS. The technology options EPA considered for new 
sources are identical to those it considered for existing dischargers. 
Engineering analysis indicates that the cost of installing pollution 
control systems during new construction is less than the cost of 
retrofitting existing facilities. Because EPA projects the costs for 
new sources to be less than those for existing sources and because 
limited or no impacts are projected for existing sources, EPA does not 
expect significant economic impacts for new sources.
    7. Other Operations.
    a. Direct Reduced Iron. i. BPT. The regulatory compliance costs 
associated with the BPT option are not projected to result in any 
postcompliance closures. The Agency does not present costs for direct 
dischargers, because there are only 2 direct dischargers in this 
segment and data aggregation or other masking techniques are 
insufficient to avoid disclosure of information claimed as confidential 
business information.

                           Table VI.D.11.--BPT Costs and Impacts Directed Reduced Iron
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                                        Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)             Closures/  Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT..................................  .......................  .......................                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. ging. i. BPT. The regulatory compliance costs associated with 
the BPT option are not projected to result in any postcompliance 
closures.

                                   Table VI.D.12.--BPT Costs and Impacts ging
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Post-tax  total              Impacts
                                        Pre-tax  capital cost    annualized cost (1999$ ------------------------
                                              (1999$ M)                    M)             Closures/  Job losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT..................................                     $0.0                    $0.05                      0/0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Facility Level Economic Impacts of Regulatory Options

    In this section, the Agency evaluates the second stage of the 
impact analysis by projecting the impacts associated with the 
regulatory costs for all subcategories affected at a facility or site 
(the terms are used interchangeably). example, a fully integrated 
facility may have cokemaking, ironmaking, integrated steelmaking, hot 
forming and finishing operations, and the postcompliance cash flow 
analysis reflects the regulatory costs associated with all affected 
operations at the site. This stage of the analysis evaluates the 
aggregate regulatory costs and impacts upon each facility, which may be 
subject to the proposed rule and incur compliance costs in multiple 
subcategories.
    The incorporation of the aggregate regulatory costs based upon the 
proposed options across all subcategories into the postcompliance cash 
flow analysis does not generate any additional projected facility 
closures (one facility closure was projected in the first stage of 
analysis--see Section VI.D.1). The Agency conducted the facility level 
analysis both with and without allowing for potential cost passthrough 
and the results are unchanged. The Agency determines the set of 
proposed options across all subcategories to be economically 
achievable.

F. Firm Level Impacts

    In this section, the Agency evaluates the economic impacts of the 
regulatory options to the firms that own the facilities potentially 
subject to this proposed rule. EPA evaluates the third stage of the 
impact analysis by incorporating the regulatory costs borne by each 
facility into the financial status of the firm that owns the facility 
or multiple facilities. example, if a company owns an integrated 
facility, a stand-alone coke facility, and a stand-alone finishing 
facility, the aggregate regulatory costs for all three facilities are 
added to the baseline or precompliance financial conditions of the firm 
as reflected by the firm income statement and balance sheet. The Agency 
then calculates the postcompliance Altman Z-score and checks for 
changes in financial status from good or indeterminate to distressed 
with any such changes to be considered impacts.
    In any combination of costs that includes the adoption of the BAT 
option for carbon and alloy steel segment of the integrated and stand-
alone hot forming subcategory, the Agency projects the financial health 
of at least one multiple facility firm to deteriorate from 
indeterminate to financially distressed. A financially distressed 
company may have significant difficulties raising the capital needed to 
comply with the proposed rule, which can lead to the sale of assets, 
likelihood of bankruptcy, or the loss of financial independence. The 
one or more firms that are projected to be impacted have a current work 
force numbering in the several

[[Page 82003]]

thousands. In contrast, any combination of costs that does not include 
adoption of the BAT option for the carbon and alloy steel segment of 
the integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory, the Agency 
projects no firms to experience an impact.
    The Agency projected only one postcompliance facility closure in 
the facility-level analysis for the entire proposed rule. This result 
indicates the viability of virtually all facilities as going concerns. 
The firm level analysis projects at least one firm may be financially 
distressed postcompliance. Given the continued viability of virtually 
all facilities including those in the carbon and alloy steel segment of 
the integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory, EPA expects 
that a financially distressed firm would respond to the financial 
distress by selling assets. The sale of assets (such as a facility) may 
include the continued operation by the purchasing firm, resulting in 
limited job losses or secondary impacts. The Agency determines the set 
of proposed options across all subcategories to be economically 
achievable.

G. Community Impacts

    The Agency evaluates community impacts by examining the potential 
increase in county or metropolitan statistical area (MSA) unemployment. 
The Agency assumes all employees of the affected facilities reside in 
the county (if the county is not part of a larger metropolitan area) or 
metropolitan area in which the facilities are located. In the case of 
the single facility closure/firm associated with the by-product 
cokemaking BAT options 3 and 4, the impacts increase the county 
unemployment rate by 0.6 percent.
    In the case of the BAT option for the carbon and alloy steel 
segment of the integrated and stand-alone hot forming subcategory, the 
Agency examines the effects if the one or more firms that become 
financially distressed lay off all of its workers, which corresponds to 
a worst case scenario. The one or more distressed firms have multiple 
facilities in various locations. The Agency assumes all employees of 
each affected facility reside in the county or metropolitan area in 
which the facility is located. The resulting impacts range from 
increasing the metropolitan unemployment rate by less than 0.1 
percentage points to increasing the metropolitan unemployment rate by 
2.1 percentage points, depending on the size of the affected community, 
the size of the affected facility and the prevailing unemployment rate. 
Although the Agency recognizes that an increase in community level 
unemployment of 2.1 percentage points would be significant, the Agency 
believes the actual community impacts associated with the one or more 
distressed firms would be much less than the worst case scenario 
presented here, given the results of the firm level analysis described 
above in Section VI.F and the opportunity for financially distressed 
firms to sell, rather than close, a viable facility.

H. eign Trade Impacts

    The Agency evaluates the potential for foreign trade impacts by 
application of the market model. The aggregate regulatory compliance 
costs are incorporated to estimate the postcompliance impacts. If the 
proposed set of options is adopted, the analysis indicates 0.23 to 0.25 
percent decrease in exports (decreases of $9.2 million to $9.9 million) 
and 0.11 to 0.12 percent increase in imports (increases of $7.5 million 
to $8.1 million).

I. Small Business Analysis

    Based upon information provided in the Collection of 1997 Iron and 
Steel Industry Data (Section 308 Survey), the Agency was able to 
reasonably determine the appropriate SIC classification for each 
company. EPA applied the relevant SBA size standard for each SIC to 
determine whether each company was to be considered a small entity. SBA 
has recently finalized size standards for each NAICS industry; however, 
EPA determined that no companies change classification under the new 
NAICs standards. The SIC classifications observed were predominantly 
SICs 3312, 3316 and 3317, with a number of other industries also 
reported. The relevant size standards varied from 500 to 1500 
employees, and included a few revenue based standards. EPA identified 
an estimated 34 small entities that may be affected by the rule among 
the estimated 115 total companies potentially affected by the rule. EPA 
has fully evaluated the economic achievability of the proposed rule to 
affected small entities. The economic achievability analysis was 
conducted using a discounted cash flow approach for the facility 
analysis and the Altman Z test for the firm analysis (for a full 
discussion, see Section VI.C.). EPA projects that one small entity (a 
firm owning a single facility) may incur an impact such as facility 
closure or firm failure. Further, for small entities, EPA examined the 
compliance cost to revenue ratio to identify any other potential 
impacts of the rule upon small entities. Using the most stringent set 
of co-proposed options, EPA has determined that the range is between 0 
and 1.91 percent with only three entities experiencing an impact of 
greater than 1%.

J. Cost-Benefit Analysis

    The Agency estimates the total monetized social costs of the 
proposed rule range between $56.5 million and $61.4 million and the 
total monetized social benefits range between $1.1 million and $2.7 
million.
K. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
    This section provides the cost-effectiveness analysis of the BAT 
and PSES regulatory options by subcategory. The cost-effectiveness 
analysis compares the total annualized cost incurred for a regulatory 
option to the corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing 
the discharge of pollutants.
    Cost-effectiveness calculations are used during the development of 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards to compare the efficiency 
of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory 
option. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of 
a pollution control option in an industry subcategory per incremental 
pollutant removal. The increments are considered relative to another 
option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment. In cost-
effectiveness analyses, pollutant removals are measured in toxicity 
normalized units called ``pound-equivalents.'' The cost-effectiveness 
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing an additional 
pound-equivalent (lb. eq.) of pollutants. In general, the lower the 
cost-effectiveness value, the more cost-efficient the regulation will 
be in removing pollutants, taking into account their toxicity. While 
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a 
useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic 
pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis does not take into account the 
removal of conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, biochemical 
oxygen demand, and total suspended solids).
     the cost-effectiveness analysis, the estimated pound-equivalents 
of pollutants removed were calculated by multiplying the number of 
pounds of each pollutant removed by the toxic weighting factor for each 
pollutant. The more toxic the pollutant, the higher will be the 
pollutant's toxic weighting factor; accordingly, the use of pound-
equivalents gives correspondingly more weight to pollutants with higher 
toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure and pounds of pollutants 
removed, the cost per pound-equivalent removed

[[Page 82004]]

would be lower when more highly toxic pollutants are removed than if 
pollutants of lesser toxicity are removed. Annual costs for all cost-
effectiveness analyzes are reported in 1981 dollars so that comparisons 
of cost-effectiveness may be made with regulations for other industries 
that were issued at different times.
1. Cokemaking
    a. By-product Cokemaking. i. BAT. The first three BAT options for 
this segment display significant incremental pollutant reductions (as 
measured in lb-equivalents). BAT option 4 results in very limited 
additional pollutant removals beyond BAT option 3 with very substantial 
increases in capital and total annualized costs.

                   Table VI.K.1 BAT Removals and Cost-Effectiveness for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pre-tax total                    Incremental
                                                    annualized    Removals  (lb-       cost        Average cost
                     OPTION                        cost  (1999$         eq)        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                        M)                         (1981$/lb-eq)  (1981$/lb-eq);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            $0.9          56,300             $10             $10
2...............................................             4.4          71,200             134              36
3...............................................             8.9         147,600              35              35
4...............................................            15.8         147,700          38,300              63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. PSES. All PSES options result in significant removals with PSES 
option 1 imposing very low incremental costs, PSES option 2 imposing 
moderate incremental costs, PSES option 3 providing very substantial 
removals with relatively modest incremental costs, and PSES option 4 
providing limited additional removals with higher incremental costs.

                   Table VI.K.2 PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness for By-product Cokemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Pre-tax total                    Incremental
                                                    annualized    Removals  (lb-       cost        Average cost
                     OPTION                        cost  (1999$         eq)        effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                        M)                         (1981$/lb-eq)  (1981$/lb-eq);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................            $0.3           3,400             $52             $52
2...............................................             2.3           5,600             527             240
3...............................................             5.2          48,500              39              62
4...............................................             8.8          51,400             729             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Non-recovery Cokemaking. i. BAT and PSES. The Agency is 
evaluating a technology option for the Non-recovery Cokemaking Segment 
which is based on zero discharge for BAT and PSES and is estimated to 
have no associated regulatory compliance costs as all existing non-
recovery cokemaking facilities achieve the zero discharge limitation. 
As a result, a cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be constructed for 
this segment.
2. Ironmaking
    a. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option yields substantial 
removals with relatively low compliance costs. The Agency does not 
separately present results for direct and indirect dischargers, because 
there are fewer than 3 indirect dischargers and data aggregation or 
other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of 
information claimed as confidential business information.

                    Table VI.K.3 BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness for Ironmaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pre-tax total                    Incremental
                                                                    annualized    Removals  (lb-       cost
                                                                   cost  (1999$         eq)        effectiveness
                                                                        M)                         (1981$/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES....................................................            $5.6          63,200             $52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Integrated Steelmaking
    a. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option yields substantial 
removals with relatively low compliance costs. The Agency does not 
separately present results for direct and indirect dischargers, because 
there are less than 3 indirect dischargers and data aggregation or 
other masking techniques are insufficient to avoid disclosure of 
information claimed as confidential business information.

[[Page 82005]]



     Table VI.K.4--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost Effectiveness for
                   Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax                  Incremental
                                    total                       cost
                                  annualized    Removals   effectiveness
                                     cost       (lb-eq)     (1981 $/lb-
                                  (1999$ M)                     eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT and PSES...................         $5.0      102,600           $29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option 
yields substantial removals with moderate compliance costs. The 
evaluated PSES option yields very limited removals with a relatively 
low costs.

 Table VI.K.5--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Integrated
               and Stand-Alone Hot ming, Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax
                                    total                   Incremental
                                  annualized    Removals        cost
                                 cost (1999$    (lb-eq)    effectiveness
                                      M)                   (1981$/lb-eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................        $28.6       87,200          $191
PSES...........................          0.1          100           319
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Stainless. i. BAT and PSES. There were no directly discharging 
facilities identified in the EPA survey. The evaluated PSES option 
yields extremely limited removals with a relatively low costs.
    5. Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES The evaluated BAT option 
yields substantial removals with relatively low compliance costs. The 
evaluated PSES option yields very small removals with modest compliance 
costs.

 Table VI.K.6--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Integrated
                   and Stand-alone Hot ming, Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax
                                    total                   Incremental
                                  annualized    Removals        cost
                                 cost (1999$    (lb-eq)    effectiveness
                                      M)                   (1981$/lb-eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................
PSES...........................         $0.2           10       $12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot ming
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES. The evaluated BAT option 
yields substantial removals with relatively low compliance costs. The 
evaluated PSES option yields very small removals with modest compliance 
costs.

       Table VI.K.7--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness,
        Nonintegrated Steelmaking and Hot ming, Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax                  Incremental
                                    total                       cost
                                  annualized    Removals   effectiveness
                                     cost       (lb-eq)     (1981 $/lb-
                                  (1999$ M)                     eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................         $4.2       39,100           $62
PSES...........................          0.6           40         9,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Stainless.s i. BAT and PSES.
    The evaluated BAT 1 and PSES 1 options both yield substantial 
removals with relatively low compliance costs, while the BAT 2 options 
yields very limited removals with substantial costs.

[[Page 82006]]



Table VI.K.8--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness Nonintegrated
                   Steelmaking and Hot ming, Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax                      Cost
                                    total                  effectiveness
                                  annualized    Removals    (1981 $/lb-
                                     cost       (lb-eq)         eq)
                                  (1999$ M)                 incremental
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT 1..........................         $0.1        1,873           $35
BAT 2..........................          0.9        1,874       440,000
PSES 1.........................         0.03        1,501            11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Steel Finishing
    a. Carbon and Alloy. i. BAT and PSES.
    The evaluated BAT option yields substantial removals with 
relatively low compliance costs. The evaluated PSES option yields very 
small removals with modest compliance costs.

    Table VI.K.9--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Steel
                       Finishing, Carbon and Alloy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax                  Incremental
                                    total                       cost
                                  annualized    Removals   effectiveness
                                     cost       (lb-eq)     (1981 $/lb-
                                  (1999$ M)                     eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................         $3.5       16,600          $126
PSES...........................          1.9          400         2,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Stainless.
i. BAT and PSES
    The evaluated BAT option yields substantial removals with very low 
compliance costs. The evaluated PSES option yields limited removals 
with modest compliance costs.

   Table VI.K.10--BAT and PSES Removals and Cost-Effectiveness, Steel
                          Finishing, Stainless
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Pre-tax                  Incremental
                                    total                       cost
                                  annualized    Removals   effectiveness
                                     cost       (lb-eq)     (1981 $/lb-
                                  (1999$ M)                     eq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT............................         $0.2       69,700            $2
PSES...........................          0.6          650           525
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Other Operations
    The Agency is evaluating technology options for Direct Reduced 
Ironmaking and ging segments for the control of only conventional 
parameters at BPT (see Section VI.L). The Agency is evaluating a 
technology option for the Briquetting Segment which is based on zero 
discharge and is estimated to have no associated regulatory compliance 
costs. As a result, a cost-effectiveness analysis cannot be constructed 
for these segments.

L. Cost-Reasonableness Analysis

    As stated in Section VI.K, the Agency is evaluating technology 
options for the Direct Reduced Ironmaking and ging segments of the 
Other Operations Subcategory for the control of only conventional 
parameters at BPT. CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining BPT 
limitations, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies 
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved by such 
technology. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt 
BPT limitations that are achievable with available technology unless 
the required additional reductions are wholly out of proportion to the 
costs of achieving such marginal reduction.
    The cost-reasonableness ratio is average cost per pound of 
pollutant removed by a BPT regulatory option. The cost component is 
measured as pre-tax total annualized costs (1999$). In this case, the 
pollutants removed are conventional pollutants although in some cases, 
removals may include priority and nonconventional pollutants. the 
Direct Reduced Ironmaking segment, the evaluated BPT option 1 removes 
approximately 800 pounds of conventional pollutants with a cost-
reasonableness ratio of $6. the ging segment, the evaluated BPT option 
1 removes approximately 500 pounds of conventional pollutants with a 
cost-reasonableness ratio of $15. EPA considers the cost-reasonableness 
ratio to be acceptable and the proposed option to be cost-reasonable in 
both segments.

VII. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits

    EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling the 
discharges of 60 priority and nonconventional pollutants from iron and 
steel facilities to surface waters and POTWs in national analyses of 
direct and indirect discharges. A total of 125 analytes were found in 
iron and steel effluents. Ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or 
toxicity profiles are established for 60 of those analytes. Discharges 
of these pollutants into freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter 
aquatic habitats,

[[Page 82007]]

adversely affect aquatic biota, and adversely impact human health 
through the consumption of contaminated fish and drinking water.
    Furthermore, these pollutants may also interfere with POTW 
operations in terms of inhibition of activated sludge or biological 
treatment and contamination of sewage sludges, thereby limiting the 
methods of disposal for sewage sludge and the POTW's costs (though, as 
noted below, there is no evidence of this for this sector). Most of 
these pollutants have at least one known 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.
    The Agency did not evaluate the effects of conventional pollutants 
discharged from iron and steel mills on aquatic life and human health 
because of a lack of quantitative AWQC. EPA did not evaluate the 
effects of conventional pollutants on POTWs because POTWs are designed 
to treat these pollutants. However, the discharge of a conventional 
pollutant such as total suspended solids (TSS) or oil & grease can have 
adverse effects on aquatic life and the environment. example, habitat 
degradation can result from increased suspended particulate matter that 
reduces light penetration, and thus primary productivity, or from 
accumulation of suspended particles that alter benthic spawning grounds 
and feeding habitats.
    Oil and grease produce toxic effects on aquatic organisms (i.e., 
fish, crustacea, larvae and eggs, gastropods, bivalves, invertebrates, 
and flora). The marine larvae and benthic invertebrates, appear to be 
the most intolerant of petroleum products, particularly the water-
soluble compounds, at concentrations ranging from 0.1 ppm to 25 ppm and 
1 ppm to 6,100 ppm, respectively. However, since oil and grease is not 
a definitive chemical category, but instead includes many organic 
compounds with varying physical, chemical, and toxicological 
properties, it is difficult for EPA to establish a numerical criterion 
which would be applicable to all types of oil and grease. this reason, 
EPA does not model the effects of oil and grease on the environment.
    Of a total of 254 iron and steel facilities, EPA evaluated 150 
facilities, of which 103 are direct wastewater dischargers that 
discharge up to 60 pollutants to 77 receiving streams and 47 are 
indirect wastewater dischargers discharging up to 60 pollutants to 43 
receiving streams. EPA did not evaluate 56 facilities with zero 
discharge or 48 facilities for which EPA had insufficient data to 
conduct the water quality analysis. To estimate some of the benefits 
from the improvements in water quality expected to result from this 
rule, instream concentration estimates are modeled and then compared to 
aquatic life and human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) 
guidance documents published by EPA or to toxic effect levels. States 
often consult these water quality criteria guidance documents when 
adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality 
standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria may vary, for 
this analysis EPA used the nationwide criteria guidance as the 
representative values for the particular pollutants. EPA also modeled 
the effects of iron and steel discharges on POTWs. Results of the of 
the 150 facilities were extrapolated to the national level of 198 
direct and indirect dischargers, using the statistical methodology for 
estimating costs, loads, and economic impacts.
    Since at least 20% of the iron and steel facilities discharge in 
multiple waste subcategories, and many waterbody reaches receive 
discharges from more than one iron and steel facility, EPA chose to 
perform the environmental assessment analyses on a reach-by-reach 
basis. The reach-by-reach basis has the advantage over a subcategory-
specific basis in that it more accurately predicts the overall effects 
of the rule on the environment.
    In addition, EPA reviewed the CWA section 303(d) lists of impaired 
waterbodies developed by States in 1998 and noted that at least 17 
waterbodies, identified with industrial point sources as a potential 
source of impairment, receive direct discharges from iron and steel 
facilities (and other sources). EPA also identified 12 waterbodies with 
fishing advisories for iron and steel pollutants of concern (mercury) 
that receive direct discharges from iron and steel facilities (and 
other sources).
    EPA expects a variety of human health, environmental, and economic 
benefits to result from reductions in effluent loadings (see 
Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Effluent Guidelines for the 
Iron and Steel Industry, (Environmental Assessment)). In particular, 
the benefits assessment addresses the following benefit categories: (a) 
Human health benefits due to reductions in excess cancer cases; (b) 
human health benefits due to reductions in lead exposure; (c) human 
health benefits due to reductions in noncarcinogenic 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 proposed rule would reduce excess cancer cases by approximately 
0.01 per year with estimated monetized benefits of $24,000 to $126,000 
($1997). 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 $2.4 million to $12.6 million ($1997). 
EPA's SAB recently recommended that VSL's be adjusted downward using a 
discount factor to account for latency in cases (such as cancer) where 
there is a lag between exposure and mortality. This was not done in the 
current analysis because EPA requires more information to estimate 
latency periods associated with cancers caused by Iron and Steel 
pollutants. example, the risk assessments for several pollutants are 
based on data from animal bioassays; these data are not sufficiently 
reliable to estimate a latency period for humans. Extrapolating the 
results to the national level results in a 0.02 cancer case reduction 
and a monetized benefit of $48,000 to $252,000.

B. Reduced Lead Health Risk

     the proposed rule, EPA expects that reduced loadings to surface 
waters from iron and steel discharges will reduce lead levels in those 
waters. Under the proposed treatment levels, the ingestion of lead-
contaminated fish tissues by recreational and subsistence anglers would 
be reduced at 79 waterbodies. 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 from reduced adult and 
neonatal mortality are also estimated. 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

[[Page 82008]]

estimates that this proposed regulation would reduce cases of these 
adverse health effects; the total benefit for these reductions would be 
approximately $0.62 to $0.98 million ($1997). Extrapolating the results 
to the national level results in monetized benefits of $0.64 to $1.01 
million ($1997) due to reduced ingestion of lead-contaminated fish 
tissues at 104 waterbodies.

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 
proposed 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 
noncarcinogenic effects, due to consumption of contaminated fish 
tissue, by approximately 900 people for both the sample set and the 
national extrapolation of iron and steel facilities. Presently EPA does 
not have a methodology for monetizing these benefits.

D. Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Activity

    EPA expects this proposed rule to generate environmental benefits 
by improving water quality. There is 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 (intrinsic) 
values. 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 affected streams. EPA considers the value of the recreational 
fishing benefits and intrinsic benefits resulting from this proposed 
rule, but does not evaluate the other types of ecological and 
environmental benefits (e.g., increased assimilative capacity of the 
receiving stream, protection of terrestrial wildlife and birds that 
consume aquatic organisms, and improvements to other recreational 
activities, such as swimming, boating, water skiing, and wildlife 
observation) due to data limitations.
    Modeled end-of-pipe pollutant loadings are estimated to decline by 
about 22 percent, from 227 million pounds per year under current 
conditions to 177 million pounds per year under this proposed rule 
(from 253 million pounds per year down to 198 million pounds per year 
on a national level). The analysis comparing modeled instream pollutant 
concentration to AWQC estimates that current discharge loadings result 
in excursions at 44 streams receiving the discharge from iron and steel 
facilities. The proposed rule would reduce excursions to 41 receiving 
streams. The number of receiving streams with excursions would be 
reduced from 55 to 51 streams at the national level.
    EPA estimates that the annual monetized recreational benefits to 
anglers associated with the expected changes in water quality range 
from $188,000 to $671,000 ($1997). Monetized benefits extrapolated to 
the national level are $252,000 to $900,000 ($1997). EPA evaluates 
these recreational benefits by 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 3 of the 44 receiving streams (4 of the 55 
receiving streams on a national level). 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.
    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 $94,000 to $336,000 ($1997) for the 
sample set and from at least $126,000 to $450,000 ($1997) at the 
extrapolated national level. These intrinsic benefits are estimated as 
half of the recreational benefits and may be under or overestimated.

E. Effect on POTW Operations

    EPA considers two potential sources of benefits to POTWs from this 
proposed 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.
    EPA has concluded from its analysis that under current conditions 
POTW operation and biosolid quality are not significantly affected by 
discharges from iron and steel mills. EPA is presently researching 
anecdotal evidence from POTW operators to support or refute this 
position.

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 considered. 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, at the national 
level, resulting from this proposed rule range from $1.07 million to 
$2.61 million ($1997). Table VII.F.1 summarizes these benefits, by 
category. The range reflects the uncertainty in evaluating the effects 
of this proposed rule and in placing a dollar value on these effects. 
As indicated in Table VII.F.1, these monetized benefits ranges do not 
reflect some benefit categories, including improved ecological 
conditions from improvements in water quality due to reductions in 
conventional pollutants. Therefore, the reported benefit estimate may 
understate the total benefits of this proposed rule.

       Table VII.F.1--Potential Economic Benefits (National Level)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Millions of 1997  dollars
             Benefit category                         per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced Cancer Risk.......................  0.05-0.25
Reduced Lead Health Risk..................  0.64-1.01
Reduced Noncarcinogenic Hazard............  Unquantified
Improved Ecological Conditions............  Unquantified
Improved Recreational Value...............  0.25-0.90
Improved Intrinsic Value..................  0.13-0.45

[[Page 82009]]

 
Reduced Biosolid Contamination at POTW....  ............................
Improved POTW Operation (inhibition)......  ............................
Reduced Costs at POTWs....................  ............................
    Total Monetized Benefits..............  1.07-2.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

    Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-
water quality environmental impacts associated with effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards. In accordance with these 
requirements, EPA has considered the potential impact of today's 
technical options on air emissions, solid waste generation, and energy 
consumption. While it is difficult to balance environmental impacts 
across all media and energy use, the Agency has determined that the 
impacts identified below are acceptable in light of the benefits 
associated with compliance with the proposed effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards.

A. Air Pollution

    Various subcategories within the Iron and Steel Industry generate 
process waters that contain significant concentrations of organic and 
inorganic compounds, some of which are listed as Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (HAPs) in Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 
1990. The Agency has developed National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) that address air emissions of HAPs for certain manufacturing 
operations. Subcategories within the Iron and Steel industry where 
NESHAPs are applicable include cokemaking (58 FR 57898, October 1993) 
and steel finishing with chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing 
(60 FR 4948, January 1995).
     the cokemaking subcategory, maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standards are currently being developed by EPA for pushing, 
quenching, and battery stacks. Like effluent guidelines, MACT standards 
are technology based. The CAA sets maximum control requirements on 
which MACT can be based for new and existing sources. By-products 
recovery operations in the cokemaking subcategory remove the majority 
of HAPs through processes that collect tar, heavy and light oils, 
ammonium sulfate and elemental sulfur. Ammonia removal by steam 
stripping could generate a potential air quality issue if uncontrolled; 
however ammonia stripping operations at cokemaking facilities capture 
vapors and convert ammonia to either an inorganic salt or anhydrous 
ammonia, or destroy the ammonia.
    Biological treatment of cokemaking wastewater can potentially emit 
hazardous air pollutants if significant concentrations of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) are present. To estimate the maximum air 
emissions from biological treatment, the individual concentrations of 
all VOCs in cokemaking wastewater entering the biological treatment 
system were multiplied by the maximum design flow and the operational 
period reported in the U.S. EPA Collection of 1997 Iron and Steel 
Industry Data to determine annual VOC loadings to the biological 
treatment unit. The concentrations of the individual VOCs entering the 
biological treatment system was determined from the sampling episode 
data. Assuming all the VOCs entering the biological treatment system 
are emitted to the atmosphere (no biological degradation), the maximum 
VOC emission rate would be approximately 1,800 pounds per year. See 
Technical Development Document, Section 13.
    Treatment technology options proposed for integrated and non-
integrated steelmaking operations focus on removal of suspended solids, 
dissolved metals and oils from process wastewaters. Under ambient 
conditions, the vapor pressure of these pollutants is such that 
insignificant volatilization occurs, even with extended atmospheric 
contact in open-top treatment units and induced draft cooling towers. 
EPA does not project any net increase in air emissions if facilities 
employ the proposed model technologies. As such, no adverse air impacts 
are expected to occur as a result of the proposed regulations.

B. Solid Waste

    Solid waste, including hazardous and nonhazardous sludges and waste 
oil, will be generated from a number of the model treatment 
technologies used to develop the proposed effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards. Solid wastes include sludge from biological 
treatment systems, chemical precipitation and clarification systems, 
and gravity separation and dissolved air flotation systems. EPA 
accounted for the associated costs related to on-site recovery and off-
site treatment and disposal of the solid wastes generated due to the 
implementation of the various technology options. These costs were 
included in the economic evaluation for the proposed regulation.
    Biological nitrification proposed as the technology basis for 
ammonia removal from cokemaking wastewaters will produce a biological 
treatment sludge that facilities would need to dispose. EPA estimates 
that approximately 0.39 million pounds (dry wt.) per year of additional 
biological treatment sludge will be generated by the cokemaking 
subcategory as a result of lower effluent ammonia limits. The non-
hazardous biological treatment sludges can be disposed in a Subtitle D 
landfill, recycled to the coke ovens for incineration, or land applied.
    Additional solids captured by roughing clarifiers and sand filters 
proposed for recycle water systems within the integrated and non-
integrated steelmaking facilities (blast furnace, sinter plant, BOF, 
vacuum degasser, continuous caster, hot forming mill) will account for 
an additional 1.8 percent of the solids currently being collected in 
scale pits and classifiers. Data provided in the industry surveys 
indicates the total annual sludge and scale production from all of 
these facilities, including stand-alone hot formers, was approximately 
500,000 tons/year (dry weight). Solids removal equipment proposed for 
this rule is expected to remove an additional 9,000 tons per year of 
dry wastewater treatment sludge.
    Sludges generated at steel finishing operations may be classified 
as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as 
either a listed or characteristic waste based on the following 
information:
     If the site performs electroplating operations, sludge 
from treatment of electroplating wastewater on site is listed as 
hazardous waste F006 (40 CFR 260.31).
     If the site mixes electroplating wastewaters or sludges 
with other wastewaters or sludges generated on site, the resulting 
mixture would be a hazardous waste under the RCRA ``mixture rule.'' (40 
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).
     If the sludge from wastewater treatment exceeds the 
standards for the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (i.e. is 
hazardous), or exhibits other RCRA-defined hazardous characteristics 
(i.e., reactive, corrosive, or flammable) it is considered a 
characteristic hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.24).
    Additional federal, state, and local regulations may result in 
steel finishing

[[Page 82010]]

sludges being classified as a hazardous waste.
    Based on information collected during site visits and sampling 
episodes to Iron and Steel operations, the Agency believes that some of 
the solid waste generated by steel finishing operations would not be 
classified as hazardous. However, for the purpose of compliance cost 
estimation, the Agency assumed that all solid waste generated as a 
result of the technology options would be hazardous. Date provided in 
the industry surveys indicates the total annual sludge production from 
all steel finishing operations throughout the industry was 
approximately 21,000 tons/year (dry weight). Additional sludge 
generation from finishing operations resulting from this proposed rule 
is approximately 900 tons/year (dry weight).

