[Federal Register: January 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 2)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 423-472]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ja01-29]
[[Page 423]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source
Category; Proposed Rule
[[Page 424]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 413, 433, 438, 463, 464, 467, and 471
[FRL-6897-6]
RIN 2040-AB79
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point
Source Category; Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal represents the Agency's second look at Clean
Water Act national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards for wastewater discharges from metal products and machinery
facilities. EPA initially proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for a portion of this category on May 30, 1995
(60 FR 28210). This proposal completely replaces the 1995 proposal.
Today's proposed regulation would establish technology-based effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater
discharges associated with the operation of new and existing metal
products and machinery facilities. The metal products and machinery
industry includes facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain
metal products, parts, or machines.
EPA estimates that compliance with this regulation will reduce the
discharge of conventional pollutants by at least 115 million pounds per
year, priority pollutants by 12 million pounds per year, and
nonconventional metal and organic pollutants by 43 million pounds per
year for an estimated compliance cost of $1.98 billion (pre-tax, 1999$)
annually. EPA estimates that the annual benefits of the proposal range
from $0.4 billion to $1.1 billion. In addition, this proposal solicits
comment on new methodologies for expanding the analysis to include
additional categories of recreational benefits.
DATES: EPA must receive comments on the proposal by May 3, 2001. EPA is
conducting a public meeting (9:00 AM--12:00 PM) and hearing on the
pretreatment standards (1:00 PM--4:00 PM) for this proposed rule on
each of the following dates: February 6, 2001 in Oakland, CA; February
13, 2001 in Dallas, TX; and February 22, 2001 in Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to, Mr. Michael Ebner, Office of
Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 if by mail and to Mr.
Michael Ebner, U.S. EPA, 401 M St., SW, Room 611 West Tower,
Washington, DC 20460 if by hand delivery. Comments may also be sent via
E-mail to ``mpm.comments@epa.gov''. Please submit any references cited
in your comments. EPA requests an original and three copies of your
comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA
to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
For additional information on how to submit electronic comments see
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, How to Submit Comments.''
EPA will be holding public meetings and pretreatment hearings on
today's proposal on three separate dates. The meeting in Oakland, CA
will be held at the Oakland Mariott, City Center, 1001 Broadway,
Oakland, CA 96607. The meeting in Dallas, TX will be held in the
Oklahoma and Texas rooms at the EPA Region 6 Offices, 1455 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX. The meeting in Washington, DC will be held in EPA's
Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC.
EPA established the public record for this proposed rulemaking
under docket number W-99-23. It is located in the Water Docket, East
Tower Basement, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460. The record is
available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. For access to the docket materials, call
(202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment. You may have to pay a
reasonable fee for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information concerning
today's proposed rule, contact Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260-5397 or
Ms. Shari Barash at (202) 260-7130. For economic information contact
Dr. Lynne Tudor at (202) 260-5834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... Facilities that manufacture,
maintain, or rebuild metal parts,
products or machines used in the
following sectors: Aerospace, Aircraft,
Bus & Truck, Electronic Equipment,
Hardware, Household Equipment,
Instruments, Job Shops, Mobile
Industrial Equipment, Motor Vehicles,
Office Machines, Ordnance, Precious
Metals and Jewelry, Printed Wiring
Boards, Railroad, Ships and Boats,
Stationary Industrial Equipment, and
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
Government................... State and local government
facilities that manufacture, maintain,
or rebuild metal parts, products or
machines (e.g., a town that operates its
own bus, truck, and/or snow removal
equipment maintenance facility).
Federal facilities that
manufacture, maintain, or rebuild metal
parts, products or machines (e.g., U.S.
Naval Shipyards).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria proposed in Sections III and VI.C
and detailed further in section 438.1 of the proposed rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
How To Submit Comments
Electronic comments must be identified by the docket number W-99-23
and must be submitted as an ASCII, or WordPerfect 5/6/7/8/9 or
Microsoft Word 97 file avoiding the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. EPA also will accept comments and data on disks in
Word Perfect 5/6/7/8/9, Microsoft Word 97 or ASCII file format.
Electronic comments on this notice may be filed online at some Federal
Depository Libraries. No confidential business information (CBI) should
be sent via e-mail. In the public record for
[[Page 425]]
the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from the 1995
Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore, comments
submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to resubmitted in response to
this proposal.
Public Meeting and Pretreatment Hearing Information:
In each location, the public meeting will be held in the morning
and the pretreatment hearing will be held in the afternoon (see DATES
and ADDRESSES for dates and locations of public meetings and
pretreatment hearings). During the public meeting, EPA will present
information on the applicability of the proposed regulation, the
technology options selected as the basis for the proposed limitations
and standards, and the compliance costs and pollutant reductions. EPA
will also allow time for questions and answers during this session.
During the pretreatment hearing, the public will have the opportunity
to provide oral comment to EPA. EPA will not address any issues raised
during the pretreatment hearing at that time, but these comments will
be recorded and included in the public record for the rule. Persons
wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should contact
Mr. Michael Ebner before the hearing and should have a written copy of
their comments for submittal.
Protection of Confidential Business Information
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting the proposed
rule have been claimed as CBI and, therefore, EPA has not included
these documents in the public record. To support the rulemaking, EPA is
presenting certain information in aggregated form or, alternatively, is
masking facility identities in order to preserve confidentiality
claims. Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not
claimed as CBI because release of this information could indirectly
reveal information claimed to be confidential.
Facility-specific data, claimed as CBI, are available to the
company that submitted the information. To ensure that EPA protects all
CBI in accordance with EPA regulations, any requests for company-
specific data should be submitted to EPA on company letterhead and
signed by the official authorized to receive such data. The request
must list the specific data requested and include the following
statement, ``I certify that EPA is authorized to transfer confidential
business information submitted by my company, and that I am authorized
to receive it.''
Supporting Documentation
Several key documents support the proposed regulations:
1. ``Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-00-005]: This document presents EPA's
methodology and technical conclusions concerning the Metal Products &
Machinery Point Source Category.
2. ``Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Proposed
Metal Products & Machinery Rule'' [EPA-821-B-00-008]: This document
presents the methodology employed to assess economic and environmental
impacts of the proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
3. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery Point
Source Category'' [EPA-821-B-00-007] This document analyzes the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed regulation.
4. ``Statistical Support Document for the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery
Industry'' [EPA-821-B-00-006]: This document establishes the
statistical methodology for developing numerical discharge limitations.
Major supporting documents are available in hard copy from the
National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), U.S.
EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA 45242-2419, (800) 490-
9198, http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. You can obtain electronic copies of
this preamble and rule as well as the technical and economic support
documents for today's proposal at http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/mpm.
Overview
The preamble describes the terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used
in this notice; the background documents that support these proposed
regulations; the legal authority of these rules; a summary of the
proposal; background information; and the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to develop these regulations. This
preamble also solicits comment and data on specific areas of interest.
In addition, this preamble proposes to update references in the
relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to include the
Metal Products & Machinery Point Source Category. References in 40 CFR
would be updated in the Electroplating (part 413), Metal Finishing
(part 433), Plastic Molding and Forming (part 463), Metal Molding and
Casting (part 464), Aluminum Forming (467), and Nonferrous Metals
Forming and Metal Powders (part 471) effluent guidelines point source
categories.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Statutory Authorities
B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
III. Scope of Proposal
IV. Industry Description
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Existing Data Sources
B. Survey Questionnaires
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
D. Industry Submitted Data
E. Summary of Public Participation
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of
Subcategorization
B. Proposed Subcategories
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse, and Water Conservation
Practices
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Overview of Technology Options
B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology
B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
A. General Metals Subcategory
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
A. Need for Pretreatment Standards
B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES
C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions
D. General Metals Subcategory
[[Page 426]]
E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
H. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
I. Oily Wastes Subcategory
J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory
B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory
C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
E. NSPS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
F. PSNS for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
G. NSPS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
H. PSNS for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
I. NSPS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
J. PSNS for the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
K. NSPS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
L. PSNS for the Oily Wastes Subcategory
M. NSPS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
N. PSNS for the Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
O. NSPS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
P. PSNS for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
XIV. Issues Related to the Methodology Used to Determine POTW
Performance
A. Assessment of Acceptable POTWs
B. Assessment of Acceptable Data
C. Assessment of Removals When Effluent Is Below the Analytical
Method Minimum Level
XV. Methodology for Estimating Costs & Pollutant Reductions
XVI. Economic Impact and Social Cost Analysis
A. Introduction
B. Facility Level Impacts
C. Firm Level Impacts
D. Impacts on Governments
E. Community Level Impacts
F. Foreign Trade Impacts
G. Impacts on New Facilities
H. Social Costs
XVII. Cost Effectiveness Analysis
A. Methodology
B. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Indirect Dischargers
C. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct Dischargers
XVIII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XIX. Water Quality, Sewage Sludge, and Other Environmental Impacts
A. Introduction
B. Beneficial Impacts of the MP&M Proposed Rule
XX. Benefit Analysis
A. Overview of Benefits
B. Reduced Human Health Risk
C. Ecological, Recreational, and Nonuser Benefits
D. Productivity Changes: Cleaner Sewage Sludge (Biosolids)
E. Total Estimated Benefits of the Proposed MP&M Rule
F. Benefit-Cost Comparison
XXI. Regulatory Implementation
A. Compliance Dates
B. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
C. Monitoring Flexibility
D. Pollution Prevention Alternative for the Metal Finishing Job
Shops Subcategory
E. Upset and Bypass Provisions
F. Variances and Modifications
G. Relationship of Effluent Limitations and Pretreatment
Standards to NPDES Permits and Local Limits
H. Best Management Practices
XXII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency
Initiatives
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Plain Language Directive
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
A. Types of Data Requested
B. Analytes Requested
C. Quality Assurance/ Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
Appendix A to the Preamble:Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other Terms
Used in This Document.
I. Legal Authority
EPA is proposing this regulation under the authorities of sections
301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
Sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and under
authority of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq., Pub L. 101-508, November 5, 1990.
II. Background
A. Statutory Authorities
1. Clean Water Act
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The CWA confronts the
problem of water pollution on a number of different fronts. Its primary
reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions on the types and
amounts of pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial,
and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Sections 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). EPA
establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, the Agency develops
pretreatment standards to ensure that wastewater from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of
treatment. In addition, EPA requires POTWs to implement local treatment
limits applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy
any local requirements (40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. EPA
establishes these limitations and standards by regulation for
categories of industrial dischargers and bases them on the degree of
control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control
technology.
a. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec.
304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the guidelines for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent limits for conventional, toxic,\1\ and non-
[[Page 427]]
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However,
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
toxic pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines
continue to include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging
plants in the industrial subcategory or category. The factors
considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving BAT effluent
reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes
employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential
process changes, non-water quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning
the weight to be accorded to these factors. An additional statutory
factor considered in setting BAT is economic achievability. Generally,
EPA determines the economic achievability on the basis of the total
cost to the industrial subcategory and the overall effect of the rule
on the industry's financial health. The Agency may base BAT limitations
upon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, EPA may base BAT upon technology transferred from
a different subcategory within an industry or from another industrial
category. In addition, the Agency may base BAT upon process changes or
internal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry
practice.
c. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 304(b)(4)
of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial point sources. BCT
is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best Available Technology
(BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two-part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
d. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through
the application of the best available demonstrated control technology
for all pollutants (i.e., conventional, non-conventional, and priority
pollutants). In establishing NSPS, the CWA directs EPA to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
e. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards are technology-based and
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for implementing categorical pretreatment standards, are found at 40
CFR part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass through
that addresses localized rather than national instances of pass through
and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all non-domestic
dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
f. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. New indirect dischargers have
the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the best available
demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
2. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the
national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an
environmental management hierarchy in which pollution ``should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as
a last resort* * *'' (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, preventing pollution
before it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or
dispose of it after it is created. According to the PPA, source
reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances,
pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the source, usually
within a process. The term source reduction ``* * * includes equipment
or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications,
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials,
and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory
[[Page 428]]
control. The term `source reduction' does not include any practice
which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or
the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through
a process or activity which itself is not integral to or necessary for
the production of a product or the providing of a service.'' In effect,
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a
waste stream or that is otherwise released into the environment prior
to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
B. Existing Regulation for Metals Industries
EPA has established effluent guidelines regulations for thirteen
industrial categories which may perform operations that are sometimes
found in MP&M facilities. These effluent guidelines are:
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413);
Iron and Steel Manufacturing (40 CFR part 420);
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (40 CFR part 421);
Ferroalloy Manufacturing (40 CFR part 424);
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433);
Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
Metal Molding & Casting (40 CFR part 464);
Coil Coating (40 CFR part 465);
Porcelain Enameling (40 CFR part 466);
Aluminum Forming (40 CFR part 467);
Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468);
Electrical and Electronic Components (40 CFR part 469);
and
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders (40 CFR part
471).
In 1986, the Agency reviewed coverage of these regulations and
identified a significant number of metals processing facilities
discharging wastewater that these 13 regulations did not cover. Based
on this review, EPA performed a more detailed analysis of these
facilities that were not subject to national effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards. This analysis identified the discharge of
significant amounts of pollutants. This analysis resulted in the
decision to develop national limitations and standards for the
``Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding'' (MM&R) point source
category. In 1992, EPA changed the name of the category to ``Metal
Products and Machinery'' (MP&M) to clarify coverage of the category (57
FR 19748).
EPA recognizes that in some cases unit operations performed in
industries covered by the existing effluent guidelines are the same as
unit operations performed at MP&M facilities. In general, when unit
operations and their associated wastewater discharges are already
covered by an existing effluent guideline, they will remain covered
under that effluent guideline. (See Sec. 438.1(b)). However, for the
existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433)
effluent guidelines some facilities will be covered by this proposal.
EPA is proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR 413)
and Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M
regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory
(see proposed rule Sec. 438.40) and the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory (see proposed rule Sec. 438.20). (See Table II.B-1 for
clarification for details and Section VI.C for a discussion of
subcategory-specific applicability).
When a facility covered by an existing metals effluent guidelines
(other than Electroplating or Metal Finishing) discharges wastewater
from unit operations not covered under that existing metals guideline
but covered under MP&M, the facility will need to comply with both
regulations. (See Sec. 438.1(c)). In those cases, the permit writer or
control authority (e.g., Publicly Owned Treatment Works) will combine
the limitations using an approach that proportions the limitations
based on the different in-scope production levels (for production-based
standards) or wastewater flows. POTWs refer to this approach as the
``combined wastestream formula'' (40 CFR 403.6(e)), while NPDES permit
writers refer to it as the ``building block approach.'' Permit writers
and local control authorities currently issue permits and control
mechanisms for many facilities in other effluent guidelines categories
where overlaps with more than one effluent limitation guidelines
regulation occur (e.g., Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers; Pesticide Manufacturing; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and
Repackaging; and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing). See Sections III and
VI.C of this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.
Table II.B-1.--Clarification of Coverage by MP&M Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposing to continue Proposing to cover
Proposing to continue to to cover under 40 CFR under 40 CFR Part 438
Subcategory cover under 40 CFR Part Part 433 (Metal (Metal Products &
413 (Electroplating) Finishing) Machinery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals...................... Existing facilities that Existing facilities All new and existing
are currently covered that are currently direct dischargers in
by 413 AND are indirect covered (or new this subcategory
dischargers that facilities that would regardless of annual
introduce less than or be covered) by 433 AND wastewater discharge
equal to 1 million are indirect volume and all new and
gallons per year into a dischargers that existing indirect
POTW. introduce less than or dischargers in this
equal to 1 million subcategory with
gallons per year into annual wastewater
a POTW. discharges greater
than 1 million gallons
per year.(See Sec.
438.10).
Metal Finishing Job Shops........... none (see non-chromium none (see non-chromium All new and existing
anodizing). anodizing). direct and indirect
discharges under this
subcategory. These
facilities would no
longer be covered by
413 or 433. (See Sec.
438.20).
[[Page 429]]
Non-Chromium Anodizers.............. Existing indirect New and existing Existing and new direct
Note: Facilities that perform dischargers that are indirect dischargers dischargers that only
anodizing with chromium or with the currently covered by (not covered by 413) perform non-chromium
use of dichromate sealants (or 413 AND that only that only perform non- anodizing (or do not
commingle their non-chromium perform non-chromium chromium anodizing (or commingle their non-
anodizing process wastewater with anodizing (or do not do not commingle their chromium anodizing
wastewaster from other MP&M commingle their non- non-chromium anodizing wastewater with other
subcategories) will be covered by chromium anodizing wastewater with other process wastewater for
40 CFR 438. wastewater with other process wastewater for discharge). (See Sec.
process wastewater for discharge). 438.30).
discharge).
Printed Wiring Board (Printed None.................... None................... All new and existing
Circuit Board). direct and indirect
dischargers under this
subcategory. These
facilities would no
longer be covered by
413 or 433. (See Sec.
438.40).
Steel Forming & Finishing........... N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct and indirect
discharges under this
subcategory as
described. (See Sec.
438.50).
Oily Waste.......................... N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct and indirect
dischargers under this
subcategory as
described. (See Sec.
438.60) (This
subcategory excludes
new and existing
indirect dischargers
that introduce less
than or equal to 2 MGY
into a POTW.
Facilities under the
cutoff are not and
will not be covered by
national categorical
regulations).
Railroad Line Maintenance........... N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct dischargers
under this subcategory
as described. (See
Sec. 438.70) There
are no national
categorical
pretreatment standards
for these facilities.
Shipbuilding Dry Docks.............. N/A..................... N/A.................... All new and existing
direct dischargers
under this subcategory
as described. (See
Sec. 438.80) There
are no national
categorical
pretreatment standards
for these facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but rather it
provides a guide for readers regarding the clarification of the
proposed applicability to the Electroplating, Metal Finishing, and
Metal Products & Machinery effluent guidelines. In order to determine
whether EPA is proposing to regulate a particular facility by this
action, please carefully examine the applicability criteria detailed in
the codified text of this proposed rule accompanying today's preamble.
C. 1995 Proposal for Phase I Sectors
On May 30, 1995, EPA published a proposal entitled, ``Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards: Metal Products and Machinery'' (60 FR 28210).
Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to this 1995 proposal as the
``Phase I'' or the ``1995'' proposal for the Metal Products and
Machinery industry. EPA initially divided the industry into two phases
based on industrial sector as the Agency believed that would make the
regulation more manageable. The Phase I proposal included the following
industry sectors: Aerospace; Aircraft; Electronic Equipment; Hardware;
Mobile Industrial Equipment; Ordnance; and Stationary Industrial
Equipment. At that time, EPA planned to propose a rule for the Phase II
sectors approximately three years after the MP&M Phase I proposal.
EPA received over 4,000 pages of public comment on the Phase I
proposal. One area where commenters from all stakeholder groups (i.e,
industry, environmental groups, regulators) were in agreement was that
EPA should not divide the industry into two separate regulations.
Commenters raised concerns regarding the regulation of similar
facilities with different compliance schedules and potentially
different limitations solely based on whether they were in a Phase I or
Phase II MP&M industrial sector. Furthermore, many facilities performed
work in multiple sectors. In such cases, permit writers and control
authorities (e.g., POTWs) would need to decide which MP&M rule (Phase I
or II) applied to a facility.
Based on these comments, EPA decided to combine the two phases of
the regulation into one proposal--today's proposal. Today's proposal
will completely replace the 1995 proposal. Under the 304(m) decree as
amended, these MP&M rules are to be promulgated in December 2002. EPA
developed today's proposal using data from both the Phase I and II data
collection efforts. (See Section V for discussion on MP&M data
collection efforts). In the public
[[Page 430]]
record for the final MP&M regulation, EPA will respond to comments from
the 1995 Phase I proposal as well as today's proposal. Therefore,
comments submitted on the Phase I rule do not need to be resubmitted in
response to this proposal. In addition, compliance deadlines proposed
in the 1995 Phase I proposal would obviously no longer apply.
D. Summary of Most Significant Changes from 1995 Proposal
In addition to the merging of the Phase I and Phase II industry
sectors under one proposed rule, as discussed in Section II.C. above,
there were several areas of comments from the 1995 proposal that EPA
attempted to address in today's proposed rule.
Use of Aluminum and Iron as Indicator Parameters
In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES) for seven metals and cyanide as well as oil &
grease. Aluminum and iron were two of the seven metals with numerical
pretreatment standards. As discussed in the Phase I preamble (60 FR
28228), EPA intended to regulate aluminum and iron as indicator metals
for removal of non-regulated metals that may be processed at MP&M
sites. Due to the fact that the optimal pH levels for the removal of
aluminum (pH = 7.5-8) and iron (pH = 10.5) represent the end points of
the pH range for the removal of most metals that EPA expected to be in
MP&M wastewater, the Agency concluded that the removal of aluminum and
iron would indicate effective removal of other metal types. EPA
received many comments from various stakeholder groups, including
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) on this issue. The comments from
POTWs indicated that in addition to MP&M sites using aluminum and iron
as treatment chemicals, POTWs also use coagulants and flocculation aids
containing these metals for treatment. Many POTWs considered it
desirable to receive discharges containing aluminum and iron as it may
reduce their treatment chemical costs. Therefore, EPA has decided not
to propose pretreatment standards for aluminum and iron from indirect
discharging MP&M facilities in today's combined MP&M proposal. However,
EPA is proposing aluminum limitations for facilities in one subcategory
(i.e., Non-Chromium Anodizing) that discharge directly into the
nation's surface waters (see Section VI for a discussion on
subcategorization).
Use of Oil and Grease as an Indicator Parameter
EPA also received many comments on the Phase I proposal regarding
regulation of another pollutant, oil & grease (O&G), as an indicator
parameter. In an effort to reduce the burden of analytical monitoring
for organic pollutants on the Phase I MP&M facilities, EPA chose to
propose the use of O&G as an indicator parameter for organic
pollutants. EPA proposed a limit (daily maximum of 35 mg/L and a
monthly average of 17 mg/L) that demonstrated good removals of organic
pollutants in MP&M wastewater. As discussed in the preamble of the 1995
proposal (60 FR 28231), EPA identified several organic pollutants (2-
methylnapthalene, 2-propanone, n-octadecane, and n-tetradecane) that
would ``pass through'' a POTW (see Section XII for a discussion of POTW
pass through). EPA stated that ``these organic pollutants are more
likely to partition to the oily phase than the water phase, thus EPA
believed that the treatment and removal of oil and grease in wastewater
will also result in significant removals of these pollutants.'' Many
commenters stated that the pretreatment standard proposed for O&G was
too stringent. They commented that EPA typically does not establish
pretreatment standards for conventional pollutants such as O&G and that
local POTWs are in the best position to establish standards for O&G,
where necessary, taking into account POTW design and current O&G
loading and that the typical local limits for O&G are between 100-200
mg/L.
Based on these comments, EPA expanded its wastewater sampling and
analysis program to include a variety of potential organic pollutant
indicators. EPA investigated the correlation of organic pollutant
concentrations and removals at MP&M sites with the following
parameters: Oil & Grease (as Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)), Total
Organic Carbon (TOC), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 5-Day Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (as Silica
Gel Treated-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM)), and Total
Recoverable Phenolics. EPA determined TOC to be the best correlation
for removal of organic pollutants from MP&M wastewater.
To determine which parameter best indicated the amount of organic
pollutants in an MP&M wastestream, EPA researched the analytical
methods for each parameter to determine what organic constituents the
method measures, how the method measures them, and the limitations of
the method. Because sampling at MP&M facilities generally lasted five
days, EPA did not have enough data available to statistically establish
a correlation on a site level. Therefore, EPA grouped all of the data
from EPA sampling at MP&M facilities into the following organic-
pollutant-bearing wastestream categories that fed sampled treatment
systems: machining and grinding, washing and maintenance, wastewater
expected to have low concentrations of organic compounds, and oily
wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks. The Agency chose to group the
wastestreams in this manner in order to determine if a particular
organic indicator parameter was more appropriate for different types of
wastewater. That is, machining and grinding wastewater tended to have
more concentrated organic constituents while wastewater from washing
and maintenance was more dilute. EPA also identified other unit
operations (apart from washing and maintenance) that resulted in
wastewater with low concentrations of organic constituents. And, EPA
chose to analyze wastewater from shipbuilding dry docks separately
because of the type of treatment in place. Shipbuilding dry docks tend
to treat their wastewater with dissolved air flotation (DAF);
therefore, the Agency analyzed the data from these facilities in order
to determine the best organic indicator parameter for these treatment
systems.
For each wastewater type and its associated wastewater treatment
system, EPA characterized the composition of organic pollutants in all
of the influent samples, in all of the effluent samples, and the total
samples (influent, effluent, and intermediate sampling points)
associated with the treatment system. EPA studied the correlation of
the concentration of each indicator parameter noted above to the sum of
the concentrations of the organic pollutants by calculating the Pearson
and Spearman Rank correlation coefficients and comparing the
coefficients of each parameter against each other. Additionally, EPA
compared the general removal of the sum of organic pollutant compounds
with the removal of each indicator parameter (see the Technical
Development Document for a detailed discussion of these analyses).
EPA determined TOC to be the best overall indicator parameter for
the evaluated MP&M wastestreams because this analysis measures all
types of organic compounds. Total recoverable phenolics, O&G (as HEM),
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM), and BOD5 analyses
only measure
[[Page 431]]
specific organic components so they would not measure all possible
organic compounds in an effluent stream.
In addition to expanding its sampling program, EPA considered a
variety of approaches to address the comments on the use of O&G as an
indicator for organic pollutants. EPA considered the use of a Total
Organics list or an organics management plan (similar to the Total
Toxic Organics (TTO) list and solvent management plan used in the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433)) as well as allowing
facilities to choose from a list of possible indicator pollutants
(where they would demonstrate a correlation to their wastewater) or to
choose to monitor for the specific organic pollutants themselves. EPA
shared these ideas with small entity representatives during the SBREFA
process (see Section XXII.C for a discussion on the SBREFA process) and
with stakeholders during various public meetings and industry
conferences. (See Section V.E for a discussion on EPA's public outreach
efforts).
EPA has decided to propose three alternatives to allow for maximum
flexibility while ensuring reductions in the amount of organic
pollutants discharged from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing to require
MP&M facilities within the scope of this rule to either: (1) Meet a
numerical limit for the total sum of a list of specific organic
pollutants (similar to the TTO parameter used in the Metal Finishing
effluent guidelines); (2) meet a numerical limit for the specified
indicator parameter; or (3) develop and certify the implementation of
an organics management plan. (See Section XXI.C.2 for a discussion on
regulatory implementation and proposed monitoring flexibility).
Variability of MP&M Process Wastewater Discharges
EPA also revised its analytical wastewater sampling program to
address two other issues raised by commenters in response to the 1995
proposal. First, commenters stated that EPA's analytical data did not
accurately reflect the variability in the wastewater flow and pollutant
concentration experienced over time at MP&M sites. More specifically,
metal finishing and electroplating job shops stated that EPA did not
account for the variability of the metal types and products processed
at their facilities; and therefore, EPA's proposed numerical limits did
not accurately reflect pollutant concentrations achievable by these
types of facilities (see Section VI.C.2. for a description of metal
finishing job shops). EPA has addressed this by performing specific
sampling targeted to assess the wastewater variability at metal
finishing and electroplating job shops. EPA sampled raw wastewater from
a variety of unit operations as well as wastewater treatment systems at
three job shops for five days each. After a period of a few months, the
Agency then returned to each facility a second and/or a third time for
three days of analytical wastewater sampling. In addition, when
determining proposed limits for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory, EPA, when possible, only used data collected from metal
finishing and electroplating facilities. However, EPA had to transfer
data from the General Metals subcategory for several pollutants that
are being proposed in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. Based
on this approach, the limits for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job
Shop subcategory include increased variability factors as compared to
the General Metals subcategory (i.e., the subcategory that EPA
considers to be the most similar in terms of raw wastewater
characterization).
Second, commenters stated the variability factors that EPA used in
the development of limitations were relatively small. Commenters
expressed their view that EPA's variability factors did not reflect the
variations in raw wastewater pollutant concentrations nor the
variations in the effectiveness of treatment technologies (particularly
in the case of cyanide). Section VIII.B of today's preamble discusses
the statistical methodology used for developing variability factors. In
an effort to ensure that the variability factors represent the
variability found in MP&M wastewater, EPA performed 44 sampling
episodes during post-1995 proposal data collection in addition to the
27 sampling episodes performed during the Phase I data collection
effort. EPA also specifically included sampling of 20 cyanide
destruction systems.
In addition, the Agency has collected long-term effluent data from
facility Compliance Reports and Discharge Monitoring Reports in an
effort to perform a ``real world'' check on the achievability of
today's proposed limits. This data is available for review in the
public record for today's proposal (see Section 6.6.1 of the public
record). Indirect dischargers file compliance monitoring reports with
their control authority (e.g., POTW) at least twice per year as
required under the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403)
while direct discharges file discharge monitoring reports with their
permitting authority at least once per year. The Agency received these
reports from 14 well-operated BAT facilities whose analytical data EPA
used in establishing limitations. EPA sent letters to nine facilities
requesting this data. In addition, five sites provided EPA with this
data during site visits or sampling episodes or as part of their
questionnaire response. Because this data is not in a form that allows
direct use for calculating limits or for comparison to the proposed
limits, EPA was not able to use this data in setting or evaluating the
compliance aspects of the limits and standards in today's proposal.
