[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38752-38808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13808]



[[Page 38751]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 413, et al.



Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source 
Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source 
Category; Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 38752]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471

[FRL-7221-4]
RIN 2040-AB79


Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point 
Source Category; Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

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

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2001 (66 FR 424), EPA published a proposal to 
establish technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and 
pretreatment standards for the metal products and machinery (MP&M) 
point source category. The proposal would apply to approximately 10,000 
facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal products, 
parts, or machines in eight regulatory subcategories. EPA developed the 
proposal to address changes in the metal finishing and electroplating 
sectors over the last 20 years, including measures that reduce 
pollution. The proposal would establish national regulations for some 
industry sectors for the first time as well as increasing the degree of 
environmental protection from that achieved under the previous rules.
    In the proposal, EPA specifically solicited comment on 43 issues in 
addition to the general comment solicitation. EPA received comments 
from various stakeholders, including State and local regulatory 
authorities, environmental groups, individual industrial facilities and 
industry groups, and private citizens.
    This document presents a summary of data received in comments since 
the proposal and additional data collected by EPA and describes how 
these data may be used by EPA in developing final MP&M regulations.
    EPA is evaluating how the comments and new data may change certain 
aspects of the proposal and how this information might affect the 
regulatory options considered for the proposal. EPA is also evaluating 
the underlying data and methodology that EPA uses to estimate the 
costs, pollutant load reductions, and financial impacts associated with 
the regulation in light of the comments and new information. The 
document describes EPA's current thinking on these subjects and 
presents information on how the new data and information received since 
proposal would affect the proposed limitations and standards. Today, 
EPA is making these data and new information available for public 
review and comment. EPA solicits public comment on the issues and 
information presented in this notice of data availability and in the 
administrative record supporting this document.

DATES: You must submit comments by July 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Public comments regarding this document should be submitted 
electronically to [email protected]. You also may submit comments by 
mail to: Metal Products & Machinery Rule, Office of Water, Engineering 
and Analysis Division (4303T), USEPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460. You should submit hand-deliveries (including 
overnight mail) to the Metal Products & Machinery Rule, USEPA, 1201 
Constitution Ave, NW, Room 6231G EPA WEST, Washington, DC 20004. Please 
submit an original and three copies of your written comments and 
enclosures as well as any references cited in your comments. Commenters 
who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a 
self-addressed, stamped envelope. EPA will not accept facsimiles 
(faxes). For additional information on how to submit electronic 
comments see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.
    The public record for this action and the proposed rulemaking has 
been established under docket number W-99-23 and is located in the 
Water Docket East Tower Basement, Room EB57, 401 M Street 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. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-1014 or at the following e-mail 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How To Submit Comments

    Electronic comments must specify docket number W-99-23 and must be 
submitted as an ASCII, Microsoft Word 97 file, or Word Perfect 5/6/7/8/
9 file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. EPA will also accept comments and data on disks in any of 
the above listed file format. You may file electronic comments on this 
action at many Federal Depository Libraries. No confidential business 
information (CBI) should be sent via e-mail.

Contents of This Document

I. Purpose of this Document
II. New Analytical Data and Information
    A. EPA Site Visits & Sampling Episodes
    B. Industry Submitted Data
    C. Analytical Method Validation Study and the Total Organics 
Parameter
III. Revisions & Corrections to the Cost & Loadings Model
    A. Subcategorization of Facilities and Unit Operations Data
    B. Pollutant Specific Revisions to Loadings and Removals
    C. Stream Code Corrections
    D. Change in Imputed Flows
    E. Changes Considered for Methodology for Treatment-In-Place 
Credits
    F. Revisions to the Cost Modules
    G. New Survey Weights
IV. Changes Considered to Applicability, Definitions, and Regulated 
Pollutants
    A. Changes Considered to Applicability and Definitions
    B. Changes Considered to the Pollutants Selected for Regulation
V. New Information and Consideration of Revision to Economic & 
Benefit Methodologies
    A. Revised Cost Pass-Through and Market Structure Analysis
    B. Consideration of Changes to Closure and Financial Stress Test 
Methodologies
    C. Consideration of Changes to Cash Flow Calculations
    D. Updating Survey Data to Current Dollars
    E. Adjusting Abnormally High Labor Cost Estimates
    F. New Information on POTW Administrative Costs
    G. Human Health Benefits from Reduced Exposure to Lead
    H. Ohio Case Study
    I. Recreational Benefits
    J. POTW Characteristics
    K. Drinking Water Intakes
    L. Extrapolation of Sample-Based Results to the National Level
VI. Consideration of Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
    A. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
    B. Alternative Approaches Considered to TOP Limitations and 
Standards
    C. Consistency of Statistical Methodology With Other Recent 
Effluent Guidelines
VII. Revised Estimates of Costs, Loadings, Economic Impacts, and 
Cost-Effectiveness
    A. Revised National Estimates of Economic Impacts
    B. Revised National Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness
    C. Results for the Sand Filter Option
    D. Revised National Estimates of Monetized Benefits
VIII. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards
    A. Technology Option 2
    B. Technology Option 4
    C. Technology Option 6

[[Page 38753]]

    D. Technology Option 10
IX. Consideration of Alternative Options
    A. Consideration of Change in New Source Technology Option for 
Metal-Bearing Subcategories
    B. General Metals Subcategory
    C. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
    D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
    E. Oily Wastes Subcategory
    F. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
    G. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
    X. Solicitation of Comment

I. Purpose of This Document

    Today's document has several purposes. First, EPA is presenting a 
summary of new data and information submitted during the public comment 
period on the proposed MP&M regulations as well as data collected by 
EPA since proposal. Second, EPA discusses major issues raised in 
comments on the proposal and revisions in the data analyses resulting 
from these comments and the additional data. Third, the document 
summarizes EPA's current thinking on how this new information and 
suggestions made by commenters affect the analyses of the proposed 
rule. The document also summarizes the changes EPA is considering for 
the final rule in light of the new material. Finally, the document 
includes modified potential effluent limitations and pretreatment 
standards as revised to take account of the new data as well as revised 
information on the cost and removals associated with various treatment 
options.
    EPA has incorporated into the data base used for developing the 
proposed MP&M effluent limitations and pretreatment standards a 
significant amount of new data and corrections to the proposal data. 
For a number of the subcategories proposed for regulation, these 
modifications have resulted in substantial changes in the estimated 
cost and pollutant removals associated with the treatment options 
considered at proposal. As a consequence, in several instances, the 
economic impact and cost effectiveness of the treatment options are now 
much higher than projected at proposal (Note that a ``high'' cost-
effectiveness figure means an option is not very cost effective). In 
some cases, the proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment 
standards would have impacts greater than EPA has traditionally 
determined to be economically achievable. Furthermore, limiting the 
effluent limitations and standards to facilities with higher treatment 
flows--so-called flow cutoffs--would not appear to mitigate economic 
effects in any meaningful way for certain subcategories proposed for 
regulation. In light of these new results, EPA is seeking further 
comment on the regulatory options considered for the proposal as well 
as several other options for reducing the economic impact of the final 
rule.
    The document includes seven main components:
    (1) Discussion of new analytical data and information;
    (2) Revisions to EPA's costs and pollutant loading model and 
methodologies that incorporate new data;
    (3) Possible changes to the applicability of the rule, definitions, 
and selection of regulated pollutants for the final rule as a result of 
the new information;
    (4) New information and revisions that EPA may use for its economic 
and benefit methodologies;
    (5) New information and revisions that EPA may use for its 
statistical methodologies;
    (6) Revised estimates of costs, loadings, economic impacts, 
benefits, and numerical limitations and standards; and
    (7) Discussion of possible alternative options based on new data 
and information.
    This document addresses these issues related to the proposed MP&M 
regulation. To the extent possible, today's document describes new 
analyses that may be performed by EPA and describes revisions EPA is 
considering to EPA's financial and engineering models, as well as 
possible new data or methodologies. By providing this information, it 
is EPA's intention to present the clearest picture of its current 
thinking about how the proposal may change as a result of the 
additional information it has obtained. It is EPA's hope that this 
information will encourage effective comment.
    This document also contains a discussion of ways that EPA may 
reduce impacts and/or enhance flexibility of the regulation, including 
options to encourage implementation of environmental management systems 
(EMS) or ``no further regulation'' options for certain subcategories. 
EPA received comments concerning these matters and in this document 
requests further information. The document also outlines potential 
changes to the regulatory thresholds (e.g., ``low wastewater flow 
cutoff'') that were proposed to reduce impacts.
    New data that EPA may use in its cost and economic models include 
estimates from EPA and industry wastewater sampling of MP&M unit 
operations of pollutant loading in raw wastewater and new information 
related to various EPA modeling assumptions. EPA also received more 
than 136 new data sets with proposal comments. EPA used 75 of these new 
data sets for developing numerical limitations.
    Through this notice of data availability, EPA seeks further public 
comment on any and all aspects of the specific data and issues it has 
identified here. However, EPA is seeking public comment only on these 
specific data and issues. Nothing in today's document is intended to 
invite further discussion of other issues discussed in the MP&M 
proposal or to reopen the proposal in general for additional public 
comments. EPA continues to review the comments already submitted on the 
proposed rule and will address those comments, along with comments 
submitted on the data and issues identified in today's document, in the 
final rulemaking.

II. New Analytical Data and Information

    There are three general areas of new analytical data: (1) EPA post-
proposal sampling, (2) industry self-sampling, and (3) EPA's analytical 
method validation study. First, in response to public comments, EPA has 
performed a number of analytical wastewater sampling episodes since the 
publication of the proposed rule to collect additional data on raw 
wastewater loadings, treatment efficiencies, and treatment variability. 
In addition, facilities and industry trade associations submitted a 
large quantity of analytical water sampling data (``self-monitoring 
data'') along with their written comments on the MP&M proposal to EPA. 
Finally, as discussed in the proposed rule (66 FR 529), EPA has 
performed a study to validate EPA Analytical Methods 1624B/624 and 
1625/625 for several organic pollutants that are part of the proposed 
``Total Organics Parameter'' (TOP).

A. EPA Site Visits & Sampling Episodes

    During the comment period and at the public meetings on the 
proposal, commenters raised concerns over the representativeness of 
EPA's database concerning metal finishing ``zinc'' platers, printed 
wiring board facilities, and the steel forming and finishing 
facilities. Based on these concerns EPA worked with industry trade 
associations to identify facilities in these groups that would be good 
candidates for EPA's post-proposal wastewater sampling program. EPA 
visited 6 metal finishing zinc platers (4 job shops, 2 captive), 8 
printed wiring board facilities, 4 steel forming and finishing 
facilities, and 2 other MP&M facilities (i.e., metal finishing job 
shops that do not specialize in zinc plating). Based on the

[[Page 38754]]

information collected during the site visits, which included 
information on a variety of MP&M unit operations being performed, 
whether the site was employing technology considered to be ``Best 
Available Technology,'' sampling logistics, and production schedule, 
EPA selected facilities for analytical wastewater sampling. EPA 
performed wastewater sampling at 2 metal finishing zinc platers that 
operate as job shops, 3 printed wiring board facilities, and 2 steel 
forming and finishing facilities. EPA collected characterization 
samples of wastewater from typical MP&M operations and paired influent 
and effluent samples from each of these facilities' treatment systems. 
In addition, EPA obtained long-term monitoring data from all sampled 
sites for use in calculating new variability factors and long-term 
averages for revising numerical limits. EPA also obtained long-term 
monitoring data from several facilities that EPA visited but did not 
sample: two zinc platers that operate as captive facilities, one 
printed wiring board facility, and one steel forming and finishing 
facility. EPA is using these additional data sets and data used at 
proposal for revising numerical limits. Non-confidential versions of 
these Site Visit Reports (SVRs) and Sampling Episode Reports (SERs) can 
be found in sections 15.2 and 15.3 of the public record for this 
document (Docket Number W-99-23).
    Although EPA does have survey questionnaires for the facilities in 
the Steel Forming & Finishing (SFF) Subcategory, EPA did not sample any 
SFF facilities prior to proposal. EPA did solicit data from such 
facilities. As explained in the proposal (66 FR 530), EPA is planning 
to revise the list of regulated pollutants and the numerical 
limitations for the SFF Subcategory based on post-proposal sampling 
data. For proposal, EPA based the selection of regulated pollutants and 
numerical limits on data from the General Metals subcategory. See 
section IV of today's document for a list of pollutants currently under 
consideration for regulation (see a memorandum entitled, ``Selection of 
Regulated Pollutants for the Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory,'' 
section 16.2 of the public record, DCN 16876 for a discussion of the 
selection of regulated pollutants.)
    As described in the proposed rule (66 FR 534), EPA solicited 
comment on the appropriate analytical method for analyzing total 
sulfide in wastewater from MP&M facilities. When EPA performed 
analytical testing on the wastewater samples collected post-proposal, 
EPA used three different analytical methods to detect total sulfide:
     Method 376.1, a titrimetric method that was used by EPA 
for the majority of its sulfide analyses for proposal;
     Method 376.2, a colorimetric method suggested by industry 
as an alternate choice and used by EPA for one sampling episode for 
proposal; and
     Method 4500-S-2 (E) from the 18th edition of 
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, a 
titrimetric method similar to Method 376.1. Method 4500-S-2 
(C), a pretreatment procedure, is recommended for reducing 
interferences (e.g., thiosulfate, sulfite, and various organic 
compounds) and/or concentrating the sample to achieve greater 
sensitivity. Method 4500-S-2 (E) was run using this 
pretreatment procedure in the post-proposal sampling program.
    All three of these methods are currently approved at 40 CFR part 
136 for compliance monitoring.
    EPA collected sulfide data for 236 samples in seven post-proposal 
sampling episodes using all three of these sulfide methods (EPA Episode 
numbers 6455, 6456, 6457, 6458, 6461, 6462, and 6463). These samples 
were collected from both process wastewaters prior to treatment and 
effluent wastewater after treatment. Of those 236 samples, 156 samples 
(66%) had no sulfide detected by any of the three methods. The reported 
detection limits for the three methods differ as a function of the 
analytical techniques, and thus, EPA does not intend to investigate 
these results further.
    One of the 236 samples had results for all three methods that were 
invalidated during the data review process because of extreme 
difficulties during the analysis. An additional 79 samples (33%) had 
sulfide detected by one or more of the three methods. These 79 samples 
will tell us the most about the performance of the methods in the MP&M 
wastewaters. Of those, only 12 samples had sulfide detected by all 
three methods, while the remaining 67 samples were a mixture of 
detected sulfide and non-detect results.
    EPA provides a detailed review of these 67 samples with ``mixed 
results'' and the 12 samples with detects by all three methods in a 
document titled, ``Evaluation of Sulfide Results for Metal Products and 
Machinery Samples Analyzed by MCAWW Method 376.1, MCAWW Method 376.2, 
and Standard Method 4500-S-2 (E)'' (see section 16.2, DCN 
16941).
    Because the true concentrations of sulfide in these 236 samples are 
not known, it is not possible to state with certainty which of the 
three methods used in this study (DCN 16941) performs best overall. The 
results for the 236 samples in this study suggest that there are 
potential interferences with Method 376.1 that may be better addressed 
by either Method 376.2 or SM 4500-S-2 (E) and its associated 
sample pretreatment step. The fact that sulfide was not detected by any 
of the methods in approximately 66% of all the samples, suggests that 
the differences between the methods need to be viewed in the context of 
specific samples and sample types.
    Of the 26 effluent samples where EPA detected sulfide by one or 
more of the three methods, eight samples were detected by all three 
methods. These results indicate that the performance of the three 
methods can be comparable in the sample type to which these methods are 
most often applied (i.e., treated effluents), and in samples whose 
sulfide concentrations fall within the range of all three methods. The 
data from the other effluent samples and from the influents and unit 
process samples suggest that: (1) Method 376.2 may perform better than 
SM 4500-S-2 (E); and (2) when the sample pretreatment 
procedure in SM 4500-S-2 [C] is employed, SM 4500-
S-2 (E), in turn, may perform better than Method 376.1.

B. Industry Submitted Data

    In addition to their written comments, many MP&M facilities and a 
few POTWs submitted data to be used in developing the numerical limits 
for the final rule. EPA is using over 46 data sets of long-term self-
monitoring compliance data from ``BAT'' facilities that met our 
criteria. In addition, EPA is using paired influent/effluent data 
received from an additional 37 ``BAT'' facilities and characterization 
data for MP&M unit operations (i.e., in-plant raw wastewater) from 
three facilities.
    EPA extensively reviewed the data submitted as comment to the 
proposed rule. EPA reviewed the data for completeness when compared to 
the ``Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data'' in the proposed 
rule (66 FR 537). EPA contacted facilities to follow up on missing 
information when only a few items were not included (e.g., a treatment 
flow diagram or identification of sampling points). For the 75 data 
sets of the 136 submitted with proposal comments, EPA has been able to 
include the data and use them for calculating the revised limits 
presented in today's document. Although EPA has used these data, it has 
also flagged certain data points to note any discrepancies, such as the 
analytical method not being an EPA

[[Page 38755]]

approved method or if there are questions pertaining to the QA/QC data. 
These flags may be used in the future to exclude certain data points. 
There are additional data submissions that EPA did not use in 
calculating today's revised limitations and standards because the 
Agency has not completed verifying that such data meets EPA's criteria 
for inclusion. Although not used, these data are included in the record 
for this document for purposes of public comment. EPA has fully 
explained how it will calculate long-term averages and variability 
factors for the final limitations and standards so commenters may 
determine the effect these data would have if included in the data base 
for the final rule. EPA will continue to contact facilities where major 
components were missing from the data submittal and will consider 
including these additional data sets now available in the record in the 
development of the limitations and standards for the final rule to the 
extent they meet EPA standards for inclusion.
    EPA is using long-term monitoring data (i.e., data used for 
compliance monitoring) from 31 General Metals facilities, 1 Metal 
Finishing Job Shop, 4 Zinc Platers, 2 Printed Wiring Boards, 3 SFF 
facilities, 3 Oily Wastes facilities, and 2 Shipbuilding Dry Docks. EPA 
is also using industry-submitted paired influent/effluent data from 26 
General Metals facilities, 8 Metal Finishing Job Shops, 2 Zinc Platers, 
and one Oily Wastes facility. Data submitted with comments can be found 
in section 12.2.2 of the public record.
    EPA requested data to aid in characterizing the concentrations of 
pollutants in wastewaters from MP&M processes (i.e., unit operations). 
In addition to EPA's post-proposal sampling program, described above, 
EPA received unit operations sampling data for the following unit 
operations:
     UP 4: Acid Treatment without Chromium
     UP 4R: Acid Treatment without Chromium Rinse
     UP 5: Alkaline Cleaning for Oil Removal
     UP 5R: Alkaline Cleaning for Oil Removal Rinse
     UP 14: Chemical Conversion Coating without Chromium
     UP 16: Chromate Conversion Coating
     UP 16R: Chromate Conversion Coating Rinse
     UP 17: Corrosion Preventative Coating
     UP 17R: Corrosion Preventative Coating Rinse
     UP 24: Electroplating without Chromium or Cyanide
     UP 24R: Electroplating without Chromium or Cyanide Rinse
     UP 27: Grinding
     UP 33: Painting--Immersion (E-Coat)
     UP 83: Acid Pickling Neutralization
     UP 93: Iron Phosphate Conversion Coating
     UP 93R: Iron Phosphate Conversion Coating Rinse
    EPA is using this data for two main purposes. First, EPA is using 
this data to supplement unit operations data used to estimate the 
pollutant loadings, by subcategory, contained in MP&M wastewaters prior 
to treatment. As discussed in section III.A of today's document, EPA is 
making every effort to use subcategory-specific unit operations data 
instead of estimating loadings by averaging the data by unit operations 
across subcategories.
    Second, EPA is using this data to better define those operations 
which should be included in EPA's definition of ``oily operations'' 
used to differentiate the Oily Wastes Subcategory from the General 
Metals Subcategory. EPA received many comments on certain unit 
operations that, as proposed, would cause a facility to fall under the 
General Metals Subcategory instead of the Oily Wastes Subcategory. 
Commenters concluded that these unit operations are truly ``oily 
operations'' generating wastewater that contains little or no metals 
and would not be effectively treated using the recommended treatment 
for the General Metals Subcategory (i.e., Option 2, which includes 
metal removal via chemical precipitation). Using the data that EPA 
received and a review of all unit operations data, EPA is considering 
incorporating into the definition of ``oily operations'' the following 
unit operations and any associated rinses (see section IV.A for a 
potential revision to the definition of ``oily operations''):
     UP 1: abrasive blasting
     UP 7: alkaline treatment without cyanide;
     UP 11: assembly/disassembly;
     UP 12: tumbling/barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory 
finishing;
     UP 13: burnishing;
     UP 18: electrical discharge machining;
     UP 35: polishing;
     UP 43: thermal cutting;
     UP 44: washing of final products;
     UP 45: welding;
     UP 46OR: wet air pollution control for organic 
constituents;
     UP 51: bilge water;
     UP 71: adhesive bonding;
     UP 72: calibration; and
     UP-93: iron phosphate conversion coating.
    EPA is considering this revision based on the low levels of metals 
and similarity of wastewater characteristics to other ``oily 
operations,'' (see section IV of today's document for the potential 
revised definition of oily operations).
    EPA also received data from the American Association of Railroads 
(AAR) which summarized the current permit limits, treatment-in-place 
(TIP), and the facilities' measured monthly average and average of 
daily maximum values for the last year for all known direct discharge 
railroad line maintenance facilities. More recently, this trade 
association provided the individual responses to their survey 
questionnaire. Each railroad line maintenance facility provided one 
year of long-term monitoring data (see section 15.1 of the public 
record for the AAR surveys). EPA is reviewing alternative options for 
the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory based on this data. See 
section IX.F of today's document for this discussion.

C. Analytical Method Validation Study and the Total Organics Parameter

    In an effort to provide flexibility, EPA proposed three options for 
meeting limits related to organic chemicals. One option focused on the 
use of a surrogate parameter, Total Organics Parameter or TOP, to be 
used for monitoring organic pollutants in MP&M wastewater. In the 
proposal, the ``TOP'' consisted of 48 individual organic pollutants. To 
comply with the TOP limit, as proposed, a facility would monitor for 
all 48 pollutants (or a lesser number if a waiver was obtained for 
pollutants not present) and sum the measured values, using the nominal 
quantitation value for non-detects. As discussed in the proposed rule 
(66 FR 529), the following TOP analytes do not have approved EPA 
methods: Benzoic acid, carbon disulfide, 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene, 2-
Isopropylnaphthalene, 1-Methylfluorene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene. In 
addition, aniline and 1-Methylphenanthrene do not have procedures 
approved in 40 CFR part 136, but do have procedures that have been 
validated as attachments to EPA Methods 1625/625. With the exception of 
Benzoic Acid, EPA has performed a study to validate EPA Analytical 
Methods 1624B/624 and 1625/625 for these organic pollutants. EPA 
eliminated benzoic acid because of its low and highly variable recovery 
using EPA Methods 625 and 1625. Benzoic acid will be deleted from the 
list of organic pollutants that constitute the Total Organics 
Parameter.
    In order to provide test methods for six additional semivolatile 
organic

[[Page 38756]]

pollutants (aniline, 3,6-dimethylphenanthrene, 2-isopropylnaphthalene, 
1-methylfluorene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and 1-methylphenanthrene) and 
one additional volatile organic pollutant (carbon disulfide) in the 
MP&M industry final rule, EPA has developed and validated attachments 
to EPA Methods 624 and 1624B and validated revisions to the existing 
attachments to EPA Methods 625 and 1625. The attachments and revisions 
to the attachments are:
     Method 624, Attachment 1: Determination of Additional 
Volatile Pollutants, January 2001
     Method 625, Attachment 1, Revision A: Determination of 
Additional Semivolatile Pollutants, January 2001 (Method 625, 
Attachment 1A)
     Method 1624B, Attachment 1: Determination of Additional 
Volatile Pollutants, January 2001
     Method 1625B, Attachment 1, Revision A: Determination of 
Additional Semivolatile Pollutants, January 2001 (Method 1625B, 
Attachment 1A)
    The validation study for each of the above methods attachments 
involve analyses of MP&M industry wastewater samples collected by EPA 
and sent to three separate laboratories for analyses by Methods 1624B 
and 1625B. Apart from the fact that Methods 1624B and 1625B contain 
analytes that are not found in Methods 624 and 625, the principal 
differences between these 1600 Series methods and their 600 Series 
counterparts is that the 1600 Series methods employ isotope dilution 
quantitation to determine the concentration of many of the target 
analytes. The concentration of the target analytes are determined using 
an internal standard quantitation procedure in the corresponding 600 
Series methods. As a result, for the purposes of this study, instead of 
analyzing a sample once by Method 1624B and again by Method 624, it is 
both possible and practical to perform the analysis of a given sample 
once for Method 1624B using isotope dilution quantitation and then 
reprocess the resulting mass spectrometric data using the internal 
standard procedures employed in Method 624. The same situation applies 
to Methods 1625B and 625--one analytical run can provide data for both 
quantitation approaches.
    The results of this validation effort have been used to develop 
method performance criteria for the seven new analytes in the 
attachments to Methods 1624B, 624, 1625, and 625. These criteria are 
specific to the use of these methods to demonstrate compliance with the 
MP&M final rule only. The final report for the study provides criteria 
for: method sensitivity, calibration linearity, labeled compound 
recovery (Methods 1624B and 1625), and matrix spike recovery (Methods 
624 and 625). The interlaboratory study results and the revised 
attachments are included in the MP&M rulemaking record. See section 
VI.B. of today's document for a discussion on alternative approaches to 
calculating the TOP limit.

III. Revisions & Corrections to the Cost & Loadings Model

    Based on proposal comments, EPA has revised several aspects of the 
Cost & Loadings Model used to develop estimates of compliance costs and 
pollutant loads. This section discusses the changes in methodology and 
corrections to the model and database for this document including: (1) 
Subcategorization of unit operations data; (2) pollutant specific 
revisions to the loadings and removals; (3) corrections to the coding 
in the model; (4) re-imputation of missing wastewater flows; and (5) 
several other issues on which EPA is soliciting comment. Section VI of 
today's document provides a more detailed discussion of the results of 
the re-analysis using the revised Cost & Loadings Model (and the 
revised associated input databases).

A. Subcategorization of Facilities and Unit Operations Data

    This section discusses changes being considered to EPA's 
subcategorization scheme as well as changes to the way in which EPA is 
using the data that characterizes MP&M operations (i.e., unit 
operations).
1. Changes in EPA's Subcategorization Scheme
    In the proposal, EPA solicited comment on the proposed 
subcategorization scheme. Based on the comments received, EPA is 
considering placing Printed Wiring Board (PWB) facilities and Printed 
Wiring Board job shops in the same subcategory: Printed Wiring Board. 
At proposal, EPA placed the PWB job shops in the Metal Finishing Job 
Shops Subcategory based on the special economic conditions of job 
shops. However, information submitted by commenters indicates that PWB 
job shops are much more similar to PWB facilities than to metal 
finishing job shops when considering their wastewater characteristics 
and operations. For all analyses supporting today's document, EPA has 
placed the Printed Wiring Board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board 
Subcategory.
    In addition, based on comments, EPA has reviewed the unit 
operations of Printed Wiring Assembly facilities and has determined 
that they are most similar to the facilities in the General Metals 
Subcategory. Printed wiring assembly facilities do not manufacture 
printed circuit boards, but do attach circuit boards to other 
structures. Therefore, they do not perform the operations typical of a 
printed wiring board facility (e.g., applying photoresist, etching of 
the board, or stripping). EPA concluded that most printed wiring 
assembly facilities in the MP&M database were placed in the General 
Metals Subcategory for proposal. For this document, EPA has confirmed 
that all printed wiring assembly facilities are identified as General 
Metals facilities. Unless new information leads EPA to reconsider this 
determination, EPA will address the codified language for the 
applicability of the General Metals Subcategory of the final rule to 
reflect the inclusion of the printed wiring assembly facilities in the 
subcategory.
    EPA received comments concerning the definition for ``oily 
operations'' used in the applicability statement of the Oily Wastes 
Subcategory. Commenters provided data on several MP&M unit operations 
which were not part of the ``oily operations'' definition in the 
proposed rule. The data show that there are low levels of metals in 
these unit operations. Based on the data received and a review of other 
unit operations containing only low concentrations of metals, EPA is 
considering whether to revise the proposed definition of ``oily 
operations'' used to define the Oily Wastes Subcategory (see sections 
II.B and IV.A). This change would result in the reclassification of 
several facilities to the Oily Waste Subcategory that were originally 
classified in the General Metals Subcategory at proposal (see section 
VII of today's document for the number of facilities now estimated in 
each subcategory).
    Finally, EPA is considering whether to subcategorize or segment 
metal finishing zinc platers. EPA uses the term ``zinc platers'' to 
describe facilities where over 95% of their wastewaters are generated 
from zinc electroplating operations. These facilities typically do not 
perform copper, nickel, or chrome electroplating. However, most of 
these facilities follow their plating lines with chromium conversion 
coating lines. Currently, zinc platers can be found in the Metal 
Finishing Job Shops Subcategory (i.e., job shop zinc platers) and the 
General Metals Subcategory (i.e., captive shop zinc platers). The 
wastewater characteristics of zinc platers are different from other 
facilities

[[Page 38757]]

in these two subcategories, particularly with respect to their 
concentrations of zinc. Where non-zinc platers may have concentrations 
of 10-90 mg/l zinc in their wastewater prior to treatment, zinc platers 
have concentrations from 100-800 mg/l zinc in their wastewater prior to 
treatment. However, zinc platers have very low concentrations of other 
pollutants as compared to non-zinc platers. Therefore, EPA is 
considering subcategorizing zinc platers by either creating a separate 
subcategory for all zinc platers, or creating a segment within each of 
the two affected subcategories. EPA is also considering retaining the 
current structure. The use of a segment would allow for a separate 
numerical limitation for zinc for zinc platers while providing ease of 
implementation as it would allow them to remain in their appropriate 
current subcategory (i.e., Metal Finishing Job Shops or General 
Metals). EPA is also considering no change to the current 
subcategorization scheme but adopting a new zinc limit that represents 
zinc levels achievable by zinc platers operating BAT treatment systems. 
In this case, EPA would use data from the sampling of zinc platers to 
set the zinc limit in the Metal Finishing Job Shops and General Metals 
subcateogries. EPA concluded that this approach would cause the least 
confusion for permit writers and be the easiest to implement; however, 
this approach would allow discharge of additional pounds of zinc to the 
environment from non-zinc platers in the current subcategories (see 
Table III.A-1). These additional pounds of zinc would have 
corresponding low pound-equivalents due to the low toxicity weighting 
factor (0.047) for zinc.

  Table III.A-1.--Incremental Pounds of Zinc Discharged to the Environment When Using Only Zinc Plater Data for
           Setting the Zinc Limits for the Metal Finishing Job Shops and General Metals Subcategories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Number of                   Pound-
             Discharger status                      Facility type           facilities     Pounds    equivalents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect..................................  General Metals...............       10,787        8,200          385
                                            General Metals (> 1 MGY) \1\.        2,055        7,491          352
                                            Metal Finishing Job Shops....        1,165        1,895           89
Direct....................................  General Metals...............        1,500        9,754          458
                                            Metal Finishing Job Shops....           24          101           5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: MGY: Million Gallons per Year

    EPA solicits comment on whether: (1) Zinc platers should be in 
their own subcategory; (2) a segment within existing subcategories; or 
(3) no change in subcategorization with a zinc limitation that is 
achievable by zinc platers. EPA also solicits comment on the burden to 
permit writers and control authorities associated with each approach.
2. Subcategorization of Unit Operation Data
    In the Cost & Loadings Model used for the proposed rule, EPA 
averaged all data for a specific unit operation (e.g., UP23--
electroplating with cyanide) regardless of the subcategory of the 
facility from which the data was collected. Therefore, cyanide 
concentrations from a metal finishing job shop's UP23 were averaged 
with cyanide concentrations from a printed wiring board's UP23, and 
with cyanide concentrations from a general metals facility's UP23. EPA 
received many comments demonstrating that the concentrations of cyanide 
in electroplating varied greatly between subcategories, and most 
importantly between metal finishing job shops and printed wiring 
boards. Similarly, EPA received comments that the concentration of 
copper and tin differed widely between printed wiring board facilities 
and other subcategories. Therefore, for this analysis EPA is applying 
concentration data from unit operations by subcategory to the extent 
possible.
    EPA has segregated the existing unit operations concentration data, 
including data used for proposal and newly collected data, by 
subcategory. EPA performed post-proposal sampling (see section II.A) of 
many printed wiring board unit operations in an effort to distinguish 
printed wiring board data from other MP&M subcategories with metal-
bearing wastewater. For example, at proposal EPA used an average 
cyanide concentration of 27,959 mg/l for UP23 for all metal-bearing 
subcategories; however, EPA has revised the Cost & Loadings Model to 
use a cyanide concentration for UP23 of 5,200 mg/l for metal finishing 
jobs shops and 430 mg/l for printed wiring boards based on data 
obtained from these operations (see section III.B.1).
    In addition to segregating the unit operations data by subcategory, 
EPA has segregated the unit operations for the ``zinc plater'' segment 
of the Metal Finishing Job Shops and General Metals subcategories. 
Therefore, the unit operations (raw wastewater) of a model site that is 
a zinc plater would be credited with the appropriate level (i.e., 
higher level) of zinc and appropriate levels (i.e., very low or non-
detect) of other pollutants.
    EPA has also collected unit operation data that is specific to the 
steel forming and finishing subcategory so that modeled pollutant 
loadings will better reflect wastewater characteristics at those sites.
    Finally, EPA received comment concerning the variability of the 
wastewaters sampled to represent the ``testing'' unit operation. EPA 
defines the testing unit operation as the application of thermal, 
electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, or other energy to determine the 
suitability or functionality of a part, assembly or complete unit. 
Commenters are concerned that wastewater concentrations from testing of 
one type (e.g., automotive radiators) does not represent the same 
wastewater characteristics as testing of another type (e.g., aircraft 
engines). EPA is considering whether or not to further divide the 
testing unit operation, particularly for the General Metals 
Subcategory, by industry sector or testing type (e.g., hydrostatic, dye 
penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux). EPA data show automotive 
radiator testing molybdenum, fluoride, and vanadium concentrations are 
774 mg/l, 0 mg/l (not measured) and 0.004 mg/L respectively, while 
aircraft parts testing molybdenum, fluoride, and vanadium 
concentrations are 0.271 mg/l, 49,000 mg/l, and 215 mg/l respectively. 
EPA solicits comment on whether or not to subdivide the testing unit 
operation and ways to appropriately divide the Agency's data from this 
unit operation.
    The methodology for subcategorization of unit operation 
concentrations and a discussion of

[[Page 38758]]

remaining data transfers from one subcategory to another are described 
in a memorandum in the public record, entitled `` MP&M Pollutant 
Loadings Subcategory-Specific Data,'' section 16.7, DCN 16759. EPA 
solicits comments on this approach.