C. Energy Requirements

    EPA estimates that compliance with this proposed regulation would 
result in a net increase in energy consumption at Iron and Steel 
facilities. The maximum estimated increased energy use by subcategory 
are presented in Table VIII-1. The costs associated with these energy 
requirements are included in EPA's estimated operating costs for 
compliance with the proposed rule. The projected increase in energy 
consumption is primarily due to the incorporation of components such as 
pumps, mixers, blowers, and fans. the integrated and stand-alone hot 
forming mills, the added energy requirements are related to recycle 
systems. Electrical equipment in the recycle system includes sand 
filters, cooling towers, and recycle pumps to return the treated and 
cooled water to the process.

      Table VIII-1.--Additional Energy Requirements by Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Energy
                                                               required
                        Subcategory                            (million
                                                               kilowatt
                                                             hours/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cokemaking Operations......................................         21.7
Ironmaking Operations......................................         10.6
Integrated Steelmaking Operations..........................          7.8
Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Operations.............          170
Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Operations.........          8.4
Steel Finishing Operations.................................          2.0
Other Operations...........................................         0.04
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................       220.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately 3,100,000 million kilowatt hours of electric power 
were generated in the United States in 1997 (Energy Information 
Administration, Electric Power Annual 1998 Volume 1, Table A1). Total 
additional energy needs for all Iron and Steel facilities to comply 
with this proposed rule correspond to approximately 0.007% of the 
national energy demand. The increase in energy demand due to the 
implementation of this proposed rule will in turn cause an air emission 
impact from the electric power generation facilities. The increase in 
air emissions is expected to be proportional to the increase in energy 
requirements.

IX. Options Selected for Proposal

A. Introduction

1. Methodology for Proposed Selection of Regulated Pollutants
    EPA selects pollutants for regulation based on the following 
factors: Applicable Clean Water Act provisions regarding the pollutants 
subject to each statutory level; the pollutants of concern identified 
for each subcategory; and co-treatment of compatible wastewaters from 
different manufacturing operations.
    The current regulation requires facilities to maintain the pH 
between 6.0 and 9.0 at all times. EPA intends to retain this limitation 
and proposes to codify identical pH limitations for previously 
unregulated subcategories. EPA also proposes to codify a specific 
reference to the general exception codified at 40 CFR 401.17, which 
authorizes excursions from the pH range codified in the applicable 
effluent limitations guidelines under certain enumerated circumstances. 
The pH shall be monitored at the point of discharge from the wastewater 
treatment facility to which effluent limitations derived from this part 
apply.
    EPA selected a subset of pollutants for which to establish 
numerical effluent limitations from the list of Pollutants of Concern 
(POC) for each regulated subcategory. Section IV.F discusses EPA's 
methodology for selecting Pollutants of Concern (POC) and identifies on 
a subcategory basis the POCs relevant to this proposal. Generally, a 
chemical is considered as a POC if it was detected in untreated process 
wastewater at 10 times the minimum level (ML) in more than 10% of the 
samples.
    Monitoring for all pollutants of concern is not necessary to ensure 
that Iron and Steel wastewater pollution is adequately controlled, 
since many of the pollutants originate from similar sources, have 
similar treatabilities, are removed by similar mechanisms, and treated 
to similar levels. Therefore, it may be sufficient to monitor for one 
pollutant as a surrogate or indicator of several others.
    Regulated pollutants are pollutants for which the EPA would 
establish numerical effluent limitations and standards. EPA selected a 
POC for regulation in a subcategory if it meets all the following 
criteria:
     With the exception of TRC, chemical is not used as a 
treatment chemical in the selected treatment technology option.
     Chemical is not considered a non-conventional bulk 
parameter.
     Chemical is not considered as a volatile compound, e.g., 
generally with Henry's Constant greater than or equal to 
1x10-4.
     Chemical is effectively treated by the selected treatment 
technology option.
     Chemical is detected in the untreated wastewater at 
treatable levels in a significant number of samples, e.g., generally 10 
times the minimum level at more than 10% of the raw wastewater samples.
     Chemicals whose control through treatment processes would 
lead to control of a wide range of pollutants with similar properties; 
these chemicals are generally good indicators of overall wastewater 
treatment performance.
    Based on the methodology described above, EPA proposes to regulate 
pollutants in each subcategory that will ensure adequate control of a 
range of pollutants.
    a. Clean Water Act. The CWA provides for the limitation of 
conventional, non-conventional and toxic pollutants at the following 
regulatory levels:

BPT: conventional, non-conventional, toxic
BAT: non-conventional, toxic
NSPS: conventional, non-conventional, toxic
PSES: pass through/interfere or otherwise incompatible with POTW
PSNS: pass through/interfere or otherwise incompatible with POTW
BCT: conventional

    b. Pollutants of Concern. Depending on the manufacturing processes, 
the wastewater characteristics vary from operation to operation. The 
pollutants to be regulated are proposed on a subcategory basis.
    c. Co-Treatment of Compatible Wastewaters. Wastewaters from certain 
manufacturing operations are compatible for treatment in a single 
treatment system. EPA's proposed selection of regulated parameters is 
designed to foster co-treatment of compatible wastewaters and to 
discourage co-treatment of wastewaters

[[Page 82011]]

which the Agency believes to be incompatible.
    Untreated by-product cokemaking process wastewaters contain 
relatively high concentrations of ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds, 
and several toxic organic compounds including benzene, toluene, xylene 
and polynuclear aromatic compounds. The chemical composition of those 
wastewaters is unique within the iron and steel industry, as are the 
physical/chemical and biological processes typically used to treat 
them. Consequently, EPA regards cokemaking wastewaters to be 
incompatible with wastewaters from other subcategories. Therefore, the 
model technologies EPA proposes and the corresponding limitations are 
designed to discourage co-treatment with wastewaters from operations in 
other subcategories.
    Process wastewaters from the sintering and blast furnace operations 
segments of the proposed ironmaking subcategory contain many of the 
same pollutants (ammonia, cyanide, phenolic compounds, toxic metals and 
high loadings of suspended solids from wet air pollution control and 
gas cleaning operations). They are universally co-treated where sinter 
plants with wet air pollution controls are co-located with blast 
furnaces. Accordingly, the proposed regulation is structured to 
facilitate co-treatment and permitting of those wastewaters independent 
of wastewaters from other subcategories. Likewise, the regulation is 
structured to allow for co-treatment and cascading of wastewaters from 
the integrated steelmaking operations (basic oxygen furnaces, vacuum 
degassing, continuous casting). These wastewaters contain typically the 
same toxic metals.
    Like the current regulation, the proposed regulation is based on 
the assumption that recycle system blowdowns from hot forming 
operations are compatible with wastewaters from steelmaking and steel 
finishing operations. When recycled to a high degree, the remaining 
volume of hot forming wastewaters can be effectively co-treated for 
TSS, O&G, lead and zinc with steelmaking and steel finishing 
wastewaters. Today's proposed regulation would limit the same toxic 
metals, such as lead and zinc, for carbon and alloy steel hot forming 
operations, carbon and alloy steelmaking, and steel finishing 
operations. This approach is intended to facilitate co-treatment and 
NPDES permitting across subcategories where feasible. EPA has taken the 
same approach with chromium and nickel for stainless steel hot forming, 
non-integrated steelmaking, and steel finishing operations. 
Notwithstanding EPA's consideration of this factor, EPA does not 
propose to exclude any pollutants from regulation on the theory that 
they are not amenable to co-treatment.
2. Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment Standards
    Unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater will receive no further 
treatment once it leaves the facility, indirect dischargers send their 
wastewater to POTWs for further treatment. EPA establishes pretreatment 
standards for those BAT pollutants that pass through POTWs. Therefore, 
for indirect dischargers, before proposing 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. A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' POTWs when 
the median percentage removed by well-operated POTWs is less than the 
median percentage removed by direct dischargers complying with BAT 
effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that the combined 
treatment at indirect discharging facilities and POTWs is at least 
equivalent to that obtained through treatment by direct dischargers.
    This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two 
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect 
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2) 
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized 
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from 
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of 
pollutants discharged by POTWs with the mass or concentration of 
pollutants discharged by BAT facilities, EPA compares the percentage of 
the pollutants removed by BAT facilities to the POTW removals. EPA 
takes this approach because a comparison of the mass or concentration 
of pollutants in POTW effluents with pollutants in BAT facility 
effluents would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged 
to the POTW from other industrial and non-industrial sources, nor the 
dilution of the pollutants in the POTW to lower concentrations from the 
addition of large amounts of other industrial and non-industrial water.
    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.'' 
This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs 
that employ secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants. Each 
sample was analyzed for three conventional, 16 non-conventional, and 
126 priority toxic 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 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 
lower 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 
effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic 
Fibers (OCPSF) Manufacturing, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT), and 
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for at least 12 
parameters, different analytical minimum levels were reported for 
different rulemaking studies (10 of the 21 metals, cyanide, and one of 
the 41 organics).

[[Page 82012]]

    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 final rules for CWT and Transportation 
Equipment Cleaning Industries and for this proposed rule and the Metal 
Products and Machinery proposed rule. A more detailed discussion of the 
methodology used and the results of the ML evaluation are contained in 
the record for today's proposal.
    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. many 
toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower than 
those of BAT treatment systems. 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 threshold level, 
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 nominal ``minimum 
level'' (ML) established in 40 CFR Part 136 for laboratory data 
reported below the analytical threshold level. Use of the nominal 
minimum level (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 detection levels, 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. today's proposal, EPA used the 
following editing criteria:

    (1) Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical 
minimum level for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,'' 
``less than [followed by a number],'' or a number less than the 
standardized analytical minimum level,
    (2) Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent values if 
the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal to 10 
times the pollutant minimum level (10xML), and
    (3) If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations are at 
least 10 times the minimum level, then retain average influent values 
greater than or equal to two times the minimum level (2xML) along with 
the corresponding average effluent values. (In most cases, 2xML will be 
equal to or less than 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 rationale for retaining POTW data using the ``10xML'' editing 
criterion is based on the BAT organic pollutant treatment performance 
editing criteria initially developed for the 1987 OCPSF regulation (52 
FR 42522, 42545-48; November 5, 1987). BAT treatment system designs in 
the OCPSF industry typically achieved at least 90 percent removal of 
toxic pollutants. Since most of the OCPSF effluent data from BAT 
biological treatment systems had values of ``not detected,'' the 
average influent concentration for a compound had to be at least 10 
times the analytical minimum level for the difference to be meaningful 
(demonstration of at least 90 percent removal) and qualify effluent 
concentrations for calculation of effluent limits.
    Additionally, due to the large number of pollutants of concern for 
the Iron and Steel industry, EPA also used data from the National Risk 
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly 
called the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to 
augment the POTW database for the pollutants which the 50-POTW Study 
did not cover. This database provides information, by pollutant, on 
removals obtained by various treatment technologies. The database 
provides the user with the specific data source and the industry from 
which the wastewater was generated. each pollutant of concern EPA 
considered for this proposed rule that was not found in the 50-POTW 
database, EPA used data from the NRMRL database, using only treatment 
technologies representative of typical POTW secondary treatment 
operations (activated sludge, activated sludge with filtration, aerated 
lagoons). EPA further edited these files to include information 
pertaining only to domestic or industrial wastewater. EPA used pilot-
scale and full-scale data only, and eliminated bench-scale data and 
data from less reliable references. These and other aspects of the 
methodology used for this proposal are described in Chapter 11 of the 
Technical Development Document.
    The results of the POTW pass-through analysis for indirect 
dischargers are discussed in Sections IX.B-H for each subcategory.
3. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW Performance
     today's proposal, EPA used its traditional methodology to 
determine POTW performance (percent removal) for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. POTW performance is a component of the pass-
through methodology used to identify the pollutants to be regulated for 
PSES and PSNS. It is also a component of the analysis to determine net 
pollutant reductions (for both total pounds and toxic pound-
equivalents) for various indirect discharge technology options. 
However, as discussed in more detail below, EPA is considering 
revisions to its traditional methodology for determining POTW 
performance and solicits comments on a variety of methodological 
changes.
    a. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs. EPA developed the principle 
pass-through analysis for today's iron and steel proposal by using data 
from all 50 POTWs that were part of the 50 POTW Study data base. Some 
of these POTWs were not operated to meet the secondary treatment 
requirements at 40 CFR part 133 for all portions of their wastestream. 
Most POTWs today have secondary treatment or better in place. EPA 
estimates that as of 1996, POTWs with at least secondary treatment in 
place service greater than 90 percent of the indirect discharging 
population. If the POTW removal calculations do not reflect the 
upgrades and system improvements that have occurred since the time of 
the 50 POTW Study, they would tend to under-estimate POTW removals. 
This would result in overestimating the pollutant reductions that are 
achieved through the regulation of indirect dischargers, thereby making 
the regulation appear more cost-effective for indirect dischargers than 
it is.
    One partial solution to this methodological issue would be to 
evaluate individual treatment trains in the 50 POTW Study data base, 
and include only those treatment trains that achieved compliance with 
40 CFR part 133 in the analysis of POTW pollutant removal rates. There 
were 29 treatment trains that achieved BOD5 and TSS effluent 
concentrations between 15 mg/

[[Page 82013]]

l and 45 mg/l during the sampling and could potentially be considered 
reflective of secondary treatment (based on 40 CFR 133.102 limitations 
of 30 mg/l monthly average and 45 mg/l weekly max for secondary 
treatment), and an additional 2 treatment trains were either trickling 
filters or waste stabilization ponds that achieved BOD5 and 
TSS effluent concentrations between 40 mg/l and 65 mg/l and could 
potentially be considered equivalent to secondary treatment pursuant to 
40 CFR 133.101(g) (based on 40 CFR 133.105 limitations of 45 mg/l 
monthly average and 65 mg/l weekly maximum). In addition, 15 treatment 
trains achieved BOD5 and TSS effluent concentrations below 
15 mg/l each, and could potentially be considered greater than 
secondary treatment.
    Using data from these 46 treatment trains only would omit the worst 
performers in the 50 POTW Study that are probably not reflective of 
current performance. It might not fully correct, however, for 
additional upgrades and optimization that may have occurred over the 
past two decades.
    b. Assessment of Acceptable Data. EPA developed the pass-through 
analysis that is the basis for today's proposal using POTW data editing 
criteria that are generally consistent with those used for the industry 
data. Specifically, EPA included only data from POTWs for which 
influent concentrations were 10 times the analytical minimum 
(quantitation) level (10xML) if available. If none of the average 
pollutant influent concentrations are at least 10 times the ML, then 
EPA retained only data from POTWs for which influent concentrations 
were 2 times the analytical minimum level. Because it is difficult to 
achieve the same pollutant reduction (in terms of percent) in a dilute 
wastestream as in a more concentrated wastestream, EPA believes that a 
10 X ML editing criteria may overestimate the percent removals that are 
calculated for both industry and POTWs in the pass-through analysis.
    As a general rule, more POTW data than industry data is eliminated 
through this editing criteria for the specific pollutants that are 
being examined. This is not surprising since the pass-through analysis 
would not even be performed on pollutants generally found at less than 
10 times the method minimum level in industry since EPA would, in many 
cases, not require pretreatment for such low levels of a pollutant. As 
a result of this imbalance (pollutant influent levels at POTWs being 
less than pollutant influent levels to industrial pretreatment), EPA 
believes that it is possible that this editing criteria may bias the 
pass-through results by over-estimating POTW removals where influent 
concentrations are generally lower. This would result in 
underestimating the pollutant reductions that are achieved through the 
regulation of indirect dischargers thereby making the rule appear less 
cost-effective than it is. On the other hand, there may be little 
difference in percent removals across the range of influent 
concentrations generally experienced by POTWs.
    One potential solution to this methodological question would be to 
include data (for both indirect dischargers and POTWs) even if the 
influent concentration is not 10 times the analytical minimum level. 
This solution needs to be considered in context, however, with data 
handling criteria for effluent measurements of ``non-detect'' discussed 
below.
    c. Assessment of removals when effluent is below the analytical 
method minimum level. EPA developed the pass-through analysis that is 
the basis for today's proposal using the analytical method minimum 
level as the effluent value when the pollutant was not detected in the 
effluent. This is the approach that is generally used when developing 
pollutant reduction estimates for the regulation, performing cost-
effectiveness calculations, and developing effluent limitations. EPA 
believes that this methodology may underestimate the performance of the 
selected technology option for both directs and indirects. Once again, 
this would result in underestimating the removals estimated for direct 
dischargers, and thereby making the rule appear less cost-effective 
than it is. indirect dischargers, EPA believes that the overall effect 
of using the minimum level for non-detect values for both industry and 
POTW data creates a bias for underestimating POTW removals in 
comparison to industry removals. This may result in an overestimation 
of pollutant removals by indirect dischargers, and may make the rule 
appear more cost-effective than it is. (Note that this problem is 
minimized by only using data with influent levels exceeding 10 X ML, 
because a non-detect assures that at least 90 percent of the pollutant 
has been removed. It is arguably less important that the true removal 
may be greater than 90 percent, rather than exactly 90 percent. Using a 
less stringent editing criteria of 2 X ML as discussed above would 
exacerbate this problem. If the influent were only 2 X ML, then 
removals greater than 50 percent could never be measured.)
    One potential alternative would be to assume a value of one half of 
the minimum level for effluent values of non-detect. This approach 
would have to be applied uniformly for the indirect dischargers as well 
as the POTWs in order for the percent removal calculations to be 
reasonable.
     a more detailed discussion of alternative approaches to the POTW 
pass-through analysis, see the Technical Development Document, Section 
X. EPA solicits comment on the significance of each of these 
methodological issues and the potential alternatives.
4. Determination of Long Term Averages, Variability Factors, and 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
    This subsection describes the statistical methodology used to 
develop long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations for 
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The same basic procedures apply to 
the calculation of all effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
for this industry, regardless of whether the technology is BPT, BCT, 
BAT, NSPS, PSES, or PSNS. simplicity, the following discussion refers 
only to effluent limitations guidelines; however, the discussion also 
applies to new source and pretreatment standards.
    The proposed limitations for pollutants for each option, as 
presented in today's notice, are provided as ``daily maximums'' and 
``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 
state that the daily maximum limitation is the ``highest allowable 
`daily discharge ''' and the maximum for monthly average limitation is 
the ``highest allowable average of `daily discharges' over a calendar 
month, calculated as the sum of all `daily discharges' measured during 
a calendar month divided by the number of `daily discharges' measured 
during that month.'' Daily discharges are defined to be the `` 
`discharge of a pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any 24-
hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of 
sampling.''
    EPA calculates the limitations based upon percentiles chosen with 
the intention, on one hand, to accommodate reasonably anticipated 
variability within the control of the facility and, on the other hand, 
to reflect a level of performance consistent with the Clean Water Act 
requirement that these effluent limitations be based on the ``best'' 
technologies. The daily maximum limitation is an estimate of the 99th 
percentile of the distribution of the daily measurements. The maximum 
for monthly average limitation is an

[[Page 82014]]

estimate of the 95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly 
averages of the daily measurements. The percentiles for both types of 
limitations are estimated using the products of long-term averages and 
variability factors.
    In the first of two steps in estimating both types of limitations, 
EPA determines an average performance level (the ``long-term average'') 
that a facility with well-designed and operated model technologies 
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is capable of 
achieving. This long-term average is calculated from the data from the 
facilities using the model technologies for the option. EPA expects 
that all facilities subject to the limitations will design and operate 
their treatment systems to achieve the long-term average performance 
level on a consistent basis because facilities with well-designed and 
operated model technologies have demonstrated that this can be done. In 
the second step of developing a limitation, EPA determines an allowance 
for the variation in pollutant concentrations when processed through 
well designed and operated treatment systems. This allowance for 
variance incorporates all components of variability including process 
and wastewater generation, sample collection, shipping, storage, and 
analytical variability. This allowance is incorporated into the 
limitations through the use of the variability factors, which are 
calculated from the data from the facilities using the model 
technologies. If a facility operates its treatment system to meet the 
relevant long-term average, EPA expects the facility to be able to meet 
the limitations. 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. The data sources, 
the selection of pollutants and data, and the calculations of pollutant 
long-term averages and variability factors are briefly described below. 
More detailed explanations are provided in the technical development 
document.
    EPA recognizes that, as a result of modifications to 40 CFR part 
420, some dischargers that consistently meet effluent limitations based 
on the current regulation may need to improve treatment systems, 
process controls, and/or treatment system operations in order to 
consistently meet effluent limitations based on revised effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards. EPA believes that this 
consequence is consistent with the Clean Water Act statutory framework, 
which requires that discharge limitations reflect the best available 
technology, and that the best available technology should be redefined 
periodically.
    The long-term averages, variability factors, and limitations were 
based upon pollutant concentrations collected from three data sources: 
EPA sampling episodes, the 1997 Analytical and Production follow-up 
survey, and data submitted by industry. When the data from the EPA 
sampling episodes at a facility met the data editing criteria, EPA used 
the sampling data and any monitoring data provided by the facility. See 
Technical Development Document Section 10 for more information.
5. BPT
    In general, the BPT technology level represents the average of the 
best existing performances of plants of various processes, ages, sizes 
or other common characteristics. Where existing performance is 
considered uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a 
different subcategory or industry. Limitations based upon transfer of 
technology must be supported by a conclusion that the technology is 
indeed transferable and a reasonable prediction that it will be capable 
of meeting the prescribed effluent limits. See Tanners' Council of 
America v. Train, 540 F.2nd 1188 (4th Cir. 1976). BPT focuses on end-
of-pipe treatment rather than process changes or internal controls, 
except where the process changes or internal controls are common 
industry practice.
    The cost-benefit inquiry for BPT is a limited balancing, committed 
to EPA's discretion, which does not require the Agency to quantify the 
benefits in monetary terms. In balancing costs in relation to effluent 
reduction benefits, EPA considers the volume and nature of existing 
discharges expected after the application of BPT, the general 
environmental effects of the pollutants, and the cost and economic 
impact of the required pollution controls. When setting BPT 
limitations, EPA is required under section 304(b) to perform a limited 
cost-benefit balancing to ensure the costs are not wholly out of 
proportion to the benefits achieved. See Weyerhaeuser Company v. 
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
    a. New Subcategories/Segments. EPA proposes to promulgate BPT 
limitations for conventional pollutants (TSS and/or oil & grease) for 
the following subcategories or segments that have not previously been 
regulated under part 420: Non-recovery cokemaking; sintering operations 
with dry air pollution controls; electric arc furnace operations within 
the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory; direct reduced 
iron; forging; and, briquetting. There are no BPT limitations in the 
current regulation applicable to non-recovery cokemaking, direct 
reduced iron, forging and briquetting. The current Steelmaking 
Subcategory BPT regulation requires ``no discharge of pollutants'' for 
semi-wet electric arc furnace operations (Sec. 420.43(a)) and allows 
discharges for wet electric arc furnace operations (Sec. 420.43(c)). 
Under the proposed subcategorization scheme, there are no wet electric 
arc furnace operations within the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot 
ming Subcategory. The current BPT regulation does not specifically 
cover sintering operations with dry air pollution controls.
    b. Existing Subcategories/Segments. manufacturing operations 
subject to current BPT regulations (i.e., all iron and steel operations 
regulated under the current part 420 and electroplating operations 
regulated currently under part 433 but proposed for regulation under 
the revised Part 420), the Agency at this time is not proposing to 
revise the BPT limitations for TSS and oil & grease. Because EPA is 
proposing to establish a revised subcategorization schedule for part 
420 by consolidating several former subparts and creating new ones, EPA 
has presented the current part 420 BPT limitations for each proposed 
subpart in the form of segments corresponding to the subcategorization 
schedule that EPA proposes to replace. With respect to continuous 
electroplating operations, which are currently regulated under part 433 
(Metal Finishing), but which EPA proposes to regulate under part 420 
(Iron & Steel), EPA presents BPT limitations for the conventional 
parameters TSS and oil and grease in proposed subpart F, 
Secs. 420.62(a)(9) and (b)(9) based on the limitations as currently 
codified in part 433 for those operations.
    The Agency is also considering an alternative approach that would 
simplify the regulation and ease implementation of BPT limitations in 
the NPDES permit program. The Agency solicits comment on this 
alternative approach, which is discussed below. The alternative is also 
presented in the Technical Development Document for this proposed 
regulation.
    j. Alternative approach: Codify BPT limitations as the TSS and O&G 
Concentrations used to develop the Current part 420 Regulation. The 
Agency is aware that incorporating the current BPT limitations into the 
new

[[Page 82015]]

subcategorization structure of the proposed regulation is complex and 
will be difficult to implement because the BPT limitations are 
unchanged and reflect a different subcategorization schedule. If the 
regulation were promulgated as proposed, permit writers and the 
industry would be required to implement the existing part 433 BPT 
limitations, existing part 420 BPT limitations for 12 subcategories and 
more than 50 segments, as well as the proposed BAT limitations for 
seven subcategories with far fewer segments. As a result, permit 
writers would need to identify process units using different 
characteristics for BPT than they would use for BAT and other 
technology levels. Therefore, EPA is considering an alternative 
approach that EPA believes would ease implementation of BPT limitations 
in the NPDES permit program.
    Under this alternative approach, EPA would replace the current 
mass-based BPT limitations for TSS and oil & grease with corresponding 
concentration-based limitations for TSS and oil & grease. The 
concentration-based BPT limitations would be the treated effluent 
concentrations used to develop the current regulation for all 
operations EPA proposes to continue to regulate under the revised part 
420 regulations. (Thus, this option would not apply to Cold Worked Pipe 
& Tube operations currently subject to part 420, but which EPA proposes 
to regulate under Part 438. Those concentrations are shown as the daily 
maximum and maximum monthly average TSS and oil & grease concentrations 
(mg/L) for the 12 subcategories of the existing regulation (see Table 
I-1 (pages 13 to 17), Vol. I of the ``Development Document for Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point 
Source Category,'' (EPA 440/1-82-024; May 1982)). electroplating 
operations regulated currently under part 433, the corresponding BPT 
concentration limitations would be either those listed at part 433, or 
those for the steel finishing operations listed in Table I-1 referenced 
above.
    Under this option, the TSS and oil & grease concentrations listed 
in the 1982 development document would be codified as BPT limitations 
in the seven subcategories proposed for this regulation. Because the 
TSS and oil & grease concentrations used to develop the 1982 regulation 
are the same for operations within each of the seven subcategories for 
this proposed regulation, the structure of the revised regulation would 
be streamlined and implementation would be much simpler. example, 
permit writers and the industry would not have to contend with 
classifying hot forming and steel finishing operations under both the 
more complicated subcategory and segment schedule from the current 
regulation and the less complicated subcategory and segment schedule 
from this proposed regulation.
    Under this option, the permit writers would develop NPDES permit 
effluent limitations by first applying the corresponding BAT 
limitations for toxic and non-conventional pollutants for each internal 
or external outfall discharging process wastewaters. Mass effluent 
limitations for TSS and oil & grease would be developed by applying the 
respective concentration-based BPT effluent limitations guidelines to a 
reasonable measure of actual process wastewater discharge flow, taking 
into account process wastewaters regulated directly by Part 420 and 
those process wastewaters that may be unregulated by part 420 (see 
proposed regulation at Sec. 420.03(f)). As with the BAT limitations, 
the Agency intends that only the mass limitations derived for TSS and 
oil & grease as described above be included in NPDES permits.
    Depending upon site-specific circumstances, this option could 
result in either more or less stringent limitations for TSS and oil & 
grease than would be derived from the current BPT limitations. example, 
if a mill has process wastewater discharge flows lower than the model 
BPT production normalized flows from the 1982 regulation and no 
unregulated process wastewaters, the resulting TSS and oil & grease 
permit limitations would be more stringent in proportion to the amount 
of the lower discharge flow. On the other hand, if the mill had higher 
process wastewater flows or a substantial volume of unregulated process 
wastewaters, the resultant effluent limitations would be higher in 
proportion to the higher discharge flow. The Agency believes that in 
many instances the volume of regulated process wastewaters currently 
discharged or that will be discharged to attain compliance with the BAT 
limitations will be somewhat less than the model BPT flow rates. 
Consequently, on balance, EPA expects that the resulting NPDES permit 
effluent limitations for TSS and oil & grease would be somewhat more 
stringent but in the range of those derived from the current BPT 
limitations.
    Under this approach, as a practical matter, there would be no 
additional costs of compliance to achieve the resulting BPT TSS and oil 
& grease effluent limitations. Incremental investment costs and 
incremental operation and maintenance costs were considered, where 
appropriate, as costs to achieve the BAT limitations. In addition, EPA 
would not expect facilities to incur additional monitoring costs 
associated with concentration-based BPT limitations because facilities 
already monitor for these pollutants under the current regulation, and 
EPA does not propose to establish any new monitoring requirements for 
the conventional pollutants. Nonetheless, for the purposes of 
calculating cost per pound of conventional pollutants removed, EPA has 
estimated both the costs associated with implementing new BPT 
technologies (in this case, identical to the proposed BAT technologies, 
even though as a practical matter, they are already subsumed in the BAT 
costs ), as well as the total pounds removed by those technologies. 
(These totals reflect only the subcategories and segments for which EPA 
is considering revising BPT limitations.) The total estimated costs are 
$53.8 million (1997 pretax total annualized costs) and the total 
estimated removals are 30.3 million pounds of conventional pollutants. 
EPA believes these costs to be reasonable in relation to the effluent 
reduction benefits. If EPA were to adopt this alternative approach, EPA 
would revise BCT limitations to reflect the new BPT levels because 
nothing more stringent that those levels appears to pass the BCT cost 
test.
    EPA solicits comments on this alternative approach, which EPA 
believes would ease the implementation of the BPT limitations and would 
reflect current manufacturing, waste management, and wastewater 
treatment practices. EPA also solicits other options for consideration.
6. BCT
    The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses 
the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent 
limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT 
candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by 
applying a two-part cost test:
    (1) The POTW test; and
    (2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
    In the POTW test, EPA 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 pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from 
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry

[[Page 82016]]

must be less than the POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 
dollars).
    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 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29 
percent).
    In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are 
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants 
than proposed for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-
reasonable according to the prescribed BCT tests. EPA identified no 
technologies that can achieve greater removals of conventional 
pollutants than the BPT standards that also pass the BCT cost-
reasonableness tests. Accordingly, EPA proposes to establish BCT 
effluent limitations equal to the current BPT limitations.
7. Consideration of Statutory Factors for BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS 
Technology Options Selection
    Based on the record before it, EPA has determined that each 
proposed model technology is technically available. EPA is also 
proposing that each is economically achievable for the segment to which 
it applies. Further, EPA has determined, for the reasons set forth in 
Section VIII, that none of the proposed technology options has 
unacceptable adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. Finally, 
EPA has determined that each proposed technology option achieves 
greater pollutant removals than any other economically achievable 
technology considered by EPA and, for that reason, also represents the 
best technology among those considered for the particular segment. EPA 
also considered the age, size, processes, and other engineering factors 
pertinent to facilities in the proposed segments for the purpose of 
evaluating the technology options. None of these factors provides a 
basis for selecting different technologies than those EPA proposes to 
select as its model BAT and PSES technologies for the segments within 
each subcategory, or if EPA does not propose segmentation, for the 
subcategory itself.
    In selecting its proposed NSPS technology for these segments and 
subcategories, EPA considered all of the factors specified in CWA 
section 306, including the cost of achieving effluent reductions. 
(These findings also apply to the proposed PSNS for these segments.) 
The proposed NSPS technologies for these segments are presently being 
employed at facilities in each segment of these subcategories. 
Therefore, EPA has concluded that such costs do not present a barrier 
to entry. The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts for the proposed NSPS options and 
concluded that these impacts were no greater than for the proposed BAT 
technology options for the particular segment and are acceptable. EPA 
therefore concluded that the NSPS technology bases proposed for these 
segments constitute the best available demonstrated control technology 
for those segments.

