[Federal Register: January 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 2)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 523-558]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ja01-31]
[[pp. 523-558]] Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point
Source Category; Proposed Rule
[[Continued from page 522]]
[[Page 523]]
familiar with the facility's processes, products, and analytical
monitoring reports should be able to make the determination. Some
facilities may prefer consultation with an analytical chemist.
EPA is proposing to set numerical limitations on the discharge of
total sulfide from facilities in several subcategories. In an effort to
reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA is considering
(but not proposing) to allow a waiver for the monitoring of total
sulfide (even when present). EPA would require this demonstration one
time per permit cycle and if no major changes in processes or raw
materials change during that period, the demonstration would not have
to be repeated for the next permit cycle. A wastewater treatment
operator or other qualified facility personnel who is familiar with the
facility's processes, products, and analytical monitoring reports can
make the determination.
Finally, EPA is considering, but not proposing, whether to allow
certain facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory to
demonstrate compliance with specified pollution prevention and water
conservation practices (in addition to maintaining compliance with the
existing Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines) in
lieu of meeting the requirements of the MP&M regulation. Facilities
would submit certification statements one time initially (by the
compliance deadline) and twice per year thereafter for indirect
dischargers, or once per year for direct dischargers. The compliance
paperwork necessary to implement this alternative would likely require
the attention of the wastewater treatment operator or plant manager.
f. Overlapping Federal Rules
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 and 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. As
discussed above, EPA's ``Preliminary Data Summary for the Machinery
Manufacturing and Rebuilding Industry'' (EPA 440/1-89/106) identified
the MP&M industry as one that is discharging hazardous wastes to
publicly owned treatment works and directly into the nation's surface
waters.
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. However, for the existing Electroplating
(40 CFR part 413) and Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent
guidelines most facilities will be covered by this proposal. EPA is
proposing to replace the existing Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) and
Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent guidelines with the MP&M
regulations for all facilities in the Printed Wiring Board subcategory,
all facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory, and for
direct discharging facilities in the Non-Chromium Anodizers
subcategory. (See 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. 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 Section III.D of
this preamble for additional discussion of applicability.
2. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject
to the rule's requirements. The Panel consisted of representatives from
three Federal agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration, and the
Office of Management and Budget. The Panel reviewed materials EPA
prepared in connection with the IRFA, and collected the advice and
recommendations of small entity representatives. 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). Prior to and following the convening of
the Panel, EPA and the other members of the Panel sought to gather
advice and recommendations by meeting and consulting with the small
entity representatives listed above. On September 16, 1999 and October
5, 1999, EPA held pre-Panel meetings with the potential small entity
representatives to provide background information on the MP&M
regulation and EPA's regulatory process and to provide detailed
information on the elements of the IRFA including possible regulatory
alternatives. After EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chair convened the
Panel on December 8, 1999, the Panel provided over 300 pages of
background information and analysis to the small entity representatives
and met with the representatives on
[[Page 524]]
December 17, 1999 and January 7, 2000. The Panel asked the small entity
representatives to submit written comment on the MP&M rulemaking in
relation to the elements of the IRFA. The Panel carefully considered
these comments when developing its recommendations.
Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
the elements of the IRFA and prepared a report. The report summarizes
the Panel's outreach efforts to small entities and the comments
submitted by the small entity representatives. The Panel's report also
presents their findings on issues related to the elements of an IRFA
and recommendations regarding the rulemaking. EPA included a copy of
the Panel report in the docket for this proposed rule.
In the area of potential reporting, record keeping and compliance
requirements, the Panel recommended that EPA consider reduced
monitoring schemes for small entities including incorporating several
concepts of the proposed EPA NPDES Streamlining regulations
(``Amendments to Streamline the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Program Regulations: Round 2; Proposed Rule'' 61 FR
65268; December 11, 1996). For example, the Panel ``encourages EPA to
explore options for allowing certification in lieu of monitoring where
an operator can determine, based on knowledge of the facility and its
processes, that certain pollutants are not likely to be present or are
adequately controlled.'' Based on the Panel's recommendations, EPA is
proposing to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to apply for a
waiver that will allow them to reduce their monitoring burden. In order
for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the facility must submit
a certification statement in writing to the control authority (e.g.,
POTW) stating that the facility does not use nor generate in any way a
pollutant (or pollutants) at their site or that the pollutant (or
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the
discharger. EPA notes that the NPDES streamlining for direct
dischargers, which includes a similar provision, was finalized on May
15, 2000 (65 FR 30886).
The Panel also recommended that EPA give serious consideration to
allowing the use of best management practices (BMPs) instead of
numerical limitations, at least for some pollutants and/or
subcategories of facilities. In response to this recommendation, EPA is
soliciting comment and data on a ``Pollution Prevention Alternative for
the Metal Finishing Job Shop Subcategory.'' This alternative would
allow facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shop subcategory to
implement a set of pollution prevention measures in lieu of monitoring
for a set of regulated parameters. The Agency is also soliciting
comment on allowing facilities in other subcategories to comply with
this pollution prevention alternative. EPA fully describes this
potential alternative in Section XXI.D.
In relation to proposing an indicator for toxic organic
constituents to reduce the burden of monitoring for specific organic
pollutants, the Panel recommended that EPA attempt to identify an
appropriate organic indicator if it turns out that limitations for
organic pollutants are appropriate for one or more subcategories.
However, the Panel also recommended that if organic pollutant removals
by subcategory are not higher than levels in the preliminary analysis
provided to the Panel, then EPA should give serious consideration to
not proposing pretreatment standards for those pollutants in those
subcategories. In response to this recommendation, the Agency is
proposing several alternatives for organic pollutant monitoring. EPA is
proposing to allow the use of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) as an
indicator parameter for organic pollutants found in the wastewater
discharges at MP&M facilities. The indicator is an alternative limit.
If facilities do not wish to use TOC as an indicator, EPA is proposing
two other alternatives. The second alternative allows facilities to
monitor for a list of organic pollutants (i.e., total organics
parameter (TOP) list) and to meet a limit which would equate to the
summation of all quantifiable values of the listed organic pollutants.
The third alternative allows facilities to develop and certify the
implementation of an ``organic chemical management plan.'' The Agency
further discusses these organic monitoring alternatives in Section
XXI.C.
The Panel also recommended that EPA not regulate TSS, pH, iron, or
aluminum for indirect dischargers. The Agency is not proposing
pretreatment standards for any of these parameters.
In the area of overlap with other Federal rules, the Panel
recommended that EPA attempt to minimize the potential for MP&M
facilities to be covered by more than one effluent guideline and that
EPA clarify in the preamble how it plans to regulate facilities that
have operations covered by more than one effluent guideline. In
response to this recommendation, EPA has made an effort to clearly
define the applicability of the proposed MP&M rule. In addition, EPA is
replacing the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) and Electroplating (40
CFR part 413) effluent guidelines for a large number of facilities.
Therefore, these facilities will only be covered by the MP&M rule.
The Panel recommended that EPA consider regulatory alternatives,
including a ``no regulation'' option, to reduce any significant
economic impacts that are not justified by environmental improvements
and to improve the cost-effectiveness of the regulation. In response to
these recommendations, the Agency is proposing low flow exclusions for
two subcategories and is proposing not to establish pretreatment
standards for three other subcategories based on low levels of
pollutants discharged. EPA discusses these issues throughout this
notice (see Sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for detailed discussions of
the proposed flow cutoff (or no regulation) by subcategory).
Additionally, as recommended by the Panel, EPA has solicited data
and comment on the following topics discussed in the Panel report: the
cost savings to Control Authorities and dischargers of BMPs in lieu of
numerical limitations; in-process versus end-of-pipe monitoring for
cyanide; inclusion of the steel wire producers in the proposed rule;
costs for contract hauling; certain methodological issues, including
costs and adequacy of operational changes or treatment enhancements for
BAT facilities to consistently and reliably achieve full compliance
with proposed limitations; the POTW removals methodology; and the
revision to the Toxic Weighting Factors. EPA invites comments on all
aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities (see Section
XXIII for a specific request for comment on each of these issues).
D. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or
[[Page 525]]
State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in
the public record.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule establishes effluent
limitations imposing requirements that apply to metal product and
machinery facilities, as defined by this preamble, when they discharge
wastewater. The rule applies to States and localities when they own and
operate an in-scope MP&M facility. EPA estimates 4,300 MP&M facilities
are owned and operated by State and local governments. Only 730 of
these 4,300 facilities discharge MP&M process wastewater at levels
above the flow exclusions for the General Metals and Oily Wastes
subcategories (1 MGY and 2 MGY, respectively).
In addition, this proposed rule will affect State and local
governments when they are administering CWA permitting programs. The
proposed rule, at most, imposes minimal administrative costs on States
that have an authorized NPDES program. (These States must incorporate
the new limitations and standards in new and reissued NPDES permits).
In an effort to minimize this administrative burden, EPA has
incorporated a low flow cutoff for indirect dischargers in the two
largest subcategories (i.e., General Metals and Oily Waste) to reduce
permitting burden on POTWs related to permitting the smallest MP&M
facilities (see Sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for discussions on the
proposed low flow exclusion). The total cost of today's proposal to
governments (including regulated MP&M government-owned facilities and
regulators) is less than $15 million. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule. See Section XXII.B for a discussion of the
administrative costs to State and local governments.
Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did
consult with State and local government representatives in developing
this proposal. EPA developed and administered a survey questionnaire to
collect information from POTWs on the burden of implementing permits
for MP&M facilities (see Section V.B.5 for a information on the POTW
survey questionnaire). In addition, EPA attended several industry and
professional meetings such as the National Metal Finishing Strategic
Goals Summit and the annual meetings of the Association of Municipal
Sewerage Authorities (AMSA) to talk to States and local governments
(and other stakeholders) about the MP&M proposed rule including several
possible alternative options for monitoring. States and local
government representatives were also present at EPA's public meetings
on the MP&M proposed rule (see Section V.E of this notice for a
discussion on public outreach efforts). Section II.D summarizes many of
the major concerns expressed by MP&M stakeholders (including State and
local governments) during the development of this proposal.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
1. E.O. 12898 Requirements
Executive Order 12898 requires that, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, each Federal agency must make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission. E.O. 12898
provides that each Federal agency must conduct its programs, policies,
and activities that substantially affect human health or the
environment in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including
populations) from participation in, denying persons (including
populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including
populations) to discrimination under such programs, policies, and
activities because of their race, color, or national origin.