B. Pollutant Specific Revisions to Loadings and Removals

    EPA received comment on several pollutant-specific issues related 
to the pollutant loadings and removals generated by EPA's Cost & 
Loadings Model. In some cases, commenters questioned results from a 
specific sampling episode. For example some commenters stated that the 
misclassification of a cyanide electroplating sampling point led to an 
overestimation of cyanide pollutant loadings and removals. In other 
cases, commenters raised more general issues, such as the percent 
removal value assigned to boron (at proposal boron was set equal to the 
long term average (LTA) for boron, not using a percent removal) in the 
Cost & Loadings Model. EPA solicits comment on how EPA has tentatively 
addressed these issues. EPA is also reviewing several data points that 
commenters concluded to be ``outliers.'' In several cases EPA has 
addressed these issues and in other cases, due to the need to work with 
the facility in question, EPA is working toward resolving them for the 
final rule. Below is a discussion of the revisions being considered 
regarding the most prominent of the pollutant-specific issues: cyanide, 
tin, copper, sulfide, and boron. A detailed summary of all the 
pollutant-specific issues under review may be found in a memorandum 
entitled, ``MP&M Pollutant Loadings Methodology Changes from Proposal'' 
in the public record for this document, section 16.7, DCN 16764. EPA 
notes that the pollutant loadings and removals for the final rule will 
reflect the addition of EPA and appropriate industry submitted unit 
operations data to the model. (see section IV of today's document for a 
discussion on EPA's current views on possible changes to pollutants 
selected for regulation).
1. Cyanide
    The major issue regarding cyanide pollutant loadings raised by 
commenters involves the misidentification of a single sampling point. 
Prior to proposal, EPA sampled at one facility what it concluded was 
cyanide electroplating rinse water (i.e., UP23R). For the proposal, 
that data was averaged with other cyanide concentrations for the same 
unit operation (UP23R) to obtain an average cyanide concentration for 
use in the Cost & Loadings Model for that unit operation. Although the 
concentration of cyanide was considerably higher than other facility 
data for the same unit operation, a check of the site report, which had 
been reviewed by the facility, verified that sample point as a rinse 
water. Based on comments received and additional follow-up discussion 
with the sampled site, EPA now has determined that the actual sample 
was taken from a drag-out tank that follows the cyanide electroplating 
bath and that the drag-out tank water is recycled. Therefore, the 
concentration of cyanide in that tank is not characteristic of cyanide 
electroplating rinse water (i.e., UP23R) and EPA has removed this 
cyanide concentration (and concentrations of all other pollutants from 
that sampling point) from the electroplating with cyanide rinse unit 
operation (UP23R) and has reclassified it as a drag-out rinse that is 
recycled (UP23RDO). This change has a significant effect on the average 
cyanide concentration used for the proposal in the cost and loadings 
model for that unit operation and the resulting cyanide pollutant 
concentration levels (5,042 mg/l to 3.6 mg/l for general metals). 
Further, EPA is now considering using unit operations concentration 
data on a subcategory-specific basis for the final rule (see section 
III.A.2 of today's document). The cyanide data point discussed here was 
taken at a general metals facility. Therefore, this data point would no 
longer affect the cyanide loadings for the metal finishing job shops, 
printed wiring board, non-chromium anodizing, or steel forming and 
finishing subcategories for the final rule. Following this approach, 
the current estimated cyanide concentrations for cyanide electroplating 
rinse (UP23R) are as follows: 58.8 mg/l for metal finishing job shops, 
22.02 mg/l for printed wiring board, 22.02 mg/l for non-chromium 
anodizing, and 22.02 mg/l for steel forming and finishing. This 
document reflects these concentrations. See section VII of today's 
document for a discussion on the overall change in pollutant loadings 
and removals due to revisions to the Cost & Loadings Model.
2. Tin
    The major issue regarding tin concentrations raised by commenters 
in the Cost & Loadings model involves the misclassification of a 
sampled unit operation containing a large concentration of tin. Prior 
to proposal, EPA sampled a unit operation that it classified as UP4R 
(acid treatment without chromium rinse). However, based on comment and 
subsequent review of the sampling episode report, EPA has concluded 
that this unit operation is different from UP4R. This unit operation 
involved the use of a catalyst solution for electroless plating 
operations and did not fit in any of EPA's current unit operation 
descriptions. Therefore, EPA created a new unit operation for 
electroless plating catalyst solutions (UP87) and assigned the data for 
tin and all other pollutants associated with that particular sampling 
point to the new unit operation.
    EPA estimated tin concentrations for acid treatment without 
chromium rinse (UP4R) across all subcategories in the proposal at 256.2 
mg/L. The current estimated tin concentrations for UP4R are as follows: 
1.97 mg/l for metal finishing job shops, 0.0204 mg/l for printed wiring 
board, 0.0444 mg/L for general metals, and 0.0432 mg/L for zinc 
platers. This document reflects these revised concentrations. See 
section VII of today's document for a discussion on the overall change 
in pollutant loadings and removals due to revisions to the Cost & 
Loadings Model.
3. Copper
    The factors discussed above related to cyanide and tin also would 
result in changes in pollutant loadings for copper. When EPA revised 
the cyanide and tin concentrations for those two sampling points, it 
also revised the concentrations for all pollutants associated with 
those sampling points, including copper. Copper loadings are also 
largely affected by the subcategorization of unit operations data and 
EPA's post-proposal sampling of three additional printed wiring board 
facilities. In EPA's view, the copper loadings for non-printed wiring 
board facilities would be reduced through the use of subcategory-
specific unit operations data. Further EPA has concluded that the 
copper loadings for printed wiring board facilities would be more 
reflective of those facilities due to the incorporation of additional 
printed wiring board sampling data.
    EPA estimated copper concentrations for acid treatment without 
chromium rinse (UP4R) across all subcategories in the proposal at 52.85 
mg/L. The current estimated copper concentrations for UP4R are as 
follows: 7.97 mg/l for metal finishing job shops, 58.97 mg/l for 
printed wiring board, 9.49 mg/L for general metals, and 7.97 mg/L for 
zinc platers. This document reflects these revised concentrations. See 
section VII of today's document for a discussion on the overall change 
in pollutant loadings

[[Page 38759]]

and removals due to revisions to the Cost & Loadings Model.
4. Sulfide
    EPA received many comments concerning EPA's estimate of pollutant 
removals for total sulfide and EPA's proposal to regulate total 
sulfide. Commenters stated that the pollutant removals associated with 
total sulfide were inflated due to the analytical method EPA used to 
test for total sulfide. Commenters concluded that the method used (EPA 
Method 376.1) may yield erroneous results because of matrix 
interference (i.e., erroneous analytical results for the pollutant of 
concern due to certain substances present in the sample). This may 
result in higher reported sulfide concentrations than what is actually 
in the wastewater. In addition, many of the data points used for total 
sulfide were transferred from data for the Oily Wastes Subcategory to 
other subcategories. Therefore, as discussed in section II.A of today's 
document, EPA is now using two additional methods (EPA Method 376.2 and 
Standard Method 4500-S-\2\[E], 18th edition) to test for 
total sulfide. For the purposes of establishing unit operations 
concentrations for a specific sampling point for the Cost & Loadings 
Model for the NODA analyses, EPA averaged the data from Methods 376.2 
and 4500-S--2 (E). For the final rule EPA currently intends 
to follow the recommendations in the memorandum titled, ``Evaluation of 
Sulfide Results for Metal Products and Machinery Samples Analyzed by 
MCAWW Method 376.1, MCAWW Method 376.2, and Standard Method 4500-
S-\2\ (E)'' (see section 16.2, DCN 16941). The memorandum's 
recommendations are specific for unit operations, influent, and 
effluent concentration data.
    EPA is considering the effects of these recommendations on loadings 
and solicits comments on this analysis. EPA is also now using 
subcategory-specific unit operations data, so that in all cases total 
sulfide concentrations would not be transferred from oil-bearing 
subcategories to metal-bearing subcategories. If no sulfide 
concentration was identified for unit operations within a subcategory, 
EPA set the sulfide concentration equal to zero for today's document, 
and is considering doing the same in the analysis for the final rule.
5. Boron
    Although EPA did not propose to regulate boron, many commenters 
expressed concern with EPA's estimates of boron pollutant removals. 
Commenters state that boron is not removed in chemical precipitation 
systems and any removal is an artifact of the database. EPA has 
revisited the analysis regarding the removal of boron in chemical 
precipitation systems and has concluded that boron shows widely 
variable removals in two BAT treatment systems and is not removed at 
all (or has negative removals) in the remaining three BAT treatment 
systems (see section 16.7, DCN 16758). EPA has concluded that, in most 
cases at MP&M facilities, boron is in the dissolved anionic form (as 
borate) and cannot be removed by chemical precipitation.
    For the purposes of estimating boron removals for today's document 
for subcategories where EPA is using chemical precipitation as the 
basis for limitations, EPA has made a change to the methodology. For 
today's document, EPA has set the pollutant removals for boron equal to 
zero. Therefore, EPA is not claiming any removal for boron from 
chemical precipitation systems.
    EPA also considered a more site-specific approach where EPA would 
apply the boron removal percentage from a particular EPA sampling 
episode to all model facilities with similar characteristics to the 
sampled facility. For example, commenters stated that one reason EPA's 
boron removals were inflated was because removals were based on a 
facility that also performs porcelain enameling, where the wastewaters 
are commingled for treatment. The commenters stated that the porcelain 
frit was the cause for the relatively high boron removals (i.e., the 
boron is in solid form and can be removed by gravity separation) 
compared to facilities that are not also performing porcelain 
enameling. Therefore, in this example, EPA considered applying the 
boron removal based on the sampled facility with the porcelain 
enameling and MP&M wastewaters only to other model facilities in EPA's 
database that also conduct porcelain enameling operations. EPA reviewed 
all sites in EPA's questionnaire database and found six survey sites 
that reported being covered by the Porcelain Enameling effluent 
guidelines. Of these six sites only one site was discharging wastewater 
from MP&M and porcelain enameling operations and the percentage of 
wastewater from porcelain enameling operations was less than two 
percent of their wastewater volume. It is likely that the national 
estimate of boron removals using this approach, relative to the 
removals for other pollutants, would be close to zero. EPA solicits 
comment on the revised results and which approach EPA should use for 
the final rule to estimate boron removals.
    EPA intends to conduct further review of boron removals in other 
treatment systems, such as Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF). DAF is 
currently the basis for the limitations in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock 
and Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategories. EPA has data from the MP&M 
database as well as data from other previous regulations indicating 
positive removals of boron from DAF systems. EPA will review the form 
of the boron present in wastewater from these subcategories (e.g., 
dissolved or insoluble) and examine the mechanism for removal.
    EPA will also perform an assessment for the final rule 
investigating molybdenum removals via chemical precipitation similar to 
that used for boron. EPA may determine from this analysis that: (1) 
Molybdenum is present in MP&M wastewaters as a dissolved form which is 
not removable by chemical precipitation; or (2) there is a low level of 
incidental molybdenum removal for use in the Cost & Loads Model. There 
may be incidental removals when molybdenum adheres to oily wastewaters 
that are removed in the oil water separation step or other treatment 
steps (e.g., flocculation). For the analyses performed for today's 
document, EPA is using the average effluent concentration achieved for 
molybdenum by EPA sampled facilities. (see section IV of today's 
document for a discussion on molybdenum as a pollutant selected for 
regulation). EPA solicits comment on molybdenum being removed through 
oil water separation step or other treatment steps (e.g., 
flocculation).

C. Stream Code Corrections

    This section describes how EPA intends to revise several parts of 
the computer format of the model and data entry corrections EPA will 
make based on comments received regarding the Cost & Loadings Model. 
All revisions and corrections discussed in this section, affecting 
approximately 5% of the stream codes, have been incorporated into the 
analyses supporting today's document.
    There were two cases where EPA's Cost & Loadings Model did not 
correctly link unit operations (UP) ``extender'' codes in the stream 
identification field of the database. Extender codes are used to 
indicate a rinse (``R'') or can be used to indicate the presence of 
multiple lines. For example, if the facility had 3 different acid 
treatment without chromium rinse lines, the lines would be labeled UP 
04R-1, 04R-2, 04R-3. When the model did not correctly link

[[Page 38760]]

with these codes it led to the mis-assignment of each stream for the 
purposes of determining whether or not the stream should receive credit 
for having treatment-in-place (TIP). Therefore, at proposal there were 
a number of rinses or multiple lines that were not given proper credit 
for TIP.
    Another example is where a site's questionnaire indicated that UP04 
(acid treatment bath without chromium) goes to treatment, but did not 
say whether or not UP04R (acid treatment rinse without chromium) went 
to treatment. For the proposal cost and load analysis, TIP credit was 
given for UP04, but not for UP04R. EPA has corrected the model used for 
today's document. In another example, a site's questionnaire indicated 
UP04R goes to treatment, but when multiple lines (UP04R-1, -2, -3) are 
present, TIP credit did not get conveyed in the proposal cost and loads 
analysis to the streams labeled UP04R-1, -2, -3. EPA notes that less 
than three percent of all streams required a change in TIP assignment 
due to this error.
    Similarly, when converting from numeric to text format for use in 
running the Cost & Loadings Model, some streams converted as UP1R-1 and 
UP4R-1 instead of UP01R-1 and UP04R-1. This caused a mismatch in the 
model databases and those streams were not given proper TIP credit. EPA 
has corrected the model used for today's document.
    EPA has also identified a few data entry errors that were limited 
in scope, but do affect the output of the Cost & Loadings Model. In one 
case, the facility completed an erroneous page in their questionnaire 
for the treatment unit at their facility (e.g., equalization/
neutralization instead of chemical precipitation). In correcting this 
error, the reviewer did not transfer all of the affected unit 
operations from the erroneous page to new treatment unit page, and 
therefore, some unit operations did not get entered and did not receive 
TIP credit. EPA has corrected the model used for today's document.
    In another case, the facility completed the unit operation page of 
their questionnaire but did not indicate to which treatment unit the 
unit operation discharged. Therefore, TIP credit was not given for that 
unit operation. Upon further review of these streams and comparison to 
treatment diagrams (which indicated to which treatment units these 
streams discharged), a correction was made to the data entry and TIP 
credit was given. EPA has carefully reviewed questionnaires for all 
sites where full or partial TIP credit was not given, and has corrected 
the model used for today's document, accordingly (see section III.E).

D. Change in Imputed Flows

    EPA uses wastestream-specific flow (not total facility flow) and 
production information in the Cost & Loadings Model. A number of 
questionnaires were submitted without data for flow or production 
related to an individual wastestream. In some instances EPA contacted 
the facility to gather the information. If the data was not available 
or if EPA did not contact the facility, EPA imputed data using data 
from similar facilities in the questionnaire database. The 1,003 
facilities in the database had 17,424 different lines (i.e., tanks), of 
which EPA imputed values for 6,129 lines at 797 facilities. These 
imputed values included production and/or production normalized flows 
(PNFs) for most municipality surveys, because the surveys did not 
request this information from them. This section describes the changes 
in the data and imputed values from the proposal. This section also 
describes some changes that EPA is considering for the final rule.
    Commenters stated their concerns regarding several large flow 
values that were created through imputation. Commenters noted that in 
these cases the flow for the wastestream, when added with all other 
streams at the facility exceeded the facility's reported total flow 
(including non-MP&M process wastewater). Commenters suggested using a 
comparison of the summation of a facility's stream flows with the 
facility's reported total discharge flow as a ``reality check.'' EPA 
has used this ``reality check'' in the imputations for today's 
document. Each survey requested the total flow information in different 
ways. Phase I surveys required respondents to report on the total 
facility flow. Phase II surveys listed three different fields: MP&M 
Process Water, Process Water, Total Facility Water Use. EPA used the 
MP&M Process Water value if it was given by the facility. If this value 
was not given, EPA used the Process Water value. If neither of these 
values were reported, EPA used the Total Facility Water Use value.
    When EPA examined the data before imputing any values, 10 percent 
of the facilities in the database had the sum of their individual 
streams exceed the total facility flow. EPA also identified stream 
flows that appeared to be incorrect. After identifying these 
inconsistencies, EPA reviewed its hard copies of the surveys to look 
for any information which would provide more accurate total flows 
(e.g., perhaps the site wrote in their own units of measure which need 
to be converted). Most occurrences were with Phase I sites that were 
surveyed between 1989 and 1990, where previous reviews of the total 
flow had not been pursued as vigorously as the stream flow information. 
Based upon its findings, EPA revised the individual stream flows and 
the total flows in the database. The sum of individual stream flows for 
a facility were then compared to the reported total flow. EPA scaled 
back the individual stream flows when the sum of the individual stream 
flows were greater than the total flow (see memorandum titled 
``Revisions to the Technical Portion of the Imputation Methodology,'' 
section 16.6.1, DCN 27711). EPA also excluded recycle and pollution 
prevention streams as a basis for imputed values because the flows are 
often quite large, but usually are not completely discharged. In 
addition, EPA excluded contract hauling streams from the summation of 
individual streams, because they would not be included in the 
facility's reported total discharge flow.
    After incorporating those changes into its database, EPA imputed 
values for individual streams where the flows were unknown. As a check 
on the imputed values, EPA then compared the total flow at each 
facility to the sum of all flow values (i.e., imputed and others) for 
the individual streams at that facility. As a result of these changes, 
EPA found only 32 facilities (i.e., less than four percent) where the 
summation of the reported and imputed individual flows exceeded the 
total reported flows. For these facilities, EPA has either revised the 
stream flows based upon engineering review or proportionally decreased 
the imputed flows to be less than the reported total flow.
    For the final rule, EPA has determined that further improvements in 
the imputation strategy may be warranted and solicits comments on its 
ideas. In the current strategy, EPA assumes that all missing flows 
correspond to operations that discharge water and thus missing flows 
have imputed values that are always greater than zero. However, the 
surveys identified that some unit operations are frequently dry 
operations. For the final rule, EPA may assign some missing flow values 
to be zero (i.e., dry).
    In addition, while the imputation procedure uses relevant 
information from similar operations at the facility when it has some 
reported and some missing values, these similar operations may include 
several different types of unit operations. In its review of the data, 
EPA observed that values were often identical between different lines 
(or

[[Page 38761]]

tanks) of the same unit operation and would often differ between unit 
operations at that facility. Thus, EPA makes every attempt to use 
relevant information from similar operations at the facility when it 
has some reported and some missing values, EPA has determined that 
placing more emphasis on the unit-level operations may be more 
appropriate in the intra-facility imputations for streams.
    When intra-facility information could not be used, the imputation 
procedure used the median value of all of the lines within a ``unit 
grouping.'' Within each unit grouping, EPA combined similar unit 
operations based upon water usage characteristics and the number of 
lines associated with each operation. EPA then calculated the median 
value of the lines for each unit grouping. However, when it examined 
summary statistics such as the 10th and 90th percentiles for each unit 
grouping, EPA observed that the production-normalized flows and 
production were extremely variable within many unit groupings. For the 
final rule, EPA intends to investigate the causes for this variability 
for the final rule, and possibly re-define the unit groupings to be 
more homogeneous.
    Also, for the final rule, EPA will consider facility and 
subcategory effects on the imputed values. As stated above, EPA noted 
that values within a facility tended to be similar. Thus, a facility 
with many lines in a particular unit operation would have more 
influence on the median value than a facility with fewer lines. For the 
final rule, EPA may consider using a single value from each facility 
rather than using the values from every line in that unit operation. 
Also, because it has observed some differences between subcategories 
with the same unit operation, EPA will investigate whether the 
imputation procedure should incorporate subcategorization in some way.
    In a memorandum in the public record (see section 19.2, DCN 36081), 
EPA has described the current strategy, unit groupings, and 
assumptions, and indicated the changes that it may incorporate for the 
final rule. These changes will probably have little or no impact for 
most facilities. For others, it may increase or decrease the flows of 
the imputed streams. This may have the effect of lowering pollutant 
loadings with the inclusion of zero discharge unit operations. EPA 
solicits comment on the approaches outlined in the memorandum.

E. Changes Considered for Methodology for Treatment-In-Place Credits

    For the proposed rule, EPA estimated the baseline pollutant 
loadings (i.e., pollutant loading prior to compliance with the MP&M 
regulations) from model facilities based on actual treatment-in-place 
at those sites based on questionnaire responses. If a model site had no 
treatment-in-place for their MP&M wastewaters or if a metal-bearing 
site only had pH adjustment, neutralization or equalization without any 
mechanism for sludge removal, EPA estimated baseline pollutant loadings 
based on raw wastewater data from EPA sampling episodes. If a site had 
some or all of its MP&M wastewater going through a treatment system 
(BAT system, equivalent, or better), EPA estimated baseline pollutant 
loadings, for those streams going through the system, based on the 
long-term average (LTA) effluent concentrations (i.e., design 
concentrations) from the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 
part 433) for pollutants regulated by that regulation (with the 
exception of cyanide) and based on treatment system specific effluent 
concentration data (i.e., MP&M LTAs) from EPA sampling episodes for 
cyanide and the other MP&M pollutants of concern. Commentors raised 
questions about whether EPA was providing appropriate treatment-in-
place credits for certain technologies in the proposal, and this 
subject is specifically addressed later in this document. In the case 
where a facility was treating some MP&M wastewaters using its on-site 
treatment system, but not others, EPA estimated the baseline pollutant 
loadings for the streams receiving treatment using the treatment-
specific effluent concentrations described above and using the raw 
wastewater data for those streams not going through treatment in the 
baseline. In the MP&M Costs & Loads Model, such facilities are referred 
to as having ``partial treatment-in-place credit.'' The same holds true 
for facilities that may have a portion of a BAT system, such as 
alkaline chlorination for cyanide destruction, but do not perform 
further treatment for metals using chemical precipitation and 
clarification.
    EPA then estimates pollutant loadings for the proposed option for 
each model site. When estimating the pollutant loadings for the 
proposed option, EPA assumed the site was meeting the long-term average 
(LTA) concentrations (i.e., design effluent concentrations) achieved by 
EPA's sampled MP&M BAT facilities. If a site is performing better at 
baseline (e.g., microfiltration for solids removal) than required by 
the MP&M proposed option (e.g., clarification), EPA assumed for the 
NODA analysis that the site will continue to operate with the superior 
technology for the EPA proposed option.
    EPA calculates the pollutant loads removed by the proposed option 
as the difference between the pollutant loadings estimated for the 
proposed option and the pollutant loadings estimate for the baseline. 
This means that for sites which have treatment-in-place at the baseline 
that is the same or equivalent to the BAT treatment (i.e., sites with 
full TIP credit), EPA is claiming very little, if any, additional 
pollutant removal due to the MP&M regulation. EPA notes that the MP&M 
regulation may still show significant removals for those facilities 
that have equivalent ``end of pipe'' technologies or treatment units 
(e.g., metal removal via chemical precipitation) but not the BAT 
pollution prevention technologies (e.g., paint water curtain, counter-
current cascade rinsing, machine coolant recycling). For these 
facilities, the ``end of pipe'' technologies may be equivalent, but 
EPA's modeling drastically increase the efficiencies of their system 
with the increased influent concentrations. For sites that have some 
MP&M wastewaters receiving treatment in the baseline (i.e., sites with 
partial TIP credit), the additional pollutant removal EPA is claiming 
is largely from their untreated streams. Finally, sites with no 
treatment-in-place or only pH adjustment, neutralization, or 
equalization without any mechanism to remove sludge (i.e., sites with 
no TIP credit) are the largest source of the pollutant reductions that 
EPA estimated for the proposed rule.
    The two most prominent issues received in comments regarding 
treatment-in-place (TIP) credit (with exception of the stream code 
corrections to the Cost & Loadings Model discussed in section III.C 
above) dealt with giving TIP credit for alternative technologies, 
including ultrafiltration, and with EPA's methodology for calculating 
the baseline load for currently regulated facilities (see also section 
16.4, DCN 16883).
1. Equivalency of Alternative Technology as BAT
    When determining whether or not to provide a site with TIP credit 
for an existing treatment system, EPA reviewed the site's questionnaire 
for information to determine if the treatment system was equivalent (or 
better) than the proposed BAT technology. The proposed BAT technology 
for existing facilities in the metal-bearing subcategories consists of 
segregation of chelated wastes, hexavalent chromium reduction, when 
necessary, cyanide destruction by alkaline chlorination, when 
necessary,

[[Page 38762]]

chemical emulsion breaking for oils removals, incorporation of 
pollution prevention and water conservation practices, and chemical 
precipitation (by sodium hydroxide) followed by a lamella slant-plate 
clarifier and sludge removal.
    When determining whether a treatment system was ``BAT,'' 
equivalent, or better than BAT for the purposes of determining 
treatment-in-place credit, EPA assumed that facilities that indicated 
chemical precipitation systems would also have a clarifier (even when 
they did not indicate this) and vice versa. However, EPA assumed that 
sites with metal-bearing wastestreams must have some mechanism for 
sludge removal to truly be operating a chemical precipitation and 
clarification system. EPA also assumed for the proposal and today's 
document that: (1) Facilities operating chemical precipitation followed 
by microfiltration or membrane to be at least equivalent to BAT; (2) 
facilities which indicated membranes for solids removal (i.e., 
microfiltration, reverse osmosis) also had chemical precipitation and 
are at least equivalent to BAT; and (3) facilities which indicated on 
their surveys ``pH-Adjustment'' followed by solids removal (e.g., 
clarification, membrane, microfiltration but not gravity settling) as 
if they were operating a chemical precipitation and clarification 
system for metals removal. EPA gave these facilities TIP credit at 
least as equivalent to BAT. EPA will investigate for the final rule 
which types of ``pH-Adjustment'' with solids removal, including types 
and amount of treatment chemicals, should be equated with BAT TIP 
credit or better. EPA solicits comment on this issue. For cyanide 
destruction systems, at proposal, EPA assumed that BAT was alkaline 
chlorination. EPA is considering in-process ion exchange for cyanide 
removal to be equivalent to alkaline chlorination for the final rule 
(see further discussion below). For sludge removal, EPA assumed that 
facilities with sludge thickening or a filter press had both components 
in place. In the case of oily wastes, sites with dissolved air 
flotation or ultrafiltration were considered to be at least equivalent 
to the BAT of chemical emulsion breaking for oil removal; however sites 
with only oil skimming were not considered to be BAT for oil removal.
    EPA received several comments from facilities that use alternative 
treatments for metals removals. For example, many sites use ion 
exchange systems to reclaim gold from gold-cyanide wastestreams. Ion 
exchange systems have the ability to remove the cyanide from the 
wastestream to very low levels. Commenters requested that EPA provide 
TIP credit for use of ion exchange for removal of cyanide. At proposal, 
EPA did not make this allowance; EPA is considering this change in 
methodology for the final rule and has given TIP credit for end-of-pipe 
ion exchange systems for cyanide destruction in today's document and is 
also considering giving TIP credit for in-process ion exchange for 
cyanide destruction in the final rule. EPA is also considering giving 
full TIP credit for ion exchange for metals removals. EPA expects that 
granting TIP metals credit to plants with ion exchange will lower 
pollutant removal estimates from today's pollutant removal estimates. 
EPA requests comment on which alternative technologies, in addition to 
ion exchange, should be set as equivalent to cyanide destruction and to 
chemical precipitation followed by clarification.
2. Pollutant Loadings Baseline
    As discussed above, EPA provided credit for achieving the long-term 
average concentrations of the Metal Finishing rule and the EPA BAT 
long-term average concentrations for facilities that received TIP 
credit, regardless of whether or not they are currently covered under 
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or Electroplating (40 CFR part 
413) effluent guidelines. However, commenters requested that EPA give 
baseline part 413 or part 433 limits credit to all facilities currently 
covered under these existing effluent guidelines even when their 
questionnaires indicate that there is no BAT TIP. Commenters argue that 
even without any indication of MP&M BAT TIP, these facilities must be 
meeting their limits under the existing regulations or else there would 
be large numbers of facilities in violation of their compliance 
requirements.
    In an effort to address this issue, EPA has performed a sensitivity 
analysis on the baseline pollutant loadings (``Baseline 413/433 
Analysis'') for today's document. In this analysis, EPA assumed that 
all sites currently regulated by part 413 and/or part 433 meet their 
existing limits at the point of compliance regardless of the treatment 
they have in place. EPA used the monthly average limits from the part 
413 and part 433 regulations to estimate site-specific baseline 
pollutant loadings. EPA performed this analysis for all direct and 
indirect discharging facilities currently regulated by part 413 and/or 
part 433 in the following subcategories: General Metals, Metal 
Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, and 
Zinc Plater. EPA also performed an additional analysis to estimate the 
revised baseline for sites that would likely be meeting local limits 
equivalent to the part 433 limits. In the first baseline sensitivity 
analysis, EPA applied the following rules:
     If the facility is currently covered by part 413 and not 
by part 433, the effluent wastewater concentrations for cadmium, 
cyanide, chromium, copper, nickel, lead and zinc were set equal to the 
part 413 monthly average limits and the concentrations for other MP&M 
pollutants of concern remain as they were set in the standard Cost & 
Loadings Model, described earlier in this section.
     If the facility is covered by part 433 or by both part 413 
and part 433, the effluent wastewater concentrations for the pollutants 
mentioned above (with the additional of silver) were set equal to the 
part 433 monthly average limits and the concentrations for other MP&M 
pollutants of concern remain as they were set in the standard Cost & 
Loadings Model, described earlier in this section.
     If the facility is not covered by either part 413 and/or 
part 433, the effluent wastewater concentrations remain as they were 
set in the standard Cost & Loadings Model, described earlier in this 
section.
    In the additional baseline sensitivity analysis EPA used the 
concentration from the part 433 monthly average limits to estimate the 
baseline pollutant removals for cadmium, cyanide, chromium, copper, 
nickel, lead and zinc for sites that are in the above mentioned 
subcategories that are not currently covered by either part 413 and 
part 433 (i.e., sites meeting local limits in the General Metals and 
Zinc Plater subcategories) and used the concentrations for other MP&M 
pollutants of concern as they were set in the standard Cost & Loadings 
Model, described earlier in this section. This way, EPA can evaluate 
those facilities that are currently regulated by national effluent 
guidelines separately from those that are not.
    Table III.E-1 provides EPA's national estimates of facilities that 
are solely regulated under the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) 
regulations, or solely regulated under the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 
433) regulations, or regulated by both regulations using the combined 
wastestream formula. EPA solicits comments on these estimates.

[[Page 38763]]



 Table III.E-1: National Estimates of Facilities Regulated Under the MP&M NODA, Electroplating ELGs (40 CFR Part 413), Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR Part
                                                   433), or Both 40 CFR Part 413 and 40 CFR Part 433.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  National estimate of  National estimate of  National estimate of  National estimate of
                                                                   facilities covered    facilities covered    facilities covered    facilities covered
                                                                     under MP&M NODA      only under 40 CFR     only under 40 CFR     under both 40 CFR
                       MP&M Subcategory\a\                       ----------------------       Part 413              Part 433          Parts 413 and 433
                                                                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Direct    Indirect    Direct    Indirect    Direct    Indirect    Direct    Indirect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (GM)\b\, \c\.....................................      1,500      2,055      91\e\        286        534      3,538         68        395
Metal Finishing Job Shops (MFJS)\d\.............................         24      1,165          0        278         12        444         12        162
Printed Wiring Board............................................          4        840          0        354          4        122          0        304
Zinc Platers (GM)...............................................         21        332          0         62          9        210         12          0
Zinc Platers (MFJS).............................................          0        105          0         36          0         12          0         68
Non-Chromium Anodizing..........................................         35          0          0          0         24         19          0          0
Steel Forming and Finishing.....................................         41        112          0          4         13         23          0          0
Oily Wastes\c\..................................................      2,749        288          0          6         16        329          0          0
                                                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL.......................................................      4,374      4,897         91      1,026        612      4,697         92       929
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ EPA uses the term ``zinc platers'' to describe facilities where over 95% of their wastewaters are generated from zinc electroplating operations (see
  section III.A.1)
\b\ These national estimates of General Metals facilities do not include Zinc Platers.
\c\ The MP&M NODA national estimates include the General Metals and Oily Wastes flow cut-offs (1 MGY and 2 MGY, respectively) while the remaining
  national estimates for these subcategories do not.
\d\ These national estimates of Metal Finishing Job Shops do not include Zinc Platers.
\e\ These sites have both direct and indirect discharges but indicated coverage under part 413 in their survey response.

    The results of the two ``Baseline 413/433 Sensitivity Analyses'' 
are presented by subcategory in Table III.E-2 below. The results are 
presented as pollutant removals in pound-equivalents removed per year 
by subcategory. EPA has estimated pollutant loadings/removals but did 
not estimate analogous changes in the compliance cost estimates. If 
this methodology is incorporated into the Cost & Loads Model for the 
final rule, EPA will provide pollutant removals, compliance costs, 
cost-effectiveness, economic impacts, and environmental benefits using 
this analysis. EPA solicits comment on the Baseline 413/433 Sensitivity 
Analyses and any other possible approaches to address the issue of 
baseline loadings for facilities currently covered by the Metal 
Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines. In addition, EPA 
solicits comment on the use of the monthly average limit from part 413 
and/or part 433 as opposed to using the long-term average concentration 
(see discussion of rationale below as part of the discussion on the low 
concentration analysis).

                       Table III.E-2: Results of ``Baseline 413/433'' Sensitivity Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    MP&M NODA Removals  (lb-   Removals with change in   Removals with change in
                                             eq/yr)            baseline loads (lb-eq/    baseline loads (lb-eq/
         MP&M Subcategory          --------------------------         year)\1\                  year)\2\
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                       Direct      Indirect      Direct      Indirect      Direct      Indirect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (GM)...............      996,741    1,240,219      485,495      728,775      431,921      273,234
Metal Finishing Job Shops (MFJS)..        1,652       93,190        1,282       35,550        1,282       32,130
Printed Wiring Board..............          186      153,653          186       63,227          186       41,832
Zinc Platers......................          937      123,210          160       19,414          160       19,414
Non-Chromium Anodizing............    2,392,735           NA    2,387,268           NA    2,387,243          NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This analysis only changes the baseline for facilities currently regulated under part 413/433.
\2\ This analysis changes the baseline for all sites, regulated and unregulated. NA--not applicable, EPA did not
  propose MP&M regulations for Non-Chromium Anodizing

    EPA also received comment regarding facilities with low 
concentration raw wastewater characteristics that do not have 
treatment-in-place (TIP) for some or all of the their wastewater. 
Commenters state that such facilities do not have TIP because the 
pollutant loadings in their wastewaters are low enough to meet their 
current local limits or the Metal Finishing or Electroplating limits 
without end-of-pipe treatment. EPA's sampling program focused on 
facilities with TIP and these facilities may have wastewaters with 
significantly higher concentrations of pollutants than facilities with 
no TIP. EPA is considering segmenting these ``low concentration'' 
facilities in the Cost & Loadings Model for the final rule so that more 
representative raw wastewater concentrations may be applied to those 
facilities. Therefore, EPA is soliciting comment on this approach and 
concentration data at the unit operation level from these ``low 
concentration'' facilities, as well as other possible approaches. EPA 
notes that several of these ``low concentration'' facilities may now 
fall under the Oily Wastes Subcategory due to the change in the 
definition of ``oily operations'' being considered by EPA for the final 
rule. Facilities in the Oily Wastes Subcategory are not regulated for 
metals and have pollutant loadings that are specific to their 
subcategory.
    EPA has performed a sensitivity analysis to identify the potential 
effect of segmenting the ``low concentration'' facilities in the 
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, and Zinc Plater subcategories. In this sensitivity 
analysis, EPA substituted the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) or

[[Page 38764]]

Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) monthly average limitations, as 
appropriate, for unit operation concentrations found in the Cost & 
Loadings Model for facilities with no treatment in-place. For 
facilities that indicated coverage under the part 413 regulations in 
their survey questionnaire, EPA used the limitations from part 413. For 
facilities that indicated coverage under the part 433 regulations or 
coverage under both part 413 and part 433, EPA used the limitations 
from part 433. For facilities that indicated no coverage by a national 
effluent guideline or coverage by another category's effluent 
guideline, EPA assumed these facilities would have local limitations 
equivalent to the limitations of the part 433 regulation and, 
therefore, used the limitations from part 433.
    EPA used the monthly average limitations instead of the long-term 
effluent concentration (i.e., design concentration) because the Agency 
concluded that it may be more appropriate as a facility with no 
treatment in-place is not targeting a design concentration (i.e., there 
is no treatment system to design). EPA concluded that a facility is 
likely to use the monthly average as a determining factor in deciding 
whether the installation of treatment is necessary at their site. If 
the facility's discharge levels fall below the monthly average limit, 
EPA concluded that the facility is unlikely to expend the resources to 
install treatment. EPA's use of the monthly average limits from the 
part 413 and part 433 regulations results in higher estimates of 
baseline loadings for this sensitivity analysis than if EPA had used 
the part 413 and part 433 LTAs (see section 16.5.1, DCN 17802 for a 
comparison of part 413 and part 433 Limits and LTAs). EPA solicits 
comment on the use of the monthly average limit in the ``low 
concentration'' sensitivity analysis and in the ``Baseline 413/433'' 
sensitivity analysis discussed earlier in this section.
    The results of this ``low concentration'' sensitivity analysis are 
given, below, in Table III.E-3. EPA solicits comment on the results of 
this sensitivity analysis for both direct and indirect discharge 
facilities and if this approach should be applied in the final rule. 
EPA also solicits comment on other possible approaches to address those 
facilities with low concentration raw wastewater characteristics and do 
not have treatment-in-place (TIP) for some or all of the their 
wastewater.

                      Table III.E-3: Results of ``Low Concentration'' Sensitivity Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  MP&M NODA Removals  (lb-eq/yr)     Removals using the ``Low
                                                 -------------------------------- Concentration'' Analysis  (lb-
                MP&M Subcategory                                                              eq/yr)
                                                      Direct         Indirect    -------------------------------
                                                                                      Direct         Indirect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (GM).............................         996,741       1,240,219         908,473         643,427
Metal Finishing Job Shops (MFJS)................           1,652          93,190           1,652          54,135
Printed Wiring Board............................             186         153,653             186         148,742
Zinc Platers....................................             937         123,210             335          31,286
Non-Chromium Anodizing..........................       2,392,735              NA       2,387,268              NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Revisions to the Cost Modules

    In addition to the changes to the Cost & Loadings Model that affect 
the estimates of pollutant loadings and reductions, EPA has also 
revised several aspects of the costing portion of the model (``cost 
modules''). EPA has included explicit costs for increased analytical 
monitoring, incorporated the revised long-term average concentrations, 
and made several minor corrections to various cost modules. EPA is also 
considering the addition of a sand filter to the BAT technology option. 
All changes to the cost modules are fully described in a memorandum 
entitled, ``Cost Model Changes Incorporated into the MP&M Design and 
Cost Model Since Proposal,'' section 16.6.1 of the public record, DCN 
16741.
1. Addition of Monitoring Costs
    As discussed in the proposal (66 FR 478), EPA assumed that 
facilities meeting local limitations or national effluent guidelines 
and pretreatment standards will already incur monitoring costs. EPA did 
not include monitoring costs in the estimates of operating and 
maintenance costs for the proposal and solicited comments on that 
approach. EPA received many comments indicating that EPA needed to 
include monitoring costs as the proposed MP&M rule regulates several 
additional pollutants (e.g., tin, sulfide and lead) than previous 
applicable effluent guidelines. EPA is planning to incorporate 
monitoring costs into the cost modules for the final rule and has done 
so for the analyses presented in today's document. However, EPA 
concluded that the estimate used for today's document is conservative 
(i.e., potentially over-costed) as it applies an annual monitoring cost 
of $13,400 for all model sites; however, sulfide, tin, and/or lead are 
not proposed to be regulated in some subcategories (e.g., tin, lead, 
and sulfide were not proposed to be regulated for railroad line 
maintenance facilities or shipbuilding dry docks and tin and lead were 
not proposed for oily wastes facilities). For the final rule, EPA may 
apply the pollutant-specific additional monitoring costs to facilities 
in subcategories with proposed limits for tin, sulfide, and lead, as 
appropriate (e.g., if sulfide is not regulated in the metal-bearing 
subcategories, no cost for sulfide monitoring will be included at those 
facilities). EPA currently estimates the pollutant-specific additional 
annual cost of quick turn-around sample analysis for lead (by graphite 
furnace) to be approximately $2,500; for tin to be approximately 
$4,700; and for sulfide to be approximately $6,200 (see memorandum 
entitled, ``Incremental Monitoring and Analytical Costs at MP&M 
Facilities,'' section 16.6.1 of the public record, DCN 16733 for a 
discussion on the basis of this cost estimate).
2. Other Costing Changes
    As discussed in section III of today's document, EPA is using over 
82 new sets of additional data (7 new sets from EPA's sampling program 
and 75 new sets from industry submitted data) to revise the target 
effluent concentrations used for the MP&M Cost & Loadings Model. 
Facilities use target effluent concentrations (or Long Term Averages 
(LTAs)) for designing a wastewater treatment system. The revised LTAs 
used in the Cost & Loadings Model for today's document and the 
methodology to develop those LTAs can be found in a memorandum 
entitled, ``Cost Model LTA: Cost Model Procedure for Calculation Long 
Term Averages (LTAs)

[[Page 38765]]

for the MP&M Cost Model,'' section 16.5.1, DCN 16742.
    In addition, EPA has reviewed the equations used for various 
pollution prevention cost modules (i.e., paint water curtain, counter-
current cascade rinsing, machine coolant recycling) and has made 
several minor corrections. For example, EPA corrected an error in the 
equation to calculate labor and electrical costs in the machine coolant 
recycling cost module.
    EPA is also reviewing data received in comments to enhance the 
pollution prevention cost modules to incorporate reductions associated 
with the practices of the Pollution Prevention Alternative for metal 
finishing job shops discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (66 
FR 512). EPA has also prepared a report summarizing the findings of 
several case studies and information from additional research on 
pollution prevention in the metal finishing industry. If EPA 
incorporates the Pollution Prevention Alternative into the final rule, 
EPA will use the data in this report and the data submitted by 
commenters to develop more comprehensive pollution prevention cost 
modules. See section 16.4 of the public record, DCN 16865 for the 
report entitled, ``Evaluation of the MP&M P2 Alternatives.''
3. Consideration of Additional Treatment to Existing Source BAT (Sand 
Filter)
    EPA is considering the addition of a sand filter to follow the 
clarifier as BAT treatment technology for metal-bearing subcategories. 
EPA received many comments that the proposed limits were not 
consistently achievable by the proposed BAT technology. EPA has 
addressed this issue in several ways, including the collection of 
additional data and changes to the statistical methodology used for 
calculating numerical limits (see section VI of today's document for a 
discussion of revisions to the statistical methodologies). Commenters 
also suggested the use of a sand filter to further ensure that minor 
disruptions (or ``burps'') in the treatment system would not result in 
violation of the limits.
    When sampling BAT treatment systems in the MP&M Phase I and Phase 
II sampling programs, EPA collected data for treatment efficiency of 
sand filters. EPA found that the concentrations of pollutants of 
concern exiting the clarifier and entering the sand filter were often 
below treatable levels or below detection. EPA concluded that this 
occurred due to the fact that the clarifiers at these facilities were 
performing exceedingly well. EPA has found that when there are 
treatable levels of pollutants in the sand filter influent, the sand 
filter has good treatment efficiency. Therefore, although the addition 
of a sand filter is not likely to have much effect, if any, on the 
achievable long-term average effluent concentrations, with the possible 
exception of total suspended solids, it would ensure consistent 
effluent quality. If EPA does add a sand filter for the final rule, EPA 
will also calculate the loadings reduced for both direct and indirect 
facilities.
    EPA notes that such an addition would also increase the compliance 
cost for the rule. To add a sand filter to the existing treatment 
train, EPA has developed a cost module for sand filtration. See the 
Multimedia Filtration Cost Module (DCN 15823) in the public record for 
detailed information on the sand filtration cost module. EPA has 
estimated national costs for the proposed Option 2 technology plus the 
addition of a sand filter for each of the metal-bearing subcategories. 
In general the cost of the ``Option 2 + Sand Filter'' represents a 32% 
increase over the revised Option 2 cost presented in section VII.A of 
today's document (see a document entitled, ``Summary of Sand Filter 
Option Costs,'' in section 6.7.1 of the public record, DCN 15823). EPA 
solicits comment on the addition of a sand filter to the BAT proposed 
technology option for metal-bearing subcategories in order to 
consistently meet the MP&M limits and standards, and on the cost module 
and national cost estimates.