B. Cokemaking

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the by-product and non-recovery cokemaking segments of the proposed 
Cokemaking Subcategory.
1. By-Product Cokemaking
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. the By-Product segment of this 
subcategory, EPA proposes establishing BAT limitations for ammonia-N, 
total cyanide, phenol, benzo(a)pyrene, thiocyanate, naphthalene, 
mercury, selenium, and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC). Except for TRC, 
these pollutants are characteristic of cokemaking wastewaters. TRC is 
an indicator of post-alkaline chlorination residual concentration of 
chlorine. Facilities would not need to meet the TRC limit if they 
certify to the permitting authority that they do not employ alkaline 
chlorination in their wastewater treatment. These proposed regulated 
pollutants are key indicators of the performance of the ammonia 
distillation, biological treatment, and alkaline chlorination 
processes, which are the key components of the complex model BAT and 
NSPS treatment systems for by-product coke plants.
    ii. PSES. EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under 
PSES: ammonia-N, total cyanide, thiocyanate, selenium, phenol, and 
naphthalene. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has 
determined that each of these pollutants passes through. EPA notes that 
ammonia-N is a key indicator of the performance of the PSES and PSNS 
treatment systems because it reflects the performance of the ammonia 
stills, which not only control ammonia-N, but also acid gasses (HCN, 
H2S) and volatile toxic organic pollutants (benzene, 
toluene, xylenes), some portions of which would otherwise be lost in 
coke plant and municipal sewer systems and in biological processes at 
POTWs. EPA has determined that the other pollutants EPA proposes to 
regulate at BAT (benzo(a)pyrene and mercury) do not pass through.
    iii. NSPS. NSPS limitations, EPA proposes to regulate the same 
pollutants as those for BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil and 
grease (measured as HEM).
    iv. PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate the same parameters as under 
PSES for this segment.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The Agency is proposing to 
establish BAT-3 for the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking 
subcategory. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the 
development of the proposed BAT limits are: Tar removal, equalization, 
ammonia stripping, temperature control, equalization, single-stage 
biological treatment with nitrification, and alkaline chlorination. EPA 
estimates that only one facility will close as a result of BAT-3. EPA 
has determined that this option is economically achievable and cost 
effective.
    As presented in Section V.C.1, four BAT options were under 
consideration. Under BAT-1, water usage would be reduced by 1.6 million 
gallons per year from current levels and the removal toxic and non-
conventional pollutants would increase by 14% over those levels. BAT-2 
results in no further reduction in flow beyond that to be achieved by 
BAT-1, but does result in the additional removal of 17% of the total 
cyanide from direct discharging cokemaking wastestreams through the use 
of cyanide precipitation. BAT-3 also results in no further reduction in 
flow beyond that to be achieved by BAT-1, but does result in the 
additional removal of 50% of the total cyanide from direct discharging 
cokemaking wastestreams beyond BAT-1 levels through the use of alkaline 
chlorination. BAT-4 results in no further reduction in flow beyond that 
to be achieved by any of the BAT options, and does not lead to 
significant additional pollutant removal beyond that to be achieved by 
BAT-3.
    BAT-1 removes 56,300 toxic pound equivalents over current discharge 
at an annualized compliance cost of $0.9 million (1997$). BAT-2 removes 
an additional 26% of toxic pound equivalents over BAT-1, at an 
additional annualized compliance cost of $3.3 million (1997$). Neither 
of these options results in any facility closures, so both are 
considered economically achievable. However, EPA is not proposing 
either of these options,

[[Page 82017]]

because BAT-3 removes even more pollutants of concern at a cost that is 
also economically achievable.
    EPA also evaluated BAT-4 as a basis for establishing BAT more 
stringent than the level of control being proposed today. As was the 
case for BAT-3, EPA estimates that only one facility would close as a 
result of BAT-4, so EPA has determined that this option is economically 
achievable. However, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limits based 
on BAT-4 because it determined that BAT-3 achieves nearly equivalent 
reductions in pound-equivalents for much less cost. EPA has determined 
that BAT-3 would remove 0.43 million pounds of priority and non-
conventional pollutants per year at a total annualized cost of $8.6 
million (1997$). In contrast, BAT-4 would remove the same quantity of 
pollutants at a total annualized cost of $15.2 million (1997$). In view 
of the fact that BAT-4 appears to achieve no additional pollutant 
removals and yet would prompt additional total annualized costs of $6.6 
million, EPA has determined that BAT-3, not BAT-4, is the ``best 
available'' technology economically achievable for the by-products 
recovery segment of the cokemaking subcategory.
    ii. PSES. EPA is co-proposing two sets of technologies to serve as 
the bases for the development of the proposed PSES limits: (1) Tar 
removal, equalization, ammonia stripping, temperature control and 
equalization, and (2) tar removal, equalization, ammonia stripping, 
temperature control, equalization, and single-stage biological 
treatment with nitrification. These are identified as options PSES-1 
and PSES-3 in Section V.C., respectively, and provide controls for each 
pollutant that EPA has determined pass through. EPA estimates that no 
facilities would close as a result of compliance with either of these 
options. EPA has concluded that these options are economically 
achievable.
    Under Option PSES-1, EPA estimates an additional 3,400 toxic pound 
equivalents would be removed per year above the current amount, at an 
additional annualized compliance cost of $0.3 million (1997$). Under 
Option PSES-2, EPA estimates an additional 2,200 toxic pound 
equivalents would be removed per year above PSES-1, at an additional 
annualized compliance cost of $1.9 million (1997$). Under PSES-3, EPA 
estimates an additional 42,900 toxic pound equivalents would be removed 
per year above PSES-2, at an additional annualized compliance cost of 
$2.8 million (1997$). Under PSES-4, EPA estimates an additional 2,900 
toxic pound equivalents would be removed per year above PSES-3, at an 
additional annualized compliance cost of $3.5 million (1997$). Based on 
consideration of the additional pollutant removals achieved by PSES-4 
for indirect dischargers in this subcategory and the additional costs 
needed to achieve them, EPA has determined that PSES-3 is the best 
technology for the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking 
subcategory.
    Although EPA considers PSES-3 to be the best among the PSES options 
EPA considered, EPA is also co-proposing PSES-1 because it may provide 
a lower cost means of obtaining similar pollutant reductions. EPA plans 
to further evaluate setting PSES equal to BAT-3 between proposal and 
promulgation of this rule.
    iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed NSPS are the same as Option BAT-3. the 
reasons set forth above for BAT in its comparison of BAT-3 and BAT-4, 
EPA has determined that BAT-3 is the ``best'' demonstrated technology 
for new sources in the by-products recovery segment of the cokemaking 
subcategory.
    iv. PSNS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed PSNS are the same as Option PSES-3. the 
reasons discussed above, EPA proposes PSES-3 as the basis for its PSNS 
for this segment. The Agency also solicits comment on the second option 
discussed under PSES for this segment, identified as option PSES-1. EPA 
plans to further evaluate setting PSNS equal to BAT-3 between proposal 
and promulgation of this rule.
2. Non-recovery Cokemaking
    Since the non-recovery cokemaking process does not generate any 
process wastewater, EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the U.S. for BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS for all 
categories for this segment.

C. Ironmaking

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the blast furnace and sintering segments of the proposed Ironmaking 
Subcategory.
1. Blast Furnace
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA proposes to regulate the 
following parameters under BAT: Ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenol, lead, 
zinc, and total recoverable chlorine (TRC). Ammonia-N and total cyanide 
are regulated in the current part 420 and are again proposed for 
regulation. These pollutants are characteristic of blast furnace 
ironmaking wastewaters and are key indicators of the performance of the 
alkaline chlorination process. Phenol is proposed for regulation in 
place of total phenols, because EPA judged phenol to be a better 
indicator of treatment performance of ironmaking wastewater than total 
phenols. EPA proposes to limit TRC to ensure residual concentrations of 
chlorine are kept to a minimum to avoid effluent toxicity. Facilities 
would not need to meet the TRC limit if they certify to the permitting 
authority that they do not employ alkaline chlorination in their 
wastewater treatment. EPA proposes to limit lead and zinc because they 
are the principal metals present and will track performance of the 
metals precipitation model BAT system with respect to other metals 
identified as pollutants of concern.
    ii. PSES. EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under 
PSES: ammonia-N, lead, and zinc. Using the methodology described in 
Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that each of these pollutants passes 
through. EPA has determined that the other pollutants EPA proposes to 
regulate at BAT (total cyanide and phenol) do not pass through.
    iii. NSPS. In addition to the parameters listed under BAT for this 
segment, EPA proposes to regulate TSS and oil & grease (measured as 
HEM).
    iv. PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate the same parameters under PSNS 
for this segment as it does for PSES.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that 
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits for 
the ironmaking subcategory (Blast Furnace and Sintering Segments) are: 
solids removal with high-rate recycle and metals precipitation, 
alkaline chlorination, and mixed-media-filtration for the blowdown 
wastewater. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. Under BAT-1, 
water usage would be reduced by 5% over current levels, and total 
loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants would be reduced by 
68%. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. 
EPA has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did 
not pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant 
POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on 
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology

[[Page 82018]]

basis for BAT for the ironmaking subcategory.
    ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed PSES limits are: solids removal with 
high-rate recycle and metals precipitation for the blowdown wastewater. 
This is identified as Option PSES-1 in Section V.C. This option 
provides controls for each pollutant that EPA has determined passes 
through for this segment. EPA has determined that this option is 
economically achievable. Although BAT-1 achieves additional removal of 
ammonia-N through alkaline chlorination, EPA has found that all POTWs 
currently receiving wastewater from ironmaking operations are achieving 
ammonia removal comparable to that achieved by BAT-1. Therefore, EPA 
proposes PSES-1 as the technology basis for PSES for the ironmaking 
subcategory.
    EPA is proposing regulatory flexibility that would allow indirectly 
discharging ironmaking operations to not have to meet the pretretment 
standards for ammonia-N if the facility certifies to the pretreatment 
control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 that they discharge to POTWs with 
the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's 
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected 
under BAT for ammonia-N.
    EPA plans to further evaluate setting PSES equal to BAT-1 between 
proposal and promulgation of this rule.
    iii. NSPS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed NSPS limits are the same as Option BAT-
1 for this segment. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue 
additional, more stringent options for NSPS because all significant 
POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-
on technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis 
for NSPS for the ironmaking subcategory because EPA believes it 
represents the best demonstrated technology for this subcategory.
    iv. PSNS. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed PSNS limits are the same as Option 
PSES-1 for this segment. the reasons set forth above for NSPS, EPA 
proposes PSES-1 as the basis for PSNS for this subcategory.
    EPA is proposing regulatory flexibility that would allow indirectly 
discharging ironmaking operations to not have to meet the pretreatment 
standards for ammonia-N if the facility certifies to the pretreatment 
control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 that they discharge to POTWs with 
the capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's 
removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected 
under BAT for ammonia-N.
    EPA plans to further evaluate setting PSNS equal to BAT-1 between 
proposal and promulgation of this rule.
2. Sintering
    a. Regulated Pollutants. Because several congeners of dioxins have 
been shown to cause adverse health effects at concentration levels far 
below those of most pollutants, EPA proposes to regulate 2,3,7,8-tetra-
chloro-dibenzo furan (TCDF). EPA selected this congener because 
sampling data indicates that it is present in post-treatment sinter 
plant wastewater, and because removal of this pollutant is expected to 
correlate strongly with removal of other dioxin congeners, due to their 
similar chemical structures. EPA's sampling program did not indicate 
that there are measurable quantities of 2,3,7,8-tetra-chloro-dibenzo 
dioxin (TCDD) in post-treatment sinter plant wastewater. The proposed 
limit would be expressed as less than the minimum level (``ML'') or ten 
parts per quadrillion using current analytical methods. The ``ML'' is 
an abbreviation for the minimum level of the analytical method for TCDF 
specified in 40 CFR part 136. EPA proposes to require compliance 
monitoring at internal outfalls (after treatment of sinter plant 
wastewaters separately or in combination with blast furnace 
wastewaters), i.e., before any additional process or non-process flows 
are combined with the sinter plant wastewater. This regulatory approach 
is similar to that used in the regulation of the bleached paper grade 
plant effluents at bleached kraft pulp and paper mills (see 40 CFR 
430.24(e)). EPA expects to gather additional information on dioxin and 
furan concentrations in sinter plant effluent and on this proposed 
regulatory approach through the public comment process. EPA also is 
willing to speak with interested parties during the comment period to 
ensure that EPA considers the views of all stakeholders and uses the 
best possible data upon which to base a decision for the final 
regulation.
i. BAT
    EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under BAT: 
ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenol, lead, zinc, TRC and 2,3,7,8 TCDF. EPA 
proposes to regulate ammonia-N, total cyanide and phenol in order to 
track performance of the BAT model treatment technology, which includes 
alkaline chlorination. EPA proposes to regulate TRC in order to ensure 
residual concentrations of chlorine are kept to a minimum to avoid 
effluent toxicity. Facilities would not need to meet the TRC limit if 
they certify to the permitting authority that they do not employ 
alkaline chlorination in their wastewater treatment. EPA proposes to 
regulate lead and zinc because they are the principal metals present 
and will track performance of the metals precipitation model BAT system 
with respect to other metals identified as pollutants of concern.
ii. PSES
    EPA proposes to regulate the following parameters under PSES: 
ammonia-N, lead, zinc, and 2,3,7,8 TCDF. Using the methodology 
described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that each of these 
pollutants passes through. EPA has determined that the other pollutants 
EPA proposes to regulate at BAT (cyanide and phenol) do not pass 
through.
iii. NSPS
    In addition to the parameters listed under BAT for this segment, 
EPA proposes to regulate TSS and oil & grease (measured as HEM).
iv. PSNS
    EPA proposes to regulate the same parameters under PSNS for this 
segment as it does for PSES.
    b. Technologies Selected.
i. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS
    See discussions under ``Blast Furnace'' above.

D. Integrated Steelmaking

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the proposed Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory.
1. Regulated Pollutants
    a. BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes to regulate lead and zinc under 
BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS because they are the principal metals present and 
because they are good indicators of the performance of the metals 
precipitation component of the proposed model technology. Using the 
methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has determined that both 
lead and zinc pass through.

[[Page 82019]]

2. Technology Selected
    a. BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS. The treatment technologies that serve as the 
basis for the development of the proposed BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limits 
are: solids removal and high rate recycle, with metals precipitation 
for blowdown wastewater. Cooling towers are also part of the model 
technology for process wastewater associated with vacuum degassing or 
continuous casting. This option is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C.
    Under BAT-1, water usage can be reduced by 83% over current levels, 
and total loadings of toxic and non-conventional pollutants can be 
reduced by 66%. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a 
result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that this option is economically 
achievable. EPA did not pursue other options because all significant 
POCs in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on 
technologies. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for 
BAT for the proposed Integrated Steelmaking subcategory.
     the same reason, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the basis for PSES for this 
subcategory. This option provides controls for each pollutant that EPA 
has determined passes through for this subcategory.
    As was the case for BAT and PSES, EPA did not pursue additional, 
more stringent options for NSPS and PSNS because all significant POCs 
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on 
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for 
NSPS and PSNS for the integrated steelmaking subcategory because EPA 
believes it represents the best demonstrated technology for this 
subcategory.

E. Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the carbon and allow segment and the stainless steel segment of the 
proposed Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming Subcategory.
1. Carbon and Alloy
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing to regulate the 
following pollutants: lead and zinc.
    ii. PSES/PSNS. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES/
PSNS'' below.
    iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for 
BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease (measured as HEM).
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. EPA is proposing two different BAT 
approaches today because of the uncertainty regarding the economic 
achievability of the preferred option in April 2002 when EPA is 
scheduled to take final action on this proposal.
    BAT Option A: The treatment technologies that serve as the basis 
for the development of BAT Option A are: scale pit with oil skimming, 
roughing clarifier, cooling tower with high rate recycle and mixed-
media filtration of blowdown. As required by CWA section 301(b)(2), 
each existing direct discharger subject to this proposed BAT would be 
subject to the corresponding limitations as soon they are incorporated 
into the facility's NPDES permit. EPA believes the BAT Option A is 
economically achievable because the facility level analysis projects no 
facility closures. The firm level analysis does, however, project that 
one or more firms may experience financial ``distress'' as a result of 
the aggregate compliance costs of the rule, including the hot forming 
segment compliance costs. Financial ``distress'' may indicate the loss 
of financial independence, sale of assets or the likelihood of 
bankruptcy. In this case, the facility level analysis indicates the 
facilities would be expected to remain viable postcompliance and would 
possess value as continuing concerns. Therefore, EPA expects that the 
firm(s) would respond to financial ``distress'' through the sale of 
assets, rather than through declaration of bankruptcy, which would be 
far more disruptive in terms of economic impacts for the subcategory as 
a whole. example, job losses would be more limited in the event of the 
sale of a facility owned by a distressed firm rather than a bankruptcy 
induced closure and any community impacts associated with job losses 
would likewise be less severe. The Agency believes that this projected 
level of financial distress is not significant and therefore believes 
that Option A is economically achievable for the segment as a whole.
    BAT Option B: As discussed in more detail above in Section V.C.4.b, 
Section VI.D.4, and Section VI.F, EPA has estimated that it could cost 
affected facilities $ 21.2 million in total annualized costs to comply 
with BAT limitations based on the proposed BAT model technology, which 
includes high rate recycle. When those costs are considered together 
with other costs that EPA estimates firms will incur if this rule is 
promulgated as proposed, EPA has predicted that the cumulative costs of 
this rule could jeopardize the corporate financial health of one or 
more firms. See Section VI.F. While EPA considers those possible 
impacts to be acceptable for the purposes of today's proposal, EPA is 
also aware that new information received after this proposal, including 
information regarding changes in the financial health of the industry 
due to changes in the national economy and foreign trade, might lead 
EPA to reach a different conclusion when EPA takes final action on this 
proposal in April 2002. Therefore, in addition to proposed BAT Option A 
for the carbon and alloy segment of the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot 
ming subcategory, EPA is proposing a second BAT approach for this 
segment. EPA is considering BAT limitations for this segment based on 
BAT Option B in the event it determines that BAT Option A is not 
economically achievable for the segment as a whole at the time it takes 
final action on today's proposal. The proposed alternative described 
below is designed to minimize possible adverse economic impacts of the 
primary proposed BAT option for this segment.
    Like the BAT option A, BAT Option B includes high rate recycle. 
(Indeed, the technology basis for BAT Option A and the proposed 
alternative is identical.) The difference between BAT Option A and BAT 
Option B involves the amount of time that facilities in the segment 
would have to achieve the BAT limitations based on that technology. 
Under BAT option A, all direct discharging facilities covered by the 
carbon and alloy segment of the Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming 
subcategory would be subject to the BAT limitations as soon as they are 
placed in the facilities' NPDES permit. See sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D) 
and (F) of the Clean Water Act. Although it is common practice for 
permit writers to issue administrative orders concurrent with issuing 
permits based on a new or revised effluent guideline, the decision to 
do so is left to the permit writers' enforcement discretion. Therefore, 
EPA cannot assume the availability of such relief when it estimates the 
costs and impacts of this proposed rule. Under BAT Option B, in 
contrast, all facilities within the carbon and alloy segment of the 
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory could receive 
additional time to achieve the limitations based on the proposed BAT 
technology for that segment. If EPA ultimately determines in April 2002 
that

[[Page 82020]]

BAT Option A is not economically achievable for the segment as a whole, 
it may decide to take final action based on BAT Option B.
    Under BAT Option B, EPA would codify BAT limitations that consisted 
of three separate components. Together, the three components would 
comprise BAT for the carbon and alloy segment of the Integrated and 
Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory and, operating incrementally, would 
become progressively more stringent over time. Although applied in 
stages, the limitations would represent a continuum of progress that 
all facilities under BAT Option B would be required to achieve by April 
30, 2007. Under the first component, consisting of ``stage 1'' BAT 
limitations, each facility subject to this segment would be immediately 
subject to limitations based on the mill's existing effluent quality 
for the regulated pollutants, or its current technology-based permit 
limits for those pollutants, whichever are more stringent. The second 
component would consist of enforceable interim milestones developed on 
a best professional judgment basis by the permitting authority to 
reflect reasonable interim milestones toward achievement of the 
ultimate BAT limitations. Under the third component, consisting of the 
ultimate, or ``stage 2'', BAT limitations, each facility by April 30, 
2007 would be subject to limitations that are based on the BAT 
technology proposed for this segment (i.e., scale pit with oil 
skimming, roughing clarifier, filtration, high rate recycle and mixed-
media filtration of blowdown).
    With respect to the ``stage 1'' limitations, EPA intends that the 
permitting authority would express that limitation in numeric form for 
each facility on a case-by-case basis. The ``stage 1'' limitations thus 
will be numeric values on the regulated pollutants, that, for each 
pollutant, are equivalent to the more stringent of either the 
technology-based limit on that pollutant in the facility's last permit 
or the facility's current effluent quality with respect to that 
pollutant. Existing effluent quality for the regulated pollutants would 
be determined at the internal monitoring point where the wastewater 
containing those pollutants leaves the hot forming wastewater treatment 
plant. These ``stage 1'' BAT limits would represent the first step in 
the BAT continuum for BAT Option B and would be enforceable against the 
facility as soon as they are placed in the facility's NPDES permit. The 
purpose of the ``stage 1'' BAT limits would be to ensure that, at a 
minimum, existing effluent quality is maintained while the facility 
moves toward achieving the ``stage 2'' BAT limitations that are based 
on the model BAT technologies for this segment. Allowing a facility to 
degrade its effluent quality during development and installation of the 
model BAT technologies would be inconsistent with the statute's 
direction that BAT limitations achieve reasonable further progress 
toward the Clean Water Act's national goals. EPA's ``stage 1'' 
limitations, thus, would be intended to capture continuously improving 
effluent quality.
    Because the ``stage 1'' limitations would reflect a level of 
technology that the facility is already employing or that was 
previously determined to be BAT for that facility, EPA would be able to 
conclude at the time of promulgation that the technology bases for the 
``stage 1'' limits are both technically available and economically 
achievable. If EPA were to promulgate such limitations, EPA would also 
consider whether they would result in any adverse non-water quality 
environmental impacts, and would also consider all of the other 
statutory factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) and 306. EPA 
believes that ``stage 1'' limitations could be the ``best'' available 
technology economically achievable for facilities in the segment if the 
record shows that they allow those facilities to focus their resources 
on the research, development, testing, and installation of the 
technologies ultimately needed to achieve the ``stage 2'' limitations, 
which are based on model BAT technology for the subpart. ``Stage 1'' 
limitations thus would reflect ``reasonable further progress toward the 
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants,'' as 
called for by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), and could reasonably represent 
the appropriate first rung of the segment BAT ladder, if EPA were to 
determine that the model technology is not economically achievable at 
the time of promulgation.
    The second component would consist of interim milestone 
limitations. Under this component, facilities would be required to meet 
enforceable requirements determined by the permitting authority based 
on best professional judgment; these milestones would be expressed as 
narrative or numeric conditions in the facility's NPDES permit and 
would reflect each step in a facility's progress toward achievement of 
the ultimate, ``stage 2,'' performance requirements.
    With respect to ``stage 2,'' EPA would promulgate limitations that 
represent the performance that can be achieved using the model BAT 
technology for the segment. Because the model technology for BAT Option 
B's ``stage 2'' limitations would be the same as those proposed for BAT 
Option A, the calculated limitations would be identical as well. The 
difference between the BAT Option A and BAT Option B is that the 
facilities in this segment would not be required to be subject to those 
limitations upon promulgation. Rather, the facilities would be subject 
to the ``stage 2'' limitations at some later date specified in the 
regulation by EPA, e.g., April 30, 2007. That date would represent the 
date by which EPA determines--based on the administrative record at the 
time of promulgation--that the model technology would be economically 
achievable for the segment as a whole. Thus, under BAT Option B , if 
EPA concludes at the time of promulgation that five years would be 
sufficient time to allow the subcategory as a whole to raise the 
capital necessary to implement the model BAT technology for the segment 
in a way to assure its economic achievability, then EPA would specify 
that date as the date by which the segment as a whole is subject to the 
``stage 2'' BAT limitations.
    EPA acknowledges that the uncertainties of the iron and steel 
market and the financial circumstances of individual firms may make it 
difficult to project the economic achievability of particular 
technologies in future years, even in the comparative near-term. EPA 
expects it would take into account a variety of factors, including the 
costs of the BAT model technology over a specified number of years, the 
expected industry price and revenue cycle, the economic impact on the 
segment of other EPA regulations that might affect them within the time 
frame, and resulting aggregate costs, closures, and firm failures.
    In the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, 
paper and paperboard industry, EPA adopted an approach similar to BAT 
Option B as part of its Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives 
Program. See 40 CFR 430.24(b). Facilities choosing to participate in 
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program could enroll at 
one of three levels, or tiers, each with its own set of limits and time 
frames for compliance and each based on a different model BAT 
technology (with technologies becoming more advanced as the time 
periods for compliance were extended). each tier, EPA promulgated 
voluntary advanced technology BAT limitations that consisted of three 
separate components. Together, the three components comprised BAT for 
any bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill that elected to participate 
in the voluntary

[[Page 82021]]

incentives program. See 40 CFR 430.24(b). The first component consisted 
of ``stage 1'' existing effluent quality limitations that were similar 
in principle to the ``stage 1'' limitations described above for BAT 
Option B. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). The second component consisted of 
enforceable interim milestones developed on a best professional 
judgment basis by the permitting authority to reflect reasonable 
interim milestones toward achievement of the ultimate BAT limitations. 
See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2). (The program also included numeric six-year 
milestone limitations that would apply to facilities that enrolled in 
Incentives Tiers with deadlines of 2009 and 2014. See 40 CFR 
430.24(b)(3).) The third component consisted of numeric ``stage 2'' 
effluent limitations that reflected the limitations achievable by the 
model BAT technology for the particular tier. Taken together, these 
three components constitute reasonable further progress toward the 
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants and for 
this reason represented BAT.
    EPA recognizes that some facilities in this segment are already 
achieving or are capable of achieving limitations approaching the 
ultimate ``stage 2'' limitations. In this situation, the ``stage 1'' or 
interim milestone BAT limitations for these mills would correspond to 
that level of achievement, as judged by the permitting authority based 
on monitoring data supplied by the facility. In this way, EPA would 
ensure that, for the segment as a whole, limitations would be derived 
from the ``best'' available technology economically achievable, even 
though that technology might vary on a mill-by-mill basis during the 
interim period before the ``stage 2'' limitations apply. This 
incremental approach is authorized by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), which 
expressly requires BAT to result in reasonable further progress toward 
the national goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. EPA believes 
that the two-step approach set forth in BAT Option B would move 
facilities toward that national goal. Each facility in the segment 
would be required immediately to begin to implement a BAT package 
consisting of successively more stringent permit limits and conditions. 
Although environmental improvements are realized only incrementally, 
the facility is subject to BAT limits as soon as its permit is written 
based on the first increment of that BAT package. Thus, the facility is 
continuously subject to and must comply immediately with the BAT limits 
as they progressively unfold, including each interim BAT limitation or 
permit condition representing that progress.
    EPA's promulgation of BAT as a package of progressively more 
stringent limitations and conditions is also consistent with the use of 
BAT as a ``beacon to show what is possible.'' Kennecott v. EPA, 780 
F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985). By using BAT Option B, EPA thus would be 
able to promulgate forward-looking effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the segment as a whole. If EPA were to adopt BAT Option 
B, EPA would be promoting a form of technological progress that is 
consistent with Congressional intent that BAT should aspire to 
``increasingly higher levels of control.'' See, e.g., Statement of Sen. 
Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water 
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (``1972 Leg. Hist.''), at 170. 
It would also be consistent with the overall goals of the Act. See CWA 
section 101(a). Agencies have considerable discretion to interpret 
their statutes to promote Congressional objectives. `` `[T]he breadth 
of agency discretion is, if anything, at zenith when the action * * * 
relates primarily to * * * the fashioning of policies, remedies and 
sanctions, including enforcement and voluntary compliance programs[,] 
in order to arrive at maximum effectuation of Congressional 
objectives.'' ' U.S. Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 
1189, 1230-31 n.64 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (upholding OSHA rule staggering 
lead requirements over 10 years) (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. 
FPC, 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1967)), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 9113 
(1981). In this case, the codification of progressively more stringent 
BAT limitations advances not only the general goal of the Clean Water 
Act, but also the explicit goal of the BAT program. See Chevron, 
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).
    Moving toward the elimination of pollutant discharges in stages is 
also consistent with the overarching structure of the effluent 
limitations guidelines program. Congress originally envisioned that the 
sequence of attaining BPT limits in 1977 and BAT limits in 1983 would 
result in ``levels of control which approach and achieve the 
elimination of the discharge of pollutants.'' Statement of Sen. Muskie 
(Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in 1972 Legislative History, at 170. This 
two-step approach produced dramatic improvements in water quality, but 
did not achieve the elimination of pollutant discharges. Therefore, EPA 
periodically revisits and revises its effluent limitations guidelines 
with the intention each time of making further progress toward the 
national goal. This is the third effluent limitations guideline 
promulgated for the iron and steel industry. Achieving these 
incremental improvements through successive rulemakings carries a 
substantial cost, however. The effluent guideline rulemaking process 
can be highly complex, in large part because of the massive record 
compiled to inform the Agency's decisions and because of the 
substantial costs associated with achieving each additional increment 
of environmental improvement. If EPA were to adopt BAT Option B, EPA 
would hope to achieve the goals that Congress envisioned for the BAT 
program at considerably less cost: one rulemaking that looks both at 
the present and into the future.
    Finally, like other agencies, EPA has inherent authority to phase 
in regulatory requirements in appropriate cases. EPA has employed this 
authority in other contexts. example, EPA recently phased in, over two 
years, TSCA rules pertaining to lead-based paint activities. See 40 CFR 
746.239 and 61 FR 45788, 45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration phased in, over 10 years, 
a series of progressively more stringent lead-related controls. See 29 
CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.). Indeed, in upholding that rule, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that ``the extremely remote 
deadline at which the [sources] are to meet the final [permissible 
exposure limits] is perhaps the single most important factor supporting 
the feasibility of the standard.'' United Steelworkers of America v. 
Marshall, 647 F.2d at 1278.
    EPA is aware that CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C) & (D) require BAT 
limits to be achieved ``in no case later than three years after the 
date such limits are promulgated under section 304(b), and in no case 
later than March 31, 1989.'' (Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to BAT 
limitations for nonconventional pollutants, also contains the March 31, 
1989 date, but uses as its starting point the date the limitations are 
``established.'') This language does not speak to the precise question 
EPA confronts here: whether EPA can promulgate BAT limitations that are 
phased in over time, so that a direct discharger at all times is 
subject to and must comply immediately with the particular BAT 
limitations applicable to them at any given point in time. Section 
301(b)(2) provides no clear direction. EPA therefore is charged with 
making a reasonable interpretation of the statute

[[Page 82022]]

to fill the gap. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843-44. 
EPA believes that subjecting facilities to progressively more stringent 
BAT limitations over time could be the best way of achieving reasonable 
further progress toward eliminating all pollutant discharges, as 
intended by Congress. EPA could use BAT Option B to push facilities to 
achieve environmental reductions beyond those achievable if EPA 
proposes a BAT based on what is immediately attainable. BAT Option B 
would also make it possible for facilities to achieve these performance 
requirements at a pace that makes technical and economic sense. In 
fact, the Agency estimates the total annualized compliance costs for 
the alternative to be $13.3 million, which represents a savings of $7.9 
million.
    EPA specifically solicits comment on both of these options, 
including options for less expensive technology. Even though the Agency 
believes that Option A is economically achievable, there may be non-
trivial impacts for a few firms. The Agency could not identify less-
expensive treatment technology that would meet the objectives of the 
CWA. Therefore EPA also solicits comment on whether there is any 
rational basis to distinguish among mills in this segment, so as to 
apply BAT Option B only to a specific subsegment of mills for which the 
model technology is not economically achievable at the time of 
promulgation.
    ii. PSES/PSNS. EPA estimates that PSES-1, whose technical basis 
consists of a scale pit with oil skimming, a roughing clarifier, sludge 
dewatering, filtration, and high rate recycle, with mixed-media 
filtration of blowdown, would result in a flow reduction of 74% over 
current conditions, and a 53% reduction in discharge of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. However, EPA does not propose to promulgate 
PSES for the carbon and allow steel segment of the proposed Integrated 
and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes that nationally 
applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this time, because there 
are only seven facilities in this segment and because PSES-1 would 
result in an average removal of only 21 toxic pound-equivalents per 
facility per year for these facilities. These reductions are much lower 
than other categorical standards promulgated by EPA. example, Organic 
Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF), Electroplating, 
Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling toxic pound equivalents 
removed per facility per year range from 6,747 to 14,960. In addition, 
EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for two 
industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 
18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 2000), based on 
low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities in those 
categories. In the case of industrial laundries, EPA decided not to 
promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents 
per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA 
decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous 
landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per 
facility per year.
    The Agency believes that pretreatment local limits implemented on a 
case-by-case basis can more appropriately address any individual toxic 
parameters present at these facilities.
    iii. NSPS. EPA proposes BAT Option A as the basis for NSPS for this 
segment because EPA believes it represents the best demonstrated 
technology for this segment.
    iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing not to revise PSNS for this segment 
because EPA does not foresee the construction of any new indirect 
discharging facilities that would be subject to this segment. EPA also 
does not believe that it is practicable for a direct discharging 
facility covered by this segment to become an indirect discharging 
facility because their flows would be too large for a POTW to handle.
    2. Stainless
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT EPA is proposing regulating the 
following pollutants: chromium and nickel.
    ii. PSES/PSNS. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES/
PSNS'' below.
    iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing to regulate the same pollutants as for 
BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that 
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits for 
the stainless segment of the integrated and stand alone hot forming 
subcategory are: Scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, with 
high rate recycle and mixed-media filtration of blowdown. This option 
is referred to as BAT-1 in Section V.C. EPA estimates that no 
facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that 
this option is economically achievable. EPA did not pursue additional, 
more stringent options because all significant POCs in the effluent 
after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at levels too 
low to be further treated by any add-on technology. Therefore, EPA 
proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for BAT for the stainless steels 
segment of the proposed Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming 
subcategory.
    ii. PSES/PSNS. EPA estimates that PSES-1 for the stainless segment 
of the integrated and stand alone hot forming subcategory would result 
in a reduction of 90% of the flow from current levels, and a 66% 
removal of toxic and non-conventional pollutants. However, EPA does not 
propose to promulgate PSES for the stainless steel segment of the 
proposed Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes 
that nationally applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this 
time, because there are only three facilities in this segment and 
because PSES-1 would result in an average removal of only 4 toxic 
pound-equivalents per facility per year for these facilities. These 
reductions are much lower than other categorical standards promulgated 
by EPA. example, Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 
(OCPSF), Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling 
toxic pound equivalents removed per facility per year range from 6,747 
to 14,960. And, EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for two industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64 
FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 
2000), based on low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities 
in those categories. In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not 
to promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound 
equivalents per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent 
guidelines, EPA decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for 
non-hazardous landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound 
equivalents per facility per year.
    The Agency believes that pretreatment local limits implemented on a 
case-by-case basis can more appropriately address any individual toxic 
parameters present at these facilities.
    iii. NSPS. EPA's proposed technology is the same as the proposed 
BAT technology for this segment because no other treatment technologies 
are demonstrated to control the pollutants EPA proposes to regulate.