2. Environmental Justice Analysis
EPA examined whether the proposed regulation will promote
environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M discharges. This
analysis first examines whether the proposed rule specifically reduces
risks to disadvantaged populations. EPA then examined whether MP&M
discharges have a disproportionally high environmental impact on
minority populations based on the demographic characteristics of the
populations residing in the counties affected by MP&M discharges.
a. Changes in Health Risk for Subsistence Anglers
Subsistence anglers include low-income and minority populations
that rely heavily on subsistence fishing in their food supply.
Subsistence anglers are likely to be at disproportionally high risk
from consumption of contaminated fish because of heavy reliance on fish
caught in local waters in their diets. EPA's analysis of changes in
adverse health effects from the proposed rule show that benefits to
subsistence anglers substantially exceed benefits to recreational
anglers.
EPA used the same methodology for estimating cancer and systemic
health risk used in the national human health benefits analysis to
estimate changes in health risk to subsistence anglers. EPA's estimates
show that subsistence anglers face significantly higher cancer risk
from fish consumption than recreational anglers at the baseline
discharge levels. The estimated average lifetime cancer risk in the
baseline for subsistence and recreational anglers is 20.3 in a million
and 8.08 in a million, respectively. The estimated reduction in average
lifetime cancer risk for subsistence anglers is more than double the
reduction in risk for sport anglers (i.e., 7.70 in a million vs. 3.77
in a million) (see Table XXII.F-1).
[[Page 526]]
Table XXII.F-1.--Estimated Changes in Lifetime Cancer Risk to Subsistence vs. Recreational Anglers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average lifetime cancer risk per individual Estimated changes in individual lifetime cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------------- risk
Exposed population category --------------------------------------------------
Baseline Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8 Proposed option Option 2/6/10 Option 4/8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsistence Anglers............ 20.3E-06 12.6E-06 12.4E-06 12.8E-06 7.7E-06 7.9E-06 7.5E-06
Recreational Anglers........... 8.1E-06 4.3E-06 4.3E-06 4.5E-06 3.8E-06 3.8E-06 3.6E-06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed changes in systemic health risk from fish
consumption to subsistence anglers. This analysis is performed at the
sample level only. The results from this analysis show that
approximately 7,000 subsistence anglers (two percent) in reaches near
sample facilities are estimated to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates
sufficient to pose a significant risk of health effects at the baseline
discharge levels. The proposed regulation reduces the number of
subsistence anglers at risk of developing deleterious health effects by
4,616 (66 percent) (see Table XXII.F-2.).
Table XXII.F-2.--Changes in Systemic Health Risk to Subsistence Anglers (Sample Basis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsistence anglers exposed to Subsistence anglers
hazard ratio >1 a benefitting from the MP&M rule
Total exposed ---------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory status subsistence Percent of
anglers Number of total exposed Number of Percent of
individuals individuals individuals baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................ 320,366 6,971 2.18 .............. ..............
Proposed option................. 320,366 2,355 0.74 4,616 66
Option 2/6/10................... 320,366 2,355 0.74 4,616 66
Option 4/8...................... 320,366 2,355 0.74 4,616 66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Hazard ratio is a ratio of the estimated ingestion rate of a pollutant to the reference dose (RfD) value for
the pollutant. The RfD is an estimate of the maximum daily ingestion rate in mg/kg per day that is likely to
be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. A hazard ratio greater than one
indicates that individuals would be expected to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates sufficient to pose a
significant risk of systemic health effects.
b. Demographic Characteristics of the Populations Residing in the
Counties Affected by MP&M Discharges
EPA assessed whether adverse environmental, human health, or
economic effects associated with MP&M facility discharges are more
likely to be borne by minorities and low-income populations. This
analysis is based on information on the race, national origin, and
income level of populations residing in the counties traversed by
reaches receiving discharges from 885 sample MP&M facilities. The
analysis was not done at the national level. The 885 sample facilities
are located in 643 counties in 46 States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii,
Nevada, and Wyoming). Two sample facilities that are located in Puerto
Rico were excluded from this analysis due to insufficient data.
EPA compared demographic data on the counties traversed by sample
MP&M reaches with the corresponding state-level indicators. The results
of this analysis show that counties affected by MP&M discharges tend to
have a larger proportion of African-American population than the State
average in 41 States. In five States, the proportion of African-
Americans in MP&M counties corresponds to the State averages (District
of Columbia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and West
Virginia). Other socioeconomic characteristics of the populations
residing in the counties abutting reaches affected by MP&M discharges
reflect the corresponding State averages.
3. Findings
Findings from the EPA's analysis show that this proposed rule is
expected to promote environmental justice in the areas affected by MP&M
discharges. EPA's analysis of changes in adverse health effects from
the proposed rule indicate that health benefits to 3.8 million
subsistence anglers substantially exceed benefits to recreational
anglers. The estimated reduction in annual cancer risk is an order of
magnitude greater for subsistence than for sport anglers (i.e., 0.5 in
one hundred million vs 0.5 in one billion). The proportion of
subsistence anglers that face a hazard ratio of greater than one under
the baseline conditions (2.2 percent) declines by 1.5 percent due to
the proposed rule (see Table XXII.F-2). [Note: the hazard ratio is a
ratio of the estimated ingestion rate of a pollutant to the reference
dose (RfD) value point. A hazard ratio greater than one indicates that
individuals would be expected to ingest MP&M pollutants at rates
sufficient to pose a significant risk of systemic health effects.] A
much smaller proportion of recreational anglers (0.15 percent) is
expected to suffer from systemic health risk effects under the baseline
conditions. The percentage of recreational anglers facing a hazard
ratio of one drops to 0.05 percent under the post-compliance. Higher
representation of African-American households in the areas where most
MP&M sample facilities are located and their effluents are released
indicates that the disadvantaged populations will receive a relatively
larger share of the benefits from the MP&M rule, though they may also
bear a disproportionate share of costs if the MP&M facilities that
close are in their community (e.g., lost jobs).
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
1. E.O. 13045 Requirements
The Executive Order ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a
[[Page 527]]
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This
proposed rule is subject to the Executive Order because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866. It
is expected to reduce numerous pollutants, including lead, in fish
tissue and drinking water that exceed human health criteria for
consumption of water and organisms and organisms only. Therefore, EPA
has performed an analysis of children's health impacts reduced by this
proposed rule.
2. Analysis of Children's Health Impacts
EPA expects that the proposed regulation will benefit children in
many ways, including reducing health risk from exposure to MP&M
pollutants from consumption of contaminated fish tissue and drinking
water and improving recreational opportunities. The Agency was able to
quantify only one category of benefits to children, however--avoided
health damages to pre-school age children from reduced exposure to
lead. This analysis considered several measures of children's health
benefits associated with lead exposure for children up to age six.
Avoided neurological and cognitive damages were expressed as changes in
three metrics: (1) Overall IQ levels, (2) the incidence of low IQ
scores (70), and (3) the incidence of blood-lead levels above 20 mg/dL.
The Agency also assessed changes in incidence of neonatal mortality
from reduced maternal exposure to lead. EPA's methodology for assessing
benefits to children and adults is presented in Section XX.B.3.c. This
analysis showed that the proposed rule is expected to yield $14.4
million (1999$) in annual benefits to children from reduced
neurological and cognitive damages and reduced incidence of neonatal
mortality.
The Agency also examined whether lead discharges from MP&M
facilities are likely to have a disproportionate impact on children in
subsistence anglers' families. Children in subsistence fishing families
face a greater risk of adverse health effects from exposure to lead-
contaminated fish due to high proportion of fish from local waters in
their diet. EPA's analysis showed that the beneficial outcome of the
MP&M rule favor children from subsistence fishing families. The average
estimated health risk reduction per child for each of the four lead-
related health effects was much larger for children from subsistence
fishing families. This finding is also supported by the monetary
estimates of benefits per child in each population category. EPA
estimated that the monetary value of benefits to a child from a
subsistence fishing family is $781.2 (1999$) per year, as compared to
$82.6 (1999$) for a child from a recreational fishing family. These
benefits comprise a much larger portion of subsistence fishing families
income compared to the benefits received by a recreational fishing
because subsistence fishing families (e.g., Native American families)
have on average a lower household income. EPA estimated that the
monetary value of benefits from reduced cognitive damages to children
for a subsistence household is about 2.9 percent of their current
household income, while benefits for a recreational fishing family is
0.2 percent of their household income. This analysis uses average
household income in Native American families and average household
income of all households in the United States. Table XXII.G-1
summarizes estimated changes in health risk and the monetary value of
benefits to children from recreational and subsistence fishing
families.