G. New Survey Weights

    EPA has revised the survey weights used to generate national 
estimates for some Phase I sites used in the Cost & Loadings Model and 
is considering using these for the final rule. The proposal weights 
contributed 14,769 Phase 1 facilities to EPA's estimate of the total 
number of MP&M facilities; in contrast, the revised weights contribute 
11,865 to the total. The revised sample weights adjust for additional 
zero dischargers, remove the overestimate bias for non-zero 
dischargers, and exclude ineligible facilities. Additional information 
is provided in DCN 36086, section 19.5 of the public record. The 
revisions to the Phase I estimates are partly based upon imputed flows. 
For the final rule, if the imputed flows are substantially different as 
a result of using the revised imputation strategy described in section 
III.D, EPA also may decide to revise the sample weights for the Phase I 
facilities.

IV. Changes Considered to Applicability, Definitions, and Regulated 
Pollutants

A. Changes Considered to Applicability and Definitions

    EPA received comment on several aspects of the applicability of the 
proposed rule. This section discusses changes EPA is considering for 
the final rule including: (1) The definition of ``oily operations'' for 
the Oily Wastes Subcategory; (2) clarification of differences between 
the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories; (3) clarification of 
applicability language as it pertains to printed wiring board job shops 
and printed wiring assembly facilities; and (4) clarification to the 
definition of new sources and the ``grandfather'' clause for facilities 
currently regulated as new sources under 40 CFR part 433 or 420.
    As discussed in section III.A.1 of today's document, EPA is 
considering revising the applicability of the Oily Wastes Subcategory 
based on changes to the proposed definition for ``oily operations.'' 
EPA notes that such a revision would also affect the applicability of 
the General Metals Subcategory. EPA received comments concerning the 
definition of ``oily operations'' used in the applicability statement 
of the Oily Wastes Subcategory. Commenters provided data on several 
MP&M unit operations which were not part of the ``oily operations'' 
definition in the proposed rule. The data demonstrate low levels of 
metals in these unit operations that would not require treatment for 
metals removal. Based on the data received and a review of other unit 
operations containing only low concentrations of metals, EPA is 
currently considering a revision of the definition to read as follows:

    Oily operations means one or more of the following: alkaline 
cleaning for oil removal, aqueous or solvent degreasing, corrosion 
preventative coating (as specified in Sec. 438.61(b)); floor 
cleaning; grinding; heat treating; deformation by impact or 
pressure; machining; painting (spray or brush); steam cleaning; and 
testing (such as hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic 
flux); iron phosphate conversion coating; abrasive blasting, 
alkaline treatment without cyanide; assembly/disassembly; tumbling/
barrel finishing/mass finishing/vibratory finishing; burnishing; 
electrical discharge machining; polishing, thermal cutting; washing 
of final products; welding; wet air pollution control for organic 
constituents; bilge water; adhesive bonding; and calibration.

    EPA notes that iron phosphate conversion coating should be 
distinguished from zinc, manganese, or nickel phoshate conversion 
coating based on the constituents of the bath.

[[Page 38766]]

Manganese, nickel, or zinc phosphate conversion coating baths contain 
metals in addition to what may be added from the substrate. EPA 
solicits comment on the following definition: ``Iron phosphate 
conversion coating baths consist of a phosphoric acid solution 
containing no metals. Any metal concentrations in the bath are from the 
substrate.''
    EPA notes that in addition to adding several low metal 
concentration unit operations to the definition under consideration, 
the Agency is also considering the removal of ``laundering'' from the 
definition. EPA does not consider wastewater discharges from laundering 
(uniforms, etc.) at MP&M facilities to be process wastewater under the 
MP&M rule. The inclusion of laundering in the proposed definition of 
oily operations was an oversight which the Agency intends to correct 
for the final rule.
    EPA did not include sampling data from paint stripping and 
electrolytic cleaning due to the elevated levels of metal constituents 
from these sources. For this notice, EPA did not include these unit 
operations in the definition of oily operations. However, EPA solicits 
comment on whether paint stripping for non-lead based paints should be 
included in the definition of oily operations. EPA solicits comment on 
the definition of iron phosphate conversion coating as an oily wastes 
operation to distinguish it from other phosphate conversion coating 
operations such as zinc or manganese phosphatizing. EPA also solicits 
comment on the need for a definition of ``wet air pollution control for 
organic constituents'' to distinguish it from ``wet air pollution 
control for metals or fumes or dust.''
    EPA is also clarifying the determination for placing a facility in 
the Oily Wastes or General Metals Subcategory. EPA notes that the 
determination for the Oily Wastes Subcategory depends on whether the 
facility discharges wastewater from only those operations considered as 
``oily operations,'' as defined above. With the exception of mixed-use 
facilities, as proposed, a MP&M facility would fall under only one 
subcategory. If a facility is discharging wastewater from only ``oily 
operations,'' as defined above, then it would be in the Oily Wastes 
Subcategory. If a facility is discharging wastewater from oily 
operations and other MP&M operations, it would not be covered in the 
Oily Wastes Subcategory. If this facility is not a printed wiring board 
facility, metal finishing job shop, non-chromium anodizer, or steel 
forming & finishing facility, then it would be regulated under the 
General Metals Subcategory. If a facility was discharging wastewater 
from oily operations and performed, but did not discharge wastewater 
from, other MP&M operations, it would still be considered in the Oily 
Wastes Subcategory.
    EPA received comment requesting clarification of whether or not 
wastewaters from MP&M-like operations, such as gravure cylinder and 
metallic platemaking, conducted within or for printing and publishing 
facilities were covered by the MP&M regulation. EPA excluded such 
facilities from the Electroplating (40 CFR 413.01(c)) and Metal 
Finishing (40 CFR 433.10(c)(1)) effluent guidelines. However, in the 
proposed MP&M rule, EPA did not discuss the applicability to these 
facilities. EPA did not include these facilities in the data collection 
efforts for the proposed regulation, and therefore, EPA's current 
intent is that the final rule would not apply to these facilities.
    As discussed in section III.A of today's document, EPA has made 
some revision to the subcategorization of certain facilities. As 
discussed, EPA received comments that indicated that PWB job shops are 
more similar to PWB facilities than metal finishing shops and are 
therefore not properly categorized with the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory. EPA also reviewed the operations of Printed Wiring 
Assembly facilities to determine whether it properly categorized these 
for proposal. As a result, EPA is considering a number of changes for 
the final rule in the categorization of such facilities. EPA's 
rationale for these changes is discussed in further detail in section 
III.A. EPA would place printed wiring board job shops in the Printed 
Wiring Board Subcategory instead of the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory and would place printed wiring assembly facilities in the 
General Metals Subcategory.
    EPA solicits comment on these intended revisions and whether or not 
EPA should include a definition to identify printed wiring assembly 
facilities in the General Metals Subcategory applicability statement. 
Commenters have suggested the following definition for Printed Wiring 
Assembly or Electronic Manufacturing Services facilities in the General 
Metals Subcategory:

    Contract electronics design and assembly, also known as 
electronics manufacturing service (EMS) facilities provide some or 
all of the following services: electronics design, electronics 
assembly, electronics testing, and product assembly for other 
company's electronics products. Electronics assembly is the practice 
of building up the electronic product by inserting electronic 
components onto/into a bare circuit board, soldering the components 
to the board, and in some cases applying a conformal coating and/or 
cleaning the completed assembly. Other manufacturing functions 
include testing, ``burn-in'' of the components, and box build. Bare 
boards are, along with electronics components, an input to the 
assembly process. The manufacture of bare circuit boards is not part 
of the assembly or EMS process.

    As described in the proposed MP&M rule (66 FR 506), both indirect 
and direct dischargers would be ``new source'' under the new rule if 
construction commences following 60 days after publication of the final 
rule. EPA recognizes that, for indirect dischargers, this may be 
different from what was done in past effluent guidelines, where the 
proposal date was used to determine a new source.
    In addition, EPA received comments regarding the confusion of the 
``grandfather'' clause for facilities that are currently subject to new 
sources limitations and pretreatment standards under either 40 CFR part 
433 or 40 CFR part 420. EPA included language in the proposal to 
provide a protection period for facilities currently subject to ``new 
source'' regulation. This language may be found in the codified portion 
of the proposal under the NSPS and PSNS (new source) sections for the 
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shop, Non-Chromium Anodizing, 
Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories. 
EPA's intent was to include language to protect facilities that are 
currently regulated as new sources under other regulations from a 
requirement to comply with the Metal Products and Machinery limitations 
and standards for a period not greater than 10 years from the date of 
completion of the new source construction. Section 306(d) of the CWA 
provides that any point source which is constructed to meet new source 
performance standards shall not be subject to any more stringent 
standards of performance during a 10-year period beginning on the date 
of completion of such construction or another statutorily defined 
period whichever ends first. 33 U.S.C. 1316(d).
    At the suggestion of some commenters, EPA is considering moving the 
grandfathering language it had proposed to the existing source 
provisions (BPT, BAT, PSES) of each relevant subcategory for the final 
rule. For example in the General Metals Subcategory proposed 
Secs. 438.12 (BPT) and 438.14 (BAT) this change could appear as 
follows:

    (d) If a point source meets the applicability criteria in 
Sec. 438.10, and construction was

[[Page 38767]]

commenced on that point source after [insert date 10 years prior to 
the date that is 60 days after the publication date of the final 
rule] but before [insert date that is 60 days after the publication 
date of the final rule], and it was subject to the provisions of 40 
CFR 433.16, then the point source must continue to achieve the 
applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 433.16 until 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 this section.

Section 438.15 would be amended to add paragraph (e) as follows:

    (e) If a source meets the applicability criteria in section 
438.10, and construction was commenced on that source after [insert 
date 10 years prior to the date that is 60 days after the 
publication date of the final rule] but before [insert date that is 
60 days after the publication date of the final rule], and it was 
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 433.17, then the source must 
continue to achieve the applicable standards specified in 40 CFR 
433.17 for ten years beginning on the date the source commenced 
discharge, or for the period of depreciation or amortization of the 
facility for the purposes of section 167 or 169 (or both) of the 
Internal Revenue Code, whichever is shorter. Thereafter, the source 
must achieve the applicable standards specified in this section.

Sections 438.16 (NSPS) and 438.17 (PSNS) would be amended by removing 
paragraph (a) and renumbering the remaining paragraphs. If EPA were to 
make this change for the final rule, it would make the appropriate 
changes for all effected subcategories. Finally, EPA has received 
comment regarding the transfer of certain operations from the existing 
Iron & Steel effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420) to the proposed MP&M 
effluent guidelines. In the proposed MP&M rule, EPA refers to 
facilities with these operations as the Steel Forming & Finishing 
Subcategory. Specifically, EPA proposed to move the following 
operations from Iron & Steel to MP&M: surface finishing or cold forming 
of steel bar, rod, wire, pipe or tube; batch electroplating on steel; 
continuous electroplating or hot dip coating of long steel products 
(e.g. wire, rod, bar); batch hot dip coating of steel; and steel wire 
drawing. These operations produce finished products such as bars, wire, 
pipe and tubes, nails, chain link fencing, and steel rope. The Agency 
proposed to move these operations into the MP&M rule from stand-alone 
facilities, as well as from facilities that also have other operations 
that are currently regulated by the Iron & Steel effluent guidelines 
(i.e., facilities that are making steel and producing wire and wire 
products and are subject to both ELGs and the combined wastestream 
formula).
    Since proposal, EPA revisited the record of the representative iron 
and steel finishing operations and compared the associated wastewater 
characteristics to those from the wire drawing facilities that were 
sampled under the MP&M rulemaking effort. EPA confirmed that the 
wastewater characteristics of the proposed transferred operations more 
closely resemble those from MP&M operations than those from 
representative iron and steel finishing operations. For instance, the 
average lead and zinc concentrations in wastewaters from the 
transferred wire drawing facilities are one to three orders of 
magnitude higher than those from representative iron and steel 
facilities. On the other hand, the concentrations for these pollutants 
are within the range of pollutant concentrations found in similar MP&M 
operations. Furthermore, most of the unit operations present in 
facilities being considered for transfer are the same as those found in 
the MP&M facilities, while only approximately 30% of these operations 
are the same as those found in the iron and steel facilities. EPA 
performed a comparison of flow rates between the transferred facilities 
and the proposed iron and steel finishing subcategory. The average flow 
rate from the proposed Iron & Steel Finishing subcategory is 
approximately half billion gallons per year, while the average flow 
rate from the transferred facilities is less than 30 million gallons 
per year (see Iron & Steel ELG record, Docket Number W-00-25, section 
14.2, DCN #IS10740). EPA also notes that the average flow rate from the 
General Metals Subcategory of the MP&M rule is of the same order of 
magnitude as that from the transferred facilities. As a result of the 
above evaluations, EPA continues to conclude that the transferred 
operations would be more appropriately regulated under part 438, the 
MP&M effluent limitations guidelines and standards, in the Steel 
Forming & Finishing Subcategory. If EPA finalizes limitations and 
standards for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory of the MP&M 
regulation, EPA will also amend the applicability section of the iron 
and steel rulemaking to reflect this change. Until then, these 
operations continue to be regulated under part 420.
    EPA also proposed moving certain electroplating operations 
currently subject to the Metal Finishing part 433 effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards into the revised part 420. Commenters on the 
Iron & Steel proposed rule strongly opposed the incorporation of the 
continuous electroplating of flat steel products (e.g., sheet, strip, 
plate) into part 420, indicating the preference for electroplating 
operations of all types to be considered as a whole (e.g., under the 
part 433 regulations or eventually the MP&M regulations). EPA proposed 
to regulate similar operations in the MP&M proposal in a number of 
subcategories. EPA decided not to include wastewater discharges from 
continuous electroplating of flat steel products in the final Iron & 
Steel regulations (signed on April 30, 2002). Wastewater discharges 
from these operations are currently subject to part 433 and EPA's 
present intention would be to include these in the Steel Forming & 
Finishing Subcategory of the final MP&M regulations. EPA will include 
these facilities in its analyses for the final rule. All non-
confidential items pertaining to these facilities can be found in the 
public record for this document.

B. Changes Considered to the Pollutants Selected for Regulation

    EPA received comments on several of the pollutants that were 
selected for regulation in the proposed rule. Based on new data from 
industry sources and EPA's data collection effort, EPA is considering 
whether to revise the list of pollutants selected for regulation. For 
example, EPA has also collected analytical data specific to the Steel 
Forming & Finishing Subcategory after proposal and is including this 
data in its analyses and in the MP&M rulemaking record.
1. Tin
    EPA received comments regarding EPA's selection of tin as a 
regulated pollutant for metal-bearing subcategories. Many of the 
comments revolved around whether or not tin can be precipitated using 
EPA's proposed BAT technology that includes hydroxide precipitation. Of 
the 25 sites having tin data, 20 show tin removals greater than or 
equal to 95 percent. EPA's sampling data show a median removal of tin 
in BAT treatment systems of 98.6 percent. Analysis of the treatment 
systems employed by these sites shows that all but two use chemical 
precipitation followed by solids removal with either a clarifier or 
membrane filter. The two sites not using chemical precipitation list 
ultrafiltration, presumably for removal of oil and suspended solids, as 
their treatment technology.
    Unlike other priority pollutant metals, tin does not readily form 
insoluble metal hydroxides in the chemical precipitation process. Based 
on information provided in the CRC

[[Page 38768]]

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (68th Edition), there are two 
possible insoluble forms of tin that are produced during treatment of 
MP&M wastewater: tin sulfide (SnS) and tin phosphate 
(Sn3(PO4)2). The CRC lists the 
solubility of tin sulfide at 0.02 mg/L. The CRC lists tin phosphate as 
insoluble, but provides no maximum concentration. According to another 
reference (Freeman, H.M., ``Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste 
Treatment and Disposal, 1989), tin in metal-bearing wastewater is often 
found complexed with other constituents such as chelating agents 
present in electroless plating wastewater or cleaning solutions. 
Removal of the tin complex requires pH adjustment to break the tin-
chelant bond followed by the reduction of tin to its elemental form.
    Based on the information provided in the literature and gathered 
from the MP&M sampling episodes, no conclusions can be drawn regarding 
the excellent tin removals by the chemical precipitation systems 
sampled by EPA. The mechanism of tin removal is likely dependant on the 
chemistry of the influent wastewater, and involves a combination of 
sulfide precipitation, phosphate precipitation, and co-precipitation 
with other metals such as iron. EPA currently intends to retain tin as 
a regulated pollutant. EPA will reevaluate this intention if additional 
data received in comment indicates chemical precipitation followed by 
gravity settling will not meet the proposed effluent limit.
2. Total Sulfide
    EPA also received many comments on its proposal to regulate total 
sulfide for many of the proposed subcategories. Commenters in the 
metal-bearing subcategories (i.e., general metals, metal finishing job 
shops, printed wiring boards, steel forming & finishing, and non-
chromium anodizing) were concerned that regulation of sulfide would 
limit their ability to use sulfide-based chemistries in their treatment 
systems. Commenters pointed to other chemicals that EPA chose to not 
regulate based on their use as treatment chemicals (e.g., aluminum, 
iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium, sulfate, chloride, ziram). Based on 
its use as a treatment chemical in the metal-bearing subcategories EPA 
intends to not regulate total sulfide for the metal-bearing 
subcategories in the final rule. EPA solicits comment on this change.
3. Molybdenum
    EPA received comments regarding the selection of molybdenum as a 
regulated pollutant. Similar to the comments on tin, the comments 
revolved around whether or not molybdenum can be precipitated using 
hydroxide precipitation as is used in EPA's proposed BAT technology. 
EPA has reviewed literature to find out whether or not molybdenum will 
precipitate using either hydroxide or sulfide precipitation. and has 
found that molybdenum does not form metal hydroxide precipitates (see 
memorandum titled ``Molybdenum,'' section 16.2, DCN 17754). Molybdenum 
was observed at detectable concentrations in 283 of 1306 treatment 
system samples representing all 111 sampling episodes. The molybdenum 
raw waste concentrations ranged from 0.0007 to 40.3 mg/l. Effluent 
concentrations ranged from 0.0007 to 3.22 mg/L. Treatment effectiveness 
calculations of the chemical precipitation systems ranged from a 
negative 249% to a positive 71% removals (see memorandum titled 
``Molybdenum,'' section 16.2, DCN 17754).
    The sampled hydroxide precipitation treatment systems did not show 
a consistent ability to remove molybdenum from waste water. Molybdenum 
is, however, present is waste waters as described above and is removed 
incidentally in waste treatment systems. These removals may occur when 
molybdenum adheres to oily wastewaters that are removed in the oil 
water separation step or other treatment steps such as flocculation. 
EPA is reviewing these removal mechanisms for molybdenum. In addition 
to EPA's sampling data, airline industry submitted data demonstrates 
removals of molybdenum from BAT treatment systems with supplementary 
chemical additives between a negative 4% to a positive 85%. Therefore, 
EPA has included molybdenum removals in its estimates of pollutant 
reduction for the MP&M NODA. However, based on its inability to be 
treated by EPA's proposed hydroxide chemical precipitation technology, 
EPA is considering not regulating molybdenum in the final rule. EPA 
solicits comment on this change.
4. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
    As discussed in section II of today's document, EPA did not sample 
any BAT Steel Forming & Finishing facilities prior to proposal and 
solicited data from such facilities. Based on post-proposal sampling 
data collected for the Steel Forming & Finishing (SFF) Subcategory, EPA 
is considering the following pollutants for regulation of direct 
dischargers for this subcategory: chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, 
manganese, molybdenum, tin, oil and grease (as HEM), and total 
suspended solids. EPA is considering the same pollutants as above for 
indirect dischargers except for oil and grease (as HEM) and total 
suspended solids. At proposal, EPA based the selection of pollutants 
for regulation for this subcategory on data transfers from the General 
Metals Subcategory. Of the pollutants proposed for regulation for the 
Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory, EPA is considering to no longer 
regulate cadmium, cyanide, silver, total sulfide, organics (e.g., TOP, 
TOC) as these pollutants are not found in SFF wastewater at treatable 
levels.

V. New Information and Consideration of Revision to Economic & 
Benefit Methodologies

A. Revised Cost Pass-Through and Market Structure Analysis

    As discussed in Chapter 5 of the document titled, ``Economic, 
Environmental, and Benefits Analysis for the Proposed Metal Products & 
Machinery Rule,'' (EEBA) (EPA-821-B-00-008), and in response to 
comments received on the proposal economic impact analysis, EPA revised 
the analysis of cost pass-through potential for the 19 MP&M sectors. 
This analysis estimates how much of compliance-related cost increases a 
sector can be expected to pass on to its customers in higher prices. 
The analysis consists of two parts:
     An econometric analysis of the historical relationship of 
output prices to changes in input costs, and
     An analysis of market structure characteristics.
    These two analyses together provide a cost pass-through coefficient 
for each sector. This analysis refines the methodology developed for 
the Phase 1 and proposal MP&M analyses in several places, and updates 
the data used through 1996, the base year of the regulatory analyses. 
Changes to reporting by NAICS codes for the Census economic data but 
not for price indices in 1997 prevented use of later years' data in 
this analysis. Today's document provides a summary of the revised 
analysis. More complete documentation is provided in section 17.2.1, 
DCN 35250, of the public record.
1. Econometric Analysis
    EPA performed an econometric analysis of input costs and output 
prices to estimate cost pass-through elasticities for 18 of the 19 
Phase I and Phase II MP&M Sectors. These elasticities indicate the 
changes in output prices by

[[Page 38769]]

sector that have occurred historically in relation to changes in the 
cost of production inputs.
    EPA estimated the cost elasticity of price by regressing annual 
output price indices on annual input price indices. Use of historical 
data took into account the full range of possible mechanisms by which 
input costs affect output prices, including technical changes, 
substitution, non-competitive pricing mechanisms, imperfect 
information, and any other shifts or irregularities in the supply and 
demand functions.
    The 19 MP&M industry sectors encompass 224 different SIC codes. EPA 
was able to estimate the cost elasticity of price based on historical 
data for only 170 manufacturing SIC codes. EPA could not estimate the 
cost elasticity of price for Aerospace and all non-manufacturing 
industries due to data limitations. The Agency assigned a cost pass-
through coefficient to the aerospace sector based on the market 
structure analysis. EPA assumed zero cost pass-through for non-
manufacturing industries because these industries tend to be more 
competitive due to lower entry barriers than in manufacturing 
industries.
    The estimated parameters show that 16 of the 18 MP&M industrial 
sectors have been able to increase selling prices between 0.39 percent 
and 1.2 percent for every one percent increase in input costs. This 
means that some industrial sectors exhibit a potential for recovering 
only a fraction of the input price increase through an increase in the 
output price while other sectors have the ability to raise their output 
prices in excess of input price increases. The estimated input cost 
coefficients are negative for two industrial sectors: Printed Circuit 
Boards and Office Machines. In both of these sectors, output prices 
decreased as input costs increased. This negative relationship 
indicates that significant competition in these sectors combined with 
technological innovation have yielded market conditions with declining 
output prices regardless of the change in production input costs. Based 
on these findings, EPA assumes that the Printed Wiring Board and Office 
Machine sectors have zero cost pass-through ability. Estimated 
regression coefficients for the 18 industrial sectors are presented in 
section 17.2.1, DCN 35250, of the public record.
    EPA assigned MP&M sectors to low, average, and high cost pass-
through categories based on the results of the regression analysis. EPA 
then compared the classifications with the results of the market 
structure model.
2. Market Structure Analysis
    EPA assessed the market structure characteristics of each MP&M 
sector, in order to validate the values for cost pass-through potential 
estimated in the regression analysis. How much of a cost increase a 
firm can pass on through higher prices depends on the relative market 
power of the firm and its customers. The market structure analysis 
assesses the relative market power enjoyed by firms in each MP&M sector 
and provides ordinal rankings that were used to validate the cost pass-
through coefficients estimated by the econometric analysis. EPA 
analyzed five indicators of market power: concentration, import 
competition, export competition, long term growth, and barriers to 
entry and exit. Section 17.2.1, DCN 35250, of the public record 
provides detailed descriptions of the rationale for using these 
measures and the metrics and data sources EPA used to evaluate each 
measure. EPA only considered manufacturing firms; it excluded non-
manufacturing firms due to data limitations. As noted above, EPA 
assigned zero cost pass-through ability to non-manufacturing firms.
    EPA again assigned each sector to high, medium and low cost pass-
through categories based on the results of the market structure 
analysis, and compared the results of this classification with the 
classification based on the regression analysis.
    The two analyses classified 13 of the 19 sectors in the same cost 
pass-through (CPT) category (high, medium or low). For these sectors, 
the market structure analysis appears to validate the cost pass-through 
coefficient derived using the econometric analysis. No econometric 
estimate is available for the aerospace sector. EPA categorized this 
sector in the high CPT category based on the market structure analysis 
only and estimated its cost pass-through coefficient as the average CPT 
value for all sectors classified in the high category based on the 
regression analysis (excluding Mobile Industrial Equipment whose CPT 
coefficient was also revised based on the market structure analysis). 
For the remaining five sectors; however, the two analyses assign 
sectors to different cost pass-through categories. EPA undertook a more 
detailed analysis of these sectors' market structures to validate their 
cost pass-through coefficient. EPA based the choice of a cost pass-
through coefficient for this document on this more detailed analysis 
for the following sectors: Job Shops, Other Metal Products, Aircraft, 
Motor Vehicle, and Mobile Industrial Equipment. In 4 cases (Job Shops, 
Other Metal Products, Motor Vehicle, and Aircraft), the more detailed 
market structure analysis confirmed the regression estimates of the 
econometric analysis, and in one case (Mobile Industrial Equipment) EPA 
rejected the classification based on the econometric analysis.
    EPA assigned the Mobile Industrial Equipment sector to the high 
category by the econometric analysis and the average category by the 
market structure analysis. EPA concluded that this sector is more 
appropriately characterized by average cost pass-through because the 
sector has witnessed trends in recent years suggesting that firms in 
this sector lack strong ability to pass through cost increases. 
Specifically, growth rates in the construction industry and in the farm 
and machinery equipment industries began leveling or even declining in 
recent years after a sustained period of growth. These declining trends 
are not fully represented in the regression analysis because the last 
year of data for the analysis is 1996. EPA therefore revised the cost 
pass-through coefficient for this sector to equal the average cost 
pass-through value for all sectors classified in the average category 
based on the regression analysis.
    Section 17.2.1, DCN 35250, of the public record provides the choice 
of a cost pass-through coefficient for this document selected for each 
sector. The specific values selected for each sector (high, average and 
low) are the regression elasticities for the 17 sectors where the 
regression results were confirmed by the market structure analysis 
(including the detailed analysis), and the average of the regression 
coefficients in the appropriate category (high, average or low) for the 
sector that was re-classified based on the market structure analysis 
(Mobile Industrial Equipment) and for Aerospace. The revised cost pass-
through analysis resulted in a significantly lower cost pass-through 
coefficient of 0.57 for Job Shops than was used in the proposed rule 
analysis, and zero cost pass-through for Printed Wiring Boards, Office 
Machines, and all non-manufacturing facilities. In the analysis for 
proposal, EPA assumed that non-manufacturing facilities in a given 
sector had the same cost pass-through potential as manufacturing 
facilities in the same sector.
    The estimated cost pass-through coefficients reflect sector-level 
cost pass-through potential. Cost increases that affect all facilities 
in an industry are more likely to be recovered through industry-wide 
price increases, whereas cases where only some facilities in an

[[Page 38770]]

industry incur cost increases are less likely to result in price 
increases. To account for the likelihood that cost pass-through ability 
will vary with the extent to which regulation-induced cost increases 
apply generally over production in a sector, the analysis adjusts the 
estimated cost pass-through potential for the estimated extent of 
industry coverage. Specifically, the analysis adjusts the cost pass-
through potential by multiplying the estimated sector-wide cost pass-
through coefficient by the fraction of a sector's production value that 
is expected to incur compliance costs.
    Findings from the revised cost pass-through analysis in general are 
consistent with findings from the cost pass-through analysis reported 
by the industry associations, including Printed Wiring Board and Metal 
Finishers. Specifically, facilities belonging to the Printed Wiring 
Board subcategory were found to have zero cost pass-through potential. 
The Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory was found to have a low cost 
pass-through potential. EPA estimated new cost pass-through 
coefficients and adjusted them by the fraction of the sector's 
production value that is expected to incur compliance costs. The effect 
of these two changes decreased the cost pass-through coefficient 
assigned to the Job Shop subcategory from 0.91 at proposal to 0.25.
    The estimated cost pass-through coefficients reflect industry-wide 
cost pass-through potential. Under conditions of perfect competition--
including product homogeneity (i.e., products produced by one firm are 
perfect substitutes for products produced by other firms), and 
homogeneity of production technology and cost across firms--the price 
response to a general industry-wide change in production costs is 
likely to be industry-wide and similar across all firms. However, for a 
number of reasons, markets in modern manufacturing industry generally 
diverge to some degree from these perfect competition conditions. 
Example reasons include: variation in product quality; imperfectly 
competitive markets (e.g., markets in which individual firms possess 
different degrees of market power); and segmented markets (e.g., 
geographically segmented markets). In the presence of such 
imperfections, individual firms will very likely respond differently in 
their ability to pass on cost increases in higher output prices even 
when the production cost increase applies to all, or a substantial 
fraction, of an industry's production. To assess the sensitivity of the 
economic impact analysis results to the sector-wide cost pass-through 
estimates, EPA also conducted the economic impact analysis based on the 
assumption that no cost increases can be recovered through price 
increases. The Agency found that results for 17 of the 19 MP&M 
industrial sectors do not significantly vary when the zero cost pass-
through assumption is used instead of the estimated cost pass-through 
capabilities. The only exceptions are the Metal Finishing Job Shop and 
Iron and Steel sectors. Assuming a zero cost pass-through coefficient 
for these sectors resulted in an increase in the number of severe 
impacts from 520 to 565 and 17 to 21, respectively, under the NODA 
option with methodology changes. Detailed results using zero cost pass-
through assumption can be found in section 17.1.5, DCN 35060, of the 
public record. EPA solicits comment on these changes to the methodology 
for cost pass-through.

B. Consideration of Changes to Closure and Financial Stress Test 
Methodologies

1. Sector-Specific Thresholds for Evaluating Moderate Impacts
    For the proposed rule analysis, EPA evaluated moderate impacts 
based on two measures of financial health: pre-tax return on assets 
(PTRA) and the interest coverage ratio (ICR). PTRA is a measure of 
profitability and measures the firm's ability to provide returns 
adequate to attract external capital or to justify reinvestment of the 
firm's own resources. ICR is a measure of the firm's ability to pay 
fixed interest costs, and affects the firm's ability to obtain debt 
financing. EPA used a single threshold for each measure (8 percent for 
PTRA and 4 for the ICR) to determine when a firm might experience 
financial stress in the proposed rule analysis. Commenters questioned 
this approach because a single threshold measure does not account for 
differences in the rates of return required to attract investment in 
different industries. For the final rule analysis, EPA is considering 
using sector-specific thresholds for these measures. Use of thresholds 
specific to each sector will account for industry differences in the 
factors that contribute to financial distress, such as the volatility 
of their earnings, and will improve the reliability of the analysis. 
For the analyses presented in section VII.A.3 of today's document, EPA 
has incorporated these changes into the methodology.
    Risk Management Associates (RMA, formerly Robert Morris Associates) 
provides information on the distribution of selected financial ratios 
for specific industries, defined by SIC codes. The RMA data come from 
credit data submitted by RMA-member lending institutions. As a result, 
the RMA data may not include the most vulnerable firms in each 
industry, which are unlikely to be applying for loans. EPA used as a 
threshold the lowest fourth-quartile value for two financial 
indicators: (1) Pre-tax return on sales (PTRS) and (2) interest 
coverage ratio. EPA substituted PTRS for the pre-tax return on assets 
ratio used in the analysis for the proposed rule. In theory, return on 
assets is a more appropriate measure of financial performance as viewed 
by investors. RMA notes, however, that firms with heavily depreciated 
plant, large intangible assets, and unusual income or expense items can 
lead to distortions in the return-on-asset ratios. While the return-on-
sales ratio can also be distorted by unusual income or expense items, 
it is not subject to distortions based on reported assets. EPA 
therefore chose the sales-based ratio as a more reliable comparison of 
financial performance within sectors. The twenty-fifth percentile is 
the value below which the lowest quarter of firms in each industry 
fall. It is important to note that these thresholds may indicate 
financial distress, but are not a reliable measure of potential 
closure. A quarter of the firms in each industry report values below 
the thresholds, many of which may continue to operate comfortably with 
those financial characteristics. The thresholds used are likely to 
overstate moderate impacts for the following reasons: (1) The RMA 
database may not include the most vulnerable firms in each industry; 
and (2) having values in the lowest fourth quartile may be adequate to 
support continued trouble-free operation for some firms.
    EPA developed thresholds by weighting the RMA lowest quartile value 
for each SIC in a sector by the 1997 value of shipments for that SIC 
relative to the total 1997 sector value of shipments. The calculations 
were done separately for manufacturing and non-manufacturing SICs in 
those sectors that have both. The thresholds were weighted using 1997 
value of shipments because data are available from the Census for all 
SICs for that year, while data for between-Census years are only 
reported for manufacturing SICs. EPA assumed that the value of shipment 
weights for 1997 would be similar to the weights for 1996, if 1996 
value of shipments data were available for all SICs. The PTRS and ICR 
sector-specific thresholds can be found in section 17.5.1, DCN 35450, 
of the public record.