F. Non-integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the carbon and alloy segment and

[[Page 82023]]

the stainless steel segment of the proposed Non-integrated and Stand 
Alone Hot ming Subcategory.
1. Carbon and Alloy
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the 
following pollutants: lead and zinc.
    ii. PSES. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES'' below.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS and PSNS.
    b. Technology Selected.
    i. BAT. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the 
development of the proposed BAT limits for the carbon and alloy segment 
of the proposed Non-integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming Subcategory 
are: solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media 
filtration of recycled flow or of low volume blowdown flow, and sludge 
dewatering. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. EPA estimates 
that the BAT-1 technology would result in a reduction of 90% of flow 
and a 72% reduction in the discharge of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants. EPA estimates BAT-1 to remove 39,100 toxic pound-
equivalents beyond current conditions, at an annualized compliance cost 
of $3.1 million (1997$). EPA estimates that no facilities would close 
as a result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that this option is 
economically achievable. EPA did not pursue additional, more stringent 
options because all significant POCs in the effluent after application 
of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at levels too low to be further 
treated by any add-on technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the 
technology basis for BAT for the carbon and allow steel segment of the 
proposed Non-Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory.
    ii. PSES. EPA estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in 
a reduction of flow of 7%, and the reduction in the discharge of non-
conventional pollutants by 4.3%. However, EPA does not propose to 
revise PSES for the carbon and alloy steel segment of the proposed Non-
Integrated and Stand Alone Hot ming subcategory. EPA believes that 
nationally applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this time, 
because there are only 15 facilities in this segment and because PSES-1 
would result in an average removal of only 3 toxic pound-equivalents 
per facility per year for these facilities. These reductions are much 
lower than other categorical standards promulgated by EPA. example, 
Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF), 
Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling toxic 
pound equivalents removed per facility per year range from 6,747 to 
14,960. And, EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for two industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64 
FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 
2000), based on low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities 
in those categories. In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not 
to promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound 
equivalents per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent 
guidelines, EPA decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for 
non-hazardous landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound 
equivalents per facility per year.
    While EPA does not propose to revise PSES for this segment, EPA 
intends to re-codify the current PSES to fit the new proposed 
subcategorization format.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS and PSNS. The model NSPS 
process water and water pollution control technologies include 
treatment and high-rate recycle systems, management of process area 
storm water, and disposal of low-volume blowdown streams by evaporation 
through controlled application on electric furnace slag, direct cooling 
of electrodes in electric furnaces, and other evaporative uses. 
Operators of 24 existing non-integrated steel facilities have reported 
zero discharge of process wastewater. These facilities are located in 
the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. In the Non-
Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming subcategory, the 24 facilities 
produce the following products: Bars, beams, billets, flats, plate, 
rail, rebar, rod, sheet, slabs, small structurals, strip, and specialty 
sections. Consequently, the Agency has determined that zero discharge 
is an appropriate NSPS for non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming 
operations located in any area of the United States and producing any 
product. EPA judged that there is no barrier to entry for new sources 
to achieve this option.
2. Stainless
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the 
following pollutants: chromium and nickel.
    ii. PSES. EPA is proposing regulating the following pollutants: 
chromium and nickel. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, 
EPA has determined that both pollutants pass through.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS/PSNS.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT.
    The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for the 
development of the proposed BAT limits for the Stainless segment are: 
solids removal, cooling tower, high rate recycle, mixed-media 
filtration of recycled flow or of low volume blowdown flow, and sludge 
dewatering. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. Under BAT-1, 
water usage would be reduced by 50% over current levels, and total 
loadings of non-conventionals would be reduced by 29%. EPA estimates 
BAT-1 to remove 1,560 toxic pound-equivalents beyond current 
conditions, at an annualized compliance cost of $0.1 million (1997$). 
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA 
has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did not 
pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant POCs 
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any add-on technology. 
Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for BAT for the 
stainless steel segment of the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming 
subcategory.
    ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
the development of the proposed PSES limits for the Stainless segment 
are the same as for BAT-1. This option provides controls for each 
pollutant that EPA has determined passes through for this segment. EPA 
estimates that the PSES-1 technology would result in a reduction of 
flow of 85%, and the reduction in the discharge of non-conventional 
pollutants by 20%. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a 
result of BAT-1. EPA has determined that this option is economically 
achievable. As was the case for BAT, EPA did not pursue additional, 
more stringent options for PSES because all significant POCs in the 
effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to exist at 
levels too low to be further treated by this or any other add-on 
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for 
PSES for this segment.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the US for NSPS and PSNS. See discussion under 
NSPS/PSNS for the Carbon and Alloy segment of this subcategory, above.

[[Page 82024]]

G. Finishing

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(2)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the carbon and allow segment and the stainless steel segment of the 
proposed Finishing Subcategory.
1. Carbon and Alloy
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the 
following pollutants: hexavalent chromium, chromium, lead, and zinc.
    ii. PSES. See discussion under ``Technology selected--PSES'' below.
    iii. NSPS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for 
BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease.
    iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for 
BAT. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has 
determined that hexavalent chromium, chromium, lead, and zinc pass 
through.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that 
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT limits for 
the Carbon and Alloy segment for the proposed steel finishing 
subcategory are: recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil 
removal, hexavalent chrome reduction (where applicable), equalization, 
metals precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering, and counter-
current rinses. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section V.C. EPA 
estimates that selection of the BAT-1 option as the technology basis 
would result in the reduction of flow by this segment of the non-
integrated steelmaking and hot forming subcategory by 65%, and the 
reduction in the discharge of non-conventional pollutants by 25%. EPA 
estimates BAT-1 to remove 22,410 toxic pound-equivalents beyond current 
conditions, at an annualized compliance cost of $4.0 million (1997$). 
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA 
has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did not 
pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant POCs 
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on 
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for 
BAT for the carbon and alloy segment of the proposed Steel Finishing 
subcategory.
    ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
PSES-1 are the same as the BAT-1 technologies. EPA estimates that, 
under PSES-1, flow from this segment of the Finishing subcategory would 
decrease by 30%, and the amount of toxic and non-conventional 
pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%. However, EPA does not 
propose to revise PSES for the carbon and allow steel segment of the 
proposed Steel Finishing subcategory. EPA believes that nationally 
applicable PSES regulations are unnecessary at this time, because PSES-
1 would result in an average removal of only 12 toxic pound-equivalents 
per facility per year for these facilities. These reductions are much 
lower than other categorical standards promulgated by EPA. example, 
Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF), 
Electroplating, Battery Manufacturing, and Porcelain Enameling toxic 
pound equivalents removed per facility per year range from 6,747 to 
14,960. And, EPA recently decided not to promulgate pretreatment 
standards for two industrial categories, Industrial Laundries, see 64 
FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 
2000), based on low removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities 
in those categories. In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not 
to promulgate pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound 
equivalents per facility per year, and in the landfills effluent 
guidelines, EPA decided not to promulgate pretreatment standards for 
non-hazardous landfills based on the removal of only 14 toxic pound 
equivalents per facility per year.
    While EPA does not propose to revise PSES for this segment, EPA 
intends to re-codify the current PSES to fit the new proposed 
subcategorization format.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes NSPS and PSNS for this subcategory to 
be the same as the proposed BAT technology because no other treatment 
technologies are demonstrated to control the pollutants EPA proposes to 
regulate.
2. Stainless
    a. Regulated Pollutants. i. BAT. EPA is proposing regulating the 
following pollutants: hexavalent chromium, chromium, nickel, ammonia-N, 
and fluoride.
    EPA is aware of a potential problem associated with nitrate 
discharge from one stainless steel finishing operation with combination 
(hydrofluoric and nitric) acid pickling. It may be that similar 
problems are associated with discharges coming from similar operations 
in other parts of the country. Nitrates, when consumed in drinking 
water, can be associated with health problems in humans, particularly 
infants.
    Nitrates were identified as a pollutant of concern for stainless 
steel acid pickling operations where nitric acids and combinations of 
nitric and hydrofluoric acids are used for surface treatments for 
various grades of stainless steels. Nitrates originate from the nitric 
acids used in the process and are released from three sources: waste or 
spent pickling acids, pickle rinse waters and acid pickling fume 
scrubbers. Some stainless steel finishing operations dispose of their 
nitrate bearing wastewater via off-site hauling. Many other stainless 
steel finishing facilities treat spent nitric acid and nitric/
hydrofluoric acid pickle liquors on site with the pickling rinse waters 
and fume scrubber waters from other stainless steel finishing 
operations. Nitrates are soluble in water and thus are not removed to 
any appreciable degree in the metals precipitation systems used to 
treat chromium and nickel in stainless steel finishing wastewaters.
    EPA collected information from mills with stainless steel finishing 
operations with onsite chemical precipitation treatment of spent nitric 
and nitric/hydrofluoric acids in combination with pickle rinse waters 
and acid pickling fume scrubber blow-down. The treated effluent nitrate 
concentrations from the mills without acid purification units ranged 
from about 500 to more than 1,000 mg/l.
    Acid purification systems are used on several stainless steel acid 
pickling lines for recovery and reuse of nitric and nitric/hydrofluoric 
acids. This technology comprises removal of dissolved metals (iron, 
chromium, nickel) from a side stream of the strong acid pickling 
solution and return of the purified acid to the acid pickling bath. 
This essentially extends the life of the pickling acids, thereby 
reducing the consumption of virgin nitric acid. A reject stream 
containing dilute acid and the dissolved metals is periodically sent to 
wastewater treatment.
    The model BAT technology for stainless steel finishing operations 
includes acid purification units for recovery and reuse of spent nitric 
and nitric/hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions. EPA believes 
facilities using acid purification technology can achieve long-term 
average concentrations of nitrates in the treated stainless steel acid 
pickling wastewater effluent in the range of 200 mg/l to 300 mg/l.
    EPA is considering developing a limit for nitrate (in the form of 
nitrate-nitrite-N) for stainless steel finishing operations with 
combination acid pickling. EPA solicits comment and information on this 
issue, particularly (a) monitoring data from steel finishing

[[Page 82025]]

operations that discharge nitrates, or POTWs that receive wastewater 
from these operations, and (b) performance data and cost estimates from 
vendors of pollution control equipment that is capable of achieving 
substantial reduction of nitrates from steel pickling wastewaters.
    ii. PSES. See discussion under ``Technology Selected--PSES'' below.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as 
for BAT, with the addition of TSS and oil & grease.
    iv. PSNS. EPA is proposing regulating the same pollutants as for 
BAT. Using the methodology described in Section IX.A.2, EPA has 
determined that hexavalent chromium, chromium, nickel, ammonia-N, and 
fluoride pass through.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BAT. The treatment technologies that 
serve as the basis for the development of the proposed BAT for the 
Stainless segment of the proposed steel finishing subcategory are 
Recycle of fume scrubber water, diversion tank, oil removal, hexavalent 
chrome reduction (where applicable), equalization, metals 
precipitation, sedimentation, sludge dewatering, counter-current 
rinses, and acid purification. This is identified as BAT-1 in Section 
V.C. EPA estimates that, under BAT-1, flow from this segment of the 
Finishing subcategory would decrease by 47%, and the amount of toxic 
and non-conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 45%. EPA 
estimates BAT-1 to remove 69,700 toxic pound-equivalents beyond current 
conditions, at an annualized compliance cost of $0.2 million (1997$). 
EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT-1. EPA 
has determined that this option is economically achievable. EPA did not 
pursue additional, more stringent options because all significant POCs 
in the effluent after application of BAT-1 system are projected to 
exist at levels too low to be further treated by any other add-on 
technology. Therefore, EPA proposes BAT-1 as the technology basis for 
BAT for the stainless steel segment of the proposed Steel Finishing 
subcategory.
    ii. PSES. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis for 
PSES-1 are the same as the BAT-1 technologies. EPA estimates that, 
under PSES-1, flow from the stainless segment of the Steel Finishing 
subcategory would decrease by 23%, and the amount of toxic and non-
conventional pollutants discharged would decrease by 10%. However, EPA 
is not proposing to revise PSES for facilities in this segment.
    EPA discovered that the majority (548 of 653) of the toxic pound-
equivalents projected to be removed through promulgation of PSES 
standards were attributable to one parameter (fluoride) from one 
facility. EPA believes that, in a situation like this, it is more 
appropriate for the POTW control authority for that facility to control 
the pollutant release through its pretreatment control mechanism, 
rather than to implement a national pretreatment standard. When these 
toxic pound-equivalents are removed from the analysis, the number of 
toxic pound-equivalents per facility drops to 7. EPA recently decided 
not to promulgate pretreatment standards for two industrial categories, 
Industrial Laundries, see 64 FR 45072 (August 18, 1999) and Landfills, 
see 65 FR 3008 (January 19, 2000), with projected removals of toxic 
pound equivalents by facilities in those categories comparable to this. 
In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not to promulgate 
pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents per facility 
per year; and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA decided not to 
promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous landfills based on 
the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per facility per year.
    While EPA does not propose to revise PSES for this segment, EPA 
intends to re-codify the current PSES to fit the new proposed 
subcategorization format. The PSES limits currently in 40 CFR part 420 
for each manufacturing process except electroplating would continue to 
apply under this proposal. Limits for the electroplating manufacturing 
process are currently included in 40 CFR part 433. The PSES limits in 
40 CFR part 433 are concentration-based, as opposed to those in 40 CFR 
part 420, which are mass-based. To ensure a consistent basis for 
facilities operating other operations in addition to electroplating, 
EPA is proposing to convert the existing 40 CFR part 433 PSES 
concentration-based limits to mass-based limits by multiplying by the 
proposed BAT production-normalized flow rate and the appropriate 
conversion factor. Nine pollutants are regulated under PSES at 40 CFR 
part 433, some of which do not apply to electroplating operations as 
performed in the Iron and Steel industry. EPA proposes to specify PSES 
limits for four of the pollutants: Chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc. 
These four metals were identified as POCs for electroplating 
manufacturing operations in section 7 of the technical development 
document. EPA does not believe this action will result in incremental 
cost increases to the industry. EPA seeks industry comment on this 
matter.
    iii. NSPS/PSNS. EPA proposes NSPS and PSNS for this subcategory to 
be the same as the proposed BAT technology because no other treatment 
technologies are demonstrated to control the pollutants EPA proposes to 
regulate.

H. Other

    After considering all of the technology options described in the 
Section V.C in light of the factors specified in section 304(b)(1)(B) 
and 306 of the Clean Water Act, as appropriate, EPA proposes to select 
the technology options identified below as BPT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS 
for the following proposed segments in this final subcategory: Direct-
Reduced Ironmaking, ging, and Briquetting.
1. Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI)
    a. Regulated Pollutants. The Agency proposes to regulate TSS for 
this segment.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BPT/BCT/NSPS. EPA is proposing BPT and 
BCT for the Direct-reduced Ironmaking (DRI) segment because the Agency 
is setting limits for the first time for the conventional pollutants in 
this subcategory. The treatment technologies that serve as the basis 
for the development of the proposed BPT/BCT/NSPS limits for the DRI 
segment are: solids removal, clarifier, and high rate recycle, with 
filtration for blowdown wastewater. This is identified as BPT-1 in 
Section V.C. EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result 
of BPT-1.EPA proposes this option because it is the best practicable 
control technology currently available. It is also the best 
demonstrated technology for controlling the discharge of conventional 
pollutants from these operations. EPA is not proposing BAT limitations 
for this segment because it has identified no toxic or non-conventional 
pollutants of concern for the segment.
    ii. PSES/PSNS. The Agency reserves PSES/PSNS for the DRI segment it 
found no pollutants that pass through.
2. ging
    a. Regulated Pollutants and Limits. i. Direct Dischargers (BPT/BCT/
NSPS). The Agency proposes to regulate TSS and oil & grease for this 
segment.
    ii. Indirect Dischargers (PSES/PSNS). The Agency reserves PSES/PSNS 
for the forging segment because it found no pollutants that pass 
through.
    b. Technology Selected. i. BPT/BCT/NSPS. forging operations, EPA is 
proposing BPT/BCT because the Agency is setting limits for the first 
time for the conventional pollutants in this

[[Page 82026]]

subcategory. The treatment technology that serves as the basis for the 
development of the proposed BPT and BCT limitations and NSPS for the 
ging segment is oil/water separation. This is identified as BPT-1 in 
Section V.C. EPA estimates that there will be a reduction of O&G of 72% 
from direct discharging forging operations as a result of 
implementation of this BPT/BCT option.
    EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BPT-1. 
EPA proposes this option because it is the best practicable control 
technology currently available. It is also the best demonstrated 
technology for controlling the discharge of conventional pollutants 
from these operations.
    EPA is not proposing BAT limitations for this segment because it 
has identified no toxic or non-conventional pollutants of concern for 
the segment. EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for this 
segment because it found no pollutants that pass through.
3. Briquetting
    a. Technology Selected. The proposed BPT/BCT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS limits 
for the Briquetting segment are: no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the U.S.

X. Regulatory Implementation

A. Implementation of Part 420 Through the NPDES Permit Program and the 
National Pretreatment Program

    Under sections 301, 304, 306 and 307 of the CWA, EPA promulgates 
national effluent limitations guidelines and standards of performance 
for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) 
Conventional pollutants (i.e., total suspended solids, oil and grease, 
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, and pH); (2) toxic 
pollutants (e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, and 
zinc; toxic organic pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, and 
naphthalene); and (3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., ammonia-N, 
fluoride, iron, total phenols, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran).
    As discussed in Section II, EPA must promulgate six types of 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each major industrial 
category, as appropriate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Effluent limitation guideline
              Abbreviation                         or standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPT....................................  Best Practicable Control
                                          Technology Currently
                                          Available.
BAT....................................  Best Available Technology
                                          Economically Achievable.
BCT....................................  Best Control Technology for
                                          Conventional Pollutants.
NSPS...................................  New Source Performance
                                          Standards.
PSES...................................  Pretreatment Standards for
                                          Existing Sources.
PSNS...................................  Pretreatment Standards for New
                                          Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pretreatment standards apply to industrial facilities with 
wastewater discharges to POTWs, which generally are municipal 
wastewater treatment plants. The effluent limitations guidelines and 
new source performance standards apply to industrial facilities with 
direct discharges to navigable waters.
1. NPDES Permit Program
    Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The NPDES permit program is 
designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of 
the United States through a combination of various requirements 
including technology-based and water quality-based effluent 
limitations. This proposed regulation contains the categorical 
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
applicable to the iron and steel industry to be used by permit writers 
to derive NPDES permit technology-based effluent limitations. Water 
quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) are based on receiving 
water characteristics and ambient water quality standards, including 
designated water uses. They are derived independently from the 
technology-based effluent limitations set out in this proposed 
regulation. The CWA requires that NPDES permits must contain for a 
given discharge, the more stringent of the applicable technology-based 
and water quality-based effluent limitations.
    Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA provides that in the absence of 
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards, the 
Administrator, or her designee, may establish effluent limitations for 
specific dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Federal NPDES permit 
regulations provide that these limits may be established using ``best 
professional judgment'' (BPJ) taking into account any proposed effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards and other relevant scientific, 
technical and economic information. Where EPA has promulgated 
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 
particular pollutants, any more stringent effluent limitations must be 
either WQBELs or effluent limitations derived under other regulations 
established by the permit authority.
    Section 301 of the CWA, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 
1987, requires that BAT effluent limitations for toxic pollutants are 
to have been achieved as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 
three years from date of promulgation of such limitations and in no 
case later than March 31, 1989. See 301(b)(2). Because the proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR part 420 will be promulgated after March 31, 1989, 
NPDES permit effluent limitations based on the revised effluent 
limitations guidelines must be included in the next NPDES permit issued 
after promulgation of the regulation and the permit must require 
immediate compliance.
2. New Source Performance Standards
     purposes of applying the new source performance standards (NSPS) 
being proposed today, a source is a new source if it commences 
construction after the effective date of the forthcoming final rule. 
(EPA expects to take final action on this proposal in April 2002, which 
is more than 120 days after the date of proposal.) See 40 CFR 122.2. 
Each source that meets this definition would be required to achieve any 
applicable newly promulgated NSPS upon commencing discharge.
    However, the currently codified NSPS continue to have force and 
effect for a limited universe of new sources; for this reason, in 
today's proposed rule, EPA is retaining the NSPS promulgated in 1982 
for part 420. Specifically, following promulgation of any revised NSPS, 
the 1982 NSPS would continue to apply for a limited period of time to 
new sources that commenced discharge within the time period beginning 
ten years before the effective date of a final rule revising part 420. 
Thus, if EPA promulgates revised NSPS for Part 420 in April 2002, and 
those regulations take effect in June 2002, any direct discharging new 
source that commenced discharge after June 1992 but before June 2002 
would be subject to the currently codified NSPS for ten years from the 
date it commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or 
amortization of such facility, whichever comes first. See CWA section 
306(d). After that ten year period expires, any new or revised BAT 
limitations would apply with respect to toxics and nonconventional 
pollutants. Limitations on conventional pollutants would be based on 
the1982 NSPS for conventional pollutants unless EPA promulgates 
revisions to BPT/BCT for conventional pollutants that are more 
stringent than the 1982 NSPS.

[[Page 82027]]

    Rather than reproduce the 1982 NSPS in the proposed rule (which is 
substantially reorganized from the 1982 structure), EPA proposes to 
refer permitting authorities to the NSPS codified in the 2000 edition 
of the Code of Federal Regulations for use during the applicable ten-
year period. (The 2000 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations 
presents the 1982 NSPS tables.) This approach would allow EPA to avoid 
reproducing in the new regulations numerous tables of NSPS that would 
soon become outdated.
National Pretreatment Standards
    40 CFR Part 403 sets out national pretreatment standards which have 
three principal objectives: (1) To prevent the introduction of 
pollutants into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that will 
interfere with POTW operations, including use or disposal of municipal 
sludge; (2) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which 
will pass through the treatment works or will otherwise be incompatible 
with the treatment works; and (3) to improve opportunities to recycle 
and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
    The national pretreatment standards comprise a series of prohibited 
discharges designed to prevent interference with POTW operations and 
federal categorical pretreatment standards designed to prevent pass 
through of pollutants introduced to POTWs by industrial sources. Local 
control authorities are required to implement the national pretreatment 
program including application of the federal categorical pretreatment 
standards to their industrial users that are subject to such 
categorical pretreatment standards, as well as any pretreatment 
standards derived locally (i.e., local limits) that are more 
restrictive than the federal categorical standards. This proposed 
regulation sets out revisions to the federal categorical pretreatment 
standards (PSES and PSNS) applicable to iron and steel facilities 
regulated by 40 CFR part 420.
    The federal categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources 
must be achieved not later than three years after promulgation of the 
standards. During that three year period, existing indirect discharges 
are subject to the 1982 PSES. The 1982 PSES would no longer apply after 
the expiration of that three-year period. Rather than reproduce the 
1982 PSES in the proposed rule (which is substantially reorganized from 
the 1982 structure), EPA proposes to refer pretreatment control 
authorities to the PSES codified in the 2000 edition of the Code of 
Federal Regulations for use during that three-year period. (The 2000 
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations presents the 1982 PSES 
tables.) This approach would allow EPA to avoid reproducing in the new 
regulations numerous tables of pretreatment standards that would become 
outdated within three years.
     the purposes of this rule, EPA proposes to treat new indirect 
dischargers in the same way that it treats new direct dischargers, in 
several material respects.
    First, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA proposes PSNS 
technologies to be identical to NSPS technologies except where 
different technologies are justified by EPA's pass through analysis.
    Second, for indirect dischargers that are subject to the current 
PSNS, EPA proposes to maintain the current PSNS for ten years beginning 
on the date the new indirect discharger commenced discharge or during 
the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever 
comes first. Thereafter, the indirect discharger would be subject to 
any newly promulgated PSES. EPA sees no principled basis to distinguish 
between new direct and indirect dischargers when deciding whether to 
apply more stringent standards within the first ten years of operation. 
Like new direct dischargers, new indirect dischargers were designed and 
constructed to meet existing performance standards for new sources. 
Concluding that it would be unfair to require a new source to meet a 
new set of limits within the first ten years of operation, Congress 
passed CWA section 306(d). EPA believes the same concerns apply to new 
indirect dischargers; therefore, in the interests of equity, EPA 
proposes to apply the ten-year shield to new indirect dischargers as 
well.
    Third, EPA proposes to characterize a source as a new source 
subject to the new PSNS if it commences construction after the 
effective date of the forthcoming final rule. Each source that meets 
this definition would be required to achieve any applicable newly 
promulgated PSNS upon commencing discharge. EPA believes this 
definition is appropriate in the context of part 420 because PSNS 
already exists to regulate any indirect discharges that might commence 
construction prior to promulgation of revisions to part 420. Therefore, 
this is not a situation where new discharges might go unregulated 
during the period between proposed and final action. This definition is 
also consistent with the most recent interpretation of CWA section 306, 
upon which EPA relies by analogy. In 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeal for 
the Third Circuit struck down the definition of new source in EPA's 
pretreatment regulations based on its interpretation of section 306, 
which applies to direct discharging new sources. See National Assoc. of 
Metal Finishers, et al. v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624 (3d Cir. 1983). In 1987, 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed with 
the Third Circuit's interpretation of section 306 and upheld a 
definition of new source that was tied to the date of promulgation 
rather than the date of proposal. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104 (D.C. 
Cir. 1987). The court reasoned that a period of uncertainty beyond 120 
days (from proposal to promulgation) was unreasonable, and that 
Congress could not have intended potential new sources ``to languish in 
doubt as to when non-final regulations would eventually enjoy the force 
of law.'' This reasoning is relevant to this rulemaking, where EPA is 
scheduled to take final action on today's proposal in 18 months. 
Finally, EPA's approach in this proposed rule is also distinguishable 
from the facts contemplated by the Third Circuit, which did not 
consider the retrofitting costs a new source might incur when planning 
and constructing its facility in accordance with the current PSNS, only 
to have to make potentially costly adjustments soon thereafter to 
comply with newly promulgated PSNS.
    Rather than reproduce the 1982 PSNS in the proposed rule (which is 
substantially reorganized from the 1982 structure), EPA proposes to 
refer pretreatment control authorities to the PSNS codified in the 2000 
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations for use during the 
applicable ten-year period. (The 2000 edition of the Code of Federal 
Regulations presents the 1982 PSNS tables.) This approach would allow 
EPA to avoid reproducing in the new regulations numerous tables of PSNS 
that have already been codified.

B. Upset and Bypass Provisions

    A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any 
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional 
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors 
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations 
concerning bypasses and upsets 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.

[[Page 82028]]

C. Variances and Removal Credits

1. Variances
    The NPDES permit regulations provide for the following types of 
modifications of permit effluent limitations derived from the effluent 
limitations guidelines:
    a. Section 301(c) economic variance from BAT for non-conventional 
pollutants.
    b. Section 301(g) water quality-related variance from BAT for non-
conventional pollutants.
    c. Section 316(a) thermal variance from BPT, BCT and BAT.
    d. Fundamentally different factors variance (40 CFR part 125, 
subpart D).
    Although final regulations that set out criteria for applying for 
and evaluating applications for section 301(c) and 301(g) variances 
have not been promulgated, EPA has published guidance materials for 
permit authorities regarding such variances. Variances under section 
316(a) for thermal discharges are not at issue in the current 40 CFR 
part 420, or with these proposed modifications, because effluent 
limitations guidelines for thermal discharges have not been promulgated 
previously, nor is EPA proposing them at this time. See the published 
guidance materials and 40 CFR part 125 for further information 
regarding the above-listed variances. The pretreatment regulations 
incorporate a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
2. Removal Credits
    Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA establishes a discretionary program 
for POTWs to grant ``removal credits'' to their indirect dischargers. 
Removal credits are a regulatory mechanism by which industrial users 
may discharge a pollutant in quantities that exceed what would 
otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical pretreatment 
standard because it has been determined that the POTW to which the 
industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant. EPA has 
promulgated removal credit regulations as part of its pretreatment 
regulations. See 40 CFR 403.7. These regulations provide that a POTW 
may give removal credits if prescribed requirements are met. The POTW 
must apply to and receive authorization from the Approval Authority. To 
obtain authorization, the POTW must demonstrate consistent removal of 
the pollutant for which approval authority is sought. Further, the POTW 
must have an approved pretreatment program. Finally, the POTW must 
demonstrate that granting removal credits will not cause the POTW to 
violate applicable Federal, State and local sewage sludge requirements. 
40 CFR 403.7(a)(3).
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 
interpreted the Clean Water Act as requiring EPA to promulgate the 
comprehensive sewage sludge regulations required by CWA 
Sec. 405(d)(2)(A)(ii) before any removal credits could be authorized. 
See NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir., 1986); cert. denied. 479 
U.S. 1084 (1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water Quality Act 
of 1987, which provided that EPA could not authorize any removal 
credits until it issued the sewage sludge use and disposal regulations. 
On February 19, 1993, EPA promulgated Standards for the Use or Disposal 
of Sewage Sludge, which are codified at 40 CFR part 503 (58 FR 9248). 
EPA interprets the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA as only allowing 
removal credits for a pollutant if EPA has either regulated the 
pollutant in part 503 or established a concentration of the pollutant 
in sewage sludge below which public health and the environment are 
protected when sewage sludge is used or disposed.
    The part 503 sewage sludge regulations allow four options for 
sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land application for beneficial use, (2) 
placement on a surface disposal unit, (3) firing in a sewage sludge 
incinerator, and (4) disposal in a landfill which complies with the 
municipal solid waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part 258. Because 
pollutants in sewage sludge are regulated differently depending upon 
the use or disposal method selected, under EPA's pretreatment 
regulations the availability of a removal credit for a particular 
pollutant is linked to the POTW's method of using or disposing of its 
sewage sludge. The regulations provide that removal credits may be 
potentially available for the following pollutants:
    (1) If POTW applies its sewage sludge to the land for beneficial 
uses, disposes of it in a surface disposal unit, or incinerates it in a 
sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for the 
pollutants for which EPA has established limits in 40 CFR part 503. EPA 
has set ceiling limitations for nine metals in sludge that is land 
applied, three metals in sludge that is placed on a surface disposal 
unit, and seven metals and 57 organic pollutants in sludge that is 
incinerated in a sewage sludge incinerator. (40 CFR 
403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A)).
    (2) Additional removal credits may be available for sewage sludge 
that is land-applied, placed in a surface disposal unit, or incinerated 
in a sewage sludge incinerator, so long as the concentration of these 
pollutants in sludge do not exceed concentration levels established in 
part 403, Appendix G, Table II. sewage sludge that is land applied, 
removal credits may be available for an additional two metals and 14 
organic pollutants. sewage sludge that is placed on a surface disposal 
unit, removal credits may be available for an additional seven metals 
and 13 organic pollutants. sewage sludge that is incinerated in a 
sewage sludge incinerator, removal credits may be available for three 
other metals (40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B)).
    (3) When a POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in a municipal solid 
waste landfill that meets the criteria of 40 CFR part 258, removal 
credits may be available for any pollutant in the POTW's sewage sludge 
(40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C)).
    Several iron and steel companies which are indirect dischargers to 
POTWs have sought removal credits for pollutants subject to categorical 
pretreatment standards but for which no sewage sludge standard (part 
503, part 403, Appendix G-Table I) or maximum concentration (part 403, 
Appendix G--Table II) has been established. Specifically, these 
companies claim that phenols (4AAP) are consistently treated by POTWs 
and do not cause the sewage sludge to adversely affect human health and 
the environment. (See, e.g., LTV Steel v. EPA, No. 94-1516 (7th Cir.)). 
Today's proposal, if finalized, would mean that removal credits for 
phenols (4AAP) would no longer be necessary, because there would no 
longer be a categorical pretreatment standard for that pollutant. 
However, for those pollutants which would be included in the 
categorical pretreatment standard, only those included in either part 
403, Appendix G--Table I or Table II would be eligible for removal 
credits.