Table XXII.G-1.--Estimated Benefits to Pre-School Children From Reduced Exposure to Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated monetary value of
Reduction in avoided health damages to
Population Number of the number of children (1999$)--mean
Benefit category category children adverse health estimates
(ages 0 to 1) effect cases -------------------------------
Total Per child
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preferred Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality........... Recreation...... .............. 0.92 $5,536,000 $47
Subsistence..... .............. 0.69 $4,002,000 $609
Avoided IQ Loss............... Recreation...... .............. 390.43 $3,934,410 $30
Subsistence..... .............. 98.65 $994,104 $151
Reduced IQ 70................. Recreation...... .............. 0.02 $101,311 $1
Subsistence..... .............. 0.09 $25,079 $4
Reduced PbB >20............... Recreation...... .............. 0.03 $686 (\1\)
Subsistence..... .............. 0.06 $60 (\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... Recreation...... 131,511 .............. $9,372,407 $83
Subsistence..... 6,576 .............. $5,021,243 $764
All Children.... 138,087 .............. $14,393,650 $120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2/6/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality........... Recreation...... .............. 0.95 $5,510,000 $49
Subsistence..... .............. 0.71 $4,118,000 $626
Avoided IQ Loss............... Recreation...... .............. 402.75 $4,058,465 $31
Subsistence..... .............. 101.74 $1,025,276 $156
Reduced IQ 70................. Recreation...... .............. 0.02 $104,529 $1
Subsistence..... .............. 0.09 $25,866 $4
Reduced PbB >20............... Recreation...... .............. 0.03 $609 (\1\)
Subsistence..... .............. 0.04 $36 (\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... Recreation...... 131,511 .............. $9,546,407 $84
Subsistence..... 6,576 .............. $5,013,243 $781
[[Page 528]]
All Children.... 138,087 .............. $14,683,650 $122
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4/8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Natal Mortality........... Recreation...... .............. 0.95 $5,510,000 $49
Subsistence..... .............. 0.71 $4,118,000 $626
Avoided IQ Loss............... Recreation...... .............. 402.75 $4,058,465 $31
Subsistence..... .............. 101.74 $1,025,276 $156
Reduced IQ 70................. Recreation...... .............. 0.02 $104,529 $1
Subsistence..... .............. 0.09 $25,866 $4
Reduced PbB >20............... Recreation...... .............. 0.03 $609 (\1\)
Subsistence..... .............. 0.04 $36 (\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... Recreation...... 131,511 .............. $9,673,603 $85
Subsistence..... 6,576 .............. $5,169,178 $786
All Children.... 138,087 .............. $14,842,781 $124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Negligible.
Children over age six are also likely to benefit from reduced
neurological and cognitive damages due to reduced exposure to lead.
Recent research on brain development among 10-to 18-year-old children
shows unanticipated and substantial growth in brain development, mainly
in the early teenage years (Giedd et al., 1999). This research suggests
that older children may be hypersensitive to lead exposure, as are
children aged 0 to 6.
Additional benefits to children from reduced exposure to lead not
quantified in this analysis may include prevention of the following
adverse health effects: slowed or delayed growth, delinquent and anti-
social behavior, metabolic effects, impaired heme synthesis, anemia,
impaired hearing, and cancer.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the Tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected Tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian Tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian Tribal governments. Based on the information
collection efforts for this industry category, EPA does not expect any
Indian Tribal governments to own or operate in-scope MP&M facilities.
In addition, given the proposed applicability thresholds (i.e., low
flow exclusions for the General Metals and Oily Wastes subcategories),
EPA estimates that few, if any, new facilities subject to the rule will
be owned by Tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. 104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Although today's proposed rule does not establish new analytical
methods, it does require dischargers to monitor for TSS, O&G (as HEM),
Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Aluminum, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper,
Cyanide (T), Cyanide (A), Lead, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silver,
Sulfide (as S), Tin, and Zinc. (EPA notes that the pollutants listed
may not be regulated for all subcategories). All of these analytes can
be measured by EPA methods and many using consensus standards that are
specified in the tables at 40 CFR part 136.3. EPA is also proposing a
limit for Total Organics Parameter (TOP), as part of an organic
monitoring alternative. (See Section XXI.C.2). EPA developed the TOP
list of organic pollutants using the list of organic priority
pollutants and other non-conventional organic pollutants that met EPA's
``pollutant of concern'' criteria for this rule (see section VII for a
discussion on the selection of the MP&M pollutants of concern). Of the
nonconventional organic chemicals on the MP&M pollutant of concern
list, EPA included only those that were removed in appreciable
quantities (based on toxic weighted pound-equivalents) in two or more
subcategories. See appendix B to part 438 in the proposed rule
accompanying
[[Page 529]]
this notice for a list of organic pollutants that comprise the proposed
Total Organics Parameter (TOP). The following analytes that EPA is
proposing to comprise the TOP do not have approved EPA methods: Benzoic
acid, carbon disulfide, 3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene, 2-
Isopropylnaphthalene, 1-Methylfluorene, and 2-Methylnaphthalene. In
addition, aniline and 1-Methylphenanthrene do not have procedures
approved in 40 CFR part 136, but have procedures that have been
validated as attachments to EPA Methods 1625/625. EPA plans to
promulgate methods or validate the procedures for these analytes prior
to the promulgation of the MP&M rule. EPA welcomes comments on this
aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public
to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
J. Plain Language Directive
Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. We
invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to
understand. For example, have we organized the material to suit your
needs? Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Does the rule
contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? Would a
different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? Would more (but
shorter) sections be better? Could we improve clarity by adding tables,
lists, or diagrams? What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
1. E.O. 13158 Requirements
Executive Order 13158 has been established to ``help protect the
significant natural and cultural resources within the marine
environment for the benefit of present and future generations by
strengthening and expanding the Nation's system of marine protected
areas (MPAs).'' MPAs include areas of coastal and ocean waters, the
Great Lakes and their connecting waters that have been reserved by laws
or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of their
natural resources. The list of MPAs defined for the purposes of this
Executive Order will be published and maintained by the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior.
This order aims at further enhancing and strengthening protection
of the existing MPAs and establishing new or expanded MPAs. The order
provides EPA with the ability to propose new science-based regulations,
as necessary, to ensure better protection for beaches, coasts, and the
marine environment from pollution.
2. Impacts on Marine Resources
The proposed regulation is expected to enhance protection of MPAs
by improving the quality of marine waters receiving discharges from
MP&M facilities. Although the list of MPAs affected by this order has
not yet been published, may include waterbodies currently protected
under the National Estuaries Program (NEP), wildlife refugees, and
other significant natural and cultural resources in marine
environments. EPA compared sample MP&M facility discharge locations
with the list of the 28 waterbodies under the NEP and the Chesapeake
Bay to assess potential impacts of the regulation on significant marine
resources. Sample MP&M facilities included in this analysis discharge
directly or indirectly to 627 receiving waterways, of which, 544 are
rivers/streams, 55 are bays or estuaries, and 28 are lakes, including
the Great Lakes. This analysis showed that several of the NEP
waterbodies currently receive discharges from the sample facilities,
including Long Island Sound (NY/CT), Buzzards Bay (MA), Narragansett
Bay (RI), and Puget Sound (WA). Most of the other protected estuaries
receive effluents from the sample MP&M facilities via connecting
waters. For example, discharges to the Connecticut River enter Long
Island Sound (NY/CT), and discharges to the Hudson River enter the New
York-New Jersey Harbor.
The absence of the current MPA list makes it difficult to determine
the extent of benefits to MPAs from the proposed rule. The breadth of
this regulation, however, ensures that some MPAs are likely to benefit
from reduced pollutant discharges from MP&M facilities.
L. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
Congress enacted Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) in 1990 to address the problem of
nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. Section 6217 of CZARA
requires all States/tribes with federally approved coastal zone
management programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution
control programs. The EPA and NOAA administer the Section 6217 program
and have developed guidance to assist States in implementing the
coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. States may choose the
specific practice or combination of practices that will achieve the
goals of controlling nonpoint source pollution and of protecting
coastal waters.
Section 6217 of CZARA differs from the previous Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 in that it is a mandatory program. Under
CZMA the participation by States in coastal resource management was
voluntary. CZARA requires coastal States/tribes to submit a coastal
nonpoint pollution program to the EPA and NOAA within 30 months of the
technical guidance issuance by EPA and NOAA (by July 1995).
The technical guidance provided by EPA and NOAA identifies five
categories of nonpoint sources affecting coastal waters: Agriculture;
forestry; urban runoff; marinas and recreational boating; and
hydromodification. For each category, the technical guidance specifies
management measures and practices to control nonpoint pollution.
Management measures are defined in CZARA as economically achievable
measures that reflect the best available technology to control the
addition of pollutants to coastal waters.
Although today's proposed rule does not affect nonpoint sources
directly, it may contribute to nonpoint source pollution control in
coastal areas by improving the quality of sewage sludge. EPA estimates
that 1.7 million dry metric tons of sewage sludge would be newly
qualified for land application as a result of the proposed rule. Sewage
sludge is a valuable source of fertilizer and can be applied to
agricultural land, golf courses, sod farms, forests, and residential
gardens. Compared to nitrogen in most chemical fertilizers, nitrogen in
sewage sludge is relatively insoluble in water. If sewage sludge is
used as a substitute for chemical fertilizers on agricultural land
nonpoint source contamination of surface water can be reduced.
XXIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data where possible. See Section XXIV for guidelines for
submittal of data.
EPA particularly requests comments and information on the following
issues:
[[Page 530]]
1. Steel Forming & Finishing Facilities. EPA solicits comments on
the choice to include the Steel Forming & Finishing facilities in
today's proposed MP&M regulation. Facilities in this subcategory
predominantly process steel wire, rod, bar, pipe, or tube. EPA
previously regulated these sites under the 1982 Iron & Steel
Manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 420). However, based on
the information gathered during the data collection effort for the
Agency's proposed revision to the Iron & Steel Manufacturing
regulations, EPA has determined that these facilities are more
appropriately regulated by the MP&M proposed rule. (See Section VI.C.5
for a discussion of the proposed applicability of the Steel Forming &
Finishing Subcategory). EPA is also interested in analytical sampling
data to help better identify the raw wastewater characteristics and
treatment performance of facilities in the proposed Steel Forming &
Finishing subcategory. Please note the requirements for submitting
paired influent and effluent data, as described in section XXIV.A.
In addition, for facilities that perform operations that fall
within the proposed scope of both the MP&M Steel Forming & Finishing
subcategory and the proposed Iron & Steel regulations (i.e., a facility
that performs manufacturing and batch electroplating of steel), EPA is
soliciting comment on whether both regulations should cover these
facilities (using the combined waste stream formula for indirect
dischargers or building block approach for direct dischargers) or
whether EPA should allow facilities that would fall under the scope of
both regulations to be regulated only by the Iron & Steel Manufacturing
rule. EPA notes that both the proposed regulations discussed here set
mass-based limits for these facilities. If the Agency were to choose
the later option, it would need to incorporate a wastewater flow
allowance for the steel forming and finishing operations into the mass-
based limits of the Iron & Steel regulation, where applicable. EPA is
particularly interested in comments from permit writers and control
authorities concerning the burden of permitting an Iron & Steel
facility under two effluent guidelines (using the building block
approach or combined waste stream formula) versus the expected
complexity of interpreting the applicability statements when two
regulations cover the same operations. In addition, EPA is interested
in better understanding the potential economic advantage (or
disadvantage) this might create between stand-alone steel forming &
finishing facilities and steel manufacturing facilities where steel
forming & finishing operations occur.