[[Page 38771]]

2. Use of Single Net Present Value Test To Assess Potential for 
Closures
    For the proposed rule analysis, EPA estimated the potential for 
facility closures due to the regulation using two tests: negative Net 
Present Value (NPV) (based on going concern value minus liquidation 
value) for facilities that provided information on liquidation values 
(most Phase I facilities and Phase II facilities with flows greater 
than 1 million gallons per year), and negative After-Tax Cash Flow 
(ATCF). Facilities that failed both tests under baseline or post-
compliance conditions are baseline or post-compliance closures, 
respectively. For facilities that did not provide liquidation values, 
EPA used only the ATCF test. Commenters questioned this use of a two-
test approach for estimating closures in facilities for which it can be 
done both ways. For the final rule, EPA is considering using a single 
test for closures, based on the NPV of the facility.
    NPV including liquidation values is conceptually an appropriate 
measure of long-term viability, for two reasons. First, a firm can have 
positive cash flow but still not be making a return sufficient to 
retain investment over time. The net present value test takes into 
account the return required for a facility to continue to attract 
sufficient investment to continue operating. Second, a firm's decision 
to close a facility can be influenced by the extent to which the 
facility's assets can be sold or put to other uses. In addition, firms 
consider the direct costs of closing the facility, which may include 
the costs of cleaning up contaminated sites, state requirements to 
treat contaminated sediments, legal fees, lease obligations, employee 
termination costs, and the like, when deciding whether to close a site. 
Both industry- and site-specific factors influence the value of a 
site's assets for other uses, including the transferability of fixed 
assets to other uses and current market demand for products in 
inventory.
    Where estimates of liquidation value are available the most 
reasonable way to assess the potential for site closures is to compare 
the value of the site if it continues to operate (the net present value 
of the business as a ``going-concern'') with its value if it is closed 
(the liquidation value.) Net liquidation values (proceeds from closing 
less the costs of closing) can be either positive or negative. 
Facilities will be more likely to close, other things being equal, the 
higher their liquidation values and the lower their post-closure costs.
    EPA requested information on site liquidation values in its Phase 2 
economic surveys. Of the 938 sample MP&M facilities, 219 provided 
liquidation values in the survey. EPA attempted to estimate liquidation 
values where they were not reported but concluded that predicting 
liquidation values based on the facility-specific information provided 
by the surveys would add substantial uncertainty to the analysis. 
Estimates of liquidation value are available only for 23 percent of the 
sample facilities. Given EPA's belief that liquidation value estimates 
are substantially speculative and subject to considerable error, EPA 
intends for the final rule analysis, to calculate net present value 
based solely on the facility's value as a going concern and to not 
account for liquidation value as part of the net present value test. 
The Agency recognizes that assessing closures based only on going 
concern value may overstate the likelihood of closure where liquidation 
value is negative and understate the likelihood of closure where 
liquidation value is positive. EPA seeks comment on this approach. 
Analyses presented in section VII.A.3 of today's document include the 
use of a single test based on NPV excluding consideration of 
liquidation values.
    To assess the sensitivity of the economic impact analysis results 
to the inclusion or exclusion of liquidation values, EPA also conducted 
its analysis including liquidation values in the NPV test for 
facilities that reported liquidation values. The Agency found that 
including liquidation values in the NPV test resulted in a decrease in 
the number of severe impacts for the Metal Finishing Job Shop, General 
Metals, and Oily Wastes subcategories from 520 to 348 and from 111 to 
96 and from 1 to none, respectively. On the other hand, including 
liquidation values in the NPV test resulted in an increase in the 
number of severe impacts in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory from 
55 to 83 under the NODA option. Other subcategories were not sensitive 
to inclusion of liquidation values in the NPV test. Detailed results 
using available liquidation values can be found in section 17.1.3, DCN 
35050, of the public record.
3. Evaluation of Altman Z' as an Alternative Test for Moderate Impacts
    Based on comments received, EPA is evaluating use of the Altman Z' 
test as an alternative to the PTRA and ICR tests for moderate impacts 
for the final rule. This test has been used in other ELGs, and it is 
commonly used as a predictor of bankruptcies. The Altman Z' test 
predicts firm bankruptcies based on a weighted set of firm financial 
ratios. The ratios and weights were developed in a multiple 
discriminant analysis of 33 publicly-traded firms that declared 
bankruptcy between 1945 and 1965 and another 33 non-bankrupt publicly-
traded firms. The original model was later re-estimated to allow its 
use for privately-held firms, although the analysis was based on the 
same sample firms and financial data. The resulting model calculates a 
``Z'' score as a combination of five financial ratios: working capital/
total assets, retained earnings/total assets, earnings before interest 
and taxes (EBIT)/total assets, book value of net worth/total 
liabilities, and sales/total assets. ``Z'' scores of less than 1.23 
indicate high potential for bankruptcy, scores above 2.90 indicate low 
potential for bankruptcy, and scores in between are indeterminate.

C. Consideration of Changes to Cash Flow Calculations

    EPA received a number of comments on the calculation of cash flows 
used to assess the potential for closures and moderate impacts as a 
result of the rule. EPA is considering a number of changes to the 
calculation of cash flow to address these comments. These include 
incorporating a measure of normal capital outlays in baseline cash 
flow, limiting the recognition of tax shields associated with 
compliance costs, updating survey financial data to current dollars 
using sector-specific price indices, and adjusting the methods used to 
recognize the cost of financing compliance capital costs. EPA solicits 
comment on these issues.
1. Baseline Capital Outlays
    Commenters expressed the view that EPA's economic impact analyses 
should take account of MP&M firms' regular need to replace and update 
their pollution control and other capital equipment. The commenters 
suggested using accounting depreciation data provided in the MP&M 
surveys as a proxy to include these expenditures in estimated cash 
flows.
    EPA recognizes that cash outlays for capital replacement and 
additions are required for a firm to remain in business, and should be 
reflected in the cash flows used to assess economic impacts. However, 
the Agency does not conclude that accounting depreciation provides a 
reliable proxy for these continuing capital expenditures. Reported 
depreciation is a periodic accounting charge for capital assets 
acquired in the past, and may be either larger or smaller than annual 
future capital expenditures for several reasons.

[[Page 38772]]

Depreciation is based on historical cost, which may not equal the 
replacement cost of capital assets. In addition, reported depreciation 
is based on various accounting and tax reporting conventions that may 
bear little resemblance to the actual economic life and consumption of 
capital assets. Finally, a firm's capital outlay decisions are 
influenced by the quality of its investment opportunities, the 
financial health of the enterprise, and by general business conditions, 
which vary over time.
    As an alternative approach, EPA developed a regression model of 
capital outlays that relates capital expenditures to a firm's financial 
characteristics and the general business environment. Specifically, the 
model relates a firm's historical capital expenditures to: firm-
specific revenues, capital turnover rate, and capital intensity; 
capacity utilization in the relevant industry; and the economy-wide 
cost of debt capital and rate of change in the price of capital goods. 
This model can be used to estimate baseline continuing capital outlays 
for each MP&M facility, which can then be included in the discounted 
cash flow analyses used to assess facility economic impacts. EPA's goal 
is to estimate baseline cash flow for the business as it is (under 
steady-state conditions). EPA therefore estimated the model using data 
for a 10-year period that reflected a range of economic conditions. The 
Agency would use the estimated model in conjunction with MP&M facility 
characteristics and indicators of the general business environment for 
the relevant years to estimate facility capital expenditures. The 
analyses presented in section VII.A.3 of today's document include 
baseline capital outlays based on the regression model discussed above.
    EPA seeks comment on the regression model and its use to calculate 
baseline capital expenditures. The regression model is described in 
detail in section 17.3.1, DCN 35350, of the public record.
2. Consideration of Tax Effects
    Compliance costs are tax deductible for income tax purposes. Firms 
incurring these costs will therefore pay fewer taxes than they 
otherwise would pay, which partially offsets the negative impact of the 
compliance costs on firms' income. The proposed rule analysis assumed 
that firms would benefit by the full amount of tax shields on 
compliance costs, based on a standard assumed 34 percent marginal tax 
rate. Some commenters expressed concerns about MP&M firms' ability to 
make use of the full tax shield from compliance costs. In particular, 
firms may not be paying sufficient taxes in the baseline to take 
advantage of the tax shields in the year compliance costs are incurred. 
Some firms with lower net income may also be paying less than the 
assumed 34 percent marginal tax rate. While firms may be able to carry 
forward losses to reduce taxes in later years, EPA recognizes that the 
methods used in the proposed rule analysis to calculate tax benefits 
may overstate those benefits in some cases. This is more likely to be 
true for single-facility firms, whereas parent companies with multiple 
facilities might take current advantage of tax benefits from losses at 
individual facilities.
    To address this issue, EPA is considering limiting the calculation 
of tax shields to no greater than the amount of tax paid by facilities 
in the baseline. For the purposes of the analyses presented in today's 
document, EPA has incorporated this change in methodology. As a result, 
the analysis assumes that facilities will not be able to offset an 
implicit negative tax liability against positive tax liability 
elsewhere in the firm's operations or to carry forward (or back) the 
negative income and its implicit negative tax liability to other 
positive income/positive tax liability operating periods. On average, 
this approach will overstate impacts on facilities, because some MP&M 
firms may be able to use tax shields that exceed baseline taxes at the 
affected facility, especially if the facility is owned by a multiple-
site firm. EPA is also considering applying this limitation on tax 
benefits only to single-facility MP&M firms. The Agency seeks comments 
on this issue.

D. Updating Survey Data to Current Dollars

    For the proposed rule analysis, EPA used the Producers Price Index 
(PPI) for all industrial goods to update Phase II MP&M survey data to 
1996 values. Since that analysis was completed, EPA has compiled 
sector-specific PPI values and intends to use these values to update 
the survey data for the final rule analysis. The analyses presented in 
section VII.A.3 of today's document include the use of sector-specific 
price indexes. Detailed information on the methods used to calculated 
sector-specific PPIs and the results are provided in section 17.5.2, 
DCN 35460, of the public record.

E. Adjusting Abnormally High Labor Cost Estimates

    Since proposal EPA found that the per-employee labor costs for 
certain privately held facilities are materially higher than the 
average over all facilities in the same subcategory. Labor costs for 
these facilities thus appear to be overstated and include ``excess 
owner compensation'' that, under a more precise accounting regime, 
would be recorded as facility profit. Including the excess owner 
compensation in the labor cost account reduces the apparent 
profitability of these facilities and increases the likelihood that 
they will fail the post-compliance closure test (if they passed the 
baseline closure test). To illustrate, one facility, a Job Shop, 
reported per employee labor cost of $71,000 that is nearly triple the 
average of other facilities in this industrial sector and its labor 
costs as a percent of reported total operating costs are also extremely 
high. This per-employee level of labor costs indicates that the owner 
of the facility may have reported the business' net income in 
compensation expense (i.e., as compensation to the owner that exceeds 
the fair market value of management services) instead of facility 
profit.
    The Agency found that about two percent of the sample facilities 
report abnormally high labor costs. To estimate more accurately the 
profits for facilities that appear to overstate their labor cost, the 
Agency is considering adjusting reported facility labor costs based on 
Economic Census data. This adjustment involves the following steps. 
First, the Agency estimated average per-employee labor cost by 
establishment size for the MP&M sectors based on Economic Census data. 
Second, EPA identified facilities reporting per employee labor costs in 
excess of 1.5 times the average per employee labor cost, estimated for 
facilities in that sector and of that establishment size. For 
facilities with per-employee costs exceeding the 1.5-multiple-of-
average threshold, the Agency revised the calculation of facility net 
present value based on the adjusted labor costs and used the revised 
facility value in the facility closure test. For the analyses presented 
in section VII.A.3 of today's document, EPA has incorporated these 
changes into the methodology. Section 17.5.3, DCN 35470, of the public 
record summarizes average per employee labor cost by establishment size 
for the MP&M sectors based on Economic Census data. EPA solicits 
comment on this approach and on the extent to which ``excess owner 
compensation'' occurs within various MP&M sectors.

F. New Information on POTW Administrative Costs

    EPA received comments regarding the use of EPA's 1997 POTW survey. 
Commenters stated that EPA underestimated the administration costs

[[Page 38773]]

to POTWs to implement this rule. Commenters provided new information on 
POTW characteristics which EPA will use to refine its analysis of POTW 
administrative costs and benefits for the final rule. The Association 
of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies (AMSA) conducted a survey of the 150 
POTWs included in EPA's 1997 POTW survey. Responses to the AMSA survey 
were received from 70 sewerage authorities representing 177 POTWs. The 
177 POTWs responded to the AMSA survey correspond to 77 POTWs included 
in the EPA survey. In addition, the North Carolina Pretreatment 
Consortium conducted a survey of POTWs in that state. EPA is evaluating 
the results of these surveys, and will use the results as appropriate 
to verify and supplement information from the previous MP&M POTW survey 
on loadings, number of MP&M facilities served, and administrative 
costs. The AMSA and North Carolina Pretreatment Consortium surveys can 
be found in section 17.6 of the public record.

G. Human Health Benefits From Reduced Exposure to Lead

    For the proposed rule analysis, EPA assessed benefits of reduced 
lead exposure from consumption of contaminated fish tissue to three 
population groups: (1) Preschool age children, (2) pregnant women, and 
(3) adult men and women. The quantified health effects in children 
included neurological effects to preschool children and neonatal 
mortality. The quantified health effects in adults all related to 
lead's affect on blood pressure (BP) and included incidence of 
hypertension in adult men, initial non-fatal coronary heart disease 
(CHD), non-fatal strokes (cerebrovascular accidents (CBA) and 
atherothrombotic brain infarctions (BI)), and premature mortality.
    The health effect quantified for the proposed rule presented only a 
portion of the spectrum of adverse health effects potentially caused by 
exposure to lead, even at relatively low doses. Health effects related 
to lead that were not valued in the benefits calculations of the 
proposal include cancer, cognitive and behavioral effects in older 
children and adults, infertility in men and women, decreased physical 
growth in children, hematological and kidney effects, and peripheral 
nervous system effects. EPA continues to evaluate the available 
information to determine whether there is sufficient data to support a 
dose-response function for one or more of these additional lead effects 
on human health.
    Since the proposed rule analysis was completed, EPA analyzed the 
data available on the carcinogenic effects of lead. EPA classified lead 
as a B2-probable human carcinogen based on ``sufficient'' animal 
evidence in its evaluation in 1989 and reported its findings in the 
IRIS file (IRIS 2002; see section 17.7.7, DCN 35740). Kidney tumors 
linked to lead exposure were the most common tumor type reported at 
statistically significant levels by EPA. EPA examined the supporting 
evidence for lead carcinogeneity (e.g., animal assays and human 
epidemiological studies) and calculated a cancer potency value for 
lead. This value can be used when evaluating oral exposure to lead 
associated with consumption of contaminated food. EPA obtained the 
cancer potency value based on a study by the California Air Resources 
Board (CARB, 1997), which is supported by EPA in its IRIS file. The 
estimated cancer potency value for lead is 8.5 x 10-3 (mg/
kg/day)-1. A discussion of derivation of the lead cancer 
potency factor by the CARB appears in section 17.7.7, DCN 35740, of the 
public record. Based on the cancer potency factor of 
8.5 x 10-3 (mg/kg/day)-1 the regulatory options 
presented in the NODA would reduce the number of cancer cases 
associated with exposure to lead by 0.009 cases and result in annual 
monetized benefits of $0.06 million (1999$).
    EPA also revised the analysis of neurological effects in preschool 
age children. Avoided neurological and cognitive damages from reduced 
exposure to lead are expressed as changes in overall IQ levels, 
including reduced incidence of extremely low IQ scores (70, or two 
standard deviations below the mean), and reduced incidence of blood 
lead levels above 20 mg/dL. The analysis of neurological effects in 
children relies on blood lead concentrations as a biomarker of lead 
exposure and a dose-response relationship between blood lead level and 
IQ decrements determined by Schwartz (Schwartz, 1994). For this 
rulemaking, we are using EPA's Integrated Exposure, Uptake, and 
Biokinetics (IEUBK) Model for Lead in Children to obtain both baseline 
and post-compliance distribution of blood levels in the population of 
exposed children. In estimating blood lead levels in the population of 
exposed children for the proposed rule analysis, EPA assumed that 
children are most sensitive to lead exposure up to age 7 (i.e., through 
age 6 or from 0 to 72 months) and that infants are introduced to fish 
at 11 months. EPA revised these assumptions for the NODA analysis based 
on recommendations from Dr. Mark Maddaloni, member of the EPA technical 
review workgroup for lead (see section 17.7.7, DCN 35741). First, for 
the final rule analysis, the Agency is considering a revised assumption 
that children are at risk from exposure to lead from 0 to 84 months. 
Second, since the proposed rule analysis, the Agency reviewed 
recommendations on infants' diets and found that children may be 
introduced to fish earlier than 11 months. Various child care 
organizations, including the National Network for Child Care (http://www.nncc.org), recommend introducing infants to fish between 6 and 12 
months (see section 17.7.7, DCN 35742). Children from recreational and, 
in particular, subsistence fishing families may therefore start eating 
fish at an age earlier than 11 months. EPA is considering using the 
assumption for the final rule analysis that children of recreational 
and subsistence anglers are introduced to fish at 9 months. Finally for 
the proposed rule analysis, the Agency assumed that the bioavailability 
of lead in food is three percent. EPA based this assumption on 
recommendations made for the analysis of adult health effects (see 
section 17.7.7, DCN 35743). Using the bioavailability factor developed 
for adults in the analysis of children's health effects was incorrect 
because lead absorption rates are different in children and adults. As 
a result of this error, the estimated benefits from reduced exposure to 
lead were biased downward (see section VII). EPA is considering the use 
of the standard IEUBK assumption regarding lead bioavailability in food 
for the final rule analysis. According to the standard IEUBK 
assumptions, the bioavailability factor used in calculating blood lead 
levels in the population of exposed children changes from 0.03 to 0.5 
for the NODA analysis. EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriateness 
of using the revised assumptions in the analysis of neurological 
effects in preschool age children.

H. Ohio Case Study

    For the proposed rule, EPA conducted an original travel cost study 
in the State of Ohio, using the National Recreational Demand Survey 
(NDS) and a Random Utility Model (RUM) of recreational behavior, to 
estimate the changes in consumer valuation of water resources that 
would result from improvements in water quality. The case study 
supplements the national level analysis performed for the proposed MP&M 
regulation analysis by using additional

[[Page 38774]]

data on MP&M facilities, non-MP&M dischargers, and the baseline water 
quality in Ohio and methods to determine MP&M pollutant discharges from 
both MP&M facilities and other sources, and by estimating a state-
specific model of recreational behavior for four water-based recreation 
activities (including fishing, boating, swimming, and wildlife 
viewing). The RUM used in the analysis estimates the effects of the 
specific water quality characteristics analyzed for the proposed MP&M 
regulation (i.e., the presence of ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) 
exceedances and concentrations of the nonconventional nutrient Total 
Kjeldahl Nitrogen.) The direct link between the water quality 
characteristics analyzed for the rule and the characteristics valued in 
the RUM analysis aimed at reducing uncertainty in benefit estimates and 
to make the analysis of recreational benefits more robust. Chapter 21 
of the proposed rule EEBA presents this study in detail.
    After the proposal, EPA submitted its RUM analysis for an official 
peer review using EPA's official peer review process. To review the 
analysis, EPA's contractor selected four well-respected resource 
economists with extensive experience in developing RUM models for 
valuing the effects of improving environmental quality on recreational 
decisions as shown by their publication in the Journal of Environmental 
Economics and Management, Land Economics, and the American Journal of 
Agricultural Economics or related journals. These individuals are 
(listed in alphabetical order):
     Dr. Michael W. Hanemann, Chancellor's Professor, 
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, and Goldman School 
of Public Policy, University of California;
     Dr. Daniel Hellerstein, USDA/ERS;
     Dr. John B. Loomis, Professor, Department of Agricultural 
and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, CO; and
     Dr. I. E. Strand Jr., Professor Department of Agricultural 
and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
    The peer review concluded that EPA had done a competent job, 
especially given that the available data and that the methodology of 
the linked trip and RUM model is ``nearly the state of the art for the 
problem of estimating recreational benefits'' (J. Loomis, 2001; see DCN 
35660). The reviewers also noted that EPA was quite conservative in its 
analysis and may have understated the recreation benefits of the 
environmental improvements due to the omission of multiple-day trips. 
As requested by the Agency, peer reviewers provided suggestions for 
further improvements in the analysis. Since the proposed rule analysis, 
the Agency made changes to the Ohio model and conducted additional 
sensitivity analyses suggested by the reviewers. The peer review report 
appears in section 17.7.3, DCN 35660, of the public record. EPA's 
response to peer reviewers' comments along with the revised model 
appears in section 17.7.3, DCN 35661, of the public record.

I. Recreational Benefits

    For the proposed rule national analysis, EPA assessed recreational 
and non-use benefits from reduced effluent discharges and improved 
habitats or ecosystems for three water-based recreation activities: (1) 
Recreational fishing, (2) recreational boating, and (3) wildlife 
viewing. EPA used the National Demand Study data to estimate the number 
of person-days of boating and wildlife viewing in counties affected by 
MP&M discharges. EPA used county level fishing license data to estimate 
the number of recreational fishermen.
    When estimating the percentage of state populations participating 
in recreational boating and wildlife viewing for the proposed rule, EPA 
considered only those persons who made single-day trips during the 
period specified in the survey. Accordingly, when estimating the 
average number of recreation days per person per year for each 
activity, EPA used the survey responses of only those individuals whose 
last trip for the activity was a single-day trip. EPA excluded 
multiple-day trips from the proposed rule analysis because these trips 
generally involve longer travel distances from a participant's home. In 
effect, EPA assumed that participants would be less aware of reductions 
in concentrations of MP&M pollutants in these farther-located water 
bodies.
    Since completion of the proposed rule, EPA has revised its 
methodology for estimating person-days of recreational boating and 
wildlife viewing. EPA no longer restricts its analysis to single-day 
activities; instead, it considers all participants who took a single- 
or multiple-day trip close to their home. EPA made this change in 
response to peer reviewers' comments on the Ohio case study analysis. 
The peer review report appears in section 17.7.3, DCN 35660, of the 
public record. The revised analysis includes multiple-day trips that 
were within 120 miles one-way from a participant's home. The Agency 
concluded that participants will be sufficiently aware of improvements 
in the water quality of water bodies located within this distance to 
justify their inclusion in the benefits analysis for the final MP&M 
rule. EPA included multiple-day trips for an activity for only those 
participants whose last trip was within 120 miles one-way from their 
homes. EPA assumes that other multiple-day trips taken earlier in the 
year by these participants for the same activity were also within the 
120-mile threshold and includes these trip days in the benefits 
analysis. For participants whose last multiple-day trip for an activity 
took them more than 120 miles from their homes, EPA assumes that all 
their prior multiple-day trips for this activity were also more than 
120 miles from their homes and thus excludes them from the benefits 
analysis. Excluding from the analysis those recreational users who take 
multiple day trips farther than 120 miles from their homes may 
underestimate the total number of recreational users benefitting from 
water quality improvements if a site is a nationally important 
recreational area (e.g., Great Lakes). However, the analysis could 
overstate the total number of recreational users by including all 
multiple day trips taken by residents of the counties affected by MP&M 
discharges because some of these trips can be taken to remote 
destinations.
    The methodology revisions have increased the national estimates for 
total person-days of recreational boating and wildlife viewing. For 
reference purposes, an analysis of various characteristics of the 
National Demand Study data appears in section 17.7.4, DCN 35680, of the 
public record.
    EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of including 
recreational users who took multiple day trips in the vicinity of their 
home to assess the total number of recreational users benefitting from 
water quality changes associated with the MP&M rule.

J. POTW Characteristics

    For the proposed rule analysis, EPA obtained information on 
characteristics of POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP&M 
facilities from the EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database. POTW 
characteristics that serve as input data into the environmental 
assessment analyses include POTW flow, location, and the receiving 
water body name and identification number. The PCS database, however, 
does not often provide POTW flow information if a POTW is classified as 
a minor discharger (i.e., if a POTW discharges less than two million 
gallons of wastewater per day). For the proposed

[[Page 38775]]

rule analysis, EPA set the POTW flow rate equal to the arithmetic mean 
flow among POTWs associated with the sample MP&M facilities in the 
absence of data on POTW flow rates in PCS. The estimated arithmetic 
mean flow for POTWs associated with the sample MP&M facilities for 
which flow information is provided in the PCS database is 61.4 million 
gallons per day (MGD). In response to comments received on the 
environmental assessment analysis, EPA has revised its approach to 
assigning a POTW flow value in the absence of data on POTW flow in PCS. 
Because all POTWs receiving discharges from the sample MP&M facilities 
for which flow data are not available in the PCS databases are 
classified as minor dischargers in the PCS database, EPA calculated an 
arithmetic mean flow for minor POTWs for which either actual or design 
flow information is available. The estimated mean flow for POTWs that 
are classified as minor dischargers is 1 MGD. EPA will use this 
estimate for all POTWs that receive discharges from the sample MP&M 
facilities in the absence of flow data in PCS. Results of the POTW flow 
analysis are provided in section 17.6.2, DCN 35553, of the public 
record.

K. Drinking Water Intakes

    EPA revised the database of drinking water intakes that it uses for 
estimating human health effects associated with consumption of 
contaminated drinking water. The proposed rule used drinking water 
intakes data derived from EPA's software BASINS 1.0, which was released 
in May 1996. For the NODA analysis, EPA replaced the older BASINS 1.0 
data with information on drinking water intakes from the Safe Drinking 
Water Information System (SDWIS). SDWIS is being updated on a 
continuous basis and provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date 
information on drinking water intake structures, including latitude/
longitude data and the number of individuals served by a given drinking 
water system. This resulted in the reduction of the total number of 
drinking water supply systems from 6,603 facilities to 6,048 
facilities. However, correcting the latitude/longitude information for 
drinking water intakes changed the receiving reach and the number of 
households served by each drinking water intake based on the data 
provided in SDWIS. These changes resulted in a significant increase of 
the total number of individuals served by some public water supply 
systems located downstream from MP&M facilities. EPA presents the 
number of individuals served by public water supply systems affected by 
MP&M dischargers by reach ID in section 17.7.7, DCN 35744, of the 
public record.

L. Extrapolation of Sample-Based Results to the National Level

    As discussed in the Executive Summary of the proposal EEBA, EPA 
historically extrapolates baseline conditions, costs, economic impacts, 
and benefits associated with sample facilities to the total industry 
population using sample facility weights. The weights are derived as 
part of the stratification process involved in developing the 
questionnaire. The sample weights are based on the stratification of 
the facility population using known variables such as facility size and 
SIC code or industry sector. Due to the lack of data on non-facility 
characteristic variables (e.g., receiving water body type and size and 
size of the affected population), stratification generally does not 
reflect variables related to these characteristics, even though they 
may influence the occurrence and magnitude of the expected benefits. 
The national-level analysis therefore assumes that facilities 
represented by the sample facility not only have the same technical and 
economic/financial characteristics but also have the same benefit 
characteristics. These assumptions may introduce a larger than desired 
uncertainty in both economic impact and benefits analyses and even 
cause anomalies in the results.
    As discussed in the proposal (66 FR 536), the Agency is currently 
working on alternative methods to extrapolate the MP&M facility sample 
to address this issue, and expects to complete this effort as part of 
the analysis for the final regulation.
    One method to extrapolate benefits to the national level is to use 
post-stratification. Post-stratification would require classifying all 
sample facilities into several classes or groups called secondary 
strata. If, for example, occurrence or the size of benefits differs 
markedly among facilities discharging to different water body types or 
sizes, then post-stratification of the MP&M sample using such strata 
would be helpful in improving the precision of benefits estimates. The 
Agency identified secondary strata and determined the impacts of those 
characteristics on both benefit occurrence and magnitude. EPA 
identified the following secondary strata: water body type (i.e., bay, 
ocean, Great Lakes, lakes, and streams), water body size (as defined by 
reach flow), and population size in the vicinity of the affected reach. 
This analysis was performed based on the input data used for the 
proposed rule analyses because new loading estimates were not available 
at the time when this analysis was performed. A summary of this 
analysis appears in section 17.7.5, DCN 35700, of the public record. 
EPA is seeking comment on the appropriateness of using the listed 
secondary strata such as water body type, stream flow, and population 
size in post-stratifying of the MP&M sample.
    EPA is also considering use of the Ohio case study results to 
develop an alternative estimate of the monetary value of national 
benefits. Specifically, the Agency is considering making a national 
extrapolation of the Ohio case study results, based on two key factors 
that affect the occurrence and magnitude of benefits: (1) The estimated 
change in the MP&M pollutant loadings; and (2) the level of 
recreational activities on the reaches affected by MP&M discharges. The 
first factor--the estimated change in total pollutant loadings 
(measured as toxic pounds removed)--reflects the potential for 
improvements in surface water quality. Note that changes in total 
pollutant loadings can be also measured as total suspended solids (TSS) 
or chemical oxygen demand (COD) removed. The three different measures 
can be used to develop a range of benefit estimates. The second 
factor--the level of recreational activity in the relevant geographic 
areas (i.e., counties where MP&M facilities are located)--reflects the 
degree to which there is a demand by local residents to use water 
resources that are likely to be affected by MP&M discharges. Another 
important factor that impacts the magnitude of benefits is the type and 
significance of water resources affected by MP&M dischargers. The State 
of Ohio includes a wide variety of water body types affected by MP&M 
dischargers, including freshwater streams, large rivers, and the Lake 
Erie. Therefore the estimated state level benefits may be 
representative of benefits associated with the majority of water bodies 
types affected by MP&M discharges. The two variables can be used to 
develop a range of national level benefits based on the Ohio study 
results.
    The first step in applying this alternative extrapolation method is 
to develop a measure of benefits per toxic pounds removed. This measure 
can be developed by simply dividing the state-level benefit estimates 
by the total number of toxic pounds removed in the state of Ohio ($ per 
toxic pound removed). Both values are readily available from the Ohio 
case study. Multiplying the estimated per toxic pound values by the 
total number of

[[Page 38776]]

toxic pounds removed extrapolates the state level benefits to the 
national level. EPA was unable to apply this methodology to estimating 
national benefits for the NODA option because new pollutant loading 
estimates have not been estimated for the MP&M facilities that 
completed the Ohio case study questionnaire.
    The second factor, the number of recreational angling, boating, and 
wildlife viewing days, can be used to scale up or down the national 
level estimates developed based on the total number of toxic pounds 
removed. The appropriate adjustment factor is the ratio of the number 
of recreational users per reach mile at the national level to the 
number of recreational users per reach mile in Ohio. Accounting for 
differences between Ohio and the nation in recreational intensity is 
necessary because the total user value of water quality improvements is 
a function of the number of users associated with a particular reach. 
EPA will also examine recreation valuation literature to determine 
whether willingness to pay (WTP) for water quality improvements in Ohio 
is likely to be different compared to other states. If necessary, EPA 
will develop adjustment factors to reflect variations in the WTP values 
in different states or regions.
    This alternative extrapolation method can be used to determine 
state-level benefits in addition to the total national benefits. First, 
the state level analysis would first estimate the state-level number of 
toxic pounds removed by apportioning the national estimate of toxic 
pounds removed to each state based on the level of MP&M business 
activity in a given state (e.g., total revenues associated with MP&M 
sectors in a given state). Multiplying the estimated per toxic pound 
benefits by the total number of toxic pounds removed in a given state 
yields the estimate of state-level benefits. The estimated state level 
benefits can be adjusted up or down based on the level of recreational 
activity per reach mile in a given state compared to the level of 
recreational activity in Ohio. The state-based approach would produce 
more precise results than a national analysis because some states may 
have fewer MP&M facilities and a large number of water bodies suitable 
for recreation, while other states may have a relatively large number 
of MP&M facilities and fewer water bodies suitable for recreation.
    EPA solicits comment on the appropriateness of using the 
alternative approach to assess the national level benefits, based on 
extrapolating the Ohio case study results.

VI. Consideration of Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards

    This section describes how EPA developed limitations and standards 
presented in Section VIII of today's document. The first subsection, 
VI.A, discusses the limitations and standards; EPA's evaluation of the 
achievability of these limitations and standards; and its evaluation of 
factors that commenters suggested would influence the values EPA 
calculated for the long-term averages. The second subsection, VI.B, 
describes EPA's consideration of alternatives to the limitations and 
standards for the total organic pollutants (TOP) parameter. The third 
subsection, VI.C, describes minor revisions to the statistical 
methodologies that EPA is considering in developing numerical 
limitations and standards for the MP&M industry. For the most part, 
these revisions are consistent with the methodology used in recent 
effluent limitations guidelines rulemakings for other industries.
    This section uses slightly different terminology from that used in 
the statistical support document and the technical development document 
(TDD) for the proposal. Rather than using the term ``facility-
specific'' for long-term averages and variability factors calculated 
using each episode data set, this section refers to these as ``episode 
long-term averages'' and ``episode variability factors.'' As explained 
in section VI.C, in developing the long-term averages and variability 
factors, EPA may have used data from more than one episode at a 
particular facility. In these cases, EPA has calculated separate values 
for each episode. EPA also has changed the terms ``pollutant-specific 
long-term average'' and ``pollutant-specific variability factor'' to 
``option long-term average'' and ``option variability factor'' to refer 
to estimates for long-term averages and variability factors for each 
pollutant in an option for a subcategory.
    In section VIII of today's document, EPA is presenting limitations 
and standards in units of concentration (i.e., milligrams per liter) 
for all subcategories except steel forming and finishing (SFF). For 
this subcategory, EPA has expressed the limitations and standards as 
lb/1000 lb (pounds per 1000 pounds of production). To obtain these 
production-normalized values, EPA used the concentration-based 
limitations and standards in section VIII, the production values in 
Table 14-7 of the proposal TDD, and the appropriate conversion factor 
as described in the proposal statistical support document. However, in 
its evaluations described in this section VI, EPA used the 
concentration-based long-term averages, variability factors, and 
limitations and standards for all subcategories, including the SFF 
subcategory. The discussion in this Section would not be altered if EPA 
had used production-normalized data rather than the concentration data 
in its evaluations of the SFF subcategory data.
    Section 19 of the record section contains the documents for the 
DCNs cited in this section of the NODA. In addition to the hardcopy 
version of each document, DCN 36092 in section 19.4 contains the 
electronic files for the public version of those documents.

A. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this section, EPA distinguishes between the numerical 
limitations and standards which it proposed in January, 2001 
(``proposed limitations and standards''), the numerical limitations 
and standards calculated using the NODA episode data base (``revised 
limitations and standards'') and the numerical limitations and 
standards which, for a particular pollutant, represent the greater 
of the revised limitations and standards or the proposed limitations 
and standards (``preliminary revised limitations and standards'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the proposed limitations and standards, EPA used only 
data from EPA sampling episodes. Commenters on the proposal asserted 
that facilities that were currently operating the BAT model technology 
could not achieve the levels mandated by the proposed limitations and 
standards for certain subcategories. This section describes the 
approach that EPA is considering to address this issue in the final 
rule. This section also describes EPA's evaluation of factors that 
commenters suggested would influence the values EPA calculated for the 
option long-term averages.
1. Approach
    This section describes the revised limitations and standards based 
upon the NODA episodes and EPA's approach for determining the 
preliminary revised limitations and standards presented in Section VIII 
of today's document. In general, the preliminary revised daily maximum 
limitations and standards shown in today's document are the greater 
(i.e., less stringent) of either the revised daily maximum limitations 
calculated using the NODA episodes or the daily maximum limitations 
previously proposed. (Section VI.A.1.d describes the calculation of the 
long-term average and monthly average limitations and standards.) EPA 
requests comment on this approach that EPA has used to develop the 
preliminary revised limitations and standards presented in section VIII 
of today's document.