D. Production Basis for Calculation of Permit Limitations

1. Background
    The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for BPT, BAT, 
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS proposed today are expressed as mass limitations 
in pounds/ton of product. The mass limitation is derived by multiplying 
an effluent concentration (determined from the analysis of treatment 
system performance) by a model flow appropriate for each subcategory 
expressed in gallons/ton of product, or gallons/day. The production 
normalized flows used to develop many of the limits in the proposed 
rule are considerably lower than those used to

[[Page 82029]]

develop currently applicable limits. Consequently, many of the proposed 
limitations are more stringent than the current limitations for the 
same operations, even though other components of the wastewater 
treatment system remains the same. The proposed limitations neither 
require the installation of any specific control technology nor the 
attainment of any specific flow rate or effluent concentration. A 
facility subject to today's proposed regulation can use various 
treatment alternatives or water conservation practices to achieve a 
particular effluent limitation or standard. The model treatment systems 
described here illustrate at least one means available to achieve the 
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
    The NPDES permit regulations at Sec. 122.45(f) require that NPDES 
permit effluent limitations be specified as mass effluent limitations 
(e.g., lbs/day or kg/day), except under certain enumerated 
circumstances that do not apply here. In order to convert the proposed 
effluent limitations expressed as pounds/ton to a monthly average or 
daily maximum permit limit, the permitting authority would use a 
production rate with units of tons/day. The current part 420 and part 
122.45(b)(2) NPDES permit regulations require that NPDES permit and 
pretreatment limits be based on a ``reasonable measure of actual 
production.'' The production rates used for NPDES permitting for the 
iron and steel industry have commonly been the highest annual average 
production from the prior five year period prorated to a daily basis, 
or the highest monthly production over the prior five years prorated to 
a daily basis. Industry stakeholders have indicated that (1) EPA should 
put the method used to determine appropriate production rates for 
calculating allowable mass loadings into the regulation for 
consistency, so that the permit writers can all use the same basis; and 
(2) EPA should use a high production basis, such as maximum monthly 
production over the previous five year period or maximum design 
production, in order to ensure that a facility will not be out of 
compliance during periods of high production.
    The NPDES permit regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(b)(2)(i) require that 
for existing sources mass effluent limitations calculated from 
production-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards must be 
based not on production capacity, but on a ``reasonable measure of 
actual production.'' The current iron and steel regulation at 40 CFR 
420.04 sets out the basis for calculating mass-based pretreatment 
requirements and requires that the pretreatment requirements also be 
based on a reasonable measure of actual production. That regulation 
provides the following examples of what may constitute a reasonable 
measure of actual production: the monthly average for the highest of 
the previous five years, or the high month of the previous year. Both 
values are converted to a daily basis (i.e., tons/day) for purposes of 
calculating monthly average and daily maximum mass permit effluent 
limitations. Similar provisions exist in the national pretreatment 
regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(3) for deriving mass-based pretreatment 
requirements.
    Each of the above regulations requires that effluent limitations 
and pretreatment standards for new sources must be based on projected 
production. That approach is carried forward in this proposed 
regulation.
    EPA believes that some NPDES and pretreatment permit production 
rates have been derived in a manner that is not consistent with the 
term ``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at 
Sec. 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. In some cases, maximum 
production rates for similar process units discharging to one treatment 
system were determined from different years or months, which may 
provide an unrealistically high measure of actual production. In EPA's 
view, this would occur if the different process units could not 
reasonably produce at these high rates simultaneously.
    The ideal situation for the application of production-based 
effluent limitations and standards is where production is relatively 
constant from day-to-day or month-to-month. In this case, the 
production rate used for purposes of calculating the permit limitations 
would then be the average rate. However, in the case of the iron and 
steel industry, production rates are not constant and vary 
significantly based on factors such as fluctuations in marked demand 
for domestic products, maintenance, product changes, equipment 
failures, and facility modifications. As such, the typical production 
rate for individual mills vary significantly over time, especially over 
the customary five-year life of a permit.
    The objective in determining a production estimate for a mill is to 
develop a reasonable measure of production which can reasonably be 
expected to prevail during the next term of the permit. This is used in 
combination with the production-based limitations to establish a 
maximum mass of pollutant that may be discharged each day and month. 
However, if the permit production rate is based on the maximum month, 
then the permit could allow excessive discharges of pollutants during 
significant portions of the life of the permit. These excessive 
allowances may discourage mills from ensuring optimal waste management, 
water conservation, and wastewater treatment practices during lower 
production periods. On the other hand, if the average permit production 
rate is based on an average derived from the highest year of production 
over the past five years, then mills may have trouble ensuring that 
their waste management, water conservation, and wastewater treatment 
practices can accommodate shorter periods of higher production. This 
might require mills to target a more stringent treatment level than 
that on which the limits were based during these periods of high 
production. To accomplish this mills would likely have to develop more 
efficient treatment systems, greater hydraulic surge capacity, and 
better water conservation and waste management practices during these 
periods.
2. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations
    EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative approaches that 
may result in more stringent mass-based permits for some mills with 
better protection of the environment for the entire life of a permit 
and may result in higher costs. Each alternative requires that 
production from unit operations that do not generate or discharge 
process wastewater shall not be included in the calculation of 
operating rates.
    Alternative A: This is the basis for today's proposed limits. It 
retains the essential requirements of the current rule as described 
above (see Sec. 420.3). However, today's proposal provides additional 
instructions for avoiding approaches that result in unrealistically 
high estimates of actual production by only considering production from 
all production units that could occur simultaneously (see 
Sec. 420.3(c)). This may result in higher costs for those mills with 
current permit conditions based on production levels that are higher 
than levels that could occur simultaneously at multiple process units. 
However, these costs were included in the economic analysis for the 
1982 I&S regulation as well as today's proposal.
    Alternative B: The Agency is considering including in the rule a 
requirement for the permit writer to establish multi-tiered permit 
limits. Permit writers and control authorities

[[Page 82030]]

currently use their best professional judgment for establishing multi-
tiered permits. The Agency has issued guidance for use in considering 
multi-tiered permits (see Chapter 5 of the ``U.S. EPA NPDES Permit 
Writers' Manual,'' (EPA-833-8-96-003, December 1996) and Chapter 7 of 
the ``Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual,'' (EPA 833/R-89-001, 
September 29, 1989).
    In situations where a single set of effluent limitations are not 
appropriate for the permit's entire period, a tiered permit may be 
established. One set of limits would apply for periods of average 
production along with other sets which take effect when there are 
significant changes in the average production rate. The guidance notes 
that a 10 to 15 percent deviation above or below the long-term average 
production rate is within the range of normal variability. Predictable 
changes in the long-term production higher than this range would 
warrant consideration of a tiered or multi-tiered permit. The iron and 
steel industry has a variable historical production rate where the 
permit modification process is not fast enough to respond to the need 
for higher or lower equivalent limits. example, many iron and steel 
mills have a characteristic historical average monthly production rate 
that varies between 60 to 95 percent of plant capacity. (Note that for 
a mill operating at 60 percent of capacity, a production increase to 95 
percent of capacity would represent nearly a 60 percent jump in 
production.) In these cases, alternate effluent limitations might be 
established for average production rates associated, for example, with 
75 and 95 percent of capacity.
    Alternative C: To provide a basis for deriving NPDES and 
pretreatment permit production rates that is consistent with the term 
reasonable measure of actual production and that can be applied 
consistently for steel mills subject to part 420, EPA is also 
considering revising the definition of production. The modified 
definition of the NPDES and pretreatment permit production basis would 
be the average daily operating rate for the year with the highest 
annual production over the past five years, taking into account the 
annual hours of operation of the production unit and the typical 
operating schedule of the production unit, as illustrated by the 
following example:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest annual production from previous     3,570,000 tons.
 five years.
Operating hours...........................  8,400 hours.
Hourly operating rate.....................  425 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (24 hour day)  10,200 tons/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above example is for a process unit that is operated typically 
24 hours per day with short-term outages for maintenance on a weekly or 
monthly basis. steel processing facilities that are operated typically 
less than 24 hours per day, the average daily operating rate must be 
determined based on the typical operating schedule (e.g., 8 hours per 
day for a facility operated one 8-hour turn (or shift) per day; 16 
hours per day for a facility operated for two 8-hour turns per day). 
example:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest annual production from previous     980,000 tons.
 five years.
Operating hours...........................  4,160 hours.
Hourly operating rate.....................  235.6 tons/hour.
Average daily operating rate (16 hour day)  3,769 tons/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, EPA recognizes that the approach could cause 
problems for a facility that was operated 16 hours/day at the time the 
permit was issued and then wished to change to 24 hours/day based on 
unforseen changes in market conditions. To address this issue, the 
approach could be combined with the tiered permit approach discussed 
above.
     multiple similar process units discharging to the same wastewater 
treatment system with one NPDES or pretreatment permit compliance point 
(e.g., two blast furnaces operated with one treatment and recycle 
system for process waters), under this approach the year with the 
highest annual production over the previous five years would be 
determined on the basis of the sum of annual production for both 
furnaces. Then, based on this year's average daily operating rate would 
be calculated as above independently for each furnace using total 
annual production and annual operating hours for each furnace. The 
daily production values would be summed to calculate the average daily 
operating rate for the combination of the two furnaces. example, 
consider the following production data:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Furnace A       Furnace B     Total  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................       1,850,000       1,305,000       3,155,000
1996............................................................       1,675,000       1,425,000       3,100,000
1997............................................................       1,760,000       1,406,000       3,166,000
1998............................................................       1,580,000       1,328,000       2,908,000
1999............................................................       1,825,000       1,380,000       3,205,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual maximum production rates for each furnace and the 
combination of the two furnaces are underlined. In this example, 1999 
was the maximum production year for the combination of the furnaces and 
the data from each furnace that year would be used to calculate the 
average daily operating rates. Had the 1995 data from Furnace A and the 
1996 data from Furnace B been used in combination (3,275,000 tons), an 
unrealistic measure of actual production might have resulted if the two 
furnaces could not produce at these high levels concurrently. example, 
if the downstream intermediate production capacity effectively limits 
the combined production of the two furnaces. On the other hand, if the 
two furnaces could produce at these high levels concurrently, and might 
reasonablely be expected to over the forthcoming five-year permit cycle 
if strong market conditions prevailed, then the production measure 
based on the 1995 Furnace A data and the 1996 Furnace B data might not 
be an unrealistic measure of actual production.
    In contrast to the previous example, for multiple process units 
that are not similar, but have process wastewater co-treated in one 
centralized wastewater treatment system with one NPDES or pretreatment 
permit compliance point, the year with the highest production over the 
previous five years would be determined separately for each production 
unit or combination of similar production units with the highest annual 
production. example, where process wastewater for BOF steelmaking, 
vacuum degassing, and

[[Page 82031]]

continuous casting operations are discharged through one NPDES permit 
or pretreatment permit compliance point. Consider the following 
example:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     C. Caster
                                                                        BOF         V. Degasser       (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................................       2,675,000       1,305,000       2,658,000
1996............................................................       2,900,000       1,600,000       2,885,000
1997............................................................       3,150,000       1,690,000       3,140,000
1998............................................................       3,280,000       1,668,000       3,270,000
1999............................................................       3,225,000       1,380,000       3,215,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, 1998 production data for the BOF, 1997 data from 
the vacuum degasser, and 1998 data for the continuous caster would be 
used to develop the NPDES permit effluent limitations. An analogous 
situation would be for a steel finishing plant with acid pickling, cold 
rolling and electroplating operations.
    The permit applicant would, under this alternative, need to provide 
the following information with its permit application or pretreatment 
report: for each process operation regulated, the average daily 
operating rate determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3, including the 
underlying production data and operating schedule information necessary 
to calculate the average daily operating rate; and, sufficient 
information to identify each process operation in terms of the 
definitions of process operations set out in this part.
    Alternative D: The Agency is considering establishing production-
based maximum monthly average effluent limitations and standards in 
combination with daily-maximum concentration-based effluent limitations 
and standards. Under this alternative, the maximum monthly average 
NPDES permit and pretreatment mass basis requirements would be 
determined using the part 420 production-based standards in combination 
with a reasonable measure of actual production, such as Alternative C 
above. However, the daily-maximum requirements would be in the form of 
effluent concentrations that would be included in part 420 in lieu of 
the daily-maximum production-based mass effluent limitations guidelines 
and standards. The daily maximum concentrations set out as effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards would be those concentrations that 
were used to develop the proposed production-based mass effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards.
    The Agency believes this approach would effectively address the 
potential issue cited above regarding short-term peaks in production 
under most circumstances. There would be no additional burden on the 
industry and permit writers for applying for and writing NPDES or 
pretreatment permits. Permit authorities may need to revise their 
automated compliance tracking systems to account for both mass and 
concentration limitations at the same outfall, which is a common 
feature in many NPDES and pretreatment permits issued prior to this 
proposal.
    This approach would also provide some flexibility for the industry 
where, because of historical conditions, relatively high volumes of 
storm water from intense rainfall events are collected and treated with 
process water. In some cases, the volume of storm water collected and 
treated may cause short-term peak discharge flows that exceed the 
normal process water discharge flow which may result in violation of 
daily-maximum limitations. On balance, the Agency believes that 
treatment of such storm water flows is beneficial. The combination of 
maximum monthly average mass limits and daily-maximum concentration 
limits would provide such flexibility.
    EPA solicits comments about these alternatives to the proposed 
production bases for calculating NPDES permit effluent limitations and 
pretreatment requirements including comments on related costs and any 
technical difficulties that mills might have in meeting limits during 
short periods of high production. EPA also solicits other options for 
consideration.

E. Water Bubble

    The ``water bubble'' is a regulatory flexibility mechanism 
described in the current regulation at 40 CFR 420.03 to allow for 
trading of identical pollutants at any single steel facility with 
multiple compliance points. The bubble has been used at some facilities 
to realize cost savings and/or for compliance. It is structured in a 
way to produce also a benefit for the environment.
    As currently structured the water bubble has the following 
restrictions:
     Trades can be made only for like pollutants (e.g. lead for 
lead, not lead for zinc).
     Trades are subject to any applicable water quality-based 
effluent limitations.
     Each outfall must have specific fixed limitations
     Cokemaking and cold rolling are excluded from 
consideration for water bubble use.
     Each trade must result in a minimum net reduction amount 
of the amount traded (15% for TSS/Oil & Grease, 10% for toxic 
pollutants).
     Bubble restricted to existing sources.
    While at present NPDES permits for only nine facilities have 
alternative effluent limitations derived from the water bubble, there 
may be increased interest in the water bubble with the promulgation of 
a revised part 420. With this in mind, EPA proposes making the 
following changes to the water bubble rule:
     Allow trades for cokemaking operations but only if the 
cokemaking alternative limitations are more stringent than the 
limitations in Subpart A. These more stringent limits would be offset 
by less stringent limits for some other operation. EPA is proposing to 
limit trades involving cokemaking in this way because it is concerned 
about co-occurring contaminants in cokemaking wastewaters for which 
limits are not being established (e.g., benzo(b)fluoranthene, 
benzo(a)anthracene, and chrysene). Allowing a relaxation of the limits 
for cokemaking wastewater could allow undetected increases in 
discharges of these co-occurring contaminants that would not 
necessarily be offset by tighter limits on the regulated pollutants in 
another waste stream.
     Prohibit trades for sintering operations because of the 
presence of dioxins and furans in sinter wastewater unless the 
alternative limitations are more stringent than the sintering process 
wastewater limitations in subpart B. As with cokemaking, these more 
stringent sintering limits would be offset by less stringent limits on 
some

[[Page 82032]]

other waste stream. The logic for this restriction is the same as for 
cokemaking.
     Prohibit trades of oil and grease because of differences 
in the types of oil and grease used among the I&S operations (the 
finishing operations tend to use and discharge synthetic and animal 
fats and oils used to lubricate metal materials, the hot-end operations 
tend to discharge petroleum-based oil and grease used to lubricate 
machinery, and cokemaking operations tend to discharge oil and grease 
containing polynuclear aromatics generated by the combustion of coal).
     Allow trades for cold rolling operations.
     Allow trades for new, as well as existing sources. Since 
the existing source environmental gain is 10 percent for all parameters 
except for TSS which is 15 percent, EPA is considering whether a higher 
net gain, e.g., 20 percent, is appropriate for new sources given their 
flexibility in design.
    EPA is proposing to change the current regulations to prohibit 
trading between outfalls of oil and grease. As noted above, EPA is 
concerned that different types of oil and grease may be discharged by 
different process units, and that trading might thus allow an increase 
in a more environmentally harmful type of oil and grease (e.g., 
petroleum based), with the offsetting reduction being from a less 
harmful type (e.g., animal fats). EPA recognizes that facilities will 
generally identify trades that save them money. EPA has no data to 
suggest that the most economically beneficial trading opportunities 
(i.e., those likely to be used by facilities) would systematically 
either decrease or increase the most harmful types of oil and grease. 
Giving the existing requirement for a 15 percent net decrease of oil 
and grease across all outfalls if trading is utilized, it may well be 
the case that even with the possibility that an individual trade might 
allow for an increase in, say, petroleum-based oil and grease, the net 
effect of trading would be both beneficial to the environment and 
provide cost saving opportunities to facilities. EPA requests comment 
on whether trading should continue to be allowed for oil and grease, 
including the current 15 percent (or greater) net reduction.
    Potential cost impacts associated with changes in the water bubble 
have been accounted for in the estimated capital and operating and 
maintenance costs prepared for the economic impact and cost-
effectiveness analyses.
    EPA requests comment on the modified restrictions on the use of the 
bubble, particularly on the larger environmental gain through the use 
of the bubble that would be required for new sources.
    EPA proposes to retain the other restrictions specified in the 
current water bubble rule.

XI. Other Coinciding Agency Activities

A. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L--National Air Emission Standard for Coke 
Oven Batteries

    Promulgated on October 27, 1993, this regulation established coke 
oven emission limits for lids (% leaking lids), offtakes PLO (% leaking 
offtakes), charging (log), and doors PLD (% leaking doors). The 
regulation established two alternate tracks of limits through which 
coke ovens batteries may achieve compliance; the Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) track and the Lowest Achievable Emissions 
Rate (LAER) extension track. All coke manufacturing facilities have 
chosen a specific track and, where appropriate, are attempting to 
conform with these regulations. Of the 58 by-product recovery coke 
batteries in operation in the United States, 50 have selected the LAER 
extension track, which subjects them to requirements through the year 
2020. The LAER extension track limits may become more stringent in 
2010. These plants will not be affected by the residual Risk Standards 
when promulgated. The remaining eight by-product recovery coke 
batteries that selected the MACT Track Limits must comply with Residual 
Risk Standards after they are promulgated.

B. Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Proposed Rule

    EPA is developing a regulation under section 112(d) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) to reduce emissions from pushing, quenching, and battery 
stacks at coke plants and plans to propose the rule in November 2000 
and promulgate it in November 2001. This rule would establish 
requirements to control coke oven emissions and would apply to all coke 
batteries at coke plants that are major sources of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions or that are part of a facility that is a 
major source of HAP emissions. A major source means any stationary 
source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and 
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit 
considering controls, in aggregate, 10 tons or more per year of any 
single HAP or 25 tons per year of more of any combination of HAP.
    The rule includes both emission limitations and work practice 
standards. Relative to pushing, two options are proposed. One option 
would require sources to meet an opacity limit based on the daily 
observations of four pushes. The other option is a work practice 
standard that places failing ovens under scrutiny until they are 
repaired or taken out of service. The proposed rule also includes 
emission limits for particulate matter (PM), as a surrogate for coke 
oven emissions, for control devices applied to pushing emissions. To 
address quenching emissions, sources would be required to use clean 
water as makeup water, equip quench towers with baffles, and inspect 
and repair baffles on an on-going basis. battery stacks, the proposed 
rule establishes opacity limits and requires the installation and 
operation of continuous opacity monitors (COM). In addition, all 
batteries would be required to operate at all times according to an 
operation and maintenance plan to ensure good operation and maintenance 
of batteries and control equipment. The proposed rule also includes 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

C. Steel Pickling--HCL Process

    The Steel Pickling National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) final rule was published on June 22, 1999, 64 FR, 
33202-33223, to reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants from sources 
in steel pickling facilities.
    The steel pickling rule applies to all facilities that pickle steel 
using hydrochloric acid or that regenerate hydrochloric acid and (a) 
that are major sources or (b) are part of a facility that is a major 
source. The EPA estimates that 62 of the 80 steel pickling facilities 
using hydrochloric acid and all 8 acid regeneration plants currently in 
operation (six of which are co-located with pickling facilities) are 
affected by this rule. The steel pickling rule does not apply to any 
pickling line that uses an acid other than hydrochloric acid, an acid 
solution containing less than 6 percent HCl, or at a temperature less 
than 100  deg.F.
    Existing plants have up to two years from the effective date of the 
final rule to comply with its requirements. If necessary, the owner or 
operator of an affected facility may request that EPA (or the 
applicable regulatory authority in a State with an approved permit 
program) grant one additional year to install controls. The EPA's rule 
establishes limitations for hydrochloric acid and chlorine emissions 
and offers flexibility to the industry by providing

[[Page 82033]]

cost-effective options for both emissions control and monitoring.
    Pickling facility operators may comply with the emission limitation 
for hydrochloric acid by meeting either an emissions reduction target 
or a concentration standard. This option allows operators to comply 
with the rule under a wide variety of acid bath and ventilation 
conditions. Emissions reductions for hydrochloric acid are based on wet 
scrubber control technology, which provides the facility operator the 
option of recycling hydrochloric acid from the scrubber effluent.
    Interested parties can download the final rule from EPA's web site 
on the Internet under ``recent actions'' at the following address: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. further information about the rule, 
contact James Maysilles of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards at 919-541-3265.

D. Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing NESHAP

    EPA plans to propose an Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
NESHAP under section 112(d) of the CAA applicable to sinter plants, 
blast furnaces, BOF shops and ancillary operations in November 2000 and 
to promulgate it in November 2001. The EPA has included integrated iron 
and steel manufacturing facilities on the list of major sources of 
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions under section 112(c) of the 
CAA. Information on this action is at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarp.
    You may be subject to the rule if you own or operate an integrated 
iron and steel facility that is a major source of HAP emissions, or 
that is part of a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions. 
This source category includes sinter production, iron production, and 
steel production.

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

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

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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.
     purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has 
between 500 and 1500 employees (each firm was assigned the relevant 
definition depending on SIC determination and based on SBA size 
standards); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, including consideration of alterative regulatory 
approaches being proposed, I certify that this action will not have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
EPA identified an estimated 34 small companies that may be affected by 
the rule among the estimated 115 total companies potentially affected 
by the rule. EPA has fully evaluated the economic impact of the 
proposed rule on affected small companies. In some instances, EPA 
proposes alternative regulatory approaches. This analysis reflects the 
most stringent of the alternative options. small companies, EPA 
examined the compliance cost to revenue ratio to identify the potential 
impact of the rule on small companies. EPA has determined that the 
range of compliance costs to revenues is between 0 and 1.91 percent 
with only three companies experiencing an impact of greater than 1%, 
using the most stringent set of co-proposed options. Furthermore, an 
economic achievability analysis was conducted using a discounted cash 
flow approach for facility impacts analysis and the Altman Z test for 
the firm impacts analysis (for a full discussion, see Section VI). EPA 
projects that one small company may incur an impact such as facility 
closure or firm failure. No small governments are regulated by this 
action.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. The Agency 
has attempted to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed rule to 
all entities, including small entities, by measures such as simplifying 
the structure of the existing regulation and encouraging the co-
treatment of compatible wastewaters. EPA has engaged in very 
substantive outreach to the potentially affected entities via public 
meetings and trade association consultations. The outreach activities 
are described in detail in Section IV.D.5 of this preamble. We continue 
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-

[[Page 82034]]

effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the 
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the 
rule as between $56.5 million to $61.4 million (1999 $, pre-tax). 
Accordingly, today's proposal is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. EPA has, however, sought meaningful 
and timely input from the private sector, states, and small governments 
on the development of this notice. Prior to issuing this proposed rule, 
EPA met with members of the private sector as discussed earlier in the 
preamble.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments. EPA recognizes that small 
governments may own or operate POTWs that will need to enter into 
pretreatment agreements with the indirect dischargers of the Iron and 
Steel industry that would be subject to this proposed rule. However, 
EPA currently estimates that the added costs of entering into or 
modifying existing pretreatment agreements will be minimal. The main 
costs resulting from this proposed rule will fall upon the private 
entities that own and operate the Iron and Steel facilities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed iron and steel effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards contain no information collection activities and, therefore, 
no information collection request will be submitted to OMB for review 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.

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) of 1995, (Pub L. 104-
113 sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency 
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The rule requires 
dischargers to measure for 7 metals, 4 organic contaminants, TSS, Oil 
and Grease (HEM), thiocyanate, total cyanide, total residual chlorine, 
ammonia as Nitrogen, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, nitrate and pH. EPA performed a 
search to identify potentially voluntary consensus standards that could 
be used to measure the analytes in today's final guideline. EPA's 
search revealed that consensus standards have already been promulgated 
in tables at 40 CFR 136.3 for measurement of all analytes except 
thiocyanate.
    Today, EPA is proposing to promulgate two consensus standards for 
thiocyanate, Method 4500-CN M (Standard Methods for the Examination of 
Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998) and D4374-98 (Annual Book of 
ASTM Standards, volume 11.02, 1999). EPA welcomes comments on this 
aspect f the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public 
to identify additional potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.

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 or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This 
proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866 
(EPA estimates that it would have an annual effect on the economy of 
less than $100 million), and is a technology-based rule that does not 
involve health standards or address an environmental health or safety 
risk that may have a disproportional effect on children.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed 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 proposed rule establishes 
effluent limitations imposing requirements that apply to iron and steel 
facilities when they discharge process wastewater or introduce process 
wastewater to a POTW. EPA has determined that there are no iron and 
steel facilities owned and operated by State and local governments that 
would be subject to this proposed rule; therefore, this proposed rule 
will not impose any treatment technology costs on State or local 
governments. Further, this proposed rule will only affect State and 
local governments incidentally in their capacity as implementers of CWA 
permitting programs. Therefore, the proposed rule, at most, imposes 
only

[[Page 82035]]

minimal administrative costs on States that have authorized NPDES 
programs and on local governments that are administering approved 
pretreatment programs. (These State and local governments must 
incorporate the new effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 
new and reissued NPDES permits or local pretreatment orders or 
permits). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did 
consult with State government representatives in developing this 
proposal, as discussed in Section IV of this document. A summary of the 
concerns raised during consultation and EPA's response to those 
concerns is provided in Section IV.D.5 of this preamble. In addition, 
in the spirit of this Executive Order and consistent with EPA policy to 
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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 nor does it impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on them. EPA has determined that no communities 
of Indian tribal governments are affected by this rule. Accordingly, 
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply 
to this rule.

I. Plain Language Directive

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We 
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to 
understand. example: Have we organized the material to suit your needs? 
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule contain 
technical language or jargon that isn't clear? Would a different format 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make 
the rule easier to understand? Would more (but shorter) sections be 
better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? 
What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

A. Introduction and General Solicitation

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking. 
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the 
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be 
supported by data.
    The Agency invites all parties to coordinate their data collection 
activities with EPA in order to facilitate mutually beneficial and 
cost-effective data submissions. EPA is interested in participating in 
study plans, data collection and documentation. Please refer to the `` 
Further Information'' section at the beginning of this preamble for 
technical contacts at EPA. Comments on the proposal must be received by 
February 26, 2001.