However, following proposal, EPA will reformat and evaluate this long-
term effluent monitoring data in relation to the proposed limits. In
cases where EPA finds a facility in its costing database that was used
to set the numerical limits and is not in compliance with the proposed
pollutant limitations, EPA will reassess the achievability of these
limits by a well-operated BAT system. When a system is not achieving
the proposed limits consistently it may be because either the system is
not achieving the projected long-term average (LTA) or the system has
higher variability than EPA determined using its standard methodology.
EPA requests comment on its methodology for determining LTAs and
variability factors. In cases where EPA determines that improved system
operation will allow the limits to be consistently achieved it will
include additional treatment costs for the facility in its cost
estimations for the final rule where EPA has not already done so. EPA
concludes, in following the approach described above, that it will
address the concerns of commenters on the Phase I proposed rule related
to the achievability of the numerical limits by well operated and
economically achievable treatment systems. EPA requests comment on this
method of performing a ``real world'' check on the achievability of its
proposed limits.
Finally, as compared to the 1995 proposed limits, today's proposed
numerical limits for total cyanide have increased almost one order of
magnitude from 0.03 mg/L for the daily maximum and 0.02 for the monthly
average to 0.21 and 0.12, respectively. This increase is largely due to
increased variability factors.
Low Discharge Flow Exclusion
Another significant change from the 1995 proposal is EPA's proposed
low wastewater discharge flow exclusion (``low flow cutoff'') for
indirect dischargers. In the 1995 proposed rule, EPA set a low flow
cutoff at one million gallons per year (1 MGY) for all indirect
[[Page 432]]
discharging facilities included in the Phase I sectors. This meant that
EPA proposed to exclude, from the MP&M pretreatment standards,
facilities discharging less than 1 MGY to a POTW. The Agency included
the low flow cutoff to reduce the potentially large burden on POTWs
related to issuing permits or other control mechanisms to thousands of
the smallest MP&M Phase I sector facilities. EPA received many comments
on the level of the proposed flow cutoff. Based on these comments and
the recommendations of the SBREFA panel (see Section XXII.C on the
SBREFA process), EPA analyzed a range of flow cutoffs for indirect
dischargers ranging from no flow cutoff to 6.25 million gallons per
year. EPA notes that at 6.25 million gallons per year, the General
Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR part 403) classify indirect discharging
facilities as ``Significant Industrial Users'' (SIUs). Under the
General Pretreatment Standards, control authorities (e.g., POTWs) must
issue permits or other control mechanisms to SIUs and, therefore, no
POTW burden reductions are realized above a flow cutoff of 6.25 MGY.
(However, there may be some minimal increase in burden for modifying
permits or control mechanisms).
EPA estimates that there are a total of 89,000 facilities within
the scope of the proposed rule. Many of these facilities are small
facilities and may be contributing minimal pollutant loadings to the
environment. A low flow exclusion allows regulatory authorities to
focus attention on those facilities with significant discharges. This
may also improve the cost-effectiveness of the rule. In developing
today's proposal, EPA considered POTW burden, costs, pollutant
removals, and economic impacts of the various flow cutoffs.
Unlike the 1995 proposal, EPA is now proposing to subcategorize
(i.e., subdivide) the MP&M category (see Section VI of this preamble
for a discussion on subcategorization of the industry). Therefore, EPA
has analyzed the various low flow cutoffs by subcategory, noting in
particular which subcategories are not currently covered under existing
pretreatment standards. When existing pretreatment standards already
cover all facilities in a particular subcategory, POTWs will not be
relieved of their administrative burden, regardless of whether or not a
low flow exclusion exists in the MP&M pretreatment standards. But other
factors, such as a disproportionate economic impact have been
considered.
The combination of subcategorization of the industry, current
coverage under existing pretreatment standards, and analysis of a range
of low flow cutoffs has led EPA to propose different levels for the low
flow exclusion for indirect dischargers in various subcategories. For
example, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY cutoff for indirect dischargers in
the General Metals subcategory, but is proposing no flow cutoff for
indirect dischargers in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory (see
Section VI.C. for descriptions of the proposed subcategories). This
difference is partially due to the fact that under the Electroplating
and Metal Finishing pretreatment standards (40 CFR parts 413 and 433),
EPA already regulates (thus it already requires POTWs to issue control
mechanisms for) all indirect discharging facilities in the proposed
Printed Wiring Board subcategory (approximately 620 facilities). In
addition, EPA does not project any severe or moderate economic impacts
for the small estimated number of printed wiring board facilities (52)
that would be eligible for a low flow cutoff of 1 MGY. In contrast, EPA
has not previously established pretreatment standards for approximately
75 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the proposed
General Metals subcategory (approximately 26,000 total facilities).
Approximately 23,000 indirect dischargers in the proposed General
Metals Subcategory discharge less than 1 MGY. If EPA did not exclude
these facilities, the number of permit issuances that POTWs are
responsible for would increase significantly. There are approximately
30,000 industrial users currently covered nationally by existing
pretreatment standards for all effluent guidelines. Low flow exclusions
being proposed for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories,
POTWs (or other control authorities) would have to issue an additional
51,000 permits/control mechanisms. EPA discusses further the rationale
for proposing a low flow cutoff exclusion for certain subcategories in
Section XII.
Mass-Based v. Concentration-Based Limits
EPA also received many comments on the issue of mass-based versus
concentration-based limits. In the 1995 proposal, EPA proposed
concentration-based limits with the requirement that control
authorities (e.g., POTWs) implement them as mass-based limits. EPA
notes that under the NPDES permit program, the Agency already requires
permit writers to implement effluent limitations guidelines as mass-
based limits whenever feasible (40 CFR 122.45(f)). EPA proposed
requiring this conversion to mass-based limits because the Agency
believed that it was necessary to ensure the use of water conservation
and pollution prevention practices similar to those that were part of
EPA's selected option (60 FR 28230). EPA expected permit writers and
control authorities to use historical flow as a basis for the
conversion to mass-based limits for facilities that demonstrated good
water conservation practices. However, for facilities that did not have
good water conservation in place, EPA provided detailed guidance to
permit writers and control authorities in the Technical Development
Document (TDD) for the 1995 proposal. The TDD included information on a
full range of water use levels (in gallons/sq.ft.) for a large variety
of MP&M operations as well as guidance on how permit writers and
control authorities could determine if a facility was using good water
conservation practices.
EPA received comments on the administrative burden on POTWs
associated with implementation of mass-based limits. The commenters
stated that the burden was largely due to the fact that most MP&M
facilities do not collect production information on a wastestream-by-
wastestream basis. POTWs have continued to voice these concerns at
recent public stakeholder meetings. To address this issue, EPA
collected additional MP&M unit operation-specific information on
pollution prevention practices, water use, and wastewater generation in
the data collection efforts that followed the Phase I proposal.
In today's proposal, EPA is again proposing concentration-based
limits (for all but one subcategory) and is providing detailed
information on water use levels for specific unit operations in the
Technical Development Document. However, the Agency is no longer
proposing to require control authorities (e.g., POTWs) or permit
writers to implement the limits on a mass basis. Instead EPA is
proposing to authorize control authorities and permit writers to decide
when it is most appropriate to implement mass-based limits. EPA
believes that this approach will reduce implementation burden on POTWs
and will result in increased use of water conservation practices at the
facilities where POTWs and permit writers think it is most needed. EPA
believes that MP&M facilities that use the best pollution prevention
and water conservation practices may request that the control authority
or permit writer use mass-based limits in their permits or other
control mechanisms. (See Section XXI.B for a discussion on regulatory
implementation).
[[Page 433]]
III. Scope of Proposal
Today's proposed effluent guideline applies to process wastewater
discharges from existing or new industrial sites engaged in
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or
machines to be used in one of the following industrial sectors:
Aerospace;
Aircraft;
Bus and Truck;
Electronic Equipment;
Hardware;
Household Equipment;
Instruments;
Job Shops;
Mobile Industrial Equipment;
Motor Vehicle;
Office Machine;
Ordnance;
Precious Metals and Jewelry;
Printed Wiring Boards;
Railroad;
Ships and Boats;
Stationary Industrial Equipment; and
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
EPA has identified these eighteen industrial sectors in the MP&M
category; these sectors manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal
products under more than 200 different SIC codes. See Appendix A of
today's proposed rule for a description of typical products within
these eighteen MP&M industrial sectors. Although EPA is using these 18
industrial sectors to generally describe the scope of today's proposal,
the Agency notes that it is not using these industrial sectors to
subcategorize (or subdivide) the regulations for the industry. EPA's
analysis to date suggests that the industrial sectors do not correlate
well with the types of waste generated, and many facilities perform
operations covered by multiple sectors. Instead, EPA is proposing to
define subcategories based on unit operations performed and the nature
of the waste generated (see Section VI of today's notice for a
discussions on subcategorization and subcategory-specific
applicability).
EPA does not intend to include maintenance or repair of metal
parts, products, or machines that occur only as ancillary activities at
facilities that it did not include in the 18 industrial sectors. (See
Sec. 438.1(d)). EPA believes that these ancillary repair and
maintenance activities would typically generate only small quantities
of wastewater. In most cases, these periodic repair and maintenance
activities at facilities not in one of the 18 industrial sectors would
comprise only a very small portion of the total wastewater flow at the
facility. The Agency believes local limits will be adequate to address
these discharges for indirect dischargers and that permit writers can
establish limits using Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) to regulate
these ancillary waste streams for direct dischargers. Permit writers
should consult the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
the primary category of such a facility (See 40 CFR Chapter I,
Subchapter N for all existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards). As an example, EPA does not intend for the MP&M proposal to
include process wastewater discharges from an on-site machine or
maintenance shop at a facility engaged in the manufacture of organic
chemicals when the facility operates that shop to maintain the
equipment related to manufacturing their products (i.e., organic
chemicals). As discussed above, these wastewaters can be regulated
through local limits or through BPJ using the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) regulations. Alternatively,
since aircraft is an in-scope MP&M industrial sector, EPA is proposing
to include process wastewater discharges from activities related to
maintaining or repairing aircraft or other related (metal) equipment
(e.g., deicing vehicles) at airports.
EPA also intends to cover wastewater from MP&M operations related
to maintenance and repair of metal products, parts, and machinery at
military installations. For example, this proposal includes wastewater
generated from the maintenance and repair of aircraft, cars, trucks,
buses, tanks (or other armor personnel carriers), and industrial
equipment--all of which are commonly performed at military
installations.
Today's proposal only covers process wastewater generated at MP&M
facilities. EPA is not covering non-process wastewater which includes
sanitary wastewater, non-contact cooling water, and storm water. EPA
has characterized typical MP&M unit operations as belonging to one or
more of the following types: Assembly/disassembly; metal deposition;
metal shaping; organic deposition; printed wiring board; surface
finishing; surface preparation; and dry dock operations. Typical unit
operations at MP&M facilities include any one or more of the following:
abrasive blasting, abrasive jet machining, acid treatment, adhesive
bonding, alkaline cleaning for removal of oil, alkaline treatment,
anodizing, aqueous degreasing, assembly, barrel finishing, brazing,
burnishing, calibration, chemical conversion coating, chemical milling,
chromate conversion coating, corrosion preventive coating, disassembly,
electrical discharge machining, electrochemical machining, electroless
plating, electrolytic cleaning, electroplating, electron beam
machining, electropolishing, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating,
hot-dip coating, impact deformation, laminating, laser beam machining,
machining, metal spraying, painting (spray/brush or immersion), photo
resist applications, physical vapor deposition, plating, plasma arc
machining, polishing, pressure deformation, rinsing, salt bath
descaling, soldering, solvent degreasing, sputtering, stripping (paint
or metallic coating), testing, thermal cutting, thermal infusion,
ultrasonic machining, vacuum metalizing, washing finished product,
welding, wet air pollution control, and numerous sub-operations within
those listed above. EPA notes that not all MP&M unit operations
generate process wastewater. In addition, many of these operations
frequently have associated rinses that remove materials that preceding
processes deposit on the surface of the workpiece and water-discharging
air pollution control devices which become contaminated with process
contaminants removed from the air. EPA is including both of these
wastewater flows under the scope of today's proposed regulation. (See
Sec. 438.2(e)).
The Agency is also including under today's proposed regulation
wastewater discharges from non-contact, nondestructive testing
performed at MP&M facilities. (See Sec. 438.2(e)). A common source of
``nondestructive testing'' wastewater is photographic waste from
nondestructive X-ray examination of parts. The Agency is proposing to
cover this wastewater because of the potential concentration of silver
in the wastewater discharge.
EPA is not covering wastewater generated from electroplating-type
operations during semiconductor wafer manufacturing or wafer
fabrication processes (i.e., tape automated bonding--``TAB'' and
controlled collapse chip connection--``C-4'') occurring in a ``clean
room'' environment because it believes that these operations are much
different than the other electroplating operations that EPA is covering
by these guidelines and do not contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to the wastewater discharge. (See Sec. 438.1(e)). The new
and emerging technologies involved in semiconductor wafer fabrication
add microscopic amounts of metal (usually copper) to only selective
portions of the wafer to
[[Page 434]]
enhance circuitry and decrease wafer size. Other electroplating
operations that EPA is proposing to cover under this guideline
generally occur on a larger scale and produce a more concentrated
metal-bearing wastewater. Moreover, the wafer fabrication processes
occur in a clean room with a highly-controlled atmosphere and using
highly-purified materials and specialized tools that are much different
from typical metal-finishing equipment. These specialized tools and
conditions enable the manufacturer to add microscopic levels (less than
one micron) of metal to only one side of the wafer, in contrast to the
non-selective, macroscopic (micron to micron-inch) plating used in
common metal finishing. Therefore, EPA is proposing not to cover
wastewater from wafer fabrication processes under this rule. However,
in today's proposal the Agency is covering wastewater generated from
electroplating during semiconductor final wafer assembly. (See
Sec. 438.1(e)).
EPA is proposing to cover wastewater generated from washing
vehicles only when it occurs as a preparatory step prior to performing
an MP&M unit operation (e.g., prior to disassembly to perform engine
maintenance or rebuilding). (See Sec. 438.1(f)). MP&M facilities may
perform these preparatory washes to remove oils, dirt and grit prior to
performing the maintenance or repair operations and as a result the
combined wastewater contains significant amounts of oil and grease
along with total suspended solids. However, this proposed regulation
does not cover the washing of cars, aircraft or other vehicles when it
is performed only for aesthetic/cosmetic purposes because EPA does not
expect these washes to contain significant concentrations of
pollutants. (See Sec. 438.1(f)).
EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated from unit
operations performed by drum reconditioners/refurbishers to prepare
drums for reuse. (See Sec. 438.1(a)). These facilities perform
operations on metal drums such as chaining, caustic washing, acid
cleaning, acid etching, impact deformation, leak testing, corrosion
inhibition, shot blasting, and painting. The Agency considers
facilities that perform these operations as part of the Stationary
Industrial Equipment sector. However, the Agency notes that it is
currently considering the development of an effluent guideline for the
drum reconditioning industry. If EPA develops regulations for this new
industrial category, it is possible that the Agency would cover these
facilities under that rule and not under the MP&M regulation. EPA
solicits comment on whether these facilities would be more
appropriately covered under the MP&M rule or under a new industrial
category for drum reconditioners.
EPA did not collect information with respect to MP&M operations at
gasoline service stations (SIC code 5541), passenger car rental
facilities (SIC code 7514), or utility trailer and recreational vehicle
rental facilities (SIC code 7519); therefore, this proposed regulation
does not cover process wastewater generated by maintenance and repair
activities when they occur at gasoline stations or car rental
facilities. (See Sec. 438.1(g)). As discussed in Sections VI.C and XII
of this notice, EPA is proposing to exclude facilities in the General
Metals and Oily Waste subcategories that discharge MP&M process
wastewater below a specified flow rate (one and two million gallons per
year, respectively). EPA expects that many facilities that only perform
repair and maintenance activities (e.g., auto repair shops, light
aircraft maintenance) will be excluded as most will fit into the
applicability of either the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories
and have process wastewater discharges below the subcategory-specific
flow cutoffs.
EPA is proposing to cover MP&M process wastewater at mixed-use
facilities (i.e., any municipal, private, U.S. military or federal
facility which contains both industrial and commercial/administrative
buildings at which one or more industrial sites conduct operations
within the facility's boundaries). (See Sec. 438.1(h)). However, unlike
the typical industrial facility, such as an aircraft or electronic
equipment manufacturing plant with one primary manufacturing activity,
the majority of military installations are mixed-use facilities and are
more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other
operations within their boundaries. Many of these installations also
include a variety of tenant activities, including contractor and other
Department of Defense federal agency activities. At these mixed-use
facilities, EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from manufacturing,
maintenance and repair activities performed on metal parts, products or
machines (e.g. maintenance and repair of vehicles and aircraft). (See
Sec. 438.1(h)). EPA concluded that these types of operations will
generate wastewater containing either high metals content or high oil
and grease, or both. EPA is not proposing to cover wastewater from
other non-metal repair, maintenance or manufacturing operations at
mixed-use facilities such as wastewater from residential housing,
schools, churches, recreational parks, shopping centers, gas stations,
utility plants, and hospitals. The Agency believes that wastewater
generated from these activities will not contain the same types and
concentrations of pollutants (such as metals and oil and grease) as
wastewater from MP&M operations. Finally, the geographic size of many
military installations (for example, over 300 square miles at Fort
Hood, TX and over 1.1 million acres at the China Lake Naval Air Warfare
Center, CA) makes it difficult to treat them as a single facility.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow wastewater generated at different
sites (individual buildings as well as outdoor locations where
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance occur on metal parts,
products, or machines) within a mixed-use facility to be dealt with as
separate discharges for the purpose of applying the appropriate low
flow cutoff (when applicable). EPA is proposing to allow the control
authority to use its discretion in determining which wastewater
discharges can be considered separate discharges for the purposes of
applying the appropriate low flow cutoff (when applicable). The
determination would likely be based on the degree of proximity between
industrial operations and a practical application of the requirements
for applicable MP&M subcategories. Control authorities (and permit
writers) will have to determine when it is appropriate to apply
standards for more than one subcategory to a mixed-use facility and
when to use the combined waste stream formula (or building block
approach). For example, a military installation that generates
wastewater from vehicle maintenance operations that is treated in a
separate wastewater system than wastewater generated from its metal
finishing operations could be covered by both the Oily Wastes
subcategory for its vehicle maintenance operations and by the General
Metals subcategory for it surface finishing operations. (See Section VI
for a discussion of subcategorization and subcategory-specific
applicability).
EPA seeks information from other facilities that believe they would
fall within this mixed-use facility category. In addition, EPA seeks
comments on the choice to allow control authorities to make a
determination concerning applying the low flow cutoffs to separate
discharges and the factors for making such a decision as well as
alternative ways to divide a mixed-use facility.
See Section II.B for a discussion on the applicability of today's
proposed rule with respect to the thirteen existing
[[Page 435]]
metals-related effluent limitations guidelines and standards
regulations.
IV. Industry Description
As described in Section III, the MP&M industry is comprised of
facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal parts, products
or machines to be used in one of 18 industrial sectors. Based on
results of the MP&M survey database, there are an estimated 89,000 MP&M
sites. Based on detailed survey results, an estimated 63,000 MP&M sites
discharge process water. Of the facilities discharging process
wastewater, EPA estimates that 93 percent are indirect dischargers and
7 percent are direct dischargers. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 26,000 facilities that fall into one of three zero
discharge categories: zero discharge, non-water-using, or contract
haulers.
MP&M water-discharging sites range in size from less than 10
employees to sites with tens of thousands of employees and from
wastewater discharge flow rates of less than 100 gallons per year to
wastewater discharge flow rates exceeding 100 million gallons per year.
Of water discharging facilities, approximately 98 percent of MP&M sites
have 500 or fewer employees and approximately 78 percent of MP&M sites
have 100 or fewer employees. EPA estimates that facilities with less
than 100 employees discharge approximately 11 percent of the total
annual wastewater discharged by the MP&M industry and that facilities
having between 100 and 500 employees discharge approximately 50% of the
industry total flow. Facilities with greater than 500 employees
discharge 39 percent of the industry total.
MP&M facilities are located throughout the United States. The
Agency received survey data from every EPA region and 48 separate
states. EPA estimates that the largest concentrations of MP&M
facilities are located in EPA Regions III (MD, PA, VA, WV), V (IL, IN,
MI, MN, OH, WI), and IX (AZ, CA, HI). In addition EPA estimates the
seven states with the largest concentrations of MP&M facilities are:
California (25 percent), Pennsylvania (23 percent), Virginia (11
percent), Ohio (5 percent), Colorado (4 percent), Texas (3 percent),
and Indiana (2 percent).
EPA estimates that approximately 3 percent of the industry (water
dischargers and zero dischargers) generates annual revenues less than
$100,000, approximately 41 percent generate annual revenues between
$100,000 and $500,000, approximately 5 percent generate annual revenues
between $500,000 and $1,500,000, and approximately 33 percent generate
over $5,000,000 annual revenues. The Agency notes that facilities with
annual revenues greater than $5,000,000 discharge approximately 73
percent of the total wastewater discharged by the industry.
Although facilities in the MP&M industry produce a wide range of
products, the operations performed can be described by two types of
activities: manufacturing, and rebuilding/maintenance. Manufacturing is
the series of unit operations necessary to produce metal products, and
is generally performed in a production environment. Rebuilding/
maintenance is the series of unit operations necessary to disassemble
used metal products into components, replace the components or
subassemblies or restore them to original function, and reassemble the
metal product. These operations are intended to keep metal products in
operating condition and can be performed in either a production or a
non-production environment.
Table IV-1, below, summarizes the estimated number of MP&M sites
(water dischargers and zero dischargers) and total discharge flow
(prior to implementation of the proposed rule) by activity or activity
combination. The largest number of sites, approximately 44,000, perform
``rebuilding/maintenance only'' and account for approximately 9 percent
of the total estimated discharge flow for the industry. ``Manufacturing
only'' represents the next largest number of facilities (27,000) and
represents the largest percentage of the total estimated discharge flow
for the industry (75.2 percent).
Table IV-1.--MP&M Sites * and Total Discharge Flow by Activity Combination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total
number of estimated Percentage of Percentage of
Activity water discharge flow total water total
discharging (million gal/ discharging discharge flow
MP&M sites yr) MP&M sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing, Rebuilding/Maintenance........... 7,400 11,200 8.3 9.1
Manufacturing Only.............................. 27,000 91,700 30.4 75.2
Rebuilding/Maintenance Only..................... 44,000 11,100 49.5 9.1
Unknown/others.................................. 10,500 8,100 11.8 6.6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total **.................................... 89,000 122,000 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table includes all MP&M sites, for a presentation of this distribution for water discharging sites only,
see the Technical Development Document for today's proposal.
** Totals may not add due to rounding.
Of the 26,000 sites that achieve zero discharge of process
wastewater, many use but do not discharge process water. Based on
information from the MP&M Detailed Surveys, site visits, and technical
literature (see Section V for a discussion of the data collection
activities), these sites achieve zero discharge of process wastewater
in one or more of the following ways:
Sites contract haul for off-site disposal all process
wastewater generated on site;
Sites discharge process wastewater to either on-site
septic systems or deep-well injection systems;
Sites perform end-of-pipe treatment and reuse all process
wastewater generated on site;
Sites perform either in-process or end-of-pipe evaporation
to eliminate wastewater discharges; or
Sites perform in-process recirculation and recycling to
eliminate wastewater discharges.
EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, authorized by
the Safe Drinking Water Act, regulates shallow on-site systems and deep
wells that discharge fluids or wastewater into the subsurface and thus
may endanger underground sources of drinking water.
If a facility disposes any wastewater (other than solely sanitary
waste) into a shallow disposal system (e.g., septic system or a floor
drain connected to a dry well) that well is covered by the UIC program.
If you think you have a UIC
[[Page 436]]
disposal well on your facility, you should contact your State UIC
Program authority to determine your compliance status.
EPA published the Class V Rule in the Federal Register on December
7, 1999 (64 FR 68545), which affected facilities using on site systems
to dispose waste associated with motor vehicle service and repair in
state-designated groundwater protection areas. The EPA is scheduled to
develop additional requirements for other Class V wells that receive
endangering waste. Contact your State UIC Program for more information
on these developing regulations.
V. Summary of Data Collection Activities
A. Existing Data Sources
While developing today's proposal, EPA reviewed data from other
metals industry effluent guidelines, the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) treatability database, the 50 POTW Study,
the Domestic Sewage Study, and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
For the MP&M technology effectiveness assessment effort, EPA
reviewed sampling data collected to characterize treatment systems for
the development of effluent guidelines for other metals industries (see
Section II.B for a discussion on other metals industry effluent
guidelines). For several previous effluent guidelines, EPA used
treatment data from metals industries to develop the Combined Metals
Database (CMDB), which served as the basis for developing limits for
these industries. EPA also developed a separate database used as the
basis for limits for the Metal Finishing category. EPA used the CMDB
and Metal Finishing data as a guide in identifying well-designed and
well-operated MP&M treatment systems. EPA did not use these data in
developing the MP&M technology effectiveness concentrations, since the
Agency collected sufficient data from MP&M sites to develop technology
effectiveness concentrations.
EPA also reviewed the Technical Development Documents (TDDs),
sampling episode reports, and supporting record materials for the other
metals industries' rulemakings to identify available data. EPA used
these data for the preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry, but did
not use these data for estimating MP&M pollutant loadings because EPA
obtained sufficient data for the MP&M sampling program to characterize
the MP&M unit operations.
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
developed a treatability database (formerly called the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to provide data on the removal
and destruction of chemicals in various types of media, including
water, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment. This database contains
treatability data from POTWs and industrial facilities for various
pollutants. The database includes physical and chemical data for each
pollutant, the types of treatment used to treat the specific
pollutants, the types of wastewater treated, the size of the POTW or
industrial site, and the treatment concentrations achieved. EPA used
this database as one means to assess removal of MP&M pollutants of
concern by POTWs.
In September 1982, EPA published the Fate of Priority Pollutants in
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, referred to as the 50 POTW Study. The
purpose of this study was to generate, compile, and report data on the
occurrence and fate of the 129 priority pollutants in 50 POTWs. The
report presents all of the data collected, the results of preliminary
evaluations of these data, and the results of calculations to determine
the quantity of priority pollutants in the influent to POTWs;
discharged from the POTWs; in the effluent from intermediate process
streams; and in the POTW sludge streams. EPA used the data from this
study as one means to assess removal by POTWs of MP&M pollutants of
concern (see Section XII.A for additional discussion on the use of the
50 POTW Study).
In February 1986, EPA issued the ``Report to Congress on the
Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works'',
referred to as the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS). This report, which was
based in part on the 50 POTW Study, revealed a significant number of
sites discharging pollutants to POTWs, which are a threat to the
treatment capability of the POTW. These pollutants were not regulated
by national categorical pretreatment standards at that time. EPA used
the information in the DSS in developing the Preliminary Data Summary
(PDS) for the MP&M category (October 1989).
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) database contains specific toxic
chemical release and transfer information from manufacturing facilities
throughout the United States. EPA considered using the TRI database in
developing the MP&M effluent guidelines. However, EPA did not use TRI
data on wastewater discharges from MP&M sites because sufficient data
were not available for effluent guidelines development. For example, in
developing the MP&M effluent guidelines, EPA uses wastewater influent
concentrations to characterize a facility's wastewater and to calculate
treatment efficiency (i.e., percent removal across the treatment
system). TRI does not provide concentrations for the influent to a
facility's treatment system. EPA also did not use the data on
wastewater discharge because many MP&M sites do not meet the reporting
thresholds for the TRI database.
B. Survey Questionnaires
As discussed in Section II.C, EPA originally intended to propose
the MP&M rulemaking in two phases. Therefore, EPA's data collection
efforts, particularly the use of survey questionnaires, was handled in
two phases to collect data from the relevant industrial sectors. EPA
distributed two screener and six detailed questionnaires (surveys)
between 1989 and 1996. For a list of surveys by distribution date, see
the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
1. Screener Surveys
EPA developed and distributed two screener surveys. In 1990, EPA
distributed 8,342 screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in
the original seven Phase I MP&M sectors. In 1996, EPA distributed 5,325
screener surveys to sites believed to be engaged in the eleven Phase II
MP&M sectors. The purpose of the screener surveys was to identify sites
to receive the more detailed follow-up surveys and to make a
preliminary assessment of the MP&M industry.