2. P2 Alternative for Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. EPA
solicits comment on all aspects of the Pollution Prevention Alternative
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory including the list of
practices as well as the possible format for the alternative (see
Section XXI.D for a discussion of the P2 Alternative). More
specifically, EPA requests comment on whether there are additional or
different practices that should be listed, the number of practices that
should be required in each category, the reasons why any of the
practices may not be applicable to specific facilities or processes,
the costs of implementing this compliance alternative, the pollutant
reduction associated with this alternative, and whether EPA should
offer this alternative to direct discharging facilities in the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory, only to facilities discharging below a
specified wastewater discharge flow, other subcategories such as
General Metals (even those not currently regulated by the Metal
Finishing and Electroplating effluent guidelines), or at certain
facilities in other subcategories (e.g., captive metal finishing and
electroplating shops).
EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should (if the P2
Alternative is incorporated in the final rule) require all facilities
that choose the P2 Alternative to also meet the pretreatment standards
for the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433). That is,
should facilities that are currently covered by the Electroplating
effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 413) have to meet the pretreatment
standards for the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines or for the
Electroplating effluent guidelines when choosing to comply with the P2
Alternative in lieu of the MP&M pretreatment standards? EPA is
interested in receiving information on the additional costs that would
be incurred by facilities currently covered by the Electroplating
effluent guidelines in order to meet the pretreatment standards of the
Metal Finishing effluent guidelines.
3. Monitoring Flexibility--Monitoring Waiver for Pollutants Not
Present. In an effort to reduce monitoring burden on facilities, EPA is
proposing to allow MP&M indirect discharge facilities to apply for a
waiver that will allow them to reduce their monitoring burden. In order
for a facility to receive a monitoring waiver, the facility must submit
a certification statement in writing to the control authority (e.g.,
POTW) stating that the facility does not use, nor generate in any way,
a pollutant (or pollutants) at their site and that the pollutant (or
pollutants) is present only at background levels from intake water and
without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the
discharger. The facility must base this certification on sampling data
or other technical factors and is not a waiver from including the
numerical limit in the control mechanism (i.e., permit) (see Section
XXI.C.1 for a discussion on this monitoring waiver). EPA solicits
comment on the language proposed for the monitoring waiver for MP&M
indirect dischargers. EPA is also interested in receiving comment on
the Agency's estimate of burden related to preparing and filing such a
certification and the reduction in monitoring burden and associated
cost savings that a facility would expect (see section XXII.A. for a
discussion on the estimated burden).
4. Monitoring Flexibility--Organic Pollutant Monitoring. As
discussed in Section XXI.C, EPA is proposing to allow the use of Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) as an indicator parameter for organic pollutants
found in the wastewater discharges at MP&M facilities. The indicator is
an alternative limit. If facilities do not wish to use TOC as an
indicator, EPA is proposing two other alternatives. The second
alternative allows facilities to monitor for a list of organic
pollutants (i.e., total organics parameter (TOP) list) and to meet a
limit which would equate to the summation of all quantifiable values of
the listed organic pollutants. In any case where the data for these
pollutants indicated a level below the minimum level (i.e., below
quantitation), EPA used the minimum level for the specific pollutant in
the summation of the total organics parameter limit. Facilities will
only have to monitor for those TOP chemicals that are reasonably
present. The third alternative allows facilities to develop and certify
the implementation of an ``organic chemical management plan.''
EPA solicits comment on the three alternatives being proposed for
reducing the burden associated with monitoring for organic pollutants.
EPA specifically solicits comment on the use of TOC as an indicator
pollutant for the broad spectrum of organic pollutants found in MP&M
process wastewater and whether EPA should require facilities that are
not using the Agency's selected BAT technology to demonstrate a
correlation between removal of TOC and removal of organic pollutants in
their MP&M process wastewater.
[[Page 531]]
EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should allow
facilities to choose an indicator pollutant from a given set of choices
(e.g., COD, Oil & Grease (as HEM), TOC, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(as SGT-HEM), etc.) instead of specifying TOC as the only allowable
indicator parameter. Facilities would be required to demonstrate that
the reductions in the chosen indicator parameter are equivalent to the
reduction in the organic constituents required by the limit that EPA is
proposing for the ``Total Organics Parameter'' (TOP). EPA is also
interested in receiving comment on the Agency's estimate of burden
related to preparing an organic chemicals management plan and the
reduction in monitoring burden and associated cost savings that a
facility would expect in each of these suggested alternatives as
compared to monitoring for the TOP list (see section XXII.A. for a
discussion on the estimated burden).
5. Monitoring Flexibility--Total Sulfide Waiver. EPA is proposing
to set numerical limitations on the discharge of Total Sulfide from
facilities in the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Board, Steel Forming & Finishing, and Oily Waste subcategories.
In an effort to reduce monitoring burden on indirect dischargers, EPA
is considering to allow a waiver for the monitoring of total sulfide
(even when present), at the discretion of the POTW, when a facility
demonstrates that the sulfides will not generate acidic or corrosive
conditions and will not create conditions that enhance opportunities
for release of hydrogen sulfide gas in the sewer/interceptor collection
system or at the receiving POTW or otherwise interfere with the
operation of the POTW. EPA solicits comment on this alternative and the
burden associated with demonstrating that it meets the specified
conditions.
6. Oily Operations Wastewater. Facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory 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, painting,
pressure deformation, solvent degreasing, testing (e.g., hydrostatic,
dye penetrant, ultrasonic, magnetic flux), steam cleaning, and
laundering. If they discharge wastewater from any of the above listed
operations but also discharge wastewater from other MP&M operations,
they do not meet the criteria of the Oily Wastes subcategory.
Facilities in this subcategory are predominantly machine shops or
maintenance and repair shops. Similarly, EPA is proposing to define the
applicability of the Railroad Line Maintenance subcategory using the
same set of ``oily'' unit operations with the addition of ``washing of
final product'' at facilities that perform routine cleaning and light
maintenance on railroad engines, cars, and car-wheel trucks and similar
structures. EPA solicits comment on the list of ``oily'' unit
operations and whether commenters prefer the use of a list of unit
operations to define the applicability or a definition (related to low
metals content of the wastewater). EPA also requests comment on whether
there are additional MP&M unit operations that should be included in
this list.
7. Possible Addition of Other Regulated Parameters. The list of
parameters which EPA proposes to regulate under today's proposal are
listed in the proposed codified rule that accompanies this preamble.
EPA is soliciting comments and data on additional parameters that
should be considered for regulation. There are two additional chemicals
that EPA is considering for regulation under the MP&M rule:
dithiocarbamates and carbon disulfide. Dithiocarbamates is a chemical
structural group that refers to a set of chemicals, including sodium
dimethyldithiocarbamate, that are used by facilities in the MP&M
industry for treatment of chelated metals wastewater (often referred to
as ``DTC''). It can also be used as a reducing agent. Carbon disulfide
can be formed during chelation breaking and other treatment steps.
Although these chemicals are not used in the MP&M processes, they can
be used/generated by the treatment of MP&M wastewater and may cause
environmental impacts. EPA is specifically interested in data on the
treatment of dithiocarbamates and carbon disulfide (including treatment
effectiveness, treatment costs, costs of contract hauling of these
wastewater) and on the environmental impacts that these chemicals may
pose to aquatic life, human health, and POTWs.
In addition, EPA solicits comment on proper management practices
for using dithiocarbamates (DTC) at MP&M facilities. EPA also requests
information on alternative chemicals (e.g., hydrazine, sodium
borohydride) or technologies for use in chelation breaking as reducing
or precipitation agents and the associated costs and environmental
impacts.
8. Possible Deletion of Regulated Parameters. The list of
parameters which EPA proposes to regulate in today's proposal are
listed in the proposed codified rule that accompanies this preamble.
EPA is soliciting comments and data on parameters that should be
deleted from consideration for regulation.
9. Additional Technology Data. The Agency solicits additional data
on the use of ultrafiltration systems for the removal of oily wastes
and organic pollutants and on microfiltration systems for the removal
of metal pollutants and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in relation to
process wastewater in the MP&M category. The Agency is particularly
interested in receiving data on: (1) Technology performance, including
pollutant reduction/elimination; (2) economics, including initial
capital investment, operation and maintenance costs, payback period,
waste disposal savings, material input savings, and other savings; (3)
overall energy use; (4) sludge generation, including metals
recoverability and the ability of sludge to be recycled on or off-site;
(5) waste oil generation, including oil recovery and the ability of the
oil to be recycled on or off-site; (6) air quality impacts and
emissions. In addition, as some technologies eliminate or reduce
discharges to water, but not to other media, the Agency solicits
comments on the environmental impacts and regulatory costs associated
with each technology's impact on other environmental media. The Agency
particularly welcomes comments on technology performance and cost from
MP&M facilities currently using these systems and from technology
vendors and developers.
10. Costs of Contract Hauling MP&M Wastewater and Sludge. EPA's
cost model costs facilities to contract haul small volumes of process
wastewater when the cost is estimated to be less than installing and
operating a wastewater treatment system. EPA used data from the
detailed surveys (see Section V for a discussion of the Detailed
Surveys) to estimate costs associated with contract hauling MP&M
process wastewater and wastewater treatment sludge. EPA solicits
comment on the total cost of contract hauling small volumes of
untreated MP&M process wastewater and how much those costs differ based
on the type of wastewater (i.e., oily wastewater, hexavalent chromium-
bearing wastewater, concentrated metal-bearing wastewater, chelated
wastewater). EPA also solicits comment on the cost to haul hazardous
wastewater treatment sludge.