B. Specific Data and Comment Solicitations

1. Revised Production Basis for Regulation
    EPA believes that some NPDES and pretreatment permit production 
rates have been derived in a manner that is not consistent with the 
term ``reasonable measure of actual production'' specified at 
Secs. 122.45(b)(2)(i), 403.6(c)(3), and 420.04. Thus EPA is soliciting 
comment on four alternate approaches for establishing permit effluent 
limitations. These are described in detail in Section X.D.2, and 
summarized below:
Alternative A: Retaining essential requirements of the current rule 
while providing additional instructions for avoiding unrealistically 
high estimates of actual production
Alternative B: Including a requirement for the permit writer to 
establish multi-tiered permit limits
Alternative C: Revising the definition of production to be the average 
daily operating rate for the year with the highest annual production 
over the past five years
Alternative D: Establishing production-based maximum monthly average 
effluent limitations and standards in combination with daily-maximum 
concentration-based effluent limitations and standards.
2. Revised Subcategorization
    The revised subcategorization described in Section IV.E simplifies 
the structure and use of the regulation. The proposed subcategorization 
removes defunct manufacturing processes, eliminates subsegments in the 
hot forming and finishing subcategories, creates a new subcategory for 
non-integrated steelmaking and hot forming processes, and creates new 
subcategories or segments for manufacturing processes not currently 
regulated. The Agency requests comments on the new subcategorization 
and its effects on the implementation of today's proposed rule.
3. Applicability Changes
    As described in Section III, the Agency determined that certain 
facilities covered by the current Iron and Steel rule have 
manufacturing processes that more closely resemble those in facilities 
to be covered by the MP&M rule. These processes include: The cold 
forming for steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch hot dip coating 
of steel; and wire drawing and coating. EPA is proposing to move these 
operations into the MP&M category, which will be regulated under 40 CFR 
part 438. The Agency also proposes coverage of the following operations 
not covered by the current Iron and Steel rule: continuous 
electroplating of flat steel products, direct-reduced ironmaking, 
briquetting, and steel forging operations. EPA solicits comments on 
these proposed applicability changes. EPA also solicits comments on its 
proposal to regulate continuous strip electroplating operations in the 
part 420.
4. Changes in Water Bubble
    As discussed in Section X.E, EPA is proposing making the following 
changes to the water bubble rule:
     Allow trades for cokemaking where more stringent limits 
for cokemaking would result;
     Prohibit trades for sintering operations where less 
stringent

[[Page 82036]]

limitations for sintering would result, since discharge of dioxins 
could result;
     Allow trades for cold rolling operations which are 
currently excluded from the water bubble provisions; and
     Prohibit trades for oil & grease.
    The Agency solicits comments on the economic and environmental 
impacts of the proposed changes.
5. Approach to PSES and PSNS for ammonia-N in Ironmaking Wastewaters
    In Section IX.B, EPA proposes regulatory flexibility that would 
allow indirectly discharging ironmaking operations to not have to meet 
the pretretment standards for ammonia-N if the facility certifies to 
the pretreatment control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 that they 
discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with 
the indirect discharger's removals, to achieve removals at least 
equivalent to those expected under BAT for ammonia-N. The Agency 
solicits comment on this certification alternative, particularly from 
POTWs currently receiving process wastewaters from ironmaking 
operations.
6. Alternative Approaches for Regulating Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot 
ming Mills
    EPA is proposing two different BAT approaches for the carbon and 
alloy segment of the Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Subcategory. 
The technology basis for these options is identical and consists of a 
scale pit with oil skimming, roughing clarifier, cooling tower with 
high-rate recycle and mixed-media filtration of blowdown.
    The difference between BAT Option A and BAT Option B involves the 
amount of time that facilities in the segment would have to achieve BAT 
limitations. Under BAT Option A, all facilities would be subject to BAT 
limitations as soon as they are placed in the facility's NPDES permit. 
Under BAT Option B, in contrast, all facilities could obtain additional 
time to achieve BAT limitations. If EPA ultimately determines in April 
2002 that BAT Option A is not economically achievable for the segment 
as a whole, it may decide to take final action based on BAT Option B.
     more details on Options A and B, refer to Section IX.D. EPA 
solicits comment on both of these options. EPA also solicits comment on 
whether there is any rational basis to distinguish among mills in this 
segment, so as to apply BAT Option B only to a specific subsegment of 
mills for which the model technology is not economically achievable at 
the time of promulgation.
7. Compliance Monitoring Location for pH
    Stakeholders have indicated that permit authorities often interpret 
the current regulation to require application of pH limitations at 
internal monitoring locations, prior to additional treatment or mixing 
with other wastewater. EPA is proposing to allow permit authorities the 
flexibility to establish pH effluent limitations at final outfalls such 
that redundant and unnecessary pH neutralization can be avoided.
8. ELGs and Standards in lbs/ton vs kg/kkg or lbs/1000 lbs
    The current part 420 regulation and other previous mass-based 
regulations have presented pollutant limitations in terms of kilograms 
of allowable pollutant discharge per thousand kilograms of production 
(kg/kkg), also expressed as pounds of allowable pollutant discharge per 
thousand pounds of production (lbs/1,000 lbs). Today's proposed 
regulation presents pollutant limitations in terms of pounds of 
allowable pollutant discharge per ton of production (lbs/ton). The 
Agency made this change to express the limitations in terms of the 
production value that is a standard throughout the industry. The Agency 
requests comments on this format.
9. POTW Performance Criteria
    In Section IX.A(2) and (3), EPA describes the traditional 
methodology used to determine POTW performance and the proposed 
revisions to that methodology, respectively. EPA used the traditional 
methodology to estimate POTW percent removals, which are a component of 
the pass-through methodology used to identify the pollutants to be 
regulated for PSES and PSNS and the analysis to determine net pollutant 
reductions. Previously, EPA edited data at or near the minimum level 
for POTW performance based on the editing criteria used to calculate 
BAT limitations. EPA is considering revising the POTW data editing 
criteria. Given the range of analytical minimum levels and their 
influence on calculated percent removals, EPA is considering several 
editing alternatives, detailed in Section IX.A(3). The Agency solicits 
comments on potential revisions to the pass-through methodology.
10. Mercury and Selenium in Cokemaking Wastewater
    EPA is proposing regulation of mercury and selenium at cokemaking 
plants based on toxicity and presence in cokemaking wastewaters as 
discussed in Section IX.B(1) Currently, permits for several cokemaking 
sites require monitoring for mercury and selenium. EPA solicits 
comments on the need for limits for mercury and selenium, including any 
additional data available to support or oppose the need for limits.
11. Regulatory Approach for Dioxins and Furans at Sinter Plants
    In Section IX, dioxins and furans were identified as pollutants of 
concern for sinter plants using wet air pollution controls. EPA 
proposes to limit dioxins and furans in wastewaters from sinter plants. 
The proposed limit would be for 2,3,7,8-TCDF and would be set to less 
than the minimum level. EPA proposes to require compliance monitoring 
after primary treatment of sinter plant wastewaters or after sinter 
plant and blast furnace wastewaters are co-treated, but before any 
additional process or non-process flows are combined with the 
wastewater. EPA solicits comments on this proposed regulatory approach. 
The Agency is also considering whether to limit dioxins and furans 
found in sinter plant wastewaters on the basis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs 
(toxicity equivalents) which would measure all of the 17 dioxin and 
furan congeners with chlorine substitutions at the 2,3,7 and 8 lateral 
positions. This is consistent with the international toxicity 
equivalents factors approach; consistent with EPA's approach to 
regulating dioxins in other media and for conducting risk assessments; 
and consistent with EPA's source characterization work to assess the 
national inventory of dioxin releases to environmental media.
12. Consideration of Zero Discharge as NSPS for the Non-Integrated 
Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory
    As described in Section IV.F(5)c, non-integrated mills have 
demonstrated lower discharge flow rates than continuous casters and hot 
forming mills at integrated and stand alone mills. Many non-integrated 
sites report zero discharge of process wastewater using high-rate 
recycle systems for the entire mill. EPA determined that new facilities 
can incorporate process water treatment and water pollution control at 
the design stage, thus avoiding costs associated with retrofit 
situations. The Agency solicits comments on establishing zero discharge 
limitations at NSPS for the Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming 
Subcategory.
13. Zero Discharge for all EAFs
    As described in Section IV.F(5)a, the proposed Non-Integrated 
Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory includes a segment for EAF 
steelmaking. Since the only EAF remaining in the United States

[[Page 82037]]

that discharges wastewater is now only used for emergency purposes, EPA 
did not cost the site to replace the wet air pollution control unit. If 
the unit is still being used at the time this rule is promulgated, BPJ 
will apply. The Agency solicits comments on excluding a segment for 
EAFs with wet air pollution control.
14. Surface Quality Issues for Steel Finishing Operations
     the purposes of this proposal, the Agency has selected the median 
production-normalized flow rate (PNF) reported by the industry for 
steel finishing operations. This approach was intended to address 
product quality issues associated with water use. A number of mills 
engaging in steel finishing operations claim to need a relatively high 
PNF (i.e., higher than the median PNF selected by EPA for this proposed 
subcategory). Therefore, the Agency requests comments on surface 
quality and any other issues that impact water use and necessitate high 
water use rates in steel finishing operations.
15. Limits for Nitrates/Nitrites at Stainless Finishing Facilities
    In Section IX, nitrate/nitrite was identified as a pollutant of 
concern for stainless steel acid pickling operations where nitric acids 
and combinations of nitric and hydrofluoric acids are used for surface 
treatments for various grades of stainless steels. The model BAT 
technology for stainless steel finishing operations includes acid 
purification units for recovery and reuse of spent nitric and nitric/
hydrofluoric acid pickling solutions. EPA is considering developing a 
limit, based on acid purification technology, for nitrate/nitrite (in 
the form of nitrate-nitrite-N) for stainless steel finishing operations 
with combination acid pickling. EPA solicits effluent quality 
monitoring data from stainless steel acid pickling operations using 
acid purification and from POTWs that receive wastewater from these 
operations.
    EPA is aware of other process changes which may result in decreased 
nitrate concentrations in stainless steel acid pickling wastewaters, 
including chemical substitution for nitric acid. EPA solicits 
information on this or any other process capable of achieving 
substantial reduction or elimination of nitrates from stainless steel 
pickling wastewaters, particularly process details; for which grades of 
stainless steel the process can be used; performance data; and detailed 
cost estimates.
16. Revision of Subcategorization for BPT Effluent Limitations
    EPA is considering converting the existing mass-based BPT 
limitations for conventional pollutants TSS and O&G to corresponding 
concentration-based BPT limitations via the production normalized flows 
used to develop the existing BPT limitations. By this conversion, EPA 
does not intend to change the substance of the current BPT limitations 
in any way. Rather, EPA intends to simplify application of the current 
BPT limitations in view of the new subcategorization arrangement. EPA 
solicits comments on this approach.
17. Best Management Practices
    EPA is planning to include in guidance documents or in the 
technical development document for the final rule a number of 
recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) for use in the NPDES and 
pretreatment programs. These BMPs would not be codified in part 420, 
but could be used by permit writers on a facility-by-facility basis as 
deemed appropriate to address site-specific issues. Among the BMPs 
being considered in this fashion are those listed at Section 6.5 of the 
Preliminary Study (EPA 821-R-95-037) and others dealing with management 
of oily wastewaters from hot forming operations and periodic reviews 
and assessments of the integrity of process water collection systems 
and wastewater treatment system operations. EPA solicits comments on 
this approach.
18. Cash Flow in the Economic Analysis
    In the economic analysis, cash flow at the site-level is defined as 
the sum of net income and depreciation. The measure is widely used 
within industry in evaluating capital investment decisions because both 
net income and depreciation (which is an accounting offset against 
income, but not an actual cash expenditure) are potentially available 
to finance future investment. However, assuming that total cash flow is 
available over an extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to 
finance investments related to environmental compliance could overstate 
a site's ability to comply. In particular, the cost of capital 
equipment (not associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out 
of cash flow, as it is of income through the subtraction of 
depreciation. Thus, any costs associated with either replacing existing 
capital equipment, or repaying money that was previously borrowed to 
pay for it, are omitted from the site-level analysis. EPA solicits 
comment on its use of cash flow as a measure of resources available to 
finance environmental compliance and suggestions for alternative 
methodologies.

Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This 
Notice

    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 for industrial discharges to 
surface waters, as defined by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
    BCT--The best control technology for conventional pollutants, 
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing 
industrial point sources, as defined by section 304(b)(4) of the 
CWA.
    BPT--The best practicable control technology currently 
available, applicable to effluent limitations, for industrial 
discharges to surface waters, as defined by section 304(b)(1) of the 
CWA.
    Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended 
e.g., by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water 
Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
    Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaire--A qestionnaire 
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.
    Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as 
determined by section 304(a)(4) of the CWA (and EPA regulations), 
i.e., pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total 
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
    Daily Discharge--The discharge of a pollutant measured during 
any calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a 
calendar day.
    Direct Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
treated or untreated wastewaters into waters of the United States.
    Effluent Limitation--Under CWA section 502(1), any restriction, 
including schedules of compliance, established by a State or the 
Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, 
physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged 
from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the 
contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
    Existing Source-- this rule, any facility from which there is or 
may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is 
commenced before the publication of the final regulations 
prescribing a standard of performance under section 306 of the CWA.

[[Page 82038]]

    Facility--All contiguous property owned, operated, leased, or 
under the control of the same person or entity.
    Hazardous Waste--Any waste, including wastewater, defined as 
hazardous under RCRA, TSCA, or any state law.
    Indirect Discharger--A facility that discharges or may discharge 
wastewaters into a publicly-owned treatment works.
    LTA (Long-Term Average)-- 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 effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 
today's proposed regulation.
    Minimum Level--the lowest level at which the entire analytical 
system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration 
point for the analyte.
    NAICS--North American Industry Classification System. NAICS was 
developed jointly by the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to provide new 
comparability in statistics about business activity across North 
America.
    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.
    Non-Conventional Pollutants--Pollutants that are neither 
conventional pollutants nor priority pollutants listed at 40 CFR 
part 401.
    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 effective date of 
the final regulations (if those regulations are promulgated after 
April 26, 2001). EPA is scheduled to take final action on this 
proposal in April 2002. See 40 CFR 122.2.
    Outfall--The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from 
which a facility effluent discharges into receiving waters.
    Pass Through--A pollutant is determined to ``pass through'' a 
POTW when the average percentage removed by an efficiently operated 
POTW is less than the average percentage removed by the industry's 
direct dischargers that are using well-designed, well-operated BAT 
technology.
    Point Source--Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance 
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. See CWA section 
502(14).
    Pollutants of Concern (POCs)--Pollutants commonly found in iron 
and steel wastewaters. Generally, a chemical is considered as a POC 
if it was detected in untreated process wastewater at 10 times the 
minimum level (ML) in more than 10% of the 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. See 40 CFR part 403, Appendix A 
(reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17).
    PSES--Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect 
discharges, under Section 307(b) of the CWA, applicable to indirect 
dischargers that commenced construction after December 27, 2001. See 
40 CFR 403.3 (K)(1).
    PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources under section 
307(c) 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. 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation, treatment, 
storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous wastes.
    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.
    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.
    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 in 40 CFR Part 420

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

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
     the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by revising part 420 as follows:

Part 420--Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category

Sec.
420.1   General applicability.
420.2   General definitions.
420.3   Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent 
limitations.
420.4   Alternative effluent limitations under the ``water bubble.''
420.5   Pretreatment standards compliance date.
420.6   Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pH.
420.7   Supplemental NPDES permit application and pretreatment 
report requirements.
Subpart A--Cokemaking Subcategory
420.10   Applicability.
420.11   Subcategory definitions.
420.12   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.13   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.14   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.15   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.16   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.17   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Ironmaking Subcategory
420.20   Applicability.
420.21   Subcategory definitions.
420.22   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.23   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.24   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.25   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.26   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.27   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
420.28   Point of compliance monitoring.
Subpart C--Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory
420.30   Applicability.
420.31   Subcategory definitions.
420.32   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.33   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.34   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.35   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.36   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

[[Page 82039]]

420.37   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Subcategory
420.40   Applicability.
420.41   Subcategory definitions.
420.42   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.43   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.44   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.45   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.46   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.47   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory
420.50   Applicability.
420.51   Subcategory definitions.
420.52   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.53   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.54   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.55   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.56   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.57   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart F--Steel Finishing Subcategory
420.60   Applicability.
420.61   Subcategory definitions.
420.62   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.63   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.64   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.65   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.66   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.67   Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart G--Other Operations Subcategory
420.70   Applicability.
420.71   Subcategory definitions.
420.72   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
420.73   Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
420.74   Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
420.75   New source performance standards (NSPS).
420.76   Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
420.77   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. 420.1  General applicability.

    (a) This part applies to discharges and the introduction of 
pollutants to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) resulting from the 
manufacture of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and foundry coke), 
sinter, iron, steel and semi-finishing steel products including hot and 
cold finished flat-rolled carbon and alloy and stainless steels; flat-
rolled and other steel shapes coated with other metals or combinations 
of metals; plates; structural shapes and members; and hot rolled pipes 
and tubes. Manufacturing activities that may be subject to this part 
are generally reported under one or more of the following North 
American Industry Classification System (NAISC) codes: 32419, 331111, 
331210, 331221 and 331222 (North American Industry Classification 
System, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, 1997).
    (b) This part does not apply to discharges and the introduction of 
pollutants to POTWs resulting from cold finished bar or cold finished 
pipe and tube operations; wire drawing or coating operations; or, 
stand-alone, hot-dipped coating operations for products other than 
flat-rolled products.


Sec. 420.2  General definitions.

    As used in this part:
    (a) The general definitions and abbreviations in 40 CFR part 401 
shall apply, except as modified in this part.
    (b) Alloy steels means steels which contain one or more of the 
following alloying elements in excess of the specified percentage: 
Manganese, 1.65%; silicon, 0.5%; copper, 0.6%; or in which a definite 
range or a definite minimum quantity of any of the following elements 
is specified or required within the limits of the recognized field of 
constructional alloy steels: aluminum, boron, chromium (less than 10%), 
cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, niobium (columbium), titanium, 
tungsten, vanadium, zirconium, or any other alloying element added to 
obtain a desired alloying effect.
    (c) Billet means a semi-finished piece of steel, usually smaller 
than a bloom, resulting from hot-rolling an ingot. The piece may be 
square, but not more than twice as wide as thick . It is normally used 
for ``long'' products, such as bars, channels or other structural 
shapes.
    (d) Bloom means a semi-finished piece of steel resulting from 
rolling or forging an ingot. The piece is square, or not more than 
twice as wide as thick, and has a cross-sectional area of at least 8 
square inches but usually 36 square inches or more.
    (e) Carbon steels are those steels for which no minimum content of 
elements other than carbon is specified or necessary to obtain a 
desired alloying effect and when the maximum content for any of the 
following elements do not exceed the percentage specified: Manganese, 
1.65%; silicon, 0.5%; copper, 0.6%.
    (f) Maximum daily means the highest allowable discharge of 
wastewater pollutants during any one day.
    (g) Maximum monthly average means the highest allowable average of 
daily discharges of wastewater pollutants over a calendar month, and is 
calculated as the sum of all daily values measured during a calendar 
month divided by the number of daily values measured during that month.
    (h) Plate means finished sheet steel with a width of more than 8 
inches and a thickness ranging from 0.25 inch to more than 12 inches.
    (i) Regulated parameters with approved methods of analysis in Table 
1B at 40 CFR 136.3 are defined as follows:
    (1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia reported as nitrogen.
    (2) Chromium means total chromium.
    (3) Chromium (VI) means hexavalent chromium.
    (4) Copper means total copper.
    (5) Cyanide means total cyanide.
    (6) HEM means oil and grease measured as hexane extractable 
material.
    (7) Lead means total lead.
    (8) Mercury means total mercury.
    (9) Nickel means total nickel.
    (10) Nitrate+Nitrite (as N) means nitrite and nitrate reported as 
nitrogen.
    (11) Selenium means total selenium.
    (12) TRC means total residual chlorine.

[[Page 82040]]

    (13) TSS means total suspended solids.
    (14) Zinc means total zinc.
    (j) Regulated parameters with approved methods of analysis in Table 
1C at 40 CFR 136.3 are as follows:
    (1) Benzo(a)pyrene 
    (2) Naphthalene 
    (3) Phenol
    (k) Regulated parameter with approved method of analysis by EPA 
Method 1613B is defined as follows:
    (1) 2,3,7,8-TCDF means 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
    (l) Process wastewaters are defined at 40 CFR 401.11.
    (m) Non-process wastewaters mean utility wastewaters (for example, 
water treatment residuals); treated or untreated wastewaters from 
groundwater remediation systems; dewatering water for building 
foundations; and other wastewater streams not associated with a 
production process.
    (n) Rod means a semi-finished length of steel with circular cross-
section (diameter 0.25 inch or less) that is rolled from a billet and 
coiled for further processing. Rod is commonly drawn into wire products 
or used to make bolts and nails.
    (o) Semi-finished steel means blooms, billets or slabs that are 
later worked into finished shapes (bar, rod, plate, sheet).
    (p) Sheet means a thin flat steel shape created by hot-rolling a 
cast slab flat while maintaining the side dimensions. Sheets are within 
the following size limitations: 0.0499 to 0.2299 inches thick and 12 to 
over 48 inches width, and are often coiled.
    (q) Slab means a semi-finished piece of steel resulting from hot-
rolling an ingot into an oblong shape, which is relatively wide and 
thin.
    (r) Specialty steels are steels containing alloying elements that 
are added to enhance the properties of the steel product when 
individual alloying elements (e.g., aluminum, chromium, cobalt, 
columbium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, zirconium) 
exceed 3%, or when the total of all alloying elements exceeds 5 
percent. Specialty steel categories include: Electrical, alloy, 
stainless and tool.
    (s) Stainless means steel containing 10% or more chromium, with or 
without other alloying elements. It is a trade name given to corrosion 
and heat resistant steel in which the chief alloying elements are 
chromium, nickel and silicon in various combinations and possibly a 
small per cent of titanium, vanadium, and other elements.
    (t) Strip means thin flat steel resembling hot-rolled sheet, but 
normally narrower (up to 12 inches wide) and produced to more closely 
controlled thicknesses (0.0255 to 0.2299 inches).


Sec. 420.3  Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent 
limitations.

    (a) The following protocols shall be used when calculating the 
daily operating rate (reasonable meaure of actual production), except 
as specifically provided for in subparts A through G of this part:
    (1) Production levels from unit operations that do not generate or 
discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the calculation 
of the daily operating rate.
    (2) similar, multiple production facilities with process waters 
treated in the same process wastewater treatment system (e.g., two 
blast furnaces equipped with one process water treatment and recycle 
system), the reasonable measure of production (daily operating rate) 
shall be determined from the combined production of the similar 
production facilities during the same time period.
    (3) process wastewater treatment systems where wastewaters from two 
or more different production facilities (e.g., blast furnaces and 
sintering) are co-treated in the same process wastewater treatment 
system, the reasonable measure of production (daily operating rate) 
shall be determined for each production facility or combination of 
similar, multiple production facilities separately (not necessarily 
during the same time period) and summed. The reasonable measure of 
production for each set of similar, multiple production facilities 
shall be established using the protocols in Sec. 420.3(a)(2).
    (b) all process operations regulated by subparts A through G of 
this part, mass effluent limitations and pretreatment requirements for 
each process operation shall be computed by multiplying the reasonable 
measure of actual production by the respective effluent limitations 
guidelines or standards. The mass effluent limitations or pretreatment 
requirements applicable at a given NPDES or pretreatment compliance 
monitoring point shall be the sum of the mass effluent limitations or 
pretreatment requirements for each process operation with process 
wastewaters discharging to that compliance monitoring point.
    (c) Mass NPDES permit effluent limitations or pretreatment 
requirements derived from this part shall remain in effect for the term 
of the NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism, except:
    (1) When the permit is modified in accordance with Sec. 122.62 of 
this chapter or local POTW permit modification provisions; or
    (2) Where alternate effluent limitations are established for 
increased or decreased production levels in accordance with 
Sec. 122.45(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1) of this chapter.
    (d) Permit and pretreatment control authorities may provide for 
increased loadings for non-process wastewaters defined at Sec. 420.2 
and for storm water from the immediate process area in NPDES permits 
and pretreatment control mechanisms using best professional judgment, 
but only to the extent such non-process wastewaters result in an 
increased flow.


Sec. 420.4  Alternative effluent limitations under the ``water 
bubble''.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) through (g) of this 
section, any existing and new source direct discharging point source 
subject to this part may qualify for alternative effluent limitations 
to those specified in subparts A through G of this part, representing 
the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best 
practicable control technology currently available, best available 
technology economically achievable, best conventional technology, and 
best demonstrated technology. The alternative effluent limitations for 
each pollutant are determined for a combination of outfalls by totaling 
the mass limitations allowed under subparts A through G of this part 
for each pollutant and subtracting from each total the net reduction 
amount specified for that pollutant in paragraph (b) of this section. 
The permit authority shall determine a net reduction amount for each 
pollutant subject to this section that is greater than the minimum 
percentage specified in paragraph (b) of this section upon 
consideration of additional available control measures that would 
result in effluent reductions and which can be achieved without 
requiring significant additional expenditures at any outfall(s) in the 
combination for which the discharge is projected to be better than 
required by this regulation.
    (b) The water bubble may be used to calculate alternative effluent 
limitations only for identical pollutants (e.g. lead for lead, not lead 
for zinc).
    (c) In the case of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), the minimum net 
reduction amount shall be at least 15 percent of the amount(s) for 
existing sources and 20 percent of the amount(s) for new sources by 
which the TSS discharges from any waste stream(s) in

[[Page 82041]]

the combination will meet otherwise allowable effluent limitations for 
TSS. all other pollutants, the minimum net reduction amount shall be at 
least 10 percent of the amount(s) for existing sources and 20 percent 
of the amount(s) for new sources by which the discharges from any waste 
stream(s) in the combination will meet otherwise allowable effluent 
limitations for each pollutant under this regulation.
    (d) Use of the water bubble to develop alternate effluent 
limitations for oil & grease is prohibited.
    (e) A discharger cannot qualify for alternative effluent 
limitations if the application of such alternative effluent limitations 
would cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water 
quality standards.
    (f) Each outfall or internal NPDES permit compliance point from 
which process wastewaters are discharged must have specific, fixed 
effluent limitations for each pollutant limited by the applicable 
subparts A through G of this part.
    (g) Subcategory-Specific Restrictions:
    (1) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for cokemaking 
process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are more 
stringent than the limitations in subpart A of this part;
    (2) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for sintering 
process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are more 
stringent than the sintering process wastewater limitations in subpart 
B of this part.
    (h) The water bubble may be used to calculate alternative effluent 
limitations only for identical pollutants (e.g., lead for lead, not 
lead for zinc).


Sec. 420.5  Pretreatment standards compliance dates.

    Compliance with the pretreatment standards for existing sources set 
forth in this part is required not later than three years from date of 
publication of the final rule whether or not the pretreatment authority 
issues or amends a pretreatment permit requiring such compliance. Until 
that date, the pretreatment standards for existing sources set forth in 
the 2000 version of this part shall continue to apply.


Sec. 420.6  Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for pH.

    (a) The pH level shall be maintained between 6.0 and 9.0 su at all 
times.
    (b) The pH level in process wastewaters subject to a subpart within 
this part shall be monitored at the point of discharge to the receiving 
water or at the point at which the wastewater leaves the wastewater 
treatment facility operated to treated effluent subject to that 
subpart.


Sec. 420.7  Supplemental NPDES permit application and pretreatment 
report requirements.

    In addition to the information and data for NPDES permit 
applications and pretreatment reports required by part 122, subpart B 
and Sec. 403.12, respectively, the permit applicant shall provide the 
following information with its permit application or pretreatment 
report:
    (a) Complete applications for any new variances or for renewal of 
any existing variances from the generally applicable effluent 
limitations;
    (b) Any proposed alternative effluent limitations under the ``water 
bubble'' rule at Sec. 420.4.

Subpart A--Cokemaking Subcategory


Sec. 420.10  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from by-product and other cokemaking operations.


Sec. 420.11  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means the average daily operating (production) rate of 
metallurgical coke plus coke breeze determined in accordance with 
Sec. 420.3.
    (b) By-product cokemaking means operations in which coal is heated 
in the absence of air to produce metallurgical coke (furnace coke and 
foundry coke) and recovery of by-products derived from the gases and 
liquids which are driven from the coal during cokemaking.
    (c) Cokemaking, non-recovery means cokemaking operations for 
production of metallurgical coke (furnace coke and foundry coke) 
without recovery of by-products.
    (d) Coke means a processed form of coal which serves as the basic 
fuel for the smelting of iron ore.
    (1) Foundry coke means coke produced for foundry operations.
    (2) Furnace coke means coke produced for blast furnace operations.
    (e) Iron and steel coke plant means by-product cokemaking 
operations which provide more than fifty per cent of the coke produced 
to ironmaking blast furnaces associated with steel production.
    (f) Merchant coke plant means by-product cokemaking operations 
other than those at iron and steel coke plants.
    (g) Merchant bar means rounds, flats, angles, squares and channels 
that are used by fabricators to manufacture a wide variety of products 
such as furniture, stair railings and farm equipment.
    (h) Wet desulfurization system means one that utilizes water to 
remove (scrub) sulfur compounds from coke oven off-gases.
    (i) NESHAPs means National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants applicable to by-product coke plants.


Sec. 420.12  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
    Effluent Limitations (BPT)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Maximum monthly
     Process wastewater source      Maximum daily \3\       avg.\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Iron and steel coke plants \1\
    Oil & grease..................         0.0654             0.0218
    TSS...........................         0.506              0.262
(2) Merchant coke plants \2\
    Oil & grease..................         0.0698             0.0232
    TSS...........................         0.540              0.280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ iron and steel coke plants, increased loadings, not to exceed 11 per
  cent of the above limitations, shall be provided for process
  wastewaters from wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent
  such systems generate process wastewaters.
\2\ merchant coke plants, increased loadings, not to exceed 10 per cent
  of the above limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters
  from wet desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems
  generate process wastewaters. \3\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82042]]

    (b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this segment must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT): There shall 
be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.13  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.12 for the best practicable control technology 
currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.14  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
control technology economically achievable (BAT):

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter               daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................      0.00137          0.000618
Benzo(a)pyrene........................      0.0000909        0.0000304
Cyanide...............................      0.0104           0.00394
Mercury...............................      0.000000864      0.000000523
Naphthalene...........................      0.000103         0.0000345
Phenol................................      0.0000332        0.0000187
Selenium..............................      0.000185         0.000159
Thiocyanate...........................      0.00164          0.00115
TRC...................................      0.000659
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pounds per ton of product.

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (4) The effluent limitations for TRC shall be applicable only when 
chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters is practiced.
    (b) Cokemaking--non-recovery. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 
through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must 
achieve the following effluent limitations representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available 
control technology economically achievable (BAT): There shall be no 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Sec. 420.14. toxic and nonconventional pollutants, 
those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the applicable 
time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source 
must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.14.
    (b) By-product cokemaking. The following standards apply with 
respect to each new source that commences construction after [insert 
date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter               daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................      0.00137          0.000618
Benzo(a)pyrene........................      0.0000909        0.0000304
Cyanide...............................      0.0104           0.00394
Mercury...............................      0.000000864      0.000000523
Naphthalene...........................      0.000103         0.0000345
Oil & grease..........................      0.0246           0.0132

[[Page 82043]]

 
Phenol................................      0.0000332        0.0000187
Selenium..............................      0.000185         0.000159
Thiocyanate...........................      0.00164          0.00115
TRC...................................      0.000659
TSS...................................      0.0665           0.0337
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pounds per ton of product.

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (4) The effluent limitations for TRC shall be applicable only when 
chlorination of cokemaking wastewaters is practiced.
    (c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of 
process wasterwater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Option 1 for paragraph (a): (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as 
provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for 
existing sources (PSES):

                       Physical Chemical Treatment
                     [Pretreatment Standards (PSES)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter                 \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................      0.0845           0.0559
Cyanide...............................      0.0244           0.0128
Naphthalene...........................      0.00268          0.000869
Phenol................................      2.13             0.720
Selenium..............................      0.00125          0.00104
Thiocyanate...........................      0.402            0.317
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 13.9 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.3 per cent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastwaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    Option 2 for paragraph (a): (a) By-product cokemaking. Except as 
provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for 
existing sources (PSES):

               Physical Chemical plus Biological Treatment
                     [Pretreatment Standards (PSES)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum daily       Maximum
          Regulated parameter                 \1\        monthly avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ammonia (as N).......................      0.00539          0.00357
 Cyanide..............................      0.00616          0.00422
 Naphthalene..........................      0.000103         0.0000345
 Phenol...............................      0.0000332        0.0000187
 Selenium.............................      0.000185         0.000159
 Thiocyanate..........................      0.00164          0.00115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82044]]

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (b) Cokemaking-non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Sec. 420.16 for ten years beginning on the date the 
source commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or 
amortization of the facility, whichever comes first, after which the 
source must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.16.
    (b) By-product cokemaking. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the 
following standards apply with respect to each new source that 
commences discharge after [insert date that is 60 days after the 
publication date of the final rule]:

               Physical Chemical Plus Biological Treatment
                     [Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter                 \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N)........................      0.00539          0.00357
Cyanide...............................      0.00616          0.00422
Naphthalene...........................      0.000103         0.0000345
Phenol................................      0.0000332        0.0000187
Selenium..............................      0.000185         0.000159
Thiocyanate...........................      0.00164          0.00115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (1) Increased loadings, not to exceed 9.5 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters from wet 
desulfurization systems, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (2) Increased loadings, not to exceed 6.3 percent of the above 
limitations, shall be provided for process wastewaters generated as a 
result of control measures necessary for compliance with by-product 
coke plant NESHAPs, but only to the extent such systems generate 
process wastewaters.
    (3) Increased loadings shall be provided for process wastewaters 
from other wet air pollution control systems (except those from coal 
charging and coke pushing emission controls), coal tar processing 
operations and coke plant groundwater remediation systems, but only to 
the extent such systems generate process wastewaters and those 
wastewaters are co-treated with process wastewaters from by-product 
cokemaking wastewaters.
    (c) Cokemaking--non-recovery. There shall be no discharge of 
process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

Subpart B--Ironmaking Subcategory


Sec. 420.20  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from: Sintering operations conducted by heating in a 
traveling grate combustion system of iron bearing materials (e.g., iron 
ore, mill scale, blast furnace flue dusts, blast furnace wastewater 
treatment sludges), limestone, coke fines and other materials to 
produce an agglomerate for charging to the blast furnace; and, 
ironmaking operations in which iron ore and other iron-bearing 
materials are reduced to molten iron in a blast furnace.