In each case, EPA identified the SIC codes applicable to the
respective MP&M sectors and then calculated the number of sites to
receive the screener within each SIC code by a coefficient of variation
(CV) minimization procedure (see the respective Database Summary
Reports for the screener surveys in the public record for a detailed
discussion of the CV procedure). Based on the number of sites selected
within each SIC code, the Agency purchased a list of randomly selected
names and addresses from Dun & Bradstreet. This list included twice the
number of sites specified by the CV minimization procedure for each SIC
code. Dun & Bradstreet randomly selected the requested number of sites
from the Dun & Bradstreet database for each SIC code. From this list of
potential recipient sites, the Agency randomly selected sites to
receive the screener surveys. For a more detailed discussion on the
screener surveys, see the Technical
[[Page 437]]
Development Document for today's proposed rule.
EPA also sent the 1996 screener survey to 1,750 randomly selected
sites in Ohio for the purpose of collecting information for an
environmental benefits study. (See Section XX.F or the Economic,
Environmental, and Benefits Analysis for today's proposed rule for a
detailed discussion of EPA's Ohio Benefits Case Study).
2. Industrial Detailed Surveys
Based on responses to the 1990 screener, EPA sent a more detailed
survey to a select group of water-using MP&M sites. The Agency designed
this survey to collect detailed technical and financial information.
EPA selected 1,020 detailed survey recipients from the following three
groups of sites:
Water-discharging 1989 screener respondents (860 sites);
Water-using 1989 screener respondents that did not
discharge process water (74 sites); and
Water-discharging sites from well-known MP&M companies
that did not receive the 1989 screener (86 sites).
EPA used information from the first two groups of survey recipients
to develop pollutant loadings and reductions and to develop compliance
cost estimates. Because EPA did not randomly select the third group of
recipients, EPA did not use the data to develop national estimates.
In an effort to reduce burden on survey recipients for the second
phase of the data collection effort, EPA developed two similar detailed
surveys. Based on the development of the 1995 MP&M proposal, EPA chose
to collect more detailed information from sites with annual process
wastewater discharges greater than one million gallons per year (1
MGY). EPA sent the ``long'' detailed survey to all 353 1996 screener
respondents who indicated they discharged one million or more gallons
of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M operations. The
Agency sent the ``short'' detailed survey to 101 randomly selected 1996
screener respondents who indicated they discharged less than one
million gallons of MP&M process wastewater annually and performed MP&M
operations.
The detailed surveys collected information to identify the site
location and contact person, number of employees, facility age, process
wastewater discharge status and destination, and wastewater discharge
permits and permitting authority as well as general information about
metal types processed, MP&M products and production levels, water use
for unit operations, and wastewater discharge from unit operations. EPA
used the process information to evaluate water use and discharge
practices and sources of pollutants for each MP&M unit operation. EPA
also requested detailed information on MP&M wet unit operations,
pollution prevention practices, wastewater treatment technologies,
costs for water use and wastewater treatment systems, and wastewater/
sludge disposal costs. EPA also requested each site to provide block
diagrams of the production process and the wastewater treatment system.
The unit operation information included: metal types processed,
production rate, operating schedule, chemical additives, volume and
destination of process wastewater and rinse waters, in-process
pollution prevention technologies, and in-process flow control
technologies. The information EPA requested for each wastewater
treatment unit included: operating flow rate, design capacity,
operating time, chemical additives, and unit operations discharging to
each treatment unit. In addition, EPA asked each site to provide the
type of MP&M wastewater sampling data collected. EPA used these data to
characterize the industry, to perform subcategorization analyses, to
identify best management practices, to evaluate performance of the
treatment technology for inclusion in the regulatory options, and to
develop regulatory compliance cost estimates.
EPA also collected detailed financial and economic information
about the site or the company owning the site. In addition, the 1996
long detailed questionnaire included a section that requested
supplemental information on other MP&M facilities owned by the company.
EPA included this voluntary section to measure the combined impact of
proposed MP&M effluent guidelines on companies with multiple MP&M
facilities that discharge process wastewater. This section requested
the same information collected in the 1996 MP&M screener survey.
Responses to questions in this section provided the size, industrial
sector, revenue, unit operations, and water usage of the company's
other MP&M facilities.
The 1996 short survey included the identical general site and
process information and economic information collected in the long
detailed survey. However, to minimize the burden on facilities
discharging less than one million gallons of process wastewater, EPA
did not require these facilities to provide the detailed information on
MP&M unit operations or treatment technologies that the Agency
requested in the long survey. For a question-by-question comparison of
the short and long 1996 detailed surveys, see the Technical Development
Document for today's proposed rule.
Finally, EPA developed a detailed survey, under a separate
rulemaking effort, to collect detailed information from facilities that
are currently covered by the Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent
guidelines. Following field sampling of iron and steel sites and review
of the completed industry surveys, EPA decided that some iron and steel
operations would be more appropriately covered by the MP&M rule because
they were more like MP&M operations (see Section VI.C.5 for a
discussion on the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory). Based on
EPA's decision regarding these operations, the Agency coded and entered
process information from 47 iron and steel surveys into the MP&M
costing input database.
3. Municipality Survey
EPA distributed the municipality surveys in 1996 to city and county
facilities that might operate MP&M facilities. The Agency designed this
survey to measure the impact of this rule on municipalities and other
government entities that perform maintenance and rebuilding operations
on MP&M products (e.g., bus and truck, automobiles).
The Agency sent the municipality survey to 150 city and county
facilities randomly selected from the Municipality Year Book-1995 based
on population and geographic location. EPA allocated sixty percent of
the sample to municipalities and 40 percent to counties. The 60/40
distribution was approximately proportional to their aggregate
populations in the frame. EPA divided the municipality sample and the
county sample into three size groupings as measured by population. For
municipalities, the population groupings were: less than 10,000
residents, 10,000-50,000 residents, and 50,000 or more residents. For
counties, the population groupings were: less than 50,000 residents,
50,000-150,000 residents, and 150,000 or more residents. The geographic
stratification conformed to the Census definitions of Northeast, North
Central, South, Pacific, and Mountain states. The technical questions
in the Municipality Survey were basically identical to the 1996 short
detailed survey; however, EPA adapted the financial and economic
questions so that they were appropriate for these facilities.
[[Page 438]]
4. Federal Facilities Survey
In April 1998, EPA distributed the federal facilities detailed
survey to the following federal agencies:
Department of Energy;
Department of Defense;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
Department of Transportation (including the United States
Coast Guard);
Department of the Interior;
Department of Agriculture; and
United States Postal Service.
EPA designed this survey to assess the impact of the MP&M effluent
limitations guidelines and standards on federal agencies that operate
MP&M facilities. EPA distributed the survey to federal agencies likely
to perform industrial operations on metal products or machines. The
Agency requested that the representatives of the seven listed federal
agencies voluntarily distribute copies of the survey to sites they
believed performed MP&M operations. The information collected in the
1996 federal survey was identical to the long survey. After engineering
review and coding, EPA entered data from 44 federal surveys into the
database. Because EPA did not randomly select the survey recipients,
data from these questionnaires was not used to develop national
estimates.
5. POTW Survey
EPA distributed the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) survey in
November 1997. The Agency designed this survey to estimate benefits
associated with implementation of the MP&M regulations and to estimate
possible costs and burden that POTWs might incur in writing MP&M
permits or other control mechanisms. The Agency sent the POTW survey to
150 POTWs with flow rates greater than 0.50 million gallons per day.
EPA randomly selected the recipients from the 1992 Needs Survey Review,
Update, and Query System Database (RUQus). The Agency divided the POTW
sample into two strata by daily flow rates: 0.50 to 2.50 million
gallons, and 2.50 million gallons or more.
In addition to the total volume of wastewater treated at the site,
the POTW survey requested the number of industrial permits written, the
cost to write the permits, the permitting fee structure, the percentage
of industrial dischargers covered by National Categorical Standards
(i.e., effluent guidelines), and the percentage of permits requiring
expensive administrative activities. EPA used this information to
estimate administrative burden and costs. In addition, EPA requested
information on the use or disposal of sewage sludge generated by the
POTW. The Agency only required POTWs that received discharges from an
MP&M facility to complete those questions. The sewage sludge
information requested included the amount generated, use or disposal
method, metal levels, use or disposal costs, and the percentage of
metal loadings from MP&M facilities. The Agency used this information
to assess the potential changes in sludge handling resulting from the
MP&M rule and to estimate economic benefits to the POTW (See Section
XIX.B.2 for a discussion of the results of the POTW survey.)
C. Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits
The Agency visited 201 MP&M sites to collect information about MP&M
unit operations, water use practices, pollution prevention and
treatment technologies, and waste disposal methods, and to evaluate
sites for potential inclusion in the MP&M sampling program (described
below). In general, the Agency visited sites to encompass the range of
sectors, unit operations, and wastewater treatment technologies within
the MP&M industry.
The Agency based site selection on information contained in the
MP&M screener and detailed surveys. The Agency also contacted regional
EPA personnel, state environmental agency personnel, and local
pretreatment coordinators to identify MP&M sites believed to be
operating in-process source reduction and recycling technologies or
end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies. The Agency also
attempted to visit sites of various sizes. EPA visited sites with
wastewater flows ranging from less than 200 gallons per day to more
than 1,000,000 gallons per day. Site-specific selection criteria are
discussed in site visit reports (SVRs) prepared for each site visited
by EPA.
In addition to performing site visits, EPA conducted wastewater
sampling episodes at 72 sites to obtain data on the characteristics of
MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: The
loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the
effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants
from MP&M wastewater; design and operational parameters; and the
variation of MP&M wastewater characteristics across unit operations,
metal types processed in each unit operation, and sectors.
The Agency used information collected during MP&M site visits to
identify candidate sites for sampling. The Agency used the following
general criteria to select sites for sampling:
The site performed MP&M unit operations EPA was evaluating
for development of the MP&M regulation;
The site processed metals through MP&M unit operations for
which the metal type/unit operation combination needed to be
characterized for the sampling database;
The site performed in-process source reduction, recycling,
or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that EPA was evaluating for
technology option development; and
The site performed unit operations in a sector that EPA
was evaluating for development of the MP&M regulation.
The Agency also attempted to sample at sites of various sizes. EPA
sampled at sites with wastewater flows ranging from less than 200
gallons per day to more than 1,000,000 gallons per day.
In addition, EPA worked with several stakeholders to collect site
visit and sampling data from MP&M facilities. Following the 1995
proposal of the Phase I MP&M rule, the Association of American
Railroads (AAR), the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD), and the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) proposed potential
sampling sites to the Agency, and EPA visited these sites to identify
candidates for sampling. After conducting site visits, EPA selected
five sites for sampling episodes to characterize end-of-pipe treatment
technologies in metal finishing and aircraft parts job shops and the
railroad and shipbuilding industrial sectors. EPA prepared detailed
sampling plans based on the information collected during the five site
visits, and supported AAR, HRSD and LACSD sampling episodes for the
collection of wastewater samples, and EPA prepared the sampling episode
reports.
The Agency collected the following types of information during each
sampling episode:
Dates and times of sample collection;
Flow data corresponding to each sample;
Production data corresponding to each sample of wastewater
from MP&M unit operations;
Design and operating parameters for source reduction,
recycling, and treatment technologies characterized during sampling;
Information about site operations that had changed since
the site visit or that were not included in the SVR; and
Temperature and pH of the sampled wastestreams.
EPA documented all data collected during sampling episodes in the
[[Page 439]]
sampling episode report (SER) for each sampled site which are located
in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential information from
these reports is available in the public record for this proposal. For
detailed information on sampling and preservation procedures,
analytical methods, and quality assurance/quality control procedures
see the Technical Development Document for today's proposed rule.
D. Industry Submitted Data
EPA evaluated other industry data in developing the MP&M effluent
guidelines. The data sources reviewed include: public comments to the
1995 MP&M Phase I proposed rule; the Metal Finishing F006 Benchmark
Study (September 1998); data supporting the 180-Day Accumulation Time
Under RCRA for Waste Water Treatment Sludges From the Metal Finishing
Industry Final Rule (65 FR 12377, March 8, 2000); data provided by the
Aluminum Anodizing Council (AAC), the American Wire Producers
Association (AWPA), and the Aerospace Association; data and storm water
pollution prevention plans provided by several shipbuilding sites, and
data from periodic compliance monitoring reports/discharge monitoring
reports for several sites that were part of EPA's wastewater sampling
program. Data submitted with the MP&M Phase I comments did not include
the quality control data required to verify the accuracy of sample
analyses and, therefore, EPA did not use the data. These data sources
are located in the MP&M Administrative Record. Non-confidential
information is available in the public record for this proposal.
E. Summary of Public Participation
EPA has met regularly with industry trade associations and their
members at various association annual meetings and conferences. There
are over 20 trade associations that represent facilities that were part
of the initial scope of the MP&M proposed rule. These trade
associations have formed an informal coalition (referred to as the
``MP&M'' coalition) that coordinates regular meetings with
representatives from the various affected industries. In the past year,
EPA has also participated in several of the Small Business
Administration's ``Small Business Roundtable'' meetings.
As discussed in detail in Section XXII.C, EPA conducted outreach
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. For this proposed
rule, the small entity representatives included nine small MP&M
facility owner/operators, one small municipality, and the following six
trade associations representing different sectors of the industry:
National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF)/Association of
Electroplaters and Surface Finishers (AESF)/MP&M Coalition; the
Association Connecting Electronics Industries (also known as IPC);
Porcelain Enamel Institute; American Association of Shortline Railroads
(ASLRA); Electronics Industry Association (EIA); and the American Wire
Producers Association (AWPA).
Because many facilities affected by this proposal are indirect
dischargers, the Agency also conducted outreach to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) individually and through the Association of
Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). EPA also conducted a survey of 150
POTWs to assess the burden associated with implementing the proposed
MP&M rule (see Section V.B.5 above for discussion of the POTW survey).
In addition, EPA made a concerted effort to consult with pretreatment
coordinators and state and local entities that will be responsible for
implementing this regulation.
EPA sponsored three stakeholders' meetings between November 1997
and May 2000. Two meetings were held in Washington, DC, and the third
was held in Chicago, IL. The primary objectives of the meetings were to
present the Agency's current thinking regarding the technology bases
for the MP&M proposed rule and to solicit comments, issues, and new
ideas from interested stakeholders, including members of environmental
groups.
EPA provided information on the potential technology options and
in-process pollution prevention practices as well as the potential
subcategories. EPA also provided preliminary information on pollutant
reductions, compliance costs, and potential monitoring flexibility.
Most recently, EPA has put up a website (http://www.epa.gov/ost/
guide/mpm) to provide ongoing information on the MP&M project. The site
includes background information, links to related documents, and
information presented at MP&M stakeholders meetings.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Methodology and Factors Considered for Basis of Subcategorization
EPA may divide a point source category (e.g., MP&M) into groupings
called ``subcategories'' to provide a method for addressing variations
between products, raw materials, processes, and other factors which
result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of
a category by using formal subcategories provides that each subcategory
has a uniform set of effluent limitations which take into account
technological achievability and economic impacts unique to that
subcategory. In some cases, effluent limitations within a subcategory
may be different based on consideration of the factors described in
section 304(b)(2)(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The CWA
requires EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards, to consider a number of different
subcategorization factors. The statute also authorizes EPA to take into
account other factors that the Agency deems appropriate. Stakeholders
specifically suggested that EPA consider subcategories based on
industry sector or type of activity within an industry sector (e.g.,
repair and maintenance versus manufacturing), some of which appear to
have very low baseline pollutant loadings.
EPA considered the following factors in its evaluation of potential
MP&M subcategories:
Unit operation;
Activity;
Raw materials;
Products;
Size of site;
Location;
Age;
Nature of the waste generated;
Economic impacts;
Treatment costs;
Total energy requirements;
Air pollution control methods;
Solid waste generation and disposal; and
POTW burden.
One result of grouping similar facilities into subcategories is the
increased likelihood that the regulations are practicable, and it
diminishes the need to address variations between facilities through a
variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. V. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C.
Cir. 1978)).
EPA considered subcategorizing the MP&M category by industrial
sector (e.g., aerospace, aircraft, bus and truck, electronic equipment,
hardware, household equipment, instruments, job shops, mobile
industrial equipment, motor vehicles, office machines, ordnance,
precious metals and jewelry, printed wiring boards, railroad, ships and
boats, stationary industrial equipment, and miscellaneous metal
products). Sectors are broadly defined and not only include
manufacturing and repair facilities within the sector (e.g.,
shipbuilding facilities in the ship and boat sector), but also include
facilities that produce products that are used within the sector (e.g.,
a facility that
[[Page 440]]
manufactures hydraulic pumps used on ships is also in the ship and boat
sector). The Agency determined that subcategorization based solely on
industrial sector would require much more detailed subcategorization
scheme than the approach proposed (see below). Adopting a
subcategorization scheme based on industrial sector would complicate
the implementation of the limitations and standards because permit
writers might be required to develop facility-specific limitations
across multiple subcategories.
The Agency determined that wastewater characteristics, unit
operations, and raw materials used to produce products within a given
sector are not always the same from site to site, and they are not
always different from sector to sector. Within each sector, sites can
perform a variety of unit operations on a variety of raw materials. For
example, a site in the aerospace sector may primarily machine aluminum
missile components and not perform any surface treatment other than
alkaline cleaning. Another site in that sector may electroplate iron
parts for missiles and perform little or no machining. Wastewater
characteristics from these sites may differ because of the different
unit operations performed and different raw materials used.
Based on the analytical data collected for this rule, EPA has not
found a statistically significant difference in industrial wastewater
discharge among industrial sectors when performing similar unit
operations for cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, manganese,
molybdenum, nickel, oil & grease, silver, tin, TSS, and zinc. (The
analytical data are available in the public record for this
rulemaking.) For example, a facility that performs electroplating in
the process of manufacturing office machines produces metal-bearing
wastewater with similar chemical characteristics as a facility that
performs electroplating in the process of manufacturing a part for a
bus. Similarly, a facility that performs repair and maintenance on a
airplane engine produces oil-bearing wastewater that has similar
chemical characteristics to a facility that performs repair and
maintenance on construction machinery.
Most MP&M unit operations are not unique to a particular sector and
are performed across all sectors. For example, all sectors may perform
several of the major wastewater-generating unit operations (e.g.,
alkaline treatment, acid treatment, machining, electroplating). And,
for the most part, the unit operations that are rarely performed (e.g.,
abrasive jet machining) are not performed in all sectors, but are also
not limited to a single sector. Therefore, a facility in any one of the
18 industrial sectors can generate metal-bearing or oil-bearing
wastewater (or a combination of both) depending on what unit operations
the facility performs.
In addition, two facilities that may be part of the same sector may
generate wastewater with vastly different chemical characteristics and
thus require different types of treatment. For example, an automobile
manufacturer and an automobile repair facility are both part of the
motor vehicle sector. However, the automobile manufacturer may perform
unit operations that generate metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater
(aqueous degreasing, electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.)
while the automobile repair facility may perform unit operations that
only generate oil-bearing wastewater (machining, aqueous degreasing,
impact deformation, painting, etc.).
Due to the numerous MP&M facilities that could fall under the scope
of multiple sectors, EPA determined that a regulation based on MP&M
industrial sector would create a variety of implementation issues for
State and local regulators as well as for those multiple-sector
facilities. Therefore, as mentioned above, EPA is not proposing to use
industrial sector to subcategorize the industry.
In the Phase I proposal, EPA did not subcategorize the Phase I
segment of MP&M sectors (see 60 FR 28221; May 30, 1995). As discussed
in Section II.C, the scope of the 1995 proposal differed from today's
proposal in that it only covered seven of the 18 MP&M industrial
sectors. For today's proposal, EPA performed the analysis for
determining whether or not to subcategorize considering all facilities
under the scope of today's rule (i.e., both Phase I and II industrial
sectors). See Section III for a discussion on the scope of today's
proposal. Based on this analysis, EPA determined that it is necessary
to subcategorize the MP&M industry.
A variety of factors influenced EPA's decision to subcategorize the
MP&M industry. First, EPA found two basic types of wastestreams in the
industry: (1) wastewater with high metals content (metal-bearing), and
(2) wastewater with low concentration of metals, and high oil and
grease content (oil-bearing). The type of wastewater a facility
generates is directly related to the unit operations it performs. For
example, unit operations such as machining, grinding, aqueous
degreasing, and impact or pressure deformation tend to generate a
wastewater with high oil and grease (and associated organic pollutants)
loadings without significant concentrations of metal pollutants. While
other unit operations such as electroplating, conversion coating,
chemical etching and milling, and anodizing generate higher metals
loadings with moderate/low oil and grease concentrations.
Although many facilities generate both metal- and oil-bearing
wastewater, there are a large number of facilities that only generate
oil-bearing wastewater. Such facilities are typically machine shops and
maintenance and repair facilities. Since the wastewater at these
facilities primarily contains oil and grease and other organic
constituents, treatment technologies at these facilities focus on oil
removal only and do not require the chemical precipitation step needed
for treating metal-bearing wastewater. Treatment technologies in place
at these facilities generally include ultrafiltration, or chemical
emulsion breaking followed by either gravity floatation, coalescing
plate oil/water separators, or dissolved air flotation (DAF).
Therefore, EPA first divided the industry on the basis of unit
operations performed and the nature of the wastewater generated,
resulting in the following two groups: (1) metal-bearing with or
without oily and organic constituents group; and (2) oil-bearing only
group. As a second step, EPA performed an analysis to see if there were
any significant differences in the subcategorization factors within the
two basic groups.
When looking at facilities with metal-bearing wastewater (with or
without oil-bearing wastewater), EPA identified several groups of
facilities which could potentially be subcategorized by dominant
product, raw materials used, and/or nature of the waste generated. In
two subcategories, EPA also considered economic impacts as a factor in
subcategorization because of the reduced ability of these facilities to
afford treatment costs. There were also two subcategories where the
number of facilities that were not currently covered by an existing
effluent guidelines regulation was large enough to present an
unacceptable burden to POTWs.
Based on the currently available data, EPA is proposing to
subcategorize the metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing
wastewater) MP&M facilities into the following subcategories: non-
chromium anodizing; metal finishing job shops; printed wiring board
facilities; steel forming and finishing facilities; and general metals
facilities. EPA describes its rationale for
[[Page 441]]
subcategorization below (see Section VI.C for additional detailed
discussion and applicability of each of these subcategories).
The non-chromium anodizers are different from other MP&M facilities
in that all of their products are primarily of one metal type--anodized
aluminum--and most importantly, they do not use chromic acid or
dichromate sealants in their anodizing process. Based on EPA's limited
data for these facilities, EPA expects that these facilities have very
low levels of metals (with the exception of aluminum) or toxic organic
pollutants in their wastewater discharges. EPA determined that other
MP&M facilities had much greater concentrations of a wider variety of
metals. In addition, due to the presence of large quantities of
aluminum, these facilities require much larger wastewater treatment
systems to remove the large amounts of aluminum and low levels of alloy
metals. The need for larger treatment systems results in higher costs
and large economic impacts for this potential subcategory. EPA found
that as many as 60 percent of the non-chromium anodizers could
experience closures as a result of complying with the proposed
regulation (see Section XVI for a discussion of economic impacts).
Therefore, based on the difference in raw materials used, product
produced, nature of the waste generated (i.e., low levels of pollutants
discharged), treatment costs, and projected economic impacts, EPA
concluded that a basis exists for subcategorizing the non-chromium
anodizing facilities in the MP&M industry.
EPA investigated whether or not to subcategorize the metal
finishing and electroplating job shops covered by the Metal Finishing
(40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent
guidelines. Although the facilities have metal types that require the
same treatment technologies as many other metals-bearing facilities,
EPA determined these facilities to be different due to the variability
of their raw materials and products as well as the slightly higher
level of economic impacts incurred as compared to other costed
facilities. As discussed in Section VI.C.2 below, this subcategory
includes only those facilities who perform the six operations defining
the applicability of the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent
guidelines and who are ``job shops'' by the definition provided in the
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (i.e., they own less than 50
percent of the products processed on site on an annual area basis).
(See 40 CFR 433.11). Because these facilities are job shops and perform
work on a contract basis, they cannot always predict the type of
plating or other finishing operations required. In addition, because
these facilities perform work on a large variety of metal types from
various customers, the wastewater generated at these facilities can
vary from week to week (or even day to day). EPA performed wastewater
sampling to specifically identify the variability in the wastewater
generated at metal finishing job shops and found that the variability
factors calculated solely on the analytical wastewater sampling data of
metal finishing and electroplating job shops is higher for most
pollutant parameters than those calculated for similar metal-bearing
subcategories (e.g., General Metals) (see Section II.D for a discussion
of EPA's job shop variability wastewater sampling and Section VIII.B
for a discussion on determining limits and variability factors). In
addition, EPA found that up to 10 percent of the indirect discharging
metal finishing job shops subcategory could experience facility
closures as a result of compliance with the proposed regulatory
technology option (see Section VIII for a discussion of technology
options). Therefore, EPA concluded that it has an appropriate basis for
subcategorizing metal finishing and electroplating job shops.
EPA determined that there is a basis for establishing a different
subcategory for the printed wiring board facilities from the other
facilities in the group of metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing
wastewater) facilities based on raw materials, unit operations
performed, dominant product, and nature of the waste generated. First,
these facilities process a more consistent mix of metal types
(primarily copper, tin, and lead) than other MP&M facilities to produce
a specific product. EPA has concluded that this more consistent mix of
metal types enables the printed wiring board facilities to tailor their
treatment technology and incorporate more of the advanced pollution
prevention and recovery technologies (e.g., ion exchange). Printed
wiring board facilities generally work with copper-clad laminate
material, allowing them to target copper for removal in their
wastewater treatment systems or recover the copper using in-process ion
exchange. Second, these facilities apply, develop, and strip
photoresist--a set of unit operations which is largely unique to this
proposed subcategory. This process results in a higher concentration of
a more consistent group of organic constituents than other facilities
in the metal-bearing group. Finally, the nature of the wastewater
generated at these facilities may also be different due to the fact
that these facilities perform more lead-bearing operations (e.g., lead/
tin electroplating, wave soldering) than other MP&M facilities.
Steel forming and finishing is another proposed subcategory under
the metal bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group of
MP&M facilities. These facilities perform both cold forming and
finishing operations on steel at stand-alone facilities as well as at
steel manufacturing facilities. EPA formerly covered these facilities
under the 1982 Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR
part 420). Typical operations include: acid pickling, annealing,
conversion coating (e.g., zinc phosphate, copper sulfate), hot dip
coating and/or electroplating of steel wire or rod, heat treatment,
welding, drawing, patenting, and oil tempering. EPA concluded that the
basis for subcategorization is the difference in the raw material and
dominant product at these facilities. Facilities in this subcategory
only process steel and for the most part produce uniformly-shaped
products such as wire, rod, bar, pipe and tube. In addition, this is
the only subcategory where EPA is proposing to cover forming operations
under the MP&M regulations. Effluent guidelines specific to forming
operations exist for all other common metal types (e.g., Aluminum
Forming (40 CFR part 467); Copper Forming (40 CFR part 468); and
Nonferrous Metals Forming & Metal Powders (40 CFR part 471)).
Finally, after subcategorization of the non-chromium anodizing,
metal finishing job shops, printed wiring board facilities, steel
forming and finishing facilities, EPA is proposing to group the
remaining metal-bearing (with or without oil-bearing wastewater) group
of MP&M facilities into a subcategory entitled ``General Metals.'' This
subcategory would be a ``catch-all'' for facilities that did not fall
into any of the previous subcategories but whose wastewater, at a
minimum, requires metals removal and may also require the preliminary
treatment steps of oil/water separation, chromium reduction, and
cyanide destruction. For example, wastewater generated from most
manufacturing operations and heavy rebuilding operations (e.g.,
aircraft/aerospace, automobile, bus/truck, railroad) would be regulated
under the proposed General Metals subcategory.
When looking at facilities with only oil-bearing wastewater for
potential further subcategorization, EPA found that there were two
types of facilities that were different from the other
[[Page 442]]
facilities in that group based on size, location, and dominant product/
activity. The first type of facility includes MP&M operations that
occur in shipbuilding dry docks or similar structures, and the second
includes railroad line maintenance facilities (see VI.C.8 and VI.C.9,
respectively, for a detailed description of these proposed
subcategories). Dry docks (and similar structures such as graving
docks, building ways, lift barges, and marine railways) are large,
outdoor areas exposed to precipitation that shipyards use to perform
final assembly, maintenance, rebuilding and repair work on large ships
and boats. Due to their size, outdoor location, low level of pollutant
loadings discharged to the environment, and the fact this wastewater is
unique to the shipbuilding industry, EPA believes that a basis exists
to subcategorize shipbuilding dry docks and similar structures. This
proposed subcategory does not include other MP&M operations that occur
at shipyards (e.g., shore-side operations).
Similarly, railroad line maintenance facilities are outdoor
facilities where light maintenance and cleaning of railroad cars,
engines and car-wheel trucks occur. Due to their outdoor location, unit
operations performed, and low level of pollutant loadings discharged to
the environment, EPA concluded that there is a basis to subcategorize
railroad line maintenance facilities. EPA notes that this proposed
subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing operations or
railroad overhaul/rebuilding facilities.