11. Ultrasonic Cleaning. EPA solicits comment on non-chemical
cleaning methods, such as ultrasonic cleaning.
[[Page 532]]
Prior to performing surface finishing operations, facilities must clean
the metal surface to remove dirt, grit, grease or other surface
contaminants that may interfere with the finish. Currently, the most
common method for cleaning metal parts prior to surface finishing
operations is using an alkaline cleaning bath, which may be followed by
electrolytic cleaning and rinsing steps, and then an acid bath followed
by another rinse step. Recently, some facilities have started to use
ultrasonic cleaning (i.e., the use of sound waves) to clean metal
surfaces prior to electroplating (or other surface finishing
operations). Ultrasonic cleaning generates a wastewater that does not
contain acid or alkaline cleaning agents. EPA solicits data and
information on ultrasonic cleaning including the capital and operation
and maintenance costs, feasibility of this method versus more
traditional methods, characterization of the wastewater generated, size
of the ultrasonic cleaning unit, and the limitations on its use (e.g.,
is it only available for parts of a certain size or shape?).
12. Mixed-Use Facility Definition and Determination. As discussed
in Section III, 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). 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
more like municipalities with several small industries as well as other
operations within their boundaries. EPA is proposing to allow
wastewater generated at different sites 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.
EPA seeks information from facilities (both military and non-
military) 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 this determination and the factors for
making such a decision as well as alternative ways to divide a mixed-
use facility.
13. Subcategorization of Metal Finishing Job Shops. EPA is
proposing to create a subcategory called ``Metal Finishing Job Shops.''
This subcategory would only include facilities that are job shops by
definition (i.e., they own less than 50 percent of the parts that they
process on-site) and are performing one of the six identifying
operations in the existing Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent
guidelines. As discussed in Section VI.A, EPA chose to subcategorize
these facilities as separate from facilities in the General Metals
subcategory (which includes captive metal finishing and electroplating
shops) based on the variability of their wastewater and on economics.
Although, the facilities in both subcategories are performing many of
the same operations and require the same wastewater treatment
technologies. EPA requests comment on whether to combine the Metal
Finishing Job Shops subcategory with the General Metals subcategory (or
a portion of the General Metals subcategory). This would also include
combining the data sets from which EPA sets the numerical limits for
the rule.
In addition, the Agency notes that today's proposal sets a low flow
exclusion for the indirect dischargers in the General Metals
subcategory to reduce permitting burden, but does not set a low flow
exclusion for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory, as those
facilities already have permits under existing effluent guidelines (see
sections II.D, VI.C, and XII for discussions on the low flow
exclusion). However, EPA notes that the proposed limits and standards
for the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory are somewhat less
stringent than those being proposed for the General Metals subcategory.
EPA solicits comment on whether the use of the low flow exclusion for
indirect dischargers in the General Metals subcategory versus no
exclusion for facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory
would cause a shift away from the use of job shops or whether the
difference in numeric limitations would prevent such a shift.
14. Printed Wiring Board Job Shops. EPA solicits comment on the
best placement, in terms of subcategorization, for printed wiring board
``job shops.'' EPA has identified a small number of facilities that
perform some steps in the printed wiring board manufacturing process.
For example, a printed wiring board manufacturer may contract out the
tin/lead soldering operations to a printed wiring board job shop. Such
a facility never performs all the steps necessary for manufacturing
printed wiring boards. EPA is proposing to include these facilities in
the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory due to their similarity in
economics (due to the ``job shop'' nature of their work). However, EPA
is soliciting comment on whether it is more appropriate to include
these printed wiring board job shops in the Printed Wiring Board
subcategory. More specifically, EPA requests data on the
characterization of the wastewater from printed wiring board job shops,
the variability of their raw materials, and the variability of the
wastewater they generate.
15. BMPs in Lieu of Numerical Limitations. EPA solicits comment on
allowing MP&M facilities to demonstrate compliance through installation
of well-operated and maintained treatment systems. For example, instead
of meeting a cyanide limit, the facility would demonstrate and keep
records of the installation and ongoing use of a well-operated and
maintained cyanide destruction unit that monitors oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP). EPA is particularly interested in comments on how to
define ``well-operated and maintained'' and estimates of the burden (in
labor hours and dollars) required to keep records sufficient for
demonstrating compliance and prepare a related certification statement.
EPA also solicits comment from control and permitting authorities
on whether such an approach would increase or decrease their burden
related to determining compliance and by how much (in labor hours and
dollars). Comments should account for maintaining certifications and
conducting inspections. EPA also requests comment on whether such an
approach would be protective of the environment.
16. Applicability to Facilities With Ancillary MP&M Operations. EPA
solicits comment on the language used to define applicability in
regards to facilities that are not manufacturing, maintaining or
rebuilding metal parts, products or machines for use in the 18
industrial sectors and that only perform MP&M operations (e.g.,
maintenance and repair of metal parts and machines) as ancillary
activities. For example, as discussed in Section III, 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
[[Page 533]]
manufacture of organic chemicals when the facility operates that shop
to maintain the equipment related to manufacturing their products
(i.e., organic chemicals). EPA solicits comment on the clarity of this
statement and specifically requests comment on alternative language.
For example, EPA could use the following language instead: ``facilities
that perform on-site maintenance and repair of equipment used to
produce a product or perform an operation (e.g., manufacturing of
organic chemicals) where the wastewater generated is already covered by
effluent guidelines for another point source category (with the
exception of the Metal Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines)
are excluded from the applicability of the MP&M regulation.''
17. Non-Chromium Anodizing. 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)
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.
In addition, EPA solicits comment and data on the chromium content
of sulfuric acid anodizing baths, anodizing dyes/sealants, and other
wastewater from sulfuric acid anodizing. EPA is especially interested
in data that provides measurement of hexavalent chromium separate from
that of trivalent chromium or total chromium.
18. Cyanide Monitoring. EPA is proposing to allow facilities, in
subcategories with limits and standards for cyanide, to also monitor
for amenable cyanide when they have alkaline chlorination treatment in
place prior to commingling their wastewater (see detailed discussion in
section XXI.C.3). The point of compliance is based on monitoring for
total cyanide (or amenable cyanide) directly after cyanide treatment,
before combining the cyanide treated effluent with other wastestreams.
EPA is also proposing an alternative where a facility may take samples
of final effluent, in order to meet the total cyanide limit, if the
control authority adjusts the permit limits based on the dilution ratio
of the cyanide wastestream flow to the effluent flow. EPA is proposing
to allow end-of-pipe alternative sampling point for amenable cyanide as
well; however, in addition to adjusting the permit limits based on the
dilution ratio, facilities must have alkaline chlorination treatment in
place prior to the commingling of their cyanide-bearing wastewater with
other process wastewater. The Agency notes this is very similar to the
language used in the Metal Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part
433). EPA solicits comment on this approach.
19. Compliance Cost for BAT Facilities. EPA has based the numeric
limitations for today's proposed rule on wastewater sampling analytical
data from facilities that the Agency believes to be operating ``best
available technology.'' This includes pollution prevention and water
conservation practices as well as wastewater treatment systems.
However, because EPA uses more than one facility to determine the
achievable long-term average concentrations and variability factors
(see Section VIII.B for a discussion on calculation of limits), not all
model facilities are achieving the long-term average concentrations for
all pollutants in their wastewater at all times. Therefore, EPA has
included compliance costs to enhance these model BAT facilities to meet
the proposed long-term average concentrations for all regulated
pollutants. For example, model BAT facilities may incur costs for
additional operational controls or for additional equipment or chemical
additives that will allow them to target more than one metal type in
their wastewater treatment system. EPA solicits comment on this
approach and the adequacy of operational changes and treatment
enhancements for BAT facilities to consistently and reliably achieve
full compliance with proposed limitations. EPA also solicits comment
and data on additional costs that model BAT facilities may incur that
EPA has not included in the cost model for this proposal.
20. Space Limitations. EPA solicits comment on the extent to which
a MP&M facility can install or upgrade its current treatment system to
meet the proposed limits within the space they currently occupy. More
specifically, when facilities are located in urban areas with little
space for expansion, can facilities still install the treatment
necessary (consider the inclusion of pollution prevention and water
conservation practices) to meet the proposed limits. If not, can such
facilities use pollution prevention and water conservation practices
and install microfiltration systems instead of installing or enlarging
their existing clarifiers within the space they currently occupy?
21. Segregation of Waste Streams. EPA solicits comment and
information on the problems/ issues with segregation of waste streams
for performing preliminary treatment steps as described in section
VIII. EPA is especially interested in data on the costs associated with
retrofitting equipment to segregate waste streams.
22. Revision to POTW Removals. EPA uses the pollutant by pollutant
percent removals achieved by POTWs (national average of well-operated
POTWs with secondary treatment) to give credit to the pretreatment
system and to conduct the ``Pass Through'' analysis for selecting
regulated parameters for pretreatment standards.
In calculating the pollutant removals achieved by the selected
technology option for today's proposed rule (for wastewater generated
by indirect dischargers), EPA does not take ``credit'' for removing the
portion of pollutant loadings that are currently removed by the POTWs.
In addition, EPA performs a comparison of the percentage of a pollutant
removed by POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant removed by
discharging facilities applying EPA's selected technology option (BAT).
In most cases, (particularly for metals and non-volatile organics) EPA
has concluded that a pollutant passes through the POTW when the median
percentage removed nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting
secondary treatment requirements) is less than the median percentage
removed by facilities complying with BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for that pollutant. EPA notes that the Pass Through Analysis
uses a different standard for ``pass through'' than that used by POTWs
to determine compliance with the General Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR
part 403).
Recently, EPA has revisited the databases used (see Section XII.A
for a discussion of the databases and the editing criteria used) to
determine the
[[Page 534]]
percent removal of pollutants achieved by the national average of well-
operated POTWs. Previously, EPA edited data at or near the minimum
level for POTW performance based on the editing criteria used to
calculate BAT limitations. EPA is considering revising the POTW data
editing criteria. Given the range of analytical minimum levels and
their influence on calculated percent removals, EPA is considering
several editing alternatives, detailed in section XIV. The Agency
solicits comments on potential revisions to the pass-through
methodology.