Sec. 420.21  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means:
    (1) Sinter agglomerated from iron-bearing materials; or
    (2) Molten iron produced in a blast furnace, and does not include 
slag skimmed remotely from the blast furnace.
    The average daily operating (production) rate of sinter and molten 
iron must be determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
    (b) Dry-air pollution control system is an emission control system 
that utilizes filters to remove iron-bearing particles (fines) from 
blast furnace or sintering off-gases.
    (c) Minimum level (ML) means the level at which the analytical 
system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point. 
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, the minimum level is 10 pg/L per EPA 
Method 1613B for water and wastewater samples.
    (d) Pg/L means picograms per liter (ppt = 1.0 x 10-12 
gm/L).
    (e) Sintering means a process for agglomerating iron-bearing 
materials into small pellets (sinter) which can be charged to a blast 
furnace.
    (f) Wet-air pollution control system is an emission control system 
that utilizes a water mist to clean process or furnace off-gases.


Sec. 420.22  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable 
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application

[[Page 82045]]

of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

                                           Effluent Limitations (BPT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                           Process wastewater source                                  \1\            avg \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution controls:
    Oil & grease..............................................................      0.0300           0.0100
    TSS.......................................................................      0.150            0.050
(b) Blast furnaces:
    OIl & grease..............................................................
    TSS.......................................................................      0.156            0.0520
(c) Sintering operations with dry air pollution controls......................  (\2\)            (\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. for sintering operations
  with dry air pollution controls.

Sec. 420.23  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.22 of this subpart for the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.24  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best available control technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
    (a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table is effluent limitations (BAT) for sintering operations 
with wet air pollution control system:

                                           Effluent Limitations (BAT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily \1\               Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).............................  0.000652                           0.000293
Cyanide....................................  0.00493                            0.00187
Lead.......................................  0.0000913                          0.0000476
Phenol.....................................  0.0000463                          0.0000157
2,3,7,8-TCDF...............................  \3\ML
TRC \2\....................................  0.000313
Zinc.......................................  0.000116                           0.0000457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

    (b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters 
of the U.S.
    (c) Blast furnaces. The following table is effluent limitations 
(BAT) for blast furnaces:

                                           Effluent Limitations (BAT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily \1\               Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).............................  0.000217                           0.0000977
Cyanide....................................  0.00164                            0.000623
Lead.......................................  0.0000304                          0.0000159
Phenol.....................................  0.0000154                          0.00000523
2,3,7,8-TCDF \3\...........................  \4\ ML
TRC \2\....................................  0.000104
Zinc.......................................  0.0000387                          0.0000152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when blast furnace process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewaters from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).


[[Page 82046]]

Sec. 420.25  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified 
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.24 and 420.34. toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall not apply after the 
expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable 
standards specified in Sec. 420.24.
    (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after 
the publication date of the final rule].
    (1) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table is Performance Standards (NSPS) for sintering 
operations with wet air pollution control system:

                                          Performance Standards (NSPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily \1\               Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).............................  0.000652                           0.000293
Cyanide....................................  0.00493                            0.00187
Lead.......................................  0.0000913                          0.0000476
Oil & grease...............................  0.00531                            0.00420
Phenol.....................................  0.0000463                          0.0000157
2,3,7,8-TCDF...............................  \3\ ML
TRC \2\....................................  0.000313
TSS........................................  0.0251                             0.00939
Zinc.......................................  0.000116                           0.0000457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when sintering process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-2 g/l).

    (2) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to waters 
of the U.S.
    (3) Blast furnaces. The following table is Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for blast furnaces:

                                          Performance Standards (NSPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily \1\               Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N).............................  0.000217                           0.0000977
Cyanide....................................  0.00164                            0.000623
Lead.......................................  0.0000304                          0.0000159
Oil & grease...............................  0.00177                            0.00140
Phenol.....................................  0.0000154                          0.00000523
2,3,7,8-TCDF\3\............................  \4\ ML
TRC \2\....................................  0.000104
TSS........................................  0.00836                            0.00313
Zinc.......................................  0.0000387                          0.0000152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Applicable only when blast furnace process wastewater is chlorinated.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewaters from blast furnaces and sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

Sec. 420.26  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for 
existing sources (PSES):
    (a) Sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for sintering 
operations with wet air pollution control system:

                                          Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Regulated parameter                      Maximum daily \1\               Maximum monthly avg.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \2\.........................  0.000652                           0.000293
Lead.......................................  0.0000913                          0.0000476
2,3,7,8-TCDF...............................  \3\ ML
Zinc.......................................  0.000116                           0.0000457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

[[Page 82047]]

 
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the capability, when considered together with the
  indirect discharger's removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected under BAT.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10-12 g/l).

    (b) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
    (c) Blast furnaces. The following table is Pretreatment Standards 
(PSES) for blast furnaces:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter                 \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N ) \2\...................        0.000217         0.0000977
Lead..................................        0.0000304        0.0000159
2,3,7,8-TCDF \3\......................   \4\ ML
Zinc..................................        0.0000387        0.0000152 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the
  capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
  removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
  under BAT.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewater from blast furnaces and
  sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 \-12\ g/l).

Sec. 420.27  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Sec. 420.26 for ten years beginning on the date the 
source commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or 
amortization of the facility, whichever comes first, after which the 
source must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.26.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after 
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final 
rule]:
    (1) sintering operations with wet air pollution control system. The 
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) for sintering 
operations with wet air pollution control system:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter                 \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N) \2\....................        0.000652         0.000293
Lead..................................        0.0000913        0.0000476
2,3,7,8-TCDF..........................   \3\ ML
Zinc..................................        0.000116         0.0000457 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the
  capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
  removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
  under BAT.
\3\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 \-12\ g/l).

    (2) Sintering operations with dry air pollution control system. 
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
    (3) Blast furnaces: The following table is Pretreatment Standards 
(PSNS) for blast furnaces:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
          Regulated parameter                 \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia (as N ) \2\...................        0.000217         0.0000977
Lead..................................        0.0000304        0.0000159
2,3,7,8-TCDF \3\......................   \4\ ML
Zinc..................................        0.0000387        0.0000152 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ Not applicable when the facilities discharge to POTWs with the
  capability, when considered together with the indirect discharger's
  removals, to achieve removals at least equivalent to those expected
  under BAT.
\3\ Applicable only when process wastewater from blast furnaces and
  sintering operations are co-treated.
\4\ Ten parts per quadrillion (10 x 10 \-12\ g/l).


[[Page 82048]]

Sec. 420.28  Point of compliance monitoring.

    (a) Sinter Direct Dischargers. Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(i) and 
122.45(h), a direct discharger must demonstrate compliance with the 
effluent limitations and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDF at the point after 
treatment of sinter plant wastewater separately or in combination with 
blast furnace wastewater, but prior to mixing with any other process or 
non-process wastewaters or non-contact cooling waters.
    (b) Sinter Indirect Dischargers. An indirect discharger must 
demonstrate compliance with the pretreatment standards for 2,3,7,8=TCDF 
by monitoring at the point after treatment of sinter plant wastewater 
separately or in combination with blast furnace wastewater, but prior 
to mixing with any other process or non-process wastewaters or non-
contact cooling waters.

Subpart C--Integrated Steelmaking Subcategory


Sec. 420.30  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from steelmaking operations conducted at integrated steel 
mills. Such operations include steelmaking in basic oxygen furnaces and 
vacuum degassing and continuous casting of molten steels. The 
provisions of this subpart are also applicable to steelmaking in basic 
oxygen furnaces conducted at any location.


Sec. 420.31  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means steel produced in a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) 
from molten iron, steel scrap, fluxes and alloying elements in various 
combinations by adding oxygen (air), before further processing in ladle 
metallurgy stations or casting operations. The average daily operating 
(production) rates shall be determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3, 
except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Average hourly operating rate and average daily operating rate 
for vacuum degassing operations must be determined in accordance with 
the methods set out in Sec. 420.3 for the week with the highest vacuum 
degassing production during the year with the highest annual production 
from the past five years.
    (c) Basic furnace means one in which the brick lining is composed 
of refractory material derived from dolomite (CaO and MgO), limestone 
(CaO), or magnesite (MgO).
    (d) Semi-wet-air means an emission control system in which water is 
added for the purpose of conditioning the temperature and/or the 
humidity of furnace or process off-gases prior to cleaning the gases in 
a dry-air emission control system.
    (e) Wet-air open combustion means an emission control system which 
has been designed to add excess air to furnace or process off-gases so 
as to assure a more complete combustion (conversion) of carbon monoxide 
to carbon dioxide.
    (f) Wet-air suppressed combustion means an emission control system 
which has been designed to restrict the amount of air available to 
furnace or process off-gases so as to assure minimal combustion 
(conversion) of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide.


Sec. 420.32  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable 
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum daily  Maximum monthly
       Process wastewater source              \1\            Avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Basic oxygen furnaces:
    (1) semi-wet air pollution            (3)
     controls:........................
        Oil & grease..................
        TSS...........................
    (2) wet-open combustion:
        Oil & grease..................
        TSS...........................      0.137            0.0458
    (3) wet-suppressed combustion:
        Oil & grease..................
        TSS...........................      0.0624           0.0208
(b) Vacuum degassing:
    Oil & grease
    TSS...............................      0.0312           0.0104
(c) Continuous casting:
    Oil & grease......................      0.0468           0.0156
    TSS...............................      0.156            0.052
(d) Ladle metallurgy..................    (2)             (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to
  waters of the U.S. for ladle metallurgy.
\3\ 1982 regulation allowed for no discharge of process wastewater from
  this operation.

Sec. 420.33  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.32 for the best practicable control technology 
currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.34  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point

[[Page 82049]]

source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable 
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
available control technology economically achievable (BAT):
    (a) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control 
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air 
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. This 
table is Effluent Limitations (BAT) for basic oxygen furnaces with 
semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-
suppressed combustion air pollution control system; vacuum degassing; 
and continuous casting:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
       Process wastewater source              \1\            avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Basic oxygen furnaces:
    (i) semi-wet air pollution
     controls:
        (A) Lead......................      0.0000122        0.00000634
        (B) Zinc......................      0.0000140        0.00000795
    (ii) wet-suppressed combustion:
        (A) Lead......................      0.0000243        0.0000127
        (B) Zinc......................      0.0000279        0.0000159
(2) Vacuum degassing:
        (i) Lead......................      0.0000183        0.00000951
        (ii) Zinc.....................      0.0000209        0.0000119
(3) Continuous casting:
        (i) Lead......................      0.0000243        0.0000127
        (ii) Zinc.....................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (b) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution 
control system. The following table is Effluent Limitations (BAT) for 
basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution control 
system:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0000243        0.0000127
Zinc..................................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (c) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.35  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified 
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.44, 420.54 and 420.64. toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall not apply after the 
expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable 
standards specified in Sec. 420.34.
    (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after 
the publication date of the final rule].
    (1) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control 
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air 
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The 
following table is Performance Standards (NSPS) for basic oxygen 
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen 
furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air pollution control system; 
vacuum degassing; and continuous casting:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
       Process wastewater source              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Basic oxygen furnaces:
    (A) semi-wet air pollution
     controls:
        (1) Lead......................      0.0000122        0.00000634
        (2) Zinc......................      0.0000140        0.00000795
(ii) wet-suppressed combustion:
    (A) Lead..........................      0.0000243        0.0000127
    (B) Zinc..........................      0.0000279        0.0000159
(ii) Vacuum degassing
    (A) Lead..........................      0.0000183        0.00000951

[[Page 82050]]

 
    (B) Zinc..........................      0.0000209        0.0000119
(iii) Continuous casting
    (A) Lead..........................      0.0000243        0.0000127
    (B) Zinc..........................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (2) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution 
control system. The following table is Performance Standards (NSPS) for 
basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution control 
system:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily        Maximum
                                              \1\        monthly avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0000243        0.0000127
Zinc..................................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.36  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to 
this subpart must achieve the following pretreatment standards for 
existing sources (PSES):
    (a) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control 
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air 
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The 
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for basic oxygen 
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen 
furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air pollution control system; 
vacuum degassing; and continuous casting:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
       Process Wastewater Source              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Basic oxygen furnaces:
    (i) semi-wet air pollution
     controls
        (A) Lead......................      0.0000122        0.00000634
        (B) Zinc......................      0.0000140        0.00000795
    (ii) wet-suppressed combustion
        (A) Lead......................      0.0000243        0.0000127
        (B) Zinc......................      0.0000279        0.0000159
(2) Vacuum degassing:
    (i) Lead..........................      0.0000183        0.00000951
    (ii) Zinc.........................      0.0000209        0.0000119
(3) Continuous casting:
    (i) Lead..........................      0.0000243        0.0000127
    (ii) Zinc.........................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (b) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution 
control system. The following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSES) 
for basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution 
control system:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0000243        0.0000127
Zinc..................................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82051]]

    (c) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.37  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Secs. 420.46, 420.56, and 420.66 for ten years 
beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or during the 
period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, whichever comes 
first, after which the source must achieve the standards specified in 
Sec. 420.36.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after 
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final 
rule]:
    (1) Basic oxygen furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control 
system; basic oxygen furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air 
pollution control system; vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The 
following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) for basic oxygen 
furnaces with semi-wet air pollution control system; basic oxygen 
furnaces with wet-suppressed combustion air pollution control system; 
vacuum degassing; and continuous casting:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
       Process wastewater source              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Basic oxygen furnaces:
    (A) semi-wet air pollution
     controls:
        (1) Lead......................      0.0000122        0.00000634
        (2) Zinc......................      0.0000140        0.00000795
    (B) wet-suppressed combustion:
        (1) Lead......................      0.0000243        0.0000127
        (2) Zinc......................      0.0000279        0.0000159
(ii) Vacuum degassing:
        (A) Lead......................      0.0000183        0.00000951
        (B) Zinc......................      0.0000209        0.0000119
(iii) Continuous casting:
        (A) Lead......................      0.0000243        0.0000127
        (B) Zinc......................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (2) Basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution 
control system. The following table is Pretreatment Standards (PSNS) 
basic oxygen furnaces with wet-open combustion air pollution control 
system:

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0000243        0.0000127
Zinc..................................      0.0000279        0.0000159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

Subpart D--Integrated and Stand-Alone Hot ming Subcategory


Sec. 420.40  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from primary, section, flat and pipe and tube hot forming 
operations conducted at integrated steel mills and at stand-alone hot 
forming mills.


Sec. 420.41  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means the solid, flat-rolled steel, steel shapes or 
pipe and tube produced at primary, section, flat, pipe and tube hot-
forming mills. The average daily operating (production) rate shall be 
determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
    (b) Hot forming means those steel processing operations in which 
solidified, heated steel is shaped by mechanical pressure applied 
through one or a series of rolls.
    (c) Primary mill means the first hot forming operation performed on 
solidified steel after the steel is removed from ingot molds in which 
steel ingots are reduced to blooms or slabs by passing the heated steel 
between rotating steel rolls.
    (d) Section mill means those steel hot forming operations that 
produce a variety of steel shapes other than those produced on primary 
mills, flat mills or pipe and tube mills.
    (e) Flat mill means those steel hot forming operations that reduce 
heated slabs to plates, strip and sheet or skelp.
    (f) Pipe and tube mill means steel hot forming operations that 
produce butt-welded or seamless tubular steel products.
    (g) Scarfing means steel surface conditioning operations in which 
flames generated by combustion of oxygen and fuel are used to remove 
surface metal imperfections from blooms, billets or slabs.
    (h) Plate mill means steel hot forming operations that produce 
flat, hot-rolled

[[Page 82052]]

products that are: Between 8 and 48 inches wide and over 0.23 inches 
thick; or greater than 48 inches wide and over 0.18 inches thick.
    (i) Hot strip and sheet mill means operations that produce flat, 
hot rolled steel products other than plates.
    (j) Carbon steel hot-forming means operations that produce a 
majority (tonnage basis) of carbon steels by hot forming.
    (k) Specialty steel hot-forming means operations that produce less 
than a majority (tonnage basis) of carbon steel by hot forming.
    (l) Carbon and alloy steel means operations that produce a majority 
(tonnage basis) of carbon and alloy steel products by hot forming.
    (m) Stainless steels means operations that produce a majority 
(tonnage basis) of stainless steel products by hot forming.
    (n) Skep means flat, hot-rolled steel strip or sheet used to form 
welded pipe or tube products.


Sec. 420.42  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable 
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
       Process wastewater source              \1\            Avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Primary mills, carbon and
 specialty:
    (1) without scarfing:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.0748
        (ii) TSS......................      0.300            0.112
    (2) with scarfing:
        (i) Oil & grease:.............      0.442
        (ii) TSS......................      0.111            0.166
(b) Section mills:
    (1) carbon:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.179
        (ii) TSS......................      0.714            0.268
    (2) Specialty:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.112
        (ii) TSS......................      0.448            0.128
(c) Flat mills:
    (1) Hot strip and sheet, carbon
     and specialty:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.214
        (ii) TSS......................      0.854            0.320
    (2) Plate mills, carbon:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.114
        (ii) TSS......................      0.454            0.170
    (3) Plate mills, specialty:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.0500
        (ii) TSS......................      0.200            0.0752
(d) Pipe and tube mills, carbon and
 specialty:
        (i) Oil & grease..............      0.106
        (2) TSS.......................      0.424            0.159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

Sec. 420.43  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.42 of this subpart for the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.44  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best available control technology 
economically achievable (BAT):
    (a) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The following table is Effluent 
Limitations (BAT) for carbon and alloy steels:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.000122         0.0000634
Zinc..................................      0.000131         0.0000907
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82053]]

    (b) Stainless Steels. The following table is Effluent Limitations 
(BAT) for stainless steels:

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.0000808        0.0000362
Nickel................................      0.000275         0.000144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

Sec. 420.45  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified 
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.44, 420.54, 420.64, and 420.74. toxic 
and nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall not apply after 
the expiration of the applicable time period specified in 40 CFR 
122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the applicable 
standards specified in Sec. 420.44.
    (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after 
the publication date of the final rule]. 
    (1) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The following table is Performance 
Standards (NSPS) for carbon and alloy steels:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.000122         0.0000634
Oil & grease..........................      0.00793          0.00628
TSS...................................      0.0182           0.0124
Zinc..................................      0.000131         0.0000907
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (2) Stainless Steels. The following table is Performance Standards 
(NSPS) for stainless steels:

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.0000808        0.0000362
Nickel................................      0.000275         0.000144
Oil & grease..........................      0.0236           0.0119
TSS...................................      0.0265           0.0109
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

Sec. 420.46  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to 
this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned 
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.


Sec. 420.47  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment 
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.

Subpart E--Non-Integrated Steelmaking and Hot ming Subcategory


Sec. 420.50  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from steelmaking and hot forming operations conducted at non-
integrated steel mills. Such operations include steelmaking in electric 
arc furnaces; vacuum degassing and continuous casting of molten steels; 
and, hot forming of flat-rolled steels, steel shapes and pipe and tube. 
The provisions of this subpart are also applicable to steelmaking 
operations in electric arc furnaces and related vacuum degassing, 
continuous casting and hot forming operations conducted at any 
location.


Sec. 420.51  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means:
    (1) Steel produced in electric furnaces before further processing 
in ladle metallurgy stations or casting operations;
    (2) Flat-rolled steel, steel shapes or pipe and tube produced by 
hot-forming operations. The daily operating

[[Page 82054]]

(production) rate shall be determined in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
    (b) Except for the term ``product,'' definitions set out for 
subpart C of this part are applicable to this subpart.
    (c) Electric arc furnace means one in which the heat is supplied by 
an electric arc from graphite electrodes to the molten metal bath. The 
charge is generally 100% scrap metal.


Sec. 420.52  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable 
operation, the following effluent limitations representing the degree 
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
       Process wastewater source              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Electric arc furnaces.............  (\2\)            (\2\)
(b) Vacuum degassing:
    (1) Oil & grease
    (2) TSS...........................      0.0312           0.0104
(c) Continuous casting:
    (1) Oil & grease..................      0.0468           0.0156
    (2) TSS...........................      0.156            0.052
(d) Hot forming mills:
    (1) Oil & grease..................      0.0748
    (2) TSS...........................      0.300            0.112
(e) Ladle metallurgy..................  (\2\)            (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to
  waters of the U.S. for electric arc furnaces or ladle metallurgy.

Sec. 420.53  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.52 of this subpart for the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.54  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best available control technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
    (a) Carbon and Alloy Steels. The following effluent limitations 
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each 
operation as applicable.
    (1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
    (2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is 
Effluent Limitations (BAT) for vacuum degassing and continuous casting:

           Carbon and Alloy Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0000122        0.00000634
Zinc..................................      0.0000101        0.00000450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Hot forming operations. The following table is Effluent 
Limitations (BAT) for hot forming operations:

           Carbon and Alloy Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0000609        0.0000317
Zinc..................................      0.0000506        0.0000225
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82055]]

    (4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
    (b) Stainless Steels. The following effluent limitations apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable.
    (1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
    (2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is 
Effluent Limitations (BAT) for vacuum degassing and continuous casting:

              Stainless Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00000808       0.00000362
Nickel................................      0.0000275        0.0000144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Hot forming operations. The following table is Effluent 
Limitations (BAT) for hot forming operations:

              Stainless Steels--Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.0000404        0.0000181
Nickel................................      0.000137         0.0000720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.55  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Sec. 420.74. toxic and nonconventional pollutants, 
those standards shall not apply after the expiration of the applicable 
time period specified in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source 
must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.54.
    (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after 
the publication date of the final rule].
    (1) Carbon and alloy steels. The following performance standards 
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each 
operation as applicable: There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S.
    (2) Stainless steels. The following performance standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to waters of the U.S.


Sec. 420.56  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources.
    (a) Carbon and alloy steels. The following pretreatment standards 
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each 
operation as applicable:
    (1) Electric arc furnace steelmaking--semi-wet. [Reserved.]
    (2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is 
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for vacuum degassing and continuous 
casting:

         Carbon and Alloy Steels.--Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0001878        0.0000626
Zinc..................................      0.000282         0.0000938
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Hot forming operations. Any existing source subject to this 
subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment 
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403.
    (4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
    (b) Stainless steels. The following pretreatment standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable.
    (1) Electric arc furnaces. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.

[[Page 82056]]

    (2) Vacuum degassing; continuous casting. The following table is 
Pretreatment Standards (PSES) for vacuum degassing and continuous 
casting:

             Stainless Steels--Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00000808       0.00000362
Nickel................................      0.0000275        0.0000144
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Hot forming operations. The following table is Pretreatment 
Standards (PSES) for hot forming operations:

             Stainless Steels--Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.0000404        0.0000181
Nickel................................      0.000137         0.0000720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (4) Ladle Metallurgy. There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.57  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Sec. 420.76 for ten years beginning on the date the 
source commenced discharge or during the period of depreciation or 
amortization of the facility, whichever comes first, after which the 
source must achieve the standards specified in Sec. 420.56.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after 
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final 
rule]:
    (1) Carbon and alloy steels. The following performance standards 
apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment for each 
operation as applicable: There shall be no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
    (2) Stainless steels. The following effluent limitations apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to POTWs.

Subpart F--Steel Finishing Subcategory


Sec. 420.60  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and 
the introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from carbon, alloy and stainless steel finishing operations. 
Such operations include descaling, acid pickling, cold rolling and 
annealing, acid and alkaline cleaning, continuous hot dip coating and 
electroplating of metals on steels.
    (b) Wastewater discharges from the following operations on steel 
are subject to this subpart: Cold forming, continuous electroplating, 
or continuous hot dip coating of sheets, strips or plates.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to discharges of process wastewater 
from surface finishing or cold forming operations on steel wire, rod, 
bar, pipe or tubing. This subpart does not apply to process wastewater 
from these same operations when they are performed on base materials 
other than steel. Wastewater discharges from performing these 
operations are subject to 40 CFR part 438.


Sec. 420.61  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means:
    (1) Steel processed (including rework) for descaling, acid pickling 
and acid or alkaline cleaning operations;
    (2) Finished rolled steel for cold rolling and annealing 
operations; and
    (3) Finished coated steel for hot coating and electroplating 
operations. The daily operating (production) rate shall be determined 
in accordance with Sec. 420.3.
    (b) Acid cleaning means surface treatment of steel products using 
acid solutions conducted after cold rolling operations and prior to 
subsequent surface coating operations, and associated rinsing 
operations.
    (c) Acid pickling means the first surface treatment of steel 
products using acid solutions conducted after hot forming operations 
for chemical removal of oxides and scale, and associated rinsing 
operations.
    (d) Acid purification units or acid recovery units means those 
devices used for recovery and/or reconstitution of acid solutions from 
used acid pickling solutions.
    (e) Acid regeneration means recovery of hydrochloric acid from used 
pickling solutions.
    (f) Alkaline cleaning means surface treatment of steel products 
using alkaline solutions and associated rinses, which are conducted 
after cold rolling operations and prior to subsequent surface coating 
operations.
    (g) Bar means a finished hot-rolled steel product.
    (h) Batch means those steel finishing operations in which semi-
finished steel products are processed in discrete batches.
    (i) Cold forming means operations conducted on unheated steel for 
purposes of imparting desired mechanical properties and surface 
qualities (density, smoothness) to the steel.

[[Page 82057]]

    (j) Cold working means operations (rolling, forging, stretching) 
conducted on unheated (often ambient temperature) steel that change 
structure, shape and create a permanent increase in hardness and 
strength.
    (k) Combination means cold rolling operations which include 
recirculation of rolling solutions at one or more mill stands, and 
once-through use of rolling solutions at the remaining stand or stands.
    (l) Combination pickling means acid pickling operations using more 
than one acid solution or mixed acid solutions.
    (m) Continuous means operations in which semi-finished steel 
products are processed on a continuous or semi-continuous basis.
    (n) Descaling means removal of scale from semi-finished steel 
products by action of molten salt baths or chemical solutions.
    (o) Direct application means cold rolling operations which include 
once-through use of rolling solutions at all mill stands.
    (p) Electrolytic descaling means removal of scale from semi-
finished steel products by electrolysis utilizing sodium sulfate 
solutions.
    (q) Electroplating means the application of metal coatings 
including, but not limited to, chromium, copper, nickel, tin, zinc and 
combinations thereof on steel products using an electro-chemical 
process.
    (r) Flat bar means a semi-finished hot-rolled flat steel product.
    (s) Fume scrubbers means emission control devices used to collect 
and clean fumes originating in acid pickling, acid cleaning, alkaline 
cleaning and steel coating operations.
    (t) Hot coating-galvanizing means coating steel products with zinc 
or mixtures of zinc and aluminum by the hot dip process, including 
related operations preceding and subsequent to immersing the steel in 
the molten metal.
    (u) Hot coating-terne means coating steel products with terne (lead 
and zinc) metal by the hot dip process, including related operations 
proceeding and subsequent to immersing the steel in the molten metal.
    (v) Hydrochloric acid pickling means acid pickling operations using 
hydrochloric acid solutions.
    (w) Miscellaneous steel products means flat rolled strip and sheet 
steel products other than wire and fasteners.
    (x) Multiple stands means those recirculation or direct application 
cold rolling mills which include more than one stand of work rolls.
    (y) Other hot coating means coating steel products with metals 
other than zinc or terne metal by the hot dip process, including 
related operations preceding and subsequent to immersing the steel in 
the molten metal.
    (z) Pickling means the descaling process by which the hard black 
oxide formed on the steel surface during hot rolling is removed by the 
chemical action of acids.
    (aa) Recirculation means cold rolling operations which include 
recirculation of rolling solutions at all mill stands.
    (bb) Salt bath descaling-reducing means the removal of scale from 
semi-finished steel products by action of molten salt baths containing 
sodium hydride.
    (cc) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing means removal of scale from 
semi-finished steel by action of molten salt baths other than those 
containing sodium hydride.
    (dd) Single stand means those recirculation or direct application 
cold rolling mills which include only one stand of work rolls.
    (ee) Spent acid solution (or spent pickle liquor) means acid 
solutions which are no longer effective and are discharged or removed 
from the pickling process.
    (ff) Tube means a hollow steel cylinder formed usually from a 
strip.
    (gg) Wire rod means a semi-finished steel product of circular cross 
section, generally with a diameter of approximately 0.25 inches.


Sec. 420.62  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, any 
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each 
applicable operation, the following effluent limitations representing 
the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT):

                       Performance Standards (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
             Pollutant TSS                    \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing:
    (1) batch, sheet and plate........      0.408            0.175
    (2) batch, rod....................      0.246            0.105
    (3) batch, pipe and tubes.........      0.992            0.426
    (4) continuous....................      0.193            0.0826
(b) Salt bath descaling-reducing:
    (1) batch.........................      0.190            0.0814
    (2) continuous....................      1.06             0.456
(c) Acid pickling-sulfuric:
    (1) rod, coil.....................      0.164            0.070
    (2) bar, billet, bloom............      0.0526           0.0226
    (3) strip, sheet and plate........      0.105            0.045
    (4) pipe, tubes and other products      0.292            0.125
(d) Acid pickling-hydrochloric:
    (1) rod, coil.....................      0.286            0.123
    (2) strip, sheet and plate........      0.164            0.070
    (3) pipe, tubes and other products      0.596            0.256
(e) Acid pickling-combination:
    (1) rod, coil.....................      0.298            0.128
    (2) bar, billet, bloom............      0.134            0.0576
    (3) strip, sheet and plate-             0.876            0.376
     continuous.......................
    (4) strip, sheet and plate-batch..      0.268            0.115
    (5) pipe, tubes and other products      0.450            0.193
(f) Cold rolling mills:
    (1) recirculation-single stand....      0.0025           0.00125

[[Page 82058]]

 
    (2) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0125           0.00626
    (3) combination...................      0.150            0.0752
    (4) direct application-single           0.045            0.0226
     stand............................
    (5) direct application-mult.            0.200            0.100
     stands...........................
(g) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) batch.........................      0.146            0.0626
    (2) continuous....................      0.204            0.0876
(h) Hot coating: galvanizing, terne,
 other metals:
    (1) strip, sheet and miscellaneous      0.350            0.150
     products.........................
(i) Electroplating....................  \2\ 60           \2\ 31
(j) Fume scrubbers
    Acid pickling, alkaline cleaning,   \3\ 12.58        \3\ 5.39
     hot coating, other...............
(k) Absorber vent scrubber,             \3\ 84.04        \3\ 35.86
 hydrochloric acid regeneration.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
        Pollutant oil & grease                \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Salt bath descaling-oxidizing:
    (1) batch, sheet and plate........     NA               NA
    (2) batch, rod....................     NA               NA
    (3) batch, pipe and tubes.........     NA               NA
    (4) continuous....................     NA               NA
(b) Salt bath descaling-reducing:
    (1) batch.........................     NA               NA
    (2) continuous....................     NA               NA
(c) Acid pickling-sulfuric \4\:
    (1) rod, coil.....................      0.0700           0.0234
    (2) bar, billet, bloom............      0.0226           0.00750
    (3) strip, sheet and plate........      0.0450           0.0150
    (4) pipe, tubes and other products      0.125            0.0418
(d) Acid pickling-hydrochloric \4\:
    (1) rod, coil.....................      0.123            0.0408
    (2) strip, sheet and plate........      0.0700           0.0234
    (3) pipe, tubes and other products      0.256            0.0852
(e) Acid pickling-combination \4\:
    (1) rod, coil.....................      0.128            0.0426
    (2) bar, billet, bloom............      0.0576           0.0192
    (3) strip, sheet and plate-             0.376            0.125
     continuous.......................
    (4) strip, sheet and plate-batch..      0.115            0.0384
    (5) pipe, tubes and other products      0.193            0.0644
(f) Cold rolling mills:
    (1) recirculation-single stand....      0.00104          0.000418
    (2) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0522           0.00208
    (3) combination...................      0.0626           0.0250
    (4) direct application-single           0.0188           0.00752
     stand............................
    (5) direct application-mult.            0.0834           0.0334
     stands...........................
(g) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) batch.........................      0.0626           0.0208
    (2) continuous....................      0.0876           0.0292
(h) Hot coating: galvanizing, terne,
 other metals:
    (1) strip, sheet and miscellaneous      0.150            0.0500
     products.........................
    (i) Electroplating................  \2\ 52           \2\ 26
(j) Fume scrubbers:
    Acid pickling, alkaline cleaning,   \3\ 5.39          \3\1.76
     hot coating, other...............
(k) Absorber vent scrubber,             \3\ 35.86        \3\ 11.99
 hydrochloric acid regeneration.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except electroplating,
  fume scrubbers, and adsorber vent scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in milligrams per liter for this operation.
 