[[Page 38777]]

a. Revised Limitations and Standards (Based on NODA Episodes)
    In its statistical analyses subsequent to the proposal, EPA used a 
combination of the data from the proposal, additional EPA sampling 
data, and industry supplied data. The combined episodes are referred to 
as ``the NODA episodes'' in this Section (see section II of today's 
document for a summary of the more than 70 new data sets). These data 
are listed in DCN 36000 in section 19.1. The electronic version (in 
both Excel and SAS formats) is provided by DCN 36091 in section 19.6.
    In today's document, EPA's use of the term ``revised limitations'' 
refers to limitations calculated using the NODA episodes and the 
modifications to the statistical methodology described in section VI.C. 
In most cases, the revised limitations and standards were lower than 
those in the proposal (see DCN 36001, section 19.1). This result was 
contrary to comments on the proposal that had asserted that the values 
of the proposed limitations and standards were too low and therefore 
could not be achieved by facilities currently operating the BAT 
technology. Instead, the additional data submissions from industry 
generally supported the achievability of the proposed values. Because 
of industry's concerns about the proposed limitations and standards, 
EPA performed additional evaluations on the revised limitations and 
standards.
b. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Limitations and Standards
    EPA compared the data from the NODA episodes to the revised 
limitations and standards (see DCN 36002, section 19.1). Although the 
NODA data were generally supportive of the achievability of the revised 
limitations and standards, the evaluation showed that some facilities 
in the NODA episodes data base might have difficulty in achieving some 
of the revised values. Thus, as described in the next section, EPA 
reevaluated the proposed limitations and standards in terms of the NODA 
episodes. The NODA data were generally supportive of the achievability 
of the proposed limitations and standards.
c. Determination of Values for Preliminary Revised Limitations and 
Standards
    Based upon its evaluations of the revised and proposed limitations 
and standards, EPA is considering selecting the greater of the proposed 
value and the revised value as the limitation/standard in the final 
rule (see section VIII for these preliminary revised limitations and 
standards). In developing these preliminary revised limitations, EPA 
first compared the two values of the proposed and revised daily maximum 
limitations and selected the one with the greater value. In order to 
have a single long-term average basis for the limitations and standards 
presented in section VIII of today's document, EPA then selected the 
long-term average and monthly average limitation corresponding to the 
daily maximum limitation/standard that had been selected. For a few 
cases, the proposed and revised daily maximum limitations/standards had 
the same value, but the proposed and revised monthly average 
limitations/standards had different values (see DCN 36050, section 
19.2). In these few cases, EPA selected the greater value of the 
proposed and revised monthly average limitation/standard and the 
corresponding long-term average. (The Costs & Loadings model used long-
term averages based upon the NODA episodes only, not the greater of the 
two proposed and revised values.)
    The term `preliminary revised limitations' refers to the 
limitations selected as a result of these comparisons and the following 
exceptions.
    The first exception to using the greater of the two values is for 
the case where EPA transferred the option long-term average and/or 
option variability factors in order to calculate the proposed 
limitations and standards. At proposal, these transfers were necessary 
because data were unavailable for some pollutants in some 
subcategories. Rather than retain these proposed transfers, EPA is 
considering an approach where the final limitations and standards would 
be based upon the available data and only using the data transfers 
described in section VI.C.
    The second exception to using the maximum value is for the total 
organic parameter (TOP). Here, EPA is considering several other methods 
as discussed in section VI.B and has presented the results from one of 
these methods as the preliminary revised limitations and standards for 
TOP in section VIII of today's document.
2. Assessment of Achievability
    In order to be responsive to the many comments about the 
achievability of its proposed limitations and standards for certain 
subcategories, EPA evaluated the preliminary revised limitations. As 
explained in the following sections, in evaluating the preliminary 
revised limitations and standards in this NODA, EPA compared those 
preliminary revised values to the effluent data from the model 
technology, effluent from more sophisticated technologies (`BAT+'), and 
the data excluded because information about influent levels were 
unavailable (as explained in section VI.C.6). EPA performed this 
comparison for all subcategories and pollutants (except TOP), not just 
those corresponding to specific comments.
a. Effluent Data From Model Technology (NODA Episodes)
    EPA compared the preliminary revised daily maximum limitations to 
the effluent data that had influent at treatable levels and used the 
model technology. As previously explained, the data from these ``NODA 
episodes'' were a combination of the episodes used in the proposal, 
more recent EPA sampling episodes, and industry submitted information.
    In this evaluation, EPA performed a check of the preliminary 
revised limitations and standards similar to that discussed in the 
proposal (66 FR 431). For the nonchromium anodizer and railroad line 
maintenance subcategories, none of the data from the NODA episodes 
exceeded the preliminary revised daily maximum limitations. For the 
other subcategories, EPA found that some values were greater than the 
preliminary revised daily maximum limitations (see DCN 36051, section 
19.2). The following paragraphs describes EPA's review of two 
pollutants and its plans for further review of all regulated 
pollutants.
    For amenable and total cyanides that EPA has proposed to regulate 
for several subcategories, while ten to fifteen percent of the values 
are greater than the preliminary revised limitations and standards, EPA 
notes that some facilities operate the cyanide destruction system 
better than others. EPA has observed these differences in the operation 
of cyanide destruction system over many years of evaluating treatment 
systems for this and other industries. In addition, as described in the 
proposal, facilities with cyanide treatment would be able to select one 
of the two cyanides to monitor with approval by the permitting 
authority. Thus, while EPA intends further evaluation of these data 
before the final rule, EPA may consider today's preliminary revised 
limitations and standards to be achievable by facilities that properly 
operate their cyanide destruction systems (e.g., sufficient detention 
time for alkaline chlorination).
    For TOC, which had about ten and twenty-five percent of the values 
greater than the preliminary revised limitations and standards for the 
Oily Wastes and General Metals subcategories,

[[Page 38778]]

respectively, EPA notes that treatment systems are not primarily 
targeting this pollutant. Further, monitoring TOC is only one of 
several options for monitoring organic pollutants (see section VI.B) 
and facilities may select a different option. Thus, while EPA intends 
further evaluation of these data before the final rule, EPA may 
determine that today's preliminary revised limitations and standards to 
be achievable by facilities that select this option.
    For all regulated pollutants in the final rule, EPA plans an 
engineering review of its data to verify that the limitations and 
standards are reasonable based upon the design and expected operation 
of the control technologies and the facility process conditions. As 
part of that review, EPA plans to examine the range of performance 
represented by the episode data sets with the model technology. Some 
episode data sets will demonstrate performance reflecting the best 
available technology and an effluent quality meeting the limitations. 
Other episode data sets may demonstrate performance from the same 
technology, but not reflect the best design and/or operating conditions 
for that technology. For these facilities, EPA will evaluate the degree 
to which the facility can upgrade its design, operating, and 
maintenance conditions to meet the limitations or standards. If such 
upgrades are not possible, then the limitations and standards would be 
modified to reflect the lowest levels that the technologies can 
reasonably be expected to achieve. Even though some individual values 
may be greater than the final limitations and standards, EPA may 
determine that they adequately reflect the treatment capabilities of 
the model technologies. In the following paragraphs, EPA presents three 
examples and possible considerations for the final rule. These examples 
are not meant to be exhaustive, but rather provide examples of the 
types of evaluations and potential outcomes that EPA may consider. EPA 
solicits comment on these evaluation approaches and additional 
approaches that could be used.
    In the first example, EPA would evaluate limitations where a few 
episodes contribute a large majority of the values greater than the 
preliminary revised limitation for a pollutant. In the General Metals 
subcategory, 78 of the 93 values greater than the copper limitation are 
all from the same episode (4737D). For the final rule, in its 
evaluation of cases like this example, EPA will evaluate whether this 
facility needs to make improvements to optimize its treatment 
performance. Based upon this review, EPA also may consider the 
possibility of excluding the data from developing the limitations and 
standards because they probably reflect less than optimal performance. 
EPA may also consider retaining the data as a conservative approach in 
developing the limitations and standards. As an alternative, EPA may 
consider using only those data to develop the final limitations and 
standards.
    In the second example, EPA would evaluate the analytical methods. 
In the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory, all the values greater than 
the HEM limitation are from one episode of self-monitoring data 
provided by industry (4892D). As explained in section VI.C.8, EPA has 
excluded all oil and grease data measured by chemical analytical 
methods that use freon. In cases like this, in addition to evaluating 
the treatment performance, EPA may investigate whether the analytical 
method has been incorrectly identified in its database.
    In the third example, EPA would evaluate the effect of influent 
levels on treatment performance. For the oily subcategory, the HEM 
values greater than the preliminary revised limitation are from two 
(4872, 4876) of the five episodes. These two episodes are associated 
with the highest influent values. In examples like this, EPA may 
investigate the impact on the performance of the technology due to the 
influent levels.
b. Effluent Data From ``BAT+'' Technology
    Because many commentors asserted that some facilities were unable 
to achieve the low concentration even with more sophisticated 
technology (``BAT+'') than the option model technology, EPA compared 
``BAT+'' data to the preliminary revised daily limitations and 
standards (see DCN 36052, section 19.2). EPA considered data from two 
types of technology as being ``BAT+ data.'' The first technology, 
``CPTF'', is chemical precipitation with clarification using a 
clarifier followed by additional treatment such as a sand filter which 
is an additional treatment step following the proposed BAT model 
technology. The second technology is chemical precipitation with 
clarification using microfiltration or ultrafiltration (CHUM).
    In general, in comparison to the BAT data, EPA found smaller or 
relatively the same percentages of the BAT+ data had values greater 
than the preliminary daily maximum limitations. EPA also noted that 
some episodes, but at different sample points, were considered in both 
the BAT and BAT+ comparisons. For some of these episodes, if the BAT 
data were greater than the preliminary revised limitations, then the 
BAT+ data also were greater than the preliminary revised limitations. 
EPA does not consider this to be a surprising result. As explained in 
section VII, addition of a sand filter is not expected to provide much 
additional removal for the pollutants when clarifiers are operating 
properly.
    For nickel in the General Metals subcategory, EPA notes that, on a 
percentage basis, more BAT+ values than BAT values were greater than 
the preliminary revised limitations. EPA intends to investigate this 
result further before the final rule.
c. Effluent Data Without Influent Information
    As another evaluation of the preliminary revised daily limitations 
and standards, EPA compared the preliminary revised limitations and 
standards to the self-monitoring data that it had excluded because of 
the unavailability of information about the influent levels at the 
facility (see section VI.C.6). In general, in comparison to the BAT 
data, EPA found smaller, or relatively the same, percentages of data 
with values greater than the preliminary daily maximum limitations (see 
DCNs 36053 and 36054, section 19.2). EPA expects that detailed review 
of these self-monitoring data will not be possible. However, if any 
extreme differences are identified, EPA is likely to contact the 
facilities for more information.
3. Evaluation of Option Long-Term Averages
    In addition to comparing the data values to the preliminary revised 
limitations and standards, EPA has evaluated factors (e.g., influent 
pollutant concentrations, multiple metals) that the comments assert 
would affect the achievability of the limitations and standards. EPA 
specifically focused its attention on the option long-term averages for 
the metals pollutants, because EPA expects facilities to target their 
treatment systems to achieve the option long-term averages used to 
calculate the limitations and standards and because comments indicated 
that achievability of those pollutants were of primary concern. In 
these evaluations, EPA used the NODA episodes (i.e., effluent data from 
the episodes used in the proposal, more recent EPA sampling episodes, 
and industry submitted data, where the facilities had influent at 
treatable levels and used the model technology). However, EPA did not 
find

[[Page 38779]]

evidence of dramatic impacts on the option long-term averages. EPA 
solicits comment on the factors that it evaluated and its analyses 
described below.
a. Influent
    Some commentors stated that the relative concentration levels in 
the influent would affect the concentration levels in the effluent. In 
particular, commentors asserted that facilities with more concentrated 
influents would have more concentrated effluents and would be unable to 
achieve the proposed limitations and standards that were developed in 
part using data from facilities with less concentrated influents. EPA 
notes that, in calculating the proposed limitations and standards, it 
had already excluded effluent data corresponding to low levels in the 
influent. EPA's purpose in excluding these effluent data sets was to 
ensure that the effluent concentrations resulted from treatment and not 
simply the absence or extremely low levels of that pollutant passing 
through a treatment system. EPA is still using this criterion in 
selecting the data used to develop the revised limitations and 
standards based on the NODA episodes. This type of data editing is 
explained further in section VI.C.6.a.
    To determine whether the remaining effluent concentrations for the 
metal pollutants could still be affected by varying levels of influent, 
EPA reviewed graphical displays of the paired influent and effluent 
values and compared the values of option long-term averages for three 
subsets of the NODA episodes based upon the averages of their influent 
values. Because the results are inconclusive and sometimes inconsistent 
with other results as described in the following sections, EPA is not 
currently planning any modifications to the limitations and standards 
that would incorporate varying levels of influent concentrations within 
a subcategory. EPA solicits comment on the conclusions that should be 
drawn from these analyses and if any other evaluations of the data 
should be performed for the final rule.
i. Graphical Displays
    For each metal pollutant in each subcategory, the graphical display 
(see DCN 36003, section 19.1) shows both the influent long-term 
averages (where available) and the corresponding effluent long-term 
averages for the NODA episodes. (Some influent long-term averages are 
missing because EPA used other information to determine that the 
influent was at treatable levels.) DCN 36004 in section 19.1 lists the 
influent and effluent long-term averages plotted in these graphical 
displays. EPA would expect to see upward trends for both the influent 
and effluent long-term averages if more concentrated influent is 
associated with more concentrated effluent.
    In general, EPA did not find any evidence of such trends or any 
patterns in the influent. Rather, EPA notes that both low and high 
influent values were often associated with the lowest effluent values. 
EPA also notedsthat some facilities (such as episode 7038P) with 
relatively high influent concentrations had relatively low effluent 
values of that particular pollutant and also had relatively low 
effluent levels of other pollutants. Thus, the facility's treatment 
system did not appear to be targeting a single pollutant, but rather, 
was able to simultaneously treat different metal pollutants to low 
levels. EPA concludes from these data that some facilities have been 
successful in treating concentrated wastes. For the final rule, EPA is 
considering further evaluation of these facilities to ascertain whether 
the facility operations are different from other ``BAT'' facilities.
    EPA also notes that the industry-supplied data appear to be evenly 
distributed across the range of effluent concentrations which was not 
consistent with industry comments which stated that industry-supplied 
data would have higher effluent concentrations than EPA sampling data.
ii. Three Subsets Based on Influent Concentrations
    For each pollutant, EPA grouped the NODA episodes into three 
subsets based on the relative levels of the influent concentrations. 
The first subset contained the NODA episodes with the lowest 50 percent 
of the influent averages. The second subset contained the NODA episodes 
with the highest 50 percent of the influent concentrations. The third 
subset contained the NODA episodes without any influent data but for 
which EPA had other information (e.g., production information) 
indicating treatable levels in the influent.
    For each subset, EPA calculated an option long-term average of the 
effluent data using the median of the episode long-term averages. As 
the following paragraphs explain, the comparisons were inconclusive and 
inconsistent for the two subsets with the lowest and highest influent 
averages (see DCN 36005, section 19.1).
    EPA noted that the subset with the lowest influent averages did not 
always correspond to the lowest option long-term average for the 
effluent data and the subset with the highest influent averages did not 
always have the highest option long-term average for the effluent data. 
The pattern of influent and effluent relationships was not consistent 
for all pollutants within a particular subcategory, nor consistent 
between subcategories for a particular pollutant.
    For some pollutants in some subcategories, there appeared to be a 
substantial difference between the option long-term averages of the 
effluent data for the different subsets. For example, for copper in the 
General Metals subcategory, there was an order of magnitude difference 
in the option long-term averages of the effluent data for the subsets 
with the lowest and highest influent averages. In contrast, for other 
pollutants in some subcategories, the results appeared to be about the 
same for the three subsets. For example, for nickel in the General 
Metals subcategory, the option long-term average for the effluent data 
was approximately 0.2 mg/L for all three subsets.
    Contrary to comments received on the proposal, EPA found from these 
data that lead in the General Metals subcategory had a higher option 
long-term average for the effluent data from the subset with the lowest 
influent averages than the option long-term average for the effluent 
data from the subset with the highest influent averages.
    EPA also noted that the results were sometimes inconsistent between 
subcategories. For example, for the copper effluent data in the General 
Metals subcategory, there was substantial difference in the option 
long-term averages for the effluent data for the subsets with the 
lowest and highest influent values. However, for those two subsets in 
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, the option long-term 
averages for the copper effluent data were similar. While EPA considers 
the wastestreams to be different between the two subcategories, the 
range between the minimum and maximum episode long-term averages for 
copper are similar (see DCNs 36006 and 36007, section 19.1).
    The third subset (i.e., the subset without any influent data) did 
not have results that were consistently like either of the other two 
subsets which made it difficult to evaluate. For the final rule, EPA 
will consider whether it has enough information to assume that those 
episodes should be assigned to either of the other subsets for its 
evaluation.
b. Industry Supplied Data
    Some commentors stated that EPA sampling data were responsible for 
the

[[Page 38780]]

low values of the proposed limitations and standards. To evaluate these 
comments, EPA calculated the option long-term averages using only the 
industry supplied effluent data (i.e., the paired influent/effluent 
data and the self-monitoring data) from the NODA episodes. Again, the 
option long-term averages were lower than those calculated using all of 
the NODA episodes. Because the paired influent/effluent data were not 
collected in order to demonstrate compliance, EPA used just only the 
self-monitoring (compliance) data and still obtained option long-term 
averages that were generally lower than the values using all of the 
NODA episodes. Generally, as shown in DCN 36008 in section 19.1, the 
highest option long-term averages resulted from using only the EPA 
sampling episode data.
c. Optimum pH
    Some commenters reported that different metals pollutants are 
associated with different optimal pH values and that it was not 
possible to achieve the low levels of the limitations and standards 
simultaneously using a single-stage chemical precipitation system. 
Ideally, in order to remove a particular pollutant, a facility would 
target its pH to the optimum pH level for chemically precipitating that 
metal. For example, cadmium has an optimum pH of about 11.4, while 
chromium, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc have optimum pH of about 9 
to 9.5. If optimum pH were a factor in achieving low levels, a facility 
that targeted its system at a pH of 9 would be expected to have 
relatively lower effluent levels of chromium, copper, lead, manganese, 
and zinc than a facility that targeted a pH of 11.4 to treat cadmium, 
but also had these other metals present at treatable levels.
    EPA examined the target pH values for the facilities that supplied 
that information (see DCN 36009, section 19.1). Most facilities target 
their systems in the pH range of 8.5 to 10.5. For some facilities 
(generally those that EPA sampled), EPA had the pH values targeted by 
the facility and the actual operational pH values during the EPA 
sampling episode. EPA identified several facilities where the target pH 
range did not overlap its operational range (see DCN 36010, section 
19.1). Thus, EPA questions the reliability of the reported target pH 
ranges. However, the target pH ranges were the best information 
available, because few facilities had supplied the operational ranges 
corresponding to the influent data. EPA compared the midpoint of the 
target pH ranges to the episode long-term averages from the NODA 
facilities. In reviewing the midpoint pH targets to the long-term 
averages (see DCN 36011, section 19.1), EPA notes that for a given pH 
target, the episode long-term averages vary substantially. Contrary to 
comments received on the proposal, EPA found that the highest episode 
long-term averages are sometimes associated with facilities that target 
the optimum pH for the pollutant (see DCN 36012, section 19.1). In 
addition, EPA notes that facilities where the midpoint, of their target 
pH values, were outside the accepted range for some pollutants had the 
lowest long-term averages for those pollutants. In a further analysis, 
EPA calculated option long-term averages using only episodes associated 
with target pH ranges of 9.0 to 9.5. By excluding episodes outside this 
pH range and episodes where pH was unavailable, EPA generally had lower 
option long-term averages than those calculated with all the NODA 
episodes. Thus, EPA has not modified its criteria to consider pH in 
selecting the data for the preliminary revised limitations and 
standards.
d. Minimum Solubility
    In addition to evaluating the available pH targets at the 
facilities, EPA also considered the minimum solubility points 
associated with a single-stage chemical precipitation system. These 
theoretical values were identified in ``Engineering and Design--
Precipitation/ Coagulation/ Flocculation'' (see (1) www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-1-4012/chap2.pdf, and (2) DCN 36013, 
section 19.1) and is the theoretical solubility in a pure solution at 
standard temperature. EPA compared these theoretical solubilities to 
the values that were used in determining treatable levels of influent. 
As explained in section VI.C.6.a, EPA defined its treatable levels of 
influent as ten times the minimum levels in EPA Method 1620.
    For cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and tin, the theoretical 
solubilities were less than the treatable levels. Thus, for those 
metals, the effluent data used in EPA's analyses were associated with 
influent levels that were greater than the theoretical solubilities, 
and therefore, the metals theoretically should precipitate.
    For lead, manganese, silver, and zinc, the theoretical solubilities 
are greater than the treatable levels. Lead, manganese, and zinc have 
approximately the same optimal pH of 9.5 while silver has an optimal pH 
of 13+. All four metals have relatively high theoretical solubilities: 
2.1 mg/L (lead), 1.2 mg/L (manganese), 13.3 mg/L (silver), and 1.1 mg/L 
(zinc). For zinc, as explained in section III.A, EPA is considering 
using data from the sampling of zinc platers to set the zinc 
limitations and standards. If EPA determines that this approach is 
appropriate, the final limitations and standards will be more than 
double the theoretical solubility and similar to those for the metal 
finishing industry in 40 CFR part 433. The solubilities for lead and 
silver are substantially greater than the daily maximum limitations of 
0.69 mg/L (lead) and 0.43 mg/L (silver) that EPA established for the 
metal finishing industry in 40 CFR part 433. The industry has 
successfully complied with the daily maximum limitations for zinc, 
lead, and silver since they were promulgated in the 1980s. EPA 
concludes that EPA's model technology is not completely reliant on the 
theoretical solubilities as other mechanisms (e.g., co-precipitation, 
mixed metals, and sulfides) may help to lower the concentration in the 
dissolved phase. Further, as explained in section VI.A.1, EPA evaluated 
the achievability of the limitations by comparing several types of data 
to the preliminary revised limitations and standards. As a result of 
that comparison, manganese was one of the pollutants with the greatest 
difference between the daily maximum limitation/standard and the daily 
values. EPA is considering whether manganese should be regulated. Based 
on this analysis, EPA has not adjusted its criteria to consider 
theoretical solubilities in developing the preliminary revised 
limitations and standards.
e. Sample Size
    EPA also evaluated comments that stated that episode data sets with 
smaller sample sizes were associated with lower effluent concentrations 
and lower variability. While this was true for some smaller episode 
data sets, other episode data sets of similar size had the highest 
concentrations and highest variability. Also, the largest data sets 
were sometimes associated with the lowest concentrations and lowest 
variability. Thus, EPA has not modified its criteria to consider sample 
size.
f. Relationship to Total Suspended Solids
    As previously stated in the proposal, EPA excluded data from 
chemical precipitation and clarification systems that did not have 
solids removal indicative of effective treatment. In general, EPA 
identified as having poor solids removal systems that did not achieve 
at least 90 percent removal of

[[Page 38781]]

total suspended solids (TSS) and had effluent TSS concentrations 
greater than 50 milligrams per liter. However, indirect dischargers may 
not target TSS as effectively as direct dischargers as indirect 
dischargers do not have TSS standards. For this reason, EPA excluded 
some episode data sets where the average effluent TSS concentrations 
did not fall below 50 mg/L. In other cases, EPA did not exclude such 
TSS data because the facility was achieving effective removal of 
targeted metals. While EPA compared the episode long-term averages of 
TSS and the metal pollutants, it did not find any trends indicating 
that TSS was a factor in the effluent. For the final rule, EPA may 
consider a more thorough analysis of the relationship between TSS and 
metals removal and solicits comment on this issue.
g. Other Factors
    Before the final rule, EPA intends to review its sampling episode 
reports to determine if there are any other common factors that should 
be considered in developing the final limitations and standards. Some 
factors that EPA may evaluate are treatment chemicals, flocculants, 
whether any special polymers were used, capacity including whether the 
system was over-designed, and clarifier overflow rates. EPA solicits 
comment on evaluating these and other factors.

B. Alternative Approaches Considered to TOP Limitations and Standards

    In today's document, EPA solicits comment, especially from permit 
writers and control authorities, as to whether a limitation/standard 
for the Total Organic Parameter (TOP) is necessary in the final rule. 
The following sections describe EPA's concerns about adequate 
characterization of the organic compounds; possible alternatives to the 
TOP limitations and standards; and three methods of calculating the TOP 
limitations and standards that EPA is considering for the final rule.
    To reduce the burden associated with monitoring for organic 
pollutants, EPA proposed three alternatives to allow for maximum 
flexibility while ensuring reductions in the amount of organic 
pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities. A facility would be 
required to: (1) Meet a numerical limit for the total sum of a list of 
specific organic pollutants called ``Total Organics parameter'' or 
``TOP'' (similar to the TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing 
effluent guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for total organic 
carbon (TOC) as an indicator parameter; or (3) develop and certify the 
implementation of an organics management plan.
1. Concerns About Adequate Characterization of Organic Compounds
    EPA is concerned that TOP limitations and standards may not be 
adequately characterizing the organic compounds present at facilities 
in different subcategories. Therefore, EPA is considering whether it 
should eliminate the option of the TOP limitations and standards in 
controlling organic discharges. Today's preliminary revised limitations 
and standards for TOP are based upon all effluent data associated with 
the options 2, 6, and 10 technologies, regardless of subcategory. 
Although it has used data corresponding to the option 10 model 
technology, EPA has not proposed TOP limitations and standards for any 
option 10 subcategory (i.e., the shipbuilding dry dock and railroad 
line maintenance subcategories).
    Although EPA evaluated organics data from 118 episodes, it only 
used data from 15 episodes because they were the only episodes with 
detectable concentrations of one or more of the 47 organic pollutants 
in the influent. EPA did not have influent data for one of the 15 
episodes (7007P). Further, EPA's database contained measurable levels 
(i.e., were detected) in the effluent for only 10 of the 47 pollutants 
(see DCN 36039, section 19.1). (Note: The proposed limitations and 
standards were based upon 48 organic pollutants, but EPA has excluded 
benzoic acid from further consideration as explained in section II.C.)
    Because of the variability in the type of organic pollutants found 
at different facilities, EPA is concerned that a thorough evaluation of 
the TOP limitations and standards may not be possible. For example, EPA 
notes that the TOP preliminary revised limitations and standards have 
fairly large values, partly because data from different subcategories 
and options are combined and partly because the data are combined from 
different episodes. EPA considers the values of the preliminary revised 
limitations and standards to be ``large'' because they account for the 
concentration levels of 47 pollutants, when the episodes had at most 25 
of the 47 pollutants at measurable concentrations in the influent, and 
at most 7 of the 47 pollutants at measurable concentrations in the 
effluent (this occurred for episode 4851). In other words, although the 
preliminary revised limitations and standards allows for concentration 
levels for 47 pollutants, EPA did not find any episode data set which 
contained all 47 organic constituents in either the influent or 
effluent. Thus, EPA is considering whether these large values are 
sufficiently protective of the environment. Conversely, facilities tend 
to be fairly unique in the types of organic compounds that they 
generate in the influent. Thus, EPA may not have provided adequate 
allowance for the discharge of organic constituents from some unique 
facilities.
2. Consideration of Alternative to TOP Limitations and Standards
    Instead of a limit for TOP, EPA is considering another alternative 
where EPA would provide guidance on developing limitations and 
standards for the specific organics that would be present in the 
influent at a particular facility. These limits would be the 
alternative, instead of TOP limits, to the other two proposed 
alternatives (i.e., meeting a limit for total organic carbon or 
implementing the best management plan). EPA solicits comment on this 
approach.
    From those facilities that would prefer to retain the final MP&M 
TOP limitations and standards, EPA solicits comment from facilities on 
when they would choose to monitor for the TOP list of pollutants 
(alternative (1)) rather than meet the TOC limitation (alternative (2)) 
or develop an organics management plan (alternative (3)). EPA also 
solicits comment on whether monitoring for TOP, for which each organic 
compound present in the wastestream must be measured, would be more 
cost-effective than monitoring for TOC which requires a single 
measurement. Additionally, EPA solicits comment from permit writers and 
control authorities on which alternative is preferable and least 
burdensome to implement.
3. Consideration of Three Methods of Calculating TOP Limitations and 
Standards
    EPA is considering three methods for calculating the TOP 
limitations and standards. In Method A, EPA would follow the same 
approach that was used at proposal to calculate the limitations and 
standards, and incorporate EPA sampling data from the NODA episodes and 
information from the validation study. By using this method, EPA would 
calculate the TOP limitations and standards based on an allowance for 
organic pollutants that were not detected in the effluent in addition 
to those pollutants that were detected. In addition, EPA would exclude 
the data for benzoic acid in developing the

[[Page 38782]]

limitations and standards for TOP based on the results of the 
validation study.
    In Method B, EPA would calculate the TOP limitations and standards 
using data only from the organic pollutants detected in the effluent 
(i.e., not provide an allowance for those not detected). For Method B, 
EPA also would use the sampling data from the NODA episodes and exclude 
benzoic acid in developing the limitations and standards for TOP.
    By using Method C, as a slight variation on Method B, EPA would 
include industry self-monitoring data in addition to the EPA sampling 
data in the NODA episodes. (The self-monitoring data include very few 
organic constituents.) EPA found little difference in the results from 
applying the three different methods to develop the preliminary revised 
limitations and standards (see DCN 36014, section 19.1).
    Today's preliminary revised limitations and standards correspond to 
results from the third method, which includes the industry self-
monitoring data. EPA notes that this method resulted in somewhat larger 
values than the other two methods. If the TOP limitations and standards 
are retained in the final rule, EPA also intends to modify the minimum 
level for carbon disulfide from 10 ug/L to 5 ug/L to be consistent with 
the results of the validation study described in section II.C. Thus, 
these changes will result in slightly lower values for the TOP 
limitations and standards in the final rule, regardless of which of the 
three methods is selected for the final rule. EPA solicits comment on 
the three methods that are being considered in today's document.

C. Consistency of Statistical Methodology With Other Recent Effluent 
Guidelines

    EPA received comments concerning the consistency of the statistical 
methodology used for the MP&M proposal with that used for other recent 
effluent guidelines (e.g., Centralized Waste Treatment, Iron and 
Steel).
    As explained in section VI.A.1, the preliminary revised limitations 
and standards in today's document are the greater of the values of the 
proposed and revised limitations and standards.
    This section discusses other features of the methodology for 
calculating revised limitations and standards that are consistent with 
EPA's approach in recent effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs). This 
section also identifies changes from the proposal that EPA has used in 
calculating the revised limitations and standards, and that are being 
considered for the final rule.
    In today's document, EPA has used the episode long-term averages 
and variability factors in the same manner as for the proposal. The 
option long-term average for a pollutant is the median of the episode 
long-term averages from the BAT facilities in a particular subcategory. 
The option daily (or monthly) variability factor is the arithmetic mean 
of the episode daily (or monthly) variability factors. The daily 
maximum limitation (or standard) is the product of the option long-term 
average and the option daily variability factor. The monthly average 
limitation (or standard) is the product of the option long-term average 
and the option monthly variability factor. The episode long-term 
averages and episode variability factors from the NODA episodes are 
listed in DCN 36015 in section 19.1. The option long-term averages and 
option variability factors based upon these NODA episodes are listed in 
DCN 36016 in section 19.1.
1. Variability Factors
    In calculating the variability factors, commenters requested that 
EPA use more of the available data. This section describes the types of 
additional data sets that EPA considered in developing the revised 
limitations and standards. The minor changes in calculating the 
variability factors described in this section are consistent with other 
recent guidelines and EPA considers them to be appropriate for the MP&M 
final rule.
    To calculate the variability factors for the proposal, EPA used 
data sets that contained four or more data points. Commenters noted 
that the minimum of four data points was higher than the three data 
points that EPA had specified as the minimum sample size in developing 
the limitations and standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment and 
the Iron and Steel rules. Commenters also expressed a preference for a 
minimum of three data points. Most of the data sets contain more than 
four values, so changing the minimum sample size from four to three 
values has limited impact on the values of the option variability 
factors. However, by specifying a minimum of three data points, a few 
more data sets have been used into calculations of the option 
variability factors. EPA is considering this change for the final rule 
and has used it in developing the revised limitations and standards. 
DCN 36017 in section 19.1 lists the data sets that have been included 
as a result of this change.
    As a result of its evaluation of the variability factors for 
today's document, EPA intends to investigate whether variability 
factors for an episode data set should be included if all noncensored 
values were less than the minimum detection limit in that data set. For 
the proposal and today's document, EPA has excluded such data sets in 
calculating the variability factors (see DCN 36018, section 19.1 to 
identify today's exclusions). As there are a limited number of these 
data sets, it is likely that their inclusion would have minimal impacts 
on the values of the option variability factors. However, to include as 
much data as possible in calculating the option variability factors 
(which is consistent with requests by commenters and EPA's objectives 
when the data are appropriate), EPA is considering the inclusion of 
these data sets for the final rule.
    EPA also performed an additional review of the episode variability 
factors to ensure that all values were greater than 1.0 (i.e., the 
upper percentile is greater than the long-term average) and that the 
daily variability factor had a greater value than the corresponding 
monthly variability factor (i.e., the resulting limitations/standards 
would be greater for a single daily measurement than for an average of 
measurements collected throughout the month where one high value can be 
counterbalanced by lower values). If an episode variability factor 
failed this review, then EPA excluded both the daily and monthly 
variability factors calculated from that episode data set in developing 
the revised limitations and standards.
    EPA also reviewed the episode data in greater detail when the 
lowest and/or highest daily variability factor for a particular 
pollutant seemed substantially different from the daily variability 
factors for other episodes. EPA's review of such episode data sets will 
continue after the NODA.
2. Long-Term Averages
    In calculating the option long-term averages for the NODA, EPA has 
made two changes. As explained below, the first change was to use the 
delta-lognormal distribution for episode long-term averages. The second 
change was to compare the option long-term averages to the minimum 
level in Method 1620 for the metals pollutants. EPA also considered the 
use of the mean instead of the median for option long-term averages.
a. Use of Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution
    In calculating the long-term averages for each episode data set for 
the proposal, EPA used arithmetic averages. For the NODA, EPA has used 
the modified delta-lognormal distribution to

[[Page 38783]]

calculate the episode long-term averages. As in the proposal, EPA then 
calculated the option long-term average as the median of the episode 
long-term averages. Generally, as shown in DCN 36020 in section 19.1, 
the resulting option long-term averages have similar or higher values 
when the episode long-term averages are based on the modified delta-
lognormal distribution rather than arithmetic averages. Using the 
modified delta-lognormal distribution to calculate the episode long-
term averages is: (1) Consistent with the regulation for the iron and 
steel industry and other ELGs; and (2) appears to be appropriate to use 
in calculating the limitations and standards for the MP&M industry.
b. Comparison to Minimum Levels in Analytical Methods for Metals
    For the NODA, EPA has ensured that the option long-term average 
concentrations (and limitations) do not fall below the specific minimum 
level in EPA Method 1620 for each metal pollutant. If the option long-
term average fell below the minimum level, it was raised to the value 
of the minimum level in Method 1620, which was used for EPA's sampling 
of metal pollutants (see DCN 36021, section 19.1 which refers to the 
minimum levels as ``baseline values''). EPA has determined that some 
laboratories, under certain conditions, can measure to levels lower 
than those specified in some of the methods. EPA has concluded that 
these results are quantitatively reliable, and therefore can be used to 
calculate long-term averages and variability factors. However, EPA also 
recognizes that not all laboratories consistently measure to these 
lower levels. To ensure the revised limits reflect ``typical'' 
laboratory reporting levels for approved methods, EPA established the 
option long-term averages at values equal to or greater than the 
minimum levels specified in Method 1620. However, EPA made one 
exception to these minimum levels by adjusting the minimum level for 
lead upward to 0.05 mg/L from 0.005 mg/L to correspond to levels 
achievable by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission (ICP) 
spectroscopy. This comparison of the option long-term averages to the 
minimum level in Method 1620 is consistent with other recent effluent 
guidelines and EPA considers this comparison to be appropriate for the 
MP&M rulemaking.
c. Mean Versus Median
    EPA considered comments that recommended the use of the mean rather 
than the median in calculating the option long-term average. EPA's use 
of the median is consistent with other recent guidelines. The median is 
the value at which half of the episode long-term averages will be above 
and half will be below. Using the mean would allow a single facility 
with a much higher or much lower long-term average to significantly 
influence the option long-term average. Thus, EPA considers that the 
median is appropriate to use in developing the limitations and 
standards for the MP&M industry.
3. Autocorrelation
    For the final rule, EPA intends to investigate whether 
autocorrelation is likely to be present in the effluent data. When data 
are said to be positively autocorrelated, it means that measurements 
taken at specific time intervals (such as 1 day or 2 days apart) are 
related. For example, positive autocorrelation would be present in the 
data if the final effluent concentration of lead was relatively high 
one day and was likely to remain at similar high values the next and 
possibly succeeding days. In some industries, measurements in final 
effluent are likely to be similar from one day to the next because of 
the consistency from day-to-day in the production processes and in 
final effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of 
wastewater in basins, holding tanks, and other components of wastewater 
treatment systems. To determine if autocorrelation exists in the data, 
a statistical evaluation is necessary and will be considered before the 
final rule. To estimate autocorrelation in the data, many measurements 
for each pollutant would be required with values for equally spaced 
intervals over an extended period of time. If such data are available 
for the final rule, EPA intends to perform a statistical evaluation of 
autocorrelation and if necessary, provide any adjustments to the 
limitations and standards. This adjustment would increase the values of 
the variance and monthly variability factor. However, the estimate of 
the long-term average and the daily variability factor are generally 
only slightly affected by autocorrelation. The adjustment for 
autocorrelation is consistent with EPA's assumption for some pollutants 
in the Iron and Steel effluent limitations guidelines. If EPA 
determines that autocorrelation is present and that adjustments to 
estimates using the data from the NODA episodes will result in higher 
limitations and standards than the preliminary revised limitations and 
standards in this NODA, EPA is likely to incorporate those adjustments 
into the final limitations and standards.
4. Continuous and Batch Flow Systems
    For each influent and effluent sample point of interest, EPA 
determined whether wastewater flows were ``continuous'' or ``batch.'' 
The distinction between flow systems is consistent with the assumptions 
used for EPA's rule for the Centralized Waste Treatment industry which 
also had data from some batch flow systems. While this same assumption 
was used in developing the proposed MP&M limitations and standards, the 
following explanation further clarifies that assumption.
    At sample points associated with continuous flow processes, EPA 
collected composite samples for all analytes except for hexane 
extractable material (HEM) for which the analytical method specifies 
grab samples. Also, if EPA field composited samples of batches for each 
day at a batch flow system, the statistical analyses used the data as 
if they were from continuous flow systems. For each sample point 
associated with a continuous flow process, EPA aggregated all 
measurements within a day to obtain one value for the day. This daily 
value was then used in the calculations of long-term averages, 
variability factors, and limitations and standards.
    At sample points associated with batch flow processes, EPA usually 
collected grab samples of different batches. For each sample point 
associated with a batch flow process, EPA aggregated the measurements 
to obtain one value for each batch. This batch value was then used as 
if it were a daily value.
5. Different Episodes at a Facility
    In general, each episode identifier corresponds to a unique 
facility. For those facilities associated with multiple episodes, EPA 
has treated each episode as if it were a separate facility in the 
statistical analysis. While there were few facilities with multiple 
episodes used for the proposal, the NODA episodes include data from 
more facilities with multiple episodes. Thus, to provide another 
opportunity for public comment, the following sections provide EPA's 
rationale for treating the episodes separately in its analyses. As 
described in the following sections, these multiple episodes were from 
different EPA sampling episodes, different treatment trains, paired 
influent and effluent data from industry, and other industry submitted 
compliance data.
a. EPA Sampling Episodes
    If EPA collected samples from a facility over two or more distinct 
time

[[Page 38784]]

periods, EPA analyzed the data from each time period separately. (All 
episode numbers that have no letter designation or end with an ``A'' 
are EPA sampling episodes.) In the documentation, EPA identifies each 
time period with a distinct ``facility'' identifier. For example, 
episodes 4805 and 4815 are actually a single facility in the Dry Dock 
subcategory, but the data from the two episodes are from two time 
periods. Three other facilities are associated with multiple EPA 
sampling episodes and they are all in the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory (see DCN 36022, section 19.1). In effluent guidelines for 
other industrial categories including Centralized Waste Treatment, EPA 
has made similar assumptions for such data, because data from different 
time periods generally characterize different operating conditions due 
to changes such as management, personnel, and procedures.
b. Different Treatment Trains
    If a facility had entirely separate process and treatment trains 
which EPA sampled separately, EPA has treated the data as if they were 
collected from two different facilities because the two trains are 
operated independently with different wastestreams. In the 
documentation, the episode identifier is appended with an ``A'' to 
indicate that the data are from the second treatment train. EPA's 
assumption for these data is consistent with the Centralized Waste 
Treatment rule.
c. Paired Influent and Effluent Sampling
    EPA received self-monitoring data along with proposal comments from 
industry with influent and effluent paired concentration data. These 
data were specifically collected in response to the proposal and 
generally adhered to EPA's guidelines for collecting such data. Because 
the sampling and chemical analysis may have been somewhat different 
from other industry self-monitoring data, EPA has treated these data as 
separate episodes from the EPA sampling data and industry self-
monitoring data. In the documentation, the industry paired data have a 
``P'' following the 4-digit episode identifier.
d. Compliance Monitoring Data
    In comments on the proposal and from other sources, EPA received 
compliance monitoring data from industry. These data are sometimes 
referred to as ``Discharge Monitoring Report'' (DMR) or self-monitoring 
data. In the documentation, self-monitoring data are indicated by a 
``D'' appended to the 4-digit episode identifier. At a specific 
facility, this 4-digit episode identifier is the same as the 4-digit 
identifier used for EPA sampling data or the paired industry data. In 
the statistical analyses, the self-monitoring data are treated 
separately from the EPA sampling data and the paired data. This 
practice is consistent with other guidelines and is used because the 
data tend to be associated with different time periods and/or 
analytical methods than EPA sampling data.
    For facilities that submitted self-monitoring data over an extended 
period, if there are substantial differences between certain time 
intervals, EPA will reevaluate whether the data should be assumed to be 
associated with different episodes in the final rule. EPA will consider 
using DMR data in the development of the final limitations and 
standards.
6. Inclusion of Effluent Data Based Upon Influent Values
    Before including effluent data in the statistical analyses for the 
limitations and standards, EPA evaluated whether the influent 
concentrations were at treatable levels and whether the treatment 
system had efficient removal capability. While this same assumption was 
used in developing the proposed limitations and standards, EPA is 
including this discussion because many comments addressed the 
relationship between influent and effluent concentrations.
a. Evaluation of Treatable Levels
    As in the proposal, the effluent data were used if EPA had some 
information indicating that the influent data were at the ``treatable'' 
level for the pollutant. As shown in DCN 36023 in section 19.1, this 
treatable level was defined as ten times the nominal quantitation limit 
that generally was associated with the analytical method most 
frequently used to measure samples collected during EPA's sampling 
episodes. (The nominal quantitation limit is the smallest quantity of 
an analyte that can be reliably measured with a particular method. The 
record items in section 19 generally refer to the `nominal quantitation 
limit' as the ``baseline value.'') If the influent data were below the 
treatable level or just slightly above, EPA excluded the effluent data 
from the analyses for the limitations and standards.
    If influent data corresponding to the same time period as the 
effluent data were unavailable, EPA used different assumptions 
depending upon the availability of other data about the facility. If 
influent data from a different time period were available and were at 
treatable levels, EPA included the effluent data in its analyses. If 
influent data were unavailable but EPA determined from other 
information about that facility that it generated the pollutants at 
treatable levels in the influent (for example, some automakers), then 
EPA included the effluent data in its analyses.
    For the remaining episodes for which information about influent 
data were unavailable, EPA excluded their data in developing the option 
long-term averages and option variability factors. The episode long-
term averages and variability factors for these episodes are located at 
DCN 36024 in section 19.1. Although EPA excluded these data from those 
analyses, EPA has included them in its evaluation of the preliminary 
revised limitations and standards. This comparison is described in 
section VI.A.1.c.
    EPA applies this concept of ``treatability'' to the influent 
concentrations so that it selects effluent concentrations resulting 
from some treatment, rather than the absence, or relatively low levels, 
of the pollutant in the influent. Although EPA has used the term 
``treatability levels,'' it does not mean to imply that lower levels 
cannot be treated by the model technologies. However, the lower levels 
may need less treatment than concentrations above the treatability 
levels that EPA has used in developing today's preliminary revised 
limitations and standards.
b. Removals
    EPA also considered whether the treatment at the facility resulted 
in negative removals (i.e., the concentrations in the effluent were 
higher than the concentrations in the influent before treatment). 
Generally, EPA has excluded data that have negative removals. 
Exceptions are generally for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) or for removals 
that are close to zero. EPA requests comment on this approach. These 
exceptions are listed in DCN 36025 in section 19.1.
7. Minimum Data Values
    For organic pollutants and hexane extractable material (HEM) which 
are measured by Methods 1624B/1625 and 1664 that use the minimum level 
(ML) concept, EPA has substituted the value of the minimum level for 
any detected concentration or sample-specific detection limit reported 
below the minimum level. EPA substituted the minimum level for these 
values because when an ML is published in a method, the Agency has 
demonstrated that at least one well-operated laboratory can achieve the 
ML, and when that laboratory or another laboratory uses