Finally, after subcategorization of the shipbuilding dry dock and
railroad line maintenance facilities, EPA is proposing to group the
remaining oily-bearing wastewater group of MP&M facilities into a
subcategory entitled ``Oily Wastes.'' This subcategory would be a
``catch-all'' for facilities that did not fall into the two above
``oily'' subcategories but whose wastewater does not have metals
loadings at levels where they can be effectively treated. Following
further analysis, EPA has decided not to propose pretreatment standards
for indirect discharging facilities in the shipbuilding dry dock and
railroad line maintenance subcategories (see Section XII for a
discussion pertaining to pretreatment standards).
B. Proposed Subcategories
As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has determined that a basis
exists for dividing the MP&M category into the following subcategories
for the proposed rule: General Metals, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal
Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and
Finishing, Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry
Dock. In Section VI.C below, EPA describes each subcategory and defines
the applicability of the rule for facilities in each subcategory. EPA
notes that with the exception of the two general subcategories (General
Metals and Oily Wastes), the remaining proposed subcategories would not
have been relevant to the subcategorization of the Phase I MP&M
proposal. The facilities that have been further subcategorized in
today's proposal were all part of the Phase II MP&M sectors (see
Section II.C for a discussion on the 1995 Phase I proposal).
EPA believes its proposed subcategories make sense, for the reasons
discussed above, but requests comment on other possible subcategories.
In particular, it has been suggested that the large General Metals
subcategory be further subdivided into industrial sectors based on
preliminary analyses which suggest that discharges from some sectors
may be low enough to warrant exclusion from this regulation. Some of
the wastewaters in these sectors may be covered by other effluent
guidelines. EPA requests comment on further subdivision of the General
Metals subcategory. Commenters should include data to support their
suggestions where possible.
C. General Description of Facilities in Each Subcategory
1. General Metals
As discussed above in Section VI.A, EPA has created the General
Metals subcategory as a ``catch-all'' for MP&M facilities that
discharge metal-bearing wastewater (with or without oil-bearing
wastewater) that do not fit the applicability of the Printed Wiring
Board, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Metal Finishing Job Shops, or Steel
Forming and Finishing subcategories. Therefore, the General Metals
subcategory may include facilities from 17 of the 18 MP&M industrial
sectors (i.e., all except the printed wiring board sector). This
subcategory also includes General Metals facilities that are owned and
operated by states and municipalities. (See Section III for a
discussion on the general scope of today's proposal). General Metals
facilities likely perform manufacturing or heavy rebuilding of metal
products, parts, or machines. Facilities that perform metal finishing
or electroplating operations on-site, but do not meet the definition of
a job shop (i.e., captive shops), would fit in the applicability of the
General Metals subcategory.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 26,000 indirect
dischargers and 3,800 direct dischargers that could be covered by this
proposed subcategory. EPA currently regulates 26 percent of the
facilities in this subcategory by existing effluent guidelines. Based
on responses to its questionnaires, the Agency estimates that the Metal
Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413)
effluent guidelines cover approximately 16 percent of these facilities
and other metals related effluent guidelines (such as those discussed
in Section II.B.) cover a portion of the wastewater discharges at an
additional 10 percent of these facilities.
EPA is proposing to exclude, from the MP&M regulations, indirect
discharging facilities that would fall into the General Metals
subcategory when they discharge less than or equal to 1 million gallons
per year (MGY) of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. (See Sections
II.D, III, and XII for discussions on the proposed low flow cutoff and
its impact on POTW burden reduction). In cases where these General
Metals facilities discharge less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW,
these pretreatment standards proposed today do not apply; however,
facilities are still subject to other applicable pretreatment
standards, including those established under parts 413 and 433. See
Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for information on compliance
costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts associated with the
MP&M rule for the General Metals subcategory.
2. Metal Finishing Job Shops
Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory must meet
the following criteria: (1) Discharge wastewater from one or more of
the six operations identified in the applicability of the Metal
Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40 CFR part 413)
effluent limitations guidelines regulations; and (2) must meet the
definition of a job shop. The six identifying operations are:
Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing, Coating (chromating,
phosphating, passivation, and coloring), Chemical Etching and Milling,
and Printed Circuit Board Manufacture (i.e, Printed Wiring Boards). As
in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433), EPA
defines a ``job shop'' as ``a facility which owns not more than 50
percent (on an annual area basis) of the materials undergoing metal
finishing.'' EPA is proposing to include printed
[[Page 443]]
wiring board job shops in this subcategory based on the unique
economics of job shop operation. However, EPA solicits comment on the
variability of the raw materials, products, and wastewater at printed
wiring board job shops. EPA also solicits comment on including printed
wiring board job shops under this subcategory or whether EPA should
include them in the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory (see Section
VI.C.4 for a discussion on the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory).
The Agency estimates that there are approximately 1,500 indirect
dischargers and 15 direct dischargers in the proposed Metal Finishing
Job Shops subcategory. EPA currently regulates all facilities in this
subcategory by the existing Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent
guidelines and standards. EPA is proposing to cover all of these
facilities under this proposed rule. Therefore, under today's proposal,
facilities subject to the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory would
no longer be covered by the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part 433. (See Sec. 438.20(a)).
EPA estimates that today's proposal could reduce pollutant loadings
from this subcategory by an additional 1.75 million toxic pound
equivalents \2\ annually over the reductions currently achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of
toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic
life. The Agency calculates toxic pound-equivalents by multiplying
the mass of pollutants discharged (or removed) by that pollutant's
toxic weighting factor (TWF). EPA develops TWFs using a combination
of toxicity data on human health and aquatic life and are relative
to the toxicity of copper. (See Section XVII of today's notice or
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this proposed rule for
a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting factors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has identified approximately 30,000 facilities that meet the
definition of job shop but do not discharge wastewater from one or more
of the six identifying metal finishing operations as defined in 40 CFR
part 433. EPA does not consider such job shops to be part of the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory. For example, these other job shops
perform assembly, painting, and machining on a contract basis and are
likely to fall in the General Metals or Oily Waste subcategories.
EPA is considering an alternative compliance option for this
subcategory which includes the demonstration of specified pollution
prevention practices for all facilities in the subcategory (or possibly
only those facilities below a specified flow cutoff). See Section XXI.D
for a discussion on the pollution prevention alternative for Metal
Finishing Job Shops. Also see Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble
for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
3. Non-Chromium Anodizing
Facilities covered under the proposed Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory must perform aluminum anodizing without the use of chromic
acid or dichromate sealants in their MP&M operations. Anodizing is a
surface conversion operation used to alter the properties of aluminum
for better corrosion resistence and heat transfer. Generally, non-
chromium anodizing facilities perform sulfuric acid anodizing; however,
facilities can use other acids, such as oxalic acid, for aluminum
anodizing. EPA is not including anodizers that use chromic acid or
dichromate sealants under this subcategory. EPA is proposing to cover
those facilities in the General Metals subcategory or the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory (if they operate as a job shop). EPA
solicits comment on the chromium content of sulfuric acid anodizing
baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other wastewater from sulfuric acid
anodizing.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 190 indirect dischargers
and, to date, has not identified any direct dischargers in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The wastewater generated at non-
chromium anodizing facilities contains very low levels of metals (with
the exception of aluminum) and toxic organic pollutants. In addition,
as discussed in Section VI.A, above, EPA determined that compliance
with the proposed regulation would cause 60 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in this subcategory to close. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed in Section XII.F below, EPA is proposing to exclude
wastewater from indirect discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities
(that also do not use dichromate sealants) from the MP&M categorical
pretreatment standards. Such facilities would still need to comply with
the pretreatment standards of the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) or
Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for their non-
chromium anodizing wastewater and the general pretreatment standards at
40 CFR part 403. EPA is proposing limits for direct dischargers in this
subcategory. EPA solicits comment on whether the applicable standards
for indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers should be transferred
from 40 CFR part 433 to the MP&M regulation in order to include all
non-chromium anodizers under one regulation. Because today's proposal
includes a monitoring waiver for pollutants that are not present (see
Section XXI.C.1 for a discussion on the monitoring waiver), the Agency
believes that transferring the pretreatment standards for these
facilities to the MP&M regulation would allow non-chromium anodizing
indirect dischargers to reduce the number of parameters for which they
have to monitor. See Section IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Some facilities that could potentially fall into the Non-Chromium
Anodizing subcategory may also perform other metal surface finishing
operations at their facilities. If these facilities commingle their
wastewater from their non-chromium anodizing operations with wastewater
from other surface finishing operations (e.g., chromic acid anodizing,
electroplating, chemical conversion coating, etc.) for treatment, they
would not be covered by the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Instead, the General Metals or Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategories
would apply. However, for facilities that discharge their non-chromium
anodizing wastewater separate from their other surface finishing
wastewater, control authorities and permit writers would apply the
appropriate limits to each discharge.
4. Printed Wiring Board
EPA is proposing the Printed Wiring Board subcategory to cover
wastewater discharges from the manufacture, maintenance, and repair of
printed wiring boards (i.e., circuit boards). This subcategory does not
include job shops that manufacture, maintain or repair printed wiring
boards--EPA is covering these facilities under the Metal Finishing Job
Shops subcategory, see Section VI.C.2 above for a discussion. EPA
currently regulates all facilities in this subcategory by the existing
Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines and standards.
EPA is proposing to cover all of these facilities under this proposed
rule. Therefore, under today's proposal, facilities subject to the
Printed Wiring Board subcategory would no longer be covered by the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR part 413 or 40
CFR part 433. Printed wiring board facilities perform unique operations
including applying, developing and stripping of photoresist, lead/tin
soldering, and wave soldering. EPA estimates that there are
approximately 620 indirect
[[Page 444]]
dischargers and 11 direct dischargers in the proposed Printed Wiring
Board subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, XII, and XVI of this preamble
for information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
5. Steel Forming & Finishing
Although many facilities may perform MP&M operations with steel,
EPA is proposing to establish the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory
for process wastewater discharges from facilities that perform MP&M
operations (listed in Section III) or cold forming operations on steel
wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. This subcategory does not include
facilities that perform those operations on base materials other than
steel. In a separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise the Iron and
Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines. The proposed revisions to the
Iron and Steel regulations include revising the applicability to
exclude those facilities that EPA has determined to be appropriately
regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. EPA based this decision on the
information gathered during the data collection effort for the proposed
revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing regulations.
The MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing proposed subcategory does not
cover wastewater generated from performing any hot steel forming
operations; or wastewater from cold forming, electroplating or
continuous hot dip coating of steel sheet, strip, or plates. As
mentioned above, the new proposed Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent
guidelines cover wastewater from such operations.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 110 indirect dischargers
and 43 direct dischargers in the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory
of the proposed MP&M regulation. All facilities in this subcategory
have permits or other control mechanisms under the existing Iron and
Steel Manufacturing regulation (40 CFR part 420).
EPA is proposing to cover wastewater from these steel forming and
finishing operations, regardless of whether they occur at a stand-alone
facility or at a steel manufacturing facility. When a steel
manufacturing facility performs these MP&M steel forming and finishing
operations and commingles the wastewater for treatment with wastewater
from other non-MP&M unit operations, control authorities (e.g., POTWs)
and permit writers will need to set limits which account for both the
MP&M and the Iron & Steel regulations. As mentioned previously, EPA
refers to this approach as the combined waste stream formula or the
building block approach. For facilities that choose to discharge their
MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing wastewater separate from their Iron &
Steel wastewater, control authorities and permit writers will apply the
appropriate limits to each discharge. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of
this preamble for information on compliance costs, pollutant
reductions, and economic impacts for the Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory.
6. Oily Wastes
EPA has created the Oily Wastes subcategory as a ``catch-all'' for
MP&M facilities that discharge only oil-bearing wastewater and that do
not fit the applicability of the other MP&M subcategories. EPA is
defining the applicability of this subcategory by the presence of
specific unit operations. Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
must not fit the applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance or
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories and must only discharge wastewater
from one or more of the following MP&M unit operations: alkaline
cleaning for oil removal, aqueous degreasing, corrosion preventive
coating, floor cleaning, grinding, heat treating, impact deformation,
machining, pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (e.g.,
hydrostatic, dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), painting, steam
cleaning, and laundering. EPA is defining ``corrosion preventive
coating'' to mean the application of removable oily or organic
solutions to protect metal surfaces against corrosive environments.
Corrosion preventive coatings include, but are not limited to:
petrolatum compounds, oils, hard dry-film compounds, solvent-cutback
petroleum-based compounds, emulsions, water-displacing polar compounds,
and fingerprint removers and neutralizers. Corrosion preventive coating
does not include electroplating, painting, chemical conversion coating
(including phosphate conversion coating) operations. EPA is soliciting
comment on the differences in metals content of wastewater generated
from ``light'' phosphoric acid operations (such as some phosphoric acid
etching operations and cleaning operations using phosphoric acid
solutions) and from phosphate conversion coating. EPA is considering
including phosphoric acid etching and cleaning using phosphoric acid
solutions in the definition of ``oily operations'' discussed above.
However, the Agency is not considering the inclusion of phosphate
conversion coating as one of the ``oily operations.'' Based on EPA's
database for this proposal, EPA believes that wastewater generated from
phosphate conversion coating operations contains high levels of zinc
and manganese.
If a facility discharges wastewater from any of the above listed
operations but also discharges wastewater from other MP&M operations,
it does not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory.
Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or
maintenance and repair shops. EPA has determined that other MP&M unit
operations generate metal-bearing wastewater or combination metal- and
oil-bearing wastewater and require different treatment technology
(i.e., chemical precipitation). EPA included wastewater from floor
cleaning and testing operations based on review of the analytical data
that confirmed little or no metals content in these two streams. This
subcategory also includes state- and municipally-owned facilities only
performing the listed operations.
Like the General Metals subcategory, the Oily Wastes subcategory
may include a number of facilities from each of 17 of the 18 MP&M
industrial sectors (i.e., all except the printed wiring board sector).
(See Section III for a discussion on the general scope of today's
proposal).
EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect
dischargers and 900 direct dischargers in the Oily Wastes subcategory.
EPA has concluded that less than 1 percent of the MP&M process
wastewater discharged from facilities in this subcategory are covered
by an existing effluent guideline.
For the reasons stated in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude
from the MP&M regulations indirect discharging facilities that would
fall into the Oily Wastes subcategory when they discharge less than or
equal to 2 MGY of MP&M process wastewater to the POTW. EPA is also
seriously considering a higher flow cutoff of 3 MGY for these indirect
dischargers. See Sections IX, XI, XII of this preamble for information
on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic impacts for the
Oily Wastes subcategory.
7. Railroad Line Maintenance
EPA has developed the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory to
cover facilities that perform routine cleaning and light maintenance on
railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar parts or
machines. More specifically these facilities only discharge wastewater
from MP&M unit
[[Page 445]]
operations that EPA defines as oily operations (see Section VI.C.6,
above) and/or washing of final product. For other primarily oily
subcategories (oily wastes and shipbuilding dry docks), EPA does not
consider the unit operation ``washing of final product'' an MP&M
``oily'' operation; however, EPA has reviewed the analytical wastewater
sampling data for this wastestream at railroad line maintenance
facilities and determined that there is little or no metal content.
This subcategory does not include railroad manufacturing facilities or
railroad overhaul or heavy maintenance facilities. Railroad line
maintenance facilities are similar to facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory in that they produce oil-bearing wastewater and do not
perform MP&M operations that generate wastewater that require metals
removal treatment technology.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 800 indirect dischargers
and 35 direct dischargers in the Railroad Line Maintenance
subcategories. The wastewater generated at railroad line maintenance
facilities contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic
pollutants. For the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing
to exclude wastewater from indirect discharging railroad line
maintenance facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is
proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in
this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XII of this preamble for
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and economic
impacts for the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory.
8. Shipbuilding Dry Dock
EPA has created the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory to
specifically cover MP&M process wastewater generated in or on dry docks
and similar structures such as graving docks, building ways, marine
railways and lift barges at shipbuilding facilities (or shipyards).
Shipbuilding facilities use these structures to perform maintenance,
repair or rebuilding of existing ships, or the final assembly and
launching of new ships (including barges). Shipbuilders use these
structures to reach surfaces and parts that would otherwise be under
water. Since dry docks and similar structures include sumps or
containment systems, they also enable shipyards to control the
discharge of pollutants to the surface water. Typical MP&M operations
that occur in dry docks and similar structures include: abrasive
blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion preventive
coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing (e.g.,
hydrostatic testing). Not all of these unit operations generate
wastewater. EPA is also proposing to cover wastewater generated when a
shipyard cleans a ship's hull in a dry dock (or similar structure) for
removal of marine life (e.g., barnacles) only when in preparation for
performing MP&M operations. EPA discusses typical MP&M unit operations
in Section III.
EPA is proposing that this subcategory only cover wastewater
generated from MP&M operations that occur in or on these structures.
The Agency is not including MP&M process wastewater that is generated
at other locations at the shipyard (``on-shore'' operations) in this
proposed subcategory. EPA expects that wastewater from these ``on-
shore'' shipbuilding operations (e.g., electroplating, plasma arc
cutting) will fall under either the General Metals or Oily Wastes
subcategories of the proposed MP&M regulation. Also, EPA is not
including wastewater generated on-board ships when they are afloat
(i.e., not in dry docks or similar structures). For U.S. military
ships, EPA is in the process of establishing standards to regulate
discharges of wastewater generated on-board these ships when they are
in U.S. waters and are afloat under the Uniform National Discharge
Standards (UNDS) pursuant to section 312(n) of the CWA. (See 64 FR
25125, May 10, 1999). However, when ships are located in dry docks or
similar structures, EPA is proposing to cover process wastewater
generated and discharged from MP&M operations inside and outside the
vessel (including bilge water).
EPA identified three other types of water streams in or on dry
docks and similar structures: flooding water, dry dock ballast water,
and storm water. Flooding water enters and exits the dry dock or
similar structure prior to performing any MP&M operations. For example,
in a graving dock, the gates are opened allowing flooding water in and
ships to float inside the chamber. Then the flooding water is drained,
leaving the ship's exterior exposed so shipyard employees can perform
repair and maintenance on the ship's hull. Dry dock ballast water
serves a similar purpose. It is used to lower (or sink) the dry dock so
that a ship can float over it. Then the dry dock ballast water is
pumped out, raising the dry dock with the ship on top. Finally, since
these structures are located outdoors and are exposed to the elements,
storm water may fall in or on the dry dock or similar structures. EPA
is proposing to exclude all three of these water streams from the MP&M
regulation. Flooding water and dry dock ballast water do not come into
contact with MP&M operations. In addition, EPA has determined that
storm water at these facilities is covered by EPA's recent Storm Water
Multi-Sector General permit, similar general permits issued by
authorized states, and individual storm water permits. In general,
storm water permits at shipyards include best management practices
(BMPs) that are designed to prevent the contamination of storm water.
For example, these practices include sweeping of areas after completion
of abrasive blasting or painting. If EPA were to cover storm water in
dry docks (or similar structures) under today's proposed rule, it would
be unlikely that EPA would set numerical limits similar to those it is
proposing for process wastewater. Most likely, EPA would set BMPs
similar to those currently used in the storm water permits. Therefore,
in an effort to avoid duplication of coverage, EPA is not covering
storm water in dry docks (or similar structures) under today's
proposal.
EPA estimates that there are 6 indirect dischargers and 6 direct
dischargers in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory. The Agency notes
that many shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar
structures) and that this is the number of estimated facilities (not
dry docks) that discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and
similar structures). Many shipyards only perform dry MP&M unit
operations in their dry docks (and similar structures) or do not
discharge wastewater generated in dry docks (and similar structures)
from MP&M unit operations. Many shipyards prefer to handle this
wastewater as hazardous, and contract haul it off-site due to the
possible presence of copper (used as anti-foulant) in paint chips from
abrasive blasting operations. EPA has determined that shipyards
currently discharging MP&M wastewater from dry docks have oil/water
separation technology in place, such as dissolved air flotation (DAF).
The wastewater discharged from dry docks and similar structures
contains very low levels of metals and toxic organic pollutants. For
the reasons discussed in Section XII, EPA is proposing to exclude
wastewater from indirect discharging dry docks and similar structures
at shipbuilding facilities from the MP&M regulations. However, EPA is
proposing to regulate conventional pollutants for direct dischargers in
this subcategory. See Sections IX, XI, and XIII of this preamble for
information on compliance costs, pollutant reductions, and
[[Page 446]]
economic impacts for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory.
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
EPA classified the MP&M unit operations into the following three
groups depending on their water use and discharge: (1) Unit operations
that typically use process water and discharge process wastewater; (2)
unit operations that typically either do not use process water or use
process water but do not discharge wastewater; and (3) miscellaneous
operations reported in the MP&M questionnaires by fewer than five
respondents.
Process wastewater includes any water that, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw materials, intermediate products, finished
products, by-products, or waste products. Process wastewater includes
wastewater from wet air pollution control devices. For the purposes of
the MP&M regulation, EPA does not consider non-contact cooling water or
storm water a process wastewater nor does it consider non-aqueous
wastes used as processing liquids, such as spent solvents or quench
oil, as process wastewater. (See Section III for detailed discussion on
general applicability of today's proposed rule).
Wastewater from the operations that use process water have
different characteristics depending on the unit operation from which
they are derived. EPA discusses the five different types of MP&M
process wastewater below. First, oil-bearing wastewater is typically
generated from the use of metal shaping coolants and lubricants,
surface preparation solutions used to remove oil and dirt from
components, and associated rinses. Some examples of oil-bearing
wastewater are: Machining and grinding coolants and lubricants;
pressure and impact deformation lubricants; dye penetrant and magnetic
flux testing; and alkaline cleaning solutions and rinses used to remove
oil and dirt. This wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment
to remove oil and grease. The most common type of treatment for oil-
bearing wastewater is chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity
separation and oil skimming. EPA also identified MP&M facilities that
used membrane separation technologies for oil and grease removal.
Second, hexavalent chromium-bearing wastewater typically consists
of concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition solutions,
sealants, and associated rinses. Some examples of hexavalent chromium-
bearing wastewater are: Chromic acid treatment solutions and rinses;
chromate conversion coating solutions and rinses; and chromium
electroplating solutions and rinses. This wastewater typically requires
preliminary treatment to reduce the hexavalent chromium to trivalent
chromium for subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. Typically,
MP&M facilities use sodium metabisulfite or gaseous sulphur dioxide as
reducing agents in the reduction of hexavalent chromium-bearing
wastewater.
Third, many surface preparation or metal deposition solutions and
their associated rinses generate process wastewater that contains
cyanide. Two examples of cyanide-bearing wastewater are: Cyanide-
bearing alkaline treatment solutions and rinses (typically used as a
surface treatment step prior to electroplating with cyanide solutions)
and cyanide-bearing electroplating solutions and rinses. This
wastewater typically requires preliminary treatment to destroy cyanide
and facilitate subsequent chemical precipitation and settling. MP&M
facilities most often use sodium hypochlorite for the destruction of
cyanide by alkaline chlorination.
Fourth, concentrated surface preparation or metal deposition
solutions and their associated rinses can generate process wastewater
that contain complexed or chelated metals. In particular, electroless
plating operations and their rinses typically produce this type of
wastestream. This wastewater requires preliminary treatment to break
and/or precipitate the complexes for subsequent chemical precipitation
and settling. MP&M facilities typically use sodium borohydride,
hydrazine, sodium hydrosulfite, or sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate (DTC)
as reducing and precipitating agents in this preliminary treatment
process.
For the MP&M proposal, EPA based the estimated costs and pollutant
removals associated with the treatment of chelated or complexed metals
on the use of DTC. When DTC is used appropriately, it may effectively
enhance the removal of some difficult to treat pollutants without
impacting the environment or POTW operations. However, DTC is toxic to
aquatic life and to activated sludge and thus can upset POTW
operations. DTC can combine to form, or break down to, a number of
other toxic chemicals, including thiram and ziram (both EPA registered
fungicides) and other thiurams, other dithiocarbamates, carbon
disulfide, and dimethylamine. EPA's pollutant of concern list (see
below for a description of the development of this list) contained
ziram, carbon disulfide, and N-nitrosodimethylamine. Ziram is known to
be toxic to aquatic life at the following levels: LC50 less than 10 ug/
L (parts per billion) for several varieties of bluegill and trout; LC
50 between 10 and 100 ug/L in other studies (AQUIRE data base at http:/
/www.epa.gov/medecotx/quicksearch.htm.) EPA solicits comment on the use
of DTC for the treatment of chelated wastewater and its potential
harmful effects on the environment and on POTW operations. The Agency
is particularly interested in receiving data and information on
alternative treatments for wastewater containing chelated or complexed
metals.
Finally, virtually all MP&M process wastewater contains some
metallic pollutants. Metal shaping solutions, surface preparation
solutions, metal deposition solutions, and surface finishing solutions
typically produce the most concentrated metal-bearing wastewater. MP&M
facilities most commonly use chemical precipitation (usually with
either lime or sodium hydroxide) and settling for metals removal. Many
facilities also use coagulants and flocculants to assist chemical
precipitation and settling.
As discussed in Section V.C, EPA conducted wastewater sampling
episodes at 71 MP&M facilities to obtain data on the characteristics of
MP&M wastewater and solid wastes, and to assess the following: the
loading of pollutants to surface waters and POTWs from MP&M sites; the
effectiveness of technologies designed to reduce and remove pollutants
from MP&M wastewater; and the variation of MP&M wastewater
characteristics across unit operations, metal types processed in each
unit operation, and sectors. Although EPA analyzed the wastewater from
these facilities for approximately 324 pollutant parameters (including
conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants), it did not
consider all of these pollutants for potential regulation. Rather, EPA
reduced the list to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of
concern or POCs) for further consideration by retaining only those
pollutants that met the following criteria:
EPA detected the pollutant parameter in at least three
samples collected during the MP&M sampling program.
The average concentration of the pollutant parameter in
samples of
[[Page 447]]
wastewater from MP&M unit operations and influents-to-treatment was at
least five times the minimum level (ML) or the average concentration of
effluent-from-treatment wastewater samples exceeded five times the
minimum level. EPA defines the ML as ``the lowest level at which the
entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and an
acceptable calibration point for the analyte.'' (Development Document
for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. U.S. EPA).
EPA analyzed the pollutant parameter in a quantitative
manner following the appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/
QC) procedures. To meet this criteria, the Agency excluded wastewater
analyses performed solely for certain semi-quantitative ``screening''
purposes. EPA performed these semi-quantitative analyses only in
unusual cases (e.g. to qualitatively screen for the presence of a rare
metal such as osmium).
From the list of 132 pollutants that passed the editing criteria
above, EPA selected the regulated pollutants for each subcategory. See
Section 7 of the technical development document for more information on
the selection of pollutants to regulate. The Agency also used the
pollutant parameters on the POC list to calculate the pollutant
removals for each technology option.
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation
Practices
The data gathered to support this rule indicate that a number of
pollution prevention and water conservation practices exist in the MP&M
industry. EPA determined that some of these pollution prevention,
recycling, and water conservation practices were broadly applicable to
the MP&M category and included these in the technology options (see
Section VIII.A).
A large number of additional pollution prevention practices were
site specific and could not be used as the basis for a national
standard. However, EPA considers it important to make this site-
specific pollution prevention information available for possible use by
MP&M sites. Therefore, the Technical Development Document (TDD)
contains a summary of the pollution prevention practices identified
during the development of this rule. EPA also collected data on water
use and wastewater generation at facilities employing pollution
prevention and good water use practices. The TDD contains this data and
discusses the applicability of the more prevalent pollution practices
identified in this category (e.g., drag-out reduction, flow reduction,
coolant and paint curtain recycling). EPA is soliciting comment and
data on any of the pollution prevention, recycle, reuse and water
conservation practices that it discusses in the TDD as well as
additional information about these types of technologies that EPA did
not discuss in the TDD. In addition, EPA is requesting data and comment
on its flow data from facilities with pollution prevention and good
water use practices in place. See Section XXI.D for a discussion on a
pollution prevention alternative that EPA is considering for facilities
in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
VIII. Development of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
A. Overview of Technology Options
In developing its technology options, EPA determined that a
different set of wastewater treatment technologies was appropriate for
facilities that performed unit operations that produced primarily
metal-bearing wastewater than for those facilities that performed unit
operations that produced primarily oily wastes (see Section VI.C.6 for
list of the unit operations that generate primarily oily only
wastewater). EPA concluded that the following subcategories typically
produce metal-bearing wastewater (with or without associated oily-
bearing wastestreams) and evaluated metals control technologies for
these subcategories: General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and
Finishing. For the remaining subcategories (Oily Wastes, Railroad Line
Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Docks), EPA evaluated oily wastewater
treatment technologies. The following sections discuss the wastewater
treatment technologies that EPA evaluated for each subcategory at each
regulatory level (BPT, BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS). See Section VI for a
discussion on subcategorization.
1. Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
MP&M facilities in the General Metals subcategory, the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory, the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory, the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, and the Steel
Forming and Finishing subcategory produce primarily metal-bearing
wastewater. EPA evaluated the following four wastewater treatment
technology options for the MP&M industry subcategories whose unit
operations produce metal-bearing wastewater (and may also produce oily
wastewater):
Option 1. 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.
Option 1, as well as each of the three other options considered by
EPA for the metal-bearing wastewater subcategories, includes the
segregation of wastestreams and preliminary treatment of certain
wastestreams. Segregation of wastewater and subsequent preliminary
treatment allows for the most efficient, effective, and economic means
for removing pollutants in certain wastestreams. For example, if a
facility segregates its oil-bearing wastewater from its metal-bearing
wastewater, then the facility can design an oil removal treatment
technology based on only the oily waste flow volume and not on the
combined metal-bearing and oil-bearing wastewater flow. Therefore,
preliminary treatment technologies are more effective and less costly
on segregated wastestreams, prior to adding wastewater that does not
contain the pollutants being treated with the preliminary treatment.
EPA includes these preliminary treatment steps, as applicable whenever
it refers to chemical precipitation and sedimentation treatment.
As mentioned previously in Section VII (Water Use and Wastewater
Characteristics), unit operations performed at MP&M sites produce
wastewater with varying characteristics (i.e., oil-bearing, hexavalent
chromium-bearing, cyanide-bearing, complexed metals). Wastewater with
these characteristics requires preliminary treatment before the
chemical precipitation step for metals removal. EPA included the
following preliminary steps in Option 1 for the metal-bearing
wastewater subcategories: removal of oil and grease through chemical
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming; destruction of
cyanide using sodium hypochlorite; reduction of hexavalent chromium to
trivalent chromium which can subsequently be precipitated as a chromium
hydroxide; and chemical reduction/precipitation of chelated or
complexed metals. EPA has also included the contract hauling of any
wastewater associated with organic solvent degreasing as part of the
Option 1 technology.
Option 1 consists of preliminary treatment for specific pollutants
and end-of-pipe treatment with chemical precipitation (usually
accomplished by raising the pH with an alkaline chemical such as lime
or sodium hydroxide, also
[[Page 448]]
known as caustic, to produce insoluble metal hydroxides) followed by
clarification and sludge dewatering. This treatment has been widely
used throughout the metals industry and is well documented to be
effective for removing metal pollutants. As with a number of previously
promulgated regulations, EPA is proposing BPT on the basis that all
process wastewater, except solvent-bearing wastewater, will be treated
through chemical precipitation and clarification end-of-pipe treatment.
Option 1 treatment systems (chemical precipitation with gravity
clarification) sampled by EPA demonstrated effective removal for
targeted metals. (Targeted metals are those metals that an MP&M
facility was operating its wastewater treatment system to remove.)
Option 2. 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.
Option 2 builds on Option 1 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. As discussed in Section VII.B,
techniques or technologies, such as centrifugation or skimming for
metal working fluids, or water paint curtains, may in some cases save
money for companies by allowing materials to be used over a longer
period before they need to be disposed. Using these techniques along
with water conservation also leads to the generation of less pollution
and results in more effective treatment of the wastewater that is
generated. The incorporation of pollution prevention practices can lead
to smaller wastewater flows and increased pollutant concentrations.
However, the treatment of metal-bearing wastewater by chemical
precipitation is relatively independent of influent metal
concentration. For example, a well-operated chemical precipitation and
clarification treatment system can achieve the same effluent
concentration with an influent stream of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm)
and 10 parts per million (ppm) as it can achieve with an influent
stream which is 500 gpm and 20 ppm. In fact, within a broad range of
influent concentrations, the more highly concentrated wastewater
influent, when treated down to the technology effectiveness
concentrations of a chemical precipitation and clarification treatment
system, results in better pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant
in the discharge. In addition, the cost of a treatment system is
largely dependent on the size, which in turn is largely dependent on
flow. As a result, good recycle and water conservation practices may
result in cost savings, though there may also be associated cost
increases, depending on site specific factors (e.g., costs associated
with capital investment for pollution prevention equipment). Option 2
in-process pollution prevention and water conservation technologies
include:
Flow reduction using flow restrictors, conductivity
meters, and/or timed rinses, for all flowing rinses, plus
countercurrent cascade rinsing for all flowing rinses;
Centrifugation and recycling of painting water curtains;
and
Centrifugation and pasteurization to extend the life of
water-soluble machining coolants reducing discharge volume.
Option 3. 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.
This option differs from Option 1 in that an ultrafilter replaces
the oil water separator for the removal of oil and grease and a
microfilter, rather than a clarifier, follows chemical precipitation.
EPA determined through sampling episodes that ultrafiltration systems
are very effective for the removal of oil and grease at MP&M
facilities. Ultrafilters sampled by EPA demonstrated effective removal
of oil and grease. Additionally, EPA also collected treatment
effectiveness data for solids removal after chemical precipitation
through microfiltration. Microfilters sampled by EPA at MP&M facilities
achieved long-term average effluent concentrations for targeted metals
that were, in several cases, an order of magnitude lower than the long-
term averages achieved by Option 2.
Option 4. 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.
This option builds on Option 3 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conservation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 4 as in
Option 2.
For all of the subcategories with metal-bearing wastewater, EPA
determined that Option 2 costed less than Option 1 and demonstrated
greater pollutant removals. Likewise, for all subcategories with metal-
bearing wastewater, Option 4 costed less than Option 3 and demonstrated
greater pollutant removals. As discussed above, the incorporation of
water conservation and pollution prevention technologies results in
greater pollutant removals and less mass of pollutant in the discharge.
In addition, the cost of a treatment system is largely dependent on the
size, which in turn is largely dependent on flow. As a result, Options
2 and 4, which include water conservation and pollution prevention,
have smaller flows requiring treatment and are projected to cost less
than Options 1 and 3, respectively. Therefore, for the remainder of the
discussions in this preamble regarding technology options for
subcategories with metal-bearing wastewater, EPA only considers Options
2 and 4. The Agency has fully evaluated Options 1 and 3, and a
discussion of the results of this evaluation is contained in the
Technical Development Document. EPA requests comment on its
determination that pollution prevention, recycle and water conservation
result in net cost savings to facilities, and examples of any specific
situations where this may not be true.
2. Wastewater Treatment Technologies for Oily Wastewater
MP&M facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory, the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory, and the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory
produce primarily oil-bearing wastewater. EPA evaluated the following
six wastewater treatment technology options for the MP&M industry
subcategories whose unit operations produce only oily wastewater (see
Section VI.C.6 for a discussion of oily unit operations):
Option 5. Oil-water separation by Chemical Emulsion Breaking.
Chemical emulsion breaking is used to break stable oil/water
emulsions (oil dispersed in water, stabilized by electrical charges and
emulsifying agents). A stable emulsion will not separate or break down
without chemical treatment. Chemical emulsion breaking is applicable to
wastewater streams containing emulsified coolants and lubricants such
as machining and grinding coolants and impact or pressure deformation
lubricants as well as cleaning solutions that contain emulsified oils.
Treatment of spent oil/water emulsions involves using chemicals to
break the emulsion followed by gravity differential separation. The
major
[[Page 449]]
equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking includes reaction
chambers with agitators, chemical storage tanks, chemical feed systems,
pumps and piping. Factors to be considered for destroying emulsions are
type of chemicals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mixing, heating
requirements, and retention time. EPA describes this technology option
in more detail in Section 8 of the Technical Development Document.
In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
that employed chemical emulsion breaking followed by gravity separation
and oil skimming.
Option 6. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by chemical emulsion breaking.
This option builds on Option 5 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same pollution
prevention techniques or technologies discussed in Option 2 such as
flow reduction and reuse, paint curtain recycling and/or recirculation,
and coolant recycling, as applicable.
Option 7. Oil-water separation by ultrafiltration.
In the MP&M industry, ultrafiltration is applied in the treatment
of oil/water emulsions. In ultrafiltration, a semi-permeable
microporous membrane performs the separation. Wastewater is sent
through membrane modules under pressure. Water and low-molecular-weight
solutes (for example, salts and some surfactant) pass through the
membrane and are removed as permeate. Emulsified oil and suspended
solids are rejected by the membrane and are removed as concentrate. The
concentrate is reticulated through the membrane unit until the flow of
the permeate drops. The permeate may either be discharged or passed
along to another treatment unit. The concentrate is contained and held
for further treatment or disposal. EPA describes this technology option
in more detail in Section 8 of the Technical Development Document.
In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
that employed ultrafiltration. EPA also collected data on
ultrafiltration systems at metal-bearing facilities which segregated
their oily wastestreams for treatment.
Option 8. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by Ultrafiltration.
This option builds on Option 7 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 8 as in
Option 6.
Option 9. Oil-water Separation by Dissolved Air Flotation.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is commonly used to remove suspended
solids and dispersed oil and grease from oily wastewater. DAF is the
process of using fine bubbles to induce suspended particles to rise to
the surface of a tank where they can be collected and removed. The
major components of a conventional DAF unit include a centrifugal pump,
a retention tank, an air compressor, and a flotation tank. EPA
describes this technology option in more detail in Section 8 of the
Technical Development Document.
In an effort to evaluate this technology option, EPA performed
sampling episodes at several facilities in the Railroad Line
Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories that employed
dissolved air flotation (DAF). EPA compared the effluent concentrations
achieved by these DAF systems to effluent concentration achieved by DAF
systems in other industry categories (e.g., industrial laundries).
Option 10. In-process Flow Control, Pollution Prevention, and Oil-
water separation by Dissolved Air Flotation.
This option builds on Option 9 by adding in-process pollution
prevention, recycling, and water conversation methods which allow for
recovery and reuse of materials. EPA included the same water
conservation and pollution control technologies in Option 10 as in
Option 6 and 8.
For all of the subcategories with only oily wastewater, EPA
determined that the options that involved water conservation and
pollution prevention costed less and removed more pollutant than those
options that did not include these technologies or techniques. As
discussed above, the incorporation of water conservation and pollution
prevention technologies results in greater pollutant removals and less
mass of pollutant in the discharge. In addition, the cost of a
treatment system is largely dependent on the size, which in turn is
largely dependent on flow. As a result, Options 6, 8, and 10, which all
include water conservation and pollution prevention, cost less than
their counterpart options (Options 5, 7, and 9, respectively) that did
not include these pollution prevention technologies or techniques.
Therefore, for the remainder of the discussions in this preamble
regarding technology options for subcategories with oily wastewater,
EPA only considers Options 6, 8, and 10. However, the Agency fully
evaluated Options 5, 7, and 9, and discusses the results of this
evaluation in the Technical Development Document.
B. Determination of Long-Term Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations
1. Overview of Limitations Calculations
EPA visited over 200 facilities and sampled wastewater from 71 MP&M
facilities covering all the industrial sectors covered by this proposed
rule. (See Section III for a discussion on applicability). In addition
to sampling to characterize the process wastewater, EPA sampled 46 end-
of-pipe chemical precipitation and clarification treatment systems, 5
microfilters, 5 oil-water emulsion breaking and gravity separation
systems, 16 ultrafilters, and 4 chemical emulsion breaking and DAF
systems. EPA reviewed the treatment data gathered and identified data
considered appropriate for calculating limitations for the MP&M
industry. EPA identified data from well-designed and well-operated
treatment systems and focused on data for specific pollutants processed
and treated on site. The data editing procedures used for this
assessment consisted of four major steps:
Assessment of the performance of the entire treatment
system;
Identification of process upsets during sampling that
impacted the treatment effectiveness of the system;
Identification of pollutants not present in the raw
wastewater at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment
effectiveness; and
Identification of treatment chemicals used in the
treatment system.
EPA describes the evaluation criteria used for each of these steps
below. The Agency excluded data that failed one or more of the
evaluation criteria from calculation of the limitations.
Assessment of Treatment System Performance. EPA assessed the
performance of the entire treatment system during sampling. The Agency
excluded data for systems identified as not being well-designed or
well-operated from use in calculating BPT limitations. EPA first
identified the metals processed on site, as well as if the site
performed unit operations likely to generate oil and grease and
cyanide. EPA focused on these pollutants because MP&M facilities
typically design and operate their treatment systems to treat and
remove these
[[Page 450]]
pollutants. EPA then performed the following technical analyses of the
treatment systems:
--Based on the pollutants processed or treated on site, EPA excluded
data from systems that were not operated at the proper pH for removal
of the pollutants.
--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 total
suspended solids (TSS) and had effluent TSS concentrations greater than
50 milligrams per liter. EPA made site-specific exceptions to this
rule.
--EPA excluded data from chemical precipitation and clarification
systems at which the concentration of most of the metals present in the
influent stream did not decrease, indicating poor treatment.
Although EPA believes this is an appropriate practice, in order to
focus on facilities with well-run treatment systems, it also introduces
a risk of biasing estimates of treatment effectiveness upwards with
respect to identifying pollutant removals on a national basis. If a
particular metal is not able to be effectively removed by a particular
treatment train, but its concentration fluctuates randomly over time in
both the influent and the effluent, then retaining only data showing
positive ``removals'' may give a misleading impression of effectiveness
of that treatment technology nationally. Some commenters have raised
this issue in the past particularly with respect to boron, which those
commenters believe is not effectively removed by certain treatment
trains where EPA's data (edited to include only decreases) appears to
show removals. EPA is continuing to assess this concern both with
regards to metals in general and with regards to boron in particular.
EPA requests comment on this issue and suggestions for addressing it.
EPA is planning to do a re-analysis of its estimates of its baseline
load and removals for boron and will provide results of this analysis
when available. This analysis will be placed in Section 6.8 of the
public record.
Identification of Process Upsets Occurring During Sampling. EPA
reviewed the sampling episode reports for each of the sampled sites and
identified any process upsets that resulted in poor treatment during
one or more days of the sampling episode. EPA excluded the data
affected by the process upsets.
Identification of Pollutants Not Present in the Raw Wastewater at
Sufficient Concentrations to Evaluate Removal. EPA excluded data for
pollutants that it did not detect in the treatment influent streams at
a sampled facility, or it detected at concentrations less than 10 times
the minimum level. Because these proposed limitations are technology-
based, EPA requires that a facility must demonstrate pollutant removal
through treatment in order for that data to be used in the calculation
of effluent limitations. Therefore, the Agency determined that for a
BPT/BAT facility to demonstrate effective treatment, the pollutant must
be present in the wastewater at a treatable concentration--which EPA
defined as 10 times the minimum level for this proposal. EPA also
excluded data for pollutants that were not processed on site. In
addition, EPA reviewed the water use practices for the sampled sites
and excluded data from sites that may have been diluting the raw
wastewater and reducing the concentration of pollutants processed on
site. Because these proposed MP&M effluent guidelines include water
conservation practices and pollution prevention technologies, EPA
reviewed the data to ensure that the facilities it used as the basis
for BPT limitations had these practices and technologies in place.
Identification of Wastewater Treatment Chemicals. EPA identified
treatment chemicals used in each of the sampled treatment systems to
determine if the removal of the metals used as treatment chemicals were
consistent with removal of other metals on site, indicating a well-
designed and well-operated system. If a sampled facility used a metal
as a treatment chemical, and the facility treated the metal to a
concentration consistent with other metals removed on site, EPA
included the metal in calculation of the BPT limitations. If the
sampled facility used a metal as a treatment chemical and the treatment
system did not remove it to a concentration consistent with other
metals removed on site, EPA excluded the treatment chemical from
calculation of the limitations. (Note that this practice may raise
similar concerns to those discussed above with respect to editing out
data that do not show positive removals.) The Agency used the data
remaining after these data editing procedures to calculate the
limitations.
Calculation of Limitations
The Technical Development Document and the Statistical Support
Document contain a detailed description of the statistical methodology
used for the calculation of limitations. EPA based the effluent
limitations and standards in today's notice on widely-recognized
statistical procedures for calculating long-term averages and
variability factors. The following presents a summary of the
statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent
limitations.
Effluent limitations for each subcategory are based on a
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment
systems using the proposed treatment technologies described in Section
VIII. The purpose of the variability factor is to allow for normal
variation in effluent concentrations. A facility that designs and
operates its treatment system to achieve a long-term average on a
consistent basis should be able to comply with the daily and monthly
limitations in the course of normal operations.
EPA developed the variability factors and long-term averages from a
database composed of individual measurements on treated effluent based
on EPA sampling data. EPA sampling data reflects the performance of a
system over a three to five day period, although not necessarily over
consecutive days.
EPA performed the following steps in order to calculate the
proposed limitations for each pollutant. For each subcategory, EPA
calculated the arithmetic long-term average concentration of a
pollutant for each facility representing the proposed treatment
technology, and determined the median from the arithmetic average
concentrations. For each pollutant, this median concentration is the
long-term average (LTA) concentration that EPA used in determining the
proposed effluent limitations.
The Agency then used the modified delta-lognormal distribution to
estimate daily and monthly variability factors. This is the same
distributional model used by EPA in the final rulemakings for the Pulp
and Paper and Centralized Waste Treatment. The modified delta-lognormal
distribution models the data as a mixture of non-detect observations
and measured values. EPA selected this distribution because the data
for most analytes consisted of a mixture of measured values and non-
detects. The modified delta-lognormal distribution assumes that all
non-detects have a value equal to the sample specific
[[Page 451]]
detection limit and that the detected values follow a lognormal
distribution.
The Agency fit the daily concentration data from each facility that
had enough detected concentration values for parameter estimation to a
modified delta lognormal distribution. The daily variability factor for
each pollutant at each facility is the ratio of the estimated 99th
percentile of the distribution of the daily pollutant concentration
values divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily
values. (EPA assumed that the furthest excursion from the LTA that a
well-operated plant using the proposed technology option could be
expected to make on a daily basis was a point below which 99 percent of
the data for that facility falls, under the assumed distribution.) The
pollutant daily variability factor for a treatment technology is the
average of the pollutant daily variability factors from the facilities
with that technology. EPA calculates the daily maximum limitation as
the product of the pollutant LTA concentration and the daily
variability factor.
The Agency calculates the monthly maximum limitation in much the
same way. However, it bases the variability factor (known as the
monthly variability factor) on the 95th percentile of the distribution
of four-day average pollutant concentrations instead of the 99th
percentile. Therefore, the monthly variability factor for each
pollutant at each facility is the estimated 95th percentile of the
distribution of the 4-day average pollutant concentration values
divided by the expected value of the distribution of the daily values.
The pollutant monthly variability factor for a treatment technology is
the average of the pollutant monthly variability factors from the
facilities with that technology. EPA calculates the maximum monthly
average limitation as the product of the pollutant LTA concentration
and the monthly variability factor.
There were several instances where variability factors could not be
calculated directly from the MP&M database because there were not at
least two effluent values measured above the minimum detection level
for a specific pollutant. In these cases, the sample size of the data
is too small to allow distributional assumptions to be made. Therefore,
in order to assume a variability factor for a pollutant, the Agency
transferred variability factors from other pollutants that exhibit
similar treatability characteristics within the treatment system. The
Technical Development Document and the Statistical Support Document
provide detailed information on the transfer of variability factors.
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
As discussed in Section II, in the guidelines for an industry
category, EPA defines BPT effluent limits for conventional, toxic
(priority), and non-conventional pollutants for direct discharging
facilities. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA
first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age
of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed and any
required process changes, engineering aspects of the control
technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate
(CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT effluent
limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities
within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or other common
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate,
EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in place in an
industrial category if the Agency determines that the technology can be
practically applied. See ``A Legislative History of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972'', U.S. Senate Committee of
Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B) requires a cost-
reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining the BPT
limits, EPA must consider the total cost of treatment technologies in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does
not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT limitations that are
achievable with available technology unless the required additional
reductions are ``wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving
such marginal level of reduction.'' See Legislative History, op. cit.
p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify
benefits in monetary terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel
Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir., 1975). For the BPT cost-
reasonableness assessment, EPA used the total pounds of COD removed for
the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Steel Forming and Finishing, and Oily Wastes, and Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategories because this parameter best represented the
pollutant removals without counting removals of individual pollutants
more than once. EPA used O&G for the cost-reasonableness assessment for
the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories because it best represented the
pollutant removals for these subcategories without counting removals of
individual pollutants more than once.
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA
considers the volume and nature of expected discharges after
application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants,
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution
control. In past effluent limitations guidelines and standards, BPT
cost-reasonableness has ranged from $0.94/lb-removed to $34.34/lb-
removed in 1996 dollars. In developing guidelines, the Act does not
require or permit consideration of water quality problems attributable
to particular point sources, or water quality improvements in
particular bodies of water. Therefore, EPA has not considered these
factors in developing the limitations being proposed today. See
Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle, 590 F. 2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Table IX-1 below summarizes the pounds of pollutants removed for
direct dischargers, and Table IX-2 summarizes the costs, costs per
pound removed, and economic impacts for direct dischargers associated
with each of the proposed options by subcategory. (See Section XII for
summary tables for indirect dischargers.)
Table IX-1.--Pounds of Pollutants Removed by the Proposed BPT Option for Direct Dischargers by Subcategory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and Priortiy and
Subcategory \1\ (number of TSS (lbs O&G (lbs COD (lbs nonconventional nonconventional Cyanide (lbs
facilities) Selected option removed/yr) removed/yr) removed/yr) metals (lbs organics (lbs removed/yr)
removed/yr) removed/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,794)...... Option 2........ 10.1 million.... 7.8 million..... 181 million..... 4 million....... 5 million....... 184,000
Metal Finishing Job Shops Option 2........ 13,000.......... 14,400.......... 232,000......... 34,000.......... 4,600........... 5,700
(15) \2\.
[[Page 452]]
Printed Wiring Boards (11) Option 2........ 51,000.......... 238,000......... 1.3 million..... 172,000......... 22,000.......... 1,400
\2\.
Steel Forming and Finishing Option 2........ 884,000......... 101,000......... 4.5 million..... 387,000......... 76,000.......... 1,100
(43).
Oily Waste (911)............ Option 6........ 349,000......... 885,000......... 5.1 million..... 81,000.......... 127,000......... 10
Railroad Line Maintenance Option 10....... 9,000........... 47,400.......... 59,000.......... 1,000........... 78.............. 0
(34).
Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6)... Option 10....... 650............. 8.5 million..... 0............... 1,400........... 700............. 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore, there are no estimated removals. See
Section IX.C.
\2\ Although EPA is not revising limits for TSS and O&G for these two subcategories, removals are reported based on incidental removals for the proposed
MP&M Option 2 technology for BPT control of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
EPA notes that the pounds removed presented in Table IX-1 may
differ from the pounds removed presented in the Economic Analysis
section (Section XVI). This difference is a result of the fact that
when performing certain economic analyses (e.g., cost-effectiveness),
the Agency does not include facilities (or the associated pollutant
loadings and removals) that closed at the baseline (i.e., EPA predicted
that these facilities would close prior to the implementation of the
MP&M rule). Table IX-1 above estimates that annual pounds removed by
the selected option for all of the direct discharging facilities in
EPA's questionnaire data base that discharged wastewater at the time
the data were collected.
Table IX-2.--Annualized Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed BPT Option for Direct Dischargers by
Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic
impacts
(facility BPT cost per
Annualized compliance closures) of pound removed
Subcategory \1\ (number of Selected option costs for selected selected \2\ (1996 $/
facilities) option ($1996) option pound removed)
(Percent of
regulated
subcategory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,794)............ Option 2............. 230 million.......... 20 (1%) 1.22
Metal Finishing Job Shops (15).... Option 2............. 1.3 million.......... 0 5.60
Printed Wiring Boards (11)........ Option 2............. 2.5 million.......... 0 1.92
Steel Forming and Finishing (43).. Option 2............. 29.3 million......... 0 6.51
Oily Waste (911).................. Option 6............. 11.2 million......... 0 2.18
Railroad Line Maintenance (34).... Option 10............ 1.18 million......... 0 20.00
Shipbuilding Dry Dock (6)......... Option 10............ 2.15 million......... 0 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not identify any direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory; therefore,
there are no estimated costs. See Section IX.C for estimates based on a model facility.
\2\ EPA based the pounds used in calculating the BPT cost reasonableness on the COD removals only (shown in
Table IX-1) for each subcategory, except for the use of oil and grease removals only (shown in Table IX-1) for
the shipbuilding dry dock subcategory.
A. General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the General Metals subcategory in Section VI.C.1 of
this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are approximately 3,800
direct discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory. EPA
estimates that the direct discharging facilities in the General Metals
subcategory currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants
into the surface waters of the United States, including 8.2 million
pounds per year of oil and grease, 10.9 million pounds per year of
total suspended solids, 187 million pounds of COD, 5.2 million pounds
per year of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 5.2 million
pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants, and 187,000
pounds per year of cyanide. As a result of the quantity of pollutants
currently discharged directly to the nation's waters by General Metals
facilities, EPA determined that there was a need for BPT regulation for
this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the General Metals subcategory generally perform unit
operations such as cleaning, etching, electroplating, electroless
plating, and conversion coating that produce metal-bearing wastewater.
In addition, some of these facilities also perform machining and
grinding, impact deformation, and surface preparation operations that
generate oily wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options
1 through 4 for this subcategory because technologies included in these
options treat both oily wastewater as well as metal-bearing wastewater.
As explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in
this preamble since these options costed less and removed more
pollutant than Options 1 and 3 (respectively). See Section VIII.A.1 for
a discussion of technology options.
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for the new BPT
regulation for the General Metals subcategory. EPA's decision to
propose BPT limitations based on Option 2 treatment reflects primarily
two factors: (1) The degree of effluent reductions attainable, and (2)
the total cost of the proposed treatment technologies in relation to
the effluent reductions achieved. No basis could be found for
identifying different BPT limitations based on age, size, process or
other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the size of a facility
in the General Metals subcategory will directly
[[Page 453]]
affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For facilities in
this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for establishing the
limitations are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions
obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $1.22 per pound of
COD removed (1996 $). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory.
Approximately 22 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by a
clarifier (Option 2) while less than 1 percent employ microfiltration
after chemical precipitation (Option 4).
Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 66,000 pounds of TSS, 12,300 pounds of O&G,
15,000 pounds of priority metals, and 880,000 pounds of nonconventional
metals, while removing 324,000 pounds less COD and 31,000 pounds less
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. Although
there is a large amount of additional removals of TSS and
nonconventional metals for Option 4 when considered across the entire
population (3,800 facilities), the Agency determined that these
additional removals were not significant when considered on a per
facility basis. In addition, Option 4's annualized cost is $52 million
more than Option 2. EPA concluded that the lack of significant
additional pollutant removals per facility achieved by Option 4 (and
the fact that it removes less COD and organic pollutants) support the
selection of Option 2 as the BPT technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the General Metals Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, the Agency calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory
using data from General Metals facilities employing Option 2
technology. For cyanide limitations, EPA used data from all
subcategories where cyanide destruction systems were sampled. If data
was not sufficient for developing BPT limitations for an individual
pollutant in this subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another
subcategory (see the Technical Development Document for a more detailed
discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.12 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the General Metals
Subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed
BPT limitations.
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory in Section
VI.C.2 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 15 direct discharging facilities in the Metal Finishing
Job Shops subcategory. EPA has previously promulgated BPT and BAT
limitations for all of the facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR
part 413 (Electroplating Pretreatment Standards) and at 40 CFR part 433
(Metal Finishing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards). However, EPA developed the existing regulations applicable
to the facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in
electroplating and metal finishing processes, water conservation,
pollution prevention, and wastewater treatment have occurred. EPA is
proposing new BPT effluent limitations guidelines for this subcategory.
EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory currently discharge substantial
quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the United States,
including 17,900 pounds per year of oil and grease, 20,500 pounds per
year of TSS, 287,400 pounds per year of COD, 44,000 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, 6,000 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants, and 6,000 pounds per
year of cyanide. As a result of the quantity of pollutants currently
discharged directly to the nation's waters by metal finishing job shop
facilities, EPA determined that there was a need for BPT regulation for
this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory generally
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, electroplating,
electroless plating, passivating, and conversion coating that produce
metal-bearing wastewater. In addition, some of these facilities also
perform machining and grinding, impact deformation, and surface
preparation operations that generate oily wastewater. Therefore, EPA
considered technology options 1 through 4 for this subcategory because
technologies included in these options treat both oily wastewater as
well as metal-bearing wastewater. As explained above, EPA only
discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this preamble since these
options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3,
respectively.