\3\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.
\4\ The limitations for oil and grease shall be applicable when acid
  pickling wastewaters are treated with cold rolling wastewaters.


[[Page 82059]]

Sec. 420.63  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.62 of this subpart for the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.64  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best available control technology 
economically achievable (BAT).
    (a) Ammonia (as N) (1) Stainless Steel. The following effluent 
limitations apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for 
each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided 
by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet...................      0.0437           0.0287
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.146            0.0960
    (C) plate.........................      0.00665          0.00436
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.133            0.0873
(ii) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 4.109        \2\ 2.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (b) Chromium (VI). (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following 
effluent limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels 
segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may 
be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume. The effluent 
limitations for chromium (VI) shall be applicable only when chromium 
(VI) is present in untreated wastewaters as a result of process or 
other operations.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0000508        0.0000463
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000106         0.0000963
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000363        0.00000330
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0000518        0.00000472
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0000290        0.0000264
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.0000518        0.0000472
    (C) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0000238        0.0000217
(iii) Acid regeneration:
        (A) fume scrubbers............  \2\ 0.0149       \2\ 0.0136
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.00000207       0.00000189
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.0000363        0.0000330
(v) Cold forming:
        (A) direct application-single       0.000000311      0.000000283
         stand........................
        (B) direct application-             0.0000285        0.0000260
         multiple stands..............
        (C) recirculation-single stand      0.000000104      0.000000944
        (D) recirculation-multiple          0.00000259       0.00000236
         stands.......................
        (E) combination-multiple stand      0.0000148        0.0000135
(vi) Continuous annealing lines.......      0.00000207       0.00000189

[[Page 82060]]

 
(vii) Electroplating:
    (A) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000114         0.000104
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.0000570        0.0000519
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.0000570        0.0000519
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.00224      \2\ 0.00204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (2) Stainless Steel. The following effluent limitations apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet...................      0.000318         0.000196
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.00107          0.000655
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000484        0.0000298
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000969         0.000595
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.199        \2\ 0.122
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000277        0.0000170
    (B ) strip, sheet.................      0.00346          0.00213
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.0000484        0.0000298
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000381         0.000234
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000415       0.00000255
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000221        0.0000136
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.000198         0.000122
(v) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000277        0.0000170
(vi)Wet air pollution control devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0299       \2\ 0.0184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (c) Chromium. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following effluent 
limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume. The effluent 
limitations for chromium shall be applicable only when chromium is 
present in untreated wastewaters as a result of process or other 
operations.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000227         0.000117
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000472         0.000243
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834

[[Page 82061]]

 
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0000231        0.0000119
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000130         0.0000668
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000231         0.000119
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000106         0.0000548
(iii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0666       \2\ 0.0343
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.00000925       0.00000477
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.000162         0.0000834
(v) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.00000139       0.000000715
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000127         0.0000656
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.000000463      0.000000238
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000116        0.00000596
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000662        0.0000341
(vi) Continuous annealing lines.......      0.00000925       0.00000477
(vii) Electroplating:
    (A) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000509         0.000262
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000255         0.000131
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000255         0.000131
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.00999      \2\ 0.00515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (2) Stainless Steel. The following effluent limitations apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet...................      0.000500         0.000280
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.00167          0.000939
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000760        0.0000427
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.00152          0.000854
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.313        \2\ 0.176
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000434        0.0000244
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.00543          0.00305
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.0000760        0.0000427
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000597         0.000335
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000652       0.00000366
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000348        0.0000195
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.000311         0.000174
(v) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000434        0.0000244
(vi) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0469       \2\ 0.0263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.


[[Page 82062]]

    (d) Fluoride. (1) Stainless Steel. The following effluent 
limitations apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for 
each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided 
by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet...................      0.0446           0.0356
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.149            0.119
    (C) plate.........................      0.00679          0.00542
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.136            0.108
(ii) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 4.19         \2\ 3.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (e) Lead. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following effluent 
limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
                                            daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000596         0.000311
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.00124          0.000647
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.00609          0.0000317
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000341         0.000178
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000609         0.000317
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000280         0.000146
(iii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.175        \2\ 0.913
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000243        0.0000127
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.000426         0.000222
(v) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.00000365       0.00000190
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000335         0.000174
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000122       0.00000634
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000304        0.0000159
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.000174         0.0000907
(vi) Continuous annealing lines.......      0.0000243        0.0000127
(vii) Electroplating:
    (A) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000134         0.000698
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000669         0.000349
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000669         0.000349
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.026396     \2\ 0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.


[[Page 82063]]

    (f) Nickel. (1) Stainless Steel. The following effluent limitations 
apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation 
as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (A) bar, billet...................      0.000147         0.000104
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000494         0.000347
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000224        0.0000158
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000449         0.000315
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0923       \2\ 0.0649
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000128        0.00000901
    (B) strip, sheet..................  \2\ 0.00160      \2\ 0.00113
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.0000224        0.0000158
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000176         0.000124
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000192       0.00000135
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000103        0.00000721
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000917        0.0000644
(v) Continuous annealing                    0.0000128        0.00000901
(vi) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0138       \2\ 0.00973
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (g) Zinc. (1) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following effluent 
limitations apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                       Effluent Limitations (BAT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000637         0.000262
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.00133          0.00546
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0000650        0.0000267
(i) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000364         0.000150
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000650         0.000267
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000299         0.000123
(ii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.187        \2\ 0.0770
(iii) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000260        0.0000107
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.000455         0.000187
(iv) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.00000390       0.00000160
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000357         0.000147
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000130       0.00000535
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000325        0.0000134
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.000186         0.0000765
(v) Continuous annealing                    0.0000260        0.0000107
(vii) Electroplating:

[[Page 82064]]

 
    (A) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.00143          0.000588
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000715         0.000294
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000715         0.000294
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0281       \2\ 0.0116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

Sec. 420.65  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the applicable standards specified 
in the 2000 version of Secs. 420.84, 420.94, 420.104, 420.114, and 
420.124. toxic and nonconventional pollutants, those standards shall 
not apply after the expiration of the applicable time period specified 
in 40 CFR 122.29(d)(1); thereafter, the source must achieve the 
applicable standards specified in Sec. 420.64.
    (b) The following standards apply with respect to each new source 
that commences construction after [insert date that is 60 days after 
the publication date of the final rule].
    (1) Total Suspended Solids. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The 
following performance standards apply to discharges in the carbon and 
alloy steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass 
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific 
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process 
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and 
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility 
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the 
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by 
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased 
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the 
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased 
effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0566           0.0308
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.118            0.0641
    (C) plate.........................      0.00405          0.00220
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.00578          0.00314
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0324           0.0176
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.0578           0.0314
    (C) plate.........................      0.00405          0.00220
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0266           0.0145
(iii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 16.6         \2\ 9.05
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.00231          0.00126
    (B ) strip, sheet.................      0.0405           0.0220
(v) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.000347         0.000189
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.0318           0.0173
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.000116         0.0000628
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.00289          0.00157
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.0165           0.00899
(vi) Continuous annealing lines             0.00231          0.00126
(vii) Electroplating:
    (A) plate.........................      0.00405          0.00220
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.127            0.0691
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.0636           0.0346
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.0636           0.0346
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 2.50         \2\ 1.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.


[[Page 82065]]

    (ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.0242           0.0121
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.0809           0.0406
    (3) plate.........................      0.00368          0.00184
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0735           0.0369
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 15.1         \2\ 7.59
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00210          0.00105
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.263            0.132
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.00368          0.00184
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.0289           0.0145
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.000315         0.000158
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.00168          0.000843
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0150           0.00754
(E) Continuous annealing                    0.00210          0.00105
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 2.27         \2\ 1.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (2) Oil & Grease. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following 
performance standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy 
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass 
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific 
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process 
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and 
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility 
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the 
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by 
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased 
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the 
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased 
effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0307           0.0274
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.638            0.0571
    (3) plate.........................      0.00219          0.00196
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.00313          0.00280
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0175           0.0157
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.0313           0.0280
    (3) plate.........................      0.00219          0.00196
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0144           0.0129
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 9.01         \2\ 8.07
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00125          0.00112
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.0219           0.0196
(E) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.000188         0.000168
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.0172           0.0154
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.0000626        0.0000560
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.00156          0.00140
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0895           0.00801
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.00125          0.00112
(G) Electroplating:

[[Page 82066]]

 
    (1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.00219          0.0196
    (2) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.0688           0.0616
     metals...........................
    (3) plate.........................      0.0344           0.0308
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.0344           0.0308
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 1.35         \2\ 1.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum daily  Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.0172           0.0136
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.0576           0.0456
    (3) plate.........................      0.00262          0.00207
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0523           0.0414
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 10.8         \2\ 8.52
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00149          0.00118
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.187            0.148
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.00262          0.00207
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.0206           0.0163
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.000224         0.000177
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.00120          0.000947
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0107           0.00846
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.00149          0.00118
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 1.61         \2\ 1.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (3) Ammonia as (N). (i) Stainless Steel. The following performance 
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each 
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by 
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum daily  Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.0437           0.0287
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.146            0.0960
    (3) plate.........................      0.00665          0.00436
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.133            0.0873
(B) Wet air pollution control devices:

[[Page 82067]]

 
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 4.10         \2\ 2.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (4) Chromium (VI). (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following 
performance standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy 
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass 
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific 
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process 
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and 
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility 
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the 
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by 
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased 
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the 
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased 
effluent volume. The performance standards for chromium (VI) shall be 
applicable only when chromium (VI) is present in untreated wastewaters 
as a result of process or other operations.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum daily  Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0000508        0.0000463
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000106         0.0000963
    (3) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.00000518       0.00000472
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0000290        0.0000264
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.0000518        0.0000472
    (3) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0000238        0.0000217
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0149       \2\ 0.0136
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00000207       0.00000189
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.0000363        0.0000330
(E) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.000000311      0.000000283
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.0000285        0.0000260
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.000000104      0.000000944
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.00000259       0.00000236
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000148        0.0000135
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.00000207       0.00000189
(G) Electroplating:
    (1) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000114         0.000104
    (3) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.0000570        0.0000519
     metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.0000570        0.0000519
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.00224      \2\ 0.00204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

[[Page 82068]]



                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.000318         0.000196
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.00107          0.000655
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000484        0.0000298
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000969         0.000595
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.199        \2\ 0.122
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000277        0.0000170
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.00346          0.00213
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.0000484        0.0000298
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000381         0.000234
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000415       0.00000255
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000221        0.0000136
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.000198         0.000122
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000277        0.0000170
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0299       \2\ 0.0184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (5) Chromium. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following performance 
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume. The 
performance standards for chromium shall be applicable only when 
chromium is present in untreated wastewaters as a result of process or 
other operations.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000227         0.000117
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000472         0.000243
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0000231        0.0000119
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000130         0.0000668
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000231         0.000119
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000106         0.0000548
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0666       \2\ 0.0343
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00000925       0.00000477
    (2 ) strip, sheet.................      0.000162         0.0000834
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.00000139       0.000000715
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000127         0.0000656
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.000000463      0.000000238
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000116        0.00000596
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000662        0.0000341
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.00000925       0.00000477
(G) Electroplating:
    (1) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000509         0.000262
    (3) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000255         0.000131
     metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000255         0.000131
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0010       \2\ 0.00515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.

[[Page 82069]]

 
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (ii) Stainless Steel. The following performance standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.000500         0.000280
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.00167          0.000939
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000760        0.0000427
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.00152          0.000854
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.313        \2\ 0.176
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000434        0.0000244
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.00543          0.00305
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.0000760        0.0000427
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000597         0.000335
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000652       0.00000366
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000348        0.0000195
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.000311         0.000174
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000434        0.0000244
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0469       \2\ 0.0263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (6) Fluoride. (i) Stainless Steel. The following performance 
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each 
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by 
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.0446           0.0356
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.149            0.119
    (3) plate.........................      0.00679          0.00542
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.136            0.108
(B) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 4.19         \2\ 3.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (7) Lead. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following performance 
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise

[[Page 82070]]

applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000596         0.000311
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.00124          0.000647
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0000609        0.0000317
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000341         0.000178
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000609         0.000317
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000280         0.000146
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.175        \2\ 0.0913
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000243        0.0000127
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.000426         0.000222
(E) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.00000365       0.00000190
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000335         0.000174
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000122       0.000000634
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000304        0.0000159
    (5) combination-multiple stands...      0.000174         0.0000907
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.0000243        0.0000127
(G) Electroplating:
    (1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (2) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.00134          0.000698
     metals...........................
    (3) plate.........................      0.000669         0.000349
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000669         0.000349
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0263       \2\ 0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (8) Nickel. (i) Stainless Steel. The following performance 
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each 
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by 
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.000147         0.000104
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000494         0.000347
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000224        0.0000158
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000449         0.000315
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0923       \2\ 0.0649
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000128        0.00000901
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.00160          0.00113
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.0000224        0.0000158
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000176         0.000124
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000192       0.00000135
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000103        0.00000721
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000917        0.0000644
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000128        0.00000901
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:

[[Page 82071]]

 
    (1) fume scrubbers................      0.01382          0.009732
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (9) Zinc. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following performance 
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000637         0.000262
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.00133          0.000546
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0000650        0.0000267
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000364         0.000150
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000650         0.000267
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000299         0.000123
(iii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.1872       \2\ 0.07702
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000260        0.0000107
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.000455         0.000187
(v) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.00000390       0.00000160
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000357         0.000147
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000130       0.000000535
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000325        0.0000134
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.000186         0.0000765
(vi) Continuous annealing lines.......      0.0000260        0.0000107
(vii) Electroplating:
    (A) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.00143          0.000588
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000715         0.000294
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000715         0.000294
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................      0.02812          0.01162
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

Sec. 420.66  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source 
subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a publicly 
owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the 
following pretreatment standards for existing sources.
    (a) Salt bath descaling, oxidizing.
    (1) Batch, sheet and plate.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00584          0.00234
Nickel................................      0.00526          0.001752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82072]]

    (2) Batch, rod and wire.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00350          0.001402
Nickel................................      0.00316          0.001052
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Batch, pipe and tube.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.01418          0.00568
Nickel................................      0.01276          0.00426
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (4) Continuous.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00276          0.001102
Nickel................................      0.00248          0.000826
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (b) Salt bath descaling, reducing.
    (1) Batch.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00272          0.00108
Nickel................................      0.00244          0.000814
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (2) Continuous.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.0152           0.00608
Nickel................................      0.01366          0.00456
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (c) Sulfuric acid (spent acid solutions and rinse waters).
    (1) Rod, wire, and coil.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.001052         0.000350
Zinc..................................      0.001402         0.000468
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82073]]

    (2) Bar, billet, and bloom.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.000338         0.0001126
Zinc..................................      0.000450         0.0001502
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Strip, sheet, and plate.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.000676         0.000226
Zinc..................................      0.000902         0.000300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (4) Pipe, tube, and other products.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.001878         0.000626
Zinc..................................      0.00250          0.000834
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (5) Fume scrubber.

                    Performance Standards (PSES) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0810           0.0271
Zinc..................................      0.1080           0.0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable for each fume scrubber
  associated with sulfuric acid pickling operations.

    (d) Hydrochloric acid pickling (spent acid solutions and rinse 
waters).
    (1) Rod, wire, and coil.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.00184          0.000614
Zinc..................................      0.00246          0.000818
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (2) Strip, sheet, and plate.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.001052         0.000350
Zinc..................................      0.001402         0.000468
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82074]]

    (3) Pipe, tube, and other products.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.00384          0.001276
Zinc..................................      0.00510          0.001702
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (4) Fume scrubber.

                    Performance Standards (PSES) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.0810           0.0271
Zinc..................................      0.1080           0.0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable for each fume scrubber
  associated with hydrochloric acid pickling operations.

    (5) Acid regeneration (absorber vent scrubber).

                    Performance Standards (PSES) \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead..................................      0.539            0.1802
Zinc..................................      0.719            0.240
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable to the absorber vent
  scrubber wastewater associated with hydrochloric acid regeneration
  plants.

    (e) Combination acid pickling (spent acid solutions and rinse 
waters).
    (1) Rod, wire, and coil.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00426          0.001704
Nickel................................      0.00384          0.001276
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (2) Bar, billet, and bloom.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.001920         0.000768
Nickel................................      0.001728         0.000576
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (3) Strip, sheet, and plat-continuous.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.01252          0.00500

[[Page 82075]]

 
Nickel................................      0.01126          0.00376
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (4) Strip, sheet, and plate-batch.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00384          0.001536
Nickel................................      0.00346          0.001152
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (5) Pipe, tube, and other products.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.00644          0.00258
Nickel................................      0.00578          0.001928
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (6) Fume scrubber.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      0.1802           0.0719
Nickel................................      0.1617           0.0539
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The above limitations shall be applicable to each fume scrubber
  associated with a combination acid pickling operation.

    (f) Cold rolling.
    (1) Recirculation-single stand.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium\2\...........................      0.0000418        0.0000168
Lead..................................      0.0000188        0.0000062
Nickel \2\............................      0.0000376        0.0000126
Zinc..................................      0.0000126        0.0000042
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
  of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
  with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

    (2) Recirculation-multiple stands.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                    daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\..........................      0.000208         0.0000836
Lead..................................      0.0000938        0.0000312
Nickel \2\............................      0.0001878        0.0000626

[[Page 82076]]

 
Zinc..................................      0.0000626        0.0000208
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
  of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
  with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

    (3) Combination.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\..........................      0.00250          0.001002
Lead..................................      0.001126         0.000376
Nickel \2\............................      0.00226          0.000752
Zinc..................................      0.000752         0.000250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
  of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
  with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

    (4) Direct application-single stand.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\..........................      0.000752         0.000300
Lead..................................      0.000338         0.0001126
Nickel2...............................      0.000676         0.000226
Zinc..................................      0.000226         0.0000752
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
  of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
  with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

    (5) Direct application-multiple stands.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium \2\..........................      0.00334          0.001336
Lead..................................      0.001502         0.000500
Nickel \2\............................      0.0030           0.001002
Zinc..................................      0.001002         0.000334
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for chromium and nickel shall be applicable in lieu
  of those for lead and zinc when cold rolling wastewaters are treated
  with descaling or combination acid pickling wastewaters.

    (g) Electroplating.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium..............................      2.77             1.71
Lead..................................      0.69             0.43
Nickel................................      3.98             2.38
Zinc..................................      2.61             1.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter.


[[Page 82077]]

    (h) Galvanizing, terne coating and other coatings.
    (1) Strip, sheet, and miscellaneous products.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium (hexavalent) \2\.............      0.000300         0.0001002
Lead..................................      0.00226          0.000752
Zinc..................................      0.00300          0.001000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.
\2\ The limitations for hexavalent chromium shall be applicable only to
  galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from the chromate
  rinse step.

    (2) Fume scrubbers.

                      Performance Standards (PSES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
               Pollutant                      \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium (hexavalent) \2\.............      0.01078          0.003586
Lead..................................      0.0810           0.0271
Zinc..................................      0.1080           0.0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per day.
\2\ The limitations for hexavalent chromium shall be applicable only to
  galvanizing operations which discharge wastewaters from the chromate
  rinse step.

Sec. 420.67  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), as applicable.
    (a) Any new source subject to the provisions of this section that 
commenced discharging after [insert date 10 years prior to the date 
that is 60 days after the publication date of the final rule] and 
before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the 
final rule] must continue to achieve the standards specified in the 
2000 version of Secs. 420.86, 420.96, 420.106, 420.116, and 420.126 for 
ten years beginning on the date the source commenced discharge or 
during the period of depreciation or amortization of the facility, 
whichever comes first, after which the source must achieve the 
standards specified in Sec. 420.66.
    (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, the following standards 
apply with respect to each new source that commences construction after 
[insert date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final 
rule]: 
    (1) Ammonia as (N). (i) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment 
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each 
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by 
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Performance Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.0437           0.0287
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.146            0.0960
    (3) plate.........................      0.00665          0.00436
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.133            0.0873
(B) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 4.10         \2\ 2.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (2) Chromium (VI). (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following 
pretreatment standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy 
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass 
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific 
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process 
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and 
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility 
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the 
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by 
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such

[[Page 82078]]

increased mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase 
of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the 
increased effluent volume. The pretreatment standards for chromium (VI) 
shall be applicable only when chromium (VI) is present in untreated 
wastewaters as a result of process or other operations.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0000508        0.0000463
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000106         0.0000963
    (3) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.00000518       0.00000472
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.0000290        0.0000264
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.0000518        0.0000472
    (3) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0000238        0.0000217
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0149       \2\ 0.0136
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00000207       0.00000189
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.0000363        0.0000330
(E) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.000000311      0.000000283
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.0000285        0.0000260
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.000000104      0.000000944
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.00000259       0.00000236
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000148        0.0000135
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.00000207       0.00000189
(G) Electroplating:
    (1) plate.........................      0.00000363       0.00000330
    (2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000114         0.000104
    (3) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.0000570        0.0000519
     metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.0000570        0.0000519
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.00224      \2\ 0.00204
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (ii) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.000318         0.000196
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.00107          0.000655
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000484        0.0000298
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000969         0.000595
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.199        \2\ 0.122
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000277        0.0000170
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.00346          0.00213
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.0000484        0.0000298
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000381         0.000234
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000415       0.00000255
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000221        0.0000136
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.000198         0.000122
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000277        0.0000170

[[Page 82079]]

 
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0299       \2\ 0.0184
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (3) Chromium. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following 
pretreatment standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy 
steels segment for each operation as applicable. Increased mass 
discharges may be provided by the permit authority on a site-specific 
basis to account for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process 
wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and 
roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil collection systems, utility 
wastewaters, groundwater remediation wastewaters), but only to the 
extent such flows are co-treated with process wastewaters regulated by 
this subpart and generate an increased effluent volume. Such increased 
mass discharges shall be calculated as a percentage increase of the 
mass discharge otherwise applicable on the basis of the increased 
effluent volume. The pretreatment standards for chromium shall be 
applicable only when chromium is present in untreated wastewaters as a 
result of process or other operations.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
                                            daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000227         0.000117
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000472         0.000243
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0000231        0.0000119
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000130         0.0000668
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000231         0.000119
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000106         0.0000548
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0666       \2\ 0.0343
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.00000925       0.00000477
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.000162         0.0000834
(E) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.00000139       0.000000715
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000127         0.0000656
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.000000463      0.000000238
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000116        0.00000596
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000662        0.0000341
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.00000925       0.00000477
(G) Electroplating:
    (1) plate.........................      0.0000162        0.00000834
    (2) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.000509         0.000262
    (3) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000255         0.000131
     metals...........................
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000255         0.000131
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.00999      \2\ 0.00515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (ii) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment standards apply to 
discharges in the stainless steels segment for each operation as 
applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by the permit 
authority on a site-specific basis to account for unregulated process 
wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily wastewater from hot 
forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils from mill oil 
collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater remediation 
wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-treated with 
process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate an increased 
effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be calculated as 
a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise applicable on the 
basis of the increased effluent volume.

[[Page 82080]]



                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.000500         0.000280
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.00167          0.000939
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000760        0.0000427
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.00152          0.000854
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.313        \2\ 0.176
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000434        0.0000244
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.00543          0.00305
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.0000760        0.0000427
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000597         0.000335
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000652       0.00000366
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000348        0.0000195
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.000311         0.000174
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000434        0.0000244
(F)Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0469       \2\ 0.0263
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (4) Fluoride. (i) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment 
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each 
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by 
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.0446           0.0356
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.149            0.119
    (3) plate.........................      0.00679          0.00542
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.136            0.108
(B) Wet air pollution control devices
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 4.19         \2\ 3.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (5) Lead. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following pretreatment 
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp 
oils from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
                                            daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000596         0.000311
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.00124          0.000647
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.0000609        0.0000317
(B) Acid pickling--sulfuric:

[[Page 82081]]

 
    (1) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000341         0.000178
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000609         0.000317
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000280         0.000146
(C) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.175        \2\ 0.0913
(D) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000243        0.0000127
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.000426         0.000222
(E) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.00000365       0.00000190
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000335         0.000174
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000122       0.000000634
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000304        0.0000159
    (5) combination-multiple stands...      0.000174         0.0000907
(F) Continuous annealing lines........      0.0000243        0.0000127
(G) Electroplating:
    (1) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.0000426        0.0000222
    (2) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.00134          0.000698
     metals...........................
    (3) plate.........................      0.000669         0.000349
(H) Hot coating:
    (1) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000669         0.000349
     metals...........................
(I) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0263       \2\ 0.0137
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (6) Nickel. (i) Stainless Steel. The following pretreatment 
standards apply to discharges in the stainless steels segment for each 
operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be provided by 
the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account for 
unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., oily 
wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Maximum      Maximum monthly
                                            daily\1\         avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Acid pickling and other descaling:
    (1) bar, billet...................      0.000147         0.000104
    (2) pipe, tube....................      0.000494         0.000347
    (3) plate.........................      0.0000224        0.0000158
    (4) strip, sheet..................      0.000449         0.000315
(B) Acid regeneration:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0923       \2\ 0.0649
(C) Alkaline cleaning:
    (1) pipe, tube....................      0.0000128        0.00000901
    (2) strip, sheet..................      0.00160          0.00113
(D) Cold forming:
    (1) direct application-single           0.0000224        0.0000158
     stand............................
    (2) direct application-multiple         0.000176         0.000124
     stands...........................
    (3) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000192       0.00000135
    (4) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000103        0.00000721
    (5) combination-multiple stand....      0.0000917        0.0000644
(E) Continuous annealing..............      0.0000128        0.00000901
(F) Wet air pollution control devices:
    (1) fume scrubbers................  \2\ 0.0138       \2\ 0.00973
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

    (7) Zinc. (i) Carbon and Alloy Steel. The following pretreatment 
standards apply to discharges in the carbon and alloy steels segment 
for each operation as applicable. Increased mass discharges may be 
provided by the permit authority on a site-specific basis to account 
for unregulated process wastewaters and non-process wastewaters (e.g., 
oily

[[Page 82082]]

wastewater from hot forming mill basements and roll shops, tramp oils 
from mill oil collection systems, utility wastewaters, groundwater 
remediation wastewaters), but only to the extent such flows are co-
treated with process wastewaters regulated by this subpart and generate 
an increased effluent volume. Such increased mass discharges shall be 
calculated as a percentage increase of the mass discharge otherwise 
applicable on the basis of the increased effluent volume.

                      Pretreatment Standards (PSNS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum daily   Maximum monthly
                                              \1\            avg. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Acid pickling--hydrochloric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000637         0.000262
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.00133          0.000546
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.0000650        0.0000267
(ii) Acid pickling--sulfuric:
    (A) bar, billet, rod, coil........      0.000364         0.000150
    (B) pipe, tube....................      0.000650         0.000267
    (C) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (D) strip, sheet..................      0.000299         0.000123
(iii) Acid regeneration:
    (A) fume scrubbers................   \2\0.187         \2\0.0770
(iv) Alkaline cleaning:
    (A) pipe, tube....................      0.0000260        0.0000107
    (B) strip, sheet..................      0.000455         0.000187
(v) Cold forming:
    (A) direct application-single           0.00000390       0.00000160
     stand............................
    (B) direct application-multiple         0.000357         0.000147
     stands...........................
    (C) recirculation-single stand....      0.00000130       0.000000535
    (D) recirculation-multiple stands.      0.0000325        0.0000134
    (E) combination-multiple stand....      0.000186         0.0000765
(vi) Continuous annealing lines.......      0.0000260        0.0000107
(vii) Electroplating:
    (A) plate.........................      0.0000455        0.0000187
    (B) strip, sheet: tin, chromium...      0.00143          0.000588
    (C) strip, sheet: zinc, other           0.000715         0.000294
     metals...........................
(viii) Hot coating:
    (A) galvanizing, terne and other        0.000715         0.000294
     metals...........................
(ix) Wet air pollution control
 devices:
    (A) fume scrubbers................   \2\0.0281        \2\0.0116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product for all operations except fume scrubbers.
\2\ The values are expressed in pounds per day for this operation.

Subpart G--Other Operations Subcategory


Sec. 420.70  Applicability.

    The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges and the 
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works 
resulting from production of direct-reduced iron and forging 
operations.


Sec. 420.71  Subcategory definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    (a) Product means:
    (1) Direct-reduced iron, including any undersize product;
    (2) Direct-reduced iron after forging operations, but prior to any 
further shaping or finishing operations; and
    (3) Direct-reduced iron briquetted, including any undersized 
product. The average daily operating (production) rate must be 
determined as specified in Sec. 420.3.
    (b) Briquetting operations means a hot or cold process that 
agglomerates (presses together) iron-bearing materials into small lumps 
without melting or fusion. Used as a concentrated iron ore substitute 
for scrap in electric furnaces.
    (c) Direct-reduced iron means iron produced by reduction of iron 
ore (pellets or briquettes) using gaseous (carbon monoxide-carbon 
dioxide, hydrogen) or solid reactants.
    (d) ging means the hot-working of heated steel shapes (e.g., 
ingots, blooms, billets, slabs) using hydraulic presses.


Sec. 420.72  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve, for each applicable 
segment, the following effluent limitations representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best 
practicable control technology currently available (BPT):
    (a) Direct-reduced iron. This table is Effluent Limitations (BPT) 
for direct-reduced iron:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum  daily      Maximum
               Pollutant                      \1\          monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
TSS...................................      0.0200           0.00929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.


[[Page 82083]]

    (b) ging operations. This table is Effluent Limitations (BPT) for 
forging operations:

                       Effluent Limitations (BPT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum  daily      Maximum
               Pollutant                      \1\          monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
Oil and grease........................      0.0149           0.00889
TSS...................................      0.0235           0.0118
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants.


Sec. 420.73  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of 
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best control 
technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing 
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following 
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction 
attainable by the application of the best control technology for 
conventional pollutants (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as 
those specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 
CFR 401.16) in Sec. 420.72 of this subpart for the best practicable 
control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 420.74  Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the 
best available control technology economically achievable (BAT).

    (a) Direct-reduced iron; forging operations. (Reserved)
    (b) Briquetting. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 
125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve 
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent 
reduction attainable by the application of the best available control 
technology economically achievable (BAT): There shall be no discharge 
of process wastewater pollutants.


Sec. 420.75  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

    New sources subject to this subpart must achieve the following new 
source performance standards (NSPS), as applicable.
    (a) Direct-reduced iron. This table is Performance Standards (NSPS) 
for direct-reduced iron:

                      Performance Stancards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum  daily      Maximum
               Pollutant                      \1\          monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
TSS...................................      0.0200           0.00929
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (b) ging operations. This table is for Performance Standards 
(NSPS):

                      Performance Stancards (NSPS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum  daily      Maximum
               Pollutant                      \1\          monthly avg.
---------------------------------------------------------------\1\------
Oil and grease........................      0.0149           0.00889
TSS...................................      0.0235           0.0118
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pounds per ton of product.

    (c) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants.


Sec. 420.76  Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any existing source subject to 
this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment 
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES):
    (a) Direct-reduced iron; forging operations. (Reserved)
    (b) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to POTWs.


Sec. 420.77  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this 
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment 
works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and must achieve the following 
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS):
    (a) Direct-reduced iron; forging operations. (Reserved)
    (b) Briquetting. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater 
pollutants to POTWs.
[FR Doc. 00-31185 Filed 12-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P