23. Toxic Weighting Factors. EPA has developed Toxic Weighting
Factors (TWFs) using a combination of toxicity data on human health and
aquatic life. EPA develops TWFs relative to the toxicity of copper.
(See section XVII or the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Document for this
proposed rule for a more detailed discussion of toxic weighting
factors). TWFs are multipliers that are applied to the mass of
pollutants discharged (or removed) to generate toxic-weighted pound-
equivalents. EPA uses toxic pound-equivalents to indicate the amount of
toxicity that a pollutant may exert on human health and aquatic life
relative to other pollutants. Conventional pollutants such as BOD, TSS,
Oil & Grease (as HEM) and other bulk parameters do not have toxic
weighting factors. As scientists and researchers develop and publish
new human health and aquatic toxicity data for various pollutants, EPA
must revise the TWFs. EPA has documented the changes to TWFs in the
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis document for this proposed rule. EPA
solicits comment on these changes.
24. Phosphoric Acid Cleaning. In regards to the applicability of
the Oily Wastes subcategory, 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 in section VI.C.6.
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. EPA is especially interested in analytical data from
sampling wastewater that is representative of either of these
operations.
25. Organics Management Plan for Oily Wastes Subcategory. EPA
solicits comment on whether sites with significant amounts of oil-
bearing wastewater (for example, a facility in the Oily Wastes
subcategory) should be eligible for the use of an organic pollutant
management plan as described Section XXI.C.2. Based on the current data
base, EPA believes that wastewater generated by facilities in the Oily
Wastes subcategory require end-of-pipe treatment to reduce the
concentrations of organic pollutants and that an organic management
plan alone may not adequately control organic-bearing wastewater at
facilities containing significant quantities of oil-bearing wastewater.
26. NSPS and PSNS Technology Option. EPA is proposing NSPS and PSNS
for the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed Wiring
Board, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories based on BAT
Option 4. This proposed option includes in-process flow control and
pollution prevention, segregation of wastewater streams, preliminary
treatment steps as necessary (including oils removal by
ultrafiltration), chemical precipitation using lime or sodium
hydroxide, and solids separation using a microfilter. The Agency also
strongly considered proposing NSPS and PSNS for these subcategories
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 option for NSPS and PSNS for the final rule.
27. Total Sulfide. EPA is soliciting comment on the appropriate
analytical method for analyzing total sulfide in wastewater from MP&M
facilities, specifically in regard to interferences from reducing
agents or organic chemicals present in the wastewater. The Agency used
EPA Method 376.1 for seven wastewater sampling episodes, EPA Method
376.2 at one episode, and Standard Method 4500-S2 for three sampling
episodes that were performed for EPA by a local POTW. Stakeholders have
suggested that presence of reducing agents and organic chemicals can
interfere with EPA Method 376.1, leading to over estimates of total
sulfide.
EPA performed matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries as
part of its QA/QC procedures on these samples. If the matrix spike is
recovered quantitatively (e.g., 75-125%), it is unlikely that an
interference is present. The data narratives for these samples did not
cite any QA/QC outliers. However, some interferences could still be
present. (The data narratives can be found in section 5.2 of the public
record.) EPA intends to perform additional sampling for total sulfide
following this proposal using both EPA Method 376.1 and 376.2. EPA
notes that it collected the data used for estimating total sulfide
pollutant loadings in raw wastewater (i.e., in wastewater from MP&M
unit operations) at sampling points located prior to treatment
technologies which introduce reducing agents (i.e., chelation
breaking). In addition, the data that EPA used to develop the numerical
limitation for total sulfide was from a site that did not add reducing
agents to treat its wastewater.
EPA solicits comment on the various sulfide methods and whether
these methods are appropriate for analytical wastewater sampling at
MP&M facilities. EPA also solicits raw wastewater and treatment
performance data for total sulfide.
28. Limits for the Non-Chromium Anodizing Subcategory. EPA is
soliciting comment on two issues relating to the proposed limitations
for the Non-Chromium Anodizing subcategory. These two issues are
discussed below.
EPA is proposing an effluent limitation for aluminum applicable to
existing and new direct dischargers in the Non-Chromium Anodizing
subcategory. Because EPA does not have data from any direct discharging
non-chromium anodizers, it based the proposed aluminum limitation on
two indirect discharging non-chromium anodizers. However, the Agency
does not believe that these indirect discharging facilities were
achieving effluent levels of aluminum that reflect BAT. Because
aluminum assists in the flocculation of wastewater at POTWs prior to
sedimentation, many POTWs do not set stringent pretreatment standards
for aluminum from non-chromium anodizers. EPA is not proposing
pretreatment standards for aluminum in today's proposal for that
reason. In addition, neither the Electroplating (40 CFR part 413) nor
the Metal Finishing (40 CFR part 433) effluent guidelines contain
pretreatment standards for aluminum. Therefore, the Agency does not
believe that these two facilities targeted aluminum in their wastewater
treatment operations. EPA believes that a non-chromium anodizer
employing Option 2 technologies can achieve effluent concentrations of
aluminum much lower than those proposed today. Therefore, EPA is
soliciting data and
[[Page 535]]
comment on effective removal of aluminum from non-chromium anodizing
wastestreams. See section XXIV for guidelines for submitting analytical
data.
EPA is proposing effluent limitations for new and existing direct
dischargers for manganese, nickel and zinc for facilities in the Non-
Chromium Anodizing subcategory. The Agency based these effluent
limitations on facilities in the General Metals subcategory employing
the Option 2 treatment technology because it did not have adequate
wastewater treatment information on these metals from non-chromium
anodizing facilities. EPA solicits data and comment on the treatment of
manganese, nickel, and zinc from non-chromium anodizing facilities
employing Option 2 treatment. See section XXIV for guidelines for
submitting analytical data.
29. Limits for the Printed Wiring Subcategory. EPA is proposing
effluent limitations for chromium, copper, lead, and zinc for existing
facilities in the Printed Wiring Boards subcategory. The Agency based
these effluent limitations on facilities in the General Metals
subcategory employing the Option 2 treatment technology because it did
not have adequate wastewater treatment information on these metals from
printed wiring board facilities employing Option 2 treatment. EPA
solicits data and comment on the treatment of chromium, copper, lead,
and zinc at printed wiring board facilities employing Option 2
treatment. See section XXIV for guidelines for submitting analytical
data.
30. Cyanide Loadings and Removals. EPA solicits comment and data
(at the point directly following cyanide destruction treatment) on
achievable effluent concentrations of cyanide (or amenable cyanide)
from MP&M facilities that are currently regulated under the Metal
Finishing effluent guidelines (40 CFR part 433). EPA's Design & Cost
Model for the MP&M rule estimates pollutant loadings for the industry
before and after compliance with the proposed regulation. For the
purposes of estimating baseline loadings (i.e., current discharges) for
model facilities (i.e., survey sites) currently covered by the Metal
Finishing or Electroplating effluent guidelines that indicated in their
survey questionnaire that they both generate wastewater from cyanide-
bearing operations and have cyanide treatment in place, EPA assumed
that these sites were achieving the LTA concentrations achieved by
EPA's sampled MP&M BAT facilities (sampled at the point directly
following cyanide destruction treatment).
For model sites currently covered by the Metal Finishing or
Electroplating effluent guidelines that indicated in their survey
questionnaire that they generate wastewater from cyanide-bearing
operations but did not indicate that they have cyanide treatment in
place, EPA used information from EPA sampling of cyanide bearing units
operations (i.e., raw wastewater loads) to estimate baseline loads
prior to implementing the technology option under consideration (note
that cyanide loadings were not analyzed separately by subcategory). On
a national basis, EPA estimates that 65% (2,315) of MP&M facilities
discharging cyanide-bearing wastewater do not have treatment in place
for cyanide destruction. EPA based this national estimate on responses
to survey questionnaires. This methodology implicitly assumes that many
of these facilities may not be achieving the cyanide removals that were
projected for the Metal Finishing and Electroplating effluent
guidelines. In addition to the request for data above, EPA also
requests comment on its method for determining baseline cyanide
loadings. (See Section 6.5 of the public record for a memorandum that
includes a table of the comparison of cyanide using sites versus
cyanide treating sites.)
31. Subcategorization. EPA explains its rationale for its proposed
subcategorization scheme in section VI. EPA is proposing to subdivide
the MP&M industrial category into the following 8 subcategories:
General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Non-Chromium Anodizing,
Printed Wiring Boards, Steel Forming and Finishing, Oily Wastes,
Railroad Line Maintenance, and Shipbuilding Dry Dock. The Agency
believes its proposed subcategories make sense, but requests comment on
other possible subcategories. Commenters should include data to support
their suggestions where possible.
32. Cost Savings Associated with Pollution Prevention and Water
Conservation. As discussed in section VIII, EPA's proposed technology
options include the incorporation of water conservation techniques and
pollution prevention technologies. In all cases, EPA's options that
incorporated these technologies and practices costed less and removed
more pollutants than those options that did not. 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.
33. Assessment of Treatment System Performance. As discussed in
section VIII, 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.
34. Flow Cutoff Level for the General Metals Subcategory. As
explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is proposing a 1 MGY flow
cutoff for existing and new indirect discharging facilities in the
General Metals subcategory. 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 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).
35. Flow Cutoff Level for the Metal Finishing Job Shops
Subcategory. As explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not
proposing a flow cutoff for existing or new indirect discharging
facilities in the Metal Finishing Job Shops subcategory. The Agency
concluded that the pollutant reductions associated with the proposed
option (Option 2) were feasible and achievable and the economic impacts
were not substantially mitigated under the 1 MGY flow cutoff. EPA
requests
[[Page 536]]
comment on the use of a flow cutoff for this subcategory.