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. The new BPT limitations
incorporate more stringent effluent requirements for priority metals,
nonconventional pollutants, cyanide, and organic pollutants (by way of
an indicator parameter) as compared to the limitations contained in 40
CFR 433.13. EPA has included the conventional pollutants, TSS and oil
and grease, in the new BPT regulation for this subcategory at the same
level as 40 CFR 433.13. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based
on Option 2 treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of
effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed
treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based
on age, size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor
the size of a facility in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable. EPA based its decision not to revise
the conventional pollutant limitations on the use of the alternate
organics control parameters (i.e., TOC or TOP) and the small additional
removals of TSS obtainable after the incidental removal due to control
of the metals.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $5.60 per pound of
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
[[Page 454]]
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in the subcategory. The Agency
estimates that 100 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory employ chemical precipitation
followed by a clarifier (Option 2) while no facilities employ
microfiltration after chemical precipitation (Option 4). Because no
facilities in this subcategory employ microfiltration after chemical
precipitation for solids separation, the Agency concluded that Option 4
does not represent the average of the best treatment.
Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 6,900 pounds of priority and nonconventional
metals, while removing 1,500 pounds less COD, and 600 pounds less
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. EPA
concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant
removals achieved by Option 4 (and the fact that it removes less COD,
and organic pollutants) support the selection of Option 2 as the BPT
technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, EPA calculated the new BPT limitations for this subcategory
using data from facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
employing Option 2 technology. As discussed above, EPA did not
calculate new limitations for TSS or oil and grease for this
subcategory. Instead, EPA set them at the same level as in the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR 433.13). For cyanide limitations,
EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide destruction systems
were sampled. If data was not sufficient for developing BPT limitations
for an individual pollutant in this subcategory, the Agency transferred
data from another subcategory (see the Technical Development Document
for a more detailed discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.22
following this preamble for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a
discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development
Document contains detailed information on which facilities EPA used in
calculating the proposed BPT limitations.
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory in Section
VI.C.3 of this preamble. EPA's survey of the MP&M industry did not
identify any non-chromium anodizing facilities discharging directly to
surface waters. All of the non-chromium anodizing facilities in EPA's
data base are either indirect or zero dischargers. EPA consequently
could not evaluate any treatment systems in place at direct discharging
non-chromium anodizing facilities for establishing BPT limitations.
Therefore, EPA relied on technology transfer based on information and
data from indirect discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. The Agency concluded that the technology in place at some
indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers is appropriate to use as
the basis for regulation of direct dischargers because the pollutant
profile of the wastewater generated at non-chromium anodizers
discharging directly would be similar in character to that from
indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers and the model technologies
in place at indirect dischargers are effective in treating the
conventional pollutants that are generally not regulated in
pretreatment standards.
EPA has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of
the facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards). However,
EPA developed the regulations applicable to this subcategory
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in anodizing
processes, water conservation, pollution prevention, and wastewater
treatment have occurred. EPA is proposing to set new BPT effluent
limitations guidelines for this subcategory for metals, but is not
revising the limitations for conventional pollutants (TSS and oil and
grease). EPA based its decision not to revise the limitations for
conventional pollutants on the small additional removals attainable
after the incidental removal due to control of the metals.
The current regulations in 40 CFR part 433 require non-chromium
anodizing facilities to meet effluent limitations for 7 metal
pollutants. EPA's data show that these seven metals are present only in
very small quantities in the current discharges at non-chromium
anodizing facilities. Under the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines,
EPA did not establish a BPT limit for aluminum, the metal found in the
largest quantity in non-chromium anodizers wastewater. The Agency has
determined that direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium
Anodizing subcategory should have a limit for aluminum and thus is
proposing to replace BPT in 40 CFR part 433 with new MP&M effluent
limitations that more appropriately reflect the pollutants found in
non-chromium anodizing wastewater. EPA notes that the Agency expects a
reduction in monitoring burden associated with this revision for direct
discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory generally
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, and anodizing of
aluminum, that produce metal-bearing wastewater. The majority of the
metal found in anodizing wastewater is aluminum. In addition, some of
these facilities also perform machining and grinding, impact
deformation, and surface preparation operations that generate oily
wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 1 through 4
for this subcategory because technologies included in these options
treat both oily wastewater as well as metal-bearing wastewater. As
explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this
preamble since these options costed less and removed more pollutant
than Options 1 and 3 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation
for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. Although EPA did not
identify any existing non-chromium anodizers, EPA estimated the cost of
treatment and pollutant removal for a median-sized direct discharging
facility with a wastewater flow of 6.25 MGY, based on the
characteristics of a similarly sized indirect discharging non-chromium
anodizer facility. Because direct dischargers are more likely to have
treatment in place, EPA provided the model facility with treatment in
place equivalent to Option 1. Therefore at the model direct discharging
non-chromium anodizing facility, EPA estimates that implementation of
Option 2 will cost $0.83 per pound COD removed (1996$), and has found
that cost to be reasonable. EPA estimates that Option 2 would remove
25,700 pounds of pollutants per median-sized facility per year
(including 9,200 pounds of TSS as incidental removals based on the
control of metals and 1,240 pounds of aluminum).
[[Page 455]]
Additionally, because solids separation by microfiltration is not
used by any non-chromium anodizer facilities, the Agency concluded that
Option 4 does not represent best practicable control technology for
this subcategory.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Non-Chromium Anodizing
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. Because
EPA's survey did not identify any direct dischargers in this
subcategory, EPA used data from indirect discharging facilities to
develop the BPT limitations. The Agency identified two indirect
discharging facilities in this subcategory that achieved very good
pollutant reductions (including, on average, 96 percent reduction of
aluminum and incidental removals of 95 percent for TSS). Therefore, EPA
determined that the data from these facilities were appropriate for the
development of BPT limitations. If data was not sufficient for
developing BPT limitations for an individual pollutant in this
subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another subcategory (see
the Technical Development Document for a more detailed discussion). In
the case of TSS and oil and grease, EPA used the limitations in 40 CFR
part 433.13. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.32 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Non-Chromium
Anodizers Subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains
detailed information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the
proposed BPT limitations.
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Printed Wiring Board subcategory in Section
VI.C.4 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 11 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA
has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of the
facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards). However,
EPA developed the regulations applicable to this subcategory
approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, advances in printed
wiring board manufacturing processes, water conservation practices,
pollution prevention techniques, and wastewater treatment have
occurred. EPA is proposing to set new BPT effluent limitations
guidelines for this subcategory.
EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the Printed
Wiring Board subcategory currently discharge substantial quantities of
pollutants into the surface waters of the United States, including
262,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 100,000 pounds per year of
total suspended solids, 1.7 million pounds per year of COD, 242,000
pounds per year of priority and nonconventional metal pollutants,
35,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional organic
pollutants, and 1,600 pounds per year of cyanide. As a result of the
quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's
waters by printed wiring board facilities, EPA determined that there
was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory generally
perform unit operations such as cleaning, etching, masking,
electroplating, electroless plating, applying, developing and stripping
of photoresist, and tin/lead soldering that produce metal-bearing and
organic-bearing wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology
options 1 through 4 for this subcategory. As explained above, EPA only
discusses Options 2 and 4 in detail in this preamble since these
options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3
(respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for BPT regulation
for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. The new BPT limitations
incorporate more stringent effluent requirements for priority metals,
nonconventional pollutants, cyanide, and organic pollutants (by way of
an indicator parameter) as compared to the limitations contained in 40
CFR part 433.13. EPA has included the conventional pollutants, TSS and
oil and grease, in the new BPT regulation for this subcategory at the
same level as 40 CFR part 433.13. Removals for these pollutants are
incidental removals based on the increased control of metals and
organic pollutants (by way of an indicator parameter) by the proposed
BPT technology options. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based
Option 2 treatment for priority metals, nonconventional pollutants,
cyanide and organic pollutants reflects primarily two factors: (1) The
degree of effluent reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the
proposed treatment technologies in relation to the effluent reductions
achieved. No basis could be found for identifying different BPT
limitations based on age, size, process or other engineering factors.
Neither the age nor the size of a facility in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory will directly affect the treatability of MP&M process
wastewater. For facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent
factors for establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the
level of effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $1.92 per pound of
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. The Agency
estimates that 100 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the
Printed Wiring Board subcategory employ chemical precipitation and
sedimentation treatment (Option 2); however, the Agency did identify
indirect dischargers in this subcategory with Option 4 technology in
place. In fact, EPA collected wastewater treatment samples at one
indirect discharging printed wiring board manufacturing facility that
employed Option 4 technology.
Based on the available data base, Option 4 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 48,000 pounds of priority and nonconventional
metals, while removing 9,000 less pounds of COD, and 250 less pounds of
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 2. In
addition, Option 4's annualized cost is $2 million more than Option 2.
EPA concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant
removals achieved by Option 4 (and the fact that it removes less COD,
and organic pollutants) support the selection of Option 2 as the BPT
technology basis.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Printed Wiring Board
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, EPA calculated the new BPT limitations for this subcategory
using data from facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory
employing Option 2 technology. As discussed above, EPA
[[Page 456]]
did not calculate new limitations for TSS or oil and grease for this
subcategory. Instead, EPA set them at the same level as in the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433.13). For cyanide
limitations, EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide
destruction systems were sampled. If data was not sufficient for
developing BPT limitations for an individual pollutant in this
subcategory, the Agency transferred data from another subcategory (see
the Technical Development Document for a more detailed discussion). See
the proposed rule Sec. 438.42 following this preamble for a list of the
proposed BPT limitations for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory. (See
Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The
Statistical Development Document contains detailed information on which
facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed BPT limitations.
E. Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory in Section
VI.C.5 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 43 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA
has previously promulgated BPT and BAT limitations for all of the
facilities in this subcategory at 40 CFR part 420 (Iron and Steel
Manufacturing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Pretreatment
Standards). However, EPA developed the regulations applicable to this
subcategory approximately 20 years ago, and since that time, changes in
the industry, particularly in growth of the number of facilities
conducting steel forming and finishing operations without the presence
of the typical steel manufacturing processes, and changes in water
conservation practices, pollution prevention techniques, and wastewater
treatment have occurred. In addition, the operations covered by this
proposed rule are segments of the forming and finishing subcategories
in 40 CFR part 420. The proposed MP&M subcategory is comprised of
limitations and standards based on specific forming and finishing
operations only.
EPA estimates that direct discharging facilities in the new Steel
Forming & Finishing subcategory currently discharge substantial
quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the United States,
including 195,000 pounds per year of oil and grease, 1.08 million
pounds per year of total suspended solids, 6 million pounds per year of
COD, 771,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional metal
pollutants, 168,000 pounds per year of priority and nonconventional
organic pollutants, and 2,300 pounds per year of cyanide. As a result
of the quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the
nation's waters by steel forming & finishing facilities, EPA determined
that there was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory. In a
separate notice, EPA is proposing to revise other subcategories in the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the proposed MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory generally perform unit operations such as acid pickling,
annealing, conversion coating (e.g., zinc phosphate, copper sulfate),
hot dip coating, electroplating, heat treatment, welding, and drawing
of steel bar, rod, and wire that produce metal-bearing and oil-bearing
wastewater. Therefore, EPA considered technology options 1 through 4
for this subcategory. As explained above, EPA only discusses Options 2
and 4 in detail in this preamble since these options costed less and
removed more pollutant than Options 1 and 3 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 2 as the basis for the new BPT
regulation for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. EPA's
decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 2 treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 2, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 2 will cost $6.51 per pound of
COD removed ($1996). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 2 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 2 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical
precipitation followed by sedimentation in this subcategory. The Agency
estimates that 64 percent of the direct discharging facilities in this
subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation
(Option 2). Because no facilities in this subcategory employ
microfiltration after chemical precipitation for solids separation, the
Agency concluded that Option 4 does not represent best practicable
control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Steel Forming & Finishing
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. In
general, EPA calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data
transferred from facilities employing Option 2 technology in the
General Metals subcategory. However, EPA determined that mass-based
limitations (rather than concentration-based limitations developed for
the General Metals subcategory) are more appropriate for this
subcategory. Facilities in this subcategory keep close track of their
production on a mass basis primarily because of their prior regulation
under the mass-based Iron & Steel Manufacturing effluent guidelines.
Furthermore, EPA determined that mass-based limitations are appropriate
for this subcategory due to the uniform nature of the products produced
(wire, rod, bar, pipe, and tube). The uniform nature of the products
produced by this industry makes for an easier conversion from
concentration-based to mass-based limitations. One of the primary
reasons that EPA is not requiring mass-based limitations for other
subcategories is the fact that most MP&M facilities do not collect
production information on a wastestream-by-wastestream basis, and
therefore development of mass-based limitations could create a
significant burden for both the POTW and the MP&M facility. In the case
of the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory, EPA is able to use the
industry's production information to propose production-based
limitations for the steel forming and finishing subcategory.
EPA solicits paired treatment system influent and effluent data
from Steel Forming & Finishing facilities, so that limits may better
reflect treatment at steel forming and finishing facilities. EPA also
solicits comment on whether to allow concentration-based limits for
this subcategory and any rationale for doing so. For cyanide
limitations, EPA used data from all subcategories where cyanide
destruction systems were sampled (see the Technical
[[Page 457]]
Development Document for a more detailed discussion). See the proposed
rule Sec. 438.52 following this preamble for a list of the proposed BPT
limitations for the Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory. (See Section
XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical
Development Document contains detailed information on which facilities
EPA used in calculating the proposed BPT limitations.
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Oily Wastes subcategory in Section VI.C.6 of this
preamble. EPA estimates that approximately 900 MP&M direct discharging
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory currently discharge
substantial quantities of pollutants into the surface waters of the
United States, including 965,000 pounds per year of oil and grease,
414,00 pounds per year of total suspended solids, 6.4 million pounds
per year of COD, 595,000 pounds per year of priority and
nonconventional metal pollutants, and 135,000 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of the
quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's
waters by Oily Waste facilities, EPA determined that there was a need
for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory generally perform unit
operations such as alkaline cleaning and its associated rinses to
remove oil and dirt from components, machining and grinding producing
wastewater containing coolants and lubricants, and dye penetrant and
magnetic flux testing that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater (see
Section VI.C.6 for a list of the unit operations that define the
applicability of this subcategory). Because of the oily nature of the
wastewater, EPA considered technology options 5 through 8 for this
subcategory. (EPA did not consider oily wastewater treatment using DAF
(Options 9 and 10) because it was not widely used by facilities in this
subcategory. The Agency analyzed the DAF options for the Railroad Line
Maintenance and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories only.) As explained
above, EPA only discusses Options 6 and 8 in detail in this preamble
since these options costed less and removed more pollutant than Options
5 and 7 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 6, oil-water separation by chemical
emulsion breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming, as the basis
for the new BPT regulation for the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA's
decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option 6 treatment
reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions
attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Oily Wastes subcategory will directly affect
the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For facilities in this
subcategory, the most pertinent factors for establishing the
limitations are costs of treatment and the level of effluent reductions
obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 6, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of COD removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 6 will cost $2.18 per pound of
COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 6 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 6 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of chemical emulsion
breaking and oil-skimming in this subcategory. The Agency estimates
that 11 percent of the direct discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory perform oil-water separation through chemical emulsion
breaking (Option 6) while only 4 percent employ ultrafiltration (Option
8).
Based on the available data base, Option 8 on an annual basis only
removes an additional 19,000 pounds of TSS, 56,600 pounds of O&G, while
removing 1.42 million less pounds of COD, 12,000 less pounds of
priority and nonconventional metals, and 2,400 less pounds of priority
and nonconventional organic pollutants than Option 6. In addition,
Option 8's annualized cost is $43 million more than Option 6. EPA
concluded that the lack of significant overall additional pollutant
removals achieved by Option 8 do not justify its use as a basis for BPT
for this subcategory.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Oily Wastes subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory employing Option 6
technology. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.62 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Oily Wastes
subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed
BPT limitations.
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory in Section
VI.C.7 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are
approximately 34 direct discharging facilities in this subcategory. EPA
determined that BPT limitations for this subcategory were necessary
because of the oil and grease and potential TSS loads that facilities
in this subcategory generate. EPA estimates that direct discharging
facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory currently
discharge substantial quantities of pollutants into the surface waters
of the United States, including 52,000 pounds per year of oil and
grease, 170,000 pounds per year of COD, 18,000 pounds per year of total
suspended solids, 54,000 pounds per year of priority and
nonconventional metal pollutants, and 1,600 pounds per year of priority
and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of the quantity of
pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's waters by
Railroad Line Maintenance facilities, EPA determined that there was a
need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory generally
perform unit operations that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater such
as alkaline cleaning and its associated rinses to remove oil and dirt
from components, and machining and grinding which use coolants and
lubricants. Because of the oily nature of the wastewater, EPA
considered technology options 7 through 10 for this subcategory. (EPA
did not consider oily wastewater treatment using oil-water separation
through emulsion breaking (Options 5 and 6) for this subcategory
because a large number of railroad line maintenance facilities
currently use DAF (Options 9 and 10)). As explained above, EPA only
discusses Options 8 and 10 in detail in this preamble since these
options costed less and removed
[[Page 458]]
more pollutant than Options 7 and 9 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 10, oil-water separation by DAF, as
the basis for the new BPT regulation for the Railroad Line Maintenance
subcategory. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based on Option
10 treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 10, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of O&G removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 10 will cost $20.00 per pound
of COD removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 10 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 10 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of DAF in this
subcategory. The Agency estimates that 91 percent of the direct
discharging facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory
employ DAF (Option 10) while no facilities employ ultrafiltration
(Option 8). Because no facilities in this subcategory employ
ultrafiltration for removal of O&G, the Agency concluded that Option 8
does not represent best practicable control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Railroad Line Maintenance
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from
facilities in the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory employing
Option 10 technology. In cases where data from the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory was not sufficient for a particular pollutant,
the Agency transferred effluent data from facilities in the
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory in order to develop a proposed BPT
limitation (see the Technical Development Document for a more detailed
discussion). See the proposed rule Sec. 438.72 following this preamble
for a list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of
monitoring flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains
detailed information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the
proposed BPT limitations.
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
1. Need for BPT Regulation
EPA describes the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory in Section
VI.C.8 of this preamble. The Agency estimates that there are six direct
discharging facilities in this subcategory. The Agency notes that many
shipbuilders operate multiple dry docks (or similar structures) and
that this is the number of estimated facilities (not dry docks) that
discharge MP&M process wastewater from dry docks (and similar
structures). EPA determined that BPT limitations for this subcategory
were necessary because of the oil and grease and potential TSS loads
that facilities in this subcategory generate. EPA estimates that direct
discharging facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory
currently discharge substantial quantities of pollutants into the
surface waters of the United States, including 8.5 million pounds per
year of oil and grease, 18,400 pounds per year of total suspended
solids, 976,000 pounds per year of COD, 88,500 pounds per year of
priority and nonconventional metal pollutants, and 6,000 pounds per
year of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants. As a result of
the quantity of pollutant currently discharged directly to the nation's
waters by Shipbuilding Dry Dock facilities, EPA determined that there
was a need for BPT regulation for this subcategory.
2. Selected BPT Option
Facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory generally
perform unit operations that produce mainly oil-bearing wastewater such
as abrasive blasting, hydroblasting, painting, welding, corrosion
preventive coating, floor cleaning, aqueous degreasing, and testing
(e.g., hydrostatic testing). Because of the oily nature of the
wastewater, EPA considered technology options 7 through 10 for this
subcategory. (EPA did not consider oily wastewater treatment using oil-
water separation through chemical emulsion breaking (Options 5 and 6)
for this subcategory because all of the shipbuilding dry dock
facilities in EPA's database currently use DAF (Options 9 and 10)). As
explained above, EPA only discusses Options 8 and 10 in detail in this
preamble since these options costed less and removed more pollutant
than Options 7 and 9 (respectively).
The Agency is proposing Option 10, oil-water separation by DAF, as
the basis for the new BPT regulation for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategory. EPA's decision to propose BPT limitations based Option 10
treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of effluent
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the proposed treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved. No basis
could be found for identifying different BPT limitations based on age,
size, process or other engineering factors. Neither the age nor the
size of a facility in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory will
directly affect the treatability of MP&M process wastewater. For
facilities in this subcategory, the most pertinent factors for
establishing the limitations are costs of treatment and the level of
effluent reductions obtainable.
In Table IX-1 above, EPA presents the annual pollutant removals for
direct dischargers for Option 10, and in Table IX-2 above, it presents
the cost per pound removed using only the pounds of O&G removed. EPA
estimates that implementation of Option 10 will cost $0.25 per pound of
O&G removed (1996$). The Agency has concluded that the costs of BPT
Option 10 are achievable and are reasonable as compared to the removals
achieved by this option.
The technology proposed in Option 10 represents the average of the
best performing facilities due to the prevalence of DAF in this
subcategory. According to EPA's database, 100 percent of the direct
discharging facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory employ
DAF (Option 10) while no facilities employ ultrafiltration (Option 8).
Because no facilities in this subcategory employ ultrafiltration for
removal of O&G, the Agency concluded that Option 8 does not represent
best practicable control technology.
3. Calculation of BPT Limitations for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
Subcategory
EPA explained its data editing procedures and statistical
methodology for calculating BPT limitations in Section VIII.B. EPA
calculated BPT limitations for this subcategory using data from
facilities in the Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory employing Option 10
technology. See the proposed rule Sec. 438.82 following this preamble
for a
[[Page 459]]
list of the proposed BPT limitations for the Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategory. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Statistical Development Document contains detailed
information on which facilities EPA used in calculating the proposed
BPT limitations.
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
A. July 9, 1986 BCT Methodology
The BCT methodology, promulgated in 1986 (51 FR 24974), discusses
the Agency's consideration of costs in establishing BCT effluent
limitations guidelines. EPA evaluates the reasonableness of BCT
candidate technologies (those that are technologically feasible) by
applying a two-part cost test:
(1) The POTW test; and
(2) The industry cost-effectiveness test.
In the POTW test, EPA calculates the cost per pound of conventional
pollutant removed by industrial dischargers in upgrading from BPT to a
BCT candidate technology and then compares this cost to the cost per
pound of conventional pollutant removed in upgrading POTWs from
secondary treatment. The upgrade cost to industry must be less than the
POTW benchmark of $0.25 per pound (in 1976 dollars).
In the industry cost-effectiveness test, the ratio of the
incremental BPT to BCT cost divided by the BPT cost for the industry
must be less than 1.29 (i.e., the cost increase must be less than 29
percent).
B. Discussion of BCT Option for Metal-Bearing Wastewater
For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to
establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M sites that would
attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for TSS. The
only technology option identified to attain further TSS reduction is
the addition of multimedia filtration to existing BPT systems. For the
BCT option, EPA considered the addition of multimedia filtration to the
BPT technology option for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job
Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming
and Finishing subcategories (i.e., the metal-bearing subcategories).
EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of multimedia filtration
technology as a means to reduce TSS loadings. EPA split the MP&M sites
into three flow categories: less than 10,000 gallons per year (gpy));
10,000 gpy to 1,000,000 gpy; and greater than 1,000,000 gpy. For each
of these three flow categories, EPA chose a representative site for
which EPA had estimated the costs of installing the Option 2
technologies discussed under BPT (See Section IX above). The Agency
evaluated the costs of installing a polishing multimedia filter to
remove an estimated additional 35 percent of the TSS discharged after
chemical precipitation and clarification treatment. This estimated
removal reflects the reduced TSS concentrations seen when filters are
used after chemical precipitation and sedimentation in the MP&M
industry. The cost per pound removed for facilities discharging greater
than 1 MGY was $13/lb of TSS (in 1976 dollars), the cost per pound
removed for facilities discharging between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gpy was
$518/lb and the cost per pound removed for facilities discharging less
than 10,000 gpy was $1,926/lb of TSS (in 1976 dollars). All of these
cases individually as well as combined exceed the $0.25/lb (in 1976
dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these costs exceed the POTW
benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails; therefore, the second
part of the test was unnecessary. Therefore, EPA determined that
multimedia filtration does not pass the cost test for BCT regulations
development. In light of the above, EPA is proposing to set BCT
limitations for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-
Chromium Anodizing, Printed Wiring Board, and Steel Forming and
Finishing subcategories equivalent to BPT limitations for their
respective subcategories.
C. Discussion of BCT Option for Oily Wastewater
For today's proposed rule, EPA considered whether or not to
establish BCT effluent limitation guidelines for MP&M facilities that
would attain incremental levels of effluent reduction beyond BPT for
O&G. EPA considered the addition of an ultrafilter to existing BPT
systems (oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking, gravity
separation, and oil skimming) as a viable technology option to attain
further O&G reduction. EPA considered this BCT option for the Oily
Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock
subcategories.
EPA applied the BCT cost test to use of ultrafiltration technology
as a means to reduce O&G loadings. EPA split the MP&M sites into three
flow categories: less than 10,000 gallons per year (gpy); 10,000 gpy to
1,000,000 gpy; and greater than 1,000,000 gpy. For each of these three
flow categories, EPA chose a representative site for which EPA had
estimated the costs of installing the Option 2 technologies discussed
under BPT (See Section IX above). The Agency evaluated the costs of
installing an ultrafilter to remove an estimated additional 36 percent
of the O&G discharged after oil-water separation by chemical emulsion
breaking, gravity separation, and oil skimming. This estimated removal
reflects the reduced O&G concentrations seen when ultrafilters are used
after chemical emulsion breaking with oil skimming in the MP&M
industry. The cost per pound removed for facilities discharging greater
than 1 MGY was $238/lb of O&G (in 1976 dollars), the cost per pound
removed for facilities discharging between 10,000 and 1,000,000 gpy was
$2,213/lb, and the cost per pound removed for facilities discharging
less than 10,000 gpy was $5,031/lb of O&G (in 1976 dollars). All of
these cases individually as well as combined exceed the $0.25/lb (in
1976 dollars) POTW cost test value. Because these costs exceed the POTW
benchmark, the first part of the cost test fails; therefore, the second
part of the test was unnecessary. Therefore, EPA determined that
ultrafiltration does not pass the cost test for BCT regulations
development. In light of the above, EPA is proposing to set BCT
limitations for the Oily Wastes, Railroad Line Maintenance and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories equivalent to BPT limitations for
their respective subcategories.
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA considers the following factors in establishing the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) level of control:
the age of process equipment and facilities, the processes employed,
process changes, the engineering aspects of applying various types of
control techniques, the costs of applying the control technology,
economic impacts imposed by the regulation, non-water quality
environmental impacts such as energy requirements, air pollution and
solid waste generation, and other such factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate (section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act). In general, the
BAT technology level represents the best existing economically
achievable performance among plants with shared characteristics. In
making the determination about economic achievability, the Agency takes
into consideration factors such as plant closures and product line
closures. Where existing wastewater treatment performance is uniformly
inadequate,
[[Page 460]]
BAT technology may be transferred from a different subcategory or
industrial category. BAT may also include process changes or internal
plant controls which are not common industry practice.
EPA considered the same 10 technology options for BAT as it
discussed under BPT. EPA did not include the application of filters,
discussed under BPT, as a BAT option. Data collected during sampling at
MP&M facilities demonstrated very little, if any, additional removal of
many metal pollutants resulting from the use of filters as compared to
concentrations of the same metals after the chemical precipitation and
clarification treatment followed by gravity settling. Thus, although
filtration is demonstrated to be effective in achieving additional
removals of suspended solids, and as such EPA considered it for the
basis of BPT, multimedia or sand filtration does not reflect the best
available technology performance for priority and nonconventional
pollutants.
For all of the MP&M subcategories (except Railroad Line Maintenance
and Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories), EPA is proposing BAT
limitations equivalent to BPT. For the Railroad Line Maintenance and
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategories, EPA is not proposing BAT
limitations. EPA briefly discusses the BAT selection for each of the
subcategories below and refers to Section IX for a detailed discussion
of the need for BPT regulation, the selected BPT technology option, the
calculation of BPT limitations, and the estimated removals and costs of
BPT for each subcategory.
A. General Metals Subcategory
EPA has not identified any more stringent economically-achievable
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level
of control applicable to General Metals subcategory facilities.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT
for toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the General Metals
subcategory. EPA estimates that 20 facilities (less than 1 percent of
the direct dischargers in this subcategory) will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. EPA found this option to be economically
achievable for the subcategory as a whole. Additionally, the Agency
believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available'' technology as
it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating all priority
pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum
level.
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 4 as a basis for establishing BAT more
stringent than the BPT level of control being proposed today. EPA
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option 4 levels would result in 35 facility closures (1 percent of the
direct dischargers in this subcategory). See Section XVI.E for a
discussion on job losses. While EPA does not have a bright line for
determining what level of impact is economically achievable for the
industry as a whole, EPA looked for a breakpoint that would mitigate
adverse economic impacts without greatly affecting the toxic pound
equivalents being removed under the proposed rule. By selecting Option
2 as BAT, EPA was able to reduce facility closures by 43 percent, while
only losing about 1.5 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would
be removed under Option 4. Option 4 resulted in some level of improved
pollutant reductions; however, the amounts are not very large and the
cost of implementing the level of control associated with Option 4 is
disproportionately high. Thus, EPA rejected Option 4 as a basis for BAT
for this subcategory.
B. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Metal Finishing Job Shop
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this Option to be
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. As was the case for BAT based on Option
2, EPA estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT
based on Option 4. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 4 to be
economically achievable for this subcategory. However, EPA is not
proposing to establish BAT limitations based on Option 4 because it
determined that Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in
pound-equivalents for much less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the
basis for BAT, EPA reduced annualized compliance costs by $1.1 million
(1996$) while only losing 2 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that
would be removed under Option 4. The Agency concluded that the
additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the lack of significant
additional pollutant removals achieved for direct dischargers in this
subcategory. Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best
available'' technology economically achievable for the Metal Finishing
Job Shop subcategory.
C. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. As mentioned in the BPT discussion, EPA's survey of the
MP&M industry did not identify any non-chromium anodizing facilities
discharging directly to surface waters. All of the non-chromium
anodizing facilities in EPA's data base are either indirect or zero
dischargers. EPA consequently could not evaluate any treatment systems
in place at direct discharging non-chromium anodizing facilities for
establishing BAT limitations. Therefore, EPA relied on information and
data from indirect discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. Based on this analysis the Agency believes that Option 2
represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. However, EPA is not proposing to
establish BAT limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that
Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for
much less cost. EPA used a facility with a flow of 6.25 MGY (the median
discharge flow for indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory)
to model the costs and pollutant loads reduced for a direct discharging
facility. Because direct dischargers are more likely to have treatment
in place, EPA provided the model facility with treatment in place
equivalent to Option 1. Based on this model facility, EPA estimated
that annualized compliance costs per facility for Option 2 will be
$41,000 (1996$) less than Option 4, and Option 2 will remove only 83
pound-equivalents less than Option 4. The Agency concluded that the
additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the additional pollutant
removals achieved for direct dischargers in this subcategory.
Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best available''
technology economically
[[Page 461]]
achievable for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
D. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this option to be
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 4 as a basis for establishing BAT more
stringent than the BPT level of control being proposed today. As was
the case for BAT based on Option 2, EPA estimates that no facilities
would close as a result of BAT based on Option 4. Therefore, EPA does
consider Option 4 to be economically achievable for this subcategory.
However, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limitations based on
Option 4 because it determined that Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent
reductions in pound-equivalents for much less cost. By selecting Option
2 as the basis for BAT, EPA reduced annualized compliance costs by $2
million (1996$) while only losing 3 percent of the toxic pound
equivalents that would be removed under Option 4. The Agency concluded
that the additional costs of Option 4 do not justify the lack of
significant additional pollutant removals achieved for direct
dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA determined that Option
2 is the ``best available'' technology economically achievable for the
Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
E. Steel Forming & Finishing Subcategory
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants for the Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory. EPA estimates that no facilities will close as a result of
BAT based on Option 2. Therefore, the Agency found this Option to be
economically achievable. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option
2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high
level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very
low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate transferring technology reflected in BPT Option 4
as a basis for establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of
control being proposed today. EPA is not proposing to establish BAT
limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that Option 2
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for much
less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for BAT, EPA reduced
annualized compliance costs by $2.6 million (1996$) while only losing 3
percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed under
Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of Option 4 do
not justify the insignificant additional pollutant removals achieved
for direct dischargers in this subcategory.
F. Oily Wastes Subcategory
EPA has not identified any more stringent economically-achievable
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level
of control applicable to Oily Wastes subcategory facilities. Therefore,
the Agency is proposing to establish BAT equivalent to BPT for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants for the Oily Wastes subcategory. EPA
estimates that no facilities will close as a result of BAT based on
Option 6. Additionally, the Agency believes that Option 6 represents
the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a high level of
pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to very low levels,
often at or near the analytical minimum level.
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 8 (ultrafiltration) as a basis for
establishing BAT more stringent than the BPT level of control being
proposed today. As was the case for BAT based on Option 6, EPA
estimates that no facilities would close as a result of BAT based on
Option 8. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 8 to be economically
achievable for this subcategory. However, based on the available data
base, EPA is not proposing to establish BAT limitations based on Option
8 because it removes fewer pound-equivalents than Option 6. Therefore,
the Agency determined that Option 6 is the ``best available''
technology economically achievable for the removal of priority
pollutants from wastewater generated at Oily Wastes subcategory
facilities.
G. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
EPA is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for the Railroad
Line Maintenance subcategory. The Agency concluded that the facilities
in this subcategory discharge very few pounds of toxic pollutants. EPA
estimates that 34 railroad line maintenance facilities discharge 1,100
pound equivalents per year to surface waters, or about 32 pound
equivalents per year per facility. The Agency based the loadings
calculations on EPA sampling data, which found very few priority toxic
pollutants at treatable levels in raw wastewater. Therefore,
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time and
direct dischargers will remain subject to permit limitations for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants established on a case-by-case basis
using best professional judgement.
H. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
EPA is not proposing to establish BAT regulations for the
Shipbuilding Dry Dock subcategory because of the small number of
facilities in this subcategory. EPA estimates that there are 6
shipbuilding facilities operating one or more dry docks in the U.S.
that discharge directly to surface waters. EPA determined that
nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at this time because
of the small number of facilities in this subcategory. The Agency
believes that limitations established on a case-by-case basis using
best professional judgement can more appropriately address individual
toxic and nonconventional pollutants that may be present at these six
facilities.
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
A. Need for Pretreatment Standards
Indirect dischargers in the MP&M industrial category, like the
direct dischargers, use raw materials that contain many priority
pollutant and nonconventional metal pollutants. These indirect
facilities may discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at
significant mass or concentration levels, or both. EPA estimates that
indirect discharging facilities annually discharge approximately 125
million pounds of priority and nonconventional metals, and 47 million
pounds of priority and nonconventional organic pollutants.
Unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater will receive no further
treatment once it leaves the facility, indirect dischargers send their
wastewater to POTWs for further treatment, which occurs unless there is
a bypass, upset, or sewer overflow. EPA establishes pretreatment
standards for those BAT pollutants that pass through POTWs. Therefore,
for indirect dischargers, before proposing pretreatment standards, EPA
examines whether the pollutants discharged by the industry ``pass
through'' POTWs to waters of the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations
or sludge disposal practices on a national basis. Generally, to
determine if pollutants pass through POTWs, EPA compares the percentage
[[Page 462]]
of the pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs achieving secondary
treatment with the percentage of the pollutant removed by facilities
meeting BAT effluent limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that
the combined treatment at indirect discharging facilities and POTWs is
at least equivalent to that obtained through treatment by direct
dischargers.
This approach to the definition of pass-through satisfies two
competing objectives set by Congress: (1) That standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct dischargers, and (2)
that the treatment capability and performance of POTWs be recognized
and taken into account in regulating the discharge of pollutants from
indirect dischargers. Rather than compare the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by POTWs with the mass or concentration of
pollutants discharged by BAT facilities, EPA compares the percentage of
the pollutants removed by BAT facilities to the POTW removals. EPA
takes this approach because a comparison of the mass or concentration
of pollutants in POTW effluents with pollutants in BAT facility
effluents would not take into account the mass of pollutants discharged
to the POTW from other industrial and non-industrial sources, nor the
dilution of the pollutants in the POTW to lower concentrations from the
addition of large amounts of other industrial and non-industrial water.
The primary source of the POTW percent removal data is the ``Fate
of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-
82/303, September 1982), commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study.''
This study presents data on the performance of 50 well-operated POTWs
that employ secondary biological treatment in removing pollutants. Each
sample was analyzed for three conventional, 16 non-conventional, and
126 priority toxic pollutants.
At the time of the 50-POTW sampling program, which spanned
approximately 2\1/2\ years (July 1978 to November 1980), EPA collected
samples at selected POTWs across the U.S. The samples were subsequently
analyzed by either EPA or EPA-contract laboratories using test
procedures (analytical methods) specified by the Agency or in use at
the laboratories. Laboratories typically reported the analytical method
used along with the test results. However, for those cases in which the
laboratory specified no analytical method, EPA was able to identify the
method based on the nature of the results and knowledge of the methods
available at the time.
Each laboratory reported results for the pollutants for which it
tested. If the laboratory found a pollutant to be present, the
laboratory reported a result. If the laboratory found the pollutant not
to be present, the laboratory reported either that the pollutant was
``not detected'' or a value with a ``less than'' sign () indicating
that the pollutant was below that value. The value reported along with
the ``less than'' sign was the lowest level to which the laboratory
believed it could reliably measure. EPA subsequently established these
lower levels as the minimum levels of quantitation (MLs). In some
instances, different laboratories reported different (sample-specific)
MLs for the same pollutant using the same analytical method.
Because of the variety of reporting protocols among the 50-POTW
Study laboratories (pages 27 to 30, 50-POTW Study), EPA reviewed the
percent removal calculations used in the pass-through analysis for
previous industry studies, including those performed when developing
effluent guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) Manufacturing, Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT), and
Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that, for 12
parameters, different analytical minimum levels were reported for
different rulemaking studies (10 of the 21 metals, cyanide, and one of
the 41 organics).
To provide consistency for data analysis and establishment of
removal efficiencies, EPA reviewed the 50-POTW Study, standardized the
reported MLs for use in the final rules for CWT and Transportation
Equipment Cleaning Industries and for this proposed rule and the Iron
and Steel proposed rule. A more detailed discussion of the methodology
used and the results of the ML evaluation are contained in the record
for today's proposal.
In using the 50-POTW Study data to estimate percent removals, EPA
has established data editing criteria for determining pollutant percent
removals. Some of the editing criteria are based on differences between
POTW and industry BAT treatment system influent concentrations. For
many toxic pollutants, POTW influent concentrations were much lower
than those of BAT treatment systems. For many pollutants, particularly
organic pollutants, the effluent concentrations from both POTW and BAT
treatment systems were below the level that could be found or measured.
As noted in the 50-POTW Study, analytical laboratories reported
pollutant concentrations below the analytical threshold level,
qualitatively, as ``not detected'' or ``trace,'' and reported a
measured value above this level. Subsequent rulemaking studies such as
the 1987 OCPSF study used the analytical method nominal ``minimum
level'' (ML) established in 40 CFR part 136 for laboratory data
reported below the analytical threshold level. Use of the nominal
minimum level (ML) may overestimate the effluent concentration and
underestimate the percent removal. Because the data collected for
evaluating POTW percent removals included both effluent and influent
levels that were close to the analytical detection levels, EPA devised
hierarchal data editing criteria to exclude data with low influent
concentration levels, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW
removals might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of
being a true measure of treatment effectiveness.
EPA has generally used hierarchic data editing criteria for the
pollutants in the 50-POTW Study. For today's proposal, as in previous
rulemakings, EPA used the following editing criteria:
Substitute the standardized pollutant-specific analytical
minimum level for values reported as ``not detected,'' ``trace,''
``less than [followed by a number],'' or a ``number'' less than the
standardized analytical minimum level,
Retain pollutant influent and corresponding effluent
values if the average pollutant influent level is greater than or equal
to 10 times the pollutant minimum level (10 x ML), and
If none of the average pollutant influent concentrations
are at least 10 times the minimum level, then retain average influent
values greater than or equal to two times the minimum level (2 x ML)
along with the corresponding average effluent values. (In most cases,
2 x ML will be equal to or less than 20 g/l.)
EPA then calculates each POTW percent removal for each pollutant based
on its average influent and its average effluent values. The national
POTW percent removal used for each pollutant in the pass-through test
is the median value of all the POTW pollutant specific percent
removals.
The rationale for retaining POTW data using the ``10 x ML'' editing
criterion is based on the BAT organic pollutant treatment performance
editing criteria initially developed for the 1987 OCPSF regulation (52
FR 42522, 42545-48; November 5, 1987). BAT treatment system designs in
the OCPSF industry typically achieved at least 90 percent removal of
toxic pollutants. Since most
[[Page 463]]
of the OCPSF effluent data from BAT biological treatment systems had
values of ``not detected,'' the average influent concentration for a
compound had to be at least 10 times the analytical minimum level for
the difference to be meaningful (demonstration of at least 90 percent
removal) and qualify effluent concentrations for calculation of
effluent limits.
Additionally, due to the large number of pollutants of concern for
the MP&M industry, EPA also used data from the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) Treatability Database (formerly called the
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to augment the
POTW database for the pollutants which the 50-POTW Study did not cover.
EPA notes that the 50 POTW Study contains percent removal data for all
of the pollutants for which EPA is proposing effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards. The RREL database was used to estimate
incidental pollutant reductions achieved by the technology for some
pollutants that are not being expressly limited. This database provides
information, by pollutant, on removals obtained by various treatment
technologies. The database provides the user with the specific data
source and the industry from which the wastewater was generated. For
each pollutant of concern EPA considered for this proposed rule that
was not found in the 50-POTW database, EPA used data from the NRMRL
database, using only treatment technologies representative of typical
POTW secondary treatment operations (activated sludge, activated sludge
with filtration, aerated lagoons). EPA further edited these files to
include information pertaining only to domestic or industrial
wastewater. EPA used pilot-scale and full-scale data only, and
eliminated bench-scale data and data from less reliable references.
These and other aspects of the methodology used for this proposal are
described in Section 7 of the Technical Development Document.
The results of the POTW pass-through analysis for indirect
dischargers are discussed in Sections XII.D to XII.K for each
subcategory. In addition, Section XIV of today's proposal discusses
several issues related to the editing criteria applied to the 50-POTW
data base. EPA solicits comments on its pass-through methodology,
including the revised editing criteria discussed above as well as the
additional issues described in Section XIV and in the record for
today's proposal.
B. Overview of Technology Options for PSES
Indirect discharging MP&M facilities generate wastewater with
similar pollutant characteristics to direct discharging facilities.
Hence, in evaluating technology options for PSES, EPA considered the
same ten treatment technologies discussed previously for BPT and BAT.
However, as described below, along with the technology options, EPA
also evaluated ``low flow'' exclusions for indirect discharging
facilities (see Sections II.D and VI for additional discussion on the
low flow exclusions).
C. Overview of Low Flow Exclusions
For each subcategory, EPA evaluated various low flow exclusions
(also referred to as ``flow cutoffs'') for indirect dischargers. The
Agency considered several factors in determining what flow level, if
any, is appropriate for excluding facilities from compliance with
pretreatment standards. For several of the subcategories, EPA
considered the local control authorities' increased burden associated
with the development of new permits or other control mechanisms for
MP&M facilities. For some subcategories, the Agency considered flow
exclusions as a way to reduce economic impacts. EPA also considered the
amount of pollutant (in pound-equivalents) discharged per year by the
subcategory and by each of the facilities on an average annual basis,
in conjunction with the costs of regulation, to identify an appropriate
level for an exclusion. In cases where EPA is proposing an option that
also specifies a flow cutoff, it means that facilities with annual
wastewater flow below the cutoff would not be subject to the MP&M
categorical pretreatment standards. These facilities would remain
subject to the general pretreatment regulation at 40 CFR part 403 or
their existing categorical pretreatment standards (e.g., 40 CFR part
413 or part 433). For the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory,
although the proposed option does not contain a flow cutoff, several
other options with various flow cutoffs are discussed in today's
proposal. Some of these options would require excluded facilities to
remain covered by categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR part
413 (Electroplating) and 40 CFR part 433 (Metal Finishing). In
addition, some indirect discharging facilities in the General Metals
subcategory that discharge less than 1 MGY will remain covered by the
pretreatment standards in 40 CFR part 433. EPA is not proposing
pretreatment standards for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory.
Therefore, all indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory will
remain subject to the applicable pretreatment standards in 40 CFR part
413 or 40 CFR part 433.
In this section, the Agency discusses only some of the flow cutoff
options for each subcategory. EPA presents its analysis of a full range
of flow cutoff options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory in
the Technical Development Document.
Table XII.C-1 below summarizes the pounds of pollutants removed by
the proposed options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory, and
Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with
the proposed options for indirect dischargers in each subcategory with
proposed standards. EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for the
Non-Chromium Anodizing, Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry
Dock subcategories for the reasons described later in this section.
(See Section IX for summary tables for direct dischargers).
Table XII.C-1.--Annual Pounds of Pollutant Removed by the Proposed PSES Option for Indirect Dischargers by
Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority and Priority and
Subcategory (number of Selected option nonconventional nonconventional Cyanide (lb-
facilities) (flow cutoff) metals (lb-removed/ organics (lb- removed/yr)
yr) removed/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,055)........... Option 2 (1 MGY)... 28.1 million....... 7.7 million........ 284,000.
Metal Finishing Job Shops (1,514) Option 2........... 2.4 million........ 47,000............. 1 million.
Printed Wiring Boards (621)...... Option 2........... 2.6 million........ 14,000............. 230,000.
Steel Forming and Finishing (110) Option 2........... 617,000............ 16,000............. 181.
[[Page 464]]
Oily Waste (226)................. Option 6 (2 MGY)... 191,000............ 1.1 million........ 0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table XII.C-2.--Annual Costs and Economic Impacts of the Proposed PSES Option for Indirect Dischargers by
Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic
impacts
(facility
Annualized compliance closures) of
Subcategory (number of facilities) Selected option (flow costs for selected option selected
cutoff) ($1996) option
(percent of
regulated
subcategory *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Metals (3,055).................. Option 2 (1 MGY).......... 1.57 billion.............. 24 (1%)
Metal Finishing Job Shops (1,514)....... Option 2.................. 178 million............... 128 (10%)
Printed Wiring Boards (621)............. Option 2.................. 147 million............... 7 (1%)
Steel Forming and Finishing (110)....... Option 2.................. 24 million................ 6 (6%)
Oily Waste (226)........................ Option 6 (2 MGY).......... 10 million................ 14 (1%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Baseline closures will not be regulated and, therefore, are not included when estimating the percentage of
regulatory closures (% regulatory closures = regulatory closures/all facilities in subcategory excluding
baseline closures).
D. General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA uses to
determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants
discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency only applied
the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected for regulation
under BAT. For the General Metals subcategory, EPA determined that 13
pollutants pass through; and therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment
standards equivalent to BAT for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Options
As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the General Metals Subcategory, EPA considered the same
technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the additional
consideration of a flow cutoff. The Agency is proposing BAT Option 2
with a 1 MGY flow cutoff for PSES. EPA is proposing Option 2 for many
of the same reasons it selected that option for BPT and BAT (See
Sections IX.A and XI.A) and provides additional rationale below.
EPA determined that Option 2 represented the best available
technology and that Option 2 with a 1 MGY flow cutoff was economically
achievable and greatly reduced the burden on POTWs. This option results
in 24 facility closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect
discharging General Metals subcategory population). See Section XVI.E
for a discussion on job losses. Additionally, the Agency believes that
Option 2 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
Approximately 15 percent of the indirect discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory employ chemical precipitation followed by a
sedimentation (Option 2) while 1 percent employ microfiltration after
chemical precipitation (Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 with a 1 MGY flow cutoff as a basis for
establishing PSES. EPA estimates that the economic impact due to the
additional controls at Option 4 levels would result in 92 facility
closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect dischargers in this
subcategory). See Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses. While
EPA does not have a bright line for determining what level of impact is
economically achievable for the industry as a whole, EPA looked for a
breakpoint that would mitigate adverse economic impacts without greatly
affecting the toxic pound equivalents being removed under the proposed
rule. By selecting Option 2 as PSES, EPA was able to reduce facility
closures by more than two-thirds, while only losing a little over one
percent of the toxic pound equivalents from control under Option 4. The
Agency concluded that the additional facility closures associated with
Option 4 do not justify the insignificant additional pollutant removals
achieved for indirect dischargers in this subcategory.
Considering the large number of indirect dischargers in the General
Metals subcategory which have the potential to be covered by this
proposed regulation, an important issue to the affected industry and to
permit writers is the potentially enormous administrative burden
associated with issuing permits or other control mechanisms for all of
these facilities. Therefore, in developing this proposal, EPA has
looked for means of reducing the administrative burden, reducing
monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting requirements. In order
to meet this end, the Agency is proposing a 1 million gallon per year
(MGY) flow cutoff for the General Metals subcategory. Under this
proposed option, facilities in the General Metals subcategory that
discharge greater than 1 MGY of MP&M process wastewater would be
subject to the proposed categorical pretreatment standards. Facilities
in the General Metals subcategory that discharge 1 MGY or less would
not be subject to MP&M PSES requirements. However, some of the
facilities in this subcategory discharging under 1 MGY are currently
covered by 40 CFR part 433, Metal Finishing PSES or PSNS, and these
indirect dischargers would remain subject to those pretreatment
standards and the general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR part 403.
The Agency determined that the 1 MGY flow cutoff was appropriate
for the
[[Page 465]]
General Metals subcategory based on several factors. First, and the
most important factor, was the overall size of the General Metals
subcategory. EPA estimates that there are over 26,000 indirect
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory, of which 74
percent are not currently regulated by nationally established effluent
guidelines. Establishing an MP&M pretreatment standard for all 26,000
facilities would greatly increase the number of permits or other
control mechanisms for which local authorities are responsible. (EPA
estimates that there are approximately 30,000 control mechanisms
today.) EPA concluded that this increased permit burden was not
reasonable and therefore explored potential flow cutoffs as a way to
reduce the impact on POTW permitting authorities.
Second, EPA is proposing the 1 MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory
based in part on the small number of pound-equivalents that would be
removed by facilities with annual wastewater flows less than or equal
to 1 MGY. EPA determined that 89 percent of the indirect discharging
facilities in the General Metals subcategory discharge less than or
equal to 1 MGY, yet these facilities are responsible for less than 6
percent of the total pound-equivalents currently discharged. If the
Agency proposed pretreatment standards for facilities in the General
Metals subcategory that discharged less than or equal to 1 MGY, it
estimates average removals of only 22 pound-equivalents per facility
per year for those facilities. EPA recently decided not to promulgate
pretreatment standards for two industrial categories, Industrial
Laundries (64 FR 45072) and Landfills (65 FR 3008), based on low
removals of toxic pound equivalents by facilities in those categories.
In the industrial laundries rule, EPA decided not to promulgate
pretreatment standards based on 32 toxic pound equivalents per facility
per year, and in the landfills effluent guidelines, EPA decided not to
promulgate pretreatment standards for non-hazardous landfills based on
the removal of only 14 toxic pound equivalents per facility per year.
In both instances, the Agency considered that the small additional
removals that would be achieved through regulation did not warrant
adoption of national categorical standards.
The Agency concluded that regulation of facilities discharging only
22 pound-equivalents per year was not justified by the additional
permitting burden associated with these facilities. Although this
decision is based upon a subset of small facilities, and not an entire
subcategory as was done before, EPA believes this approach would allow
Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the facilities
discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to
the overall problem. EPA acknowledges that this may create an economic
advantage for the smaller facilities, and solicits comment on this
exclusion.
EPA also closely evaluated Option 2 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff for
the General Metals subcategory. The Agency is not proposing this option
because it does not reduce the number of facility closures (24) or
further reduce the burden on control authorities in a significant way,
and there is a significant number of pound equivalents associated with
facilities discharging between 1 and 2 MGY. EPA determined that only 3
percent more of the facilities in this subcategory discharge between 1
and 2 MGY. This small number of facilities accounts for an additional
13 percent of the annual pollutant discharge load (in pound-
equivalents). If EPA proposed Option 2 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff, the
economic impacts would not be reduced. Based on these considerations,
EPA is not proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff for the General Metals
subcategory. EPA concluded that the 1 MGY flow cutoff was the most
appropriate option in terms of balancing POTW burden reduction with
pollutant removals and mitigating economic impacts. Table XII.C-1 above
shows the pounds of pollutants removed by the proposed option, and
Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with
the proposed option. Where these General Metals facilities discharge
less than or equal to 1 MGY to a POTW, these pretreatment standards
proposed today do not apply; however, facilities are still subject to
other applicable pretreatment standards, including those established
under parts 413 and 433. EPA requests comment on the 1 MGY flow cutoff
and whether a higher or lower cutoff would be appropriate. EPA also
requests comment on whether the flow cutoff should be different for
facilities currently covered under 40 CFR part 413 or part 433 and
whether or not that would create an unfair economic advantage for those
facilities (e.g., captive electroplating shops in General Metals
remaining regulated under 40 CFR part 433 but Metal Finishing Job Shops
being regulated under the proposed MP&M rule).
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.D.1, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the General Metals subcategory equivalent to those
limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.15
(as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies this
preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.15 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) (See Section XXII.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
E. Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed above in Section XII.A., one of the factors that EPA
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected
for regulation under BAT. For the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory, EPA determined that 12 pollutants pass through; and
therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT
for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory, EPA
considered the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with
the additional consideration of a flow cutoff. The Agency is proposing
BAT Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected that
option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.B and XI.B) and provides
additional rationale below. EPA is proposing that pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 be applied to all facilities (i.e., no flow
exclusion) for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory.
[[Page 466]]
The Agency estimates that 1,514 metal finishing job shop facilities
currently discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The Agency
projects that 128 of these facilities (10 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities when baseline closures are taken into
consideration) might close as a result of the proposed option (see
Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA concluded that this
level of impact was economically achievable for the subcategory as a
whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts, considered several
flow exclusions and compliance alternatives.
The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available''
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the
analytical minimum level. Approximately 55 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2)
while less than 1 percent employ microfiltration after chemical
precipitation (Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option 4 levels would result in 393 facility closures (32 percent of
the indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory). (See Section
XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). Thus, EPA rejected Option 4 as
not economically achievable.
The Agency evaluated Option 2 with several levels of flow cutoffs,
compliance options, and various combinations of the two. EPA analyzed
the cutoffs and alternative compliance options in terms of reduction in
economic impacts and quantity of toxic pound-equivalents discharged to
the environment. EPA did not consider the reduction in POTW burden for
this subcategory, unlike the General Metals subcategory, because EPA
has already established PSES for all of the facilities in this
subcategory under 40 CFR part 413 and 40 CFR part 433, and local
control authorities would not have to develop entirely new permits (or
other control mechanisms) for these facilities.
With respect to alternatives, first, EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow
cutoff, which would exclude 831 of the 1,514 estimated metal finishing
job shop facilities (or 457 of the 1,231 facilities after baseline
closures are removed from the analysis), and would reduce the economic
impacts for 23 of the 128 facilities EPA projected would close under
Option 2. This represents less than 2 percent of the 1,231 metal
finishing jobs that operate in the baseline and 18 percent of the
projected facility closures under Option 2. This means that there are
still 105 of the 128 facilities that EPA predicts to close with a 1 MGY
flow cutoff. Further, EPA determined that the proposed regulation would
control an average of 135 pound-equivalents per year from facilities
discharging less than 1 MGY. This is higher than the level at which EPA
has previously determined that discharges are not significant enough to
warrant national regulation. Facilities discharging less than 1 MGY are
associated with removals under the proposed option of about 61,000
pound-equivalents (or about 3 percent of the removals associated with
the proposed option) at an incremental cost-effectiveness of about $300
per pound-equivalent ($1981). This is higher than has generally been
associated with pretreatment standards in the past, though not
necessarily higher than has been associated with the smaller facilities
regulated with pretreatment standards in the past. This is to be
expected since smaller facilities incur the same level of costs for
monitoring as larger facilities and are sometimes forced to purchase
larger capacity treatment units than they would need due to
availability. Nonetheless, 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, so a 1 MGY flow cutoff is not being proposed for the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA requests comment on the use of a
flow cutoff for this subcategory.
Second, EPA considered an option with (a) MP&M pretreatment
standards for facilities discharging greater than 1 MGY and (b) a
pollution prevention alternative for those discharging less than 1 MGY.
Under this option, EPA would exclude from the MP&M numeric pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 those metal finishing job shops discharging
less than 1 MGY that choose to perform the pollution prevention and
water conservation activities discussed in Section XXI.D (referred to
as the ``P2 alternative''). EPA would require the low flow facilities
to continue to meet the pretreatment standards codified at 40 CFR part
433, which remain unchanged by today's proposal. All facilities
discharging greater than 1 MGY (and those facilities discharging less
than 1 MGY but not choosing the P2 alternative) would be subject to the
MP&M pretreatment standards for this subcategory. In analyzing this
option, EPA assumed that all facilities discharging less than 1 MGY
chose the P2 alternative. EPA's analysis shows that this option would
reduce the facility closures for 23 of the 128 facilities EPA projected
would close under Option 2 (no flow cutoff). As with the 1 MGY flow
cutoff approach discussed above, this represents less than 2 percent of
the 1,231 metal finishing jobs that operate in the baseline and about
18% of the closures projected by the proposed option. Further, although
the P2 alternative would be somewhat effective in reducing toxic
discharges, the option is not as protective as the numeric pretreatment
standards based on Option 2. For facilities discharging less than 1
MGY, EPA estimates that the P2 alternative would control 59 pound-
equivalents per facility per year (compared to 135 pound-equivalents
per facility at Option 2). Thus, EPA is not proposing the option of a 1
MGY flow cutoff combined with a P2 alternative for today's proposal.