[[Page 38785]]

that method, the laboratory is required to demonstrate, through 
calibration of the instrument or analytical system, that it can make 
measurements at the ML (defined as the lowest level at which the entire 
analytical system must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable 
calibration point for the analyte). In its statistical models, EPA 
assumes that these substitutions are non-detected concentrations. These 
substitutions also are consistent with other recent guidelines. EPA 
considers these substitutions to be appropriate as well for the MP&M 
industry. Therefore, EPA has incorporated them into calculations of the 
revised limitations and standards.
8. Oil and Grease
    In general, for the proposal and today's document, EPA used self-
monitoring data when they were measured by analytical methods specified 
in or approved under 40 CFR part 136 that facilities are required to 
use for compliance monitoring. One exception was EPA's exclusion of all 
self-monitoring data for oil and grease measured by methods that 
require freon, an ozone-depleting agent, as an extraction solvent. 
Although EPA excluded oil and grease data from freon-based methods from 
the proposal, it had done so for other reasons (which are documented 
elsewhere) than the type of analytical method that was used. However, 
EPA is excluding some self-monitoring data from the NODA episodes 
because these data were determined by analytical methods that use 
freon. The following provides EPA's rationale for these exclusions.
    Instead of using data measured by methods that require freon, EPA 
used only data from its sampling episodes and the self-monitoring data 
from a more recent method, Method 1664, which uses normal hexane (n-
hexane) as the extraction solvent and measures oil and grease hexane 
extractable material. While developing Method 1664, EPA received 
comments about potentially differing results using the new method that 
could bring a permittee into noncompliance under certain circumstances 
(see DCNs 36026 and 36027, section 19.1). Although EPA has determined 
that the methods are comparable and that direct replacement of the new 
method is warranted, EPA expects that facilities will choose to use 
Method 1664 rather than the freon methods as freon becomes more 
expensive and difficult to obtain. Further, EPA has determined that it 
collected sufficient data to establish the oil and grease limitations 
using only the HEM data. Thus, EPA has chosen to develop the oil and 
grease limitations solely on the HEM measurements from Method 1664.
    In evaluating the oil and grease data for today's document, EPA 
determined that its own sampling data in Phase 1 had been analyzed by 
EPA Method 413.2, a method utilizing freon. In addition to other 
reasons for excluding the data (i.e., due to its analytical method and 
other reasons documented elsewhere), EPA has determined that the data 
should be excluded because the method was unlikely to produce 
comparable results to methods approved under 40 CFR part 136 (such as 
EPA Method 413.1).
9. Data Aggregation
    In reviewing its documentation after the proposal, EPA determined 
that it had incorrectly summarized the data aggregation procedure that 
EPA used for duplicates and grab samples in the statistical support 
document for the proposal. EPA determined that it had, in fact, used 
the same aggregation procedure used in developing its regulations for 
the Centralized Waste Treatment and the Iron & Steel industries. This 
procedure averages the values and assumes that the result is 
noncensored if one or more of the samples in the average has detected 
concentrations of the pollutant. In addition to using this procedure 
for the proposed MP&M limitations and standards, EPA has used this 
aggregation procedure in developing the revised limitations and 
standards from the NODA episodes.
10. Significant Digits
    In presenting the preliminary revised limitations and standard in 
section VIII of today's document, EPA has rounded the results to three 
significant digits to conform with its usual procedure for presenting 
effluent limitations guidelines. The rounding procedure used for 
today's document rounds up values of five and above, and rounds down 
values of four and below, and is the same as that used in presenting 
the regulations for the Iron and Steel industry. This rounding 
procedure has minor differences from the procedure used at the proposal 
(see DCN 16385, section 10.0).
    One exception is with reporting HEM results. Section 14.3 of EPA 
method 1664A requires reporting of results for HEM below 10mg/L to two 
significant digits. In section VIII, EPA has presented the limitations 
and standards for HEM with two significant digits when the 
corresponding concentration-based limitations were less than 
10mg/L.
11. Data Transfers
    For the proposal, EPA noted that it had transferred some option 
long-term averages and variability factors from one subcategory to 
another in order to calculate some limitations and standards (see 
section 5.3 and appendix C of the proposal statistical support 
document). Because new data were made available after the proposal, EPA 
is considering using these data wherever possible rather than 
transferring the option long-term averages and variability factors from 
the proposal. Thus, the preliminary revised limitations and standards 
incorporate these data to the extent possible.
    For some subcategories, even with the additional data from the NODA 
episodes, EPA was unable to calculate the option long-term average and/
or the option variability factors (see DCN 36028, section 19.1). This 
could occur for a pollutant in an option where no data were available 
or the episode data sets had too few noncensored measurements (i.e., 
the pollutant was not detected at measurable levels). For example, if a 
pollutant had all noncensored values for all of the episodes in an 
option, then it was not possible to calculate the option variability 
factors. The availability of more data allows for more choices in 
transferring option long-term averages and variability factors, 
therefore, EPA is considering some different transfers than it used for 
the proposal. In general, EPA has transferred option long-term averages 
and variability factors from one subcategory to another with the same 
model technology. The following describes the transfers that EPA used 
for today's preliminary revised limitations and standards and those 
that were used for the proposed limitations and standards.
    For oil and grease (as HEM), in the subcategories with the option 2 
model technology, only the General Metals (GENL) subcategory had both 
an option long-term average and option variability factors. For NSPS, 
EPA transferred those to the Non-Chromium Anodizers (ANO) and Printed 
Wiring Boards (PWB) subcategories which are also associated with the 
option 2 model technology. EPA was able to calculate an option long-
term average for HEM in the Steel Forming and Finishing (SFF) 
subcategory (another option 2 subcategory), so only the option 
variability factors from the GENL subcategory for NSPS were 
transferred. In the proposal, EPA transferred both the option long-term 
average and variability factors for all four subcategories.

[[Page 38786]]

    For total sulfide, the MFJ subcategory is the only subcategory with 
the option 2 technology that had both an option long-term average and 
option variability factors. Thus, these values were transferred to the 
GENL and SFF subcategories. For the PWB subcategory, because EPA was 
able to calculate an option long-term average, EPA transferred only the 
option variability factors from the MFJ subcategory for total sulfide. 
EPA notes that it may not regulate total sulfide in these subcategories 
for the final rule (see section IV.B.2). Since these subcategories all 
have the same technology basis, EPA has determined that these transfers 
are more appropriate than the transfers used for the proposal which 
were from the Oily Wastes subcategory, which uses a different 
technology basis.
    For the SFF subcategory, EPA also was unable to calculate 
limitations and standards for cadmium and silver. Because the model 
technology is the same and the concentrations of these pollutants would 
be most similar to the GENL subcategory, EPA transferred the option 
long-term averages and option variability factors from this 
subcategory. EPA notes that as discussed in section IV.B, EPA is 
considering not regulating cadmium or silver for the SFF subcategory in 
the final rule. Because EPA transferred the GENL option long-term 
average and variability factors before the GENL proposed limitations 
and standards were compared against the revised limitations and 
standards, the SFF preliminary revised limitations and standards have 
values that are less than those for the GENL subcategory. This is 
because the proposed values for the GENL subcategory had greater values 
than the revised limitations and standards, and thus, EPA selected the 
proposed limitations and standards as the preliminary revised 
limitations for the GENL subcategory. However, EPA did not perform this 
same comparison for the SFF subcategory. For the final rule, EPA is 
considering whether the SFF subcategory should have the same 
limitations and standards as the GENL subcategory.
    For the ANO subcategory, EPA was unable to calculate limitations 
and standards for manganese, nickel, and zinc due to insufficient data. 
Because the model technology is the same, EPA transferred the option 
long-term averages and option variability factors to the ANO 
subcategory from the GENL subcategory. These transfers were consistent 
with EPA's transfers for the proposal. EPA solicits comment on the 
approach used for data transfers.
12. Transfers of BPT Limitations from Other Rulemakings
    For those subcategories for which EPA previously promulgated BPT/
BCT limitations for TSS, O&G, and pH under other categorical 
guidelines, EPA proposed to transfer those values to the rule for the 
MP&M industry.
    In particular, EPA proposed transferring the BPT/BCT limitations 
for oil and grease (O&G), TSS, and pH from the Metal Finishing effluent 
guidelines (see 40 CFR part 433.13) to the ANO, PWB, and MFJ 
subcategories. These are summarized in DCN 36060 in section 19.2. .
    For the SFF subcategory, EPA proposed the same BPT/BCT limitations 
for O&G, TSS, and pH as it had proposed for the General Metals 
subcategory. EPA is now considering whether it should promulgate the 
less stringent BPT/BCT limitations for O&G, TSS, and pH from the Iron 
and Steel guidelines (see 40 CFR part 420) for this subcategory. These 
are summarized in DCN 36059 in section 19.2.
    For NSPS for TSS and O&G, EPA intends to use the values calculated 
from its database except for the TSS NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job 
Shops (MFJ) subcategory. Because the TSS standards calculated from its 
database were greater than the BPT limitations, EPA is considering 
transferring the BPT limitations to NSPS. EPA also intends to review 
its database to determine if changes should be made to the data 
selection for TSS.
    For the final rule, EPA intends to identify O&G limitations and 
standards calculated from the NODA episodes as ``O&G (HEM)' to indicate 
that the parameter should be measured as hexane extractable material 
(HEM). In contrast, EPA intends to retain the previous notation of 
``O&G'' for the existing BPT/BCT limitations, and intends to include 
footnotes or definitions in the final rule that indicate it can be 
measured as HEM. EPA intends to use the two different notations because 
the existing BPT/BCT limitations and the limitations/standards 
calculated using the MP&M database were based upon analytical testing 
methods that used two different extraction solvents: freon and n-
hexane, respectively. EPA has determined that the two methods are 
comparable (see DCNs 36026 and 36027 in section 19.2). Because freon is 
an ozone-depleting agent and becoming more expensive, EPA believes that 
facilities will prefer to measure oil and grease as HEM for the 
existing BPT limitations.
    Except for the BPT/BCT limitations that it transferred, EPA notes 
that it assumed a weekly monitoring frequency in developing the 
proposed and preliminary revised limitations and standards. For the 
Metal Finishing guidelines, EPA assumed a monitoring frequency of 10 
times a month in developing the BPT/BCT limitations. For the Iron and 
Steel guidelines, EPA assumed a daily monitoring frequency. These 
assumed monitoring frequencies are accounted for in the associated 
costs in assessing economic achievability of each rule. In general, the 
actual monitoring requirements will be determined by the permitting 
authority and compliance with the monthly average limitations and 
standards will be required in the final rule regardless of the number 
of samples analyzed and averaged. While the assumed monitoring 
frequency does not affect the calculated values of the option long-term 
average and the daily maximum limitation, it does affect the value of 
the monthly average limitation/standard.
13. Data Review for Final Rule
    While EPA has reviewed the data for the NODA, EPA will conduct a 
more detailed engineering and statistical review of the data before the 
final rule, similar to that performed for other rules. The following 
paragraphs identify specific data reviews that EPA typically performs 
before promulgating a final rule.
    For the proposal and NODA, EPA assigned various qualifiers to some 
data. These qualifiers are briefly explained in DCN 36029 in section 
19.1 and most are described in section 10 of the proposal TDD. EPA 
excluded some data associated with some qualifiers (such as effluent 
associated with extremely low influent values). For the final rule, EPA 
intends to review the data exclusions as a result of the qualifiers. 
EPA also intends to reevaluate which data qualifiers justify data 
exclusions.
    Comments on the proposal asserted that sample-specific detection 
limits were inflated for the influent data. EPA has conducted a brief 
review of the sample-specific detection limits and found that most 
appear to be the same as the nominal quantitation limits identified in 
the analytical methods (see DCN 36030, section 19.1). For the final 
rule, EPA will review the consequences of assuming that the 
concentration values are equal to the sample-specific detection limits 
for the few influent sample-specific detection limits that are 
elevated.
    For the final rule, EPA intends to review graphical displays of the 
daily measurements in the larger episode data sets to evaluate patterns 
in the data, such as steadily increasing or decreasing

[[Page 38787]]

values over time or during certain time intervals. The plots may also 
indicate data values that should be reviewed further and possibly 
excluded because they appear to be outliers (i.e., values that stand 
out as being extremely lower or higher than the others).
    EPA also intends to review summary statistics for each episode (see 
DCNs 36031 and 36032, section 19.1). EPA may further review episodes 
with patterns such as minimum and maximum values far apart or extreme 
ranges in sample-specific detection limits. EPA will also evaluate 
whether some episodes appear to have data in ranges different from most 
other episodes in the same subcategory.
    EPA also will review multiple grab measurements taken on the same 
day and field duplicates for extreme discrepancies between values. 
These measurements are listed in DCNs 36033 and 36034 in section 19.1. 
In addition, EPA will review its data listings of daily values (see DCN 
36000, section 19.1). Where both influent and effluent are available, 
EPA will evaluate extreme discrepancies between influent and effluent 
at particular episodes. EPA also intends to review the EPA sampling 
data to verify that each sample day is listed for a particular 
pollutant unless otherwise specifically excluded. EPA will review the 
data for consistency and any unusual patterns (such as all values being 
associated with the same noncensored value over a period of time which 
can indicate nondetected values rather than measured values, lack of 
sensitivity in the laboratory procedures, or other causes).

VII. Revised Estimates of Costs, Loadings, Economic Impacts, and 
Cost-Effectiveness

A. Revised National Estimates of Economic Impacts

    EPA is providing the results of its preliminary economic analysis 
results based on revised costs and selected changes in methodologies 
discussed above in section V. All analyses presented in this section 
incorporate new the costs and loadings and reflect use of the revised 
imputation methods and sample weights previously discussed in this 
document. To separate the effects of changes (i.e., revised costs, 
baseline loadings, removals, sample weights and imputation methods) 
from changes to the economic analysis, this section first presents a 
version of the analysis that applies the same economic impact 
methodologies used at proposal. The second analysis presents results 
using the revised cost pass-through coefficients discussed in section 
V.A of this document. The third analysis presents results based on a 
number of further changes in economic impact methodologies discussed in 
section V of this document. All other aspects of the economic analysis 
methodology remain as described in the proposal EEBA. The final part of 
this section presents economic impact analysis results for the Sand 
Filter Option described in section III of this document.
    All results presented here remain in 1999 dollars, for purpose of 
comparison with the results of the proposed rule analysis. The analysis 
EPA will prepare for the final rule will be presented in 2001 dollars.
1. Results Using the Economic Impact Analysis Methodologies Used at 
Proposal
    This section presents economic impact results using revised 
technical inputs (i.e., costs, baseline loadings, removals, imputation 
methods and sample weights), but applying the same economic impact 
analysis methodologies used at proposal. The analysis includes a larger 
number of facilities than in the proposed rule analysis (63,909 sample 
weighted facilities vs 62,752 at proposal). The revised imputation 
methods for flows allow analysis of additional facilities. In addition, 
some facilities were reclassified into different subcategories and a 
new Zinc Platers subcategory is being considered, as described in 
section III.A.1 of this document. Table VII.A-1 shows the number of 
facilities in each subcategory assessed as closures under baseline 
conditions. The differences in the totals between the two analyses 
reflects the larger number of facilities analyzed, the revised sample 
weights, and the reclassification of some facilities in different 
subcategories.

  Table VII.A-1.--Summary of Changes in the Total Number of Dischargers and Baseline Closures Due to Changes in
                  Costs, Weights and Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total number of         Number of baseline
                                                                     dischargers                closuresa
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                         Subcategory                            Proposed                  Proposed
                                                                  rule         NODA         rule         NODA
                                                                analysis     analysis     analysis    analysisb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..............................................       29,975       12,287        3,199          758
Metal Finishing Job Shop....................................        1,530        1,189          286           60
Non-Chromium Anodizing......................................          190          178           40           29
Printed Wiring Board........................................          635          844            3          236
Steel Forming & Finishing...................................          153          153            6            6
Oily Wastes.................................................       29,425       47,956          295        2,347
Railroad Line Maintenance...................................          832          832            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.......................................           11           11            0            3
Zinc Platers................................................           NA          458           NA            8
All Categories..............................................       62,762       63,909        3,829        3,447
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
  exclusions.
\b\ Changes in the number of facilities and closures are largely due to changes in the different subcategories
  and the facilities within them. For details see section III of this document.

    The results of the post-compliance impact analyses are presented 
first for the PSES requirements considered for indirect discharging 
facilities, and then for the BAT/BPT options considered for direct 
discharging facilities. The comparisons are based on the Proposed 
Option and the NODA Option, both of which incorporate the low-flow 
cutoffs and exclusions of the Proposed Option. The differences in 
results are therefore due to the revised costs, loads and imputation 
methods, rather than to any changes in the regulatory option being 
analyzed. Similar comparisons excluding the proposed flow cut-offs and 
exclusions are available in section 17.1.1, DCN 35020, of the public 
record.

[[Page 38788]]

    Table VII.A-2 presents economic impacts for indirect dischargers. 
Of the 56,169 indirect discharging facilities potentially subject to 
regulation after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 329 facilities 
or 0.6 percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed 
rule, based on revised technical inputs. This compares with 179 
facility closures or 0.3 percent predicted by the proposal analysis.

Table VII. A-2.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Indirect Dischargers Due to Changes in Costs,
                      Weights and Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total operating in        Number of facility
                                                                      baseline             closures due to the
                                                             --------------------------          rule\a\
                         Subcategory                                                   -------------------------
                                                                Proposed       NODA       Proposed
                                                                  rule       analysis       rule         NODA
                                                                analysis                  analysis     analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..............................................       23,140       10,115           24           93
Metal Finishing Job Shops...................................        1,231        1,105          128          164
Non-Chromium Anodizing......................................          150          113            0            0
Printed Wiring Board........................................          620          604            7           25
Steel Forming & Finishing...................................          105          106            6            6
Oily Wastes.................................................       28,219       42,891           14           17
Railroad Line Maintenance...................................          799          802            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.......................................            6            3            0            0
Zinc Platers................................................           NA          429           NA           24
All Categories..............................................       54,270       56,169          179         329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
  exclusions.

    Another 627 facilities, or one percent of the indirect dischargers 
operating in the baseline, would experience moderate economic impacts 
under the proposed rule based on the revised costs, as shown in Table 
VII.A-3.

    Table VII.A-3.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Indirect Dischargers Due to Changes in Costs, Weights and
                            Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total operating in       Number of facilities
                                                                      baseline            experiencing moderate
                                                             --------------------------    impacts due to the
                                                                                                 rule\a\
                         Subcategory                            Proosed                -------------------------
                                                                  rule         NODA       Proosed
                                                                analysis     analysis       rule         NODA
                                                                                          analysis     analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..............................................       23,140       10,115          153          121
Metal Finishing Job Shops...................................        1,231        1,105          117          150
Non-Chromium Anodizing......................................          150          113            0           24
Printed Wiring Board........................................          620          604          301          293
Steel Forming & Finishing...................................          105          106            4           14
Oily Wastes.................................................       28,219       42,891            0            9
Railroad Line Maintenance...................................          799          802            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.......................................            6            3            0            0
Zinc Platers................................................           NA          429           NA           16
All Categories..............................................       54,270       56,169          575         627
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA anaysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and exclusions.

    Governments own 5,005 of the 56,169 indirect discharging facilities 
in the revised analysis. Of these, 43 incur compliance costs above one 
percent under the proposed rule, but none of the affected governments 
experience significant impacts as a result.
    Table VII.A-4 presents the results of the same analyses for direct 
discharging facilities. Of the 4,293 direct dischargers subject to 
regulation after baseline closures, EPA estimates that 27 facilities or 
0.6 percent could be expected to close as the result of the proposed 
rule.

  Table VII.A-4.--Incremental Severe Impacts (Facility Closures) on Direct Dischargers Due to Changes in Costs,
                      Weights and Numbers of Facilities: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total operating in        Number of facility
                                                                      baseline             closures due to the
                                                             --------------------------          rule\a\
                         Subcategory                                                   -------------------------
                                                                Proposed       NODA       Proposed
                                                                  rule       analysis       rule         NODA
                                                                analysis                  analysis     analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..............................................        3,636        1,444           20           13
Metal Finishing Job Shops...................................           12           24            0            0
Non-Chromum Anodizing.......................................  ...........           35  ...........            0
Printed Wiring Board........................................           11            4            0            0

[[Page 38789]]

 
Steel Forming & Finishing...................................           43           41            0            0
Oily Wastes.................................................          911        2,688            0           13
Railroad Line Maintenance...................................           34           31            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.......................................            6            6            0            0
Zinc Platers................................................           NA           21           NA            0
All Categories..............................................        4,653        4,293           20          27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
  exclusions.

    Another 46 facilities, or one percent of the direct dischargers 
operating in the baseline, are expected to experience moderate economic 
impacts under the proposed rule, as shown in Table VII.A-5.

     Table VII.A-5.--Incremental Moderate Impacts on Direct Dischargers: EIA Methodologies Used at Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total operating in        Number of facility
                                                                      baseline            experiencing moderate
                                                             --------------------------  impacts due to the rule
                                                                                                 rule\a\
                         Subcategory                            Proposed               -------------------------
                                                                  rule         NODA       Proposed
                                                                analysis     analysis       rule         NODA
                                                                                          analysis     analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..............................................        3,636        1,741           34           15
Metal Finishing Job Shops...................................           12           24            0            0
Non-Chromum Anodizing.......................................  ...........           35  ...........           24
Printed Wiring Board........................................           11            4            0            0
Steel Forming & Finishing...................................           43           41            7            7
Oily Wastes.................................................          911        2,391  ...........  ...........
Railroad Line Maintenance...................................           34           31            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.......................................            6            6            0            0
Zinc Platers................................................           NA           21           NA            0
All Categories..............................................        4,653        4,293           41          46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
  exclusions.

    Governments own 722 of the 4,293 direct discharging facilities in 
the revised analysis. Of these, 236 (or 33 percent) incur compliance 
costs above one percent of their baseline cost of service under the 
proposed rule, but none of the affected governments experience 
significant impacts as a result.
2. Results With Revised Cost Pass-Through Coefficients
    Table VII.A-6 presents economic impacts using the revised cost 
pass-through coefficients described in section V.A of this document.

 Table VII.A-6.--Incremental Closures and Moderate Impacts for NODA Option: Original CPT versus Revised CPT \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Incremental closures      Incremental moderate
                                                    Total    --------------------------          impacts
                  Subcategory                     operating                            -------------------------
                                                 in baseline  CPT used at  Revised CPT  CPT used at
                                                                proposal                  proposal   Revised CPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals.................................       11,559          107          110          121          127
Metal Finishing Job Shops......................        1,129          164          245          150          150
Non-Chromum Anodizing..........................          148            0            0           24           24
Printed Wiring Board...........................          608           25           28          293          346
Steel Forming & Finishing......................          148            6            6           14           14
Oily Wastes....................................       45,579           31           31            9            9
Railroad Line Maintenance......................          832            0            0            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock..........................            9            0            0            0            0
Zinc Platers...................................          450           24           81           16           16
All Categories.................................       60,462          356          500          627         686
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Both the proposed rule analysis and NODA analysis are based on proposed rule low flow cutoffs and
  exclusions. These analyses include new costs, weights, and number of facilities.


[[Page 38790]]

Use of the revised cost pass-through coefficients result in an 
additional 144 closures and 59 moderate impacts.
    Table VII.A-7 shows the estimated percentage price increases that 
result from use of the revised cost pass-through coefficients, by 
sector. These estimated percentage price increases are estimated for, 
and apply only to, the segment of the industry sectors that is 
estimated to incur costs as a result of the MP&M regulation. In all 
cases, the price increases are less than one percent.

 Table VII.A-7.--Sector Percentage Price Increases Predicted by New Cost
                Pass-Through Coefficients (NODA Analysis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent
                                                                sector
                           Sector                               price
                                                              increase a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace..................................................         0.04
Aircraft...................................................         0.03
Bus & Truck................................................         0.06
Electronic Equipment.......................................         0.04
Hardware...................................................         0.08
Household Equipment........................................         0.02
Instruments................................................         0.08
Iron & Steel...............................................         0.20
Metal Finishing Job Shops..................................         0.60
Mobile Industrial Equipment................................         0.17
Motor Vehicle..............................................         0.07
Office Machines............................................         0.00
Ordnance...................................................         0.12
Other Metal Products.......................................         0.04
Precious & Non-Precious Metals.............................         0.03
Printed Wiring Board.......................................         0.00
Railroad...................................................         0.01
Ships & Boats..............................................         0.03
Stationary Industrial Equipment............................        0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Based on an analysis including revised costs and weights, financial
  data updated using sector-specific producer price indices, and new
  cost-pass-through coefficients. This analysis does not include other
  methodology changes discussed in the NODA.

3. Results Based on Revised Economic Impact Methodologies
    Section V of this document discusses a number of changes EPA is 
considering making to the economic impact methodologies. This section 
presents economic impact analysis results based on a number of these 
changes, including:
     Use of sector-specific thresholds for the moderate impact 
analysis tests (pre-tax return on sales (PTRS) and interest coverage 
ratio (ICR);
     Use of a single test, based on net present value, to 
assess the potential for closures; this test excludes consideration of 
liquidation values for all MP&M facilities, including the 219 
facilities that reported them in their response to the MP&M survey;
     Including baseline capital outlays in the calculation of 
cash flow;
     Updating survey data using sector-specific price indices;
     Adjusting labor costs for facilities that report 
abnormally high labor costs; and
     Limiting post-compliance tax shields to no greater than 
reported baseline taxes.

These results also include revised costs, imputation methods, and 
sample weights, and use the revised cost pass-through coefficients.
    Table VII.A-8 shows the effects of these methodology changes in 
combination, compared with results based on the proposal economic 
impact methodologies combined with revised cost pass-through 
coefficients.

 Table VII.A-8.--Baseline Closures and Incremental Closures and Moderate Impacts for the Proposed Rule, With and
                            Without Changes in Economic Impact Analysis Methodologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Total operating in       Incremental closures      Incremental moderate
                                           baseline a        --------------------------          impacts
            Subcategory            --------------------------                          -------------------------
                                      Without        With       Without        With       Without        With
                                     changes b    changes c    changes b    changes c    changes b    changes c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals....................       11,559       11,435          110          111          127          151
Metal Finishing Job Shops.........        1,129        1,139          245          520          150           36
Non-Chromium Anodizing............          148          148            0            0           24            0
Printed Wiring Board..............          608          605           28           55          346           56
Steel Forming & Finishing.........          148          148            6           17           14           17
Oily Wastes.......................       45,579       46,286           31            1            9            0
Railroad Line Maintenance.........          832          832            0            0            0            0
Shipbuilding Dry Dock.............            9            9            0            0            0            0
Zinc Platers......................          450          435           81           93           16            0
All Categories....................       60,462       61,036          500          797          686         260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a See Table VII.A-1 for baseline closures.
b Results of revised cost pass-through analysis as reported in Table VII.A-6 are included in the ``Without
  Changes'' columns.
c The results based on revised EIA methodologies also include the revised cost pass-through coefficients.

    Use of the new economic impact analysis methodologies results in an 
increase in estimated closures for the General Metals, Metal Finishing 
Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, Steel Forming and Finishing, and Zinc 
Plater subcategories and in a decrease in estimated closures for the 
Oily Waste subcategory. This result primarily reflects the recognition 
of ongoing capital expenditures in the cash flow analysis and use of a 
single test for closures.
    The difference in estimated moderate impacts reflect the lower 
sector-specific PTRA and ICR thresholds estimated based on industry 
data. These lower thresholds affected both baseline and moderate 
impacts, with a net decrease in impacts attributed to the proposed 
rule. EPA concluded that the revised thresholds provide a more 
realistic measure of financial distress. As noted by commenters, the 
thresholds used in the proposal analysis resulted in substantial 
portions of the MP&M facilities being classified as experiencing 
financial distress even under baseline conditions. The sector-specific 
thresholds result in a more reasonable characterization of baseline 
conditions and of the incremental impacts of the proposed rule on 
financial stress.

[[Page 38791]]

B. Revised National Estimates of Cost-Effectiveness

    EPA performed a revised cost-effectiveness analysis based on the 
revised estimates of costs, loadings and removals described previously. 
Cost-effectiveness analysis is used in the development of effluent 
limitations guidelines to evaluate the relative efficiency of 
alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from the 
effluent discharges to the nation's waters.
    The cost-effectiveness of a regulatory option is defined as the 
incremental annual cost (in 1981 constant dollars) per incremental 
toxic-weighted pollutant removals for that option. This represents the 
unit cost of removing the next pound-equivalent of pollutants and is 
expressed in constant 1981 dollars per toxic pound-equivalent removed 
($/lb-eq) to allow comparisons with other options being considered. 
Although not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness 
analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options that 
address toxic pollutants.
    For the proposal, EPA based BPT and BAT limitations on the same 
technology for all subcategories. Because the Agency does not evaluate 
the cost-effectiveness of BPT technology (see relevant discussion in 
the Centralized Waste Treatment ELG Proposal; 64 FR 2306) and EPA 
proposed BAT limitations that are equivalent to BPT limitation, EPA is 
only providing the cost-effectiveness analysis for indirect 
dischargers.
    Table VII.B-1 summarizes the total cost-effectiveness analysis for 
the PSES regulatory option applicable to indirect dischargers, by 
subcategory. This analysis reflects the flow cutoffs and exclusions of 
the proposed rule, and includes all revised inputs. Estimates of costs 
and pollutant removals do not include facilities that close in the 
baseline.

                   Table VII.B-1.--Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers by Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NODA
                                                          incremental                                  Cost-
                                                           before-tax      NODA      NODA  cost-   effectiveness
                       Subcategory                         compliance  incremental  effectiveness      ratio,
                                                              cost       removals   ratio  ($1981/    proposal
                                                            (million     (lbs-eq)       lb-eq)        analysis
                                                             $1981)                                ($1981/lb-eq)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..........................................       300.56      683,305           440            136
Metal Finishing Job Shops...............................        45.14       64,199           703             39
Non-Chromium Anodizing..................................  ...........  ...........  .............  .............
Oily Wastes.............................................        50.58        8,989         5,627            178
Printed Wiring Boards...................................        76.08      138,458           549             68
Railroad Line Maintenance...............................  ...........  ...........  .............  .............
Shipbuilding Dry Dock...................................  ...........  ...........  .............  .............
Steel Forming & Finishing...............................         9.69       63,368           153             68
Zinc Platers a..........................................        38.13       97,304           392             NA
All Indirect Dischargers................................       520.18    1,055,623           493           108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Assuming no flow cutoff.

C. Results for the Sand Filter Option

    EPA is considering a Sand Filter Option for the metal-discharging 
subcategories, as described in section III of this document. Table 
VII.C-1 presents economic analysis results for this option. This 
analysis is based on all revised inputs, revised cost pass-through 
coefficients, and new economic impact analysis methodologies.

       Table VII.C-1.--Economic Impact Analysis Results and Cost-Effectiveness for the Sand Filter Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Incremental
                                     Number of                              before-tax                  Cost-
                                     facilities  Incremental  Incremental   compliance   Increment.    effect.
            Subcategory              operating     closures     moderate      costs       removals      ratio
                                       in the                   impacts      (million     (lbs-eq)    ($1981/lb-
                                      baseline                                $1981)                    eq) a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 All Dischargers with Metal-Bearing Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals....................       11,435        1,025        1,323     1,615.19    3,612,966           NA
Metal Finishing Job Shops.........        1,139          565           47        46.27       94,586           NA
Non-Chromium Anodizing............          148           91            0        26.91    2,445,414           NA
Printed Wiring Boards.............          605           80           56        85.94      161,618           NA
Steel Forming & Finishing.........          148           19           15        29.12      180,814           NA
Zinc Platers b....................          435           93            0        52.97      164,137           NA
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       13,910        1,872        1,442     1,856.40    6,659,535           NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             All Indirect Dischargers with Metal-Bearing Dischargers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals....................       11,316        1,028        1,498     1,072.14    1,985,066          540
Metal Finishing Job Shops.........        1,115          577           36        44.65       92,575          482
Non-Chromium Anodizing............          113           91            0         6.07        5,622        1,081
Printed Wiring Boards.............          600           84           60        85.66      161,586          530
Steel Forming & Finishing.........          106           17           11        13.83       64,136          216

[[Page 38792]]

 
Zinc Platers b....................          414           93           12        49.90      163,200          306
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................       13,664        1,889        1,616     1,272.26    2,472,185         515
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Cost-Effectiveness is applicable to indirect dischargers only.
b Assuming no flow cutoff.

D. Revised National Estimates of Monetized Benefits

    EPA is providing preliminary environmental assessment and benefits 
analysis results based on revised pollutant loadings. All analyses 
presented in this section incorporate changes to technical inputs 
including pollutant loadings, sample weights, a larger number of sample 
MP&M facilities, and reclassification of some facilities into different 
discharge categories as described in section III.G of today's document. 
To separate the effects of the revised pollutant loadings and sample 
weights from benefits analysis changes, EPA first presents a version of 
the analysis that applies the same benefit analysis methodologies used 
at proposal. The proposal EEBA describes all aspects of the 
environmental assessment and benefits analysis methodologies. The 
second analysis presents benefits results using the revised 
methodologies and data discussed in section V of today's document but 
does not incorporate changes in the environmental assessment and 
benefits analysis methodologies. The third benefits results reflect all 
changes documented in today's document (e.g., changes in loadings, 
environmental assessment, and benefits analysis methodologies).
    Like the revised estimates of economic impacts, the benefits 
results presented here use 1999 dollars to enable comparison with the 
results of the proposed rule analysis. The benefit analysis EPA 
prepares to accompany the final rule will be presented in 2001 dollars. 
Benefits results apply to the NODA option only ( i.e., benefits were 
only estimated for Options 2, 6, and 10 with the proposed flow cut-offs 
and exclusions). The NODA option includes the same exclusions and flow 
cutoffs as the proposed option thus benefits were not estimated for the 
basic and advanced treatment options without flow cutoffs.
1. Human Health Benefits
    EPA used revised pollutant loading estimates to analyze the 
following measures of health-related benefits: reduced cancer risk from 
fish and water consumption; reduced risk of non-cancer toxic effects 
from fish and water consumption; lead-related health effects to 
children and adults; and reduced occurrence of in-waterway pollutant 
concentrations in excess of levels of concern.
    1.a  Reduced incidence of cancer cases
    Table VII.D-1 presents revised total benefits from reduced 
incidence of cancer cases, including both drinking water and fish 
exposures.

  Table VII.D-1.--Estimated Annual Benefits From Avoided Cancer Cases From Fish and Drinking Water Consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Drinking water           Fish consumption                Total
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Benefit                   Benefit                   Benefit
         Regulatory status             Annual       value        Annual       value        Annual       value
                                       cancer      (million      cancer      (million      cancer      (million
                                       cases        1999$)       cases        1999$)       cases        1999$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................         5.10       N/A\1\         0.13          N/A         5.23          N/A
# Cases/Value.....................         2.86       $13.01         0.08        $0.26         2.94       $13.27
Percent Reduction.................         43.9          N/A         35.7          N/A         43.9          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................         0.45          N/A         0.53          N/A         0.98          N/A
# Cases/Value.....................         0.22        $1.34         0.17        $2.10         0.39        $3.45
Percent Reduction.................         51.5          N/A         67.8          N/A         60.4          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                NODA Option With All Changes in Today's Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................         4.82          N/A         0.69          N/A         5.51          N/A
# Cases/Value.....................         1.87       $18.00         0.21        $2.96         2.08       $20.95
Percent Reduction.................         61.2          N/A         69.9          N/A         62.3         N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not Applicable.
\2\ The NODA Option analysis (including the NODA option with technical input changes only (e.g., changes in
  loadings methodology) and the NODA option with all changes in today's Document) does not include cancer
  effects associated with exposure to lead.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


[[Page 38793]]

    EPA introduced two methodology changes that affect the estimated 
incidence of cancer cases. First, EPA corrected the POTW flow assigned 
to small receiving POTWs with missing flow information. Second, EPA 
updated the list of drinking water intake sites used for estimating 
cancer cases from drinking water. These changes are discussed in 
section V of this document.
    EPA estimates that cancer cases under the NODA option with all 
changes in today's Notice and revised pollutant loadings will decrease 
from annual baseline levels of 4.82 to 1.87 for drinking water cancer 
cases and from 0.69 to 0.21 for fish consumption cancer cases, and will 
result in monetary benefits of $18.00 million and $2.96 million 
(1999$), respectively, for drinking water and fish consumption cancer 
cases.
    Total benefits from reduced exposure to carcinogens are $20.95 
million (1999$) annually under the NODA option with all changes in 
today's document.
1.b  Reductions in Systemic Health Effects
    The change in exposure to pollutants through fish and water 
consumption results in improvements in human health and well-being. One 
way of measuring these effects is to compare the reduction in pollutant 
exposure to pollutant-specific health effects thresholds. The Agency 
used the revised pollutant loading estimates to calculate in-stream 
pollutant concentrations for 77 pollutants that are toxic to body 
systems. EPA then compared estimated in-stream pollutant concentrations 
with risk reference doses to calculate a hazard score. The Agency 
calculated the distribution of hazard scores for drinking water and 
fish consumption populations for baseline and post-compliance 
exposures. The results for the proposed rule showed a movement in 
populations from higher risk values to lower risk values for both the 
fish and drinking water analyses. Both analyses show substantial 
increases in the percentage of the exposed populations that would be 
exposed to ``no risk of systemic health hazards.'' Results for all 
options show similar movements in populations from higher risk values 
to lower risk values for both drinking water and fish consumption 
populations (see section 17.7.1, DCN 35561 and section 17.7.2, DCN 
35611).
1.c  Benefits From Reduced Exposure to Lead
    Table VII.D-2 presents revised benefit estimates associated with 
reduced exposure to lead. The analysis assessed benefits of reduced 
lead exposure from consumption of contaminated fish tissue to three 
sensitive populations: (1) Preschool age children, (2) pregnant women, 
and (3) adult men and women.