36. Flow Cutoff Level for the Printed Wiring Board Subcategory. As
explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not proposing a flow cutoff
for existing or new indirect discharging facilities in the Printed
Wiring Board subcategory. The Agency concluded that the pollutant
reductions associated with the proposed option (Option 2) were feasible
and achievable and the economic impacts were not mitigated at a 1 MGY
flow cutoff for this subcategory. The Agency solicits comments on a 1
MGY flow cutoff. Under this scenario, existing regulation would
continue to apply. EPA solicits comment on the implementation and
market consequences of this option.
37. Flow Cutoff Level for the Steel Forming and Finishing
Subcategory. As explained in sections XII and XIII, EPA is not
proposing a flow cutoff for existing or new indirect discharging
facilities in the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. However, EPA
solicits comment on flow cutoffs at the 1, 2, and 3 MGY levels. Under
these flow cutoff scenarios, existing regulations would continue to
apply. EPA solicits comment on implementation and market consequences
of these options.
38. Flow Cutoff Level for the Oily Wastes Subcategory. As explained
in sections XII and XIII, EPA is proposing a 2 MGY flow cutoff for
existing and new indirect discharging facilities in the Oily Wastes
subcategory. It is proposing the 2 MGY flow cutoff primarily to reduce
the burden on POTWs, and solicits comment on a 3 MGY cutoff.
39. For the General Metals, Metal Finishing Job Shops, Printed
Wiring Boards, and Steel Forming and Finishing subcategories, EPA is
proposing new source performance standards and pretreatment standards
for new sources based on Option 4. EPA noted in section IX in the
discussion of its consideration of this technology for BPT/BAT for each
of these subcategories 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 above subcategories
for the same reasons it is proposing to base BPT/BAT on Option 2.
40. Monitoring Costs. In estimating annual monitoring costs for
model facilities in EPA's MP&M Design and Cost Model, the Agency
assumed that facilities meeting local limitations or national effluent
limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards will already incur
monitoring costs. EPA solicits comment on whether the facilities will
incur additional monitoring costs to comply with today's proposal (and
how much that monitoring would cost). EPA has incorporated several
options for adding additional flexibility in regards to monitoring (See
Section XXI.C for a discussion on monitoring flexibility). EPA expects
that these proposed flexibilities will decrease the overall burden and
costs of analytical wastewater monitoring for facilities within the
scope of this rule.
41. Cash Flow Assumption. As discussed in Section XVI, baseline
cash flow is defined as the sum of reported net income and
depreciation. The measure is widely used within industry in evaluating
capital investment decisions because both net income and depreciation
(which is an accounting offset against income, but not an actual cash
expenditure) are potentially available to finance future investment.
However, assuming that total baseline cash flow is available over an
extended time horizon (for example, 15 years) to finance investments
related to environmental compliance could overstate a site's ability to
comply. In particular, the cost of existing capital equipment (not
associated with regulatory compliance) is not netted out of cash flow,
as it is of income through the subtraction of depreciation. Thus, any
costs associated with either replacing existing capital equipment, or
repaying money that was previously borrowed to pay for it, are omitted
from the facility analysis. EPA requests comment on its use of cash
flow as a measure of resources available to finance environmental
compliance and suggestions for alternative methodologies. (See Section
XXII of today's notice.)
42. Alternatives for Establishing Permit Effluent Limitations and
Standards for the Steel Forming and Finishing subcategory. As discussed
in Section XXI.B, EPA is soliciting comment on several alternative
approaches for the development of mass-based limitations for the Steel
Forming and Finishing subcategory. These approaches may result in more
stringent mass-based permits/control mechanisms for some facilities
with better protection of the environment for the entire life of a
permit/control mechanism and may result in higher costs. Each
alternative requires that production from unit operations that do not
generate or discharge process wastewater shall not be included in the
calculation of operating rates. EPA solicits comments on these
alternatives to the proposed production basis for calculating effluent
limitations and pretreatment standards used in NPDES permits or control
mechanisms. In particular, the Agency solicits comments on related
costs and any technical difficulties that steel forming and finishing
facilities might have in meeting limits during short periods of high
production. EPA also solicits other options for consideration including
whether to allow concentration-based limits for this subcategory and
any rationale for doing so.
43. Benefit Analysis. As explained in Section XX, benefits analyses
for past effluent guidelines have been limited in the range of benefits
addressed which has hindered EPA's ability to compare the benefits and
costs of rules comprehensively. The Agency is working to improve its
benefits analyses, including applying methodologies that have now
become well established in the natural resources valuation field, but
have not been used previously in the effluent guidelines program. EPA
was particularly interested in expanding its benefits analysis for this
rule to include water-based recreational activities other than fishing.
EPA has therefore expanded upon its traditional methodologies in the
benefits analysis for the proposed MP&M rule. Past effluent guidelines
analyses have included human health benefits, economic productivity
benefits such as reduced costs for POTW sludge disposal, recreational
benefits for fishing, and nonuse values. The additional analysis
contained in this rule expands on the traditional analysis by adding
benefits to participants in boating, swimming, and viewing (i.e., near-
water recreation). Because EPA has not yet resolved some anomalies in
the extrapolation of the analysis to the national level, the monetized
benefits for these new categories are not included in the summary
statements of benefits for the proposed rule. However, EPA is including
these analyses in the EEBA to present the new methodologies and their
results as applied to the MP&M rule for public comment.
Although EPA is confident in the sample-based results, EPA believes
that the large number of viewers and boaters projected to benefit from
the rule at the national level may indicate a need to revise its
procedures for scaling up from sampled facilities to the national
level. This simple extrapolation technique used in both the cost and
benefit analyses may bias both estimates and may have the unintended
effect of overcounting the number of benefitting
[[Page 537]]
boaters and wildlife viewers. EPA recognizes that extrapolating from
sample facility to national results introduces uncertainty in the
analysis and is continuing to explore ways to reduce this uncertainty.
The Agency is requesting comment on the methods used to extrapolate
sample results to national benefit estimates. EPA is also specifically
soliciting comment on several of the other methodological approaches
used in the new analysis including the benefits transfer of values from
studies that did not specifically address boating and wildlife viewing
to these activities, and the extent to which activities such as
recreational boating and wildlife viewing are applicable to children.
EPA may include additional categories of monetized benefits estimates
based on these new methodologies, as revised based on comment and peer
review, in its economic analysis for the final rule.
XXIV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical Data
EPA requests that commenters to today's proposed rule submit
analytical, flow, and production data to supplement data collected by
the Agency during the regulatory development process. To ensure that
commenter data may be effectively evaluated by the Agency, EPA has
developed the following guidelines for submission of data.
A. Types of Data Requested
1. EPA requests paired influent and effluent treatment data for
each of the technologies identified in the technology options
(especially in cases where paired data will be helpful in assessing
variability), as well as any additional technologies applicable to the
treatment of MP&M wastewater. This includes end-of-pipe treatment
technologies and in-process treatment, recycling, water reuse, or metal
recovery technologies. Submission of effluent data only is not
sufficient for full analysis; the corresponding influent data must be
provided.
For submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data, a
minimum of four days of data are required for EPA to assess
variability. Submissions of paired influent and effluent treatment data
should include: a process diagram of the treatment system; treatment
chemical addition rates; sampling point locations; sample collection
dates; influent and effluent flow rates for each treatment unit during
the sampling period; sludge or waste oil generation rates; a brief
discussion of the treatment technology sampled; and a list of unit
operations contributing to the sampled wastestream. EPA requests data
for systems that are treating only process wastewater. Systems treating
non-process wastewater (e.g., sanitary wastewater or non-contact
cooling water) will not be evaluated by EPA. In addition to data for
the analytes discussed below, data for total suspended solids (TSS) and
pH must be included with submissions of treatment data. If available,
information on capital cost, annual (operation and maintenance) cost,
and treatment capacity should be included for each treatment unit
within the system.
2. EPA also requests flow, production, and analytical data from
MP&M unit operations, rinses, and wet air pollution control devices.
Submissions of analytical data for MP&M unit operations and rinses
should include a process diagram of the unit operation; a description
of the purpose and performance of the operation; production data
associated with the sampling period; flow rates associated with the
sampling period (i.e., continuous discharge flow rates, intermittent
discharge rates and frequencies, or volume of bath and time of last
discharge for stagnant baths); sample type (grab or composite);
temperature and pH of each sample; sample collection dates; known
process bath constituents; sampling point locations; and, the volume,
discharge frequency, and destination of all process wastewater, waste
oil, or sludge generated by the unit operation.
Associated production data should be provided in the following
units: mass of metal removed (for abrasive jet machining, electrical
discharge machining, grinding, machining, and plasma arc machining
operations), in standard cubic feet of air flow (for wet air pollution
control operations), or surface area of parts processed (for all other
unit operations). Flow, production, and analytical data should all
correspond to the same period of time. When applicable, a description
of any pollution prevention technologies used at the site for the unit
operations, including cost savings and pollution reduction estimates
should be provided.
B. Analytes Requested
EPA considered metal, organic, conventional, and other
nonconventional pollutant parameters for regulation under the MP&M
Category. Based on analytical data collected, the Agency initially
identified 132 pollutant parameters as MP&M ``pollutants of concern.''
Complete lists of pollutant parameters considered for regulation and
pollutants of concern (as well as the criteria used to identify each of
these pollutant parameters) are briefly discussed in Section VII and
fully discussed the Technical Development Document for this proposal.
The Agency requests analytical data for any of the 132 pollutants of
concern and for any other pollutant parameters which commentors believe
are of concern in the MP&M industry. TSS and pH data are requested for
all samples. Table XXIV-1 presents the EPA analytical methods for these
pollutants. Commentors should use these methods or equivalent methods
for analyses, and should document the method used for all data
submissions.
C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements
EPA based today's proposed regulations on analytical data collected
by EPA using rigorous QA/QC checks. These QA/QC checks include
procedures specified in each of the analytical methods, as well as
procedures used for the MP&M sampling program in accordance with EPA
sampling and analysis protocols. The Agency requests that submissions
of analytical data include documentation of QA/QC procedures.