EPA solicits comment and data on the pollutant reductions that can be
achieved using the practices outlined in Section XXI.D.
Third, EPA analyzed a 2 MGY flow cutoff, which would exclude 1,024
facilities (66 percent) from MP&M pretreatment standards. Excluding a
larger number of facilities (compared to the 1 MGY cutoff option)
resulted in a smaller number of facility closures. For this option, EPA
predicts that 59 facilities (approximately 5 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities) might close. EPA estimates that the facilities
discharging less than 2 MGY represent less than 12 percent of the total
pound-equivalents currently discharged by facilities in this
subcategory. For facilities discharging less than 2 MGY, EPA estimates
that pretreatment standards would remove an average of 189 pound-
equivalents per facility per year. While a 2 MGY flow cutoff reduced
the number of facility closures, EPA concluded that the pollutant
reductions associated with Option 2 were feasible and achievable and is
not proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff. EPA requests comment on the 2 MGY
flow cutoff for this subcategory.
Fourth, EPA analyzed the 2 MGY flow cutoff with the pollution
prevention alternative for those facilities below the cutoff. Under
this option, EPA would exclude from the MP&M numeric pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 those metal finishing job shops discharging
less than 2 MGY that choose to perform the pollution prevention and
water conservation activities discussed in Section XXI.D (i.e. the P2
alternative). EPA would require the low flow facilities to continue to
meet the
[[Page 467]]
pretreatment standards codified at 40 CFR part 433, which remain
unchanged by today's proposal. All facilities discharging greater than
2 MGY (and those facilities discharging less than 2 MGY but not
choosing the P2 alternative) would be subject to the MP&M pretreatment
standards for this subcategory. In analyzing this option, EPA assumed
that all facilities discharging less than 2 MGY chose the P2
alternative. EPA's analysis shows that this option may not reduce the
number of facility closures any further than a 1 MGY flow cutoff (or 1
MGY P2 Alternative). The model facilities representing the facilities
that close with flows of 2 MGY or less would require annualized costs
to be reduced at least 68 percent in order to avoid closure. Since
there are some compliance costs associated with implementing the
practices of the P2 alternative, EPA estimates that these may close
under the P2 Alternative. See Section XVI.E for a discussion on job
losses. Although the P2 alternative reduces the number of facility
closures as compared to an option with no flow cutoff, the option is
not as protective as numeric pretreatment standards based on Option 2.
For facilities discharging less than 2 MGY, EPA estimates that the P2
alternative would control an average of 67 pound-equivalents per
facility per year (compared to 189 pound-equivalents per facility at
Option 2). Thus, EPA is not proposing the option of 2 MGY flow cutoff
combined with a P2 alternative. EPA solicits comment and data on the
pollutant reductions that can be achieved using the practices outlined
in Section XXI.D.
In summary, for all of the flow cutoff and P2 alternatives that EPA
considered for this subcategory, the Agency identified no combination
that would significantly reduce the economic impacts without also
significantly reducing control of pollutants. At all the flow cutoffs
and compliance alternatives, EPA concluded that the potential removals
the Agency would be choosing to forego were above levels which EPA has
previously determined insufficient to warrant national categorical
pretreatment standards. Thus, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff for
this subcategory. Under the proposed option, all facilities in this
subcategory would be subject to the pretreatment standards, which would
reduce pass through of pollutants based on a technology EPA has
determined to be technologically feasible and economically achievable.
The Agency is soliciting comment on alternatives that might reduce the
economic impact and still provide acceptable environmental protection,
including all of the options discussed above. See Section XXI.D for a
discussion of the P2 alternative and Section XXIII for solicitation of
comments on this issue. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of
pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes
the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed option.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.E.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory equivalent to
those limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at
Sec. 438.25 (as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies
this preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.25 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXII.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
F. Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Non-Chromium
Anodizing subcategory based on the economic impacts associated with
Option 2 and the small quantity of toxic pollutants discharged by
facilities in this subcategory remaining covered at an economically-
achievable flow cutoff. EPA determined that 60 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in this subcategory would close as a result of
complying with Option 2 based standards. Pretreatment standards for
this subcategory based on either Option 2 or Option 4 would require
facilities to remove large quantities of aluminum, a metal that is
beneficial to POTWs because it assists in the flocculation of
wastewater prior to sedimentation. Aluminum anodizers use a large
quantity of water in their anodizing processes and produce a wastewater
that contains mostly aluminum. If the Agency proposed pretreatment
standards for this subcategory, even without regulating aluminum, the
standards would require facilities to install very large treatment
systems (because of their high flow volume) and would result in the
removal of large quantities of aluminum in order to remove small
quantities of other metals such as nickel, zinc, and manganese.
Therefore, EPA determined that the benefits of the aluminum discharge
to POTWs outweighed the benefits gained from the removal of small
quantities of other metals. In addition, because EPA has already
promulgated pretreatment standards for non-chromium anodizers at 40 CFR
parts 413 and 433, there is already a level of control for the small
quantities of other metals being discharged along with the aluminum.
Facilities subject to this subcategory must still comply with
applicable PSES limitations (either 40 CFR part 413 or 40 CFR part
433). 40 CFR 438.40(b).
G. Printed Wiring Board Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed above in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected
for regulation under BAT. For the Printed Wiring Board subcategory, EPA
determined that 9 pollutants pass through; and therefore, EPA is
proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT for these
pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B above, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory, EPA considered
the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the
additional consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is
proposing Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected
that option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.D and XI.D) and provides
additional rationale below. EPA also determined that pretreatment
standards based on Option 2 for all facilities (i.e., no flow
exclusion) are appropriate for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
The Agency estimates that 621 printed wiring board facilities currently
discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The Agency projects that 7
of these facilities (1 percent of the current indirect
[[Page 468]]
discharging population) might close as a result of the MP&M regulation
(see Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA concluded that
this level of impact was economically achievable for the subcategory as
a whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts (and or maintain
existing limitations for facilities where potential removals may not be
sufficient to warrant national regulation), considered flow exemptions
and compliance alternatives.
The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available''
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the
analytical minimum level. Approximately 80 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory employ
chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2) while 2
percent employ microfiltration after chemical precipitation (Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA
estimates that the economic impact due to the additional controls at
Option 4 levels would result in 18 more facility closures than Option 2
(total of 25 closures). EPA itEPA is not proposing to establish PSES
limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that Option 2
achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for much
less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for PSES, EPA reduced
annualized compliance costs by $75 million (1996$) while only losing
0.5 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed under
Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of Option 4 do
not justify the additional insignificant amount of pollutant removals
achieved for indirect dischargers in this subcategory. Therefore, EPA
determined that Option 2 is the ``best available'' technology
economically achievable for the Printed Wiring Board subcategory.
Although EPA concluded that the level of economic impact associated
with Option 2 with no flow cutoff was economically achievable, it
considered flow exclusions in an effort to minimize the impacts and/or
maintain existing limitations for facilities where potential removals
may not be significant enough to warrant national regulations. EPA did
not consider the reduction in POTW burden for this subcategory, unlike
the General Metals subcategory, because EPA has already established
PSES for all of the facilities in this subcategory under 40 CFR parts
413 and 433, and local control authorities would not have to develop
entirely new permits (or other control mechanisms) for these
facilities. EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow cutoff, which would exclude 85
facilities, but would not reduce economic impacts. The same 7
facilities that EPA predicted to close with no flow cutoff are also
expected to close with a 1 MGY flow cutoff. EPA determined that the
proposed regulation would remove a total of less than 500 pound
equivalents from the facilities discharging less than 1 MGY (after
removing baseline closures from the analysis), or less than 10 pound-
equivalents per facility. The incremental removals beyond current
regulations is very small for facilities less than 1 MGY, and therefore
EPA will consider the 1 MGY cutoff at final. However, the Agency
concluded that the pollutant reductions associated with Option 2 were
feasible and achievable, the economic impacts were not mitigated at a 1
MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory, and POTW burden would not be
reduced with a flow cutoff, and is thus not proposing a 1 MGY flow
cutoff for this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments on a 1 MGY
flow cutoff, with the existing regulation applying to facilities under
1 MGY. EPA also solicits comment on the implementation and market
consequences of this option. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of
pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes
the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed option.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.G.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory equivalent to those
limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.45
(as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies this
preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.45 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
H. Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed above in Section XII.A, one of the factors that EPA
uses to determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through a POTW. The Agency
only applies the pass-through analysis to pollutants that it selected
for regulation under BAT. For the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory, EPA determined that 13 pollutants pass through; and
therefore, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards equivalent to BAT
for these pollutants.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B above, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Steel Forming and Finishing Subcategory, EPA
considered the same technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with
the additional consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is
proposing Option 2 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected
that option for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.E and XI.E) and provides
additional rationale below. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards
based on Option 2 for all facilities (i.e., no flow exclusion) for the
Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory.
The Agency estimates that 110 steel forming and finishing
facilities currently discharge MP&M process wastewater to POTWs. The
Agency projects that 6 of these facilities (6 percent of the current
indirect discharging population) might close as a result of the MP&M
regulation (see Section XVI.E for a discussion on job losses). EPA
concluded that this level of impact was economically achievable for the
subcategory as a whole, but in an effort to minimize the impacts,
considered flow exemptions and compliance alternatives.
The Agency believes that Option 2 represents the ``best available''
technology as it achieves a high level of pollutant control, treating
all priority pollutants to very low levels, often at or near the
analytical minimum level. Approximately 63 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory
employ chemical precipitation followed by sedimentation (Option 2)
while no facilities employ microfiltration after chemical precipitation
(Option 4).
EPA did evaluate Option 4 as a basis for establishing PSES. EPA
estimates
[[Page 469]]
that the economic impact due to the additional controls at Option 4
levels would result in the same number of facility closures (6) as
Option 2. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 4 to be economically
achievable for this subcategory. However, EPA is not proposing to
establish PSES limitations based on Option 4 because it determined that
Option 2 achieves nearly equivalent reductions in pound-equivalents for
much less cost. By selecting Option 2 as the basis for PSES, EPA
reduced annualized compliance costs by $12 million (1996$) while only
losing 0.6 percent of the toxic pound equivalents that would be removed
under Option 4. The Agency concluded that the additional costs of
Option 4 do not justify the additional insignificant pollutant removals
achieved for indirect discharging facilities in this subcategory.
Therefore, EPA determined that Option 2 is the ``best available''
technology economically achievable for the Steel Forming and Finishing
subcategory.
Although EPA concluded that the level of economic impact associated
with Option 2 with no flow cutoff was economically achievable, it
considered flow exclusions in an effort to minimize the impacts. EPA
did not consider the reduction in POTW burden for this subcategory,
unlike the General Metals subcategory, because EPA has already
established PSES for all of the facilities in this subcategory under 40
CFR 420, and local control authorities would not have to develop
entirely new permits (or other control mechanisms) for these
facilities. However, to mitigate economic impacts (and or maintain
existing limitations for facilities where potential removals may not be
sufficient to warrant national regulation), EPA analyzed a 1 MGY flow
cutoff, which would exclude 21 facilities (after accounting for
baseline closures), and a 2 MGY flow cutoff which would exclude 30
facilities. Neither a 1 MGY flow cutoff nor a 2 MGY flow cutoff would
reduce economic impacts. The same 6 facilities that EPA predicted to
close with no flow cutoff are also expected to close with either a 1 or
2 MGY flow cutoff. However, a 1 MGY flow cutoff would eliminate less
than 100 total pound-equivalents that would be removed under the
proposed option, or less than 5 pound-equivalents per excluded
facility, while a 2 MGY flow cutoff would eliminate less than 200
pound-equivalents total, or less than 7 pound-equivalents per excluded
facility. These incremental removals beyond current regulations are
very small, and therefore EPA will consider the 1 and 2 MGY cutoffs as
final. Although a 3 MGY flow cutoff would reduce projected economic
impacts by half (3 projected closures instead of 6), it would eliminate
2,157 pound-equivalent removals, or about 58 pound-equivalents per
facility. These incremental removals are nearly twice the removals (on
a per facility basis) than would have been realized by regulating
industrial laundry and landfill facilities. Because EPA has concluded
that the proposed option is feasible and achievable, and POTW burden
would not be reduced with a flow cutoff, EPA is not proposing a flow
cutoff for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. However, EPA
solicits comment on flow cutoffs at the 1, 2, and 3 MGY levels. Under
these scenarios, existing regulations in 40 CFR part 420 would continue
to apply to the excluded facilities. Unlike the facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops or Printed Wiring Board subcategories, the
facilities in the MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing subcategory are
covered in their current regulations as parts of several subcategories,
thus creating problems for control authorities in implementing the
appropriate requirements. EPA solicits comment on implementation and
market consequences of these options. Table XII.C-1 above shows the
pounds of pollutants removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2
summarizes the costs and economic impacts associated with the proposed
option.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.H.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory equivalent to
those limitations proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at
Sec. 438.55 (as provided in the codified regulation that accompanies
this preamble). EPA determined that all of the pollutants listed in
Sec. 438.55 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass through
POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
I. Oily Wastes Subcategory
1. Need for PSES
As discussed in Section XII.A, two of the factors that EPA uses to
determine the need for pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants
discharged by an industry pass through or interfere with a POTW. For
the Oily Wastes subcategory, EPA is proposing pretreatment standards
equivalent to BAT for the following three pollutants or pollutant
parameters: TOC, TOP and total sulfide.
2. Selected PSES Option
As discussed in Section XII.B, in the Agency's engineering
assessment of the best available technology for pretreatment of
wastewater from the Oily Wastes Subcategory, EPA considered the same
technology options for PSES as it did for BAT with the additional
consideration of a flow cutoff exclusion. The Agency is proposing BAT
Option 6 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff for PSES. The Agency is proposing
Option 6 for PSES for many of the same reasons it selected that option
for BPT and BAT (See Section IX.F and XI.F) and provides additional
rationale below. EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff primarily to
reduce the burden on POTWs, and solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff as a
possible alternative to further reduce impacts.
EPA determined that Option 6 represented the best available
technology and that Option 6 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff was economically
achievable and greatly reduced the burden on POTWs. This option results
in 14 facility closures (less than 1 percent of the indirect
discharging Oily Wastes subcategory population). See Section XVI.E for
a discussion on job losses. Additionally, the Agency believes that
Option 6 represents the ``best available'' technology as it achieves a
high level of pollutant control, treating all priority pollutants to
very low levels, often at or near the analytical minimum level.
According to EPA's detailed questionnaires, approximately 44 percent of
the indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
employ oil-water separation by chemical emulsion breaking followed by
gravity separation and oil skimming (Option 6) while no facilities
employ ultrafiltration (Option 8).
EPA did evaluate BPT Option 8 with a 2 MGY flow cutoff as a basis
for establishing PSES more stringent than the level of control being
proposed
[[Page 470]]
today. EPA estimates that the economic impact due to the additional
controls at Option 8 levels would result in the same number of facility
closures (14) as Option 6. Therefore, EPA does consider Option 8 to be
economically achievable for this subcategory. However, based on the
available data base, EPA is not proposing to establish PSES limitations
based on Option 8 because it removes fewer pound-equivalents than
Option 6. Therefore, the Agency determined that Option 6 is the ``best
available'' technology economically achievable for the removal of
priority pollutants from wastewater generated at Oily Wastes
subcategory facilities.
Considering the large number of indirect dischargers which have the
potential to be covered by this proposed regulation, an important issue
to the affected industry and to permit writers is the potentially
enormous administrative burden associated with issuing permits or other
control mechanisms for all these facilities. Therefore, in developing
this proposal, EPA has looked for means of reducing the administrative
burden, reducing monitoring requirements, and reducing reporting
requirements. In order to meet this end, the Agency is proposing a 2
MGY flow cutoff for the Oily Wastes subcategory. Under this proposed
option, facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory that discharge
greater than 2 MGY per year of MP&M process wastewater would be subject
to the proposed pretreatment standards. However, those facilities in
the Oily Wastes subcategory that discharge 2 MGY or less would not be
subject to MP&M PSES requirements. These facilities would, however,
remain subject to the existing general pretreatment standards at 40 CFR
Part 403.
The Agency is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff exclusion for the
Oily Wastes subcategory based on several factors. First, and the most
important factor, was the overall size of the Oily Wastes subcategory.
EPA estimates that there are approximately 28,500 indirect discharging
facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory, of which over 99 percent are
not currently regulated by categorical pretreatment standards.
Establishing an MP&M pretreatment standard for all 28,500 facilities
would nearly double the number of permits that local authorities are
currently responsible for. EPA concluded that this increased permit
burden was not reasonable given the projected loadings reductions and
therefore explored potential flow cutoffs as a way to reduce the impact
on POTW permitting authorities.
Second, EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff for this subcategory
based in part on the small number of pound-equivalents that would be
removed by facilities with annual wastewater flows less than or equal
to 2 MGY. EPA determined that after removing facilities that close in
the baseline (``baseline closures'') from the analysis, over 99 percent
of the indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory
discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY. EPA estimates average removals
of only 2 pound-equivalents per facility per year for these facilities.
In addition, EPA determined that for those facilities in this
subcategory that discharge between 1 and 2 MGY the MP&M regulation
would remove an average of 31 pound-equivalents per year per facility.
These reductions, as discussed previously, are lower than those
projected for industrial laundries and landfills, for which EPA
determined national regulation was not warranted. The Agency concluded
that regulation of facilities discharging only 2 pound-equivalents per
year (with those discharging between 1 and 2 MGY at 31 pound-
equivalents per year) was not justified by the additional permitting
burden associated with these facilities. EPA believes this approach
would allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the
facilities discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to
the overall problem. EPA does note, however, that the indirect
discharging facilities that discharge less than or equal to 2 MGY are
responsible for an estimated 78 percent of the total pound-equivalents
currently discharged (approximately 51,000 of the 65,000 pound-
equivalents discharged after removing baseline closures from the
analysis).
EPA also closely evaluated Option 6 with a 3 MGY flow cutoff for
the Oily Waste subcategory. Based on EPA's data collection efforts,
after removing facilities that close in the baseline (``baseline
closures'') from the analysis, over 99 percent of the indirect
discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes subcategory discharge less
than or equal to 3 MGY. The Agency determined that after removing
baseline closures from the analysis there are approximately 64 indirect
discharge facilities in this subcategory between 2 and 3 MGY and that
they discharge an average of 24 pound-equivalents per year per
facility. If EPA proposed Option 2 with a 3 MGY flow cutoff, the
economic impacts would decrease slightly (12 facility closures rather
than 14 at the proposed option). The Agency concluded that the 3 MGY
flow cutoff was not necessary to reduce POTW burden for the Oily Wastes
subcategory although it would reduce the economic impact somewhat. EPA
solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff, but notes that these approximately
28,160 facilities are responsible for an estimated 81 percent of the
total pound-equivalents currently discharged (approximately 52,500 of
the 65,000 pound-equivalents discharged after removing baseline
closures from the analysis).
Therefore, EPA is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff but is also
seriously considering a 3 MGY cutoff. EPA believes this approach would
allow Control Authorities to focus their efforts on the facilities
discharging the vast majority of the pollutants, rather than
dissipating their limited resources on sites contributing much less to
the overall problem. Table XII.C-1 above shows the pounds of pollutants
removed by the proposed option, and Table XII.C-2 summarizes the costs
and economic impacts associated with the proposed option (both tables
include facilities that close in the baseline). EPA's methodology for
identifying baseline closures is discussed in Section XVI.
3. Calculation of PSES
Based on the results of the pass-through analysis discussed in
Section XII.I.1., EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for existing
sources in the Oily Wastes subcategory equivalent to those limitations
proposed for BAT for the pollutants listed at Sec. 438.65 (as provided
in the codified regulation that accompanies this preamble). EPA is
proposing a pretreatment standard for total sulfide based on potential
POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of total sulfide
from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for TOC
and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.)
4. Compliance Date
EPA is proposing to establish a three-year deadline for compliance
with PSES. Design and construction of systems adequate for compliance
with PSES will be a substantial undertaking for many MP&M sites.
J. Railroad Line Maintenance Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Railroad Line
Maintenance subcategory based on the small quantity
[[Page 471]]
of toxic pollutants discharged by facilities in this subcategory. The
Agency estimates that there are 799 indirect discharging railroad line
maintenance facilities that currently discharge 1,800 pound-equivalents
per year to our nation's waters (taking into account removals at the
POTW), or just over 2 pound-equivalents per facility per year. Based on
this analysis, EPA preliminarily concluded that there is no need to
develop nationally applicable regulations for this subcategory due to
the low levels of pollutants discharged by facilities in this
subcategory.
K. Shipbuilding Dry Dock Subcategory
1. Rationale for Not Proposing PSES
EPA is proposing to not establish PSES for the Shipbuilding Dry
Dock subcategory based on the small number of facilities in this
subcategory and on the small quantity of toxic pollutants removed by
the technology options evaluated by EPA for this proposal. The Agency
estimates that there are 6 indirect discharging facilities that have
one or more dry docks that currently discharge 852 pound-equivalents
per year to our nation's waters (taking into account removals at the
POTW). On a national basis, Option 8 (ultrafiltration + P2) removed
less than 1 pound-equivalent per year while Option 10 (DAF plus P2)
only removed 26 pound-equivalents per year (or less than 5 pound-
equivalents removed per facility per year). The Agency estimates that
all of these facilities currently have DAF treatment in place. EPA
determined that nationally-applicable regulations are unnecessary at
this time because of the small number of facilities in this subcategory
and based on the small amount of toxic pounds removed by the technology
options evaluated by the Agency. The Agency believes that pretreatment
local limits implemented on a case-by-case basis can more appropriately
address any individual toxic parameters present at these six
facilities.
XIII. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates
new source performance standards (NSPS). New facilities have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies
including process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies.
The same technologies discussed previously for BAT and PSES are
available as the basis for NSPS and PSNS. Since new sites have the
potential to install pollution prevention and pollution control
technologies more cost effectively then existing sources, EPA strongly
considered the more advanced treatment options for NSPS and PSNS. The
Agency discusses its analysis of these more stringent options for NSPS
and PSNS on a subcategory-by-subcategory basis below.
A. NSPS for the General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the General Metals subcategory
will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS regulation is the same
as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section IX.A.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option
4 is capable of achieving much lower long-term averages than Option 2
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent.
Although Option 4 costs $54,500 (1996$) more than Option 2 annually for
a new facility with a wastewater flow of 1.1 MGY (the wastewater flow
for a representative direct discharging facility in the General Metals
subcategory), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of
metal pollutants in the wastewater effluent. EPA noted in the
discussion of its consideration of this technology for BPT/BAT that it
is not being proposed for BPT because the additional removals, while
large when considered across the entire population of existing
facilities, were not significant on a per facility basis, and because
of concerns with potential increased loadings (relative to Option 2) of
COD and organic pollutants. EPA requests comment on basing NSPS on
Option 2 for the same reasons it is proposing to base BPT/BAT on Option
2.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.16. (See Section XXI.C.
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA based these proposed
regulations on EPA sampling episodes at four facilities that employed
Option 4 technologies. Three of the four facilities are General Metals
facilities while the fourth is a printed wiring board manufacturer. The
Agency used the same statistical methods for determining the effluent
limitations for NSPS as it described in Section VIII. Because of the
limited number of facilities that EPA has analytical sampling data on
for Option 4, the Agency is soliciting comment and data on Option 4
technologies. Specifically, the Agency is interested in wastewater
treatment data from MP&M facilities employing Option 4 technologies
(ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and microfiltration
following chemical precipitation for removal of TSS and metals). See
Section XXIII ``Solicitation of Comments.''
4. NSPS Analysis
The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities
in the General Metals subcategory. EPA determined that the cost of
compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.04 percent
of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA concluded that
NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to entry.
B. PSNS for the General Metals Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the General Metals subcategory
will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants that existing
sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS regulation is the same
as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section XII.D.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. EPA is also requesting comment on basing PSNS on
Option 2, as with NSPS. In addition, EPA is
[[Page 472]]
proposing a 1 MGY flow cutoff exclusion for PSNS. This is the same flow
cutoff level that EPA is proposing for PSES for the existing indirect
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory. The Agency
concluded that a 1 MGY flow cutoff is appropriate for new indirect
discharging facilities in the General Metals subcategory based on the
potential POTW permitting burden that would be associated with
developing and then maintaining permits for new sources with low flows
and the likelihood that these facilities discharge a small amount of
pound-equivalents at these low flow rates. The Agency assumes that the
pound-equivalents removed per facility for new facilities with flows
below or equal to 1 MGY would be even lower than the 22 pound-
equivalents per facility for similarly sized existing sources in this
subcategory. The Agency concluded that a similar (or even smaller)
amount of pollutant removal is not significant and does not justify
regulation of these facilities by a national categorical regulation.
EPA solicits comment on whether it is appropriate to exclude new
sources that discharge process wastewater equal to 1 million gallons or
less for the reasons described above.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.17. EPA determined that all of the pollutants
listed in Sec. 438.17 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a limitation for total sulfide based on
potential POTW interference or upset associated with discharges of
total sulfide from MP&M facilities. EPA is proposing limitations for
TOC and TOP as part of a compliance alternative for organic pollutant
discharges. (See Section XXI.C. for a discussion of monitoring
flexibility.) The Agency based these proposed limitations on the same
four EPA sampling episodes that EPA discussed in Section XIII.A.3.
4. PSNS Analysis
Like NSPS, the Agency determined that the cost of compliance with
PSNS based on Option 4 would make up only 0.09 percent of a new
facility's projected revenues and concluded that this would not create
a barrier to entry.
C. NSPS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for NSPS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for NSPS
regulation is the same as the need for BPT regulation. (See Section
IX.B.1).
2. Selected NSPS Option
EPA is proposing New Source Performance Standards for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4. The Agency determined that Option 4
is the best available demonstrated technology for the removal of
pollutants in this subcategory. EPA's analytical data shows that Option
4 is capable of achieving much lower long term averages than Option 2
for several of the metal pollutants of concern. In addition, EPA's data
shows that microfiltration greatly reduces the variability in the
concentration of the metal pollutants in the treatment effluent.
Although Option 4 costs $72,500 (1996$) more than Option 2 annually for
a new facility with a wastewater flow of 6.0 MGY (the wastewater flow
for a representative direct discharging facility in the Metal Finishing
Job Shops), EPA is proposing Option 4 because of the lower levels of
metal pollutants in the treated wastewater effluent. EPA is not
proposing Option 4 for BPT for this subcategory because of the lack of
significant overall pollutant removals achieved, and the fact that it
removes less COD, O&G, and organic pollutants. EPA requests comment on
using Option 2 as the basis for NSPS.
The Agency also strongly considered proposing NSPS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this NSPS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of NSPS Limitations
The Agency is proposing NSPS limitations for all of the pollutants
that it proposed BPT and BAT limitations for in this subcategory. The
NSPS limitations for this subcategory can be found in the proposed rule
(which accompanies this preamble) at Sec. 438.26. (See Section XXI.C
for a discussion of monitoring flexibility.) EPA based these proposed
regulations on the same four EPA sampling episodes that it used to
calculate NSPS for the General Metals subcategory. See Section XIII.A.
4. NSPS Analysis
The Agency also performed an economic analysis in order to
determine if Option 4 presented a barrier to entry for new facilities
in the Metal Finishing subcategory. EPA determined that the cost of
compliance with NSPS based on Option 4 would make up only 1.41 percent
of a new facility's projected revenues. Therefore, EPA concluded that
NSPS based on Option 4 would not create a barrier to entry.
D. PSNS for the Metal Finishing Job Shops Subcategory
1. Need for PSNS
EPA expects that new facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops
subcategory will discharge similar quantities of the same pollutants
that existing sources discharge. Therefore, the need for PSNS
regulation is the same as the need for PSES regulation. (See Section
XII.E.1).
2. Selected PSNS Option
EPA is proposing Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for this
subcategory based on BAT Option 4 for the same reasons it is proposing
this option for NSPS. EPA is also requesting comment on PSNS limits
based on Option 2. In addition, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff
exclusion for PSNS for this subcategory for the same reasons that it
did not propose a flow cutoff for PSES, but is requesting comment on
flow cutoffs of 1 and 2 MGY, as with PSES. (See Section XII.E.)
The Agency also strongly considered proposing PSNS based on
ultrafiltration for oil and grease removal and chemical precipitation
followed by sedimentation for TSS and metals removal. This option is
equivalent to BAT Option 2 with the oil/water separator replaced by an
ultrafilter. The Agency is soliciting comment and data on this PSNS
option for the final rule.
3. Calculation of PSNS Limitations
The Agency is proposing PSNS limitations for the same pollutants
that it proposed PSES regulations. The PSNS limitations for this
subcategory can be found in the proposed rule (which accompanies this
preamble) at Sec. 438.27. EPA determined that all of the pollutants
listed in Sec. 438.27 (except for Total Sulfide, TOC, and TOP) pass
through POTWs. EPA is proposing a
[[Continued on page 473]]