                                                      Table VII.D-2: National Lead-Related Benefits
                                                              [Millions of 1999 $ per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Children                  Adult Men                Adult Women                  Total
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Benefits Category                   Reduced      Monetary     Reduced      Monetary     Reduced      Monetary     Reduced      Monetary
                                                     Cases        Value        Cases        Value        Cases        Value        Cases        Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Proposed Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonatal Mortality..............................          1.6        $9.33  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          1.6        $9.33
Avoided IQ loss.................................        489.1        $4.93  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        489.1        $4.93
Reduced IQ70....................................          1.7        $0.13  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          1.7        $0.13
Reduced Pb>20 mg/L..............................          0.1        $0.00  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.1        $0.00
Hypertension....................................  ...........  ...........        959.8        $1.01          N/A          N/A        959.8        $1.01
CHD.............................................  ...........  ...........          1.2        $0.09          0.4        $0.03          1.6        $0.11
CBA.............................................  ...........  ...........          0.5        $0.14          0.2        $0.03          0.7        $0.17
BI..............................................  ...........  ...........          0.3        $0.08          0.1        $0.02          0.4        $0.10
Mortality.......................................  ...........  ...........          1.7        $9.85          0.4        $2.38          2.1       $12.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonatal Mortality..............................          0.8        $4.48  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.8        $4.48
Avoided IQ loss.................................        229.4        $2.31  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........        229.4        $2.31
Reduced IQ70....................................          0.8        $0.06  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.8        $0.06
Reduced Pb>20 mg/L..............................          0.0        $0.00  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.0        $0.00
Hypertension....................................  ...........  ...........        468.0        $0.49          N/A          N/A        468.0        $0.49
CHD.............................................  ...........  ...........          0.6        $0.04          0.2        $0.01          0.8        $0.06
CBA.............................................  ...........  ...........          0.3        $0.07          0.1        $0.02          0.3        $0.08
BI..............................................  ...........  ...........          0.1        $0.04          0.1        $0.01          0.2        $0.05
Mortality.......................................  ...........  ...........          0.8        $4.88          0.2        $1.17          1.0        $6.05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    NODA Option With all Changes in Today's Document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neonatal Mortality..............................          0.8        $5.10  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.8        $5.10
Avoided IQ loss.................................      3,345.6       $33.71  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      3,345.6       $33.71
Reduced IQ70....................................         11.4        $0.83  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........         11.4        $0.83
Reduced Pb>20 mg/L..............................          0.9        $0.02  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........          0.9        $0.02
Hypertension....................................  ...........  ...........        507.9        $0.53          N/A          N/A        507.9        $0.53
CHD.............................................  ...........  ...........          0.7        $0.05          0.2        $0.01          0.9        $0.06
CBA.............................................  ...........  ...........          0.3        $0.07          0.1        $0.02          0.4        $0.09
BI..............................................  ...........  ...........          0.2        $0.04          0.1        $0.01          0.2        $0.05
Mortality.......................................  ...........  ...........          0.9        $5.59          0.2        $1.34          1.1       $6.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


[[Page 38794]]

    EPA estimates that the NODA option with all changes in today's 
document, including the changes in methodology for estimating lead 
benefits for children discussed in section V of this document, results 
in an avoided IQ loss of 3,346 points and an accompanying monetary 
benefit of $33.71 million (1999$) across all children. In addition, EPA 
estimates that reduced occurrences of extremely low IQ scores (70) and 
reduced incidence of blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL will reduce the 
annual cost of compensatory education for children with learning 
disabilities by $0.85 million (1999$). EPA also estimates a reduced 
incidence of neonatal mortality by 0.8 case annually. The estimated 
monetary value of benefits from reduced neonatal mortality is $5.10 
million (1999$).
    Quantified adult health effects include increased incidence of 
hypertension (estimated for males only), initial coronary heart disease 
(CHD), strokes (cerebrovascular accidents (CBA) and atherothrombotic 
brain infarctions (BI)), and premature mortality.
    EPA estimates that the NODA option with all changes in today's 
document reduces hypertension by an estimated 508 cases annually among 
males, resulting in benefits of approximately $0.53 million (1999$). 
Reducing the incidence of initial CHD, strokes, and premature mortality 
results in estimated benefits of $0.06, $0.14, and $6.93 million 
(1999$), respectively. Overall, adult lead-related benefits are $7.67 
million annually (1999$).
    Total benefits from reduced exposure to lead, including both 
children and adults, are $47.33 million (1999$) annually under the NODA 
option with all changes in today's document. 1.d Exceedances of Human 
Health-Based AWQC for Consumption of Water and Organisms
    EPA also estimated the effect of MP&M facility discharges by 
comparing pollutant concentrations in affected waterways to ambient 
water criteria for the protection of human health. Table VII.D-3 
presents results of this analysis.

Table VII.D-3.--Estimated MP&M Discharge Reaches With MP&M Pollutant Concentrations in Excess of AWQC Limits for
                                  Protection of Human Health or Aquatic Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Number of Reaches With              Number of Benefitting Reaches
                                         MP&M Pollutant      ---------------------------------------------------
                                    Concentrations Exceeding    All AWQC Exceedances         Number of AWQC
                                     Human Health-based AWQC         Eliminated            Exceedances Reduced
                                             Limits          ---------------------------------------------------
         Regulatory Status         --------------------------
                                        For          For          For          For          For          For
                                    Consumption  Consumption  Consumption  Consumption  Consumption  Consumption
                                      of Water        of        of Water        of        of Water        of
                                        and       Organisms       and       Organisms       and       Organisms
                                     Organisms       Only      Organisms       Only      Organisms       Only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................       10,310          192          N/A          N/A          N/A     N/A
Proposed Option...................        9,205           71        1,105          121          382       8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................        4,611          185          N/A          N/A          N/A     N/A
NODA Option.......................        3,667          119          944           66          196      15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                NODA Option With all Changes in Today's Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..........................        5,994          209          N/A          N/A          N/A     N/A
NODA Option.......................        4,827          124        1,167           85          233     19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    EPA estimates that the NODA option with all changes in today's 
document eliminates the occurrence of concentrations in excess of human 
health criteria for consumption of water and organisms on 1,167 of the 
5,994 reaches on which baseline discharges are estimated to cause 
concentrations in excess of AWQC values. Likewise, EPA estimates that 
under this option the rule eliminates the occurrence of concentrations 
in excess of human health criteria for consumption of only organisms on 
85 of the 209 reaches on which baseline discharges are estimated to 
cause concentrations in excess of AWQC limits. In addition, EPA expects 
that partial water quality improvements from reduced occurrence of some 
pollutant concentrations in excess of AWQC limits will occur at 233 and 
19 receiving reaches, respectively, for consumption of water and 
organisms and for consumption of organisms only.
2. Ecological, Recreational, and Nonuser Benefits
    This analysis combines the findings from the aquatic life benefits 
analysis and the human health AWQC exceedance analysis described 
previously. Table VII.D-4 presents estimated changes in occurrences of 
pollutant concentrations exceeding aquatic life and/or human health 
AWQC values based on the pollutant loading estimates used for the 
proposed rule analysis and the revised pollutant loading estimates. EPA 
expects that 6,051 stream reaches will exceed chronic or acute aquatic 
life AWQC and/or human health AWQC values at the baseline discharge 
levels based on the NODA analysis. The NODA option with all changes in 
today's document is expected to eliminate AWQC exceedances on 1,179 of 
these reaches. Of the remaining 4,872 reaches with concentrations of 
one or more pollutants that exceed AWQC limits in the baseline, EPA 
expects that 592 of these reaches will experience partial water quality 
improvements from reduced occurrence of some pollutant

[[Page 38795]]

concentrations in excess of AWQC limits.

  Table VII.D-4.--Estimated MP&M Discharge Reaches With MP&M Pollutant
 Concentrations in Excess of AWQC Limits for Protection of Human Health
                           or Aquatic Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Number of Benefitting
                                   Number of             Reaches
                                 Reaches With  -------------------------
       Regulatory Status        MP&M Pollutant                Number of
                                Concentrations    All AWQC       AWQC
                                Exceeding AWQC  Exceedances  Exceedances
                                    Limits       Eliminated    Reduced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................        10, 443           N/A          N/A
Post Compliance...............          9,258         1,185        1,837
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         NODA Option (Includes Changes to Technical Inputs Only)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................          4,663           N/A          N/A
Post Compliance...............          3,702           960          555
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NODA Option With all Changes in Today's Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline......................          6,051           N/A          N/A
Post Compliance...............          4,872         1,179         592
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    EPA attached a monetary value to these reduced exceedances based on 
increased values for recreational fishing. The NODA analysis excludes 
monetized estimates for additional benefits categories, specifically 
recreational boating and near-water recreation, and higher estimates 
for non-use benefits based on these additional benefits categories. EPA 
was unable to update boating and near-water analysis for the NODA 
option because valuation of these additional benefits categories is 
partially based on results from the Ohio case study analysis. As noted 
in the preceding sections of this document, because of the timing of 
the NODA, new pollutant loading estimates have not been estimated for 
the MP&M facilities that completed the Ohio case study questionnaire. 
The Agency will estimate these additional benefits categories in the 
final rule analysis. A detailed discussion of the recreational benefits 
analysis methodology appears in the proposal EEBA. Table VII.D-5 
presents the estimated national recreational benefits of the proposed 
rule, the NODA option with the technical inputs, and the NODA option 
with all changes in today's document.
    EPA estimated recreational fishing benefits of $365.36 million 
(1999$) for the proposed rule. Based on the revised pollutant loadings, 
the increased number of MP&M sample facility locations ( i.e., use of 
additional questionnaires), and corrections in POTW flows. EPA 
estimates recreational fishing benefits of $346.11 million (1999$) for 
the NODA option with all changes in today's document.
5. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
    Under the proposed rule, EPA estimated that 62 POTWs would be able 
to select the land application disposal based on estimated reductions 
in sludge contamination. An estimated 1.17 million dry metric tons 
(DMT) of sewage sludge would newly qualify for land application 
annually. EPA also estimated that 21 POTWs that previously met only the 
land application pollutant limit would, as a result of regulation, meet 
the more stringent land application concentration limits. EPA estimated 
$61.3 million (1999$) in annual cost savings for the POTWs expected to 
upgrade their sludge disposal practices.
    Based on the revised loadings and changes in the estimated flow for 
small POTW facilities, EPA estimates that 39 POTWs would be able to 
select the lower-cost land application disposal method under the NODA 
option with all changes in today's document. Only 0.11 million dry 
metric tons (DMT) of sewage sludge is expected to newly qualify for 
land application annually under the NODA option with all changes in 
today's Notice. The annual estimated cost savings for the POTWs 
expected to upgrade their sludge disposal practices decreases to $5.59 
million (1999$) under the NODA option with all changes in today's 
document. EPA estimates that an additional 28 POTWs that previously met 
only the land application pollutant limit will be able to meet the more 
stringent land application concentration limits under the NODA option 
with all changes in today's document. Commenters raised concerns with 
EPA's analysis of POTW cost savings and the ability of some POTWs to 
upgrade their sludge disposal practices. As noted earlier, AMSA 
recently surveyed the same POTWs as EPA did for the 1997 POTW survey, 
including asking about disposal practices. EPA is in the process of 
evaluating this new information. For the final rule, the Agency will 
consider changes to the POTW benefits analysis based on the new data.
6. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
    EPA estimated that partial benefits under the NODA option for the 
four categories for which monetary estimates were possible at this time 
(Categories 1-4 in Table VII.D-5). The benefits for these four 
categories are $419.97 million (1999$) annually. Enhanced boating and 
viewing benefits will be estimated for the final rule based on the 
changes in technical inputs and the methodology changes discussed 
earlier. Nonuse benefits will be estimated based on \1/2\ recreational 
benefits.
    Estimates detailed in the NODA omit three categories of benefits 
(Categories 5-7 in Table VII.D-5) that will be

[[Page 38796]]

estimated for the final rule, and therefore underestimate the total 
benefits of the rule. As in the proposal, the NODA results also omit 
additional benefits to society that may result from reduced MP&M 
effluent discharges such as swimming; non-cancer health benefits (other 
than benefits from reduced exposure to lead); and the reduced cost of 
drinking water treatment for the pollutants with drinking water 
criteria.

      Table VII.D-5.--Estimated Benefits from Reduced MP&M Discharges (Annual Benefits--Million $ 1999) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         NODA option (changes to technical     NODA option with all changes in
           Benefit category                         inputs only)                       today's document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reduced Cancer Risk:...............
    Fish Consumption..................  $2.10..............................  $2.96
    Water Consumption.................  $1.34..............................  $18.00
2. Reduced Risk from Exposure to Lead:
    Children..........................  $6.85..............................  $39.66
    Adults............................  $6.73..............................  $7.67
3. Avoided Sewage Sludge Disposal       $7.68..............................  $5.59
 Costs.
4. Enhanced Fishing...................  $328.33............................  $346.11
5. Enhanced Boating...................  Not Estimated......................  To Be Estimated
6. Enhanced Viewing...................  Not Estimated......................  To Be Estimated
7. Nonuse benefits (\1/2\ of            Not Estimated......................  To Be Estimated
 Recreational Use.
Total Monetized Benefits \1\..........  Not Estimated......................  To Be Estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also Chapter 19 of the proposal EEBA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).

VIII. Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards

A. Technology Option 2

    Technology Option 2 includes in-process flow control and pollution 
prevention, segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment 
steps as necessary (including oils removal using oil-water separation 
by chemical emulsion breaking), chemical precipitation using lime or 
sodium hydroxide, and sedimentation using a clarifier.
    At proposal EPA based the BPT, BCT, and BAT proposed effluent 
limitations guidelines on Option 2 for existing direct dischargers in 
the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing, 
Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategories. 
EPA also based the proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources 
(PSES) on Option 2 for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, 
Printed Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategories.
    EPA did not propose PSES nor pretreatment standards for new sources 
(PSNS) for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory. EPA proposed new 
source performance standards (NSPS) for new direct dischargers in the 
Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory based on Option 2. Additionally, at 
proposal, EPA did not calculate new BPT limitations for TSS or oil and 
grease for the Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, and 
Printed Wiring Board subcategories. Instead, EPA set them at the same 
level as in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (see 40 CFR 
433.13). EPA is again not calculating new BPT limitations for TSS or 
oil and grease in today's document for these subcategories.
    Table VIII.A-1 presents the concentration-based preliminary revised 
limitations and standards for Option 2. However, in the final rule, EPA 
intends to promulgate limitations and standards in terms of pounds per 
1000 pounds of production for the different types of operations in this 
subcategory. EPA has converted the concentration-based preliminary 
revised limitations and standards to mass units using the production 
values in Table 14-7 of the proposal TDD. These Mass based limits for 
the Steel Forming & Finishing based on Option 2 are presented in the 
record (see section 19.2, DCNs 36056 and 36059).

                              Table VIII.A-1.--Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards (mg/L) for Technology Option 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    GENL      GENL       MFJ       MFJ       PWB       PWB       ANO       ANO       SFF       SFF      ZINC      ZINC
             Analyte                Daily    Monthly    Daily    Monthly    Daily    Monthly    Daily    Monthly    Daily    Monthly    Daily    Monthly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALUMINUM........................  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........  ........      8.20      4.00  ........  ........  ........  ........
AMENABLE CYANIDE................     0.140    0.0700     0.140    0.0700     0.140    0.0700  ........  ........     0.140    0.0700  ........  ........
CADMIUM.........................     0.140    0.0900     0.210    0.0900  ........  ........  ........  ........    0.0447    0.0274  ........  ........
CHROMIUM........................     0.250     0.140      2.80     0.905    0.0795    0.0330  ........  ........    0.0315    0.0151      1.44     0.492
COPPER..........................     0.550     0.280      1.30     0.570      2.15      1.01  ........  ........     0.111    0.0463  ........  ........
CYANIDE.........................     0.362     0.170     0.362     0.170     0.362     0.170  ........  ........     0.362     0.170  ........  ........
LEAD............................     0.189    0.0853     0.156    0.0945     0.432     0.208  ........  ........     0.803     0.273  ........  ........
MANGANESE.......................     0.475     0.255     0.250     0.100      1.30     0.640     0.475     0.255     0.305     0.216  ........  ........
MOLYBDENUM......................     0.790     0.490     0.100    0.0829  ........  ........  ........  ........    0.0687    0.0590  ........  ........
NICKEL..........................     0.636     0.339      1.50     0.640     0.411     0.187     0.636     0.339    0.0983    0.0658  ........  ........
OIL AND GREASE (AS HEM)       23.3      14.4      23.3      14.4      23.3      14.4      23.3      14.4      12.4       7.7  ........  ........
SILVER..........................     0.220    0.0900     0.252    0.0845  ........  ........  ........  ........     0.111    0.0443  ........  ........
TIN.............................      1.40     0.670      1.80      1.40     0.310     0.140  ........  ........    0.0838    0.0444  ........  ........
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)......      87.0      50.0      78.0      59.0     101.0      67.0  ........  ........      47.0      37.7  ........  ........
TOTAL ORGANICS PARAMETER........      6.65      3.24      6.65      3.24      6.65      3.24  ........  ........      6.65      3.24
TOTAL SULFIDE...................     0.676     0.475     0.676     0.475      6.52      4.58  ........  ........     0.676     0.475  ........  ........
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS .      42.2      21.2      33.2      16.9      83.1      35.9      56.0      23.3      37.4      24.0  ........  ........
ZINC............................     0.748     0.352     0.677     0.323    0.0364    0.0269     0.748     0.352      1.45     0.582      2.52      1.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: GENL = General Metals, MFJ = Metal Finishing Job Shops, PWB = Printed Wiring Board, ANO = non-chromium anodizing, SFF = Steel Forming & Finishing,
  Zinc = Zinc Platers

[[Page 38797]]

 
 The values for Oil and Grease (as HEM) were calculated from the NODA episodes. See discussion on BPT limitations and NSPS for these pollutants
  in section VI.C.12.

B. Technology Option 4

    Technology Option 4 includes in-process flow control and pollution 
prevention, segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary treatment 
steps as necessary (including oils removal by ultrafiltration), 
chemical precipitation using lime or sodium hydroxide, and solids 
separation using a microfilter.
    At proposal EPA based the NSPS and PSNS (new source standards) on 
Option 4 for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed 
Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategories. EPA is 
currently reviewing whether to promulgate final limits based on the 
proposed technology option (Option 4) for new sources in the metal-
bearing subcategories (see section IX.A) or whether Option 2 is 
sufficient. EPA is not presenting preliminary revised limitations and 
standards for Option 4 in today's document.

C. Technology Option 6

    Technology Option 6 includes in-process flow control, pollution 
prevention, and oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking. At 
proposal EPA based the BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS effluent 
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards on Option 6 for the 
Oily Wastes Subcategory. Option 6 includes in-process flow control, 
pollution prevention, and oil-water separation by chemical emulsion 
breaking. Table VIII.C-1 presents the preliminary revised limitations 
and standards for Option 6.

  Table VIII.C-1.--Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards (mg/L)
                         for Technology Option 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 OILY
                    Analyte                     OILY  daily    monthly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIL AND GREASE (AS HEM).......................         45.9         26.0
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)....................        633.0        378.0
TOTAL ORGANICS PARAMETER......................         6.65         3.24
TOTAL SULFIDE.................................         31.3         13.3
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS........................         63.0        31.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: OILY = Oily Wastes

D. Technology Option 10

    Technology Option 10 includes in-process flow control, pollution 
prevention, and oil-water separation by dissolved air flotation. At 
proposal EPA based the BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS effluent limitations 
guidelines and pretreatment standards for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock and 
Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategories on Option 10. EPA did not 
propose pretreatment standards for new or existing sources in the 
Shipbuilding Dry Dock and Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategories. 
Table VIII.D-1 presents the preliminary revised limitations and 
standards for Option 10.
    EPA proposed limitations and standards for biochemical oxygen 
demand measured as 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). 
In examining its data, EPA determined that it had used biochemical 
oxygen demand data measured as 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen 
demand (CBOD5). In some cases, BOD5 will have 
higher concentration values than CBOD5. Thus, in today's 
document, EPA is clarifying which form of biochemical oxygen demand it 
proposed to regulated (i.e., CBOD5).

         Table VIII.D-1.--Preliminary Revised Limitations and Standards (mg/L) for Technology Option 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               DRYD                      RRL
                           Analyte                            DRYD  daily    monthly     RRL  daily    monthly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD 5-DAY (CARBONACEOUS)....................................  ...........  ...........         7.20         5.83
OIL AND GREASE (AS HEM).....................................         34.3         17.5          8.4          6.9
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS......................................         81.0         44.0         20.5        13.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: DRYD = Shipbuilding Dry Dock, RRL = Railroad Line Maintenance

IX. Consideration of Alternative Options

    Based on the data received with comments, data corrections, and 
changes to certain methodologies for the proposed rule, EPA is 
presenting cost, pollutant reduction, and economic impact estimates 
(see section VII of today's document). EPA will consider these revised 
results in its decisions for the final rule. In the sections below, EPA 
discusses in detail the options for the General Metals, Metal Finishing 
Job Shop, Printed Wiring Board, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, 
and Steel Forming & Finishing.
    Commenters requested that EPA consider alternatives to the 
preferred options selected for the proposal for certain subcategories. 
As a result of additional data and comments, EPA is reconsidering: (1) 
the options for BPT/BAT limitations for specified subcategories; and 
(2) the proposed option for new sources for the metal-bearing 
subcategories. EPA is also considering: (1) the use of an Environmental 
Management System for the General Metals Subcategory; (2) a variety of 
options to reduce economic impacts in several subcategories; and (3) a 
change in the proposed technology option for the Railroad Line 
Maintenance Subcategory. These alternatives are discussed in more 
detail below. In addition, as recommended by the Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel for the proposed rule (66 FR 524), EPA may 
consider a ``no regulation'' option or change in the low wastewater 
flow exclusions in the final rule for several subcategories ``to reduce 
any significant economic impacts that are not justified by 
environmental improvements and to improve the cost-effectiveness of the 
regulation.'' EPA is also considering the ``no further regulation'' 
option in the final rule for several subcategories.

A. Consideration of Change in New Source Technology Option for Metal-
Bearing Subcategories

    EPA is reviewing whether to promulgate final limits based on the 
proposed technology option for new sources in the metal-bearing 
subcategories. EPA proposed new source standards for the General 
Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel 
Forming & Finishing subcategories. EPA proposed standards based on the 
following treatment technology: segregation of chelated wastes, 
hexavalent chromium reduction (when necessary), cyanide destruction 
(when necessary), ultrafiltration for oils removals,

[[Page 38798]]

incorporation of pollution prevention and water conservation practices, 
chemical precipitation (by sodium hydroxide), and solids separation by 
a microfilter (``Option 4''). EPA proposed existing source limits based 
on ``Option 2''--a similar treatment train except chemical emulsion 
breaking is used for preliminary treatment of oily wastes and the 
microfilter is replaced by a lamella slant plate clarifier. EPA notes 
that it proposed setting new source limits equal to existing source 
limits for Non-Chromium Anodizing, the other metal-bearing subcategory.
    EPA solicited comment and data on two alternative options for new 
sources in those metal-bearing subcategories (66 FR 534, solicitation 
26; 66 FR 536, solicitation 39). The first alternative would establish 
new source limits for these subcategories based on Option 2 technology 
with an ultrafilter substituting for chemical emulsion breaking and 
oil/water separator. The second alternative would establish new source 
limits completely based on Option 2 with the corresponding new source 
limits equal to the existing source limits.
    EPA received many comments requesting that EPA not set new sources 
limits based on Option 4 technology. Commenters stated that EPA had 
under-costed Option 4 technology and that it would be a barrier to 
entry for new facilities. In addition, commenters questioned the 
completeness of EPA's database on microfiltration. Commenters noted 
that EPA transferred limits for several pollutants from Option 2 
technology, based on lack of data. EPA did not receive additional 
sampling data for microfiltration. Therefore, EPA is considering for 
the final rule, as discussed in the proposal, setting new source 
limitations and pretreatment standards based on Option 2 technology. 
This means the final limits would be equal for existing sources and new 
sources in the subcategories discussed in this section. EPA again 
solicits comment on basing the new source technology option on Option 
2.

B. General Metals Subcategory

    In the proposed rule EPA proposed numerical limitations and 
pretreatment standards for the General Metals Subcategory based on 
Option 2 technology (see section IX.A above for description of Option 
2). EPA selected Option 2 technology based on the national estimates of 
costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and environmental benefits 
as determined at the time of the proposal. These estimates have changed 
based on public comments as described in previous sections of today's 
document. Therefore, EPA is reconsidering alternative options to reduce 
the economic impact, and solicits comment on potential approaches. EPA 
is also considering promulgating pretreatment standards for new and 
existing sources as equivalent to 40 CFR part 433 for the General 
Metals Subcategory.
    EPA notes that zinc platers in the General Metals Subcategory are 
not considered in the following analyses but are analyzed separately 
(see section 17.5, DCN 17761). EPA is considering the same General 
Metals Subcategory options for this potential new zinc plater 
subcategory (see section III.A.1).
1. Consideration of an Environmental Management System Based 
Alternative for the General Metals Subcategory
    In the preamble for the proposal (66 FR 513), EPA solicited comment 
on offering a pollution prevention alternative with an environmental 
management system (EMS) component to the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory as well as other subcategories, including the General 
Metals Subcategory. In response to the solicitation, EPA received a 
suggestion for an EMS-based alternative for the General Metals 
subcategory from an industry group formed by several facilities and 
industry trade associations representing the General Metals 
Subcategory. The following explains what an EMS is and explains the 
suggested alternative.
    EMSs provide organizations of all types with a structured approach 
for managing environmental and regulatory responsibilities to improve 
overall environmental performance, including areas not subject to 
regulation. EMSs can also help organizations better integrate the full 
scope of environmental considerations and get better results, by 
establishing a continuous process of checking to make sure 
environmental goals are met. EMS implementation ensures that procedures 
are in place for taking remedial action if problems occur. From a 
business perspective, benefits may include cost savings, increased 
operational efficiency and competitiveness, risk reduction, improved 
internal communication, and improved relations with external parties. 
EMSs typically incorporate a feedback mechanism that supports 
measurement of performance against a set of measurable objectives and 
provides a mechanism for correction or preventive action. EMSs do not 
replace the need for regulatory and enforcement programs, but they can 
complement them.
    A strong EMS does not just set rules for employees: it tracks 
performance, fosters proactive identification and correction of 
problems, and provides a mechanism to prevent problems from recurring. 
Many organizations are adopting EMSs as a management tool. EPA 
encourages the use of EMSs because these tools have the potential to 
improve compliance rates and environmental performance.
    In its comments to EPA, an industry group suggested that EPA 
consider an EMS-based alternative to the final part 438 (MP&M) effluent 
limits for facilities in the General Metals subcategory (see section 
16.4, DCN 17793). The alternative would authorize certain facilities to 
continue to be subject to part 433 under the circumstances discussed 
below. Table IX.B-1 provides the conditions for the EMS-based 
alternative proposed by an industry group.

   Table IX.B-1.--EMS-Based Alternative Proposed by an Industry Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facility has BAT technology (or its equivalent) in place and shall
 certify at the time of each permit renewal that it has installed and
 operates, at a minimum, the equivalent of Best Available Technology
 used to set BAT/PSES limitations in 40 CFR part 438 Rule and
 implementation of the following practices:
 Ensure that the wastewater treatment system has established pH
 set points to optimize metal removal efficiencies and a pH monitoring
 system;
 Have a system to monitor tank levels or wastewater flow;
 As requested, provide documentation of applicable preventive
 maintenance of the treatment systems and calibration schedules;
 Maintain for a period of one year and, as requested, provide
 wastewater treatment system operations logs;
 Maintain for a period of one year and, as requested, provide
 documentation of wastewater treatment system procedures or protocols;
 Compliance with part 433 monthly average PSNS or NSPS
 limitations, as appropriate; and
 ISO 14001 Certification or Employment of an Environmental
 Management System (EMS).
The industry group also suggest the following forfeiture criteria:
A facility would forfeit the right to participate in this EMS-based
 alternative, if:

[[Page 38799]]

 
 BAT is removed, not operational, or not operated in accordance
 with the procedures noted above;
 monthly average PSNS or NSPS part 433 limitations are exceeded;
 or
 ISO 14001Certification is withdrawn and an EMS program is
 demonstrated to be inadequate.
The industry group suggested that if any of the forfeiture criteria is
 met, then the permitting authority may find that the facility has
 forfeited the right to employ the EMS-based alternative, and require
 that such facility come into compliance with 40 CFR part 438 BAT or
 PSES limitations no later than six months after such right is
 withdrawn, with the exception that a longer period of time may be
 provided to facilities at which construction beyond BAT is required to
 meet the 40 CFR part 438 BAT or PSES limitations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Section 16.4, DCN 17793 of the public record.

    If EPA were to include such an EMS-based alternative in the final 
rule, the Agency would consider making the following changes to the 
industry's suggested plan. First, EPA would consider amending the 
condition that reads ``ISO 14001 Certification or Employment of an 
Environmental Management System (EMS)'' to read ``ISO 14001 
Certification.'' EPA has some concerns that ``third-party 
certification'' without some form of accreditation, as required by ISO, 
may not provide the level of assurance EPA, state, and local agencies 
would need to allow for this alternative. Second, EPA would consider 
amending the forfeiture criteria to read as follows:
    ``A facility would forfeit the right to participate in this EMS-
based alternative, if:
     BAT is removed, not operational, or not operated in 
accordance with the procedures noted above; or
     monthly average PSNS or NSPS Part 433 limitations are 
exceeded.''
    EPA is also considering and solicits comments on the following 
amendments to the industry plan (see Table IX.B-1).
    (1) Requiring the permitting authority to determine whether the 
facility has installed and is operating the equivalent of BAT;
    (2) Requiring compliance with the industry plan through the 
facility's permit;
    (3) Requiring facilities to maintain records for a period of at 
least three years and, as requested, provide documentation of 
applicable preventive maintenance of the treatment systems and 
calibration schedules;
    (4) Requiring facilities to certify that they have implemented and 
will continue to comply with the industry plan; and
    (5) Requiring facilities to monitor tank levels, in accordance with 
a system approved by the permitting authority, in addition to having a 
system to do so.
    Additionally, under the industry proposal, the permitting authority 
would be authorized to find that a facility had forfeited the right to 
participate in the EMS-based alternative, in one of three circumstances 
(e.g., ``monthly average PSNS or NSPS part 433 limitations are 
exceeded). If the permitting authority find that a facility has 
forfeited the right to participate, the facility would have up to 6 
months to come into compliance with 40 CFR part 438 BAT or PSES 
limitations, with the possibility of an extension. As drafted, this 
alternative may place an unreasonable resource burden on the permitting 
authority to make a forfeiture determination before the facility is 
required to meet the part 438 limitations. In addition, the facility 
will not have certainty as to the consequences of its failure to meet 
the EMS-based requirements. To address these concerns, EPA seeks 
comment on requiring, as part of a permit, that a facility come into 
compliance with 40 CFR part 438 BAT or PSES limitation within 6 months 
of failing to meet one or more of three forfeiture conditions 
identified by industry (see Table IX.B-1) or as otherwise determined by 
the permitting agency. In the absence of such a provision, the facility 
may be out of compliance for an extended period.
    EPA also seeks comment on the extent to which exceedances of 
monthly average PSNS or NSPS part 433 limitations should require that 
the facility come into compliance with 40 CFR part 438. In the absence 
of a clear standard, there will be no firm basis upon which to require 
that the facility meet 40 CFR part 438.
    EPA also seeks comment on the following issues:
     Requiring facilities that forfeit the right to participate 
in this EMS-based alternative to comply with the new source limits of 
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) regulations instead of limits 
established under 40 CFR part 438.
     Ways in which EPA can ensure compliance with the part 433 
limits and standards, as well as compliance with a facility's EMS, if 
this option were chosen for the final rule.
     What is the frequency of self and third-party auditing? 
Also, should the regulation requires that the results of all third-
party audits must be submitted to the regulatory authority in a timely 
manner and available to the public upon request?
     What qualifications and certification should the 
regulation require for the use of third-party auditors?
     To what extent should data on the facility's environmental 
performance be communicated to the public?
     Should the participating facility provide an opportunity 
for the public to comment on its environmental aspects, impacts, 
objectives and targets when developing the EMS?
     Beyond EPA's amendment to the industry-based plan what 
specific circumstances of noncompliance would trigger a return to 40 
CFR part 438?
    EPA recognizes that developing an EMS would cause a facility to 
incur certain costs. Therefore, in addition to soliciting overall 
comments on this EMS-based alternative, EPA would like to receive any 
information on the existing costs of EMS implementation for General 
Metals operations, both on a per-facility and firm basis. Types of 
costs that could be relevant include staff and consultant costs, 
certification, documentation and recordkeeping, and costs of upgrading 
operations to make them conform to the EMS elements ( i.e., statement 
of environmental compliance policy, monitoring and measurement targets, 
corrective action plan, self-assessment procedure, and personnel 
trained in accordance with EMS).
    EPA is concerned that such an option may only be achievable by 
larger facilities that currently have or are working toward ISO 14001 
Certification. EPA solicits comment on whether small and medium size 
facilities can or would use an EMS alternative as described above, and 
whether formal guidance and assistance from the Agency would be 
necessary to utilize this alternative. EPA also solicits comment from 
state and local regulators on their need for formal guidance from the 
Agency to implement this alternative and on the implementation burden, 
cost, and enforceability of this alternative. EPA also solicits comment 
on what modifications to a formal ISO 14001 process would be needed to

[[Page 38800]]

accommodate small and medium size businesses.
2. No Regulation or No Further Regulation
    EPA estimated at proposal that 26 percent of the facilities in the 
General Metals Subcategory are regulated by existing ELGs. EPA received 
many comments from industry and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 
that these facilities are adequately regulated under the current ELGs 
or that local limits can address water quality concerns in sensitive 
water bodies. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and 
pollutant loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule, 
once corrected for errors, would clearly demonstrate that the costs and 
impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would not be justified.
    Section VII of today's document reports the revised estimates of 
costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts. Briefly, EPA 
estimates that compliance with the revised limitations and standards 
would result in facility closures for 91 of 2,055 (4.4%) indirect 
dischargers. The revised estimates of cost-effectiveness for indirect 
dischargers increased to $440/pound-equivalent removed. Based on EPA's 
revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts and 
benefits discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA is again 
considering an option of no regulation or no further regulation for 
indirect dischargers in this subcategory for the final rule. EPA 
solicits comment on this option.
3. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
    EPA is considering an increase in the 1 million gallon per year 
(MGY) low flow cutoff used at proposal for indirectly discharging 
General Metals facilities. As discussed in section VII of today's 
document, EPA's current estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and 
economic impacts differ from those calculated for the proposal. 
Therefore, EPA is considering increasing the low flow cutoff at various 
levels or other regulatory thresholds (e.g., based on facility size 
such as employment, production, or revenue) to provide relief to 
indirect dischargers in this subcategory from significant economic 
impacts.
    Table IX.B-2 below shows the national estimates of compliance costs 
(1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic 
impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981$/pound-equivalent removed) for 
varying levels of flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the 
General Metals Subcategory.

 Table IX.B-2.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the General Metals Subcategory (Zinc
                                              Platers Not Included)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Severe
                                                              Industry                  economic       Cost-
                                                Number of    compliance   Pollutant     impacts    effectiveness
                 Flow cutoff                      sites         cost      reductions   (facility      (1991$/
                                                              (1999$)      (lb-eq.)    closures,      lb.eq.)
                                                             (millions)                    %)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 MGY........................................        2,055          636    1,240,219      91 (4%)           440
2 MGY........................................        1,455          549    1,066,154      91 (6%)           436
3 MGY........................................        1,187          505    1,016,616      79 (7%)           441
6.25 MGY.....................................          725          397      634,312      55 (8%)          893
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that
  close in the baseline and use all NODA changes in economic methodologies.