EPA followed the QA/QC procedures specified in the analytical
methods listed in Table XXIV-1. These QA/QC procedures include sample
preservation and the use of method blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike
duplicates, laboratory duplicate samples, and Q standard checks (e.g.,
continuing calibration blanks). EPA requests that sites provide
detection limits for all non-detected pollutants. EPA also requests
that composite samples be collected for all flowing wastewater streams
(except for analyses requiring grab samples, such as oil and grease),
sites collect and analyze 10 percent field duplicate samples to assess
sampling variability, and sites provide data for equipment blanks for
volatile organic pollutants when automatic compositors are used to
collect samples.
Table XXIV-1.--EPA Analytical Methods for Use With MP&M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA
Parameter method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acidity...................................................... 305.1
Alkalinity................................................... 310.1
Ammonia as Nitrogen.......................................... 350.1
BOD 5-Day (Carbonaceous)..................................... 405.1
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)................................. 410.1
410.2
Chloride..................................................... 325.3
Cyanide, Total............................................... 335.2
Cyanide, Amenable............................................ 335.1
Fluoride..................................................... 340.2
Metals....................................................... 1620
[[Page 538]]
Volatile Organics............................................ 1624
Semivolatile Organics........................................ 1625
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl..................................... 351.2
Oil and Grease............................................... 413.2
Oil and Grease (as HEM)...................................... 1664
pH........................................................... 150.1
Phenolics, Total Recoverable................................. 420.2
Phosphorus, Total............................................ 365.4
Sulfate...................................................... 375.4
Sulfide, Total............................................... 376.2
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)................................. 160.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)................................... 415.1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (as SGT-HEM).................... 1664
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)................................. 160.2
Weak-Acid Dissociable Cyanide................................ 1677
Ziram........................................................ 630.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix A to the Preamble--Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other
Terms Used in This Document
Act--The Clean Water Act
Agency--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
AWQC--Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BAT--Best available technology economically achievable, as defined
by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
BCT--Best conventional pollutant control technology, as defined by
section 304(b)(4) of the Act.
BMP--Best management practices, as defined by section 304(e) of the
Act.
BPT--Best practicable control technology currently available, as
defined by section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
CAA--Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq., as amended)
CBI--Confidential Business Information
Clean Water Act--(33 U.S.C 1251 et. seq., as amended)
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as determined by
section 304(a)(4) of the Act and the regulations thereunder 40 CFR
401.16, including pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
CE--Cost Effectiveness
DAF--Dissolved Air Flotation
Direct Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater to a water of the United States with or without treatment
by the discharger.
EEA--Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products
& Machinery Industry. This document presents the methodology
employed to assess economic and environmental impacts of the
proposed rule and the results of the analysis.
Effluent Limitation--A maximum amount, per unit of time, production,
volume or other unit, of each specific constituent of the effluent
from an existing point source that is subject to limitation.
Effluent limitations may be expressed as a mass loading or as a
concentration in milligrams of pollutant per liter discharged.
End-of-Pipe Treatment--Refers to those processes that treat a plant
waste stream for pollutant removal prior to discharge.
FTE--Full Time Equivalents (related to the number of employees)
HAP--Hazardous Air Pollutant
HEM--Hexane Extractable Material refers to an analytical method (EPA
Method 1664) for determining the level of oil and grease that does
not use Freon extraction.
Indirect Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works.
MP&M--Metal Products and Machinery point source category
NCEPI--EPA's National Center for Environmental Publications
NESHAP--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRMRL--EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (formerly
RREL--EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory).
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology (applicable to NESHAPs)
Nonconventional Pollutants--Pollutants that have not been designated
as either conventional pollutants or priority pollutants.
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, a Federal
Program requiring industry dischargers, including municipalities, to
obtain permits to discharge pollutants to the nation's water, under
section 402 of the Act.
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 414).
ORP--Oxidation-Reduction Potential
POTW--Publicly owned treatment works.
Priority Pollutants--The 126 pollutants listed in 40 CFR part 423,
appendix A.
PPA--Pollutant Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.
L. 101-508, November 5, 1990)
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307(b) of the Act.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect discharges,
under sections 307 (b) and (c) of the Act.
SIC--Standards Industrial Classification, a numerical categorization
scheme used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to denote segments of
industry.
SGP--EPA's National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program.
SGT-HEM--Silica Gel Treated--Hexane Extractable Material refers to
the freon-free oil and grease method (EPA Method 1664) used to
measure the portion of oil and grease that is similar to total
petroleum hydrocarbons.
SIU--Significant Industrial User as defined in the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403)
Technical Development Document (TDD)--Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products
and Machinery Point Source Category.
TOC--Total Organic Carbon (EPA method 415.1)
TOP--Total Organics Parameter
TRI--Toxic Release Inventory
TTO--Total Toxic Organics as defined in the Metal Finishing effluent
guidelines (40 CFR part 433).
TWF--Toxic Weighting Factor
VOC--Volatile Organic Compound
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 413
Environmental protection, Electroplating, Metals, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
40 CFR Part 433
Environmental protection, Metals, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 438
Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 463
Environmental protection, Plastics materials and synthetics, Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 464
Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 467
Environmental protection, Aluminum, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 471
Environmental protection, Metals, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control.
Dated: October 31, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 413--ELECTROPLATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
1. The authority citation for Part 413 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.
2. Section 413.01 is amended by revising the first and last
sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
[[Page 539]]
Sec. 413.01 Applicability and compliance dates.
(a) As defined more specifically in each subpart, this part applies
to discharges resulting from electroplating operations in which a metal
is electroplated on any basis material and to related metal finishing
operations as set forth in the various subparts, whether such
operations are conducted in conjunction with electroplating,
independently, or as part of some other operation. * * * This part does
not apply to any facility that must achieve the standards or
limitations in 40 CFR 433.15 (Metal Finishing PSES) or 40 CFR part 438
(Metal Products & Machinery).
* * * * *
PART 433--METAL FINISHING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
3. The authority citation for Part 433 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.
4. Section 433.10 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 433.10 Applicability; description of the metal finishing point
source category.
* * * * *
(b) In some cases, effluent limitations and standards for other
industrial categories may be applicable to wastewater discharges from
the metal finishing operations listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
In such cases, the effluent limitations and standards for this part do
not apply and the metal finishing operations are subject to the
provisions of one of the following categories:
Iron and Steel (40 CFR part 420);
Nonferrous Metals Smelting and Refining (40 CFR part 421);
Metal Products and Machinery (40 CFR part 438);
Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 461);
Plastic Molding and Forming (40 CFR part 463);
Metal Casting Foundries (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 (40 CFR part 471).
* * * * *
5. A new part 438 is proposed to be added to read as follows:
PART 438--METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Sec.
438.1 General applicability.
438.2 General definitions.
438.3 General pretreatment standards.
438.4 Monitoring requirements.
438.5 Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
Subpart A--General Metals
438.10 Applicability.
438.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.13 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.14 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.16 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Metal Finishing Job Shops
438.20 Applicability.
438.21 Special definitions.
438.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.23 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.24 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.25 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.26 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart C--Non-Chromium Anodizing
438.30 Applicability.
438.31 Special definitions.
438.32 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.33 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.34 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.36 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart D--Printed Wiring Boards
438.40 Applicability.
438.42 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.43 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.44 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.45 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.46 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Steel Forming and Finishing
438.50 Applicability.
438.51 Special definitions.
438.52 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.53 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.54 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.55 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.56 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
438.58 Calculation of NPDES and pretreatment permit effluent
limitations.
Subpart F--Oily Wastes
438.60 Applicability.
438.61 Special definitions.
438.62 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.63 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.64 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best available technology economically achievable (BAT).
438.65 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
438.66 New source performance standards (NSPS).
438.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart G--Railroad Line Maintenance
438.70 Applicability.
438.72 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
438.73 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.76 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart H--Shipbuilding Dry Docks
438.80 Applicability.
438.81 Special definitions.
438.82 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable
[[Page 540]]
control technology currently available (BPT).
438.83 Effluent limitations attainable by application of the best
control technology for conventional pollutants (BCT).
438.86 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Appendix A to Part 438--Typical Products In Metal Products & Machinery
Sectors
Appendix B to Part 438--TOP Pollutants List
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342 and
1361.
Sec. 438.1 General applicability.
(a)(1) As defined more specifically in each subpart, except as
provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this
section, this part applies to process wastewater discharges from
existing or new industrial sites (including facilities owned and
operated by federal, state, or local governments) engaged in
manufacturing, rebuilding, or maintenance of metal parts, products or
machines for use in the Metal Product & Machinery (MP&M) industrial
sectors listed in this section. A list of typical products found in
each of the 18 industrial sectors is provided in Appendix A to this
part. The MP&M Industrial Sectors consist of the following:
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; or
Miscellaneous Metal Products.
(2) This part also applies to mixed-use facilities, as described in
paragraph (h) of this section.
(b) The regulations in this part do not apply to wastewater
discharges which are subject to the limitations and standards of one or
more of the following categories:
(1) Iron and steel manufacturing (40 CFR part 420).
(2) Nonferrous metals manufacturing (40 CFR part 421).
(3) Ferroalloy manufacturing (40 CFR part 424).
(4) Battery manufacturing (40 CFR part 461).
(5) Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR part 463).
(6) Metal molding and casting (40 CFR part 464).
(7) Coil coating (40 CFR part 465).
(8) Porcelain enameling (40 CFR part 466).
(9) Aluminum forming (40 CFR part 467).
(10) Copper forming (40 CFR part 468).
(11) Electrical and electronic components (40 CFR part 469).
(12) Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders (40 CFR part 271).
(c) When a facility discharges process wastewater that is subject
to the general applicability of this part and the facility discharges
other wastewater that is subject to the limitations and standards of
one or more of the categories listed in paragraph (b) of this section,
the facility must comply with both the provisions of this part and
other parts, as applicable.
(d) Facilities other than those reasonably included in the 18 MP&M
industrial sectors specified in paragraph (a) of this section are not
subject to this part when discharges from the maintenance or re