4. 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
    As recommended by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel for the 
proposed rule (66 FR 524), EPA is considering regulatory alternatives 
which reduce significant economic impacts. EPA considers the ``413 to 
433 Upgrade Option'' to be an alternative regulatory option. The 413 to 
433 Upgrade Option would bring into alignment those facilities 
currently required to meet the standards of the Electroplating effluent 
limitations guidelines (ELGs) (40 CFR part 413) with those required to 
meet the limitations and standards of the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR 
part 433), rather than promulgating the MP&M limitations and standards 
provided in today's document. EPA expects such an option (``413 to 433 
Upgrade Option'') would significantly reduce EPA's estimate of economic 
impacts while achieving some environmental improvements over current 
conditions.
    Currently, the only facilities that are still completely covered by 
the Electroplating ELGs are indirect discharging facilities that were 
in existence prior to 1982 and have not significantly upgraded their 
operations. If a facility modified its operations significantly, this 
would trigger new source standards and the facility would be subject to 
the Metal Finishing ELGs, which are more stringent than the 
Electroplating ELGs. In EPA's view most facilities are likely to either 
be completely covered by the Metal Finishing ELGs or by a combination 
of the two ELGs to account for new operations in their permit (see 
Table III.E-1 for national estimates).
    In the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option, EPA would set limits for all 
facilities in the General Metals Subcategory that are currently 
regulated under part 413 equivalent to those in the Metal Finishing 
ELGs (40 CFR part 433). If EPA determines that the revised MP&M numeric 
limitations and standards, based on best available control technology, 
are not economically achievable, EPA may determine that the technology 
in-place at facilities currently complying with the Metal Finishing 
ELGs is the best available technology economically achievable. In that 
case, the limits and standards developed using the technology basis 
used for the Metal Finishing regulations (i.e., the limits in part 433) 
would be based on the best available technology economically 
achievable. In addition, this option may reduce burden on POTWs by 
clarifying several points of confusion relating to the Metal Finishing 
regulations that have required significant review over the past 20 
years (e.g., when is an operation acid etching versus acid cleaning).
    EPA estimates a total annual compliance cost of $7.2 million 
(1999$) for the 286 indirect General Metals facilities currently 
covered only by the Electroplating regulations (see Table III.E-1 for 
national estimates) to comply with the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option (see 
section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). Of the 286 General Metals facilities 
regulated by part 413, EPA estimates that there

[[Page 38801]]

would be 18 baseline closures and 31 regulatory closures due to the 413 
to 433 Upgrade Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). These compliance 
costs are on average less than $31,000/year for each General Metals 
facility that will upgrade from part 413 to 433. EPA also estimates 
annual reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of approximately 
35,000 pound-equivalents (approximately 148 PE-removed/facility-year). 
This would result in an approximate cost-effectiveness number of $120/
pound-equivalent removed (1981$). EPA solicits comment on this option, 
including the difficulty in interpreting part 413 and 433 
applicability, cost of upgrading treatment systems, facility space 
constraints, possible POTW burden, improvements to sludge quality, and 
economic impacts.
    EPA also notes that there was a group of facilities identified in 
the original Electroplating effluent guidelines that received a reduced 
set of limitations (i.e., fewer parameters and different controls on 
cyanide) based on economic impacts (these facilities discharge less 
than 10,000 gallons per day). EPA will assess the economic impact on 
these facilities to determine if there is a need to reduce the economic 
burden associated with this option, if chosen for the final regulation. 
Table IX.B-3 provides EPA's national estimate of facilities that are 
currently covered under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part 
413) that discharge less than 10,000 gallons per day.

 Table IX.B-3.--National Estimate of Facilities Discharging Less Than 10,000 Gallons per Day That Are Currently
                            Covered Under the Electroplating ELGs (40 CFR Part 413)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Assuming facility         Assuming facility
                                                               operation 250 days/year   operation 360 days/year
                      MP&M subcategory                       ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Direct      Indirect      Direct      Indirect
                                                               discharges   discharges   discharges   discharges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals..............................................    50b (None     363c (29    78b (None     384c (29
                                                                 are Zinc     are Zinc     are Zinc     are Zinc
                                                                 Platers)     Platers)     Platers)     Platers)
Metal Finishing Job Shops...................................            0   148c (None            0     217c (12
                                                                              are Zinc                  are Zinc
                                                                              Platers)                  Platers)
Printed Wiring Board........................................            0          524            0          531
Oily Waste..................................................            0            7            0           0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a These national estimates include facilities that are regulated under 40 CFR part 413, 40 CFR parts 413 and
  433, and 40 CFR parts 413, 433, and other ELGs.
b These sites have both direct and indirect discharges but indicated coverage under Part 413 in their survey
  response.
c These national estimates also include ``Zinc Platers'' (see section III.A.1).

    EPA solicits comment on these national estimates of facilities and 
their economic condition.

C. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory

    In the proposed rule EPA proposed numerical limitations and 
pretreatment standards for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory 
based on Option 2 technology (see section IX.A above for description of 
Option 2). EPA selected Option 2 technology based on the national 
estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and 
environmental benefits as determined at the time of the proposal. These 
estimates have changed based on public comments as described in 
previous sections of today's document. Therefore, EPA solicits comment 
on the following alternative options. In addition, EPA will continue to 
consider the Pollution Prevention Alternative described in the proposal 
(66 FR 512).
    EPA notes that zinc platers in the Metal Finishing Job Shops 
Subcategory are not considered in the following analyses but are 
analyzed separately (see section 17.5, DCN 17761). EPA is considering 
the same Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory options for this 
potential new zinc plater subcategory (see section III.A.1).
1. No Further Regulation
    One option considered in the proposed rule was no further 
regulation for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory. All 
facilities in this subcategory are currently regulated under the 
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) or Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) 
regulations. EPA received many comments from industry and Publicly 
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that metal finishing job shops are 
adequately regulated under the current regulations and that local 
limitations can address water quality concerns in sensitive water 
bodies, including monitoring for pollutants not covered by federal 
standards. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and 
pollutant loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule, 
once corrected for errors, would clearly demonstrate that the costs and 
impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would not be justified.
    As discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current 
estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ 
from those calculated for the proposal. Briefly, EPA estimates that 
compliance with the revised limitations and standards would result in 
facility closures for 12 of 24 (50%) direct dischargers and for 508 of 
1165 (44%) indirect dischargers. In addition, EPA performed a 
sensitivity analysis to determine the economic effects of the proposal 
if facilities could pass zero percent of compliance costs to customers. 
This would increase closures for indirect dischargers in this 
subcategory by 15%. The revised estimates of cost-effectiveness for 
indirect dischargers increased to $500/pound-equivalent removed.
    Based on EPA's revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals, 
economic impacts and benefits discussed in section VII of today's 
document, EPA is again considering an option of no further regulation 
for this subcategory for the final rule. An EPA decision not to 
promulgate further regulations would based on a determination that the 
regulations were not economically achievable. EPA solicits comment on 
this option.
2. 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
    As described in section IX.B.4, EPA is considering an upgrade 
option (``413 to 433 Upgrade Option'') which would bring into alignment 
those facilities

[[Page 38802]]

currently required to meet the standards of the Electroplating effluent 
limitations guidelines (ELGs) (40 CFR part 413) with those required to 
meet the limitations and standards of the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR 
part 433), rather than promulgating the MP&M limitations and standards 
provided in today's document. EPA expects the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option 
would significantly reduce EPA's estimate of economic impacts while 
achieving some environmental improvements over current conditions.
    EPA estimates a total annual compliance cost of $1.4 million 
(1999$) for the 278 indirect Metal Finishing Job Shop facilities 
currently covered only by the Electroplating regulations (see Table 
III.E-1 for national estimates) to comply with the 413 to 433 Upgrade 
Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). Of the 278 Metal Finishing Job 
Shop facilities regulated by part 413, EPA estimates that there would 
be no baseline closures and 24 regulatory closures due to the 413 to 
433 Upgrade Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). These compliance 
costs are on average less than $5,600/year for each Metal Finishing Job 
Shop facility that will upgrade from part 413 to 433. EPA also 
estimates annual reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of 
approximately 35,000 pound-equivalents (approximately 138 PE-removed/
facility-year). This would result in an approximate cost-effectiveness 
number of $23/pound-equivalent removed (1981$). EPA solicits comment on 
this option, including the difficulty in interpreting parts 413 and 433 
applicability, cost of upgrading treatment systems, facility space 
constraints, possible POTW burden, improvements to sludge quality, and 
economic impacts.
    EPA also notes that there was a group of facilities identified in 
the original Electroplating effluent guidelines that received a reduced 
set of limitations (i.e., fewer parameters and different controls on 
cyanide) based on economic impacts (these facilities discharge less 
than 10,000 gallons per day). EPA will assess the economic impact on 
these facilities to determine if there is a need to reduce the economic 
burden associated with this option, if chosen for the final regulation. 
Table IX.B-3 provides EPA's national estimate of facilities that are 
currently covered under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part 
413) that discharge less than 10,000 gallons per day. EPA solicits 
comment on these national estimates of facilities and their economic 
condition.
3. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
    EPA is reconsidering the use of a low flow cutoff for indirectly 
discharging Metal Finishing Job Shops. In the proposal, EPA discussed 
the use of a 1 million gallon per year low flow exclusion for these 
sites (66 FR 466). However, at the time of proposal EPA did not select 
this alternative because, based on the cost, pollutant reductions, and 
economic impact estimates at the time, ``the Agency concluded that the 
pollutant reductions associated with Option 2 were feasible and 
achievable and the economic impacts were not substantially mitigated 
under the 1 MGY flow cutoff.'' As discussed in section VII of today's 
document, EPA's current estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and 
economic impacts differ from those calculated for the proposal. 
Therefore, EPA is reconsidering the use of a low flow cutoff at various 
levels or other regulatory threshold (e.g., based on facility size such 
as employment, production, or revenue) to provide relief to facilities 
in this subcategory from significant economic impacts.
    Table IX.C-1 below shows the national estimates of compliance costs 
(1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic 
impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981$/pound-equivalent removed) for 
varying levels of flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the 
Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory.

    Table IX.C-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
                                    Subcategory (Not Including Zinc Platers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Industry                   Severe
                                                             compliance   Pollution     economic       Cost-
                 Flow cutoff                    Number of       cost      reductions    impacts    effectiveness
                                                  sites       (1999$)      (lb-eq)     (facility      (1981$/
                                                             (millions)               closurs, %)     lb.eq.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cutoff....................................        1,165          151       93,190    508 (44%)           500
1 MGY........................................          547           94       77,644    278 (51%)           383
2 MGY........................................          421           80       73,324    176 (42%)           316
3 MGY........................................          235           56       50,090    176 (75%)           282
6.25 MGY.....................................          142           43       47,953          117           186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that
  close in the baseline and use all NODA changes in economic methodologies.

D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory

    In the proposed rule, EPA set numerical limits and pretreatment 
standards for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory based on Option 2 
technology (see section IX.A above for description of Option 2). EPA 
selected Option 2 based on the national estimates of costs, pollutant 
removals, economic impacts, and environmental benefits as estimated at 
the time of the proposal. These estimates have changed based on public 
comments as described in previous sections of today's document. 
Therefore, EPA is considering alternative options to reduce the 
economic impact, and solicits comment on potential approaches.
1. No Further Regulation
    EPA is considering the same types of alternative options for the 
Printed Wiring Board Subcategory as it is for the Metal Finishing Job 
Shops Subcategory. That is, EPA is considering a ``No Further 
Regulation'' option and an option that would include the use of a low 
flow cutoff (or other regulatory threshold) to reduce the economic 
impacts estimated for this subcategory. EPA is also considering 
clarifying the part 433 regulations to reduce the burden on permit 
writers and upgrading all sites to meet the part 433 regulations.
    EPA received many comments from industry and Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTWs) that indirect discharging printed wiring board 
sites are adequately regulated under the current regulations and that 
local limitations can address water quality concerns in sensitive water 
bodies. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and 
pollutant

[[Page 38803]]

loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule, once 
corrected for errors, would clearly demonstrate that the costs and 
impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would not be justified.
    As shown in section VII of today's document, EPA estimates severe 
economic impacts (facility closures) for 62 of 840 (7%) indirect 
dischargers (or when baseline closures are included, EPA estimates 10% 
closures). EPA notes that the revised estimates of cost-effectiveness 
for indirect dischargers are high as well ($455/pound-equivalent 
removed). Based on EPA's revised estimates of costs, pollutant 
removals, economic impacts and benefits discussed in section VII of 
today's document, EPA is considering an option of no further regulation 
for indirect dischargers in this subcategory for the final rule. EPA 
solicits comment on this option.
2. 413 to 433 Upgrade Option
    As described in Section IX.B.4, EPA is considering an upgrade 
option (``413 to 433 Upgrade Option'') which would bring into alignment 
those facilities currently required to meet the standards of the 
Electroplating effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) (40 CFR part 413) 
with those required to meet the limitations and standards of the Metal 
Finishing ELGs (40 CFR part 433), rather than promulgating the MP&M 
limitations and standards provided in today's document. EPA expects the 
413 to 433 Upgrade Option would significantly reduce EPA's estimate of 
economic impacts while achieving some environmental improvements over 
current conditions.
    EPA estimates a total annual compliance cost of $0.33 million 
(1999$) for the 354 indirect Printed Wiring Board facilities currently 
covered only by the Electroplating regulations (see Table III.E-1 for 
national estimates) to comply with the 413 to 433 Upgrade Option (see 
section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). Of the 354 Printed Wiring Board facilities 
regulated by Part 413, EPA estimates that there would be three baseline 
closures and 18 regulatory closures due to the 413 to 433 Upgrade 
Option (see section 17.1.7, DCN 35080). These compliance costs are on 
average less than $1,000/year for each Printed Wiring Board facility 
that will upgrade from Part 413 to 433. EPA also estimates annual 
reduction in pollutants discharged to POTWs of approximately 35,000 
pound-equivalents (approximately 105 PE-removed/facility-year). This 
would result in an approximate cost-effectiveness number of $6/pound-
equivalent removed (1981$). EPA solicits comment on this option, 
including the difficulty in interpreting parts 413 and 433 
applicability, cost of upgrading treatment systems, facility space 
constraints, possible POTW burden, improvements to sludge quality, and 
economic impacts.
    EPA also notes that there was a group of facilities identified in 
the original Electroplating effluent guidelines that received a reduced 
set of limitations (i.e., fewer parameters and different controls on 
cyanide) based on economic impacts (these facilities discharge less 
than 10,000 gallons per day). EPA will assess the economic impact on 
these facilities to determine if there is a need to reduce the economic 
burden associated with this option, if chosen for the final regulation. 
Table IX.B-3 provides EPA's national estimate of facilities that are 
currently covered under the Electroplating regulations (40 CFR part 
413) that discharge less than 10,000 gallons per day. EPA solicits 
comment on these national estimates of facilities and their economic 
condition.
3. Printed Wiring Board Direct Dischargers
    In addition, EPA estimates no facility closures for direct 
dischargers in this subcategory associated with estimated MP&M 
compliance costs, however, based on today's revised analysis EPA 
currently estimates only four direct discharge printed wiring board 
facilities nationwide. Based on this revised estimate and the low level 
of estimated pollutant removals for these sites (i.e., approximately 
536 pounds of O&G and TSS, 12,000 pounds of COD, and 39 pounds of 
toxics and non-conventional pollutants), EPA is considering whether or 
not revised nationally-applicable regulations are necessary at this 
time because of the small number of facilities in this subcategory. The 
Agency concluded that the current limitations and the addition of 
water-quality based local limits established for individual NPDES 
permits may more appropriately address individual conventional, toxic 
and nonconventional pollutants that may be present at these four 
facilities.
4. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
    As discussed in section IX.C above, EPA may also consider the use 
of a low flow exclusion or other regulatory threshold to reduce 
significant economic impacts; however, the Agency notes that based on 
the analyses presented in today's document, the low flow cutoff does 
not reduce the economic impacts to these sites. Table IX.D-1 below 
summarizes the national estimates of compliance costs (1999$), 
pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic impacts, 
and cost-effectiveness (1981 $/pound-equivalent removed) for varying 
levels of low flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the 
Printed Wiring Board Subcategory.

                     Table IX.D-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Severe
                                                                                                                                economic
                                                                Number of     Industry compliance      Pollution reductions     impacts        Cost-
                         Flow cutoff                              sites     cost (1999$) (millions)          (lb-eq.)          (facility   effectiveness
                                                                                                                               closures,   (1981$/lb.eq)
                                                                                                                                   %)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cutoff....................................................          840                      175                  153,653      62 (7%)           455
1 MGY........................................................          352                      123                  152,163     62 (18%)           447
2 MGY........................................................          263                      111                  143,464     62 (24%)           439
3 MGY........................................................          213                      103                  138,152     37 (17%)           364
6.25 MGY.....................................................          173                       94                  129,813     31 (18%)          337
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that close in the baseline and use all NODA
  changes in economic methodologies.


[[Page 38804]]

E. Oily Wastes Subcategory
    In the proposed rule, EPA set numerical limits and pretreatment 
standards for the Oily Wastes Subcategory based on Option 6 technology, 
including a low flow exclusion of 2 million gallons per year (MGY) or 
less for indirect discharging facilities. EPA based Option 6 on in-
process flow control, pollution prevention, and oil-water separation by 
chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity separation and oil 
skimming. EPA selected Option 6 limitations and standards based on the 
national estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and 
environmental benefits estimated at the time of the proposal. These 
estimates have changed based on public comments as described in 
previous sections of today's document. In addition, as discussed in 
section III.A.1 of today's document, the number of Oily Wastes 
facilities, prior to a low flow exclusion, has increased from 
approximately 29,000 facilities to nearly 44,000 facilities due to the 
change in EPA's subcategorization scheme and the change to the 
definition of ``oily operations'' (see section IV.A for the revised 
definition). EPA is considering alternative options to reduce the 
burden on POTWs. EPA solicits comment on the following potential 
approaches.
1. No Regulation or No Further Regulation
    EPA estimated at proposal that less than 1 percent of the 
facilities in the Oily Wastes Subcategory are regulated by existing 
ELGs. EPA received many comments from industry and Publicly Owned 
Treatment Works (POTWs) that these facilities are adequately regulated 
under the current ELGs or that local limits can address water quality 
concerns in sensitive water bodies. Commenters concluded that the 
environmental impacts and pollutant loading reductions that would be 
achieved by the MP&M rule, once corrected for errors, would clearly 
demonstrate that the costs and impacts associated with the MP&M 
regulation would not be justified.
    As discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current 
estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ 
from those calculated for the proposal. Briefly, EPA estimates that 
compliance with the revised limitations and standards would result in 
facility closures for 1 of 288 (0.3%) indirect dischargers. The revised 
estimates cost-effectiveness for indirect dischargers increased to 
$2,963/pound-equivalent removed. Based on EPA's revised estimates of 
costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts and benefits discussed in 
section VII of today's document, EPA is again considering an option of 
no regulation or no further regulation for indirect dischargers in this 
subcategory for the final rule. EPA solicits comment on this option.
2. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
    EPA proposed a low flow exclusion for indirect discharge facilities 
in the Oily Wastes Subcategory based on the large burden to permit 
writers and the small number of pound-equivalents that would be removed 
by facilities with annual wastewater flows of less than or equal to 2 
MGY (66 FR 470). For the final rule, based on these same 
considerations, EPA is considering whether it either should not 
establish pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers or limit the 
applicability of the standard by increasing the flow cutoff. EPA notes 
that for all levels of low flow exclusions presented in today's 
document for these sites, the pollutant reductions (in pound-
equivalents) per facility per year are low. Specifically, the 6.25 MGY 
flow cut-off results in 13 pound-equivalents/facility-yr, which is 
lower than those projected for the Industrial Laundries ELG and the 
Landfills ELG, for which EPA determined national regulations were not 
warranted. These low pollutant reductions per facility per year may not 
justify the additional permitting burden associated with these 
facilities. POTWs commenting on the proposed rule have stated that even 
with a low flow exclusion they would still incur increased burden when 
trying to identify those facilities above and below the low flow 
cutoff. In addition, POTWs can set local limits to control the small 
quantity of pollutants being discharged from the oily wastes facilities 
in their jurisdiction. EPA solicits comment on this option.
    Table IX.E-1 below summarizes the national estimates of compliance 
costs (1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), 
economic impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981 $/pound-equivalent 
removed) for varying levels of low flow cutoff for indirect discharge 
facilities in the Oily Wastes Subcategory.

                           Table IX.E-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for Indirect Dischargers in the Oily Wastes Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Cost-
                                                    Number of     Industry compliance      Pollutant reductions   Severe economic impacts  effectiveness
                   Flow cutoff                        sites     cost (1999$) (millions)          (lb-eq.)           (facility closures)       (1981 $/
                                                                                                                                              lb.eq.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 MGY............................................          288                       85                   14,385                        1         2,963
3 MGY............................................          233                       45                    7,941                        0         2,781
6.25 MGY.........................................          146                       23                    1,903                        0        2,037
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that close in the baseline and use all NODA
  changes in economic methodologies.

F. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory

    In the proposed rule, EPA set numerical limitations and standards 
for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory based on Option 10 
technology. EPA based Option 10 on the end-of-pipe treatment 
technologies included in Option 9 (chemical emulsion breaking followed 
by DAF) plus in-process flow control and pollution prevention 
technologies, which allow for recovery and reuse of materials along 
with water conservation. EPA selected Option 10 limitations and 
standards based on the national estimates of costs, pollutant removals, 
economic impacts, and environmental benefits estimated at the time of 
the proposal. These estimates have changed based on public comments as 
described in previous sections of today's document. Therefore, EPA is 
considering alternative options to reduce the burden on POTWs. EPA 
solicits comment on the following potential approaches.
1. Options for Changing BPT and BAT Technologies
    As discussed in section II.B of today's document, EPA received 
comment and data from the American Association of

[[Page 38805]]

Railroads (AAR) on the direct discharge railroad line maintenance 
facilities (see section 15.1 of the public record for the AAR surveys). 
EPA is reviewing alternative options for these facilities in the 
Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory based on this data. In the 
proposal (66 FR 458), EPA estimated that 91 percent of the estimated 34 
direct discharge railroad line maintenance facilities utilized 
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) at their sites. Therefore, EPA based the 
BPT and BAT limitations on DAF technology plus in-process pollution 
prevention techniques. However, commentors provided data confirming 28 
direct discharging railroad line maintenance sites (27 sites from the 
AAR survey and one site from EPA's sampling program (Episode 6179)), of 
which only five are currently employing DAF technology. According to 
this data, the prevalent technology at these sites is oil-water 
separation. Therefore, in light of this new data, EPA is considering 
changing the basis of the BPT and BAT limitations to oil-water 
separation technology such as chemical emulsion breaking followed by 
oil skimming (i.e., proposed technology Option 6). This is the 
technology that EPA proposed for the Oily Wastes Subcategory.
    EPA intends to analyze Option 6 for the direct discharge facilities 
in the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory for the final rule. Once 
EPA has estimated costs of compliance, pollutant reductions achieved, 
economic impacts, cost-effectiveness, and environmental benefits 
associated with this option for the final rule, the Agency will then 
determine if this option is economically achievable and if the costs 
are justified by the environmental improvements.
2. Railroad Overhaul/Rebuilding Operations Facilities
    EPA noted in the proposal that the Railroad Line Maintenance 
Subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing operations or 
railroad overhaul/rebuilding facilities (66 FR 442). EPA identified 5 
facilities in the General Metals Subcategory and 11 facilities in the 
Oily Waste Subcategory as definitely performing railroad overhaul/
rebuilding operations. EPA also identified 111 other facilities that 
may be performing railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations (see section 
16.1, DCN 17755). EPA solicits comment on EPA's estimate of facilities 
performing railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations and an appropriate 
definition for ``railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations.'' AAR 
concluded that there are fewer than 10 of these facilities performing 
railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations in the United States and that 
all are indirect dischargers. AAR further states that these facilities 
are already sufficiently regulated by their respective POTWs (see 
section 15.1, DCN 30300.A3; section 12.4.3, DCN 17785).
    If in the final rule EPA were to agree with the AAR estimate of 
facilities performing railroad overhaul/rebuilding operations, EPA may 
consider whether or not revised nationally-applicable regulations are 
necessary at this time for facilities performing railroad overhaul/
rebuilding operations because of the small number of these facilities 
(i.e., AAR estimate is less than 10). EPA solicits comment on whether 
current limitations, standards, and POTW local controls with the 
addition of water-quality based local limits established for individual 
NPDES permits (either for the POTWs accepting indirect discharges from 
these facilities or for any direct dischargers) may more appropriately 
address individual conventional, toxic and nonconventional pollutants 
that may be present at these facilities.

G. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory

    In the proposed rule EPA proposed numerical limitations and 
pretreatment standards for the Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory 
based on Option 2 technology (see section IX.A above for description of 
Option 2). EPA selected Option 2 technology based on the national 
estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts, and 
environmental benefits as determined at the time of the proposal. These 
estimates have changed based on public comments and additional data 
collection as described in previous sections of today's document. 
Therefore, EPA is considering alternative options to reduce the 
economic impact, and solicits comment on potential approaches.
1. No Further Regulation
    EPA estimated at proposal that all facilities in this subcategory 
have permits or other control mechanisms under the existing Iron and 
Steel Manufacturing regulation (40 CFR part 420). EPA received many 
comments from industry and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that 
these facilities are adequately regulated under the current ELGs or 
that local limits can address water quality concerns in sensitive water 
bodies. Commenters concluded that the environmental impacts and 
pollutant loading reductions that would be achieved by the MP&M rule, 
once based on data from sampling SFF sites, would clearly demonstrate 
that the costs and impacts associated with the MP&M regulation would 
not be justified.
    As discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current 
estimates of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ 
from those calculated for the proposal. Briefly, EPA estimates that 
compliance with the revised limitations and standards would result in 
facility closures for 7 of 41 (17%) direct dischargers and for 10 of 
112 (9%) indirect dischargers. The revised estimates of cost-
effectiveness for indirect dischargers increased to $153/pound-
equivalent removed. The estimate of cost-reasonableness for direct 
dischargers is $28/pound-conventional pollutants (O&G + TSS). Based on 
EPA's revised estimates of costs, pollutant removals, economic impacts 
and benefits discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA is again 
considering an option of no further regulation for direct and indirect 
dischargers in this subcategory for the final rule. An EPA decision not 
to promulgate further regulations would be based on a determination 
that the regulations were not economically achievable. If EPA were to 
select the ``no further regulation'' option, the facilities in this 
subcategory would continue to be regulated by the Iron and Steel ELGs 
(40 CFR part 420). EPA solicits comment on this option.
3. Changes Considered in Regulatory Thresholds
    EPA is reconsidering the use of a low flow cutoff used for 
indirectly discharging Steel Forming & Finishing facilities. As 
discussed in section VII of today's document, EPA's current estimates 
of costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts differ from those 
calculated for the proposal. Therefore, EPA is reconsidering the use of 
a low flow cutoff at various levels or other regulatory threshold 
(e.g., based on facility size such as employment, production, or 
revenue) to provide relief to indirect dischargers in this subcategory 
from significant economic impacts.
    Table IX.G-1 below shows the national estimates of compliance costs 
(1999$), pollutant reductions (in pound-equivalents per year), economic 
impacts, and cost-effectiveness (1981$/pound-equivalent removed) for 
varying levels of flow cutoff for indirect discharge facilities in the 
Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory.

[[Page 38806]]



                  Table IX.G-1.--Summary for Low Flow Cutoff for the Indirect Dischargers in the Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Cost-
                                                    Number of     Industry compliance      Pollutant reductions       Severe economic      effectiveness
                   Flow cutoff                        sites     cost (1999$) (millions)          (lb-eq.)            impacts (facility        (1981$/
                                                                                                                        closures, %)          lb.eq.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Cutoff........................................          112                     22.1                   61,015                  10 (9%)           153
1 MGY............................................           90                     20.9                   60,733                 10 (11%)           141
2 MGY............................................           77                     19.1                   59,418                 10 (13%)           131
3 MGY............................................           74                     19.0                   59,383                   7 (9%)           126
6.25 MGY.........................................           54                     16.0                   47,671                  7 (13%)          117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Cost-Effectiveness estimates are not incremental and do not include costs or removals for facilities that close in the baseline and use all NODA
  changes in economic methodologies.

X. Solicitation of Comment

    The following discussion summarizes those issues raised by new 
information and comments on the proposal for which EPA is requesting 
comment.
    1. Zinc Platers. EPA solicits comment on whether EPA should: (1) 
Establish a separate subcategory for zinc platers; (2) further 
subcategorize the proposed subcategories to provide a segment for zinc 
platers; or (3) retain the proposed subcategorization scheme but 
establish a zinc limitation based on data specific to zinc platers. EPA 
also solicits comment on the burden to permit writers and control 
authorities associated with each approach.
    2. Subcategorization of Unit Operations. EPA solicits comment on 
the methodology for subcategorization of unit operation concentrations 
used for today's document.
    3. Boron Removals. EPA solicits comment on the approach used to 
estimate boron removals.
    4. Molybdenum Removals. EPA received comments regarding the 
selection of molybdenum as a regulated pollutant. Similar to the 
comments on tin, the comments revolved around whether or not molybdenum 
can be precipitated using hydroxide precipitation as is used in EPA's 
proposed BAT technology. EPA has reviewed literature to find out 
whether or not molybdenum will precipitate using either hydroxide or 
sulfide precipitation, and has found that molybdenum does not form 
metal hydroxide precipitates (see memorandum titled ``Molybdenum,'' 
section 16.2, DCN 17754). The sampled hydroxide precipitation treatment 
systems did not show a consistent ability to remove molybdenum from 
waste water. Molybdenum is, however, present in waste waters as 
described above and is removed incidentally in waste treatment systems. 
EPA is reviewing the removal mechanisms for molybdenum. EPA is 
considering not regulating molybdenum in the final rule but is 
considering taking credit for incidental removals. EPA solicits comment 
on this change.
    5. EPA solicits comment on EPA's current method for imputing 
missing flow and production.
    6. EPA Sensitivity Analyses. EPA is soliciting comment on the 
sensitivity analyses described in Section III.E. These sensitivity 
analysis examine baseline pollutant loadings and facilities that do not 
report treatment-in-place and may have low concentration raw wastewater 
characteristics.
    7. Numbers of facilities currently regulated. EPA solicits comment 
on its estimates of the numbers of facilities currently regulated by 
the part 413, part 433, or both regulations (see Table III.E-1).
    8. Low Concentration Facilities. EPA is soliciting data at the unit 
operation level from ``low concentration'' facilities that do not 
currently have treatment for metal-bearing wastewaters on-site. In 
addition, EPA is soliciting comment on how to address these facilities 
in the analysis of pollutant loadings and reductions.
    9. Monitoring Costs. EPA is using a cost of $13,400 per facility to 
incorporate monitoring costs for the pollutants not already regulated 
under the Metal Finishing regulations. EPA solicits comment on the 
Agency's cost estimates for compliance monitoring used in today's 
document.
    10. Addition of a Sand Filter for Metal-Bearing Subcategories. EPA 
solicits comment on the addition of a sand filter to the BAT proposed 
technology option for metal-bearing subcategories and on the sand 
filter cost module and national cost estimates for Option 2 + Sand 
Filter. EPA also solicits comments on whether the addition of a sand 
filter is necessary for facilities to achieve the revised limits 
consistently and the economic achievability of this option.
    11. Oily Operations Definition. EPA solicits comment on the 
intended additions to the definition of oily operations. Also, EPA did 
not include paint stripping due to the elevated levels of metal 
constituents from these sources that are contained in EPA's sampling 
data. However, EPA solicits comment on whether paint stripping for non-
lead based paints should be included in the definition of oily 
operations. EPA also solicits comment on the definition for iron 
phosphate conversion coating and on the need for a definition for ``wet 
air pollution control for organic constituents'' to distinguish it from 
wet air pollution control for metals or particulates.
    12. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory--Changes to Applicability. EPA 
solicits comment on these intended revisions to the codified 
applicability language used to include printed wiring board job shops 
and whether EPA should include a definition to identify printed wiring 
assembly facilities in the General Metals Subcategory applicability 
statement.
    13. Treatability of Tin, Molybdenum, Manganese. EPA solicits 
comment and data on the removal of tin, molybdenum, and manganese 
through chemical precipitation and other possible removal mechanisms. 
EPA also solicits on EPA's intention to possibly exclude these 
pollutants from regulation.
    14. Total Sulfide. EPA solicits comment on the intention to not 
regulate total sulfide for the metal-bearing subcategories. EPA also 
solicits comment on the most appropriate analytical method for total 
sulfide.
    15. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory. EPA solicits comment on 
the pollutants selected for regulation for the Steel Forming & 
Finishing Subcategory. EPA also solicits comment on the inclusion of 
the continuous electroplating operations on steel sheet and strip into 
the MP&M regulation.
    16. Calculation of the Total Organics Parameter. EPA solicits 
comment on alternative approaches the Agency is considering for 
calculating the Total Organics Parameter (TOP). EPA also

[[Page 38807]]

solicits comment from facilities as to when they would choose to 
monitor for the TOP list of pollutants rather than design and implement 
a best management plan for their organic chemicals. Finally, EPA 
solicits comment, especially from permit writers and control 
authorities, on whether the Agency should provide guidance to permit 
writers on how to develop a facility-specific TOP limit for facilities 
that choose the TOP limit as their method for complying (as opposed to 
meeting a limit for total organic carbon or implementing the best 
management plan).
    17. Validation Study for Seven Organic Pollutants. EPA is 
soliciting comment on the validation studies for six semivolatile 
organic pollutants (aniline, 3,6-dimethylphenanthrene, 2-
isopropylnaphthalene, 1-methylfluorene, 2-methylnaphthalene, and 1-
methylphenanthrene) and one volatile organic pollutant (carbon 
disulfide) to EPA Methods 624 and 1624B and EPA Methods 625 and 1625.
    18. New Source Limits Set Equal to Existing Source Limits. EPA 
solicits comment on basing the new source standards (NSPS and PSNS) for 
the metal-bearing subcategories for the final rule on the same 
technology option as used for the existing source limits and standards 
( i.e., Option 2). EPA notes that after the compliance deadline has 
passed, having new source limitations equal to existing source 
limitations will reduce the need for new source determinations by 
permit writers and control authorities.
    19. EMS Alternative for General Metals Facilities. EPA solicits 
comment on the industry suggested EMS Alternative and EPA's amendments 
(see section IX.B).
    20. No Regulation Options. EPA solicits comment on the ``no further 
regulation'' option considered for indirect discharge Metal Finishing 
Job Shops, Printed Wiring Board, General Metals, Zinc Platers, and 
Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories. EPA solicits comment on the 
option that would bring into alignment those facilities in the 
previously mentioned subcategories (including General Metals), direct 
or indirect, which are currently unregulated or required to meet the 
standards of the Electroplating effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) 
(40 CFR part 413) with those required to meet the limitations and 
standards of the Metal Finishing ELGs (40 CFR part 433), without 
requiring the MP&M limitations and standards provided in today's 
document. EPA also solicits comment on whether this would better 
clarify implementation issues for control authorities. EPA solicits 
comment on the estimate of sites currently regulated under the part 413 
regulations with less than 10,000 gallons per day of process wastewater 
flow and the economic condition of these facilities. In addition, EPA 
solicits comment on a ``no regulation'' option for indirect discharge 
sites in the Oily Wastes Subcategory.
    21. Inclusion or Change to the Low Flow Cutoff. EPA solicits 
comment on the possible changes discussed to include a low flow cutoff 
for indirect discharge sites in the Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed 
Wiring Board, and Steel Forming & Finishing subcategories and to change 
the level of the proposed low flow cutoff for the indirect discharge 
sites in the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories. EPA is also 
requesting comment on other possible types of regulatory threshold that 
could be used to reduce economic impacts on these facilities and on the 
ability of permit writers and control authorities to implement other 
thresholds.
    22. Commentors on the MP&M proposal stated that many source water 
suppliers have recently begun adding chemicals to the water to reduce 
corrosion and leaching of metals from piping into the water, which may 
increase concentrations of other metals in the raw water. For example, 
many water suppliers now add zinc phosphate compounds to reduce 
leaching of copper and lead from piping. If the comments were correct 
in their assertions that more concentrated influent is associated with 
higher effluent levels, EPA would expect to see upward trends for both 
the influent and effluent long-term averages. In general, EPA did not 
find any evidence of such trends or any patterns in the influent. 
Rather, EPA noted that the lowest and highest influent values were 
associated with the lowest effluent values. EPA modeling currently 
predicts that a slightly higher metal influent concentrations should 
not affect effluent metal concentrations for properly operated BAT 
metals treatment systems. EPA solicits comment on whether or not EPA 
needs to account for elevated metals concentrations in source water and 
possible ways to account for this source water concentrations in its 
analysis. EPA also solicits comment on its proposal to allow MP&M 
indirect discharge facilities to apply for a waiver that would allow 
them to reduce their monitoring burden (see 66 FR 509). EPA proposed 
that in order for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the 
facility would need to certify in writing to the control authority 
(e.g., POTW) that the facility does not use, nor generate in any way, a 
pollutant (or pollutants) at its site and that the pollutant (or 
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and 
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the 
discharger.
    23. EPA is considering a revised methodology that will take into 
account both the hexavalent chromium converted in chrome reduction 
treatment and the trivalent chromium removed end-of-pipe in future 
estimates of chromium toxic pound-equivalents removed. For this 
methodology, the hexavalent chromium toxic weighting factor (TWF), not 
the trivalent chromium TWF, will be applied to the amount of hexavalent 
chromium that is converted to trivalent chromium in chrome reduction 
treatment. The toxic pound-equivalents removed by the chrome reduction 
treatment system will be equal to the toxic pound-equivalents of 
hexavalent chromium converted, minus the toxic-pound equivalents of 
trivalent chromium formed. The toxic pound-equivalents removed by the 
end-of-pipe treatment system will be equal to the toxic pound-
equivalents of trivalent chromium removed in the end-of pipe treatment 
system. The total toxic-pound equivalents of chromium removed in 
treatment will be equal to the toxic-pound equivalents converted by 
chrome reduction treatment plus the toxic-pound equivalents removed by 
the end-of pipe treatment system. EPA is considering similar 
methodology changes in cyanide treatment for total and amenable 
cyanide. EPA solicits comments on these possible changes in 
methodologies for the final rule.
    24. EPA solicits comment on the revised number of direct 
dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. At proposal EPA 
estimated no direct dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing 
subcategory. After re-analysis of the wastewater disposal methods 
reported in survey questionnaires, EPA now estimates 35 direct 
dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
    25. EPA solicits comment on how it enumerates direct and indirect 
discharging facilities. Currently, EPA labels facilities as direct 
dischargers if any of their wastewater effluent is discharged directly 
to surface waters of the United States. In particular, EPA solicits 
comments on how to handle facilities that are both indirect and direct 
dischargers.
    26. EPA solicits comment on EPA's approach for the development of 
preliminary revised limitations and standards presented in section VIII 
of today's document.


[[Page 38808]]


    Dated: May 24, 2002.
Diane C. Regas,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-13808 Filed 6-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P